WarSclerotic

The Pioneer > Online Edition : >> The future after Iran has the ‘Shia Bomb’.

Barry Rubin

Will Tehran risk a global blowback by arming terrorists with nuclear weapons?

One of the most controversial issues about what happens if Iran gets nuclear weapons is whether the regime would give them to anyone else. Since this is such an important question involving the lives of so many people, I want to clarify it.

Would the Iranian Government hand nuclear weapons to a terrorist group or fire off nuclear-tipped missiles itself?

It is easy for many experts and ‘experts’ to answer this question with a “No.” The reason would be that Iran has proven itself cautious historically and knows that it would be held responsible and punished for doing so. The responder might add that the Islamic regime has not been adventurous or crazy in its actual policy (as opposed to its words) during the last 30 years.

I’d agree with that response as far as it goes. But it misses some very key points that might end up getting a huge number of people killed.

First, Iran has not been adventurous or crazy in the manner that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was in 1979 and 1990, that is, Iran has not sent its military forces across the border to invade another country. Instead, Tehran has used subversion as its technique, backing and helping groups undermining other countries with terrorist attacks and a longer-term attempt to build a popular base in order to seize state power.

Thus, to say that Iran has not attacked a neighbour with conventional military forces is quite true, yet this may not tell us how Iran will behave regarding terrorist groups. Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran may feel a little more confident than the pre-nuclear version.

Having said that I would correct the original response to be this: Iran will probably not give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

Probably means that the odds are higher — let’s say far higher — than 50 per cent that they won’t do so. The problem here is that even if there is a 10 or 20 per cent chance of that happening, that’s not the kind of risk one wants to take.

But there are other, more likely, scenarios that are never discussed but are quite important. Here are the two I think most important:

‘Private Donations’: I don’t think the ‘Iranian Government’ would ever give Hizbullah, Iraqi Shia groups, or Hamas nuclear weapons. That is, I don’t think there will be a top-level meeting where such a decision would be made officially. I do think that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which will be responsible for both the weapons and for liaison with terrorist groups, or other officials might give them nuclear weapons. Iran is not a tightly disciplined bureaucracy and the security of these arms — especially if some hot factional dispute breaks out or the regime is in danger of falling — is not going to be so tight.

The chance of an Iranian Dr Strangelove pushing a button, a mad ideologist rather than a mad scientist, is higher than that for the weapons held by the United States, USSR/Russia, Britain, France, or Israel over many decades.

I have never seen someone from the complacent Conventional Wisdom containment-is-no-problem mainstream deal with any of the above issues.

“The Defensive Umbrella for Aggression”: If groups like Hizbullah or others get their members to believe they have access to nuclear weapons, either through a transfer or a clear Iranian guarantee to use such weapons in their cause, wars could be set off by their over-confident calculations.

Iran’s main purpose in getting nuclear weapons is probably not to fire them off but to use them to protect its indirect aggression, encourage appeasement, and persuade millions of Muslims to join pro-Tehran revolutionary Islamist groups.

But no matter what Iran did — for example, establish its primary influence in Iraq by bringing its Shia allies to full power; helping Hamas seize the West Bank; making Hizbullah and other forces the sole ruling group in Lebanon — nobody could or would do anything about it because they feared Iran’s nuclear arsenal.

Consider, and this is not far-fetched, that Hizbullah concludes that if they attack Israel, Israel would be deterred from retaliation out of fear that Iran would launch nuclear missiles. From what Syrian leaders say, it seems they already believe this, which makes them far more daring in their hardline policies and encouragement for Hizbullah and Hamas.

A related scenario is that while the US promises might make Arabs feel a bit more secure, in practice that factor is meaningless. They would still be afraid to do anything Iran doesn’t like, not only because they didn’t have full trust in the Obama Administration but also because by the time the US kept its pledge and retaliated they would all be dead any way.

Consider also this true story told by Mr Haim Saban, the Power Rangers multimillionaire and donor to Democratic campaigns. In considering who he would support, Mr Saban met during the 2008 campaign separately with Ms Hillary Clinton and Mr Barack Obama. He asked each of them the same question: “If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Ms Clinton answered: “We will obliterate them.” Mr Obama’s response? “We will take appropriate action.”

Since Mr Obama’s reaction was off-the-record and before the election the response cannot be attributed to presidential caution. Mr Saban interpreted it as something along the lines of (my words, not his): I’ll think about it. This reflects a state of mind and way of thinking.

That anecdote should be far more frightening to most Arab countries than it is to Israel, which has its own ability to respond to any such threat.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Tags: Israeli Air Force US bunker penetrators

US GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator

The United States recently renewed supplies to the Israeli Air Force of GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators and GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs, as well as Attack Munitions (LDJAM) for more accurate targeting of bombs, debkafile‘s military sources report. In Moscow, Israeli president Shimon Peres said to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev Sunday, May 9, that Syria has only one object in arming the Lebanese Hizballah with missiles and that is warmongering.
That same day, US defense sources, normally chary of releasing information about US arms supplies to Israel, reported that Washington had released substantial quantities of smart bombs to different types to Israel, most of them suitable for striking Hizballah fortifications in Lebanon and Hamas tunnels in the Gaza Strip.
They fall into three categories:
1. The 2,268 kilo (5,000 pound), laser-guided Bomb Unit GBU-28 (nicknamed “Deep Throat”) Hard Target Penetrator which can burrow 31 meters into earth or 6.2 meters into reinforced concrete. They can penetrate the stronger Hizballah installations or be used on Iranian nuclear weapons or missile installations, if so decided.

2.  The Small Diameter 113 kilo GBU for IAF F-15I fighter-bombers, to be followed by the supplies for F-16I planes, which can be used against simpler installations, like the arms-smuggling tunnels dug by Hamas between Egypt and the Gaza Strip and Hizballah’s field fortifications.
They are small enough for fighter-bombers to carry in larger numbers, but they have a 5-8 meter margin of error with no more than a 50:50 chance of hitting the target.
3.  However, the Laser-Guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (LJDAM), also on the list of arms supplies to the Israeli Air Force, directs smart bombs more accurately.  Developed jointly by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems and Israel’s Elbit Systems, LJDAM improves the accuracy of bombs fired from a maximum distance of 28 kilometers in most weathers.
debkafile‘s Washington sources report that the Obama administration decided to release this data to dispel rumors of a US arms embargo against Israel, especially of items that would enable Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. The GBU-28 “Deep Throat” has that capability and is one of those items.

US defense sources declined to comment on the debkafile report of March 28, according to which President Barak Obama halted the delivery of advanced, high-precision bunker-buster Joint Direct Attack Munition-JDAM bombs to Israel on March 28, after Vice President Joe Biden ended his visit to Jerusalem. These bombs were already en route to Israel when they were diverted instead to the US base of Diego Garcia, thereby initiating an arms embargo designed to prevent an Israeli strike against Iran.

Riddle of failed rocket attacks in Jordan – The National Newspaper.

Suha Philip Ma’ayeh, Foreign Correspondent

Jordanian security personnel guard the base of a rocket attack on US ships in 2005. Jordan denied rockets targeting Israelis over the past three months were launched from its territory. Salah Malkawi / The National

AMMAN : Two bungled attacks in the past three months targeting Israelis in Jordan and the southern Israeli city of Eilat have raised speculation that the perpetrators may belong to groups that are not part of a wider militant network.

The first attack, in January, targeted a convoy of Israeli diplomats returning to Israel from Jordan, while the second last month involved two rocket attacks apparently intended to target Eilat, but that landed in Jordanian territory.

Neither attack resulted in injuries and no one has claimed responsibility for them.

Jordanian authorities have not said whether any progress has been made in either case. But last month Jordan and Egypt denied Israeli media reports that the rockets that landed off the coast of Eilat were launched from their territories.

Jordan’s prime minister, Samir Rifai, said he was certain that the rockets were not fired from Jordanian territory.

But analysts who specialise in Islamist militancy said there might be Salafi Jihadist groups in Jordan and elsewhere, who are not necessarily affiliated to larger groups such as al Qa’eda but who could be behind the attacks and are looking to make a name for themselves.

“These groups are not necessarily linked to al Qa’eda. What they are doing now is disseminating the ideology of al Qa’eda and are trying to launch major attacks in order to impress the mainstream al Qa’eda in Afghanistan in the hope that it would start funding them,” said Abdul Hameed Bakier, a terrorism analyst for the Jamestown Foundation, a US-based think tank.

Mr Bakier was referring to the Islamist militias in Somalia who publicly announced their allegiance to al Qa’eda this year, and to Fateh al Islam in Lebanon, another al Qa’eda affiliate which in 2007 clashed with security forces in Nahr al Bared, a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.

Although al Qa’eda has already been marginalised in places such as Iraq, its ideology persists and is nourished by anti-western and anti-Israeli sentiment.

Marwan Shehadeh, an Amman-based expert on Islamist movements, also believes the recent attacks were the work of small, individual groups and said their size and low profile were possibly the reasons for not claiming responsibility.

“There are attempts to establish an Islamic group in the region to target Israeli interests. These small groups have not claimed responsibility over fears that they will get busted and their project will be aborted in its infancy,” he said. “Or because they were embarrassed that the operation failed.”

Analysts said had the rocket firings been the work of al Qa’eda, the group would have hurried to claim responsibility even though they failed, like in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Nigerian student who tried unsuccessfully to blow himself up on board a Northwest Airlines flight as it was preparing to land in Detroit in December.

Five years ago, three Katyusha rockets were fired from Aqaba – the southern Jordanian coastal city not far from Eilat – missing two US warships docked in the port there but killing one Jordanian soldier a group linked to al Qa’eda quickly claimed responsibility.

Al Qa’eda’s threat to Jordan is widely believed to be in decline since Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant, was killed in 2006 in Iraq. The country’s special intelligence forces, Fursan al Haq, Arabic for the Knights of Justice, provided information to US intelligence that led to the killing of al Zarqawi who had become one of the most notorious figures in the Iraq insurgency.

“Al Qa’eda is there but it is no longer major threat to Jordan after the death of Zarqawi, and subsequently Jordan has ridded itself from al Qa’eda’s regional threat in Iraq,” said Muhammad Abu Rumman, an analyst with Alghad daily newspaper who specialises in extremist Islamist movements.

“Al Qa’eda is also weakened there and it is facing problems inside Iraq.”

But in the long term, the government’s announcement in January this year that it is working with the CIA in Afghanistan could put it in an open confrontation with al Qa’eda, some analysts said, because it has acknowledged that it is an ally in the “war on terror”.

The announcement came after a Jordanian security agent killed seven CIA agents – his nominal colleagues – in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan.

Salafi Jihadist groups emerged in Jordan in the early 1990s in cities such as Zarqa, Salt and Maan. Most have been inspired by al Qa’eda in Iraq as well as hundreds of Jordanian Mujahideen, who fought with the Afghans against the Soviets in the 1980s.

In 2006, Jordan’s state security court handed down the death sentence to nine members of a Salafi Jihadist group affiliated to al Qa’eda for plotting chemical attacks in the kingdom in 2004. But their sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.

For its part, the government has been trying to counter the appeal of radical groups and al Qa’eda ideology by promoting moderate Islam at home and abroad.

But Mr Abu Rumman said it would be near impossible to stamp out the threat of terrorism altogether.

“There are Salafi groups that have presence in Jordan, and having them under control is difficult because there is the trend of individual Jihadism, just like the recent attempt in Times Square in New York. The trend is dangerous because one person can cause major security threat.
“Also there is a new emerging threat: Hizbollah, Iran and Hamas. There are circles in Jordan which attribute the attack on the Israeli convoy to these groups, particularly because Iran in the past few years started emerging as a regional power.

“The attack then was not intended to cause harm but sought to carry a political message to Israel that it is a target that can be reached from anywhere in the region,” he said.

American Thinker: Embracing Iran.

By Janet Doerflinger

Rocket hits south Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

After some quiet weeks, Qassam rocket lands south of Ashkelon Saturday evening

Shmulik Hadad

Middle East News | Iran’s UN dinner fails to break nuclear deadlock.

The US has been spearheading a drive for a fourth round of sanctions (File)

UNITED NATIONS (Agencies)

A surprise, high-profile U.N. dinner failed to break the deadlock with Iran over its nuclear plans as the United States called it a “missed opportunity” and kept up the pressure Friday for U.N. sanctions.

The Obama administration also claimed that Iran’s dinner invitation to all 15 U.N. Security Council members on Thursday is another sign that Tehran is worried about its international isolation and that U.S. diplomacy is paying off.

Several Western diplomats said that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke at length to his dinner guests on Thursday evening about a stalled U.N.-backed nuclear fuel exchange proposal that Security Council members Turkey and Brazil are trying to help revive.

Middle East News | Iran hangs five for being “enemies of God”.

The five were executed in Tehran’s Evin prison

TEHRAN (Agencies)

Iran hanged on Sunday five people, including a Kurdish woman, convicted of bombing government offices and a gas pipeline to Turkey and described as “enemies of God”, state media reported.

The five, including the woman Shirin Alamhouli, were executed in Tehran’s Evin prison, IRNA news agency said, quoting a statement from the capital’s prosecution office.

The four others who were hanged were Farzad Kamangar, Ali Heidarian, Farhad Vakili and Mehdi Eslamian.

“They were convicted of carrying out terrorist acts, including bombings of government centers and public properties in several Iranian cities,” the prosecutor’s office said without giving the location of the bombings.

Alamhouli, Kamangar, Heidarian and Vakili belonged to the Kurdish minority of Iran, according to the European Union and several websites that report on human rights issues.

New York-based Human Rights Watch has previously said that Kamangar, a teacher, had been sentenced to death for having links with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has fought a deadly insurgency against Turkey.

The incidents appeared to have taken place before disputed elections last year that gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office, creating a protest movement the authorities have tried to crush.

Kamangar, Heidarian and Vakili were given the death penalty in 2006 and their sentences were condemned by the European Union.

Some websites have reported that Alamhouli, 28, was arrested in May 2008 in Tehran and charged with having ties with PJAK, an offshoot of PKK.

The websites said the fifth convict Eslamian was arrested in May 2008 for having links with the monarchist group Kingdom Assembly of Iran.

His younger brother reportedly was hanged two years ago for his role in the bombing of a mosque in the southern city of Shiraz in April 2008 which left more than a dozen dead and 200 wounded.

Kingdom Assembly of Iran is an Iranian opposition group to the Islamic regime. It aims to restore the constitutional monarchy that was abolished by the 1979 revolution.

The latest hangings bring to at least 61 the number of people executed in Iran so far this year, according to an AFP count based on news reports. Last year, at least 270 people were hanged.

Al Jazeera English – Focus – US ‘out of options’ on Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has grown in strength following the disputed elections [GETTY] Ahmadinejad was reelected as the president of Iran last June against a background of an unusually open, divisive and acrimonious election campaign. The vote was followed by unprecedented levels of street protests and growing international pressure and isolation led by the US, despite the stated intentions of Barack Obama, the US president. But now, several months on, Ahmadinejad’s government appears to have emerged stronger and more self-confident than it was before the contentious elections. Withering opposition Not only did he maintain his position on some of the most controversial foreign policy issues, he also made a direct challenge to the power of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was the second most powerful man in the country after Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader. This included the arrest of Rafsanjani’s family members, and his subsequent falling in line behind the regime in the face of mass protests. In the process, Ahmadinejad also continued to elevate the position of the Revolutionary Guards at the expense of the old guards of the revolution, led by the likes of the late Ayatollah Montazeri. The government and security forces have managed to suppress any serious challenge to the government and what looked like an increasingly popular movement has withered away as a result of a brutal crackdown and political gamesmanship. This has been greatly assisted by foreign plots against the regime, which made it much easier for the government to rally support in the face of external threats. A Jundallah suicide attack in October, which killed more than 40 people including six senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, marked a turning point for the opposition movement. The government was quick to point the finger of blame for the attack – the worst of its kind on Iranian soil for decades – at the UK and the US, claiming they backed the group. Such a challenge to peace and stability inside Iran served to undermine the opposition. Moreover, Iran has continued with its uranium enrichment programme to the deep consternation of others. US weakness US military spending is expected to exceed $680bn in 2010 [AFP] The answer to how this has been possible rests not in the strength of Iran – which is, after all, really quite a small player in the realm of global economic, military and political power games – but with the weakness of the US and her allies. The US is a heavily indebted nation with an economy that has progressively lost its competitive edge and which came close to total meltdown in a financial crisis that was largely self-inflicted. But despite its financial woes, the US continues to spend more on military affairs than much of the rest of the world combined. Plunder used to bring in the loot, but this does not work so well when the weapons used are far more expensive than the loot acquired. A growing new media and internet-assisted political awareness serves to expose the inherent contradiction between democracy and plunder, making life more difficult for the propagandists and imperialism a less lucrative business. The Chinese factor Then there is China. Having not only surprised everyone with its rapid economic rise, China has also accrued a multi-billion dollar surplus and become the investor keeping the US afloat. It is not often the case that a debtor can dictate terms to a creditor, but it could be the case that a new debtor needs time to adjust to changing economic power relations. For now, many economists dismiss China as being far behind developed nations and in per capita terms this is very true – the average Chinese earns far less than, let’s say, the average German. But, if five decade long trends are anything to go by, the US knows where it is heading, and fast. What matters more than the size of an economy is the underlying forces determining its direction and momentum – a bit like being a heavyweight on account of muscle rather than fat. And a look at the economic history of Asia since the end of the second world war – an era of decolonisation – leads to a clear conclusion: The centre of gravity of the global economy has shifted. This has become particularly evident during the global economic crisis, which has seen Western economies shrink while several Asian economies surge ahead. It will soon be increasingly difficult for any country to dictate terms to Asia, and China in particular. Chinese-Iranian affinity What is more, China has a greater affinity with Iran than might be initially apparent. Both countries are among the oldest and proudest civilizations, neither has a great appetite for, or substantial experience of, representative democracy, and both are irritated by the imposition of such external conditionalities on sovereign nations. In purely economic terms, Iran and China have everything to gain from good relations with each other. China has no interest in seeing the US market or the dollar – her main reserve currency – collapse, but beyond this there is not much the US has to offer China as an incentive to harm Iran. Then there is Russia, which has everything to gain from a standoff between Iran and the US, but which has no interest in helping the US win the fight for hegemony in the oil-rich region. For as long as the US remains bogged down in long-term conflicts that she cannot win, she will not be able to challenge Russia’s resurgence effectively. As a former superpower that traditionally posed the greatest challenge to US hegemony, Russia has several political scores to settle with the US, and Iran is a great tool for that. Likewise, Iran likes to keep Russia on board against the US, but could happily negotiate fair terms with the US against Russia, an old regional rival. The positions of China and Russia mean that “crippling sanctions” are not an option and it is surprisingly naive of the Obama administration to imagine otherwise. And with widespread war fatigue among the US public, a military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear programme is equally as unlikely. Out of options A peaceful Middle East would better serve US and Iranian interests [GETTY] So, the stark reality appears to be that the US is out of options. The best course of action now may be to eat humble pie and negotiate a deal with Iran as a new nuclear power. However, internal and external political factors, teamed with a continuing fixation on playing the role of ‘sole superpower’ make it difficult for the US leadership to adopt the most rational option at this juncture. Both countries have much to gain from pursuing peace and their interests may be more closely aligned than they imagine. Official figures for US military aid to Israel currently exceed $3bn a year. In addition, US taxpayers are burdened with long-term aid support to Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon; all essentially with the aim of ensuring Israel’s dominance in the service of misconceived US ‘interests’. The US taxpayer is also burdened with supporting backbreaking US war efforts in the Middle East to the tune of well over $100bn a year. But, a peaceful Middle East with a steady and safe flow of oil and gas through the Persian Gulf would serve the interests of the US and Iran. It would help to reduce the crippling costs of the US’ wars and enhance Iran’s income and investment potential. It would also help to reduce Russia’s energy influence over the West by opening up a number of new avenues, particularly for gas. Time to act Iran and the US shared common enemies in Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, as well as in al-Qaeda, and they have much to gain from closer cooperation on the remaining fronts. Obama started last year with a promise to negotiate with the Islamic Republic and it is time for him to make good on this promise through actions rather than words. A good starting point would be for Obama to stop congress funding covert operations in Iran to the tune of $400mn – as set up at the request of George Bush and exposed in a 2008 report by Seymour Hersh. Repealing this would be seen as a serious gesture of goodwill and would also remove the Iranian government’s excuse for suppressing the reformist movement. Without a Great Satan, the Iranian government would have to be more responsive to and accommodating of the wishes of Iranians. Massoud Parsi is a development economist and a commentator on Iranian affairs. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

‘Iron Dome doesn’t answer threats’.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Giant shore-to-sea Saegheh in exercise

In Phases Two and Three of Iran’s biggest sea exercise ever (May 6-7), debkafile‘s military sources report its Navy and Revolutionary Guards acted out a scenario for driving US naval forces out of the Persian Gulf after defeating them – as well as responding to potential retaliatory American WMD strikes.
Thursday night, May 6, Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki meanwhile informed the 15 Security Council members he invited to dinner at UN headquarters, New York, that his government would “definitely continue its nuclear program.” They all attended including a low-ranking US official.
The eight-day war game, dubbed “The Last Prophet” or “Judgment Day,” spans a 250,000-kilometer area from the strategic Hormuz Strait to the Gulf of Aden, with the accent for the first time on the Indian Ocean.

Iran has mobilized the best part of its naval, air, commando and elite forces for a drill whose codenames signal its goals: Simulating Iran’s perception of its final battle with America and its ending with US forces beaten and put to flight from the regions covered by the exercise. Thereupon, a victorious Islamic Republic of Iran is seen as assuming the role of regional superpower.

Iranian officials told observers from neighboring countries that Persian Gulf security can be achieved without a “foreign military presence” in the strategic waters. The Iranian Navy, they said, had demonstrated its fitness for sole responsibility over the security of the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s crude is channeled to market.
The war game’s spokesman, Rear Admiral Qasem Rostamabadi, disclosed: “Passing ships were successfully checked by destroyers, frigates, special operations teams and naval commandos in line with the goal of establishing security and peace in transit routes bound for the Hormuz Strait and the Persian Gulf.”

This disclosure meant Iran had already begun grabbing control of the oil routes from the American and emirates’ fleets.
The Iranian naval officer went on to describe the second phase of the exercise as “involving the detection and subsequent destruction of marine and submarine targets as well as conducting rescue drills for chemical, biological and nuclear strikes.”
The information not disclosed by Tehran is that, according to debkafile‘s military and intelligence sources, Iran’s entire fighter-bomber fleet flew the full extent of its flight range as far as the Arabian Sea and northern Indian Ocean, appearing for the first time over the Somali coast. Iran thus flexed its aerial muscles in pursuit of a far-reaching ambition to displace American naval strength – not only in a broad perimeter around its shores but as far afield as the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea approaches.