WarSclerotic

On Iran Today: ‘After The Crackdown’ To ‘The Point Of No Return’ : The Two-Way : NPR.

by David Gura

August 19, 2010

Listen to the Story

[12 min 59 sec]

Iranian President’s Office/Getty ImagesIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delivering a speech on Aug. 4, 2010 in Hamadan, Iran.

In two major American magazines, on newsstands now, there are articles about Iran. Jon Lee Anderson’s “After The Crackdown” is in the most-recent issue of The New Yorker, and Jeffrey Goldberg’s “The Point of No Return” is The Atlantic‘ cover story.

NPR’s Robert Siegel convened a conversation with both journalists, to talk about the state of Iran today, and what the national security implications of a nuclearized Iran could be, for the U.S. and Israel.

For his article, Anderson traveled to Tehran, where he interviewed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and tried to assess the strength of the opposition Green Movement.

“I came away feeling quite depressed, actually, from this trip,” he said, noting that Iran “is effectively a security state, and the only person to deal with is Ahmadinejad.

I felt that they are under the misapprehension, based upon a telescopic, or I should say periscopic, notion of what the West is, and of us, based upon these annual trips [Ahmadinejad] makes to the U.N. General Assembly.

In his conversation with Ahmadinejad, Anderson asked about the relationship between the Iranian government, Hamas and Hezbollah, and intelligence that indicates the country has provided assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq.

According to Anderson, “he responded, more or less bold-facedly, saying: ‘We have never denied our support for the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, and the Iraqi people.”

Goldberg’s piece centers on how Israeli leaders view the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons and how they might take military action to stop Iran from developing them.

Having spoken to officials in both countries, he learns that they are considering preemptive strikes.

“They are aware of the potential catastrophic downsides,” Goldberg said. “The reason that they’re thinking about this at all is that they think that living with a nuclear Iran is impossible for Israel.”

They believe that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and that even if Iran didn’t use a nuclear weapon against Tel Aviv, or transfer a nuclear weapon to one of its terrorist proxies, the mere fact that these terrorist proxies could operate under the protection of the Iranian nuclear umbrella means that Israel would be in danger of becoming an unlivable place.

According to Goldberg, American diplomats have raised the specter of air strikes in negotiations with other countries, including China, arguing an attack could have disrupt global economies.

“The American government uses the threat of an Israeli attack as a tool in its toolbox, to try to get the world to pay attention to this issue,” he said.

Asked if Ahmadinejad and his advisers discussed how Iran might react to an attack Anderson said they told him that, “whatever the U.S. did, Israel would be attacked.”

One of his aides told me that, in the event of any attack by the west, with or without Israel, Israel would be attacked. This was a matter of policy. They said, Israel may have nuclear arms, but its entire territory will come under the barrage of our missiles.

Both journalists noted that, at this point, military attacks are not inevitable. Anderson said that, at this point, “one has to sift bluster from real intent.”

We’re in a kind of game of brinkmanship where there is bluff and counter-bluff, but a certain amount of deadly intent.

According to Goldberg, who praised the White House’s measured approach to Iran thus far, “while it’s plausible that the Obama administration would eventually decide to use military force to stop the Iranian nuclear program, I don’t think that it’s probable by any means, and I don’t want anyone to think that the Obama administration is moving rapidly in that direction.”

Has Obama Assuaged Israel’s Fear About Iranian Nukes? (UPDATED) – International – The Atlantic.

Aug 20 2010, 12:06 AM ET A Goldblog reader writes:

You point out correctly that the Times story doesn’t quote any Israelis saying they are assuaged by the Obama Administration’s actions. The Times reporters take the Obama Administration’s word that the Israelis are happy with them, which seems to me like they had a public relations job done on them. Nevertheless, you said on NPR today that the Israelis are more relaxed then they were a few months ago about the threat of Iran’s nuclear intentions. Do you think something has changed in recent days?

Yes, something has changed. The top leaders of Israel are increasingly convinced that Obama means what he says when he says he is “determined” to stop Iran’s nuclear program. I do think Bibi trusts Obama more now then he did a year ago (I can’t say whether Obama trusts Bibi), particularly on this all-important question. But the simple observation remains: If Obama fails to stop Iran’s nuclear program through non-military means, and then refuses to use military force to keep Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, the likelihood is still very high that Israel would try to destroy the Iranian nuclear program itself.

UPDATE: A Goldblog source writes in from a certain Middle Eastern country: “You are wrong to say that Israeli leaders are more ‘relaxed’ about this issue. They think Iran is a year away from breakout capacity. That has not changed at all. The Obama Administration is saying to Israel through the means of a planted story in the Times that they understand our concerns and that they’re working on the problem. But nobody here believes that Obama will succeed through sanctions to stop the Iranian nuclear program. One thing has changed — the Iranians have centrifuge problems, but these problems will most likely be fixed by the beginning of next year. So the timetable still holds: Israel will have to decide, as you reported, by the beginning of next year what to do. In the meantime, pray for Obama’s success.”

I think that last bit, in particular, is important. President Obama has a deliberate plan in place to dissuade Iran from going down the nuclear path. Let us hope and pray that it works.

Jeffrey Goldberg – Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. Author of the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, he has reported from the Middle East and Africa. He also writes the magazine’s advice column.

Is There A New Understanding on Iran? – by Marc Tracy > Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life.

The U.S. and Israel hash it out through articles

By Marc Tracy | Aug 20, 2010 2:00 PM

A satellite image of construction near Qom, Iran.

NYT

Today, the Times reported that the United States has persuaded Israel that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons for at least one year; that there will be ample warning before the “breakout” actually occurs; and, therefore, there is no need to consider a military strike as early as the beginning of 2011, as Tablet Magazine contributing editor Jeffrey Goldberg had reported in a story last week. “We think that they have roughly a year dash time,” says Obama’s top nuclear adviser. “A year is a very long period of time.” The article argues that Israeli officials have genuinely bought these claims, at least to an extent, thereby lowering the chances of an attack within the next year.

In addition to reassuring Israelis on both the general time-frame and the advance warning Israel will receive—officials believe, for example, that it would take weeks, perhaps months, for Iran to go nuclear even after (publicly) kicking international inspectors out—the administration is arguing that sanctions and sabotage are working well. (Indeed, a great subplot to the article is the between-the-lines implication that we are basically sabotaging the shit out of Iran—“The public explanation by American officials is that the centrifuges are inefficient and subject to regular breakdowns,” the Times hints. Remember that forestalling the program through covert sabotage is probably the ideal outcome here.)

Goldberg notes that the Times story basically confirms his reporting. What may have changed in the intervening week or so is that “The top leaders of Israel are increasingly convinced that Obama means what he says when he says he is ‘determined’ to stop Iran’s nuclear program.” (Which makes sense: A key argument Goldberg offers is that, even if you don’t think Obama cares all that much about Israel or Iran specifically, he is a massive believer in nonproliferation, and the first rule of nonproliferation is: No new members of the club.)

One interesting, if ultimately speculative, way to view the two pieces is as a public conversation between the Israeli and American governments. Yossi Alpher (via Goldberg) suggested that Goldberg was the target and victim of Israeli “spin.” That’s a significant exaggeration—Goldberg’s piece is broadly reported and panoramic (and also, truly, must-read; if you haven’t done so yet, well, there is a weekend coming up), and he was demonstrably very much aware of the agendas of all who spoke with him. However, I do think (and even Goldberg thinks) that Goldberg’s piece conveyed the Israelis’ genuine and urgent fear not only of an Iranian bomb, but of an imminent Iranian bomb; their belief that postponing a bomb is inherently good; and their threat that they really will take matters into their own hands, but maybe it would be better if the United States did so instead. (Several months ago, incidentally, The New Republic’s Michael Crowley, no hawk himself, made precisely that case.)

Today’s piece represents the American response, and it is essentially this: “We hear you, but ease up a bit.” Yes, the administration is saying, we know a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and if it comes right down to it, you can probably count on our support of, and even participation in, a military strike. But there is more time on the clock than you think there is, and non-military means of avoiding a bomb—namely, sanctions and sabotage—are working better than you are giving them credit for, so give them some time.

(Both pieces, also, are messages to China: Namely, keep supporting sanctions, or else we are going to bomb Iran, which will cause your economy to dive—a message Israeli officials have explicitly conveyed to China’s leaders. While the China-backed U.N. sanctions are having little practical effect—it is rather the American and EU sanctions aimed at cutting off the refining-challenged Islamic Republic’s gasoline supplies that are doing real damage—it is better for everyone if China is onboard with all of this, which they were as of the most recent Security Council vote.)

Iran broadcasts missile launch on state television – Telegraph.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The words “Ya Mahdi” were written on the side of the missile, referring to Imam Mahdi, one of the 12 imams of Shiite Islam, who disappeared as a boy and whom the faithful believe will return one day to bring redemption to mankind.

(Another “coincidence” with the Bushehr activation? – JW)

Report: Iran ready to begin immediate nuclear fuel swap talks – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Russia expected to begin loading nuclear fuel into the reactor of Iran’s first atomic power station on August 21, despite U.S. sanctions.

By Haaretz Service and News Agencies

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday his country was ready for immediate talks with world powers over a nuclear fuel swap deal, AFP reported.

	Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to the media during an official meeting in Tehran, August 9, 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

According to AFP, Ahmadinejad said Iran was “ready to resume in late August or in early September” talks with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over an exchange of enriched uranium.

The United States, the European Union and the UN Security Council have imposed sanctions on Iran over a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Last week, Russia said it will begin loading nuclear fuel into the reactor of Iran’s first atomic power station on August 21, an irreversible step marking the start-up of the Bushehr plant after nearly 40 years of delays.

Russia agreed in 1995 to build the Bushehr plant on the site of a project begun in the 1970s by German company Siemens, but delays have haunted the e1 billion project and diplomats say Moscow has used it as a lever in relations with Tehran.

Despite U.S. criticism of the plan, Russia’s nuclear chief said Thursday that the startup of Iran’s first nuclear power plant will demonstrate that Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy under international supervision.

Earlier this week, former U.S. envoy to the United Nations John Bolton told the Fox Business Network that Israel was unlikely to attack Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr, which will soon be online, adding that the Russian-built facility represents a major step forward for Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations.

(It is difficult for me to accept this important announcement as a “coincidence” with the Bushehr activation. – JW)

Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell say through peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, all final status issues can be resolved in one year.

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Service and News Agencies

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been invited to Washington to begin direct peace talks on Sept. 2, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a press conference on Friday.

The meeting will serve to “re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues which we believe we can complete in one year,” Clinton said.

	U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with Mideast envoy George Mitchell briefs reporters on the Middle East Peace Process in Washington August 20. 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

“There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere,” Clinton said.

President Barack Obama will hold one-on-one talks with each of the four leaders, separately, on Sept. 1, followed by a dinner with them, Clinton said.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers – the U.S., the UN, the European Union and Russia – also has been invited to attend the dinner, she said.

Clinton said she would then host the first direct Israel-Palestinian negotiating session on September 2,

The leaders of Egypt and Jordan have also been invited to join in the first session of direct talks.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the U.S. invitation to launch direct peace talks with Palestinians.

	Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in New York in September 2009.
	Photo by: Reuters

“Israel wants serious and comprehensive talks,” Netanyahu said in response to Clinton’s statement on Friday. “We are coming to these talks with a serious desire to reach a peace agreement between nations, while still preserving Israel’s national interests, security being the foremost of them.”

Middle East envoy George Mitchell reiterated Cinton’s statement, saying, “We believe it can be done within a year and that is our objective.”

Mitchell said subsequent negotiating sessions with Netanyahu and Abbas probably will be held in the Mideast, but he mentioned no specific site.

Emphasizing that the U.S. would not impose peace on the parties, Mitchell said “I don’t want anyone to have the impression that we are going to supplant or displace the roles of the parties themselves.”

“This must in the end be an agreement by the parties themselves,” Mitchell added.

When a reporter posed a question about Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, Mitchell responded that the U.S. position on settlement building remained unchanged.

“Let’s be clear that the declaration of the moratorium itself last November was a significant action which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the West Bank,” Mitchell said, noting that he expects both parties to promote an environment conducive to negotiations.

The Middle East Quartet released a statement following Friday’s announcement, reaffirming their support for the resolution of all final status issues.

“The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors,” the quartet said in a statement.

Palestinian leaders welcomed the Quartet’s statement. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the statement “contains the elements needed to provide for a peace agreement.”

While not responding directly to Clinton’s invitation to Washington, Erekat said peace talks could be done in less than a year.

“The most important thing now is to see to it that the Israeli government refrains from settlement activities and incursions,” Erekat added.

NTI: Global Security Newswire – Israel Convinced of Longer Iranian Nuclear Time Line, Officials Say.

At 1 AM Israel time, a non-bi-lined story appeared on Ynet quoting Finance minister Yuval Steinitz:

“In the first such statement by a Cabinet member, Steinitz said: “The US must issue a clear ultimatum to Iran, tell it that if it does not change its behavior within weeks, the military option that has been on the table up until now will become relevant.”Steinitz, who is a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is familiar with Iran’s nuclear program from his service as the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”

That story, not carried elsewhere in the Israeli press has not been picked up by a single news source anywhere in the world close to 12 hours later.

Within an hour of the appearance of that story, another story appeared in the NY Times claiming that the US had convinced Israel that Iran was more than a year away from the ability to construct a nuclear weapon.  This story was picked up and carried by at least 700 news sources according to Google news.

What’s going on here?

It’s pretty clear that the Steinitz statement was some sort of a “trial balloon” sent by Israel to the US.  With the news blackout in place, it is understandable why the Israeli press was unable to pick up the story.  Why has nobody else picked it up?  Is it something that doesn’t merit being reported?  Hardly.  It’s the first time Israel has directly called on the US to issue an ultimatum threatening an attack or at minimum a blockade.

Today, Debka reports that the Iranians had come to the same conclusion that I had regarding the “Galant affair,” namely that it was a PR smokescreen to cover Israel’s failure to respond to the Bushehr activation.

So far, there have been no further reactions from the Israeli government regarding either story.  That “something” is going on behind the scenes is an unavoidable conclusion.  What that “something” is, I have no way of knowing.

Tomorrow’s activation of Bushehr will answer the question of whether Israel will tolerate the Iranian regime “going nuclear.”  What will happen beyond that, given Steinitz’s statement remains to be seen.

JW

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

IRGC forces on war alert

War preparations are reported by debkafile‘s military sources in Tehran and Damascus, debkafile‘s military sources report.
In Tehran, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards announced Friday, Aug. 20: “IRGC is in full readiness to encounter firmly with the stupidity of the US and the Zionist regime.”

In Damascus, Syrian prime minister Naji al-Otari gathered his ministers and heads of security and emergency services Thursday and ordered them to place all their services on immediate war readiness.
And sources close to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas quoted him as saying that direct talks with Israel were not in the offing because “a big military surprise awaits the Middle East.”
On Thursday, too, Tehran pitched its threat level high by warning that any attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would be met by the IRGC “targeting the interests of the enemies in any part of the world.”
Some Iranian sources have suggested that Israel’s obsessive preoccupation with the Galant scandal (over a forged document designed to influence the choice of the next Israeli chief of staff) is a smokescreen for masking preparations for an imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the United States, respected commentators this week talked and wrote openly about a possible war over Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb capability.
Former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, who has excellent connections in Washington and Jerusalem, wrote: “The United States is more likely than Israel to launch an attack on Iran.”
Lawrence Eagleburger, former US Secretary of State, had this to say about the activation of Iran’s first reactor at Bushehr Saturday, Aug. 21: “The world’s going to war over this. If Iran gets the weapon it’s going to use it.”

He urged an attack on Iran before it obtained a bomb.
Some other US experts suggest the world powers would wait longer than 11 months before weighing an attack, whereas informed American sources are talking for the first time in 14 months about a possible US-led multilateral Western attack on Iran which, according to debkafile‘s military sources, would be in conjunction with Germany, Britain and France.
In the first week of June, 2009, those sources note, US, UK and French forces carried out a joint exercise at the French Canjuers training facility near Toulon, simulating a marine attack with close air support on Iranian ground targets
British planes took off for the exercise from airbases in the UK, while US warplanes flew in from the USS Harry S. Truman and French jets from their carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. It was their first display of strength, in which the German frigate FGS Hessen also took part, for a combined air-sea-ground war offensive.
The Truman and the Hessen are currently stationed in the Gulf of Oman opposite the strategic Straits of Hormuz.
In an apparent bid to calm the rising war fever in America, the New York Times Friday reported that the Washington has assured Israel that an Iranian threat was not imminent but had been delayed for a year by problems in enriching uranium and divisions within the regime over how far to push their nuclear program But the NYT added suspicions in Israel that the enrichment problems may be a pretext to conceal a secret enrichment site yet to be discovered in tunnels being dug across the country, including some near Natanz. Tehran may then take everyone by surprise and jump up with a nuclear bomb – in the same way as it caught the world napping with a banned uranium enrichment industry turning out fuel for a bomb unhindered.

Simon Henderson, an eminent American expert on Iran, published an article Thursday on the imminent inauguration of the Bushehr reactor in which he stressed that the fuel rods it uses could produce enough plutonium-rich residue for building at least one nuclear bomb a year.
The plant will moreover provide cover for training an entire generation of Iranian nuclear scientists and technicians for its weapons industry.  After all, the regime’s nuclear and missile programs involved “evasion” and “an array of deceptive practices.”

Yet not a word was heard in Israel – either from official sources or by media commentators – in advance of the ceremony inaugurating the Russian-built Bushehr reactor Saturday. All their efforts were bent on untangling the Galant affair and coping with its fallout. No wonder Iran, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinians refused to believe this obsession could be so all-consuming and treated it as a red herring for deceiving them.

Steinitz demands ultimatum for Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Steinitz demands ultimatum for Iran

Raising the stakes: Finance minister says America must warn Tehran of military strike within weeks; ‘Time has come for whole world, under US leadership, to present Iran with unequivocal ultimatum,’ he says

The US should issue a strict ultimatum to Iran, warning that the possibility of a military strike will turn into reality within weeks should Tehran fail to curb its nuclear program, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said Thursday.

In the first such statement by a Cabinet member, Steinitz said: “The US must issue a clear ultimatum to Iran, tell it that if it does not change its behavior within weeks, the military option that has been on the table up until now will become relevant.”Steinitz, who is a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is familiar with Iran’s nuclear program from his service as the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

“It’s time for the whole world, under US leadership, to issue Iran a clear ultimatum that if it does not change its ways in a clear and verifiable manner, it can expect an American attack, or at least a naval blockade,” he said.

Bushehr reactor. ‘Not necessarily the significant reactor’ (Photo: Reuters)

Steinitz refrained from mentioning Netanyahu’s stance on the matter, but said the demand for an ultimatum is being made despite certain achievements in diplomacy and other measures adopted by the international community.

He also disputed claims by the by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who said Israel has “days” to attack Iran before Russia fuels its Bushehr nuclear facility.

“Bushehr is only one reactor, and not necessarily the most significant one in respect to the nuclear issue. However, Iran’s progress in enriching (uranium) and its aspirations for nuclear weapons continue and must be stopped,” the finance minister said.