Archive for January 2011

Report: Iran’s nuclear capacity unharmed, contrary to U.S. assessment

January 22, 2011

Report: Iran’s nuclear capacity unharmed, contrary to U.S. assessment – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Federation of American Scientists publish report saying Iran has capability of making nuclear weapon and have not suffered setbacks.

By Reuters

Iran has the technical capability to make a nuclear weapon and its atomic activities do not seem to be slowing down, a scientific report said, contradicting U.S. assessments that Tehran’s program has suffered setbacks.

The findings, published on Friday by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) as world powers and Iran held talks in Istanbul, may fuel new debate on whether Tehran’s work is facing major problems or not.

Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran AP August 21, 2010 A reactor at the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran on August 21, 2010.
Photo by: AP

“Calculations based on IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) data show that Iran has increased its enrichment performance over the past year,” said Ivanka Barzashka, an FAS research associate.

“Contrary to statements by U.S. officials and many experts, Iran clearly does not appear to be slowing down its nuclear drive.”

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel power stations, Iran’s stated ambition. It can also provide material for atom bombs if refined much further, which is what the West suspects the Islamic Republic is ultimately aiming for.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this month that sanctions had set back Iran’s nuclear program, giving the powers more time to persuade it to change tack.

Her comments were the first public U.S. assertion that Iran’s nuclear project had been slowed down.

Earlier this month, Israeli intelligence assessments said Israel now believed Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon before 2015 and that a top Israeli official had counselled against pre-emptive military action.

This signalled new confidence in U.S.-led sanctions and other measures designed to discourage or delay Iran’s nuclear drive. Some analysts saw that as a sign of reduced risk that the dispute would escalate into a military conflict any time soon.

Capacity boost

Analysts say Iran’s nuclear work has been experiencing technical difficulties for several years, partly because it is using enrichment centrifuges adapted from a smuggled 1970s European design which is prone to overheating and vibration.

Tougher trade and other sanctions may make it harder for Tehran to obtain the material and equipment needed to manufacture more advanced and reliable centrifuges.

Possible sabotage, such as the Stuxnet computer worm which may have targeted Iran’s centrifuge machines, could also be a factor.

In addition, Iran has blamed the West and Israel for the killing of two nuclear scientists last year, a charge Washington has rejected as “absurd”.

“Iran’s nuclear programme is suffering mounting setbacks, which in turn will provide more time for diplomacy and reduce the imminence of military strikes,” said proliferation experts David Albright and Andrea Stricker.

“But predicting when Iran might obtain nuclear weapons is highly uncertain,” Albright and Stricker, of the U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), wrote.

But Barzashka, the FAS researcher, said total uranium enrichment capacity at Iran’s Natanz site increased last year, potentially reducing the time needed to make weapons-grade material.

“The boost in capacity is due to an apparent increase in centrifuge performance,” her report said, adding it was not clear what had caused it.

Barzashka said there was “no question” that Iran had the technical capability to make a nuclear weapon, if it chose to.

“But there is still ambiguity regarding Iran’s intentions. Tehran could, at minimum, be interested in maintaining the option of developing nuclear weapons in the indefinite future.”

Ashton: World powers ‘disappointed’ with Iran’s stance in nuclear talks

January 22, 2011

Ashton: World powers ‘disappointed’ with Iran’s stance in nuclear talks – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

EU foreign policy chief says at conclusion of nuclear talks in Istanbul that they foundered on Iran’s insistence that UN recognize the country’s right to enrich uranium, lift sanctions.

By News Agencies

The European Union Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton said Saturday six-power talks with Iran have ended without agreement because of disputes on the focus of future talks, and added that the world powers were “disappointed” by Iran’s stance during the talks in Istanbul and Tehran’s preconditions were unacceptable.

Ashton also said the two sides have set no date for any new meeting.

Foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton arrives at the Ataturk International airport for talks between Iran and the six world powers in Istanbul, January 20, 2011.
Photo by: Reuters

Ashton said the talks foundered on Iran’s insistence that the United Nations Security Council lift sanctions imposed because of Iran’s refusal to stop uranium enrichment as a precondition for new negotiations. Iran was also seeking recognition by the six powers that it had a right to enrich uranium.

The EU foreign policy chief said those terms were unacceptable to Iran’s interlocutors.

Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official said at the conclusion of the talks that they will resume, but no date or venue has been set.

“There will be talks but stilll we haven’t decided on the place or venue,” Abolfazl Zohrevand, an aide to Iran’s chief negotiator Saeed Jalili, told Reuters.

 


As Iran Talks Wind Down, Little Progress Seen – NYTimes.com

January 22, 2011

As Iran Talks Wind Down, Little Progress Seen – NYTimes.com.

ISTANBUL — Talks between Iran and six world powers — including the United States — continued Saturday morning after an acrimonious day on Friday, with a late-night plenary session becoming tense and irritable before an agreement to meet again on Saturday, senior Western diplomats said. The talks are expected to conclude on Saturday afternoon.

Iran has refused so far to engage on specifics and continues to assert that it is in full compliance with nuclear agency inspectors, while insisting on its right to enrich uranium no matter what the United Nations Security Council demands.

“The Iranians still will not admit that they have a problem with the world,” one diplomat said late Friday night. “Every idea we put forward they find a reason not to take it up.” He said that the talks came very close to ending Friday night, but the parties agreed in the end to continue them on Saturday morning.

But it was unlikely that a date would be set here for a further round of talks, another Western diplomat said after the last, unscheduled plenary session, which lasted 2 hours and 30 minutes and broke up just before midnight. “I think it will be an agreement to go away and reflect” on the usefulness of these talks, said the diplomat, who, like others here, spoke under normal ground rules of anonymity.

The six powers — the United States and the other four members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany — had asked for the extra session in order to shape a framework for further talks and confidence-building measures, the diplomats said. They emphasized that the six would not agree to any preconditions.

After a two-hour opening plenary session on Friday morning largely given over to summarizing known positions, the talks broke at about noon for Friday prayers and lunch, and did not resume again until 4 p.m. Then, a bilateral meeting between the Iranian chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, and the representative of the world powers, Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief, convened for 90 minutes.

But Western diplomats expressed disappointment with the results of the meeting. They said that Ms. Ashton laid out an agreed position on how to move forward, with a revised fuel swap deal for Iran’s already enriched uranium and a series of bilateral meetings, including one with the United States. But Mr. Jalili said that first there must be recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium and a lifting of “measures” — understood as sanctions — that would “would jeopardize Iran’s rights and obligations” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The diplomats said that Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes was a given, and that the sanctions had been imposed by the United Nations Security Council after Iran failed to deal honestly and completely with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They said they wanted to move into detailed discussions with Iran of a modified fuel swap deal, first laid out in October 2009, designed to remove enough enriched uranium to prevent Iran from building a bomb in return for fuel rods for a small Tehran reactor making medical isotopes.

The point of this Istanbul meeting has been “to find out if Iran is serious” about negotiating, a senior Western diplomat said. There is still no clear answer to that question, but American and French officials in particular have said in the last few days that “talking cannot be an endless process,” even as they have expressed relief that Iran is having difficulties with its centrifuges and the estimated time for it to be nuclear-bomb capable has been extended.

While Mr. Jalili has had other bilateral meetings with the Russians and the Turks, who are supposed to be simply hosting the talks, he has not yet taken up an open invitation for a separate meeting with the United States delegation and its leader, William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. The last formal bilateral meeting between the two was in October 2009.

In the bilateral with Mr. Jalili, Ms. Ashton “put forward where we would like to go in the process in a positive fashion,” a Western diplomat said. “We want to push it forward on the basis of no preconditions.” But so far, he said, there has been no discussion of the details of any modified fuel swap or any agreement on a framework for further negotiations. He called the results of the meeting “inconclusive.”

The goal of the six is to get Iran to suspend enrichment entirely, at least for the period of serious negotiations; all these talks are trying to do is to create enough mutual trust to shape a process, including confidence-building measures like the fuel swap, to enable more serious talks to take place on an agreed agenda. The six are also offering a set of economic and technical aid programs if Iran agrees to stop enrichment.

Iran insists its nuclear program is only for civilian energy; most of the rest of the world believes that the program is military.

Tehran is under four sets of Security Council sanctions for refusing to cease enrichment and other activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons, and has regularly kept its enrichment activities secret from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which says it still has serious questions Iran will not answer.

But Iran came to the table warning that it would never stop enrichment. “Resolutions, sanctions, threats, computer virus nor even a military attack will stop uranium enrichment in Iran,” Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the nuclear agency, told Iranian state television.

Iran has regularly wanted to discuss a larger agenda at these talks, including global nuclear disarmament, Israel, and the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The talks in Istanbul are scheduled to continue on Saturday. They are the second round of talks between Iran and the six after negotiations resumed last month in Geneva, breaking a 14-month hiatus.

What to Think About Iran’s Nuclear Program Right Now – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic

January 22, 2011

What to Think About Iran’s Nuclear Program Right Now – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

The announcement by the now-former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, that sanctions and subterfuge (including and especially the Stuxnet worm) have delayed Iran’s nuclear program  has caused many people, yours truly included, to breathe a little bit easier about this crisis (though Dagan, apparently under pressure, partially retracted his sunny intelligence estimate). Iran’s intentions and ambitions haven’t changed, of course — this is a crucial point —  but any delay is a good thing. Last June, when I wrote an article about Israel and Iran, I placed the chances of an Israeli strike on Iran this year (2011) at greater 50 percent, if sanctions and so-called foiling operations — sabotage, assassination, and the like — didn’t work. So far, though, the sanctions regime put in place by President Obama has so far worked better than a lot of people thought they would (me included) and Stuxnet has crippled twenty percent of Iran’s centrifuges.

So I was surprised to read the following observation in an Aluf Benn piece in Ha’aretz, in which he makes reference to Dagan’s retirement, and the retirement of the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, as well. Both men are thought to be opposed to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran. Benn wrote, “(T)he opponents of an attack on Iran are retiring one by one, broadening the premier’s freedom of action.”

Which raises the question, the premier’s freedom of action for what? If Iran is really three or four years away from crossing the nuclear threshold, why would there even be a thought of an attack in the coming period of time? I called a high-level Israeli source, one of the sources for my article last year, and asked him what this could mean. “Don’t forget that the people who will make the decision are Bibi and (Ehud) Barak,” the defense minister, he said. “Not Dagan, not Gabi, not anyone else. Iran is set back for the moment. It’s a very significant problem that Iran has. But this situation can change quickly and Bibi knows this.”

For now, I am fairly confident that Iran’s technical problems will continue, and it has become harder and harder for Iran to get the parts and raw materials for the next-generation centrifuges that it seeks. The Obama Administration is worried that Dagan’s comments will cause other nations to relax their stance on Iran (Dagan’s words may have had a Heisenbergian effect; the act of observing Iran’s problems, especially those due to sanctions, may cause the sanctions to weaken over time). Bibi, from what I understand, is worried about sanctions, and also worried that Iran’s difficulties are temporary.

For an in-depth discussion of the Iran program’s technical issues, see the new article by David Albright, the former U.N. weapons inspector, and Andrea Stricker. It’s all interesting; here’s one important observation:

With so many problems in the first generation of centrifuges, Iran has said its future depends on the advanced centrifuges now under development at Natanz and elsewhere. But their large-scale use may be delayed.  The United States estimates that Iran again faces raw material shortages, specifically of high-quality carbon fiber. Iran may have enough components to build about 1,000 advanced centrifuges. Some of these centrifuges are five times more powerful than the IR-1 centrifuge, so 1,000 advanced centrifuges would have the same output as 5,000 IR-1s -and be far easier to hide in a secret site.

Iran announced plans to build 10 new enrichment plants shortly after revelations about the secret Fordow enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom in 2009. Construction of the first plant is scheduled for March 2011; it could be ready for centrifuges next year.

Though they detail Iran’s various setbacks, Albright and Stricker suggest scenarios in which Iran could build a bomb by next year. It’s not particularly comforting reading.
Technically, Iran could decide to build a nuclear weapon now using the Natanz enrichment plant. The United States has estimated that Iran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb in about one year.  ISIS estimates Iran could halve that time to six months with advance preparation, and with somewhat better operation of the IR-1 centrifuges. U.N. experts say Iran knows enough now to build a crude weapon but faces problems in missile delivery.

At the same time, there is wide international consensus behind the U.S. estimate that Iran is unlikely to use the Natanz plant to dash to weapons in 2011 or 2012.  It would have to divert a stock of low-enriched uranium under safeguards.  Iran could try to delay inspectors’ access to the enrichment plant, but the inspectors are highly likely to detect this diversion within two months, long before Iran could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb.  The resulting international condemnation, and possible military strikes, would likely deter Iran from even trying to use Natanz.

In the longer term, thwarting Iran’s growing options to develop a nuclear weapon remains a major challenge. If Iran built a secret site using more advanced centrifuges, it could be ready to build a bomb as soon as 2012 or 2013.

Lebanon’s rumor mill at full throttle

January 22, 2011

Lebanon’s rumor mill at full throttle – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As political crisis over Hariri probe deepens, citizens transfer savings from local pound into dollars, international students advised by some embassies to leave country. Bus driver: There will be a war, and it will be soon

AFP

Lebanon’s rumor mill is at full throttle, sparking panic and spreading a sense of foreboding, as a seemingly insoluble political deadlock that has left the country without government deepens.

A gathering of Hezbollah supporters in many western Beirut neighborhoods on Tuesday sparked rumors of a dry run in preparation for a takeover of the capital.

Anonymous mobile telephone text messages and even printed fliers this week have warned citizens to flee the city before all hell breaks loose. “I got a BlackBerry message yesterday saying that the situation was bad and that we should leave Beirut,” said one marketing student at the Lebanese American University. “A lot of my friends got the same message.” Television channels have been feeding the psychosis, flashing any minor incident or loud sound as latest news. Even the scheduled departure from Lebanon of a Western ambassador this week also sparked rumors she had packed her bags and fled. “Our nerves are frayed,” said a resident of Achrafieh, a Christian quarter in eastern Beirut. “Everyone is jumpy and any rumor sends us into frenzy.” One woman, whose family is loyal to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an ally of Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah, said she had been called home this week after a relative received a tip-off. “My brother called me yesterday in complete hysterics,” said the 25-year-old, who requested anonymity. “He said he had gotten news that something was going to happen that afternoon, and I left my office in Hamra (in western Beirut) and went home,” she told AFP. “Nothing happened.”

Nasrallah (L) with Druze leader Jumblatt (Archive photo: AP)

Lebanon’s rival parties are headed for a showdown Monday, as MPs head to the president’s office to appoint a new premier after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah last week toppled the government of pro-Western premier Saad Hariri.

The government’s collapse capped a long-running standoff over a UN investigation into the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Saad’s father. The deadlock has sparked fears of a repeat of the events of May 2008, when a protracted political crisis spiraled into sectarian fighting that left 100 dead and saw the Hezbollah camp force the closure of the Beirut airport. Alarmed Lebanese have also begun to throng banks across the country, transferring their savings from the local pound into dollars and withdrawing massive amounts, bank officials told AFP. A UN official in Beirut said the organization’s staff had also been advised to take extra precautions. “It’s incredible how panicked people are, withdrawing money and stocking up on water and food staples,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. “They have created an atmosphere that is unbearable. The rumor mill is at full steam.” While embassies have not yet sent out travel warnings to their citizens in Lebanon, international students have been advised by some embassies to leave the country before the situation worsens, university officials said.

“Some Arab embassies including Jordan and Saudi Arabia called their students yesterday and advised them to leave the country given the current situation,” an American University official told AFP on condition of anonymity. “Up until now, no one has left, but the university has asked all students to stay in their dorms and remain in contact with the dean of students.” Meanwhile, Lebanese across the country are doing their best to carry on with their daily lives. But they cannot shake off the hovering fear that the next round of deadly violence is just around the corner. “It’s obvious that something is going to happen. After so many years, you learn to read the signs. All these feuding politicians are definitely not going to sit down and say a prayer together,” said bus driver Hussein Ezzedine. “There will be a war, and it will be soon. That’s what I believe,” the 56-year-old told AFP. “Our rich leaders have the luxury to send their kids abroad, while we have to struggle with gas and bread prices on a day-to-day basis and worry about war and the safety of our children on top of that.”

Not a fait accompli, after all

January 22, 2011

Editor’s Notes: Not a fait accompli, after all.


Dagan’s final act, backed up by the reported success of Stuxnet, was to shatter the illusion that Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons is unstoppable.

Iran balks at nuclear discussion. Military option aired

January 22, 2011

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report January 22, 2011, 9:17 AM (GMT+02:00)

She locked him in for another day of talks

Refusing to discuss his own country’s nuclear program, Iranian delegation leader Saeed Jalili was only willing to talk about Israel’s reported nuclear arsenal when he met with the delegations of six world powers in Istanbul Friday, Jan. 21. Our sources report that European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, head of the multi-power delegation, physically blocked the exit of the conference chamber to prevent Jalili from walking out. He finally agreed to stay another day in response to Ashton’s pleas but refused to change his position.

Western diplomats used very undiplomatic language to describe how “very angry and frustrated” they were with Iran’s attitude to yet another US-led bid to solve the nuclear controversy with Iran by diplomacy and dialogue..
One Western diplomat recalled anonymously how on Oct. 5, 2000, Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, locked the gates of a venue in Paris to stop Yasser Arafat walking out of a meeting with then prime minister Ehud Barak that Washington had called to try and avert the Palestinian uprising.
In London, Britain’s former Prime Minister Tony Blair issued the strongest call yet from any Western statesman to take the gloves off with Iran.

“I say this to you with all of the passion I possibly can – at some point the West has to get out of what I think is a wretched policy or posture of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing,” he said. “We are not. The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they’ll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and if necessary, force.”
From his experience as Middle East peace envoy, Blair said, “…the impact and the influence of Iran is everywhere. It is negative, destabilizing, it is supportive of terrorist groups and it is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East process.”

Blair said bluntly that US President Barack Obama is “too soft” with Iran. His critical remarks were directed equally at the Netanyahu government in Jerusalem, which closely aligns its Iran policy with that of Washington.
debkafile‘s sources report that opponents of military force against Iran have lately gained ground in Israel’s top military and intelligence ranks.

Iran’s state media do not even use the word “nuclear” in reporting on the talks taking place between the head of its national security council and a group made up of the US, China, France, Germany, Russia and the UK  – calling them only a search for “common grounds for cooperation.”

Ahead of the Istanbul meeting, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared: “100,000 resolutions (sanctions) will not divert us from our course.”

Hariri challenges Nasrallah, announces bid to lead new government

January 21, 2011

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report January 20, 2011, 9:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

Lebanese army takes up positions in Beirut

Lebanon swerved closer to a factional conflagration Thursday night, Jan. 20, after Saad Hariri, whose coalition Hizballah toppled eight days ago, announced he would form a new government in defiance of the opposition.  Hassan Nasrallah’s supporters warned he was leading Lebanon to disaster.

debkafile‘s sources note that by standing his ground against Hizballah’s efforts to oust him from Lebanese politics, Hariri may be able to abort Nasrallah’s plan for an alternative Lebanese government that would disqualify the UN tribunal and its indictment of senior Hizballah officials for complicity in the six-year old assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

Nasrallah has sworn never to surrender his loyalists to the Netherlands-based court. Therefore, by thwarting him, Hariri has raised the Lebanese crisis to a new and dangerous pitch. Nasrallah must now decide whether to rise to the challenge and go through with the steps for seizing control of the capital which his troops practiced this week, or give up and accept defeat.
Thursday afternoon, Lebanese forces showed themselves willing for the first time to stand up to Hizballah’s superior strength and ward off its takeover of the capital. Extra security was laid on for Hariri, guards were reinforced at government institutions and traffic hubs secured. Police units were seen unloading concrete blocks at the main city intersections after which military units moved in to man them.

A Lebanese military official commented that these measures were prompted by “concerns over movements on the ground by some parties.”

No one doubted he was referring to Hizballah and its repeated exercises this week to practice the rapid seizure of Beirut.
Our sources report that Hariri and Nasrallah camps now face each other for a straight duel after the latest mediation effort was abandoned. Thursday morning, the Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers departed Beirut announcing they were “halting their mediation” in the Lebanese crisis.

IAF to get midair refueling tanker

January 21, 2011

IAF to get midair refueling tanker.

IAF to get midair refueling tanker

Bracing for a possible confrontation with Iran, the IAF is set to receive a major boost to its long-range capabilities later this month with the expected arrival of a Boeing 707 that will be converted into a midair refueling tanker.

The air force bought the plane several months ago and it will be sent to Israel Aerospace Industries, where it will be reconfigured.

The IAF received its last fuel tanker in late 2009, and the number it has in service is classified.

The 707s are able to refuel all of the air force’s F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, as well as its fleet of Hercules C-130 transport aircraft.

Midair refueling is considered vital in the event of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Due to the location of some of the facilities and their location in underground bunkers, it is possible that IAF fighter jets would need to conduct a number of attack sorties, and would therefore require additional fuel.

“Fuel tankers enhance our longrange capabilities,” a senior IAF officer said this week.

The air force has conducted a major upgrade of its tanker fleet in recent years and now plans to wait for the US Air Force to choose its future tanker before buying additional aircraft.

The IAF had considered converting Gulfstream business jets into airborne tankers but has abandoned that idea.

However, future plans include the possibility of large unmanned aerial vehicles being used as refueling aircraft.

Unmanned refueling tankers would minimize the risk to pilots and be harder for enemy radar to spot because they are relatively small. They would also be able to spend extended periods in the air – some can stay airborne for 24 hours – without the need to refuel or land to switch pilots.

While the IDF is preparing for a possible military showdown with Iran, it does not appear that such an operation will be launched anytime soon. Earlier this week, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told The Jerusalem Post that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon in the coming year, and earlier this month, outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan put the timeline somewhere toward the middle of the decade.

No let-up on Iran

January 21, 2011

No let-up on Iran.

Iranian technicians at Bushehr nuclear power plant

Recent revelations point to significant delays in Iran’s nuclear program. Two weeks ago, outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan told a dozen senior reporters that Iran was not likely to have the bomb before mid-decade, which he later qualified and modified slightly, apparently under pressure from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Foreign reports over the past few years have pointed to a series of “setbacks” to the mullah regime’s weapons drive, from nuclear scientists disappearing or being assassinated, to the mysterious damaging of nuclear equipment, to labs going up in flames, to planes with classified Iran-bound cargo crashing.

In recent weeks, reports in The Jerusalem Post and elsewhere have speculated on the far-reaching damage inflicted by the Stuxnet computer virus. It has been suggested that the highly sophisticated and fiendishly destructive virus had managed to infiltrate the computer operating system, and caused about a fifth of the centrifuges used to enrich uranium to spin out of control and destroy themselves. Last weekend, The New York Times tied the covert cyber-warfare to Israel.

WHETHER OR not Dagan’s 2015 forecast is overly optimistic, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have apparently been humbled, and the time frame for a nuclear breakout has been pushed off. As a result, the question has been raised whether a reevaluation of sanction policies is in order.

Some are calling for more efforts to engage the Islamist regime. “The cyber worm may have set back Iran’s nuclear program, but it is unlikely to alter its nuclear ambitions,” Ori Nir, the spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, told JTA. “In order to introduce real change, the US and its international allies must change the manner in which they deal with Iran and start to comprehensively engage with Teheran.”

No longer in quite as frenzied a rush against the clock, perhaps the international community can redouble efforts to woo Iran away from the nuclear option through dialogue, engagement advocates argue. Military brinkmanship or ratcheting up sanctions might have the unwanted result of pushing an embattled Islamic Republic toward an increasingly intransigent and extremist position, they claim. Collective punishment of the Iranian people might arouse the sympathies of the Muslim world against the West. And judging from the South African, Iraqi and North Korean precedents, sanctions have proved to be highly ineffective.

But while there might be some truth to some these claims, it would be incredibly naïve to expect a nebulous “engagement” policy to convince Iran to abandon a nuclear program that has earned it popularity domestically and heightened diplomatic influence internationally.

Hizbullah’s domination of Lebanon, Hamas’s tightening grip on Gaza, a Shi’ite resurgence in Iraq, as well as improved Iranian relations with Turkey and strengthening ties with Syria – these are just some of Iran’s foreign policy successes in recent years in the Middle East. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s incessant battle cry that the West is weak and in retreat has a ring of truth for the Muslim extremists in this area of the world who look up to him. Continued defiance in the face of sanctions would only provide additional proof of the West’s inability to stop bold and brave Iran.

The West has precious little to zero chance of succeeding in engagement with a regime that enjoys widespread popularity in the Muslim world specifically because of its defiance of the West. It is popular despite the blatant abuse of its own citizens’ human rights, its recurring threats that Muslims who support Israel will “burn in the umma of Islam,” and its stubborn pursuit of the most destructive weapons that could lead to the deaths of millions in the Middle East – Jews, Muslims, Christians and members of other faiths alike.

THE CONCERN now, indeed, is that in light of the recent revelations on Iran’s nuclear difficulties, the international community will lapse into complacency. With new forecasts pushing back the date for a nuclear-capable Iran, the sense of urgency in thwarting the Islamic Republic might dissipate.

This must not be allowed to happen. Iran is bent on obtaining the bomb. That the danger may have been delayed by a year or two does not make it any less of an existential threat. The apparent achievements of sabotage, indeed, should provide new encouragement that Teheran can be thwarted. And the imperative to do so is as profound as ever.

As US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, “I don’t know that it gives much comfort to somebody who is in the Gulf, or who is in a country that Iran has vowed to destroy, that it’s a one-year or a three-year time frame.”