WarSclerotic

Barak: Israel has not yet decided on ‘military operation’ against Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Defense Minister downplays speculation Jerusalem is preparing for attack, says ‘war is not a picnic. We want a picnic. We don’t want a war’; France and Russia voice concern over possibility of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

By Haaretz and Reuters

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday played down speculation that Israel intended to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, saying it had not decided to embark on any military operation.

“War is not a picnic. We want a picnic. We don’t want a war,” Barak told Israel Radio ahead of the release this week of an International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] report on Iran’s nuclear activity.

	Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak
	Photo by: Emil Salman

“[Israel] had not yet decided to embark on any operation,” he said, dismissing Israeli media speculation that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had chosen that option.

Western nuclear experts have told Haaretz, in anticipation of the IAEA report, that Iran will be ready to build a nuclear bomb within a few months if it desires.

Other experts, who have seen intelligence used in the compilation of the latest report, have said that Tehran already has the know-how, the technological means and the materials needed to put an atom bomb together within short order.

These experts have concluded that nuclear weapons engineers from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea have been assisting Iranian scientists in their efforts to reach nuclear capability. Haaretz published similar information last week, reporting that experts have said that Iran could carry out underground nuclear tests quite soon if it wants to.

The foreign ministers of Russia and France have warned this week that an Israeli military strike against Iran would cause irreparable damage.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday that such a strike against Iran would be a grave mistake with unpredictable consequences: “This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,” he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said his country was “very worried” about the potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, but opposes any strike against the Islamic Republic because it would destabilize the region. He said earlier this week that France supported the hardening of sanctions against Iran.

Earlier this week, Haaretz learned that U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did not get a clear commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not take action against Iranian nuclear facilities without coordinating any such operation with the United States.

According to American officials who were briefed about the visit Panetta made a month ago to Israel, the two Israeli leaders only answered Panetta’s questions regarding Israel’s intentions toward Iran in a general manner.

Panetta arrived in Israel on October 3 and, in addition to Netanyahu and Barak, also met with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and senior members of the IDF General Staff. The U.S. defense secretary’s visit came against the backdrop of a sense among members of the American administration that they didn’t clearly understand where Israel was headed with regard to the entire subject of the threat from Iran.

Panetta raised the Iranian issue in his talks in Israel with both Netanyahu and Barak. He sought not only to hear about Israel’s intentions but also to underline that the U.S. was interested in full coordination with Israel on the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat. The American defense secretary hinted that the Americans did not want to be surprised by Israel. For their parts, however, Netanyahu and Barak avoided providing a clear response, answering vaguely and in general terms.

France says it supports sanction… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    PARIS – France is “very worried” about the potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, but opposes any strike against the Islamic Republic because it could cause irreparable damage, Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Tuesday.

Juppe voiced concern about speculation that Israel is preparing a strike on Iranian nuclear sites ahead of the release of an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Tehran’s nuclear activity.

If the IAEA report, due out this week, indicates Iran is building atomic weapons capabilities, then France would firmly back further UN sanctions, he said, but would do all it can to stop military action.

Four previous rounds of sanctions have been imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. But Russia and China, two veto-wielding UN Security Council, members have made clear any new sanctions would be an extremely tough sell.

“We are very worried about Iran stepping out of line. It would seriously destabilize the region,” Juppe told RTL radio.

“France’s position is firm: if we need to reinforce sanctions, we are ready,” he said.

“I think we have to do everything we can to avoid the irreparable damage that military action would cause.”

The IAEA report is widely expected to strengthen suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop the capability to make atomic bombs, countering its claims that its nuclear enrichment program is purely for civilian purposes.

Western nations are likely to react by calling for further sanctions against the Islamic state, but speculation has been rising that Israel is preparing a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Russia and Iran warned the West against military intervention on Monday, saying an attack would lead to civilian casualties and create new threats to global security.

Barak not optimistic about int’l will to stop … JPost – Defense.

    Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he is not optimistic that the international community has the will to come together in order to put a stop to Iran’s nuclear program, in an interview with Israel Radio Tuesday. Nonetheless, the short period of time following the impending release of an Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Tehran’s nuclear program presents the best opportunity for convincing the world to act against Iran.

While the defense minister said he was not optimistic about any international action against Iran, specifically “deadly sanctions” targeting its financial institutions as well as physical sanctions, “I hope it will happen,” he said.

Addressing the IAEA report, the reported contents of which have been leaked to various international newspapers in recent days, Barak said, “we’ve known these things for years.”

“We know more [about Iran] than The Washington Post knows and we know more than the IAEA does,” he added.

Israel is expecting the United States to take the lead in pushing the United Nations and other Western countries to impose tougher, new sanctions on Iran following the publication of the incriminating IAEA report.

The report is tentatively scheduled to be published on Tuesday or Wednesday. Some of the sensitive information expected to be revealed in the report is believed to have come from intelligence agencies in the US and the United Kingdom.

Asked whether Israel needs the approval of the United States to launch an attack on Iran, the defense minister said that Israel appreciates and respects the United States and that Washington stands with Israel in many different ways, but that at the end of the day, “Israel is a sovereign state.”

The government has been working for years at showing the world that the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran is one that affects the whole world, not just Israel. But Israel is responsible for her own safety and protecting herself, Barak said.

Jerusalem does not want war, he said in the interview, but even if it is drawn into a war against its will, fears of mass casualties are unfounded. “There’s no chance in such a situation for 500,000 killed, not 5,000 or even 500 killed.”

He added that no decision had been taken regarding a military operation.

One of the consequences of the Arab Spring, the defense minister explained, is that Israel must be able to rely upon itself.

“Israel is the strongest country in the region and it will stay that way,” he said.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

Ynet

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuand that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

Arret sur Images (Screenshot) 

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders’ microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

“By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes,” one journalist told the website. Still, he said that reporters “did not have a chance to take advantage of this fluke.”

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that reporters present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the subject of the embarrassing comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-Hizbullah Discusses Its Operational Plan for War with Israel: Missile Fire on Tel Aviv and Conquest.

Missile fire on Tel Aviv and Conquest of the Galilee

Shimon Shapira

• In recent weeks Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah held a series of meetings with his top-level military command as well as field commanders responsible for preparing for war with Israel. According to a source close to Hizbullah, Nasrallah’s operational directive was that in the next military conflict with Israel, Hizbullah will hit Tel Aviv with missiles at the outset of the war, while also dispatching forces to conquer the Galilee.

• Hizbullah forces are being trained to fire at least ten thousand missiles, right at the war’s outset, at military and strategic targets such as airfields, military camps, and vital facilities including maritime ones, followed by the firing of rockets from launch sites whose location will come as a surprise to Israel.

• The operational plan was formulated in tandem with senior Iranian strategic experts and will include a force of five thousand fighters who have recently trained in Iran, tasked with taking over designated zones in northern Israel including Nahariya, Shlomi, and Carmiel.

• It was said that engineering units of the Iranian army had mined areas in the eastern Bekaa Valley that were seen as possible landing sites for Israeli special forces, and that Hizbullah had equipped itself with “smart” Iranian anti-tank missiles that can disrupt the defensive systems of Israel’s Merkava tanks.

• Nasrallah’s recent escalation of public statements stems from heightened fear in Hizbullah that an Israeli and/or American attack on Iran is drawing nearer. As a strategic arm of Iran, Hizbullah sees itself as Iran’s first line of defense against Israel.

On 27 October 2011 the Lebanese newspaper Al Joumhouria reported that in recent weeks the leader of Hizbullah, Hasan Nasrallah, held a series of meetings with the organization’s highest level military command, as well as field commanders and operational-level commanders responsible for preparing Hizbullah’s military force for war with Israel. Nasrallah updated his commanders on regional developments, the situation in Lebanon, and on Hizbullah’s internal and organizational affairs. Nasrallah emphasized the supreme importance of maintaining the organization’s field security, given U.S. and Israeli intelligence organizations’ successes in penetrating Hizbullah and recruiting individuals holding sensitive posts. The exposure of agents within Hizbullah was profoundly unsettling to Nasrallah and the other leaders.

According to a source close to Hizbullah, Nasrallah’s operational directive to the commanders was to prepare for the fact that in the next military conflict with Israel, Hizbullah will hit Tel Aviv with missiles at the outset of the war, while also dispatching forces to conquer the Galilee. The source stressed that this is an operational directive and not a matter of psychological warfare.

Hizbullah’s conclusion from the lessons of the Second Lebanon War is that, next time, Israel will have no red lines in waging all-out war against Lebanon and Hizbullah. Hence, Hizbullah is planning “many surprises” that will change the force equation with Israel both at the start of the conflict and during its operational phase.¹

The Operational Plan 

The operational plan to conquer the Galilee was first aired in Nasrallah’s announcement on 16 February 2011, as part of events marking the third anniversary of the assassination of Hizbullah commander-in-chief Imad Mughniyeh. Nasrallah told his fighters to be prepared for the fact that, should Israel launch a war against Hizbullah, they will be conquering the Galilee. Since that announcement, Hizbullah forces have been training and preparing to carry out Nasrallah’s order. This preparation includes:

• Identifying landing sites for Israeli helicopters where explosive charges have been laid and dispersed.

• Deploying substantial rocket and artillery firepower in areas Hizbullah does not see as suitable for guerrilla warfare, mainly in parts of the Bekaa Valley.

• Visits by commanders to the front, which have included delegations of military experts headed by Haj Zu Alfikar. He is none other than Mustafa Badr Aldin, Mughniyeh’s replacement as the most senior security-military figure in Hizbullah, who is continuing to act despite an extradition order against him for the murder of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The senior military delegation visited the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon.

• The end of a series of intensive training sessions for some 727 fighters in Iran, who learned new combat methods for guerrilla and special commando units.

• The completion of courses for operators of advanced missiles and anti-tank weapons. Here it was said that Hizbullah had equipped itself with “smart” Iranian anti-tank missiles that can disrupt the defensive systems of Merkava tanks on the way to striking them.

The military scenario for which Hizbullah forces trained is the firing of at least ten thousand missiles, right at the war’s outset, at military and strategic targets such as airfields, military camps, and vital facilities including maritime ones, followed by the firing of rockets from launch sites whose location will come as a surprise to Israel.

The Operational Plan to Conquer the Galilee

The source said that the operational plan Hizbullah has formulated in tandem with senior Iranian strategic experts is based on using a force of five thousand fighters who have recently trained in Iran, particularly in the context of this plan. Another report said that in recent weeks Hizbullah forces had completed intensive training in Iran and had been deployed in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. It was further reported that in the area of Maydon in the western Bekaa Valley, Hizbullah engineering units had finished excavation work and the improvement of positions, while engineering units of the Iranian army had mined areas in the eastern Bekaa Valley that were seen as possible landing sites for Israeli special forces tasked with attacking Hizbullah’s missile and artillery deployment.²

The source close to Hizbullah said its fighting force would number five brigades, each consisting of a thousand fighters. Each brigade has a designated combat zone in northern Israel that it is tasked with taking over. Each brigade is familiar with the layout and special topographical conditions of its sector and has trained to conquer it.

• Brigade 1 will take over the town of Nahariya or parts of it, after crossing the border in the area of Rosh Hanikra. According to Hizbullah information, means of protection in that area are meager, the distance is small (seven kilometers), and there are no military capabilities or special topography that will retard the unit in achieving its goal. Concurrently, a force of 150 fighters from the first brigade will reach Nahariya by sea in speedboats that Hizbullah already possesses. This force’s mission is to take as many hostages as possible so as to prevent Israel from bombing the Hizbullah forces in this sector.

• Brigade 2 will take over the town of Shlomi, which has 6,500 residents and is about 300 meters from the border. The aim is to cut the IDF’s supply lines and force it to send reinforcements from the east.

• Brigade 3 was ordered to reach the town of Carmiel and conquer areas south of it with the aim of blocking traffic from Acre, on the Mediterranean coast, to Safed.

• Brigade 4 will take over the communities of Malkiya, Ramot Naftali and Yiftach in order to prevent the IDF from firing from these areas into southern Lebanon.

• Brigade 5 will serve as a strategic reserve force for special missions.

Syria

Hizbullah is discussing the question of whether Bashar Assad will take part in the war, and is not excluding this possibility, particularly in light of Syria’s domestic situation. On 27 October 2011 the newspaper Al Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, disclosed that Nasrallah had met with Assad a few days earlier in Damascus. It said Nasrallah had come to explain to Assad why Hizbullah insists that the Lebanese government stop contributing to the funding of the international investigatory commission (the STL) on former Lebanese premier Hariri’s murder. Assad, according to the paper, did not give a clear answer on the issue and only emphasized the need to maintain the Lebanese government’s representation. If such a Nasrallah-Assad meeting indeed occurred, it can reasonably be assumed that the subject of a military conflict with Israel was central to it.³

A day after the article appeared in Al Akhbar, the paper published a correction saying the Nasrallah-Assad meeting had not occurred and apologizing for the error.⁴ It should be stressed that the paper is very close to Hizbullah and not infrequently serves as Nasrallah’s mouthpiece. It is hard to imagine that it would publish a detailed report of this meeting, including specific quotations, against Hizbullah’s wishes. It could be that, on second thought, Hizbullah decided the timing of the article was unwise. As Assad kills his people, Hizbullah faces bitter criticism for supporting him and is losing its standing in the Arab street. Indeed, since the reports in the Lebanese press on Hizbullah’s operational plan and preparations to implement it, Hizbullah has in no way related to these matters either directly or indirectly.

Summary

Nasrallah’s recent escalation of public statements on concrete targets for the next war – rocket fire on Tel Aviv at its outset and the conquest of the Galilee, along with the completion of military preparations – do not come in a vacuum. They stem from heightened fear in Hizbullah that an Israeli and/or American attack on Iran is drawing nearer. Hence, as a strategic arm of Iran that sees itself as Iran’s first line of defense against Israel, Hizbullah is seeking, with Iran’s help, to deter Israel. This explains Nasrallah’s care in emphasizing that he is not referring to an offensive thrust by Hizbullah but, rather, a harsh response to an Israeli move that would engulf Lebanon in war. But even if what is envisaged is a reaction by Hizbullah, let alone a surprise move by Nasrallah, it is important to see the picture as reflected in Hizbullah’s vision.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Al Joumhouria, 27 October 2011.

2. Al Shiraa, 27 October 2011.

3. Al Akhbar,  27October 2001.

4. Al Akhbar, 28 October 2011.

*     *     *

Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira is a senior research associate at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Will Barack Obama bomb Iran?–Benny Avni – NYPOST.com.

Iran nukes near critical mass

Last Updated: 2:28 AM, November 8, 2011

A report detailing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear advances, to be published as early as tomorrow, is taking us closer to a fish-or-cut-bait moment.

Much of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s revelations have already leaked: The report will detail a “military dimension” of Iran’s nuclear program, long denied by the mullahs and their enablers.

With Egypt’s Mohamed ElBaradei as director, the IAEA for years neglected its watchdog duties. Instead, ElBaradei’s lawyerly written reports aimed at minimizing the menace so that no one would act militarily against Iran.

EPA

Ahmadinejad: No longer able to obfuscate Iran’s drive for genocidal nuclear weapons.

But the new IAEA chief, Yukia Amano of Japan, is much less political. His report is expected to paint a much truer, grimmer picture of Iran’s efforts to obtain a weapon — with help from Russian, Pakistani and North Korean scientists. The mullahs are close.

The report is expected to finally kill the notion that Iran ended its military nuclear pursuit in 2003 — a conclusion that a joint assessment of the US intelligence community reached in 2007. Like ElBaradei’s reports, that assessment was designed mostly to stop Bush administration Iran hawks from striking militarily.

Now the pendulum is swinging back. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may describe President Obama as a “cowboy,” but everyone else assumes our president is strongly averse to military action, so there’s no need to stop him. But is there?

Obama has long vowed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Recently, he has toughened his tone — calling Iran’s nuclear program a “continuing threat” over the weekend. He made those remarks in Cannes, France, with an approving President Nicolas Sarkozy at his side — but while Paris dismisses the notion of military action, Obama doesn’t.

After the recently reported Iranian-backed assassination attempt, Obama, for the first time as president, uttered the phrase “all options are on the table.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also indicated that, this time, we’d support the Iranian people if they rebel against the regime.

So let’s look at the military strike implied in “all options”: A short, concentrated aerial and naval bombardment of nuclear facilities would set back Iran’s program significantly. Coupled with a new revolution, it might stop it completely — or at least end the danger of mullah-controlled nukes.

US and Israeli military planners have for years worked on designing such an attack. The left-leaning Guardian newspaper reports that the Brits are now on board, too.

Although the attack would last no longer than a few days, planners must also consider possibly disastrous consequences — including a barrage of missiles from Gaza and Lebanon that Iran’s allies are expected to launch on Israel, as well as retaliation against US targets here and abroad.

The Israeli press is airing a fierce debate that pits former Israeli intelligence bigwigs opposed to military action against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who are reportedly pushing the Cabinet to approve such an action.

Bombardment foes in Israel and America say that ever-tightening sanctions, coupled with covert action like the assassination of scientists and the release of such computer malware as the Stuxnet bug, could slow Iran’s program — so there’s no need for a risky military attack.

But now Iran is moving the bulk of its nuclear operation to facilities deep underground in mountains near the holy city of Qom — virtually removing the military option from our action menu. Plus, if the plants go operational, bombing them might spread radiation and kill many innocents.

Then, too, there’s the simple fact Iran’s rulers have long said they want Israel off the map, and will likely soon have the means to make it happen.

As dovish Israeli President Shimon Peres said last week, “It would seem that Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons”; the world must act now, “whether that means serious sanctions or whether it means a military operation.”

Yet Russia and China will surely find enough wiggle room in the IAEA report to nix any significant tightening of UN-based sanctions. We must act without them.

A successful military strike on Iran would boost Obama’s national-security credentials and his re-election prospects. Imagine: With allies, a once-timid US president is now poised to change the course of Mideast and world history.

G.O.P. Candidates Talk Tough on Iran – NYTimes.com.

As United Nations inspectors prepare to unveil a new report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, some Republican presidential candidates have taken increasingly forceful tones on the issue, saying they would sanction or consider supporting an attack on Iran’s nuclear program by either Israel or the United States.

The party’s hawkishness was evident last week as five major Republican rivals campaigned in Iowa. In an interview outside Des Moines, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was asked whether he would back a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program, and he then told CNN he would support Israeli efforts “up to and including military action.”

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, described Iran as an “enemy” on Friday night in Des Moines at a dinner of almost 1,000 of the state’s most important Republican activists. In an interview, Mr. Santorum said that he would “stand shoulder to shoulder” in support of Israel if it launched a pre-emptive attack and that he would also back direct American military support if requested by Israel.

The issue holds particular resonance now amid numerous reports that United Nations inspectors will state this week that Iran has moved closer to being capable of building a nuclear weapon, and as Israel has been debating a more confrontational posture toward Iran.

Broadly within the party, the focus reflects not only competition to be regarded as the strongest ally of Israel, but also a sense that projecting toughness on Iran may offer one of the few political openings on foreign policy that Republicans can use to attack President Obama. Republicans assert that he has been weak and too solicitous of the Iranian government, while administration officials believe they have orchestrated an array of sanctions and other efforts that have put great pressure on Iran.

One candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, flatly rejects a pre-emptive strike by American forces, absent “credible evidence” that Iran was planning an imminent attack on the United States, which Mr. Paul says would be highly unlikely. He says that the Iranian threat to the Middle East  has also been overstated and that he favors better relations with that country.

His spokesman, Jesse Benton, added that Mr. Paul “refused to condemn Israel’s attacks against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in the early 1980s and would not try to push Israel or tell them what to do.”

Two other candidates — Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Herman Cain — have in past interviews declined to state explicitly whether they could support a strike by the United States. But both have used strong words: Mr. Cain has suggested that he would equate an attack on Israel with an attack on the United States.

And after a campaign appearance at Iowa State University on Thursday, Mrs. Bachmann warned, “Iran has stated once they gain a nuclear weapon they will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

In a similar vein, when Mr. Perry was asked if he would approve a pre-emptive Israeli strike “even if it started a war in the region,” he responded, “We cannot allow that madman to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, because we know what he will do with it.”

The comments by both candidates have their roots at least in part in a statement by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, six years ago that was translated as his saying Israel “should be wiped off the map.”

He did not say anything about using nuclear weapons, and Iran has denied seeking nuclear weaponry. The nature and meaning of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement has been hotly disputed ever since. Some officials say it shows that Iran’s leadership wants to annihilate Israel, but other analysts say he was not calling for an attack or military action but for the collapse someday of Israel.

Like the Obama administration, Mitt Romney, who leads the Republican field in many polls, would keep a military option “on the table” and use diplomatic and economic pressure. Mr. Romney also says he would order the “regular presence” of an aircraft carrier task force in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.

A spokesman added that Mr. Romney would seek “increased military coordination with and assistance to Israel in order to make clear to Iran that the military option is very much on the table, and increased Israeli preparation for a strike advances that policy.”

In response to a question four years ago, Mr. Romney said that if any military action were taken against Iran, “I don’t anticipate that the kind of strategy we would pursue would be a ground-intensive, change-the-regime, change-the-government type of effort. I think it’s more likely that other military actions would be in the nature of blockade or a bombardment or surgical strikes of one kind or another.”

In a recent foreign policy speech, former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah said he would consider using American force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. And former Speaker Newt Gingrich said last Friday that while he would not “green-light” a pre-emptive Israeli strike — favoring instead efforts to replace the Iranian leadership — he also would not try to talk the Israelis down from such an attack.

“I wouldn’t,” Mr. Gingrich said on CNN. “I mean, if the prime minister of Israel comes to the conclusion that the survival of his country’s at stake, the idea that an American president’s going to second guess him — you know, two nuclear weapons is a second holocaust.”

‘Pakistan, N. Korea aided Iran’s nuclear program’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program said to reveal significant influence by ‘father’ of Pakistan’s atom bomb, Pyongyang scientists

Ynet

The next IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program will reveal that Tehran received assistance from several foreign countries, including Russia, Pakistan and North Korea, Western diplomats said Tuesday.

According to several media outlets, including the Washington Post, the UN’s nuclear watchdog has concluded that Iran‘s nuclear program received assistance from Russian scientists on “how to build high-precision detonators that can be used to trigger nuclear chain reactions.”

Former Soviet scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko was allegedly contacted by Iran’s Physics Research Center in the mid-1990s to assist in its nuclear efforts. Documents obtained by the IAEA suggest he helped design a high-explosive device used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

The UK’s Daily Telegraph reported the some of the findings substantiate reports suggesting that Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is considered the “father” of Pakistan’s atom bomb, gave Iran the necessary blueprints for a neutron initiator – a key element in nuclear bombs.

Ahmadinejad visiting the Natanz facility (Photo: Reuters)

North Korean scientists have reportedly provided mathematical formulas and codes involved in designing a nuclear device.

The IAEA has reportedly obtained evidence supporting the claim that Iran has implemented a computer simulation of a nuclear warhead.

David Albright, a former IAEA official who reviewed the report’s findings, was quoted as saying that Iran “has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core.”

While speculations about a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities have grown, the United States, UK and Russia have said that “tough diplomacy” has yet to be exhausted.

The international community is pushing for a new round of sanctions on Iran, which experts say are likely to have a more significant “bite.”

Israelsaid it expects the international community to impose “debilitating sanctions” on the Islamic Republic.

“Even if the UN Security Council will find it hard to issue dramatic sanctions, Iran could still suffer from financial sanctions – it has financial interests which are vulnerable,” a Jerusalem source said.

Western experts to Haaretz: Iran able to build nuclear bomb within months – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Experts conclude nuclear weapons engineers from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea have been assisting Iranian scientists in their efforts to reach nuclear capability.

By Yossi Melman and Zvi Bar’el

Iran will be ready to build a nuclear bomb within a few months, if it desires, Western nuclear experts have told Haaretz. Other experts, who have seen intelligence used in the compilation of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran, have said that Tehran already has the know-how, the technological means and the materials needed to put an atom bomb together within short order.

These experts have concluded that nuclear weapons engineers from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea have been assisting Iranian scientists in their efforts to reach nuclear capability. Haaretz published similar information last week, reporting that experts have said that Iran could carry out underground nuclear tests quite soon if it wants to.

	Members of the Iranian Air Force attending a prayer ceremony to mark the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha in Tehran on Monday.
	Photo by: Reuters

One key figure was Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who worked for at least five years for Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. The information about Danilenko’s role in Iran’s nuclear program was provided by David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. Some of this information was published on Monday in the Washington Post.

The IAEA report is slated for release on Monday or Tuesday. The director of the United Nations agency, Yukia Amano, has been under heavy pressure from Russia and China not to publish all of the evidence the IAEA has collated about Iran’s nuclear program, in order to prevent an escalation of the crisis between the West and Iran. They suggested leaving the details fuzzy and not stating explicitly that Iran has reached nuclear capability.

The Iranian website Dolat-e ma (“our government” ), considered a strong supporter of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, posted remarks he made on Thursday in a meeting with supporters.

“The West has mobilized all of its forces to attack and finish us. It is as clear as day that NATO is very thirsty [eager] to attack Iran. The conditions are not normal. We are approaching the final confrontation. It will not necessarily be a military one, but possibly political … We are reaching the height [of the confrontation]. If we are not prepared, we will suffer so greatly that we will be set back 500 years. They [NATO] wanted to attack Syria. I told the secretary general [of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon], ‘tell them that if they attack Syria, the entire region will explode.'”

These comments are far from previous official statements by Ahmadinejad and senior Iranian officials, according to which Iran will strike back at anyone who tries to harm it.

This was the first time the Iranian president has publicly framed the threat facing Iran in apocalyptic terms, and as something against which concrete precautions must be taken. Ahmadinejad did not specify the nature of the preparation, or indicate whether Iran intends to comply with demands that it suspend its military nuclear program, but he implied that diplomatic, rather than military, action must be taken.