WarSclerotic

Haggai Carmon: Iran: To Bomb or Not to Bomb, That Is the Question.

To bomb or not to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations, that is the question asked by many world leaders following the UN International Atomic Energy Agency report which provided the smoking gun: Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Inevitably President Ahmadinejad immediately rejected the report. The summary of his response is: defiance defiance defiance.

Immediately after the UN report was published there were calls for more sanctions against Iran. Ahmadinejad vowed that his country will not be deterred by sanctions. He is perhaps telling the truth on this matter for the first time.

It is unknown whether before rushing to reject the report, Ahmadinejad asked himself, “To defy or not to defy?”

Approximately five hundred years ago William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet; the question Prince of Denmark asks himself has become frighteningly relevant. Hamlet is tormented as to whether he should commit suicide and says,

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep,
No more;

On the 21st century real world stage, the players’ positions are clear. Iran says its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful civilian purposes. World leaders and now a UN agency as well, say that the Iranian program has military ends.

Iran is a country whose values are underpinned by fervent Shiite Islamic beliefs and the pursuit of honor and respect from others. Therefore, if anyone believes that Iran will yield to sanctions and discontinue its military nuclear plans, then he would be a likely buyer of the moon when offered at a bargain price, if shipping and handling are included.

A nuclear Iran is just another step in their national effort to “export the Islamic revolution” and crown themselves as the Muslim worlds’ leader. Conceding and acknowledging that it was overpowered by the West, would be a deadly blow to a regime that sanctifies honor and self-esteem. That will never happen. Iran like Iran, soon after hastily rejecting the report, said that they are now open to negotiations provided that the sanctions are lifted. With this, the Iranian adopted a new tone which the world has already heard ad nauseam, delay delay delay.

If Iran is unlikely to give up its nuclear plans, then why impose sanctions? Because there is no other way to express the world’s concern over the Iranians becoming a nuclear power. And to an even darker picture, it is clear that even with the strong rhetoric of the US, the UK, France, and Germany, any newly imposed sanctions will not include Iranian oil exports. Any curtailing of these exports through sanctions and definitely if oil installations are sabotaged or bombed, will send world’s oil prices to new heights. That will be a highly undesirable consequence for the US with its struggling economy, or for Europe with its own monetary problems.

Would these gloomy predictions regarding the inability of the sanctions, present and future, to stop Iranian nuclear plans, increase the likelihood of a military strike? The odds are against an attack. Bombing Iran would result in a regional war, seriously risking both US and European interests. Iranian subsidiary terror organizations such as the Islamic Jihad in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon would shell Israeli civilian cities indiscriminately with thousands of rockets which Israel could not effectively stop. Obviously, in an effort to stop the shelling, Israel could opt to send Gaza and Lebanon smoking back to the Stone Age, but that too will not happen. Israel has always aimed to spare uninvolved enemy civilians even when its enemies intentionally targeted Israeli civilians. Thousands of remaining US soldiers in Iraq would also become targets of the Iranian Kuds Forces which are already spread in Shiite populated Southern Iraq. Other US favored countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan would also become Iranian targets.

Even with the escalating war of words by the West on one hand, and the religious fervency and defiance of Iran’s leaders on the other hand, the chances it would turn into live fire are unknown. The Iranians probably hope that they will cause the world to grind its teeth, but not to attack. They are apparently right. The West would have to tacitly accept nuclear Iran, continue with clandestine operations within Iran, infect nuclear installations with immobilizing computer worms and help Iranian opposition cause a regime change. That could be the reason why most of the sanctions are carefully designed not to devastate the Iranian people.

Is the projection that there will be no military hostilities certain? Definitely not, and far from it. During the 1962 missile crisis in Cuba, the Soviet Union blinked realizing that mutual US-Soviet nuclear destruction was not worth deploying their missiles in Cuba. The US kept its part of the bargain and the fear of a nuclear threat was removed.

These realistic principles do not apply to present-day Iran. Their leaders do not fear a doomsday scenario. In fact, some of them are looking forward to it. The Iranian Constitution in Article 11 exhorts the government to achieve unity with other Islamic countries to establish an Islamic world order founded on “solidarity,” a buzz word for Iranian hegemony as the head of “the Islamic Ummah” — Nation of Islam, which according to Iran will include the worlds’ more than one billion Muslims. That explains why, Iranian scholars describe the current regime as taking the “ideological approach based on the governance of supreme jurisprudence — Velayat-e Faqih — in which all power is solely derived from God.

Thus, the importance of the material and temporal has been downplayed and Western norms and values which have been held as defining the international system, are challenged.” In plain language it means that Iranian official policy puts the word of God ahead of all other considerations, and who is better — according to Iran — to bring up the wish of God than its Shiite clergy, the Ayatollahs?

It was during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war that Ayatollah Khomeini, the forefather of the Iranian Islamic Revolution that said that it is better to die then to compromise with those challenging the Shiite interpretation of Islam, meaning the Sunni Iraqis. Little doubt that these words could be extended to apply to Christians, Jews and others.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s teaching are followed by Ayatollah Mazbah Yazdi, a spiritual advisor of Ahmadinejad who was publicly recruiting would be suicide bombers to enlist with the “Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison.” Yazdi and his student Ahmadinejad are preparing for the Islamic equivalent of Armageddon that would bring back the messianic Islamic Mahdi who is regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad. Mahdi is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, Shiites believe that the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace. Ahmadinejad seems to accept that belief. In his debut speech to the United Nations he said, “I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.”

Will the world be safe with messianic Ahmadinejad’s fingers on the nuclear trigger while his other hand controls the spigots of 30% of the world’s oil supply? Will reason direct his actions or will his messianic doomsday beliefs prevail?

At the end of the play, Hamlet does not commit suicide, but dies by the sword in a duel.

Therefore the question is where do the present-day similarities with Hamlet’s question and fate end?

To bomb or not to bomb? We shall soon find out.

Nasrallah warns of regional war if Iran, Syria attacked – Israel News, Ynetnews.

In first response to IAEA report on Iran nuclear program, Hezbollah chief says Tehran will ‘retaliate harshly’ to any strike’

Roee Nahmias

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Friday warned Israel and the US that a war against Iran and Syria would lead to an all-out regional conflict.

“They should understand that a war on Iran and Syria will not remain in Iran and Syrian territory, but it will engulf the whole region and there is no escaping this reality,” Nasrallah said during a televised speech honoring “Martyrs’ Day.”

In his first response to the growing calls for a military strike on Iran following the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report on the country’s nuclear program, the Hezbollah chief said the Islamic Republic would respond harshly to any strike in its territory. “Iran is strong, united and has a one-of-a-kind leader and it will retaliate harshly,” he said in his speech, which was delivered in Beirut’s southern neighborhood of Dahia.

The IAEA report said Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.

Iran and Syria have been supplying Hezbollah with military equipment – including thousands of rockets and other weapons – for years. Israel estimates that a strike on Iran would prompt an attack by Hezbollah from Lebanon, as well as an attack by Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip. Hamas is also backed by Iran.

“Over the past few days we have witnessed an escalation in threats, and suddenly there is talk that the Israeli enemy may attack the Iranian nuclear facilities…The Iranian leadership responded firmly and decisively,” Nasrallah added.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad (L) with Nasrallah (Archive photo: AFP) 

The Hezbollah leader said the recent warning by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to which any military action against Iran’s nuclear sites would be met with “iron fists,” best expressed “the reality, which is that Iran is strong and has an army, a nation and unity, and should not fear the fear campaign, the ships and the American armed forces who have already conquered the entire region around Iran.

“The US wants to defeat Iran and drag it to direct negotiations – which Iran rejects,” he said.

Nasrallah further warned of foreign military intervention in Syria, where President Bashar Assad continues to butcher his opposers. “The US is looking to subjugate Syria so that it will accept the conditions it has objected to in the past. Despite all the threats in the region…the state of the axis of resistance is better than ever,” Nasrallah said, adding “those who are gambling on the collapse of (Assad’s) regime (should) stop wasting their time.”

More than 3,500 people have been killed in Syria’s crackdown on protesters, the United Nations said this week, as the military pressed its campaign to put down resistance in the city of Homs against Assad’s rule.

“The brutal government crackdown on dissent in Syria has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,500 Syrians,” UN Human Rights Office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani told reporters in Geneva.

“Since Syria signed the peace plan sponsored by the League of Arab States last week, more than 60 people are reported to have been killed by military and security forces, including at least 19 on the Sunday that marked Eid al-Adha (the main Muslim feast).”

Syria agreed to the Arab League plan on November 2, pledging to pull its military from restive cities, set political prisoners free and start talks with the opposition, which wants to remove Assad and introduce more democratic freedoms.

Syrians have recently called for NATO’s intervention, but Assad has warned that any military intervention in his country’s affairs would cause an “earthquake” that would “burn the whole region”.

Reuters contributed to the report

‘30,000 suicide bombers to infiltrate Israel’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

(Despite how it sounds, I didn’t make this up. – JW)

Fars news agency reports thousands of men who trained for suicide missions will infiltrate Israel via Syria in wake of reports on Israeli strike

Dudi Cohen

In response to reports of a possible Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran is threatening to mount an attack on Israel via the Syrian border. Some 30,000 Syrian and Palestinian men have spent the past three months training to infiltrate Israel in order to carry out suicide missions, the Iranian Fars news agency reported Friday.

The agency, which is associated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that the men have sent a petition to the Syrian government expressing their willingness to help it through “any crisis” which may arise with Israel.

The Iranian news agency serves as the mouthpiece of the ayatollahs regime and has printed previous similar reports about the recruitment of thousands of potential suicide bombers who will fight against Israel.

“They have asked the Syrian government for authorization to infiltrate occupied Palestinian land and carry out suicide missions against Israeli soldiers,” the report stated.

Revolutionary Guard: Support from syria (Photo: Gettyimages) 

The article mentions the last ‘Nakba Day’ during which five Palestinians infiltrated Israel and were arrested by security forces.

“The petition said that those who signed it have passed military, combat and tactical trainings and are ready to tolerate the hardest conditions in Israel,” the report said.

“In case a crisis is caused by Israel, these men can give Netanyahu’s government serious problems.”

Hezbollah chief: Israeli-U.S. strike on Iran will lead to regional war – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Speaking in southern Beirut neighborhood, Hassan Nasrallah says Israel is wary of Hezbollah’s strength and will think twice before attacking Lebanon again.

By Jack Khoury

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned Friday that an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities will lead to a regional war.

“I’m not threatening, but anyone with sense can see that an Israeli-U.S. strike on Iran, or military involvement in Syria, will lead to a regional war,” Nasrallah said while speaking in Beirut’s southern neighborhood of Dahia.

	Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah speaks via a video link during a rally in Beirut on Feb. 16, 2011.
	Photo by: AP

“And I believe Khamenei when he says Iran can thwart any attack on its nuclear facilities,” he continued.

He also said that Israel is wary of Hezbollah’s strength and will think twice before attacking Lebanon.

Nasrallah said that the “suicide attacks initiated by members of the resistance are those which created the force of both the resistance and Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

“Israel will think twice before it attacks Lebanon since it knows well the kind of power the resistance and Hezbollah have in the country,” the Hezbollah leader added during his speech at an event commemorating members of the militant group.

Earlier this month, Nasrallah accused the United States of trying to exploit the Arab Spring revolts that took place in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

“The Americans want to polish their image in the Arab and Islamic worlds, which have voiced rejection of the criminal U.S. administration’s policies,” Nasrallah said in an interview with Al Manar television, which is run by the Lebanese Shiite movement.

He claimed the “West will try to stir sedition when it realizes that the upcoming regimes [in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya] will not be in its service,” and cautioned the leaders in those countries to “realize that the achievements of the revolution must be preserved.”

Referring to the ongoing violence in Syria and the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, Nasrallah, a main ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad, defended the regime.

“The Syrian regime is being attacked because it does not abide by the rules of the Americans,” he said.

Nasrallah said that although Assad has expressed a willingness to carry out reforms, “but what is wanted in Syria is not reforms, but to topple a regime who is against the U.S. administration.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 11, 2011, 2:11 PM (GMT+02:00)

Libyan mercenaries fire Grad multiple rocket in Gaza

Fifty Libyan Muslim Brotherhood mercenaries arrived in the Gaza Strip from Tripoli last month – in time to take part in the Jihad Islami’s last missile offensive against Israel starting Oct. 29, debkafile‘s military sources report. They arrived at the wheels of minivans on which were mounted the new Grad multiple rocket-launchers which Palestinian terrorists fired for the first time last month. These mobile rocket-launchers were last seen on the Libyan battlefield in use against Muammar Qaddafi’s army.

The 50 mercenaries did not bother to paint over the Libyan national colors or replace the trucks’ Libyan license plates. Jihad Islami fighters kept them sequestered away from awkward questions about who sent them.

Gazan sources report the Libyan mercenaries left Tripoli on October 10 aboard two buses which drove them via Benghazi to Tobruk. They then entered Egypt as tourists.
On Oct. 21, the day Muammar Qaddafi was killed, they crossed the Suez Canal into the Sinai Peninsula.
The minivans mounted with the Grad multiple rocket launchers had been moved out of Libya by a separate route and were waiting in the care of Bedouin smugglers beside a Sinai wadi near the old copper mines of Ras Sudar.
They looked quite new with no sign of having been in combat.

Our military sources report that, Qatar and the United Arab Republic had supplied these advanced rocket-launchers to assorted Libyan National Transitional Council militias, their accurate fire against designated targets intended to counter the precision of the Libyan army’s artillery.But their effectiveness was demonstrated most strikingly after Qaddafi’s fall in the Gaza Strip, where they instantly improved the Palestinian extremists’ aim against Israeli locations. Most of these rapid-firing missiles were also able to evade Israel’s Iron Dome missile interceptors. When the Palestinians reverted to their old weapons, they continued to miss their aim.

The Libyan convoy had to travel some 2,000 kilometers through Egypt to reach the Gaza Strip, raising questions about how it had failed to arouse the notice of local security units. Western sources discovered that the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood had made all the necessary arrangements for the Libyan Brotherhood mercenaries’ long trek to Gaza under its protection, and more are on the way.

Furthermore, large sums of money would have been available to smooth their passage and that of the new Grads. Our intelligence sources report that Hamas and Hizballah arms purchasing missions worked out of Benghazi and Tripoli for seven months, buying hardware from rebel militias for hard cash. After Tripoli fell in late August, they split up between the two cities and are still snapping up black market arms sold by NTC militias.

U.N. nuclear report puts Iran mystery man in spotlight | Reuters.

VIENNA (Reuters) – The shadowy military man believed to be at the heart of Iran’s disputed nuclear activities likely lives under tight security and in secrecy to shield him against any assassins and keep him beyond the reach of U.N. sleuths, nuclear experts say.

A U.N. nuclear watchdog report this week identified Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as a key figure in suspected Iranian activities to develop the technology and skills needed for nuclear weapons and suggested he may still play a role in such efforts.

Fakhrizadeh, reportedly a senior officer in the Islamic state’s elite Revolutionary Guards, was the only Iranian official named in a detailed annex of the report, which said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear weapon.

“He is viewed as extremely important,” said U.S.-based proliferation expert David Albright, referring to assessments of Western intelligence officials.

Fakhrizadeh was named in a 2007 U.N. resolution on Iran as a person involved in nuclear or ballistic activities. An IAEA report the following year also referred to him briefly.

But analysts acknowledged that very little is publicly known about Fakhrizadeh, described by Albright’s think tank as a nuclear engineer who has overseen a number of projects related to weaponisation research and development.

“He is a mystery man,” said one official from a country which accuses Tehran of seeking to develop atomic bombs.

Greg Thielmann, of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said he had never seen a photograph of Fakhrizadeh but that he may still be prominent in Iran’s activities.

“He was certainly central to the nuclear weapons program halted in 2003 and I assume he continued to be important in sustaining and perhaps coordinating ongoing work related to future weaponisation,” Thielmann said.

That the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has “long been seeking to interview him, and the Iranians have been refusing, is telling,” he said.

A European-based proliferation analyst said he came up with a “big nothing” when he tried to write a paper on Fakhrizadeh.

“He is the one sort of constant that keeps coming up but I must confess I really don’t know much about him.”

Albright said he believed Fakhrizadeh’s security was stepped up after the killings of nuclear scientists in attacks Iran blames on Israel and other foes.

In July, gunmen shot dead university lecturer Darioush Rezaie in eastern Tehran, the third murder of a scientist since 2009. One was killed in a car bomb, the second by a device detonated remotely.

“I would imagine he is in hiding. He’s definitely a target,” Albright said. “But they have to worry because Tehran is not that closed. It is not like Moscow in the Cold War.”

“EXTREMELY UPSET”

Iran denies Western accusations it is trying to acquire the capabilities to build atom bombs, saying such weapons of mass destruction are against Islam and its nuclear work aims at the peaceful generation of electric power.

But the IAEA report, released last Tuesday amid media speculation of Israeli strikes against Iran, lent independent weight to suspicions in the West that Iran’s nuclear program ultimately has military goals.

“The report can rationally be explained only if a purpose of these Iranian activities was to develop a nuclear warhead to be delivered by a ballistic missile,” a senior Western official said, adding it contained “hard evidence.”

Iran has dismissed the report as “politically motivated” and its findings as based on forged evidence.

The IAEA document painted a picture of a concerted weapons program that was halted in 2003 — when Iran came under increased Western pressure — but some activities later resumed.

The report does not assert that Iran has resumed a full-scale nuclear program, the Western official said.

But, he added, “since halting its comprehensive and relatively open program in 2003, Iran has continued to engage in activities that have relevance to the development of a nuclear weapon.”

“PERVASIVE THREAD”

The IAEA report said Fakhrizadeh was executive officer of the so-called AMAD Plan, which according to its information carried out studies related to uranium, high explosives and the revamping of a missile cone to accommodate a warhead.

The work stopped “rather abruptly” in late 2003, the agency said, citing information it had received from member states.

But the data also indicated that some of the activities later re-started and Fakhrizadeh “retained the principal organizational role.” One country had told the IAEA he now heads the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research.

“The Agency is concerned because some of the activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapon program,” the IAEA document said.

One Western diplomat said Fakhrizadeh was the “pervasive thread” in the U.N. agency’s report.

Citing intelligence sources, Albright said Fakhrizadeh had been “extremely upset” about the 2003 order to halt the work. But he said Fakhrizadeh had continued to receive money and run institutes, also suggesting some activities did not stop.

Report: Israel to equip airliners with anti-missile system as Libyan arms reach Gaza – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(This is madness.  Somehow this has to stop. – JW)

Comment by unnamed official comes after Haaretz reported that Israeli officials were concerned that Hamas had been able to smuggle Libya-made anti-aircraft missiles into Gaza.

By Reuters

Israel has accelerated the installation of anti-missile defenses on its airliners, a security official told Reuters on Friday, seeing an enhanced risk of attack by militants using looted Libyan arms.

The security official’s comment came after Haaretz reported last month that improved quality of anti-aircraft missiles held by Hamas in Gaza is increasingly worrying the Israeli defense establishment.

	Flight 027 making an emergency landing at Ben-Gurion Airport early May 23, 2011.
	Photo by: Ofer Vaknin

Hamas, the report indicated, recently managed to smuggle relatively advanced Russian missiles, which were looted from Libyan military warehouses, into the Gaza Strip.

On Friday, officials said Jets flown by El Al and two other Israeli carriers are being equipped with a locally made system known as C-Music that uses a laser to “blind” heat-seeking missiles, the official said, giving a 2013 target for fitting most of the fleet.

As a stop-gap, Israel is adapting air force counter-measures for use aboard civilian planes, said the official, who declined to elaborate on the technologies involved, or to be identified.

“We have long been aware of the threat and were ahead of the rest of the world in preparing for it. Libya has meant government orders to step things up even further,” the official said, citing intelligence assessments that chaos during the North African nation’s uprising against Muammar Gaddafi allowed trafficking of Libyan shoulder-fired missiles to Palestinians and al Qaeda-linked groups in the Egyptian Sinai.

Israel began deploying another system, “Flight Guard”, on El Al after al Qaeda tried to shoot down a planeload of Israeli tourists in Kenya in 2002. Flight Guard’s use of diversionary flares set off safety concerns abroad and the Israelis turned to C-Music, manufactured by Elbit Systems Ltd.

According to the Israeli official, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is covering the $1 million to $1.5 million that it costs to fit C-Music to each plane.

The bathtub-sized pods, built into the planes’ bodies, increase drag in flight, meaning “a few million [dollars] a year” in extra fuel expenses, the official said, adding that this, too, would be borne by the government.

Israel’s main international gateway, Ben-Gurion Airport, is 10 km from the occupied West Bank where, along with the Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip, Palestinians want a state.

The Israeli official said he had no information indicating the presence of anti-aircraft missiles in the West Bank — unlike in Gaza, which has seen an influx of smuggled weaponry from Egypt since Israel withdrew settlers and soldiers in 2005.

The official said Netanyahu had, in closed-door discussions, described C-Music as a way to help reassure the Israeli public about security should the government one day return occupied land to the Palestinians under a peace agreement.

Asked for confirmation, Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, quoted him as saying that “in any possible peace deal there have to be effective security arrangements that can deal with a range of security threats, including shoulder-fired missiles”.

Israel also wants to protect traffic to its small airport in the Red Sea resort of Eilat, which abuts Jordan and Egypt, where Islamist militants have operated in the past. Armed infiltrators killed eight Israelis on the Egyptian border on Aug. 18.

Iran’s nuclear boomerang – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Nuclear bomb would fully isolate Tehran, prompt masses to bring down regime

Guy Bechor

The media and public storm in Israel in the wake of the report on Iran’s nuclear program, and the concern in Israel over an Iranian nuclear bomb, is exaggerated. Those who should be bothered by the latest developments are members of Iran’s Khomeinist regime; the nuclear program is turning into a curse for it. Should the bomb come to life, it shall prompt the regime’s demise.

Indeed, the international community is slow in imposing tough sanctions on Tehran, because many engage in surreptitious and even open trade ties with it – for example, Germany and France, which are Israel’s allies. However, one cannot say that nothing is happening.

Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed a bill that sets a series of sanctions on foreign firms that provide Iran with fuel or other refined oil products. Such companies and individuals would no longer be allowed to enter the US, do business there, work with its banks and so on. Similar sanctions shall be imposed on those who help Iran develop its own oil refining capabilities.

The bill also asserts that President Obama must clarify within 30 days of the law going into effect whether Tehran’s central bank supports the acquisition of nuclear arms, Iran’s missile program, the procurement of advanced weapons or terror. If the answer to any one of these questions is positive, the US shall boycott any foreign bank that engages in significant transactions with Iran’s central bank.

Nice holiday present

Moreover, American representatives and diplomats shall be banned from meeting with Iranian reps, in order to prevent direct negotiations with the regime, and the US Administration shall no longer provide spare parts for civilian aircraft in Iran. Congress is also granting Obama the power to boost the economic and political assistance to Iran’s opposition.

This bipartisan bill is supposed to be passed in Congress and Senate by Christmas. It would make a “nice holiday present” for Ahmadinejad, said Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is leading the initiative with her Democratic colleague Howard Berman.

Israel and its allies must make sure that France and Germany join similar legislation, thereby fully isolating the Iranian regime. Russia and China will object, but most of Iran’s trade is undertaken with the European Union. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s report offers great help in this diplomatic battle to economically suffocate Iran.

Ethnic troubles

Iran’s rulers are aware of the frightening decline in their global status. They see Gaddafi, the tyrant who was killed, and the regime of their ally, Assad, slowly marching towards its demise, and they understand.

And let’s assume Iran acquires a nuclear bomb – at that very moment, the world shall be truly closing in on it, because up to this point Tehran still claims that it seeks nuclear energy for “peaceful” purposes. Then, the millions of Iranians who wish to rid themselves of the ayatollah regime shall rise up. We already saw them in the forged presidential elections of 2009, and they have not disappeared. And how would a nuclear bomb help then? Will the regime drop it on Tehran to kill the rebels?

As it is, Iran is growing weaker on the ethnic front. The Kurds are killing the Revolutionary Guards and are increasingly joining forces with the Kurds of Iraq, Syria and Turkey; Iran’s Sunni Arabs (about one-third of the population) are dreaming about an independent Sunni state, and the Azeri people are dreaming of joining Azerbaijan. A dying economy in Iran would completely undermine the national stripes left in the country, as was the case in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

This is the curse imposed on the Tehran regime: The more it advances with its nuclear program, the more isolated Iran shall become, with the regime facing a deeper domestic threat. In this respect we must admit that Ahmadinejad is doing quite a good job.

Iran sees nuclear program as last line of defense against West, expert says – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

In interview with Haaretz, Mehdi Khalaji, senior Iranian scholar and son of Shi’ite Ayatollah, says sanctions, dialogue will not thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

There isn’t any real chance of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program through escalated sanctions or negotiated compromise, an Iranian expert told Haaretz, days after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report indicating that Tehran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Iranian regime considered its nuclear program as the utmost tool to preserve its survival, meaning that pressure by the West could not sway Tehran away from further advances.

	An Iranian technician inside a uranium conversion facility near the city of Isfahan, in 2007. What’s holding Iran back is uranium enrichment, says nuclear expert Dr. Olli Heinonen.
	Photo by: AP

Khalaji is considered one of Iran’s premier scholars, also because of his own personal background. He was born and raised in the city of Qom, Iran’s largest center for Shi’ite Muslim scholarship.

He studied theology and Shi’ite legislation for 14 years in one of the largest religious seminaries in Qom, a city which still serves as the home for Khalaji’s father, a chief Shi’ite clergyman, or Ayatollah.

In 2000, Khalaji left Iran for France, later moving to the United States.

Speaking with Haaretz, the chief researcher said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei believes that the West is trying to depose Tehran’s Islamic regime, going as far as considering U.S. President Barack Obama’s offer for compromise to be a scam.

However, he added, Iran’s leadership was equally distrustful of other nations for working to undermine their regime, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and even China and Russia.

He said Iran was very isolated, leading its rulers to believe that a nuclear program was the only way to forestall a future attack. That mistrust, Khalaji said, is not due to go away any time soon, which spells doom to any attempt for compromise.

When asked if Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it develops one, Khalaji said he didn’t feel anyone in Iran is thinking of using a nuclear bomb, and that the regime’s only goal was to achieve regional supremacy.

Moreover, the Iranian researcher said that the use of nuclear weapons would be a suicidal move by the Islamic Republic.

Referring to a possible Israeli strike, Khalaji said the Iranian regime did not consider that to be a viable option, adding that Tehran knows that the potential price of such a move deters anyone who would be involved from undertaking it.

He added that the fact that the subject was so extensively discussed in the media indicated that neither Israel nor any one of its potential partners were actually considering such a move.

When asked of Iran’s reaction to a possible strike, Khalaji estimated that a strike would unite Iran’s citizens around the regime, but adding that the direct consequences of a military strike were hard to predict.

The Iranian researcher also discounted the notion that Iran would initiate a preemptive strike, saying that the country’s military doctrine stipulated that Tehran would try to avoid armed conflict on Iranian soil, choosing to wage its wars against the West elsewhere: Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

Iran’s regime is threatened by both war and peace, Khalaji said, saying that was the reason Khamenei sought to preserve a tension that was neither peace nor war.

Khalaji also said he felt recent tensions between Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have no effect on Iran’s nuclear path, since Khamenei had complete control over the country’s nuclear program.

However, he added, there were those in Iran’s political elite who felt the country did not need to develop nuclear weapons.

When asked who he thought would inherit Khamenei as Supreme Leader, Khalaji said that while Khamenei ruled Iran using the country’s Revolutionary Guard, he thought that situation would reverse after his reign, believing that Revolutionary Guard officials would choose a weak spiritual leaders while they effectively run the country.

Khalaji also referred to the disappearance of Iran’s political opposition, since the great rallies of 2009, saying that anti-government sentiment was in fact on the rise.

However, he added, dissenters had no real structure or framework, saying that it would take a while before a real opposition comes into being.

The Iranian scholar said, however, that Khamenei had turned Iran into a “classic dictatorship,” a regime that the Iranian people have already shown to be able to depose.

Review & Outlook: If Iran Gets the Bomb – WSJ.com.

The world immediately becomes a far more dangerous place.

The International Atomic Energy Agency this week released its most detailed assessment to date about Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, and if “Paranormal Activity 3” wasn’t enough to keep you awake at night, the report’s 14-page annex detailing the state of Iran’s weapons work should do the trick. It lays to rest the fantasies that an Iranian bomb is many years off, or that the intelligence is riddled with holes and doubts, or that the regime’s intentions can’t be guessed by their activities.

So much, then, for the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which asserted “with high confidence” that Iran had abandoned its nuclear-weapons work in 2003 and ended any chance that the Bush Administration would take action against Iran. So much, too, for the Obama Administration’s attempts to move Iran away from its nuclear course, first with diplomatic offers and then with sanctions and covert operations.

The serious choice now before the Administration is between military strikes and more of the same. As the IAEA report makes painfully clear, more of the same means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.

***

It’s time, then, to consider carefully what that choice means for the United States. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, we wrote that “the law of unintended consequences hasn’t been repealed,” and that “no war ever goes precisely as planned.” That was obviously true of a boots-on-the-ground invasion, but it would also be true of an aerial campaign to demolish or substantially degrade Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Planes could be shot down and airmen taken prisoner. Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz, sending energy prices upward. It could conduct a campaign of terror throughout the world, or attack shipping in the Persian Gulf, or fire missiles against U.S. military installations in the region, or spark a war with Israel or another insurgency in Iraq. These are among the contingencies that military planners would have to anticipate, though Iranian leaders would also have to think twice before responding to a strike with attacks that could mean further escalation.

AFP/Getty Images

Yet these risks need to be weighed against the consequences of a nuclear Iran. This is a regime that took 52 American diplomats hostage and dared the Carter Administration to do something about it. It used its surrogates in Beirut to kill 258 American diplomats and Marines in 1983. The FBI believes it was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. airmen. It supplied IEDs to anti-American militias in Iraq, killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers. And only last month, the Obama Administration accused Iran of seeking to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

These acts were perpetrated by Tehran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran’s behavior look like if it had one?

Advocates of a “containment” strategy toward a nuclear Iran argue that its behavior would differ little from what it is today. By this logic, the U.S. and its allies would warn Iran that it would face nuclear annihilation if it crossed certain red lines, such as passing a bomb to terrorists, and Iran wouldn’t dare breach them.

But those red lines would be hard to credit once the U.S. squandered its credibility by allowing Iran to go nuclear after spending a decade warning that such an outcome was “unacceptable.” Would the U.S. really risk nuclear war with a fanatical regime for the sake of, say, Bahrain, or even Israel? We doubt it, and so would every power in the region.

One certain result would thus be a nuclear proliferation spiral in the Middle East, in which Saudi Arabia, Turkey and probably Egypt would acquire nuclear arsenals of their own. That would be an odd outcome for an Administration that has made nuclear arms control a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

Then again, not every country in the region would have the will or wherewithal to stand up to Iran. Some could no doubt be bullied or induced to cooperate with it, especially as the U.S. presence in the region diminishes after withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those Iranian neighbors could fall into its orbit, thereby extending Tehran’s strategic reach from Kabul to Beirut.

Containment advocates also assert that Iran would never use its nuclear weapons, since it would invite devastating reprisals. But the power of nuclear weapons lies in the fact of their possession even if they are never used. Iran could use ambiguous threats or work through proxies to both provoke and deter its adversaries in the region, including the U.S. Iran’s prestige would also be immensely bolstered, both at home and abroad, by developing nuclear weapons in the teeth of international opposition.

It is perilous, in any case, to assume that Iran is a “normal” regime that wouldn’t dare use nuclear weapons. Iran’s regime was born in revolutionary religious fervor and routinely vows to annihilate Israel and its “Great Satan” protector, the U.S. Iran is also a regime shaped by a messianic cult of martyrdom, one that sent thousands of children to clear mine fields during the Iran-Iraq war. Sometimes such governments mean what they say even if the rest of the world won’t believe it. The Nazis did.

In the case of the assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador, one plausible explanation is that the strike was ordered by a faction within the regime trying to undermine its internal rivals. What does that say about the unity of command needed to secure a nuclear arsenal?

Another argument for containment is that the Iranian regime is destined to collapse and so we can afford to wait it out. But tyrannical regimes with a fanatical will to power have a way of holding on against the odds: Look at the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Nuclear weapons would not save the mullahs from an internal uprising in the Libyan mold, though it’s worth noting that Gadhafi would still be in power had he not abandoned his nuclear programs. It’s also worth wondering what a regime faced with such an uprising would do with its nuclear weapons if it believed it was on the verge of collapse.

All of this adds up to far more dangerous world—in which Iran becomes a regional hegemon, Israel faces a threat to its very existence, the Middle East embarks on a nuclear arms race, America’s freedom of action is curtailed, and the dangers of a nuclear exchange rise to levels above what they were even during the early Cold War.

***

The question for the world, and especially for the Obama Administration, is whether those dire consequences are worse than the risks of a pre-emptive strike. We think we know what the Israelis will decide, especially if they conclude that President Obama stays on his current course.

Opponents of a pre-emptive strike say it would do no more than delay Iran’s programs by a few years. But something similar was said after Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. In life as in politics, nothing is forever. But a strike that sets Iran’s nuclear programs back by several years at least offers the opportunity for Iran’s democratic forces to topple the regime without risking a wider conflagration.

No U.S. President could undertake a strike on Iran except as a last resort, and Mr. Obama can fairly say that he has given every resort short of war an honest try. At the same time, no U.S. President should leave his successor with the catastrophe that would be a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama’s watch would be fatal to more than his legacy.