WarSclerotic

Iran says it has neutralized Stuxnet-like Du… JPost – Headlines.

  Iran on Sunday claimed that it had found a way to successfully neutralize Duqu computer malware, which is similar to the Stuxnet virus, AFP reported on Sunday.

Stuxnet is believed to have crippled centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium for what the United States and some European nations have charged is a covert nuclear weapons program. The New York Times reported in January that the US and Israel created Stuxnet in order to hinder Iran’s nuclear program.

“The elimination [of Duqu] was carried out and the organizations penetrated by the virus are under control,” Iran’s head of civil defense, Brig.-Gen. Gholamreza Jalali told the official IRNA news agency, according to AFP.

Security software firm Symantec said in a report last month that it was alerted by a research lab with international connections to a malicious code that “appeared to be very similar to Stuxnet.” It was named Duqu because it creates files with “DQ” in the prefix. Security firms including Dell Inc’s SecureWorks, Intel Corp’s McAfee, Kaspersky Lab and Symantec say they found Duqu victims in Europe, Iran, Sudan and the United States.

Iran: No purpose in making conce… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi seemingly rejected the possibility of a diplomatic solution to ease tensions over the country’s controversial nuclear program on Sunday, accusing the West of using the nuclear issue as “a pretext” to weaken Iran.

“I think there is no purpose in making additional concessions,” Salehi said in an interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel.

Salehi rejected the report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency last week, which said that evidence suggests Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon. The Iranian foreign minister accused the UN nuclear watchdog, and its head Yukiya Amano, of giving up “objectivity,” and bowing to pressure from “certain countries.”

“We will call him and the atomic energy authority to account for these conclusions,” he told Der Spiegel.

On Friday, the UN nuclear watchdog showed letters and satellite images as part of evidence pointing to military dimensions to Iran’s atomic activities, diplomats said, but Tehran’s envoy dismissed it as “lousy” intelligence work.

Herman Nackaerts, head of nuclear inspections worldwide at the IAEA, made an hour-long technical presentation of the agency’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program at a closed-door meeting for member states.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, said there were no nuclear-related activities at Parchin.

“There is no proof that Iranian activities are towards military purposes,” he told reporters after the briefing.

“We do have conventional activities (at Parchin) and this has nothing to do with nuclear.”

Saying the report had damaged the UN agency’s credibility, Soltanieh added in English: “This kind of lousy job of intelligence created problems for all member states.”

Will Israel Attack Iran? – International Analyst Network.

13 Nov 2011

The last couple weeks have seen a great deal of speculation about Israel preparing for an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.  This sort of speculation occurs regularly, but what makes this round of chatter different from previous ones is the involvement of European governments, especially Italy and the United Kingdom. Within the past few days, Israel’s Debka file, suggested that Germany has now sent an Air Force contingent to Sardinia in preparation for the strike.  Moreover, the rumors began surfacing shortly before the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report confirming that Iran’s nuclear program is designed to produce weapons and not just “peaceful nuclear power,” which it consistently claims to be its only goal.  This, too, is a change.  Previously, especially under Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA was very timid about angering the Iranian mullahs and tended to champion their disingenuous denials.  But its changed position has removed the major public justification for inaction, even though few people with any understanding of the process accepted the mullahs’ cynical denials anyway.  Simply this will make that ruse more difficult to maintain.  How serious might things be?  Even China is now asking Tehran to lay its nuclear ambitious aside.

My own Israeli sources have explained why the Europeans might have shifted their public stance and why that is important.  According to at least three individuals, who have spoken to me on a guaranty of anonymity, experts there consider Iran’s nuclear program more of a threat to Europe than to Israel.  Over the last several years, Israel has continued to upgrade its missile shield, especially against the sort of weapons that Iran might use to carry a nuclear payload (this as opposed to the less sophisticated rockets from Gaza that have made headlines again).  These sources tell me that the shield is perhaps 90 percent or more effective and that the Jewish State has a pretty good chance of intercepting most or all of what Iran could try to deliver.  Moreover, they say, the best Iran could come up with in the near future is a dirty or low yield bomb; probably uranium-based from its Natanz facility.  (A uranium-based device would be far less potent that a plutonium-based bomb.)  None of my Israeli sources dismiss the threat.  Even if one Iranian low-yield bomb made it to, say, the center of Tel Aviv, the loss of life would be horrific (perhaps 100,000 fatalities); and they note that protecting the Israeli people is their most important and morally mandated job.  The device would cause mass casualties, likely shut down if not take out nearby Ben Gurion airport, and cause other national disruptions; but it would not be an existential knock-out to Israel.  Israel’s massive and justified response on Iran would, however, be an existential blow to the Islamic Republic.  And the Iranians know it.

While Israel has been strengthening its missile defenses, the Europeans, under Barack Obama’s direction and it own unilateral actions, have been dismantling or just not building theirs.  Several European capitals are within range of the new Iranian missiles, and the Iranians have good reason to believe that Europe would not launch the same sort of devastating counter attack (1) for fear of domestic unrest by their Muslim populations; and (2) because they would be easily constrained if any Iranian attack were attributed to “rogue” generals or “radical terrorists.”  Geography also makes Europe a more likely target.  Given Israel’s missile defense system, the Iranians would have to throw everything they have at the Jewish State, and the slightest miscalculation easily could drop a payload on Jerusalem and al Aqsa Mosque or the Palestinian Authority’s capital of Ramallah.

The European involvement in high level meetings (London) and training exercises (over Sardinia) could indicate that they finally realize what the Israelis have long known; and that their willingness to sacrifice Israel is is no different than their hopes of placating Hitler and Stalin by giving them the Czechs.  It is also possible that the activity is meant to send a message to Iran—and to those countries that heretofore have been willing to allow the Iranians nuclear weapons capability via de facto inaction:  that real and serious consequences will come sooner rather than later.  Whether the military preparations are real or hard-nosed diplomacy, the United States should be the key player in this drama because of its military capability, traditional defense of freedom, decades-long tolerance of Iranian attacks on its people and interests, and its international leadership role.  Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

While there have been rumors of US involvement from sources as diverse as Iran, the Israeli right (Debkafile) and the European left (Britain’s Guardian); the recent exchange between Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy might indicate otherwise.  Obama’s own history of inaction during Iran’s “Green Revolution,” and the fact that he has yet to declare his policy of “engagement” on Iran a failure also suggests otherwise.  One senior US military leader, in fact, told CNN that the administration is not even confident anymore that the Israelis would give the US advance notice of an attack on Iran.  Given the Obama administration’s continued talk of diplomacy and sanctions and its general hostility toward Israel, can we blame them?  Thus, in what could be the most important military action of the decade, the Obama administration is at best—at best—‘leading from behind’ and at worst acting as an obstacle to action, still counseling negotiation and sanctions.  At the end of the day, however Obama might be forced to place the US in the same sort of support role it took in Libya— or risk alienating the Jewish and pro-Israel vote in an election year by abandoning Israel in its time of need.

Sarkozy to Visit Bibi – AWKWARD.

Written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu for Arutz Sheva

Sunday, 13 November 2011 04:44

French President Nicolas Sarkozy plans to visit Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he called a liar off-mike, to clear up a “misunderstanding” while media remains mum on its original cover-up of his remarks. Sarkozy spoke with President Barack Obama 10 days ago in a private room after a press conference with reporters, some of whom were wearing their headphones while the microphone still was open as the two leaders spoke in what was a private conversation. Sarkozy told Obama that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a ”liar,” to which Obama responded, “You may have to deal with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.” Ironically, Sarkozy told the World Jewish Congress last week that Israel has failed to win over the media. However, mainstream newspapers’ built-in bias against Israel was revealed by its attempt to hide Obama and Sarkozy’s comments from the public. Six journalists, including those from Reuters and the Associated Press, followed an unwritten French policy and agreed not to publish the comments, which Sarkozy and Obama made without knowing they were being overheard. However, the gravity of their undiplomatic remarks was news by any definition. What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?” wrote Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review. If Israel has had a hard time winning over the anti-Israel media, Obama may even have a harder time trying to convince liberal Jewish voters he really has Israel’s interests at heart. “This recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters,” wrote Roger Aronoff, editor of Accuracy in Media.

PM: Int’l community must stop Ira… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the “international community must stop Iran’s race for nuclear weapons” as its success may put the whole world at risk.

Speaking at a cabinet briefing on the UN watchdog’s report detailing Iran’s efforts at atomic weapons development, the prime minister said that “Every responsible government in the world must draw the obvious conclusions from IAEA report.”

Netanyahu called the document “comprehensive,” explaining that it had confirmed  claims made by many countries, including Israel, that the Islamic Republic is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

On Friday, the UN watchdog released letters and satellite images as part of evidence pointing to military dimensions to Iran’s atomic activities, diplomats said, but Tehran’s envoy dismissed it as “lousy” intelligence work.

Herman Nackaerts, head of nuclear inspections worldwide at the International Atomic Energy Agency, made an hour-long technical presentation of the IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program at a closed-door meeting for member states.

The hotly anticipated document, released last Tuesday, said Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and that secret research may continue. It was the most detailed IAEA report to date on the issue.

Sarkozy tries to appease Netanyahu – Israel News, Ynetnews.

After being caught calling Netanyahu a ‘liar’ French president sends particularly friendly letter to Israeli PM offering close cooperation on issue of Iran sanctions

Itamar Eichner

Days after being caught calling Benjamin Netanyahu a “liar” in a private conversation with US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is now trying to minimize the damage.

Sarkozy sent a personal letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend addressing the IAEA’s report on Iran’s nuclear program, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

The letter contains particularly harsh statements against Iran and is signed with the words “with friendship” in the French president’s own hand-writing. The gesture is quite uncommon within diplomatic correspondence.

The letter was relayed to Netanyahu by French Ambassador to Israel Christophe Bigot.

Obama and Sarkozy at the G-20 (Photo: MCT)

 France has been trying to find a way to pacify Netanyahu since reports quoted Sarkozy as telling Obama “I cannot stand him. He is a liar” during the G-20 summit last week.

On Wednesday, the White House said that working relations between Obama and Netanyahu were very good and that the president talks to Israel’s prime minister more than any other leader.

This paved the way for a French apology. In his letter to Netanyahu, Sarkozy fiercely slammed Tehran, accusing it of spreading “propaganda lies” and promised that Paris will lead unprecedented sanctions against Iran at this week’s IAEA Board of Governors meeting.

He offered Netanyahu a close cooperation on the issue of sanctions, signaling France will accept Israel’s demands on toughening sanctions.

Israel is pressuring for an embargo on Iran’s central bank and a full weapons embargo. Western nations have reservations regarding an oil embargo fearing a dramatic spike in oil rates.

Ambassador Bigot said this weekend that “Israel has many friends who share the same concerns.”

Meanwhile, French newspaper Le Figaro reported Saturday that Sarkozy’s former envoy to the Middle East Valérie Hoffenberg asked the president to clarify the “misunderstandings” during a special visit to Israel, which may take place in January. She noted that Sarkozy has “accepted the idea,” however the Élysée Palace has yet to confirm the report.

Obama seeks support from China, Russia

Searching for help, President Barack Obama lobbied the skeptical leaders of Russia and China for support in keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed menace to the world, hoping to yield a “common response” to a crisis that is testing international unity.

With Medvedev on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit here, Obama said the two “reaffirmed our intention to work to shape a common response” on Iran.

Shortly after, Obama joined Hu, in a run of back-to-back diplomacy with the heads of two allies that hold complicated and at times divisive relations with the United States. Obama said that he and the Chinese leader want to ensure that Iran abides by “international rules and norms.”

White House aides insisted later that Russia and China remain unified with the United States and other allies in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and that Obama, Hu and Medvedev had agreed to work on the next steps.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the new allegations about Iran’s programs demand an international response, and “I think the Russians and the Chinese understand that. We’re going to be working with them to formulate that response.”

Mossad-MEK May Have Bombed Iranian Missile Base, 40 Dead and Wounded « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place.

Blast at IRG

The face of the Israeli terror machine may have reared its ugly head again in the world. This time it may have produced yet another massive act of sabotage (Hebrew original) at an IRG missile base west of Teheran. During transfer of explosives at the Modarres (other sources say the base is called Sajad) garrison, which houses Shihab 3 (Israel Defense says the site is also responsible for development of the new Shihab 4) and Zelzal surface-to-surface missiles, an explosion ripped apart the base and killed anywhere from 14 to 40 soldiers depending on the source (UPDATE: the official number released by the IRG now is 17), and wounded an equal number, some severely.  Among the dead were a high level IRG officer, Major General Hassan Tehrani Moqaddam (more background here), the director of the IRGC Jihad Self-Sufficiency Organization, which directed base operations. The blast was felt as far away as Teheran, 25 miles distant. Those who experienced the explosion said it felt like an earthquake. Some say there were two explosions.

Ynet raises the possibility that it was a deliberate act of sabotage on not just a missile base, but an intelligence facility. Teheran Bureau says the IRG is telling the Iranian media that the incident was not an act of terror, but purely an industrial accident.  An Iranian who worked at the base for several months and was interviewed by Iranian media discounted the likelihood of an act of sabotage since security at the base was extremely strict.

However, an Israeli source with extensive senior political and military experience provides an exclusive report that it was the work of the Mossad in collaboration with the MEK.  Israeli media is humming with similar reports and Channel 10′s intelligence correspondent went so far as to say, a bit coyly perhaps:

If it was the work of western intelligence it was a high successful and impressive achievement.

It is widely known within intelligence circles that the Israelis use the MEK for varied acts of espionage and terror ranging from fraudulent Iranian memos alleging work on nuclear trigger devices to assassinations of nuclear scientists and bombings of sensitive military installations. A similar act of sabotage happened a little more than a year ago at another IRG missile base which killed nearly 20.  In the murky world of Israel-Iran relations, where it’s often hard to tell the difference between information, misinformation and disinformation, either explanation may be true. But my source has never been wrong so far in the reports he’s offered.

It is, of course, ironic that the same MEK is paying key political players in U.S. life hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on behalf of removing it from the Treasury Department terror list. I suppose when a terror group is harming your enemy then it’s no longer a terror group, eh? Certainly if there was another power than the Mossad willing to pay more for them to attack Israel and the U.S., guess who they’d be wreaking havoc on?

To give you an idea of the level of brainwashing Israelis undergo thanks to willing collusion between military correspondents and the intelligence services, this is how the Hebrew Ynet report describes the MEK and its collusion with Mossad and others:

Though the reliability of this report can’t be substantiated, it should be remembered that the Iranian opposition [by this they mean MEK and not the Green movement] fulfills an important role in revealing secret Iranian installations and serves as a pipeline for publication of secret intelligence. There is an assumption that western intelligence services pass on to them intelligence in order to “launder” it and expose it to the world.

An unsuspecting Israeli would find nothing in this passage unduly alarming. But those analysts who’ve followed the various shenanigans and frauds perpetrated by Mossad and MEK in the past understand the truth that is concealed here: that the information fed to MEK is fraudulent. But by laundering and having an ostensibly Iranian group release it, it has more credibility among the world press.

The irony of such acts of terror committed by the Mossad is that they supposedly relieve pressure to attack Iran head on with a military strike to knock out its nuclear targets.

On a related subject, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (Turner Overdrive), attempting to outdo her rivals in fawning obeisance to Israeli interests, claimed that with Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions:

The table is being set for worldwide nuclear war against Israel.

Frankly, I don’t know who’s worse, the mystic, megalomaniacs in Tel Aviv plotting a military strike against Teheran or their enablers within the far-right confines of the Republican Party.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 13, 2011, 8:42 AM (GMT+02:00)

Base explosion near Tehran

The potential for a regional flare-up shot up Friday and Saturday, Nov-11-12, with the blasts at two Iranian arms bases which killed at least 32 Revolutionary Guards men including Iran’s top missile expert, and the Arab League Foreign Ministers’ decision to suspend Syria’s membership over Bashar Assad’s brutal military crackdown on civilians.
As windows shattered in Tehran, the streets were awash with rumors that Ian was under attack, or that the regime had staged a failed nuclear test. Foreign businessmen were said to be fleeing the country.

In Kuwait, lawmakers demanded an urgent debate on the potential fallout from an attack on Iran three days after British ministers were briefed on a possible US-backed Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear sites in the last week of December or early next year. Hopes faded for effective international sanctions in the wake of nuclear watchdog evidence of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, even as US President Obama tackled Russian and Chinese leaders at .

Hours after the base explosions in Iran, the Arab League decided to suspend the membership of its ally Syria and impose political and economic sanctions on the Assad regime. Members were advised to withdraw their ambassadors form the Syrian capital until their Nov. 2 peace plan was implemented. The AL decision was praised by US President Barack Obama and backed by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

This penalty hurts Bashar Assad more than would a threatened Turkish invasion and seizure of a buffer enclave to serve the Syrian opposition. It conveys the Arab world’s rejection of the legitimacy of Bashar Assad’s regime. The Syrian ruler has got away with defying the UN Security Council, NATO and even Washington. He will find it much harder to survive being cast out of the fold by his Arab brethren who are punishing him for the contempt he showed for the peace deal they initiated and he signed by having his troops kill another 250 civilians in ten days.

Indeed the Qatari foreign minister Hamad bin Jassim, reading out of the decision, warned Assad that further non-compliance would result in “more steps to protect the citizens of Syria” by the Arab League – a broad hint at military intervention to aid the beleaguered opposition as Assad tried ineffectually to brand the Arab bloc American puppets.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan are already arming Syrian opposition groups and Turkey is hosting their command and training facilities. The scenario is beginning to resemble the Libyan format. There too, Qatari, Jordanian and Turkish military elements took part in the NATO operation to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi. And Bashar Assad may be nearing the end of his tether.

No one any longer credits his word after his repeated promises in the nine-month uprising against him to pull his troops out of city centers, release prisoners and enact reforms, while only piling on the savagery. His army is turning against him. Even before the Arab League struck home, the tens of trained fighters going over to the opposition in the early months of the conflict were swelling in the last two weeks to hundreds, taking their arms with them. The ruling Assad clan and military command have reached a crossroads in the pact they concluded in March to extinguish the uprising regardless of the cost in blood.

That pact may now prove unsustainable confronting its parties with three broad options:

1.  The army’s top commanders may decide they can no longer get away with the slaughter committed in the name of the regime and the time has come to get rid of Bashar Assad. A coup d’etat would be one way.

2.  Assad may get in first with a preemptive coup of his own to install in Damascus a military junta composed of trusted loyalists which he and his family will manipulate behind the scenes. This move would ease some of the Arab and Western pressure on him to step down.

3.  He could make good on his threat to start a Middle East conflagration along with Iran and Hizballah. Most of the action would be aimed against Israel forcing the Arab League to go along with Syria and restore its status.

The war rumors sweeping Tehran after the explosions at the Revolutionary Guards bases and the hard choices confronting the discredited Assad regime have generated a highly perilous climate in the region. All its capitals are on edge for trouble. This time, the usual conspiracy allegations from Tehran and Damascus won’t wash.

Since the day when the Iranian stooge, darling of Russia, China and EU, Nobel laureate and wannabe Egyptian president Mohamed ElBaradei departed the chair of the IAEA Director General, and no other Muslim candidate was found to take his place, it was a foregone conclusion that sooner or later IAEA will have to face the truth about the Iranian nuclear program. In that sense, there’s nothing newsworthy in its November report. Whatever the technical details, can anyone be surprised that the murderous fanatical theocracy with regional and even global ambitions seeks the ultimate weapon? Yukia Amano should be praised for bringing his agency to this level of objective reality, pushing  the international bureaucrats to stop lying to themselves and the rest of the humanity (this will probably cost him his re-election – the “international community” does not, as a rule, reward honesty). Yet not one of the Western leaders who are claiming now to be “studying” the report can be surprised by its findings.

In June 2008, freshly minted President of the French Republic Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in Jerusalem. Speaking from the Knesset pulpit, Sarkozy proclaimed that “Israel is not alone” and that the Iranian nuclear threat requires “a firm response.” A year and a half later, France ranked third place on the list of Iran’s biggest trade partners. Did Sarkozy not know then what he knows now?

At the top of this chart of infamy, chief among the economic enablers of deranged religious tyranny, was Germany, whose Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had the temerity to accuse the Israeli Prime Minister of “not having made a single step to advance peace.” Having refused so far to sanction the Iranian Central Bank or to recognize the Iranian “Revolutionary Guards” as a terrorist organization of global proportions, Germany reportedly intends to punish Israel by refusing to deliver the submarine which is part of the Israeli deterrent against Iran. Does anyone really believe that Frau Merkel will suddenly rediscover her moral compass now that the Iranian threat has finally been acknowledged?

In Washington, the authors of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, who claimed that Iran is a rational actor and that Iranian nuclear program died in 2003, are not expected to suffer any consequences for this monstrous lie that has enabled Iran to surge forward in its quest for the bomb virtually unopposed. It was Frau Merkel’s own intelligence service, the BND, that in May 2008 had already found evidence of the continuing development of nuclear weapons in Iran. Not since the Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz have American officials knowingly placed so many Jews in mortal danger. Will they now be called to account?

Time and again, while haranguing Israel to accept dismemberment in the name of peace, Western leaders promise to guarantee the security of the Jewish state. It is doubtful that, even with the best intentions, they can protect Israelis from rockets and suicide bombers. Yet there can be no doubt that, if only the West took its own promise seriously, it could have stopped the Iranian race to the bomb years ago. In the 90s, when Benjamin Netanyahu first warned the world about the Iranian threat, stiff economic sanctions could have perhaps, derailed the program altogether. In 2007, they could have exacerbated internal unrest and brought opposition to Ahmadinejad to the level that could not be contained by the regime. Yet the West traded its promises and its principles for Iranian money and Iranian oil, and now it may be too late even for the “crippling” sanctions that aren’t possible in any case – because of China and Russia.

Faced with the inevitable result of any appeasement – the brutal necessity of confronting the emboldened enemy by military force on his own terms – Western liberals and “realists” are uniformly demanding …more appeasement! The new party line is that since sanctions have failed, Iran “must be engaged diplomatically on the basis of mutual respect.” It seems that the more realistic the Iranian threat towards Israel becomes, the more sympathy Tehran gains from the hip crowd. In the eyes of the “progressives,” Iran is the new victim of American warmongers, and Israel is the villain.

When Obama’s Secretary of Prevention of an Israeli Attack on Iran, Leon Panetta, pooh-poohs the military option as something that can set Iran back “only by three years at most,” the obvious question from Jerusalem should be “as opposed to what?” More ineffectual sanctions which hurt ordinary Iranians but keep the regime intact? More “negotiations” with the genocidal madmen? More “covert activities” that so far brought more media hype than actual results? Accepting his Nobel Prize, President Obama has warned that “there will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” In the words of Hillel the Elder: “If not now, when?!”

From Avoidable to Inevitable: Iranian Bomb Is West’s Fault.

GOP contenders argue on Afghanistan, Iran, torture | Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Unsparing in their criticism of President Barack Obama, Republican presidential hopefuls disagreed in campaign debate Saturday night about the right course in Afghanistan, the use of waterboarding and the wisdom of a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Unsparing in their criticism of President Barack Obama, Republican presidential hopefuls disagreed in campaign debate Saturday night about the right course in Afghanistan, the use of waterboarding and the wisdom of a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” vowed the former Massachusetts governor.

On waterboarding, Herman Cain and Rep. Michele Bachmann both said they would reinstate the technique designed to simulate drowning. Cain went one step further, adding that he would leave it up to military leaders — rather than their civilian superiors — to decide what forms of interrogation amount to torture, which he said he opposes.

As for the war in Afghanistan, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas both said it was time for U.S. troops to come home after a combat mission of 10 years duration.

While the Republicans were talking about foreign policy, Obama was on the world stage, as America’s diplomat in chief.

After meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Hawaii, he said the two men intend to “shape a common response” to new allegations that Iran has been covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb. The issue is fraught because the regime in Tehran is harshly anti-Israel, a nation the United States has pledged to defend.

If the presidential trip gave the Republicans pause, they didn’t show it in a 90-minute debate.

“There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran, and a few ways to be stupid. The administration skipped all the ways to be smart,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The debate occurred less than two months before the formal selection of national convention delegates begins on Jan. 3 in the Iowa caucuses, with the race remarkably unsettled.

Romney has been at or near the top of the public opinion polls for months, while a succession of rivals vying to emerge as his principal challenger has risen and fallen in turn.

The latest soundings show Cain the current leader in that sweepstakes, although Gingrich has risen significantly in national polls in recent weeks as Perry has fallen back. And while the subject matter of defense and foreign policy didn’t readily lend itself to a discussion of the principal campaign controversies, the race has had plenty of them in the past two weeks.

Cain has stoutly denied any and all charges of sexual harassment — four women have leveled accusations — while Perry embarked on an apology tour after failing in a debate Wednesday night to remember the name of the third of three Cabinet-level departments he wants to abolish.

The debate at Wofford College was crisp, and any attempts to score points off a rival lacked the personal antagonism of earlier encounters.

The tone was set at the outset, when the Republicans were asked if they would support a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Gingrich quickly agreed with Romney, saying that if all other steps failed, “you have to take whatever steps are necessary” to prevent the Islamic regime from gaining a nuclear weapon.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania agreed. Noting that a mysterious computer virus had caused disruption inside Iran’s nuclear labs, and that Iranian scientists have been killed in recent months, he said, “I hope that the U.S. has been involved” in those and other covert actions.

Paul wanted no part of a military strike. “It’s not worthwhile to go to war,” he said. He added said that if America’s security is threatened the president must ask Congress for a formal declaration of war before taking military action.

Perry responded without answering the question. “This country can sanction the Iranian central bank right now and shut down that country’s economy, and that’s what the president needs to do,” he said.

The United States has long had sanctions in place against Iran, and Obama’s news conference in Hawaii suggested there will soon be more.

The war in Afghanistan produced the same range of responses as the question relating to Iran’s nuclear ambitions — unanimous criticism of the president but differences among the Republicans seeking to take his place.

Huntsman, who served as Obama’s first ambassador to China, said it was time to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a land where their boots first touched the soil a decade ago. “I say it’s time to come home. I say this nation has achieved its key objectives,” he said.

Romney and Perry said they would side with military commanders on the ground about when to withdraw troops. They criticized Obama for “telegraphing” the nation’s intentions.

Yet Romney backed a timetable of a complete withdrawal by the end of 2014, the same that Obama has cited.

Obama’s would-be successors differed on waterboarding, as well, the interrogation technique that former President George W. Bush authorized and Obama has banned.

While Cain and Bachmann both said they would reinstate the technique, Huntsman said use of the procedure diminishes U.S. standing in the world and Paul said it is illegal.

Romney wasn’t asked directly, but said he would “use whatever means necessary to protect America.”

Perry said, “This is war. That’s what happens in war. I’m for using the techniques, not torture, but using those techniques that we know will extract the information to save young Americans’ lives — and will be for it until I die.”