WarSclerotic

Source: Hundreds of N. Korean nuclear and missile experts working in Iran | YONHAP NEWS.

By Kim Kwang-tae
SEOUL, Nov. 13 (Yonhap) — Hundreds of North Korean nuclear and missile experts have been collaborating with their Iranian counterparts in more than 10 locations across the Islamic state, a diplomatic source said Sunday.

The revelation lends credence to long-held suspicions that North Korea was helping Iran with a secret nuclear and missile program.

It also represents a new security challenge to the international community as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of Pyongyang and Tehran, and thwart trading of nuclear and missile technology.

North Korea has long been suspected of being behind nuclear and missile proliferation in Iran, Syria, Myanmar and Pakistan.

“Hundreds of North Korean nuclear and missile engineers and scientists have been working at more than 10 sites (in Iran), including Natanz and Qom,” the source said, citing human intelligence he declined to identify for security reasons.

The source would not allow the specific number of North Koreans to be published, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, and would not give further details on the extent of the collaboration. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the issue.

Repeated attempts to contact the Iranian embassy in Seoul by telephone were unsuccessful.

Natanz is home to a fuel enrichment plant and a pilot fuel enrichment plant, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report on Iran’s nuclear program published last week.

North Korea — which conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009 — revealed a year ago that it is running a uranium enrichment facility. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make weapons, providing Pyongyang with a second way of building nuclear bombs in addition to its existing plutonium program.

Both North Korea and Iran are under United Nations sanctions for their nuclear programs. The North has expressed interest in rejoining international disarmament talks it walked away from in 2009.

The source’s information came days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog expressed “serious concerns” on possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

The IAEA said in its report that it believes the country “has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” under a “structured program” until 2003, and “some activities may still be ongoing.”

The source with access to intelligence on the years-long weapons collaboration between Pyongyang and Tehran said the North Koreans are visiting Iran via third countries and many of them are being rotated in every three to six months.

The North Korean experts are from the country’s so-called Room 99, which is directly supervised by the North’s ruling Workers’ Party Munitions Industry Department. The room, which can be translated as office or bureau, is widely believed to be engaged in exports of weapons and military technology.

South Korea’s top spy agency, the National Intelligence Service, said it could not confirm the North Korean-Iranian cooperation, citing intelligence matters.

A senior South Korean official said Seoul is keeping a close eye on developments.

“It’s not a matter that the government can officially confirm,” another government official said. That official added that nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Iran has not been confirmed, though the countries have cooperated on missiles. The two officials asked not to be identified, citing office policy.

The Associated Press reported late last year that Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian diplomat in charge of airports who defected to the West earlier in 2010, said he saw many North Korean technicians repeatedly and discreetly travel to Iran between 2002 and 2007 to work on the country’s nuclear program.

AP also reported that Saed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, denied North Korean technicians visited his country to assist with nuclear weapons development, calling the defector’s claim “totally fabricated.”

Arms exports have been one of the major sources of hard currency for the cash-strapped communist country.

North Korea and Iran have been suspected of exchanging missile parts and technology, especially during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

In 2006, Iran’s military commander publicly acknowledged that his country had obtained Scud-B and Scud-C missiles from North Korea during the war, but no longer needs Pyongyang’s assistance.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il said in his book published in 2005 that his country’s missile doctrine is peaceful in nature and poses no threat.

Iran nuclear bomb threat: Russia and China ‘refuse’ to back Obama | Mail Online.

We are not taking any options off the table’ says the President

Barack Obama defended his sanctions against Iran claiming they have ‘enormous bite’ but wanted to work with Russia and China to find more ways of halting the country’s nuclear program.

The President was speaking at a press conference after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hawaii yesterday.

Earlier Obama has sought support from Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev and China’s Hu Jintao but both men were largely silent on the issue of Iran.

Parting words: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during his closing press conference at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summitnin Hawaii on Sunday

However Obama expressed confidence that both Russia and China understand the threat a nuclear-armed Iran would pose.

Obama said: ‘We will be consulting with them carefully over the next several weeks to look at what other options we have available to us.’

Winding down: Obama spoke to the media on Sunday evening after the APEC summit in Hawaii

At the summit, Obama met with Medvedev and Hu to discuss a new report from the UN watchdog agency that included evidence Iran is working on research and design efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

Sitting beside Medvedev at the conference on Saturday, Obama said the two ‘reaffirmed our intention to work to shape a common response’ on Iran.

Shortly after, Obama joined Hu, saying that he and the Chinese leader want to ensure that Iran abides by ‘international rules and norms’.

All smiles: Russian president Dmitry Medvedev (L) meets with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Hawaii

Tough talk: Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii where the subject of Iran’s nuclear program caused tension

Medvedev was largely silent on Iran during Obama’s remarks, merely acknowledging that the subject was discussed. Hu did not mention Iran at all.

White House aides insisted later that Russia and China remain unified with the U.S. 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.

Pleasantries: President Obama and First Lady Michelle greet China’s President Hu Jintao and his wife Liu Yongqing at the opening of the summit in Honolulu

He said: ‘I think the Russians and the Chinese understand that. We’re going to be working with them to formulate that response.’

Iran has insisted its nuclear work is in the peaceful pursuit of energy and research, not weaponry.

U.S. officials have said the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency was unlikely to persuade China and Russia to support tougher sanctions on the Iranian government.

But led by Obama, the administration is still trying to mount pressure on Iran, both through the United Nations and its own, for fear of what may come should Iran proceed undeterred.

Pressed efforts: Despite President Obama’s push (right) for Russian President Medvedev (left) to tighten control of Iran, both Russia and China has shown no sign of interest

More broadly, Obama sought to position the United States as a Pacific power and that more American jobs could be created by tapping into the region’s potential.

The President even suggested that the U.S. had grown ‘a little bit lazy’ in trying to attract business.

Obama’s aides said he was blunt with Hu in expressing concern about China’s undervalued currency, which keeps its exports cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive.

Obama also announced the broad outlines of an agreement to create a transpacific trade zone encompassing the United States and eight other nations.

He said details must still be worked out, but said the goal was to complete the deal by next year.

Iranian operations: A nuclear power plant in Iran is eyed in a report released Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency that raises concern about Iran’s nuclear program

‘The United States is a Pacific power and we’re here to stay,’ Obama said.

The eight countries joining the U.S. in the zone would be Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Obama also spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda about Japan’s interest in joining the trade bloc.

In a sign of potential tension with China, Froman shrugged off complaints from China that it had not been invited to join the trade bloc.

He told reporters that China had not expressed interest in joining and said the trade group ‘is not something that one gets invited to. It’s something that one aspires to.’

Addressing the European debt crisis, Obama said he welcomed the new governments being formed in Greece and Italy, saying they should help calm world financial markets.

Obama’s ever increasing attention to the Asia-Pacific is driven in part by Europe’s own financial woes and the U.S. need to get more aggressive in tapping its export options.

Obama will be in Honolulu until Tuesday, when he leaves for Australia before ending his trip in Indonesia.

President Obama Doesn’t Rule Out Military Option in Iran – Fox News.

HONOLULU – President Obama didn’t rule out a military option with Iran to deal with its nuclear program at a press conference Sunday. He said that sanctions have had “enormous bite and scope” so far and vowed to pursue diplomatic avenues but re-emphasized that all options are available.

“We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States,” Obama said.

The comments came after wrapping up a weekend at the Asia-Pacific economic summit where he met with world leaders to address economic and security issues.

Russia and China doubted a recent IAEA report and said they weren’t on board for more sanctions. Obama met with Russian President Dimtri Medvedev and Chinese President Hu on Saturday. In the meetings Obama said the countries don’t disagree on the outcome, even if the IAEA report doesn’t hold credence for them. He noted they’d be looking at other options on how to move forward with them.

In response to a GOP debate Saturday night where candidate Mitt Romney said that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon, the president said he was not going to get in the practice of responding to individual comments in the Republican debates until there is a nominee. He said that despite responding to one about waterboarding, which he said “is torture – period,” adding that it’s not something the U.S. engages in. However, he did not talk about a specific GOP candidate in his response.

For the first time, Obama responded to a question about reports of a hot microphone moment with French President Nicolas Sarkozy where they reportedly talked about difficulties of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama said that he would not speak about private conversations, but noted that he was “frank” about the fact that he didn’t like France’s recent vote for Palestine to become a part of UNESCO. The U.S. president added that he thinks the only way to move forward is to have Israelis and Palestinians sit down and negotiate.During the summit, Obama has emphasized the importance of the region, saying they have enormous potential for growth and can help lead to boosting the U.S. economy. Over the weekend, the leaders reached a broad outline for a trans-pacific trade.

Obama noted there are concerns about dealing with China, including the fact that they repeatedly violate intellectual property rights, as reported by several companies who have tried to do business with them. The president said he’s been open with them, and that it is a valid concern. He also expressed that China should move faster to allow its currency to appreciate. “It’s time for them to go ahead and move toward a market-based system for their currency,” he said.

He said he got how China benefits from the current situation because they can produce goods cheaper and benefit from the currency the way it is. “I understand it, but the United States and other countries feel that enough is enough,” he said.

On the domestic front, Obama slammed Republicans in Congress for not considering a balanced approach that includes revenues or tax increases for the wealthiest. He said they need to stop sticking to “rigid” ideas and “bite the bullet” to get something done. Obama introduced his jobs bill in September, and has given more than two dozen speeches, but Congress has yet to pass it, only approving one measure to help Veterans. Faced with that scenario going into an election and the economy at the forefront for voters, Obama said lawmakers are the ones who have to face the fact that they haven’t passed the bill. He also mentioned that maybe there needs to be a new Congress then and if they don’t pass the bill.

He wouldn’t say if he’d veto an effort to go around the triggers, or steep cuts in defense and other areas if a deal is not reached.

For Israel, a tough call on attacking Iran – The Washington Post.

By Jackson Diehl, Monday, November 14, 2:32 AM

A weird but wonderful feature of Israeli democracy is that even fateful decisions about national security — like whether to carry out a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — are publicly debated and covered in the press as if they were questions about road building or water rates, complete with vote counts in the cabinet and speculation about political motives.

For more than two weeks now, mullahs in Tehran, generals in Washington and anyone else with an Internet connection has been able to read detailed accounts of attempts by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to convince their military chiefs and coalition partners that an Israeli strike is both feasible and necessary. Bitter closed-door debates have been chronicled; op-ed pages have been filled with the arguments, pro and con. There’s even been polling: Forty-one percent of Israelis were reported to favor an attack vs. 39 percent who were opposed.

If it happens, this may be the most unsurprising sneak attack in history. Reports that Israel is on the verge of bombing Iran have been appearing regularly since at least 2008. It’s tempting to dismiss the latest flurry as political noise or orchestrated leaks, aimed at focusing Western attention on the need for tougher sanctions against Iran, or at drowning out the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations.

That’s probably part of it. But it is also, in Israel, a genuine dilemma — and one in which the calculus looks very different than it does in Washington. “This is a serious debate,” said Shai Feldman, an Israeli expert on nuclear security who made a presentation on the subject at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last week. “And it’s a tough call.”

It’s worth going through some of the key decision factors cited by Feldman and how they look to Israelis. Start with a threshold question: How much time is there to stop an Iranian bomb? In Washington, the typical answer depends on a projection of how long it would take Iran to finish a weapon and put it on a missile; or perhaps, how long Tehran might need to enrich a sufficient amount of uranium to bomb-grade. Estimates range from 62 days, in the case of uranium enrichment, to several years, for completing a deliverable bomb.

Israelis consider another timeline: How long before Iran finishes installing enrichment equipment at its new Fordow facility, which is buried under a mountain near the city of Qom? That plant is a far more difficult target for airstrikes than the buildings in Natanz, where most of the 4.9 tons of enriched uranium Iran has fabricated is now stored. And the latest report from U.N. inspectors suggests that Fordow will be open soon: Centrifuges have been set up, power has been connected and a first delivery of uranium has been made.

A second consideration is whether an Iran with a bomb could be deterred from using it. Many in Washington, with its half-century experience of the Cold War, suspect that it could be — and U.S. policy since the Bush administration has quietly aimed at setting up a deterrence structure, through such measures as providing air defense missiles to U.S. Persian Gulf allies.

But most Israelis, with the Holocaust in mind, judge it differently: The religious motivations of Iranian rulers, they argue, mean Tehran might be willing to accept even devastating civilian casualties in exchange for wiping out the Jewish state.

The regional fallout from an Israeli attack might be the biggest negative factor. Israelis expect that thousands of missiles might be fired at their cities by Iran’s clients in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, while U.S. forces might be attacked in Afghanistan, Iraq or in the Persian Gulf. But while the Pentagon worries about managing a fight on multiple fronts, Israeli leaders think they could handle their threat. Barak predicted last week that Israel would suffer fewer than 500 civilian casualties.

The most interesting calculations of all concern U.S-Israeli relations. The rupture of the U.S.-Israeli alliance arguably would be as large a blow to Israel’s security as Iran completing a bomb — and a unilateral attack might just risk that. The Pentagon might suspend what is now close cooperation; in Congress and in public opinion, Israel might be blamed for any U.S. casualties in Iranian counterattacks. I’ve always supposed that there will be no Israeli attack without a green light from Washington.

Israel, however, has a history of ignoring U.S. opinion at moments like this. It struck nuclear reactors in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007 with no American go-ahead. In both cases, there was no serious damage to relations — and, for that matter, no regional reaction.

Iran, almost certainly, would be a very different case. That’s why most of Israel’s military and intelligence chiefs oppose action. But Netanyahu and Barak seem to be arguing the other side. And, for better or for worse, you can read all about it in the Israeli press.

Israel Cautious After Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program – NYTimes.com.

Oliver Weiken/European Pressphoto Agency

Outside Tel Aviv, in Holon, a dummy rocket was used in an army exercise this month simulating a chemical weapons attack.

By ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: November 13, 2011

By ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — Israel hopes that a United Nations report released last week cataloging suspect activities in Iran’s nuclear program will finally force major countries to make sanctions painful enough that Iran will stop its uranium enrichment program.

But officials and experts here say that Israel must not be seen as leading that effort, and they acknowledge that when it comes to imposing sanctions, Israel has little influence anyway.

Where Israel seems to be playing a larger role is in convincing Iran and the West that if no drastic change occurs in the next few months, Israel might be pushed into military action.

Israel has quietly mobilized diplomats to press for stricter sanctions in foreign capitals.

Their efforts have been bolstered by a flurry of speculative news reports and leaks about possible plans for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, along with Israel’s testing of a ballistic missile this month.

Whether those reports were intended, in part, to prod Western powers to act is impossible to know. Officials insist that the missile test, on a weekday morning in full view of Tel Aviv commuters on their way to work, had been long planned and was carried out as scheduled.

Publicly, Israel is keeping a low profile.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, waited until Sunday, five days after the release of the International Atomic Energy Agency report, to make his first public remarks on it.

“The international community must stop Iran’s race to arm itself with nuclear weapons, a race that endangers the peace of the entire world,” he said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, where ministers received a briefing on the report.

Israeli officials say that a new round of crippling sanctions against Iran could still be effective, even if Russian and Chinese objections preclude a United Nations Security Council resolution. Other nations could still take action to hobble Iran diplomatically, economically and technologically.

“Iran purports to want a regional and global role, and therefore does not want to be isolated and in a box like North Korea,” said Jeremy Issacharoff, deputy director general for strategic affairs at Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Some Israelis have expressed concern that growing international annoyance with Israel over the Palestinian issue and antipathy toward Mr. Netanyahu could make cooperation over Iran more difficult. But Israeli officials say that where Iran is concerned, there is a convergence of understanding and interests. While Israel regards nuclear-armed Iran as potentially an existential threat, it also threatens moderate Arab states and could set off a destabilizing regional arms race.

Israeli officials consider the next few months crucial. The atomic agency’s report said that Iran had worked on experiments with explosives to start a chain reaction that ends in nuclear explosion, that it was working on “at least 14 progressive design iterations” for an atomic missile warhead, and that it had nearly five metric tons of low-enriched uranium and at least 70 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, enough, experts said, to potentially produce three or four cores for nuclear devices with further enrichment.

The report did not speculate on the time it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, but Israelis say it shows Iran is moving ever closer to the nuclear threshold while Western powers have been dragging their feet on action to stop it.

Some experts see the threat of military action as complementary to sanctions. “Only a combination of these two conditions might make Iran reconsider,” said Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

While the news reports about Mr. Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, pressing for an Israeli attack were speculative and unverifiable, the possibility that they are true adds to their persuasive power.

Iran, at least, seems to be taking them seriously.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned last week that a military attack would be met with a “strong slap and iron fist,” suggesting concern among Iranian leaders that the United Nations report could be used as a justification by Israel to bomb Iran.

A third leg of the efforts against Iran’s nuclear program, covert action by Israel and the United States, while known to exist, has also been difficult to verify.

Most Israeli newspapers did not speculate openly about any possible Israeli involvement in a deadly blast this weekend at an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base near Tehran, which Iran said was an accident and not sabotage. But the newspapers added the explosion to a string of explosions, malfunctions and assassinations of Iranian scientists believed to have been involved in Iran’s nuclear program, some of which have been attributed to Israel.

But some experts, including the former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan, have questioned whether military action would be effective. Iran’s stated intention to move some of its nuclear activity to an underground facility, largely out of reach of a military attack, could mean the window for such an attack is closing.

For now, sanctions to force Iran to decide that the effort is not worth the cost are the way forward, Israeli officials and experts say.

To be effective, according to Ephraim Asculai, an Israeli nuclear expert who worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission for more than 40 years and also at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, sanctions would have to include restrictions on personal travel for all Iranians and on Iranian civilian air traffic, as well as restrictions on the sale of oil distillates, a complete embargo on Western sales of nonhumanitarian goods and equipment to Iran and on dealings with its central bank.

All that stands between Iran and a nuclear weapon, said Mr. Asculai, now a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, is a political decision by Iran to further enrich existing stocks of uranium.

“The Iranians have already passed any deadline you can think of,” he said. But such draconian sanctions, he added, “could prevent Iran from taking the political decision.”

Zeroing in on nukes | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun.

Tough Netanyahu won’t wait for world approval before attacking Iran

If there ever was doubt as to whether Iran’s nuclear ambitions are for energy or for bombs, that question has been answered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA reports that it has “credible” information that Iran has been testing “the development of a nuclear explosive device.” This contrasts from the IAEA’s 2008 view that it “has no information” on Iran developing nuclear weapon capabilities.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejects the IAEA’s current assessment, and insists that nuclear facilities are solely to generate peaceful power, and warns if the U.S. does anything hostile “it will certainly regret the Iranian nation’s response.”

So what is to be done about Iran developing nuclear weapons — if anything? And does it matter if Iran has nuclear weapons? The five countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China — have not been very effective at keeping other countries from acquiring nuclear warheads.

It’s widely accepted that Israel has nuclear weapons, as do North Korea, Pakistan and India.

When the NPT was signed in 1970, it was thought that some 25 countries would have nuclear weapon programs within the next

20 years. Now, 40 years later, only Iran is on the nuclear threshold. (Two Israeli air attacks — 1981 and 2007 — “neutralized” Syria’s bid to develop nuclear weapons).

With the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan backed off nuclear weapons and signed the NPT, as did South Africa when it dumped apartheid and became the world’s first country to dismantle its nuclear weapons.

Why would Iran want nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system? Since Ahmadinejad repeatedly vows the eventual destruction of Israel, that country is the only logical target for an Iranian nuclear strike.

Israel will not — from its viewpoint, cannot — passively await a possible nuclear attack. As is its wont, Israel will strike first if the U.S. and the other nuclear powers can’t persuade, or force, Iran to forego its nuclear program.

As long as Ahmadinejad is president, Iran is unlikely to change. If he were gone, perhaps Iran would be more realistic. That’s an unknown. Complicating an already-complex situation is the dislike and mistrust U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have for each other.

That’s been highlighted by microphones catching French President Nicolas Sarkozy confiding to Obama that he considers Netanyahu a “liar” and “I can’t stand him.”

Obama seems to share that view, by adding: “I have to deal with him every day.”

The problem Western leaders have with Netanyahu is that he’s tough, fearless and won’t compromise what he sees as Israel’s interests and its survival. That frustrates Western leaders, who prefer easy solutions. (To his credit, Canada’s Stephen Harper seems more attuned than Obama to Israel’s situation).

Michael Bell, former Canadian ambassador to Israel (and Egypt and Jordan), says when it comes to the West Bank, Obama and Sarkozy believe its “revisionist Zionist ideology that drives (Netanyahu) rather than any security threat … ” If so, Obama and Sarkozy are wrong.

Look at the map of Israel. It’s apparent that the West Bank is vital to Israel’s security — witness the 1967 Six Day War when it occupied the area previously ruled by Jordan and from which Arab attacks were launched.

Whatever Netanyahu’s Zionist views may be, it seems Israel’s security is his first priority, be it the West Bank, or Iran’s nuclear potential.

Iran nuclear threat now clear – The West Australian.

Iran’s cover is blown. It is irrefutably on the path to developing a nuclear weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s report last week on Tehran’s progress blew away any pretence that its nuclear developments were purely peaceful.

So what happens next?

The prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran terrify its neighbours, several of whom say they too would consider embarking on a nuclear weapons program if Iran were to get the Bomb.

Particularly worried is – albeit nuclear-armed – Israel, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says should be wiped off the map.

Europe and the US, too, would be in reach of nuclear-capable missiles the Iranians are developing.

The US is trying to gather support for tougher sanctions but fears that Russia and China would block them in the United Nations Security Council.

The more dramatic option is that Israel will send in its bombers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been urging his Cabinet to consider military action, and his country has a track record in this kind of operation.

In 1981 its jets destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel said was part of a weapons program. And in 2007 Israeli planes took out a secret nuclear reactor under construction in the remote Deir ez-Zor region of Syria.

But the Iranians have learnt well from others’ experience and are believed to have buried key nuclear installations deep underground in bomb-proof shelters.

Distance too is against a military strike. Iran is a big country and its nuclear facilities are spread out.

Israeli jets would need to fly 900km across Jordan and Iraq just to get to the Iranian border, and Iraq would not permit the overflights. Indeed, Israel is ringed by so many hostile powers that sending bombers the long way round to attack Iran from the north or the south would be hard to organise.

David Horovitz, an Israeli author, commentator and former editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, does not believe that Israel is planning military action.

But he says something must be happening to make the previously reclusive former Mossad chief Meir Dagan denounce the idea.

Horovitz, in Perth last week, believes Israel’s response is likely to be more creative and cites Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s background as a commando.

Among Mr Barak’s exploits was a covert mission in 1973 in which he dressed as a woman to assassinate members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Beirut.

He helped to plan the 1976 Israeli commando raid which freed the hostages on an Air France flight in Entebbe, Uganda. Horovitz points also to the Stuxnet virus which reportedly infected Iranian computers.

The virus is said to have caused delicate centrifuges enriching uranium to weapons grade to spin wildly out of control and smash to pieces.

Israel did not claim responsibility for this but, pointedly, did not deny it.

This year and last there were a series of shootings of Iranian scientists said to have been involved in the nuclear-weapons program.

Iran blamed Israel.

Operations such as these depend on intelligence penetration of Iran to an extent that must make the ruling mullahs nervous.

They avoid the serious risks of a military strike with its many unknowns, along with the dangers of retaliation and the fear that bombings would unite an unhappy Iranian population around the currently unpopular leadership.

Iran has long harboured ambitions to harness nuclear energy for the days when the oil runs out.

Its nuclear-power program was tootling along nicely when the pro-western shah was in power. Even then, the CIA foresaw a day when the shah might want a nuclear weapon.

Strange as it may seem, the Islamic revolutionaries who overthrew the shah in 1979 were hostile to nuclear energy and scrapped elements of the program.

Then came the seizure of the US Embassy and the taking hostage of its staff. That was enough for the Americans to cut off weapons and parts supplies for the tanks and jets they had sold to the Shah.

When the Iraq-Iran war erupted in 1980 the Iranians found their defences severely compromised by the official US policy of not selling munitions or spare parts.

Half a million lives were lost in total in the eight-year war. It was then, Western analysts believe, that a decision was made that Iran would never again have to depend on foreign weapons for its survival.

The nuclear weapons program was on.

This is not to argue that a nuclear weapon in Iran’s hands would be strictly defensive. But it helps explain why joining the nuclear-weapons club is popular among Iranians.

A poll last year found 71 per cent in favour. If tougher sanctions don’t happen and a military attack is too risky, the success of the West’s response may come down to creativity.

Alan Kirk is The West Australian’s Foreign Editor

Little explanation in Iranian ammo depot blast | Alaska Dispatch.

Scott Peterson | The Christian Science Monitor | Nov 13, 2011

Mystery surrounds yesterday’s explosion at a Revolutionary Guard ammunition depot that was so large it was felt and heard almost 30 miles away in Tehran.

Even as funerals began on Sunday for the 15 soldiers killed, Iranian commanders sought to downplay any connection to Iran’s advanced ballistic missile arsenal and its controversial nuclear program.

The explosion comes as Iran is locked in a tense standoff with the US, Israel, and the West over its nuclear program, which last week produced a surge of threats and counter-threats of military action over the release of a United Nations report that detailed what it called “credible” evidence of Iran’s past work on nuclear weapons technologies.

The Fars News Agency, which is connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported on Sunday that the IRGC “strongly dismissed certain baseless reports” that the explosion was “related to nuclear tests or transport of missile warheads.”

“The blast happened during the transportation of [conventional] ammunition,” said the IRGC press chief General Ramazan Sharif. Some 15 soldiers had been “martyred,” he said, dialing down initial estimates of 40, though some of the wounded were in critical condition.

Iranian media reports said the blast took place at an ammunition depot at an IRGC base in the village of Bidganeh, near Malard in the Northern Alborz province, some 30 miles west of Tehran. Officials ruled out sabotage.

Residents of the Iranian capital and the city of Karaj respectively 30 miles west and seven miles north of the blast area, felt its power.

“Our windows shook,” said a Karaj resident, who says she and her neighbors believed it to be thunder or an earthquake, according to a Financial Times in a report from Tehran.

“I heard in my yoga class today that it was a missile attack but we do not know if it was by the US or Israel,” said another Karaj resident, called Farshid.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought last week to convince his cabinet to back military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an “existential threat” to the Jewish State.

Successive US presidents have also declared that a nuclear Iran would be “unacceptable,” and left “all options” – including military action – on the table.

The Nov. 8 report by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that “systematic” weapons-related work was halted in 2003, though some aspects “may” continue. It confirmed that no declared nuclear material had been diverted from civilian use.

Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons. But US lawmakers said the report amounted to a “smoking gun” and called for “crippling sanctions” against the Islamic Republic.

GOP candidates sound hawkish note

Republic presidential candidates went much further at a debate on Saturday night in South Carolina, as they tried to outdo each other with anti-Iran rhetoric.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania said the US should work closely with Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities – as it took out Iraq’s in 1981 and Syria’s in 2007 – “before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and then the world changes.”

Iran’s supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed on Thursday that any attack against Iran would be met with a “strong slap and iron fists.”

As Israel test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile a week ago – the first such test since 2008 of the Jericho III, which has a range at least three times that of any target in Iran – Iranian lawmakers made clear the result if Iran were targeted.

“Iran has the capability to annihilate the Zionist regime forever, if attacked,” parliamentarian Hossein Farhangi told Fars News.

That battle would extend “with maximum might and power all throughout the European and US soil, if Iran comes under attack,” Seyed Hossein Naqavi, a member of parliament’s security commission, told Fars News.

Speculation surrounding Iran opposition group’s claims

Speculation about the reasons behind the Saturday blast was fueled by claims from an Iranian opposition group that it occurred at an IRGC missile base, and not a conventional weapons depot.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq (the MEK aka MKO) claimed that the blast at the Modarres Garrison “resulted from the explosion of IRGC missiles,” according to an e-mail communication with the Associated Press from Alireza Jafarzadeh, an MEK spokesman in Washington until it the group was put on the US State Department’s terrorism list.

Mr. Jafarzadeh in 2002 announced the existence of undeclared Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, using data widely believed to have come from Israel. Since the MEK was put on the US State Department’s terrorist list, Jafarzadeh has been an “Iran analyst” on Fox News and lobbied in Washington to have the MEK taken off the terror list.

UN weapons inspectors say much of the data passed to it by the MEK over the last decade has proven inaccurate.

A detailed 150-page dossier on Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities produced in May 2010 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London makes no mention of any missile-related facility at Bidganeh or Malard, nor of the “Modarres Garrison.”

It does, however, describe a Sajjid Base near Karaj – north of the location of Saturday’s explosion – where Iran’s 19th Zolfaqar Missile Brigade reportedly deploys 125-mile range Zelzal “Earthquake” rockets. The source cited for that 2002 information, however, was the MEK.

U.S. and Israel Must Prepare for a Possible Attack on Iran – HUMAN EVENTS.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran’s maturing atomic weapons facilities until the benefits outweigh the costs in spite of the latest unnerving report.   However, that cost-benefit line is fast approaching.

Last week the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released a sobering report about Iran’s accelerating atomic weapons program.  That report sparked Israeli attack speculation such as an article in the British Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail quoted a British foreign office official as saying “We’re expecting something as early as Christmas.”  The official said Israel would not wait for Western approval “if it felt Iran was truly at the point of no return.”  Further, the paper speculated President Barack Obama will support the attack because he is “desperate not to lose Jewish support in next year’s presidential election.”

Such reports may sell newspapers, but Iran is not “at the point of no return.”  Even though the Iranian threat is growing and our options to deny Iran atomic weapons are diminishing, the costs associated with a pre-emptive attack still outweigh the benefits.

Last week the IAEA for the first time said it believes Iran conducted secret experiments solely to develop nuclear arms.  The chilling report said Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear triggers, and did research under a program called Amad that included at least 14 designs for fitting an atomic warhead on a Shahab missile which has a 1,200 mile range, enough to reach Israel.

Admittedly there are still many technical issues to overcome before Iran can miniaturize a warhead and launch it somewhere.  But those issues will be overcome which leaves Israel and the U.S. with the question: What to do now?

Diplomacy, sanctions, and clandestine operations have failed to tear atomic weapons away from Iran.  In 2007 then-presidential candidate Obama called for diplomatic “engagement” with Tehran “without preconditions” to solve the nuclear problem.    But Obama’s diplomacy failed because Iran refused to talk.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran to persuade the rogue to cooperate.  Obama hailed the 2010 round of sanctions as a strike “at the heart” of Iran’s ability to fund its nuclear programs.  But the IAEA report makes clear Iran’s “heart” is still quite healthy because the rogue effectively circumvents the sanctions.

It circumvents sanctions by relying on unscrupulous trading partners like Russia and China which coax domestic businesses to evade sanctions.  Iran rewards such “cooperation.” China’s oil imports from Iran rose 49% this year according to Reuters and just last week Iran asked Russia to build more reactors for the Bushehr nuclear plant, part of a $40 billion deal which includes five new nuclear plants.

Covert operations aimed at sabotaging Iranian centrifuges with the Stuxnet worm and killing nuclear scientists haven’t worked either.  The regime worked through the computer problems to install more sophisticated centrifuges for enriching uranium and the loss of the scientists hasn’t slowed weapon experiments albeit they are now more secret.

That leaves two obvious alternatives to stop Iran from becoming an atomic- armed state: regime change and military attack.  Regime change like those seen in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia appears unlikely.  Iran’s post-2009 election unrest provided an opportunity for regime change but the mullahs acted quickly to brutally crush dissent, which Obama effectively ignored.

Military attack is the only alternative that hasn’t been tried.  But it comes with significant consequences and as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the British Daily Telegraph, I think “a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert.”  It would at best set back Iran by two or three years, Gates said.

Any Israeli attack against Iranian facilities would not be like the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak atomic reactor or the 2007 strike against a Syrian reactor, both were pinpoint raids. Yes, Israel has the means – fighters, missiles, submarines – to attack a fraction of the Iranian facilities which number in the hundreds.  But even if Israeli intelligence identifies the most critical weapons facilities it would have difficulty servicing them all without significant American assistance, especially if the operation required more than a single strike.

American support is not a given, however.  Obama may need the American Jewish vote for the 2012 election but he doesn’t want $300 per barrel oil which would be a likely outcome should Israel attack.  That would push America’s foreign-oil dependent economy into another recession or depression, a certain re-election killer for Obama.

Therefore, if the Daily Mail’s report is accurate, and Israel is actively considering a military strike, then Israel’s leadership must decide between two bad choices: accepting a nuclear armed Iran or the consequences of a pre-emptive strike.   Of course Jerusalem should defend itself if in fact it knows Iran has an atomic-tipped ballistic missile and is planning to launch it at Israel.

But this does not appear to be the case.  And as strange as it might seem Israel still might choose to accept a nuclear Iran believing it will eventually collapse and is unlikely to use atomic weapons.

This issue is coming to a head because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet may be on the verge of a decision.  This week they meet to hear from Sha’ul Horev, director general of the Israel atomic energy commission, as well as representatives of the foreign ministry and intelligence community.   Likely that meeting will review the threat, attack options and perhaps consider the following consequences should Israel attack.

First, an Israeli attack will draw Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hizbullah into a war with Israel.  This will be like simultaneously experiencing the August 2006 rocket war with Hizbullah and another Palestinian intafada, “uprising.”  Also, because America supports Israel, U.S. troops in the region will be targeted by Iranian Quds Forces.

Second, there will be Iranian-hosted terrorist attacks against Israeli and American interests.  Last month the U.S. foiled a Quds Force-sponsored plot in Washington, DC to blow-up a restaurant in order to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.   Likely there are more sleeper cells in the U.S. and Hizbullah is known to associate with Mexican cartels and rogues like Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez.

Third, Iran will retaliate using conventional and unconventional (chemical and biological) armed ballistic missiles.   Almost two weeks ago, perhaps in preparation for both an attack and defense, Israel hosted a nationwide air raid drill, test-fired a nuclear-capable missile, and hosted air force drills that included refueling for long-range flights.

Fourth, Iran would try to stop all shipping in the Strait of Hormuz through which passes 40% of the world’s sea-borne oil.  Iran has perfected guerrilla warfare in the Persian Gulf using mines, anti-ship missiles and small boat swarms.

Finally, an attack would alienate many Iranians who are sympathetic with Western views.  Popular resentment to an attack would help Iranian mullahs rally support for a more aggressive nuclear program and for striking back at Israel and its supporters.

For now the costs of a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites outweigh the benefits.  That leaves us with a mixed bag of old options: sanctions, containment, deterrence (air defense shield and equipping partners) and the overthrow of the regime by domestic forces.

These options must be rigorously pursued while America and Israel prepare with other allies for a possible military attack and the day Iran inevitably steps across the cost-benefit line.

Al-Qaeda returns to Egypt under Iranian cover.

Al Arabiya

By Huda al Husseini

Monday, 14 November 2011

With the rising of tension in several areas of the Middle East, Iran feels that nothing should detract it from its plan. On the contrary, it is seeking to take advantage of everything. In the past it invested in relations, particularly with al-Qaeda, and now it is time to reap the fruit.

At the time when the whole world knew that the United States would withdraw from Iraq by the end of this year, hoping that it would leave behind some troops or bases, it emerged that US President Barack Obama has not spoken to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki since February, and that contacts were only resumed following his recent surprising announcement that US troops would withdraw completely. Throughout this period of time, Iran was busy working on its investments at all levels. Once it was clear that Al-Maliki had carried out every order, Ayatollah Khamenei breathed a sigh and described the US withdrawal as a “new page” and a “golden victory”.

However, Iraq alone is not an adequate area for Iran`s activity. Iran is also seeking to manipulate other Arab areas for its plans. Egypt appears very important in this regard, a country which Iranian Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi has “attempted to reorder”.

A meeting was held last May in Tehran, between Atiyyah Allah al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader (who was later killed in July), and Heydar Moslehi. They agreed on a set of activities to infiltrate Egypt, to be carried out by active “Islamic Jihad” members of Egyptian origin. The aim was to promote Islamist movements, which would then support Iran’s regional policy. They discussed the cases of dozens of prominent “Islamic Jihad” militants whom Iran had released from prison along with their families. A number of them, most of whom were of Egyptian and Libyan origin, were released before the start of the revolutions in the Arab world, as part of a clandestine agreement between Iran and al-Qaeda. Others were released after the start of the disturbances, on the condition that they would join those who were already active in Egypt, and maintain contact with Iran.

However, Iran realized that the long-term objective of the al-Qaeda was to create an infrastructure in Egypt that would promote its dream of establishing an Islamic caliphate, something that is not in Iran`s interests.

During the Tehran meeting between Moslehi and al-Libi, the latter agreed to receive a sum of money to cover the cost of some necessary measures, including the cost of fake passports for those who had been released from Iranian prisons. Instructions were given by the Iranian intelligence services to those who had entered Egypt, through certain routes, to set up al-Qaeda cells and establish infrastructures to carry out activities and logistical work in order to destabilize Egypt, through tactics of sabotage and terrorist attacks. They were to take advantage of the weakness of the Egyptian security services (The Financial Times published a long report on Egypt on Saturday 29th October, in which Egyptian people complained of the decline in the role of the Egyptian security forces, and the open spread of drug smuggling). At the meeting, it was agreed that the funds should be used to purchase documents for those who had been recruited earlier in Egypt, in order for them to be sent to training camps, particularly in Sudan, and to be provided with equipment and weapons: explosives, machine guns, RPG missile-launchers and so on.

Until his death in July, Atiyyah al-Libi was in charge of coordinating relations between al-Qaeda and Tehran, through the instructions he was sending to the al-Qaeda infrastructure based in Iran. He was killed in North Waziristan by a drone-fired missile, and this deprived al-Qaeda of one of its most prominent visionaries. Following the dispersion of the Al-Qaeda leadership, as a result of the US campaign in Afghanistan in 2011, he had worked as the organization`s representative in Iran, and as the regional envoy of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula.

In his book on Hezbollah, published in 2008, Al-Libi tried to convince his jihadist followers that Iran`s foreign policy was not based solely on religion, but that it was also pragmatic and opportunistic. In March, he wrote an open letter to the people of Misrata, Libya, in which he used his real name, Jamal Ibrahim Ashtawi al-Misrati. He called on the Libyan people to ensure the supremacy of Islam in governance, and enshrine Islamic Sharia in the constitution, as stated by al-Qaeda.

The returning members of Islamist organisations have benefited from the reforms introduced by the “new regime” in Egypt, which under an amnesty annulled the court sentences that had been issued against them, completely oblivious to the agreement that had been struck by Iran and al-Qaeda. Hence we witnessed the return of no fewer than four of the most prominent members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya to Egypt after forty years. Among them was Muhammad Shawqi al-Islambouli, the brother of Khalid al-Islambouli who killed President Anwar al-Sadat, and was sentenced to death in the 1990s. His family and a great number of the leaders of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya welcomed him at Cairo Airport in August. He surrendered to the representative of the Egyptian Army, and he will be tried in accordance with Egyptian laws.

Among other prominent returnees is Hussein Shamit, who was involved in the assassination attempt on President Hosni Mubarak in Ethiopia in 1995. He returned with al-Islambouli, and was acquitted of all accusations of terrorism. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Saghir was also pardoned. He was known as ” the religious authority” in al-Qaeda, and returned to Cairo in May with his wife and three of his children.

As a condition for their release from Iranian prisons, these men agreed to be Iran`s mouthpieces in Egypt, and to encourage the emergence of radical Islamist regimes in Arab countries, particularly in Egypt. As before, al-Qaeda promised not to undertake any sabotage activity against Iran, and work with it against Arab regimes.

The junior members and the less known figures in the Islamic Jihad organisation were smuggled out to Egypt through other routes, without the knowledge of the authorities. Among them was Hisham Ramadan, who returned secretly to Egypt from Iran after spending years in Afghanistan.

The secret deal between Iran and al-Qaeda was no secret to the US intelligence service. On the 28th July, the US Treasury announced sanctions against six individuals, whom, according to the US announcement, were members of the Iran-based Izz-al Din Abdul Aziz al-Khalil network, which was helping to transfer funds to al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The announcement compliments US Executive Order 13224, which imposed sanctions on organizations that support terrorism. US Treasury Secretary David Cohen said that part of the “secret deal” between Iran, the “leading country in the funding of terrorism”, and al-Qaeda, was Tehran`s approval of the transfer of terrorist funds through Iran.

This coming month will be decisive. The Egyptian elections will be held. The IAEA report is expected to reveal noticeable progress in the Iranian (military) nuclear program. Iran may try to anticipate reactions by launching an operation in an Arab country, after its attempts failed in Washington. For its part, Washington is concerned over possible Israeli military action against Iran following the publication of the IAEA report, as any military action would not necessarily converge with US interests. US Republican and Democrat hawks are pressing for an Israeli military strike against Iran before the US withdrawal from Iraq. The Syrians and the Iranians, and their supporters in Lebanon in particular, are offering counter threats, saying that thousands of missiles will strike Israel if the Syrian regime is threatened, or if a NATO attack is launched against it.

What is being talked about behind closed doors is that Iran is not concerned with the interests of Arab countries; it sees them as mere arenas to carry out its plans. A US journalist put it to me this way: Iran and Israel agree on one thing, which is to maintain the status quo in Syria, but keep President Bashar al-Assad weak. The official told me that Israel will not attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Iranian nuclear capability grants legitimacy to Israel’s nuclear capability.

In conclusion, if Arab countries are not attacked by Israel, they will certainly be attacked by Iran, and al-Qaeda is ready to help.