WarSclerotic

Iran says monitored U.S. aircraft carrier during massive naval drill – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Report follows U.S. warnings over Iranian threats to choke off traffic through the strait if Washington imposes sanctions on Iranian oil.

Iran says one of its surveillance planes has shot video and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier during an Iranian drill near a strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf.

The official IRNA news agency on Thursday quoted Rear Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi as saying this shows Iran’s navy is “observing moves by foreign forces” in the area.

	USS Abraham Lincoln transiting through the Pacific Ocean, Dec. 16, 2011.
	Photo by: AP

IRNA’s report didn’t provide details or say which U.S.¬ carrier was filmed. It’s unclear what value such footage could have.

Iran is holding a 10-day military exercise in international waters beyond the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for one-sixth of the world’s oil supply.

The report follows U.S. warnings over Iranian threats to choke off traffic through the strait if Washington imposes sanctions targeting Iran’s crude exports.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 29, 2011, 11:43 AM (GMT+02:00)

A naval mine

US and NATO task forces in the Persian Gulf have been placed on alert after US intelligence warned that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are preparing Iranian marine commandos to sow mines in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The new deployment, debkafile‘s military sources report, consists of USS Combined Task Force 52 (CTF 52), which is trained and equipped for dismantling marine mines and NATO Maritime Mine Counter measures Group 2 (SNMCMG2). The American group is led by the USS Arden mine countermeasures ship; NATO’s by the British HMS Pembroke minesweeper. Other vessels in the task forces are the Hunt-class destroyer HMS Middleton and the French mine warfare ships FS Croix du Sud and FS Var.
Also on the ready are several US Expeditionary Combat Readiness units of the US Fifth Fleet Bahrain command. Seventeen of these special marine units are attached to the Fifth Fleet as America’s answer to the Iranian Navy’s fast assault boats and marine units.

US military sources told debkafile Wednesday, Dec. 28, that United States has the countermeasures for sweeping the waterway of mines and making it safe for marine passage after no more than a 24-48 hour interruption.

At the same time, leading military and naval officials in Washington take Tehran’s threats seriously. They don’t buy the proposition advanced by various American pundits and analysts that Iran would never close the Strait of Hormuz, though which one third of the world’s oil passes, because it would then bottle up its own energy exports. Those officials, according to our sources, believe that Tehran hopes the mines in the waterway will blow up passing oil tankers and other shipping. It doesn’t have to be sealed hermetically to endanger international shipping; just a few mines here and there and an explosion would be enough to deter shippers and crews from risking their vessels.

As Adm. Habibollah Sayari commander of the Iranian Navy put it Wednesday, Dec. 28: “Shutting the strait for Iran’s armed forces is really easy – or as we say in Iran, easier than drinking a glass of water.” He went on to say: “But today, we don’t need [to shut] the strait because we have the Sea of Oman under control and can control transit.”

debkafile‘s Middle East marine sources said the Iranian admiral’s boast about the Sea of Oman was just hot air.  For the big Iranian Velayati 90 sea exercise which began Saturday, America has deployed in that sea two large air and sea strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier and the USS Bataan aircraft amphibious ship.

And they are highly visible: Thursday morning, Dec. 29, Iranian Navy’s Deputy Commander Rear Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi reported an Iranian Navy aircraft had shot footage and images of a US carrier spotted in an area where the Velayat 90 war games were being conducted – most probably the Stennis. Its presence, he said, demonstrated that Iran’s naval forces were “precisely monitoring all moves by extra-regional powers” in the region.

Clearly, the US navy is very much on the spot in the Sea of Oman and other areas of the Iranian war game.

Middle East sources warn however that the repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz coming from Tehran this week and the framework of its naval exercise clearly point to the manner in which Iran intends to hit back for the tough new sanctions which the West plans to approve next month. The new round is expected to shear off 80 percent of the Islamic Republic’s revenues.
The European Union’s 27 member-states meet in January to approve an embargo on Iranian oil, with effect on 25 percent of Iran’s energy exports. Next month, too, President Barack Obama plans to sign into law an amendment authorizing severe penalties for foreign banks trading with Iran’s central bank, CBI, including the loss of links with American banks and financial institutions.

Tehran is expected to strike back hard by sowing mines in Hormuz and in the waters opposite the oil fields and terminals of fellow Persian Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia.

It would not be the first time. In 1987 and 1988, sea mines were sown in the Persian Gulf for which Iran never took responsibility. It was generally seen as Tehran’s payback for US and Gulf Emirates’ backing for Iraq in its long war with the Islamic Republic. A number of oil tankers and American warships were struck by mines, including the USS Samuel B. Roberts. Such disasters can be averted today by means of the sophisticated countermeasures now in US hands.

If Iran Closes Strait of Hormuz, Will It Mean War? – International Business Times.

By David Magee: Subscribe to David’s RSS feed

December 28, 2011 10:17 AM EST

An accelerating covert war with Iran: Could it spiral into military action? – CSMonitor.com.

The Stuxnet worm and other covert measures appear designed to slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb. But US ‘miscalculations’ could raise the likelihood of a costly showdown, some experts warn.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / December 28, 2011

A US RQ-170 unmanned spy plane seen after being intercepted by Iran. Are ‘miscalculations’ like this by the US bound to cause a costly showdown with Iran?

Sepah News.ir/Reuters/File

When a sophisticated American spy drone went missing a month ago and fell into the Iranian military‘s hands, what had been whispered speculation at the end of the Bush administration became an all-but-officially acknowledged conclusion: The United States, along with a few key allies, is involved in an accelerating covert war with Iran.

It’s an example of what some are calling “21st-century warfare,” given the deployment of cyberworms instead of soldiers and mysterious explosions at key military installations instead of aerial bombardment.

The overarching goal is to slow, if not reverse, Iran’s apparent progress toward developing a nuclear bomb – something international diplomacy and a series of economic sanctions have not been able to accomplish. The measures also appear designed to put off the need for a military attack to stop Iran from joining the nuclear club.

The US, Israel, and Britain are thought to be involved in this unacknowledged war. While many actions go unclaimed, the intensification is occurring as the Obama administration signals a hardening stance toward Tehran.

An on again, off again war for 30 years

“We’ve been intermittently fighting a cold war with Iran for three decades, and the covert aspect of it has increased substantially in the last few years,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “Both President Bush and President Obama seemed to calculate that covert means can be effective in delaying Iran’s nuclear progress, and at a fraction of the political and economic costs of a military attack.”

Yet as incidents in an intensifying cold war multiply, with Iran appearing to ratchet up its response, more experts and former intelligence officers who specialize in Iran are cautioning that a spiraling tit-for-tat covert war risks becoming a hot conflict.

“I’m skeptical about any meaningful impact these kinds of actions have, except perhaps the significant effect of making the people involved more hard-line and determined than they were before,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear proliferation expert at Harvard University‘s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in Cambridge, Mass. “It’s hard to see how this kind of covert activity is really going to change anything, except for the worse.”

Add to the mix the rising political temperature in the US, with Republican presidential candidates trying to outdo one another on how much tougher they would be on Iran than Mr. Obama. Some Iran analysts warn of increased opportunities for “miscalculations” that could result in a potentially costly showdown.

“The kinds of covert actions we’re seeing now are all double-edged swords,” says Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the At­lantic Council’s South Asia Center in Wash­ington, “because if something goes wrong you could be in an overt war situation.”

With the administration under political pressure and sounding increasingly hawkish about Iran, she adds, “The trick will now be getting to November without a war.”

Tensions with Iran heightened this week, although not because of covert activity. Rather, the US is close to enacting sanctions that would target Iran’s oil revenue – and Iran has responded by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sixth of the world’s oil flows. However, the US has a plan to keep the strait open, according to a New York Times report.

In recent months, tensions have also heightened with a string of mysterious and unclaimed activities in Iran. The recent drone incident was the latest of those activities.

Other incidents have included the use of computer worms to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, including the Stuxnet virus that in 2010 was thought to have destroyed more than a thousand of Iran’s uranium-enriching centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated, and in November explosions ripped through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‘ ballistic missile base near Tehran. Seventeen people were killed, including one of the IRGC’s top officers in the missile development program.

In October, the Obama administration accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, an alleged plot that some Iran analysts see as an Iranian effort to hit back. The storming of Britain’s Embassy in Tehran in late November and a December explosion outside Britain’s Embassy in Bahrain may be other signals of Iran’s intention to respond to covert fire.

Yet if the covert activity is designed to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, many doubt it will work. As damaging as Stuxnet may have been, it did not curtail Iran’s enrichment activity permanently, experts say. And Iran is thought to have many more nuclear scientists and missile designers than Western intelligence services could ever eliminate.

“These programs involve dozens and hundreds of people, so taking out five or 10 is not going to do that much,” says Mr. Bunn of Harvard. “If some clandestine force had taken out Gen. [Leslie] Groves in the Manhattan Project, would they have found some other hard-charging officer to lead the project and deliver the bomb? Probably.”

On the other hand, covert action like assassinations can slow a regime’s progress toward its aims, Bunn says – for example, by sowing doubt about who within a program may be working for “the other side.”

Does Iran seek confrontation with West?

Some point to Israel’s bombing of Iraq‘s Osirak reactor in 1981 as evidence that covert activity does not necessarily provide a means of avoiding military action – and may even make it more likely. Iraqi nuclear scientists had been targeted by unknown assailants (assumed to be Israeli operatives), but that did not prevent the airstrike. Research in the years since the attack has largely concluded that while the strike destroyed Osirak, it also prompted Saddam Hussein to push his weapons programs farther underground.

Iran might even welcome a military confrontation with the West – especially one that strikes its nuclear installations, a source of much national pride. “There is a legitimate concern that Iran may seek to provoke a military conflagration,” says Mr. Sadjadpour at the Carnegie Endowment, “in order to try and mend its internal political fissures, both between political elites and between the society and the regime.”

But even some Israeli military experts say that bombing Iran’s nuclear installations would at best only put off its race for the bomb – and might harden its determination to build a weapon it claims it isn’t developing.

As Sadjadpour says, “If Iran continues to put all of its political will and vast economic resources behind its nuclear weapons capability, or a nuclear weapon itself, we can at best delay them.”

• Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

Overheard on CNN.com: Some fear escalation with Iran in Strait of Hormuz – This Just In – CNN.com Blogs.

Iran’s vice president is warning that the Islamic Republic could block the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its exports of crude oil. In fact, Iran is conducting a 10-day military exercise in the area. CNN analysts said the situation appeared volatile, and readers responded to stories about this incident by debating what would happen if the U.S. tried to go to war with Iran.

Many of our readers said they feared the U.S. would at some point be tempted to go to war with Iran, and expressed concern about harm that could be done in such a case.

greatpet: “The Soviets had over 10,000 nuclear weapons and was dealt with diplomatically, but Iran should be attacked militarily if she acquired only a few nuclear weapons and hardly any delivery systems? This doesn’t make sense.”

era923: “You know where the problem is? The U.S. didn’t have the (courage) to attack the USSR. In Iran’s case, they still don’t have it, but maybe Israel will drag them to the war and make the U.S fight for them. This time, the U.S is going to pay a huge price.”

RKW29: “Ha! Are you serious? 10,000 nuclear weapons and you ask why we never attacked? Um, are you on crack? This is also why the Soviets never attacked us.”

Indeed, several readers said Iran was behaving in a hostile manner, even playing with brinkmanship.

medschoolkid: “This particular instance really has nothing to do with energy policies in the US or whether or why we shouldn’t invade Iran. The Iranians cannot disrupt commerce in the seas. The concept of freedom of the seas is far older than the US or our foreign policies.”

Daniel419: “But we can disrupt them with sanctions for something they have every right to persue? OK, that makes sense. (Sarcasm font needed.)”

Many said such actions are foolish.

gorebs88: “Congrats Iran, you are wasting all of your weapons to put on a show for countries that already know they can destroy you. Awesome.”

Others chastised the U.S. for starting wars against countries they believe to be weaker. For example, we received such a comment from a Vietnam veteran:

naiveless: “We only attack countries that we have far superior military power over. Like countries that have no air force or sophisticated weapons and fight in flip flops with wool for body armor and with outdated weapons, we kill them with drones, missiles, and gunship support and then puff our chest out as how heroic and brave we are. –Vietnam Vet”

There were a lot of commenters who worried that a war with Iran could happen, at cost to many.

lochlan: “The war hawks are salivating. ‘Push them again, maybe they’ll fight back.’ We can go in, kill a bunch of people, mostly innocent civilians and our soldiers, who won’t even get a thank you, just a screw job when they get back, and then give everything we can possibly steal from the country to the corporate elite, who won’t spill a single drop of their own blood. And nobody is going to stop them.”

def1ant: “Actually, the stealing will come from us, the American taxpayer, because after all, war is a very profitable business.”

But many other readers said they didn’t believe Iran was acting in its own best interest, as in this discussion.

rmtaks: “Closing the strait off would be badly overplaying their hand. It’s basically a free ticket for a NATO attack. If Iran thinks the West isn’t itching to topple their regime they are seriously miscalculating; it has just been politically unfeasible since Iran really hasn’t done anything until now.”

GeneralDavis: “The sanctions against Iran are an act of war, so they are entitled to strike back. And if Iran already has nukes, then we are the ones miscalculating.”

rmtaks: “GeneralDavis: That isn’t going to be how the public sees it, and that’s what matters. If they have nukes (on Israel presumably), and use them, that would allow the West to declare total war.”

When will we know we’ve run out of time on Iran? – Right Turn – The Washington Post.

THE DAILY STAR :: News :: Local News :: Neither Hezbollah, Israel has interest in new war.

BEIRUT: The escalating violence in Syria and renewed speculation of an imminent attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities have the potential to bring Hezbollah and Israel closer to war in 2012 than at any other time since the last one ended five years ago.

Yet despite the uncertainties surrounding a volatile and rapidly changing Middle East, as well as the feverish military preparations undertaken by both sides since 2006, neither Hezbollah nor Israel seek another conflict at this time, especially not one that promises to be the most destructive either has ever experienced.

Hezbollah is far stronger military than it was five years ago and appears determined next time to go on the offensive and wage a war without restraints, which could include missile volleys striking Israeli cities and incursions into Israel by land and sea, as hinted at on occasions by Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general.

By comparison, Hezbollah fought in a defensive and reactive capacity in 2006, hoping to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible before too much damage was inflicted on its military infrastructure. Despite Hezbollah’s impressive performance against the Israeli military in 2006, it was not a war that the party wished to fight. Hezbollah’s secret and skillfully camouflaged military infrastructure of tunnels, bunkers and firing positions in the southern border district built over the previous six years was compromised and most subsequently abandoned. Furthermore, battlefield tactics and previously unseen weaponry (such as the Noor anti-ship missile used to disable an Israeli naval vessel) were prematurely exposed. Since then, Hezbollah has had to recruit and train fighters, redeploy its forces, build new front lines and develop fresh battle tactics to try and stay one step ahead of the Israelis.

Iran, Hezbollah’s principal backer of military buildup, views the party as a component of deterrence against the possibility of an attack by Israel or the West against its nuclear facilities. Any planner of an attack on Iran has to factor in the likely reaction of Hezbollah. Given the belief (sustained by Nasrallah’s hints) that Hezbollah has acquired missiles capable of striking specific targets in Tel Aviv, Hezbollah’s potential response to an attack on Iran is of no small consequence.

Iran has no wish to see Hezbollah fritter away its immense military resources in another unintended conflict with Israel. Hezbollah also has to respect the interests of its war-weary base of support within the Shiite community. That explains why Lebanon’s southern border is enjoying its longest period of calm since the mid 1960s with barely a shot fired in anger across the Blue Line in more than five years.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah and Israel have been engaged in an intense intelligence and technological war over the past five years, underlining just how complex the 30-year conflict between these two enemies has grown.

In December 2010, Hezbollah’s electronic warfare experts uncovered Israeli surveillance devices on the Barouk and Sannine mountains and two more similar devices in south Lebanon three months later. Earlier this month, Hezbollah uncovered an Israeli tap on a section of its fiber-optic communications network near Srifa. The equipment used appeared to be identical to a tapping device discovered near Houla in 2009. Further suspected Israeli spies have been arrested in the past 12 months. More sensationally, it was revealed in November that Hezbollah’s relentless counter-espionage unit had exposed the CIA’s spying operation against the party.

Then there is the still mysterious disappearance of an Israeli reconnaissance drone in the Ghandourieh area of south Lebanon at the end of October. The radars of the French UNIFIL battalion in Deir Kifa tracked the drone from the moment it crossed the border south of Bint Jbeil.

Its sudden and unexplained descent, “like a falling leaf,” according to one UNIFIL officer, has left the peacekeepers agog with speculation that Hezbollah may have electronically interfered with the communications link between the plane and its ground control base. Nothing was found on the ground and Hezbollah and the Israelis have remained tight-lipped.

There has been no discernible change in the pattern of Israeli drone flights since the incident, but Hezbollah watchers have known for more than a year that the party has been seeking to break into the encrypted video data feeds of Israeli drones or jam and take over their guidance systems. Also, bear in mind that this little reported mystery in the skies over south Lebanon came a month before Tehran announced that it had electronically taken control and safely landed a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel “stealth” drone flying a reconnaissance mission over eastern Iran.

The revelation that the U.S. has been dispatching reconnaissance drones above Iran as well as several recent mysterious explosions at Iranian facilities has led to heightened speculation of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, which, in turn, has revived concerns of a renewed war between Israel and Hezbollah.

But the nature of Hezbollah’s deterrence for Iran is highly complex and is dependent on numerous dynamics. If Israel or the U.S. or a combination of the two chooses to overlook the Hezbollah factor and launch an attack on Iran then the policy of deterrence will have failed and a decision will have to be made on how to respond. But it would be simplistic to assume that the moment Iran comes under attack, Tehran would automatically instruct Hezbollah to unleash its guided missiles toward Tel Aviv. A retaliatory attack by Hezbollah would trigger the long-feared war with Israel which would wreak massive destruction upon Lebanon with no guarantees that Hezbollah would emerge victorious and its military apparatus relatively intact.

The survival of Hezbollah’s “resistance priority” primarily rests or falls on its ability to maintain its broad base of popular support. That is why Hezbollah has invested in a massive social welfare operation for the past three decades to expand its grassroots support base and why it expends so much energy on building and maintaining its precarious network of cross-confessional political alliances. Lebanese Shiites support the party because of its martial accomplishments, the welfare services it provides and the sense of empowerment and dignity it has bestowed upon a traditionally disenfranchised sector of Lebanese society. But even the party’s most ardent supporters will not welcome another destructive war with Israel for the sake of defending Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Hezbollah’s response ultimately will depend on any number of variables, such as the scale of an attack on Iran – is it designed as a limited assault to set back the nuclear program by a few months or a year, or is it a more ambitious operation that could prove an existential threat to the Islamic Republic itself? Would Iran waste Hezbollah’s military resources in a confrontation with Israel if the attack was limited and survivable? Tehran is sensitive toward Hezbollah’s domestic realities and, after all, it has many other retaliatory options beyond exploiting its Lebanese ally.

Upheaval in Syria, however, represents another complicating factor when assessing the prospects of war in 2012.

Despite Syria’s acceptance of an Arab League proposal to end nine months of bloodshed, there is little indication that the confrontation between the regime of President Bashar Assad and the opposition will end any time soon. Indeed, it is showing every sign of worsening and turning ineluctably into an armed confrontation.

The collapse of the Assad regime would represent a serious blow for Iran and Hezbollah, depriving the former of a key ally of three decades standing and the latter of crucial strategic depth and a conduit for weapons supply. For now, the Assad regime can probably persevere given the relative weakness of the armed opposition and the evident reluctance of the international community to intervene militarily in Syria.

Iran and Hezbollah have little influence in shaping developments in Syria and can only watch and hope that the Assad regime can ultimately prevail. But if it becomes apparent that Syria’s Baathist state is heading toward collapse, it would run contrary to the pragmatic nature of Iran and Hezbollah to sacrifice their broader strategic interests in a quixotic attempt (such as attacking Israel) to prop up a clearly doomed regime. Instead, Iran will be open to exploring a relationship with whatever post-Assad administration emerges, while Hezbollah will remain for the time being the paramount political and military power in Lebanon.

However, there are at least two developments related to Syria that could lead to another war between Hezbollah and Israel. The first is if the Assad regime, recognizing that the end is nigh, opts for the “Samson option” of launching an attack on Israel, possibly firing missiles fitted with chemical warheads. Israel’s retaliation will be swift and merciless and could lead to an expanded conflict that Hezbollah may be unable to avoid.

The second potential trigger for war is if Israel decides that the collapse of the Assad regime presents a window of opportunity to launch a unilateral attack on Hezbollah. The goal would be to degrade and cripple Hezbollah’s military assets in the knowledge that, with the Assad regime gone, the party will face far greater difficulty in rebuilding its arsenal and, thus, its utility as a deterrent for Iran will have been eroded. Still, it would take a very bold Israeli prime minister to launch such a war, one which would provoke international censure, offer no guarantees of success and also probably prove to be the most devastating in terms of loss of life and material damage that Israel has experienced since 1948

AP Sources: US To Sell F-15s To Saudi Arabia – From the Wires – Salon.com.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is poised to announce the sale of nearly $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The deal will send 84 new fighter jets and upgrades for 70 more, for a total of $29.4 billion, according to the officials, who requested anonymity because the sale has not been made public.

The agreement boosts the military strength of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, at a time when the Obama administration is looking to counter Iranian threats in the region. Underscoring that effort was a fresh threat this week from Tehran, which warned that it could disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf oil transport route, if Washington levies new sanctions targeting Iran’s crude oil exports.

About a year ago, the administration got the go-ahead from Congress for a 10-year, $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia that included F-15s, helicopters and a broad array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as radar warning systems and night-vision goggles.

Mossad chief: A nuclear Iran isn’t necessarily an existential threat – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean destruction of Israel.

By Barak Ravid

A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t necessarily constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.

On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.

	A Shahab missile. Even a hundred of them wouldn’t bring Israel down, one reckless voice said.
	Photo by: Reuters

“What is the significance of the term existential threat?” the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. “Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”

The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.

“But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn’t think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel,” one of the envoys said.

Pardo’s remarks follow lively a public debate in recent months over a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. One of the figures at the center of this public debate has been Pardo’s predecessor as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Dagan has argued that Israel should only resort to military force “when the knife is at its throat and begins to cut into the flesh.” He has also criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, accusing them of pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran, and warned that such an assault would have disastrous consequences.

	Tamir Pardo
	Photo by: Moti Milrod

For the past several years, Netanyahu has characterized a nuclear Iran as an existential threat to Israel. The prime minister has even compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and argued that Iran should be treated as Nazi Germany should have been dealt with in 1938, just before World War II. In contrast, Barak said in April 2010 that Iran “was not an existential threat at the moment,” but warned that it could become one in the future.

In the cabinet, Netanyahu and Barak have been the leading proponents of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. So far, however, they have not managed to convince a majority of either the “octet” forum of eight senior ministers or the diplomatic-security cabinet to support their position.

In related news, The Daily Beast website reported yesterday about one aspect of the disagreement between Israel and the United States on the Iranian nuclear issue. It said that Washington and Jerusalem are discussing “red lines” for Iran’s nuclear project that, if crossed, would justify a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities.

The website’s defense reporter, Eli Lake, wrote that Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, lodged an official protest with the American administration following a speech a few weeks ago by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Saban Forum, in which the American defense chief warned of the consequences of an attack on Iran. The Daily Beast reported that Panetta’s remarks infuriated the Israel government and that Oren was directed to lodge the protest.

A short time later, the White House conveyed a message of reassurance to Israel that the Obama administration has its own red lines for attacking Iran, so there is no need for Israel to act unilaterally. The Israeli protest was also followed by a shift in Panetta’s rhetoric: In an interview with the American television network CBS, Panetta said the United States would not take any option off the table with regard to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The crux of the disagreement between the two countries revolves around the question of to what extent Iran has managed to develop clandestine sites for uranium enrichment. As a result, Israel and the United States are having a hard time settling on common “red lines.”

Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told The Daily Beast that “if Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out [toward obtaining nuclear weapons], then the president’s advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it.” However, he added, “when the occasion comes, we just don’t know how the president will react.”

U.S. 5th Fleet won’t allow disruption in Hormuz; Iran says ‘really easy’ to close route.

Al Arabiya

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Iran has several times said it is ready to target the strait if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions over its nuclear program. (File photo)

inShare4