WarSclerotic

Chief observer: Syria violence escalating – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Syrian cities have witnessed ‘very high escalation’ in violence since Tuesday, head of Arab observer team says; dozens killed by security forces Friday

Roi Kais and AP

Violence in Syria has gravely escalated in the past few days, the head of Arab League observer team to the country said in a statement Friday.

Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed al-Dabi said the cities of Homs, Hama and Idlib have all witnessed a “very high escalation” in violence since Tuesday.

Meanwhile, opposition sources told al-Jazeera that 33 people were killed Friday by security forces. The al-Arabiya network reported 44 fatalities.

Two days of bloody turmoil in Syria killed more than 50 people as forces loyal to President Bashar Assad shelled residential buildings, fired on crowds and left bleeding corpses in the streets in a dramatic escalation of violence, activists said Friday.

Much of the violence was focused in Homs, where heavy gunfire hammered the city Friday in a second day of chaos. A day earlier, the city saw a flare-up of sectarian kidnappings and killings between its Sunni and Alawite communities, and pro-regime forces blasted residential buildings with mortars and gunfire, according to activists who said an entire family was killed.

Video posted online by activists showed the bodies of five small children, five women of varying ages and a man, all bloodied and piled on beds in what appeared to be an apartment after a building was hit in the Karm el-Zaytoun neighborhood of the city. A narrator said an entire family had been “slaughtered.”

The video could not be independently verified.

In an attempt to stop the bloodshed in Syria, the United Nations Security Council was to hold a closed-door meeting Friday to discuss the crisis, a step toward a possible resolution against the Damascus regime, diplomats said.

Russia won’t back U.N. call for Syria’s Assad to go | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Russia signaled on Friday it could veto any U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad resign and said an attempt to rush such a proposal to a vote is doomed to fail.

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov’s comments were a strong indication that Russia would be ready to block a new Western-Arab draft resolution that is intended to halt months of bloodshed in Syria and could be voted on next week.

“Any decision about a future political settlement in Syria must be made during the political process without … preliminary conditions, and the demand for Assad’s resignation is a preliminary condition,” Interfax quoted Gatilov as saying.

“We cannot support a call to support Assad’s departure in any U.N. Security Council resolution,” said Gatilov, whose country is an old strategic ally of Syria and one of Assad’s major arms suppliers.

The draft says the council supports an Arab League plan “to facilitate a political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system … including through the transfer of power from the President and transparent and free elections.”

Warning Western members of the council against pressing for a vote soon, Gatilov said “this would be doomed to fail because we have clearly expressed our opinion, as have our Chinese partners,” according to Interfax.

Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France are permanent council members with veto power.

Earlier on Friday, state-run Itar-Tass quoted Gatilov as saying the draft contained “no fundamental consideration of our position” and lacked “key aspects that are fundamental to us.”

“FURTHER MEASURES”

Gatilov suggested Russia was unhappy that the draft did not rule out military intervention, and that it made a reference to sanctions already imposed on Syria by the Arab League.

Russia has warned it would not let any resolution endorsing military intervention pass in the Security Council and will not retroactively support Western or Arab sanctions on Syria.

Gatilov said Russia was concerned by a clause saying the Security Council would review Syria’s implementation of the resolution after 15 days and “adopt further measures” if it has not complied. “What measures? That is our question,” he said.

Russia has urged Assad to implement reforms faster to end 10 months of bloodshed, but says his opponents share much of the blame for violence and has refused to join other nations calling for him to step down.

Russia is becoming isolated in its support for Assad’s government and is still delivering Syria weapons in defiance of U.S. calls for a moratorium on arms sales to Damascus.

Russia joined China in October in vetoing a European-drafted Security Council resolution condemning Assad’s government for its crackdown on pro-democracy unrest that the United Nations says has killed more than 5,000 people, mostly civilians.

Gatilov said Russia’s own draft resolution, which it submitted last month and revised earlier this month, remained on the table, suggesting it must not be superseded by the Western-Arab draft. Western diplomats have said Russia’s draft was too easy on Assad’s government.

(Writing by Steve Gutterman; Editing by Timothy Heritage and Mark Heinrich)

Rubin Reports » Israel Isn’t Going to Attack Iran and Neither Will the United States.

(Barry Rubin, right wing American/Israeli does his bit for the disinformation campaign.  “Attack?  Us?  C’mon….” – JW)

Posted By Barry Rubin On January 26, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

The radio superhero The Shadow had the power to “cloud men’s minds.” But nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews or Israel. This year’s variation on that theme is the idea that Israel is about to attack Iran. Such a claim repeatedly appears in the media. Some have criticized Israel for attacking Iran and turning the Middle East into a cauldron of turmoil (not as if the region needs any help in that department) despite the fact that it hasn’t even happened.

On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence for such a thesis. Israel has talked about attacking Iran and one can make a case for such an operation. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario — based on actual research and real analysis rather than what the uninformed assemble in their own heads or Israeli leaders sending a message to create a situation where an attack isn’t necessary — is this: It isn’t going to happen.

Indeed, the main leak from the Israeli government, by an ex-intelligence official who hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been that the Israeli government already decided not to attack Iran. He says that he worries this might change in the future but there’s no hint that this has happened or will happen. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has publicly denied plans for an imminent attack as have other senior government officials.

Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it. But Israel, like other countries, should be subject to rational analysis. Articles written by others are being spun as saying Israel is going to attack when that’s not what they are saying. I stand by my analysis and before December 31 we will see who was right. I’m not at all worried about stating very clearly that Israel is not going to go to war with Iran.

So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way – indeed, the only way Israel has — to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don’t participate — consciously or as an instrument — in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.

Regarding Ronen Bergman’s article in the New York Times, I think the answer is simple: Israeli leaders are not announcing that they are about to attack Iran. They are sending a message that the United States and Europe should act more decisively so that Israel does not feel the need to attack Iran in the future. That is a debate that can be held but it does not deal with a different issue: Is Israel about to attack Iran? The answer is “no.”

Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.

Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.

If Israel attacks Iran now, does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out, endless bloody war thereafter.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations, would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in the future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.

Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those cases a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran’s regime to be so totally irrational, then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.

If Israel attacks Iran, would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would — according to the Obama administration — endanger U.S. interests there.

Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.

Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.

So given all of these factors, why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.

The counter-argument is this: Iran’s regime is irrational and wants to destroy Israel even if the resulting counterattack would kill millions of Iranians and wreck the country. Yet while that analysis should not be totally ruled out, it is far from a certainty. Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons to make itself invulnerable to the costs of its non-nuclear subversion and support for terrorist and revolutionary forces. And a lot of what the Iranian leadership says is demagoguery to build support for itself at home, and to convince the masses to ignore its incompetence and mismanagement.

Moreover, while you may have met Iranians whose grasp of reality is — let me put this politely — somewhat creative and even though the Iran regime evinces an extremist anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic ideology, the actual history of Iran (or more narrowly of the Iranian regime) does not show it to be an irrational actor. In other words, Iran tries to implement highly radical, nasty, and terrorist-supporting actions in a careful and cautious manner. Islamist Iran did not invade any of its neighbors and it has not taken big foreign policy risks. In saying this, I’m not being naive or ignoring what Iran’s leaders say or want but focusing on what they actually do.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? So it can go on sponsoring terrorism, spreading radical ideology, killing Americans through covert actions, and building a sphere of influence without anyone doing anything about it. In other words, the real threat is Iran’s conventional foreign policy safeguarded by nuclear weapons. Are there precedents for this? Sure. More recently, Pakistan and North Korea; going back further in time, the Stalinist USSR.

Yet given the points made above, even the Iran-as-irrational analysis — and even assuming it to be correct, the probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent — does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.

And, finally, Israel has other options.  The alternative is this:  As the Iranian regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include:

U.S. early warning stations and anti-missile missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israeli long-range planes whose crews have rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously;  covert operations, possibly including computer viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; help to the Iranian opposition (though the idea of “regime change” in the near future is a fantasy); and other measures.

If and when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it unavoidable, not in theory but in actual practice.

Note that attacking a limited number of missiles and launch facilities, that must be located closer to Israel within Iranian territory, is easy. Attacking multiple nuclear facilities buried deep in the ground anywhere in Iran is hard.

Ah, but what if Iran gives small nuclear devices to terrorists? Well ask yourself two simple questions:

1. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that this didn’t happen? Answer: Not at all.

2. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that Iran would definitely give nuclear devices to terrorists and try to strike against Israel as quickly and as frequently as possible? Absolutely yes.

Does an Israeli strategy of not launching an attack assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in doing so.

Whether you hope for or fear an Israeli attack on Iran, it isn’t going to happen.

At the same time, a new theme in the America mass media is that the United States is headed toward war with Iran either by electing a Republican president, the inevitable weight of events, or through having sanctions so effective that a cornered Iran will attack. The fact is that neither country wants to have an armed conflict and such a battle is easily avoidable. Ironically, those who claim Iran is going to attack are using the crazy Tehran regime concept that they reject when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the “watch out for the warmongering Republicans” slogan is part of the election campaign.

Warning against tough sanctions is a way of avoiding tough sanctions. The argument boils down to saying that sanctions better not hurt Iran or else the consequences will be disastrous. We will be hearing the same argument soon about Hamas, Hizballah, Egypt, and maybe even Libya or Turkey. The effort to use U.S. leverage will be said as triggering war or an anti-American explosion among Muslims. Thus, for example, whatever the Egyptian regime does toward Israel or its own people, we will be told that reducing U.S. aid is not an option.

Going to war with Iran is a mistake and the hysteria on this issue, including claims the regime is about to fall, that it can easily be brought down, or that an Iranian nuclear attack on others is inevitable, should be reined in. That’s precisely why sanctions and other measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

And there isn’t going to be any war unless Iran’s regime tries to use them or makes a big mistake. It could, as Egypt did in 1967 or Saddam Hussein did in the late 1990s, rattle “nuclear sabers” enough to convince Israel that an attack is imminent. Even if it did not intend to attack, Tehran could push too hard and trigger an Israeli attack. By the same token, some Iranian attack on Western forces or on oil traffic in the Gulf — more likely triggered by a local commander without regime permission — could produce a slide into war with the United States.

But here’s what’s most likely going to happen: Iran will get nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear drive (though it could stop short of actually building bombs or warheads ready to go). Western policies are not so bold or adventurous as to go to war; Israel’s interests and capabilities do not make attacking sensible. An attack would not solve but increase problems.

And no matter how crazy you think Iran’s regime is, the inescapable predicable threat is not high enough to force policymakers to risk getting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people killed, when the chance of avoiding such an outcome is very high. I am not talking here about Hizballah firing a few rockets (Hamas might well do nothing) but a long term war that would guarantee the use of Iranian nuclear weapons.

PS: One reader has asked and others are no doubt thinking: But don’t you have to stop the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon being handed to terrorists against Israel or some how against the United States? Let’s be clear: An attack on Iranian facilities will not prevent this from happening and indeed will make such an event more likely than it would be otherwise. You can think up any scenario you want but if there is a war going on the Tehran regime or various parts of it has a much greater incentive to order or allow nuclear weapons to be used when it obtains them within a year or two of the initial attack.

Barry Rubin is director of the GLORIA Center, at IDC, and editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.

Syria Activists: ‘Terrifying Massacre’ In Homs.

y ZEINA KARAM — The Associated Press

Directed Energy Weapons and Electromagnetic Bombs.

The nascent technology of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and Electromagnetic Bombs (E-bombs) will revolutionise many aspects of modern warfare. While immature, this technology will permit new offensive and defensive techniques against a wide range of targets. These non-nuclear weapons provide tactical options which did not exist decades ago, when nuclear High-altitude Electro Magnetic Pulse (HEMP) weapons were the principal capability in this domain.

Barak calls on world to stop Ira… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Ariel Harmony / Defense Ministry

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Friday warned that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime would lead to regional proliferation, the spread of terrorism and a threat to oil supplies from the Middle East, the Guardian reported.

Speaking as part of a panel on Iran at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Barak told those assembled that “You can’t conceive of a stable world order when Iran has nuclear weapons.”

Barak, appearing alongside Yukiya Amano, the chief of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, stated that “Iran is prepared to defy and deceive the whole world to turn themselves into a nuclear power,” according to the Guardian.

“This will be the end of any conceivable anti-proliferation program. Major powers in the region will feel compelled to turn nuclear,” he added, listing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt as countries who would be compelled to enter the nuclear arms race should Iran acquire an atomic bomb.

The defense minister accused Iran of trying to intimidate its neighbors in the Gulf in order to gain hegemony over oil resources in the region.

“It is the time for much tougher diplomacy and sanctions because there is a risk not just to Israel but to the whole world. It will be much more complicated, much more dangerous and much more costly if we allow it to happen,” The Guardian quoted Barak as saying.

Amano said that he was sending an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Iran on Saturday and that he was convinced Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.

“Our information is credible. Iran is engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosives. We have asked for talks and we are meeting with them,” Amano stated.

Free Syrian Army shows video of alleged Iranian fighters abducted in Homs.

Friday, 27 January 2012

Israelis See Iran’s Threats of Retaliation as Bluff – NYTimes.com.

JERUSALEM — Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.

The estimates, which have been largely adopted by the country’s most senior officials, conclude that the threat of Iranian retaliation is partly bluff. They are playing an important role in Israel’s calculation of whether ultimately to strike Iran, or to try to persuade the United States to do so, even as Tehran faces tough new economic sanctions from the West.

“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”

The Iranian government, which says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz — through which 90 percent of gulf oil passes — and if attacked, to retaliate with all its military might.

But Israeli assessments reject the threats as overblown. Mr. Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have embraced those analyses as they focus on how to stop what they view as Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons.

No issue in Israel is more fraught than the debate over the wisdom and feasibility of a strike on Iran. Some argue that even a successful military strike would do no more than delay any Iranian nuclear weapons program, and perhaps increase Iran’s determination to acquire the capability. Security officials are increasingly kept from journalists or barred from discussing Iran. Much of the public talk is as much message delivery as actual policy.

With the region in turmoil and the Europeans having agreed to harsh sanctions against Iran, strategic assessments can quickly lose their currency. “They’re like cartons of milk — check the sell-by date,” one senior official said.

But conversations with eight current and recent top Israeli security officials suggested several things: since Israel has been demanding the new sanctions, including an oil embargo and seizure of Iran’s Central Bank assets, it will give the sanctions some months to work; the sanctions are viewed here as probably insufficient; a military attack remains a very real option; and postattack situations are considered less perilous than one in which Iran has nuclear weapons.

“Take every scenario of confrontation and attack by Iran and its proxies and then ask yourself, ‘How would it look if they had a nuclear weapon?’ ” a senior official said. “In nearly every scenario, the situation looks worse.”

The core analysis is based on an examination of Iran’s interests and abilities, along with recent threats and conflicts. Before the United States-led war against Iraq in 1991, Saddam Hussein vowed that if attacked he would “burn half of Israel.” He fired about 40 Scud missiles at Israel, which did limited damage. Similar fears of retaliation were voiced before the Iraq war in 2003 and in 2006, during Israel’s war against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In the latter, about 4,000 rockets were fired at Israel by Hezbollah, most of them causing limited harm.

“If you put all those retaliations together and add in the terrorism of recent years, we are probably facing some multiple of that,” a retired official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, citing an internal study. “I’m not saying Iran will not react. But it will be nothing like London during World War II.”

A paper soon to be published by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, written by Amos Yadlin, former chief of military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, who headed the Iran desk at Israel’s National Security Council until 2009, argues that the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is largely a bluff.

The paper contends that, despite the risks of Iranian provocation, Iran would not be able to close the waterway for any length of time and that it would not be in Iran’s own interest to do so.

“If others are closing the taps on you, why close your own?” Mr. Guzansky said. Sealing the strait could also lead to all-out confrontation with the United States, something the authors say they believe Iran wants to avoid.

A separate paper just published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies says that the fear of missile warfare against Israel is exaggerated since the missiles would be able to inflict only limited physical damage.

Most Israeli analysts, like most officials and analysts abroad, reject these arguments. They say that Iran has been preparing for an attack for some years and will react robustly, as will its allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Moreover, they say, an attack will at best delay the Iranian program by a couple of years and lead Tehran to redouble its efforts to build such a weapon.

But Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu believe that those concerns will pale if Iran does get a nuclear weapon. This was a point made in a public forum in Jerusalem this week by Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, chief of the army’s planning division. Speaking of the former leaders of Libya and Iraq, he said, “Who would have dared deal with Qaddafi or Saddam Hussein if they had a nuclear capability? No way.”

General Eshel added that when a senior Indian officer was visiting recently, he was asked why the Indians had done so little in response to the 2008 attacks in Mumbai. “When the other side has a nuclear capability and is prepared to use it, you think twice,” the officer replied, referring to Pakistan.

Mr. Netanyahu has made no secret of his belief that the current Iranian leadership, which has called for Israel’s destruction and which finances and arms militant groups on Israel’s borders, is the contemporary equivalent of the Nazis who tried to eliminate the Jews.

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak argue that sanctions on Iran’s banking and energy sectors, like the ones getting under way, are vital tools for pressuring the Iranian government internally and keeping it under world opprobrium. But they also suspect that such sanctions will not slow the country’s nuclear program and therefore consider a military option to be vital.

“With all the sanctions, which are unprecedented,” Mr. Barak said on the radio this week, “I don’t think we are very close to a situation in which the Iranian leaders will look each other in the eye and say: ‘There is no choice. We have to stop the nuclear program.’ ”

Mr. Netanyahu has told visitors that he believes the Tehran government to be deeply unpopular, indeed despised, and that a careful attack on its nuclear facilities might even be welcomed by Iranian citizens. They might see it, he has said, as the equivalent of removing the crown jewels from a hated monarch.

Most analysts here and abroad take a different view. They argue that while the Iranian government remains unpopular, the nuclear program has wide support in Iran, and one way to unite the people behind their rulers would be through an Israeli strike.

A former senior official who had top security clearance said he was worried that Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran — a step requiring agreement from other top ministers — and that such a step would be catastrophic both militarily and diplomatically.

“The Iranians have 400 missiles they can shoot at Israel,” he said. “And imagine Israel’s isolation after it attacked. For what? A delay of a year and a half? We are successfully delaying them with other methods.” That was a reference to the sabotage of the Iranian program through the sale of faulty parts and the introduction of computer worms and malfunctions as well as the killing of nuclear scientists.

The official said that the defense establishment was not enthusiastic about an attack. It hoped that sanctions and diplomacy would work and that if military action were needed it would come from the United States.

But this approach poses a difficulty. America’s weapons and equipment are far more powerful than Israel’s. So as Iran enriches uranium underground, Washington can wait longer to decide to attack and still be effective. Israel worries that in the coming year Iran will enter what officials call a zone of immunity, meaning its facilities will move beyond reach.

On Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu spoke on International Holocaust Remembrance Day and reminded his listeners why he might feel the need for Israel to launch an attack. He said: “I want to mention the main lesson of the Holocaust when it comes to our fate. We can only rely on ourselves.”

The Associated Press: Israel says Iran ‘drifting’ toward nuke goal line.

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press – 31 minutes ago

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday the world must quickly stop Iran from reaching the point where even a “surgical” military strike could not block it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Amid fears that Israel is nearing a decision to attack Iran’s nuclear program, Barak said tougher international sanctions are needed against Tehran’s oil and banks so that “we all will know early enough whether the Iranians are ready to give up their nuclear weapons program.”

Iran insists its atomic program is only aimed at producing energy and research, but has repeatedly refused to consider giving up its ability to enrich uranium.

“We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear. And even the American president and opinion leaders have said that no option should be removed from the table and Iran should be blocked from turning nuclear,” Barak told reporters during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

“It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them,” he said.

Barak called it “a challenge for the whole world” to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran but stopped short of confirming any action that could further stoke Washington’s concern about a possible Israeli military strike.

Separately, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged a resumption of dialogue between Western powers and Iran on their nuclear dispute.

He said Friday that Tehran must comply with Security Council resolutions and prove conclusively that its nuclear development program is not directed to making arms.

“The onus is on Iran,” said Ban, speaking at a press conference. “They have to prove themselves that their nuclear development program is genuinely for peaceful purposes, which they have not done yet.”

Ban expressed concern at the most recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency that strongly suggested that Iran’s nuclear program, which it long has claimed is for development of power generation, has a military intent.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said at a Davos session that “we do not have that much confidence if Iran has declared everything” and its best information “indicates that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to nuclear explosive devices.”

“For now they do not have the capacity to manufacture the fuel,” he said. “But in the future, we don’t know.”

In spite of his tough words to Iran, Ban said that dialogue among the “three-plus-three” — Germany, France and Britain plus Russia, China and the United States — is the path forward.

“There is no other alternative for addressing this crisis than peaceful … resolution through dialogue,” said Ban.

Ban noted that there have been a total of five Security Council resolutions so far on the Iranian nuclear program, four calling for sanctions.

As tensions have been on the rise recently, some political leaders in Israel and the United States have been speaking increasingly of the possibility of a military strike to eliminate, or at least slow down, what they allege is a determined effort by Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

John Daniszewski contributed to this report.

Oil Markets Seen Withstanding Iran Attack: Poll – Bloomberg.

More than 70 percent of investors said an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would create only a short-term disruption in oil markets, according to a quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll.

Only about a third of the 1,209 global investors, traders and analysts surveyed Jan. 23-24 said an attack could trigger an oil shock leading to a global recession.

While regional conflicts could affect oil markets over a longer period of time, investors may have “lurking confidence that other oil-producing nations would step up to increase production,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., the Des Moines, Iowa-based company that conducted the survey for Bloomberg.

A plurality of the respondents, 46 percent worldwide, said they were maintaining their current exposure to crude oil investments over the next six months, while 21 percent said they would increase that exposure, and 17 percent said they would reduce it. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Forty-three percent expected crude oil prices to rise in the next half year, while 22 percent said they would fall.

Crude for March delivery today was at $99.86 a barrel, up 18 cents, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract settled at $99.70 yesterday, the highest closing price since Jan. 19. Prices are up 17 percent in the past year.

Blockade Views

Amid the increased tensions and a stepped-up campaign by the U.S. and the European Union to impose strict sanctions on Iran’s petroleum sales, its banking sector and its ability to engage in international trade, most investors surveyed said they were confident that a military conflict and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz aren’t likely.

Only one in five respondents said it is very likely or fairly likely that Iran will make good on its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a transit route for one-fifth of globally- traded oil.

Fifty-four percent of those surveyed expressed confidence that there won’t be military action against Iran’s nuclear program in 2012, while 30 percent said there will be a strike.

Also, 54 percent of those surveyed said a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would provoke a regional conflict, and 42 percent said Iran would retaliate by attacking Israel.

Nuclear Iran

As for the best response from the international community if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, 45 percent worldwide said it was “such a lethal threat that military action against Iran” would be necessary, while 34 percent globally said it was a situation the world could live with. Twenty-one percent said they had no idea.

While more than half of U.S. investors — 57 percent –said military action would be necessary if Iran (OPCRIRAN) acquired a nuclear weapon, just 39 percent of those outside the U.S. said they feel that way. Thirty-eight percent of those surveyed overseas said the world could live with a nuclear-armed Iran, a sentiment shared by only one in four in the U.S.

Fifty-nine percent of the U.S. customers surveyed said an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely prompt attacks on U.S. civilian and military targets in the Middle East; a slim minority of investors outside the U.S., 46 percent, share that view.

Tougher Sanctions

Respondents also were divided about the effects of tougher sanctions on Iran. While 43 percent said the recent sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank diminish the chances that Iran will make concessions over its nuclear program, 36 percent said the sanctions may push Iran to the negotiating table.

On Nov. 21, the U.S., U.K. and Canada took coordinated action targeting Iran’s financial sector, with implications for any entities that do business with both Iran and Western nations. On Dec. 31, President Barack Obama signed into law congressional sanctions on Iran’s central bank aimed at complicating payments for Iranian oil by refiners in any country.

This week, the EU imposed an embargo on Iranian oil imports to the 27-nation bloc effective July 1; banned trade in gold, precious metals, diamonds and petrochemical products from Iran; and imposed an asset freeze on Iranian banks and port operators that will make tens of billions of euros in annual trade with Iran almost impossible.

The U.S., European allies and Israel accuse Iran of trying to acquire the ability to build nuclear weapons. Iran’s leaders say their program is solely for civilian energy and medical research.

In a Nov. 8 report, the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency raised questions about possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

To contact the reporter on this story: Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in Washington at ilakshmanan@bloomberg.net