WarSclerotic

Azerbaijan rejects Iranian protests over arms buy from Israel.

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Azerbaijan on Wednesday dismissed an Iranian protest over its reported deal to buy arms worth $1.5 billion from Tehran’s foe Israel amid increased tensions between the neighboring states.

Azerbaijan’s ambassador was summoned to Iran’s foreign ministry on Tuesday to explain the weapons and to receive a warning that Israel must not be permitted to use Azerbaijan to stage “terrorist acts” against Iran.

But the Azerbaijani foreign ministry said that the reported weapons purchases — which it did not confirm — were not intended to threaten Iran.

“Our foreign policy is not directed against anyone else,” foreign ministry spokesman Elman Abdullayev told a news conference.

Iranian news agencies reported Tuesday that Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Tehran, Javanshir Akhundov, had acknowledged the arms deal.

Akhundov explained that the weapons were bought “to liberate occupied Azerbaijani land”, according to the reports — a reference to the disputed region of Nagorny Karabakh which was seized from Azerbaijan by Armenian forces during a war in the 1990s.

The foreign ministry also cited the continuing conflict with neighbor Armenia over Karabakh, where no peace deal has been signed despite years of negotiations since the 1994 ceasefire.

“Azerbaijani lands are under occupation and we have one million refugees and internally displaced people, so we will do everything to restore territorial integrity and return our lands,” Abdullayev said.

Relations between Tehran and Baku have been tense for several months, with Azerbaijan saying in January that it had detained two other people allegedly linked to Iranian intelligence on suspicion of plotting attacks.

The sales by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries came at a delicate time. Israel has been laboring hard to form diplomatic alliances in a region that seems to be growing increasingly hostile to the Jewish state.

Its most pressing concern is Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli leaders have hinted broadly that they would be prepared to attack Iranian nuclear facilities if they see no other way to keep Tehran from building bombs.

Iran denies Israeli and Western claims it seeks to develop atomic weapons, and says its disputed nuclear program is designed to produce energy and medical isotopes.

It was not clear whether the arms deal with Azerbaijan was connected to any potential Israeli plans to strike Iran. The Israeli defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not at liberty to discuss defense deals.

Danny Yatom, a former head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, said the timing of the deal was likely coincidental. “Such a deal … takes a long period of time to become ripe,” he told The Associated Press.

He said Israel would continue to sell arms to its friends. “If it will help us in challenging Iran, it is for the better,” he said.

Israel’s ties with Azerbaijan, a Muslim country that became independent with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have grown as its once-strong strategic relationship with another Iranian neighbor, Turkey, has deteriorated, most sharply over Israel’s killing of nine Turks aboard a ship that sought to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip in 2010.

For Israeli intelligence, there is also a possible added benefit from Azerbaijan: Its significant cross-border contacts and trade with Iran’s large ethnic Azeri community.

For that same reason, as Iran’s nuclear showdown with the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a weak point, even though both countries are mostly Shiite Muslim.

Earlier this month, Iran’s foreign ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Israeli spy agency Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for “terrorists” to kill members of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Azerbaijan dismissed the Iranian claims as “slanderous lies.” Israeli leaders have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement.

Israel, meanwhile, recently claimed authorities foiled Iranian-sponsored attacks against Israeli targets in Azerbaijan. Such claims have precedents: In 2008, Azeri officials said they thwarted a plot to explode car bombs near the Israeli Embassy; two Lebanese men were later convicted in the bombing attempt. A year earlier, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities.

Iran has denied Azerbaijan’s latest charges of plotting to kill Israelis, but a diplomatic rupture is unlikely. Azerbaijan is an important pathway for Iranian goods in the Caucasus region and both nations have signed accords among Caspian nations on energy, environmental and shipping policies.

Iran’s underground nuclear sites not immune to U.S. bunker-busters, experts say – The Washington Post.

By Joby Warrick, Updated: Wednesday, February 29, 1:30 PM

Western spy agencies for years have kept watch on a craggy peak in northwest Iran that houses of one the world’s most unusual nuclear sites. Known as Fordow, the facility is built into mountain bunkers designed to withstand aerial attack. Iran’s civil-defense chief has declared the site “impregnable.”

But impregnable it is not, say U.S. military planners who are increasingly confident of their ability to deliver a serious blow against Fordow, should the president ever order an attack.

U.S. officials say they have no imminent plan to bombard the site, and they have cautioned that an American attack — or one by its closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel — risks devastating consequences such as soaring oil prices, Iranian retaliation and dramatically heightened tension in a fragile region.

Yet as a matter of physics, Fordow remains far more vulnerable than generally portrayed, said current and former military and intelligence analysts. Massive new “bunker buster” munitions recently added to the U.S. arsenal would not necessarily have to penetrate the deepest bunkers to cause irreparable damage to infrastructure as well as highly sensitive nuclear equipment, likely setting back Iran’s program by years, officials said.

The weapons’ capabilities are likely to factor in discussions with a stream of Israelis leaders arriving in Washington over the next week. The Obama administration will seek to assure the visitors, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, of U.S. resolve to stop Iran if it decides to build a nuclear bomb. White House officials are worried that Israel may launch a preemptive strike against Iran with little or no warning, a move U.S. officials argue would be do little to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions and may in fact deepen Iran’s determination to become a nuclear state.

In arguing their case, U.S. officials acknowledged some uncertainty over whether even the Pentagon’s newest “bunker-buster” weapon — called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP — could pierce in a single blow the subterranean chambers where Iran is making enriched uranium. But they said a sustained U.S. attack over multiple days would probably render the plant unusable by collapsing tunnels and irreparably damaging both its highly sensitive centrifuge equipment and the miles of pipes, tubes and wires required to operate it.

“Hardened facilities require multiple sorties,” said a former senior intelligence official who has studied the formerly secret Fordow site and agreed to discuss sensitive details of U.S. strike capabilities on the condition of anonymity. “The question is, how many turns do you get at the apple?”

U.S. confidence has been reinforced by training exercises in which bombers assaulted similar targets in deeply buried bunkers and mountain tunnels, the officials and experts said.

U.S. officials have raised the necessity of multiple strikes as they warn Israel against a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear installations, the officials said. While Israel is capable of launching its own bunker-buster bombs against Fordow, it lacks both the United States’ more advanced munitions and the capability of waging a sustained bombing campaign over days and weeks, U.S. officials and analysts said.

The U.S.-Israeli rift over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear progress stems in part from the belief among some Israeli officials that their window for successfully attacking Iran’s nuclear installations is rapidly closing as it moves key assets into bunkers. Barak, in a speech this month, spoke of Iran’s progress in creating a “zone of immunity” for its nuclear program.

To U.S. military planners, the “zone of immunity,” if it exists at all, is still years away. The Obama administration, while not ruling out a future strike, regards military action as a last resort, preferring to allow more time for changing Iran’s behavior through economic and political pressure.

U.S. officials also remain unconvinced that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, though they believe it is pursuing the capacity to do so. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy production.

Fordow is in the barren hills of northwestern Iran just outside Qom, the ancient city that is the spiritual home of the 1979 revolutionary movement. U.S. intelligence officials believe that tunneling began nearly a decade ago for what was intended to be a secret uranium enrichment site that would operate parallel to the country’s much larger, declared enrichment plant at Natanz.

The CIA began monitoring the site at least four years ago, and in 2009, President Obama, flanked by other world leaders, publicly exposed the partially built facility and demanded that Iran come clean about its intentions.

Iran acknowledged that it was building a second uranium-enrichment plant and soon allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency in for a visit. The U.N. inspectors saw a series of chambers built into the side of a mountain and connected by tunnels with thick walls and blast-proof doors. Some of the bunkers were protected by as much 200 to 300 feet of mountain.

The underground plant — not yet fully operational — is relatively small, with space for only about 3,000 centrifuges, compared with the tens of thousands planned for Natanz. But analysts say it’s big enough to process the enriched uranium necessary for at least one nuclear weapon a year, should Iran decide to build them.

Iran started enriching uranium in the Fordow plant in January. A report by U.N. inspectors last week confirmed that the plant is making a purer form of enriched uranium that can be relatively easily converted to weapons-grade fuel.

Iran has publicly defended Fordow’s unusually robust fortification, citing repeated threats by Israel to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

Western analysts believe Fordow has not only the protection afforded by natural rock but also additional hardening that draws on North Korean bunker-building expertise. A report last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said the facility was believed to include multiple “blast-proof doors, extensive divider walls, hardened ceilings, 20-centimeter-thick concrete walls, and double concrete ceilings with earth filled between layers.”

“Such passive defenses could have a major impact” in blunting the impact of an aerial bombardment, said the report, written by Anthony Cordesman, a former director of intelligence assessment at the Defense Department and now the holder of CSIS’s Arleigh A. Burke Chair in strategy.

Cordesman acknowledged that reports about such fortification “are often premature, exaggerated, or report far higher construction standards than are actually executed.”

Still, current and former U.S. officials acknowledge that Fordow’s fortifications far exceed those of other facilities encountered in other conflicts, including the al-Taji bunkers that shielded Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s command posts on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Against such a target, the United States has an array of conventional bunker-busting weapons. They include the 5,000-pound BLU-122, capable of penetrating more than 20 feet of concrete or 100 feet of earth before detonating, as well as the far more powerful Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a 30,000-pound titan that can be delivered by the country’s largest strategic bombers. Although the weapon’s precise capabilities are classified, the MOP is estimated to be capable of boring through up to 200 feet of dirt and rock before exploding.

The Pentagon is investing tens of millions of dollars to further enhance the MOP’s explosive punch and concrete-piercing capabilities. Some also note that the weapon’s performance is partly dependent on geology, particularly the type and density of the rock through which the bomb passes.

It’s impossible to know precisely what the impact of a bomb would be against such a difficult target. Certainly, U.S. warplanes would set back Iran’s nuclear efforts, said Michael Eisenstadt, a former military adviser to the State Department and Pentagon.

But for how long?

“You never really know until you do it,” said Eisenstadt, director of Military and Security Studies for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We may be so close to the outer performance limits of the current technology that it becomes a roll of the dice.”

Yet, ultimately, the ability to destroy the Fordow does not depend on whether a bomb physically penetrates the cavern where Iran’s centrifuges are operating, several analysts said.

“There are good outcomes short of destroying” the centrifuge hall, Cordesman said in an interview. Strikes against more accessible targets — from tunnel entrances and air shafts to power and water systems — can effectively knock the plant out of action. Repeated strikes will also make Iran fearful of attempting to repair the damage, he added.

Other analysts stressed the particular vulnerability of centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speeds to purify uranium gas into the enriched form usable in nuclear applications. Almost anything that upsets delicately balanced machines — from shock waves and debris to power disruptions — can render them useless, said one former Pentagon official who also requested anonymity in discussing potential Iranian targets.

“If you can target the one piece of critical equipment instead of the whole thing, isn’t that just as good?” the official said. “Even by reducing the entrances to rubble, you’ve effectively entombed the site.”

© The Washington Post Company

morrisdailyherald.com | Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance in Morris, Illinois.

Russia upgrades radar station in Syria to aid Iran – Washington Times.

JERUSALEM — Russia has upgraded a surveillance station it maintains in Syrian territory in order to provide Iran early warning of an Israeli attack, according to the Israeli security-related blog Debkafile.

The surveillance station, located south of Damascus, had been able to monitor air traffic in Israel as far south as Tel Aviv, as well as northern Jordan and western Iraq.

Since the upgrade, its range reportedly extends to all parts of Israel and Jordan and as far south as the northern part of Saudi Arabia.

According to the report, Russia has introduced cutting-edge technology to the station and expanded its manpower.

Russia has taken a firm stand against any military attack on Iran or any attempt to force Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said this week that Russia is concerned about the threat of an attack against Iran.

“If it happens, the fallout would be truly catastrophic,” he said, also warning that any outside attempt to displace Mr. Assad would open Syria to “a Libyan scenario.”

Debkafile said the upgrade of the electronic surveillance station at Jabal Al Harrah was in response to concern expressed by Iran that the station’s resources were being stretched to the limit by providing so much intelligence to the Assad regime in Syria that Tehran no longer could rely on its real-time warnings of an Israeli attack.

The monitoring station had been providing Mr. Assad with information on the Syrian resistance movements.

Russia also has expanded the capabilities of a Russian-equipped Syrian radar station on Lebanon’s Mount Sannine in order to extend its range to include Cyprus and Greece, and observe U.S. and Israeli naval and aerial movements in the eastern Mediterranean.

This expansion also would permit Russia to provide Tehran with a warning if American planes head east from the Mediterranean in the direction of Iran.

While the upgrade of Jabal Al Harrah was under way from January through mid-February, the Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was in the Syrian port of Tartus, where its electronic systems maintained an alert for possible Israeli air formations heading east.

Mr. Putin has said he supports Iran’s right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. He has urged that Western sanctions against Iran be dropped if Tehran agrees to place its nuclear program under complete supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 29, 2012, 9:51 AM (GMT+02:00)

Baba Amr, Homs, after three-week bombardment

Despite his strong words against Bashar Assad’s horrendous treatment of the opposition to his rule, US President Barack Obama Tuesday, Feb. 28, has vetoed plans submitted to him last week for Western-Arab military intervention to stop it, debkafile’s Washington sources report.  He is weighing an alternative plan for setting up “humanitarian corridors” in the most embattled areas. That too would be contingent on Russian endorsement, because Obama believes Moscow holds the key to Assad’s consent – or at least abstention from sending his army to attack the aid routes.
The Russians have not so far responded to feelers on this from Washington. Neither have they rescinded their threat to block any such plan if tabled at the Security Council.
Ankara provided the clincher for the US president’s decision against military intervention in Syria by its evasiveness over participation in the operation. The plan has nowhere to go without Turkey’s cooperation and the use of its bases from which Western and Arab forces would mount the operation.
debkafile’s sources note that Turkish leaders are vocal about the pressing need to save the Syrian people, but when it comes to the brass tacks of operational planning, they develop cold feet.
The eight-point military plan rejected by Obama was first revealed exclusively in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 530 of Feb. 24.  We are rerunning those points here since at some point – if the “humanitarian corridors” project fails to take off-  the plan may be put back on the table.
1. A group of nations led by the United States will reserve a quarter of Syrian territory (185,180 sq. km) as a safe haven for protecting more than a quarter of the nation’s population (5.5 million people) a under a collective air shield.
2. The operation will be exclusively airborne. No foreign boots will touch the ground in Syria. American, Turkish, French, Italian and British Air Force planes will fly out from three Middle East air bases – Incirlik and Diyarbakir in Turkey, where the US maintains substantial air force strength, and the British facility in Akrotiri, Cyprus.
3. France has offered to make its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle available but accepts that without US air power, spy satellites and operational and logistical resources, the operation will not be feasible.
4. The safe haven will range from Tarkush on Syria’s northern border with Turkey and include the besieged towns of Jabal Al Zaweya, Idlib, Hama, Homs and their outlying villages.
5. The safe haven will be placed off limits to Syrian military and security personnel and its air space declared a no fly zone. Syrian intruders will be challenged by the Western fighter-bombers shielding the protected area.
6. The makeup of the coalition force for saving Syria is still a work in progress. Sarkozy has obtained the consent of Britain, Italy, Turkey and Qatar and is in discussion with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Participation of the last two would make it possible to expand the safe haven to southern and eastern Syria, to include the restive towns of Daraa, Deir a-Zour and Abu Kemal.
7. A regional Syrian administration assisted by Western liaison officers would run the safe haven’s day-to-day affairs. The coalition would take care of the population’s food, medicines and medical care needs.
8. The Western-Arab expedition would not seek Bashar Assad’s ouster as a mission goal or engage in combat with Syrian forces outside the safe haven.

Top US General Grilled on Iran Strike – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Martin Dempsey

Reuters

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey on Tuesday told a Senate panel he did not counsel Israel against attacking Iran over its nuclear program.

“We’ve had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time,” Dempsey said, referring to his visit to Israel a month ago.

Grilled during a Senate Budget Committee meeting, Dempsey also defended his comment that Iran was a rational actor from Senator Lindsey Graham.

“We can’t afford to underestimate our potential adversaries by writing them off as irrational,” Dempsey said.

Asked pointedly by Graham if a military strike by the US was off the table, Dempsey responded, “Absolutely not.”

He stressed the danger of nuclear weapons reaching terrorist groups and the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East involving countries threatened by Iran.

Observers say Graham’s decision to corner Dempsey in committee and on the record on Israel and Iran wasn’t surprising.

Earlier this month, Dempsey said in a CNN interview that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be imprudent, destabilizing and would not achieve Israel’s long-term objectives.

Those comments led Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to charge Dempsey as being “unwilling to aid Israel” in ensuring Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu said Dempsey’s comments “served Iran.”

Within hours Graham and fellow Senator John McCain, who had just met with Netanyahu, took Dempsey to task.

Graham told reporters that, while he respected Dempsey, “Obviously it’s not helpful if there is a well-publicized tension between the US and Israel. We would like to see the United States and Israel agree on a course of action that will lead us toward a goal we both share.”

“People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately from America,” Graham said. “I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny.”

“Never allow a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state,” he added.

Standing next to Graham, McCain said, “There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat.”

“Unfortunately there clearly is some,” added the Senator.

Over the weekend, McCain lashed out at the Obama administration’s handling of rising tensions between Israel and Iran.

McCain told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the administration intentionally leaked to the media the reason for the US national security adviser’s trip to Israel – to try to persuade the country not to attack Iran.

“The prime minister has every reason to be upset,” McCain said. “I can understand why relations are in very bad shape right now.”

In recent months Obama administration officials have leaked secret strategy meetings with Mossad chief Tamir Pardo on Iran, as well as Israel’s theoretical timetable for an Iran strike.

They have also taken the unprecedented step of siding with Iran in accusing Israel of supporting the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran in an assassination campaign targeting Iranian nuclear scientists.

Israel faces resistance over Iran strike – FT.com.

©Getty

Next week’s White House visit by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is already being billed as a make-or-break meeting. With good reason: the principal item on the agenda will be Iran’s nuclear programme and the prospects for war.

As numerous leaks and public comments attest, Israel appears closer than ever to taking military action against Iran. The drumbeats for war are coming from many directions – some of them eerily reminiscent of the build-up to the Iraq war.

As Iran steps up its uranium enrichment, the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose reports are filled with dry descriptions of nuclear centrifuges and cascades, are back at the centre of attention, just as they were in Iraq. Sanctions are being cranked up to squeeze the Iranian economy. There is also a growing feeling of impatience with diplomacy and the idea of negotiating with Tehran.

It is the sort of atmosphere in which ideas that once seemed far-off or dangerous can start to become mainstream and even gather a sense of the inevitable.

Yet if Mr Netanyahu really is coming to Washington to test support for a military assault, it is also increasingly clear what the answer is likely to be. While US president Barack Obama might still be sticking to the mantra that “all options are still on the table”, his senior national security officials have in recent weeks made it clear that they remain opposed to an attack by Israel or anyone else.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said last week that it was “premature” to think about a military strike against Iran.

James Clapper, director of national intelligence, told the Senate that Iran had not yet made the decision to build a nuclear bomb. “I think they’re keeping themselves in a position to make that decision but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time,” he said. Admittedly, this is not as decisive a point as it used to be, given that Iran’s other activities have reduced the “break-out” time needed to build a bomb, but it is still an important distinction.

These are the public words of current officials. The opinion of many former members of the national security establishment is even more categorical. “No one I am aware of thinks that there is a positive outcome from a military strike,” Admiral William Fallon, former commander of US Central Command, which covers the Middle East, said last week.

Such doubts extend to the Israelis. Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told a meeting last month that Israel did not have the capacity to cause serious damage to Iran’s nuclear programme. “They only have the ability to make this worse,” he said.

The difference in opinion between the US and Israel is sometimes put down to a question of timing, the idea being that Washington’s superior air power means it can afford to wait longer before deciding whether to attack. Yet for some former US military leaders, it is in some ways already too late.

According to General James Cartwright, who was until last year vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Iran’s understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the uranium enrichment process means it could open numerous facilities around the country. “Even if you could destroy the facilities, you would not destroy the intellectual capital,” he said. “If they have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that, because the knowledge is there and they’d just build it back.”

Of course, none of this means that Israel will not decide to launch a strike on Iran. Indeed, it is possible that the depth of the scepticism in Washington about the benefits of military action might convince Mr Netanyahu that he has no choice but to go it alone. But amid some of the loose talk about looming war, the reluctance of official Washington is still striking.

Pre-emptive Plan Needed to Stop Iran.

In an Op-Ed recently published by Fareed Zakaria, he discouraged Israel from attacking Iran. He builds his point of view on the following observations:

1. The U.S. expected that the Russians would use their nukes to attack it if they developed a nuclear weapon, yet nothing happened.

2. The terrorist-supporting military in Pakistan have been deterred from using their nuclear arsenal by mutual fears of destruction.

3. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Pakistanis, but not a single suicide attack by an Iranian.

Zakaria concluded that “even if one day Tehran manages to build a few crude bombs, a policy of robust containment and deterrence is better to contemplate than a pre-emptive war.”

While the above view may be convincing for many, it is not convincing in the case of Iran.

First of all, we cannot ignore or negate the possibility that the Iranians will use their nukes to attack other countries simply based on the fact that the Russians have not done so. Accepting this logic is like a doctor concluding that a mass cannot be cancerous based on the fact that another mass in the same person was benign.

This logic is simply faulty as each case must be evaluated independently. For example, unlike the Russians, the Iranians have an ideology that justifies and encourages death for the cause of Allah or martyrdom.

Additionally, I agree that the terrorist-supporting military in Pakistan have been deterred by mutual fears of destruction; however, we need to distinguish between these “terrorist-supporting military” and the ‘terrorists’ themselves. The former still care for their luxurious life and thus can be deterred by death, while the latter dream about dying for Allah to guarantee entry to paradise.

There is a huge difference between supporting terrorists to conduct acts of terror against others for some political purposes — as in the case of the “terrorist-supporting military” in Pakistan — and dying for a cause.

It is illogical to conclude that the Islamic regime of Iran will be deterred by fear of mutual destruction simply because the “terrorist-supporting military” of Pakistan has been deterred by a similar factor.

We need to realize that Aiat Allah Roh Allah “Khomeini,” the leader of the Iranian revolution and the spiritual leader of the current Islamic regime of Iran said: The purest joy in Islam “is to kill and be killed for Allah.” Khomeini was referring to the following verse of the Koran: {Al-Twba 9 :111} Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their money; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth.

Unlike the Iranian case, many of the military leaders of Pakistan are quite secular (even if in secret) and are thus less likely to use a religious ideology to justify killing others and to be killed as well in the process.

The statement that, “over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Pakistanis, but not been a single suicide attack by an Iranian” is correct (but should mention the “human waves” of young Iranian men that were sent to their death in Iraqi minefields?

And what about Hezbollah in Lebanon — they are Shia and conduct suicide attacks, such as that against the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut?). However, we need to recognize that all the formerly mentioned countries other than Iran are Sunnis while Iran is Shia. The difference is significant, as unlike the Shia of Iran, the Sunni world does not have a Margeia (a highest religious authority) that must be obeyed.

In the Sunni world, the terrorist groups do not wait for a Margeia to give them the permission to do a suicide attack. On the contrary, the Shia MUST wait for the Margeia to give them such permission. We were just lucky that the current Margeia has not ordered the Iranians to conduct suicide bombings until now.

If Iran developed a nuclear weapon, we all will be at the mercy of this Margeia. If he was a peaceful man we are OK, but if he was not, we will be in real trouble. The world cannot afford living under this continuous threat.

The possibility that the Iranians — after making their nuclear bombs — smuggle some of them into some western countries or inside the oil-rich areas of Saudi Arabia to use them to intimidate the world must not be ignored. Similarly, we should not ignore the possibility that the Iranians could give some of their nuclear devices to Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israel on their behalf.

Dealing with Islamists taught us that ignoring their threat at its early stages can be catastrophic. For example, ignoring al-Qaida’s attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 opened the gate to the tragedy of Sept. 11. Had we destroyed al-Qaida at this early stage (in 1998), Sept. 11 (in 2001) would not likely have happened.

In other words, it is wiser to remove cancer at its early stages than to wait for it until it becomes inoperable. Similarly, destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran at this stage can protect us from disasters in the future.

The Iranians may attempt to conduct some terrorist acts in response to attacks on their nuclear capabilities. However, protecting ourselves from such acts and dealing with them is certainly much easier than dealing with a nuclear Iran. For example, improving U.S. security measures has prevented major terror acts on U.S. soil for more than 10 years after Sept. 11 despite remaining a target for many Islamic terrorist groups.

Similarly, terror attacks on Israel declined significantly after Israel took wise security measures including building a security defense barrier. Similar tactics can be used to protect Western countries from a possible Iranian retaliation that may occur after a pre-emptive strike against their nuclear capabilities.

A pre-emptive war strategy to remove the Iranian nuclear cancer at stage 0 is much safer for us than waiting until it reaches stage 4. Time only allows cancers to grow and become difficult to treat.

Dealing with the Iranian response to a pre-emptive strike on their nuclear facilities can be easier than dealing with Iran after they attain a nuclear bomb.

If soft power can effectively solve the Iranian issue and prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs, it is certainly advisable to use such an approach. However, if these measures fail, the wise approach to be used with Iran in this case is the old saying, “Eat them for lunch before they eat you for dinner.”

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of “Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam.” Read more reports from Tawfik Hamid — Click Here Now. 

White House Faces Continuing Questions on Iran, Possible Israeli Action | Middle East | English.

The White House says the United States and Israel share the same goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and emphasizes the importance of allowing enough time for international sanctions to change the Iranian government’s behavior.  

Amid the flurry of media reports ahead of next week’s talks between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, two in particular were the subject of questions at Tuesday’s White House news briefing.

An Associated Press report quoted what it called U.S. officials familiar with high level U.S.-Israel discussions as saying that Israel would not warn the United States if a decision is made to launch a preemptive military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said he would not comment on discussions between U.S. and foreign officials, stressing the fact that Israel and the United States are fully engaged at every level.

When pressed again on the issue of prior notice of an Israeli attack on Iran, Carney said, “We have very close relationships with our Israeli counterparts.  We have deep engagement at every level.  But I wouldn’t discuss speculative; I wouldn’t answer speculative questions like that.”

Whether Israel would provide advance notice has been among many questions in the intense media reporting ahead of next week’s Obama-Netanyahu meeting.

Security studies specialist Colin Kahl of Georgetown University Colin Kahl, associate professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, says Israel has been sending signals for months that an attack on Iran is being contemplated.

Kahl says that, in some sense, is a “strategic warning.”  But he adds that the question remains whether Israel would give the United States actual notice prior to launching an attack. “The only person that knows the answer to that question is Netanyahu.  But I think there is a concern that the Israelis wouldn’t want the United States to discourage them from taking action at the last minute and therefore they may only give the United States a few hours notice,” he said.

Top U.S. officials, including President Obama’s national security adviser, have visited Israel in recent months to make the case that more time should be allowed for international sanctions against Iran to work.

Iran denies that its nuclear program has any military purpose, saying its uranium enrichment activities, which U.N. atomic inspectors say have reached unprecedented levels, are for peaceful civilian purposes.

Carney was asked about a report in The Wall Street Journal that says Mr. Obama is considering speaking in more specific terms about so-called “red lines” Iran should not cross.

The newspaper said this was linked to Israeli government complaints about public statements by some U.S. officials, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army General Martin Dempsey, that Israeli leaders felt sent the wrong signals to Iran.

Responding to the report, Carney repeated President Obama’s pledge that no options have been taken off the table regarding Iran, but he said the United States believes there is “time and space” for diplomacy and sanctions to work. “There is a road out of, or a path out of this dead end that Iran has been pursuing, which is to honor its international obligations, forsake its nuclear weapons ambitions and rejoin the international community by living up to its obligations,” he said.

U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, have identified red lines for Iran as being a decision to develop a nuclear weapon along with any attempt to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are scheduled to speak at the annual conference of the largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Carney said Mr. Obama will discuss the Iran issue in his address to the organization on Sunday, the day before he welcomes the Israeli leader to the White House, but he offered no details of what the president intends to say.

For Israel, Peace at Any Price May Be Too High a Price | GlossyNews.com.

By Guest Writer Frank Edward Jordan

The state of Israel will not forgo attacking Iranian nuclear facilities just because the US has not given it permission. Israel is a nuclear power. It has both the means and military expertise to subject Iran to a nuclear holocaust when it feels the time has come to act. One should remember that the only reason Israel did not subject Saddam’s country to missile strikes during the first Gulf War was that George H. W. Bush, fearful of losing Arab support if Israel retaliated, pledged to wipe out the Scud missiles that were impacting in Israel. But, the Knesset and the Israeli leadership were just a hair’s breath away from launching its own retaliation.

Eighty years ago, the Nuremburg Laws set out to destroy Jews from all of Germany and Europe. The survivors of that Holocaust settled Palestine under the terms of the United Nations Partition. Now, the state of Israel is a military force that, more than once, has beaten back all the nations surrounding it, and without nuclear weapons.

Russia is in no shape militarily to do anything of note in the Middle East. Putin notwithstanding, Russia cannot field and maintain a credible army outside its own borders, nor can its beleaguered navy and air force do more than demand Israel leave Iran alone. Realistically, China has no dog in this fight. They want the Gulf open to shipping as much as anyone else but the commitment of troops has never been an issue. Washington and Peking have allied interests in a peaceful middle east.

Iran may have an army, but its air force is a farce. Israel, as they did in the last Arab-Israeli War, would seek to take out Iran’s airfields first, effectively grounding Iraq’s war planes. Control of the skies would be Israel’s alone. However, to achieve air superiority, Israel would be forced to invade Jordanian or Syrian airspace, and that could be a major stumbling block. Jordan’s air force is no farce. Jordanian pilots are US and Russian trained dog fighters and may be the equal to Israel’s. No Arab country will allow Israel to overfly it; Israel would face a heavy Arab attack immediately. Of course the US might restrict Israeli flights over Iraq. The only way to avoid Arab air space would be a long flight down the Red Sea, across the Gulf of Aden and then north over the Arabian Sea directly into Iraq.

That leaves Israel only two good options: a long flight with horrible logistical problems of refueling, or an attack with missiles.

Israel has demonstrated its commitment to remain the only nuclear power in the arena. They destroyed Iraq’s first nuclear reactor many years ago, before it came online. There are other concerns in the area. Pakistan, a Muslim nation, is a wildcard, but they might fire missiles at Israel. And anything Pakistan attempts will be met by Indian resistance and may be the start of an all-out, nuclear war between those two nations.

Can a peace be brokered? Secretary of State Hilary Clinton would certainly attempt peace talks. But is she a Kissinger? No one can say.

Of one thing we can be certain: President Obama’s foreign policy will be seriously questioned by his opponents. Is he up to the challenge; and how would the Republican controlled House of Representatives react to his peace proposals? If Obama can manage this crisis without the use of US military forces, he’ll truly take his place among the Nobel Peace Prize laureates whose company, dubious as it is, he already shares.

We are among Israel’s strongest allies or have been in the past. Are we yet? Does Israel need our protection or permission to act in its own interests? Are they even asking for our input? Will the UK act with us? What will France do? Russia has made its aims clear. China could go either way, but it has sided with Russia in the UN Security Council. Any nation in the Security Council could veto UN action.

One thing is certain, Iran’s leadership is out of touch with reality. If their nuclear arms program continues to the point of arming missiles, you can bet they will use them against Israel. I am no prophet. I’m not preaching out of Revelations. A crisis that can set off a world war is growing every day. The United Nations is useless.

Thus, avoiding a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran will come down to the ability of their particular allies’ leaders to broker a peace. I hope to live to see such a peace, but for Israel, I fear, a peace at any price is too high a price.

Frank E. Jordan is a UCF graduate. He is retired Navy, and a Vietnam veteran, wounded in action.
As a writer, his focus is on military history, although he also writes satire and serious commentary on various subjects.