WarSclerotic

Tunisia ‘to withdraw recognition’ of Syria gov’t | Agricultural Commodities | Reuters.

TUNIS Feb 4 (Reuters) – Tunisia has started the procedure for withdrawing its recognition of the Syrian leadership under President Bashar al-Assad and for expelling the Syrian ambassador, the Tunisian president said on Saturday.

A message posted on the Facebook page of President Moncef Marzouki said: “Tunisia has announced the launch of procedures for the expulsion of the Syrian ambassador in Tunisia and the withdrawal of all recognition of the regime in power in Damascus.”

“The only solution (to the violence in Syria) is the withdrawal of Bashar al-Asssad from power, and the launch of a democratic transition,” the message said. (Reporting by Tarek Amara; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Alison Williams)

America, Israel, Iran: signals of war | openDemocracy.

Volusia is a small town in Florida, about sixty kilometres west of the coastal resort of Daytona. This dot on the map, straddling the St John River just off the state’s “black bear strategic byway”, seems a very long way from the rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In fact, the connection is surprisingly close.

For Volusia also sits at the eastern border of the extensive Ocala national forest, which plays host to the United States navy’s only firing-range – the “Pinecastle impact range” – capable of dropping live air-to-surface weapons. The town’s residents are used to living with noise, but since mid-January 2012 they have been “hearing booms loud enough to rattle their windows and scare their cats” (see Skyler Swisher, “Naval bomb practice rattles Volusia-Flagler”, Daytona Beach News-Journal, 2 February 2012).

This exceptional level of activity reflects the range’s current intensive use as an aircrew-training site for pilots and weapons officers from the USS Enterprise now cruising offshore.  The plan is that this will be redeployed to the Persian Gulf some time in March 2012 as the leading vessel in a third US carrier battle-group in the region, alongside the groups already there led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Carl Vinson.

The Enterprise battle-group is normally assigned to the United States navy’s sixth fleet in the Mediterranean, though it has also transited the Suez canal into the Red Sea and beyond. This time, the Pentagon is making it clear that the Enterprise deployment is intended specifically to send a strong message to Iran.

The carrier message

To get a sense of what is happening, some context is helpful. The Enterprise is as a 1960s-era vessel the oldest nuclear-powered carrier in the United States navy; its current deployment will be the twenty-second and last before it is decommissioned. Until that happens it remains one of eleven potential carrier battle-groups in the US’s inventory, including much more modern Nimitz-class warships such as the Abraham Lincoln and the Carl Vinson.

It is routine for carrier battle-groups (CBG), once assembled and deployed in distant waters, to stay on station for up to six months – though with resupply this can be extended. There is often a short period of overlap between CBGs coming and going, but rarely much more than this. What is most unusual about the two CBGs now in the Persian Gulf – which have been there barely a month – is precisely that there are two rather than one in the same area; which also means that to have three on station, potentially for several months, is very rare indeed.

This also poses a major task for the navy. There may be eleven CBGs in the entire US fleet, but each carrier (accompanied by its cruiser, destroyers, supply-ship and submarine) can be deployed only for about 40% of the time. The remaining period is spent on transiting to and from the deployment area, crew training (as with the Enterprise in Florida just now), shore leave, minor repairs and major refits (which sometimes take a year or more).

Amid these constraints it is rare enough for the US to have five carriers at sea at the same time – and almost never in one part of the world. Indeed, the last time this happened was in 1990-91 at the time of the first Gulf war following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (when the US navy had thirteen carriers).

A recent column in this series highlighted the presence of the Abraham Lincoln and Carl Vinson groups in the region, while cautioning that this does not itself translate into a US plan to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It means, instead, that the Pentagon wishes to be ready for any crisis, whether this takes the form of an Iranian provocation, an unintended escalation or (most likely) the dangerous consequences of an Israeli attack (see “The thirty-year: past, present, future”, 20 January 2012).

That may continue to be the case, but it is worth pointing to subsequent developments that  in a fast-moving situation offer fresh signals about what may lie ahead. On one side, a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute by Robert Kelley casts a sceptical eye on the claim that Iran is seeking an early nuclear capability (see “Nuclear arms programme charge against Iran no sure thing“, 28 January 2012). Some recent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), moreover, have revealed little of concern.

China is both an important and a cautioning factor in the whole equation. It is the biggest customer for Iran’s oil and thus a very reluctant supporter of international sanctions against Tehran (see Antoaneta Becker, “China Looks Both Ways on Iranian Oil”, TerraViva/IPS, 2 February 2012). China is also well aware its strategic rival India is itself both a major market for Iran and maintaining its links with Tehran.

But if these developments would seem on the surface to work against confrontation, they are being outweighed by others that suggest almost that one or more of the major players is clearing a path to war (see Donald Macintyre, “Drums of war beat louder as Israel and Iran step up rhetoric“, 3 February 2012).

The path to war

In particular there is a hardening of rhetoric against (as well as from within) Iran, from multiple sources. Here are but six examples, four from American and two from Israeli representatives:

* the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center publishes a widely quoted report urging Barack Obama’s administration to make threats of force against Iran more credible, including arming Israel with more GBU-31 “bunker-buster” bombs (see Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock, 1 February 2012)

* the US’s director of national intelligence, James R Clapper Jr, says that Iran is more willing to strike within the continental United States (see Greg Miller, “Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on US soil, US intelligence report finds”, Washington Post, 31 January 2012)

* the US defence secretary Leon Panetta refuses to backtrack on an attributed comment that an Israeli attack on Iran was likely by June 2012 (see “Panetta lets stand report that Israel may attack Iran by June“, Ha’aretz, 3 February 2012)

* the experienced US negotiator and diplomat Dennis Ross cites the Israeli view of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as an “existential” threat to argue that Israel could “unilaterally” attack Iran within a definite “timeframe from their end” of “nine to twelve months” (see Alex Spillius, “Israel ready to attack Iran ‘within months’“, Telegraph, 2 February 2012)

* Israel’s deputy prime minister (and minister of strategic affairs), Moshe Ya’alon, says the Israeli military is capable of hitting all of Iran’s nuclear sites (see “Vice PM: Military strike can destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Ha’aretz, 3 February 2012)

* Israel’s head of military intelligence, Major-General Aviv Kochavi, estimates that around 200,000 missiles are targeted at Israel at any one time (see Amos Harel, “Some 200, 000 missiles aimed consistently at Israel, top IDF officer says“, Ha’aretz, 2 February 2012). The great majority may be short-range unguided rockets held by Iran’s ally Hizbollah in Lebanon and militias in Gaza, thus the comment links a range of threats (see Con Coughlin, “Israel will not pull out of the next Middle East war until Hizbollah is annihiliated“, Telegraph, 2 February 2012).

Several columns in this decade-long series, since 2005 especially, have identified the danger of armed conflict being triggered by the Israel-United States-Iran nexus; all, however, have insisted that even escalating tensions do not make war inevitable or imminent. Yet the mix of incidents and statements during the past week do suggest that a “ratchet effect” is underway, which at the very least prepares the way for a conflict and appears to render it the natural outcome – even if that is not the specific intention.

An additional and often missed aspect of this situation makes it even more worrying: namely, Israel’s calculation of the US’s political prospects. A notable shift is underway here, from the widespread expectation that President Obama would find it very difficult to be re-elected to a view – shared privately even among leading Republicans – that, especially if more positive economic trends persist, he is becoming more of a favourite.

Israel thus, more acutely than ever, must assess the “risk” a second Obama victory in November 2012 may pose to its – and especially the more hawkish elements in its political and military establishment – perceived security interests. For example, that the president will in the precious first two years of his second term exert sustained pressure on Israel to settle the Palestinian issue, in ways that will make confrontation with Iran increasingly problematic. For those in Israel who see in Iran and its nuclear plans an existential threat, the logic of curbing its ambitions as far as possible is intimately bound up with the US’s electoral timetable – a calculation that points in the direction of taking action by around September 2012 at the latest.

If these current factors are considered together – including Israeli and US statements, and (again) the very unusual deployment of three carrier battle-groups within reach of Iran for the next several months – the risk of war with Iran does seem closer now than at any time since the early months of 2006.

Obama’s latest crisis: Iran – Josh Gerstein and Byron Tau – POLITICO.com.

A few months ago, President Barack Obama looked like he could claim 2012 bragging rights as a deft foreign policy leader.

Iran threatens to change all that.

The possibility of an Israeli military strike aimed at Iran’s nuclear program could turn into the most complex foreign policy challenge of Obama’s presidency, overshadowing a string of national security successes: the winding down of the Iraq War, the killing of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and the pursuit of an aggressive armed drone campaign that killed terrorism promoter Anwar al-Awlaki.

That’s no small list of achievements. But an Israeli strike on Iran could unleash dangerous and unpredictable consequences, including the possibility of broader war in the Middle East, Iranian retaliation against the U.S., terrorism and a spike in oil prices that could slow the recovering U.S. economy. Add in Obama’s already uneasy relationship with Israel, and that’s a set of developments that would trouble any president seeking reelection.

The political risk is particularly acute because the policy change Obama promised during the 2008 campaign, new diplomatic efforts to open talks with Tehran over the nuclear issue, seems to have failed.

Speculation about a looming Israeli attack kicked into high gear this week after Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.” Panetta declined to confirm whether that correctly represents his view.

Israel’s “window for an effective military option is closing fast,” said Matthew Kroenig, a former policy analyst at the Pentagon and now a politics professor at Georgetown University. “If they don’t think we’ll [strike Iran], I think there’s a real risk that in the next six months Israel will try to do it on their own. … I do think there’s a real fear in the administration that we’re hitting crunch time.”

While there are downsides to military action, Kroenig said, “what if Iran had nuclear weapons five or 10 years from now? That would be even worse. … The White House is dealing with more short-term political considerations that make it hard to think about things like what the world might be like in the future with a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Aaron David Miller, a Mideast staffer on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration who is now with the Woodrow Wilson Center, said a confrontation over the Iranian nuclear program is looming. “You have as auspicious a coincidence of politics, policy and intelligence on the Iranian issue as has ever been assembled,” he said. “This could actually create a crisis — the first real crisis, the 3 a.m. phone call — that the president has had.”

Even the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran puts Obama in a politically awkward position in the lead-up to the November election. Pressuring Israel not to act will be seen by some American Jews as a misguided and presumptuous effort to discourage the Israeli government from defending itself. In addition, the long-running tension between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government could make the Israelis less receptive to U.S. arguments against action.

Despite the political risk, some prominent foreign policy experts say the Obama administration is obliged to try to talk the Israelis out of any military action.

“If we have a foreign policy of our own and we have a friend we are generously financing and even more generously arming, that friend has to take our interest and our views into account and not confront us with accomplished facts,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. “If the U.S. government is not capable of conducting such a discussion, it has really defaulted as far as its management of foreign policy. These are large stakes. Large stakes among friends should be discussed frankly and not with some deference to political calculation.”

Other analysts say the Obama administration sees a political benefit in preventing an Israeli strike.

“The president is desperate — desperate — to take the steam out of the momentum towards military action,” said Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. The administration’s “single-minded focus is ensuring that … foreign policy doesn’t interfere with the president’s domestic agenda.”

Voices aligned with the administration said talk of distance between the White House and Israel over Iran has been exaggerated.

“Anyone who’s suggesting major gaps between the two countries on this [is] really ignoring the extensive bilateral contacts,” said Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress.

A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on the new urgency in discussions about a possible Israeli strike against Iran. However, the State Department signaled that the U.S. still sees a chance to end Iran’s alleged nuclear program without a violent conflict.

“We certainly understand and share the serious concern that Israel has regarding Iran’s nuclear program,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. “We believe there’s still time and space to pursue diplomacy.”

Toner said sanctions are applying “unprecedented pressure” to Iran and “are having a chilling effect on the Iranian economy.” He emphasized that the U.S. is committed to “a two-track approach of diplomacy and pressure” and is “absolutely committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

A report from the Bipartsian Policy Center this week urged that the U.S. send more bunker-busting bombs to Israel to increase the military threat against Iran, essentially letting Israel handle a strike.

Retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald said it would be easier for the Obama administration to defer to Israeli action than to build the political will for a U.S.-led attack on Iran.

“The president is somewhat hamstrung. It’s difficult for him to say, ‘I’m going to pre-emptively attack Iran.’ … The American public doesn’t seem to have a stomach for that,” said Wald, who serves on the panel that produced the BPC report. “We’re pretty war-weary. We’ve spent 10 years in two places. … On the other hand, sometimes you’ve got to make tough decisions.”

But Miller said there’s no way for the U.S. to stay on the sidelines regardless of who drops the bombs. “I’m not so sure that even if this wasn’t an election year that would be sustainable,” he said.

At hearings in Congress this week, lawmakers said the Iranian nuclear issue is likely to come to a head this year.

“According to most timelines I’ve heard, 2012 will be a critical year,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said.

Adding to the sense that the Israelis may act soon: The chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, paid a visit to Washington last week. He met with top lawmakers and Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, participants said.

“When you’re viewing it from the Israeli standpoint it, clearly, I think, reaches the level of perhaps the No. 1 challenge of 2012,” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) warned.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers that sanctions imposed on Tehran haven’t slowed the nuclear effort so far. But he said the increasingly stringent restrictions countries are placing on trade with Iran could persuade the regime to abandon its nuclear program, which Iranian officials have insisted is entirely peaceful.

Even if the administration manages to defuse the potential crisis, Republicans “are going to try to make this an election issue with the line of attack being that we pretty much wasted time with the engagement policy towards Iran,” Kroenig said.

But a grave and unpredictable showdown in a tinderbox such as the Middle East also presents a political opportunity for a commander-in-chief up for reelection.

“Everything hinges on how the president handles the 3 a.m. phone calls,” Miller said, noting that the country tends to rally around the president in a crisis. “This president will be in a high-wire act — on the high wire, by himself. And everyone will be watching.”

Iran says Europe oil ban will not halt n… JPost – International.

Khamenei Vows Iran Won’t Abandon Nuclear Work as U.S. Differs With Israel – Bloomberg.

Iran’s leader said it won’t back down in the confrontation over its nuclear program, as the U.S. and Israel disagreed publicly over timing for a potential military attack.

The allies have a “significant analytic difference” over how close Iran is to shielding the nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said yesterday in an interview. “There’s a growing concern — more than a concern — that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge.”

In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said yesterday that his nation won’t abandon its nuclear efforts and warned that a strike would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East “10 times over,” according to the Associated Press.

Referring to Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that will be cut, Khamenei said in his Friday sermon that “if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will help.”

Differences over how to stop Iran’s nuclear activities were underscored by public comments this week by Israeli and U.S. defense officials.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Feb. 2 that Israel must consider conducting “an operation” before Iran reaches an “immunity zone,” referring to Iran’s goal of protecting its uranium enrichment and other nuclear operations by moving them to deep underground facilities such as one at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.

‘Nearing Readiness’

“The world has no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is steadily nearing readiness and is about to enter an immunity zone,” Barak said in an address to the annual Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center campus north of Tel Aviv. “If the sanctions don’t achieve their goal of halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program, there will arise the need of weighing an operation.”

While Israelis think Iran will reach the immunity zone in “half the time the Americans think it will,” Miller said it’s “by and large an overstatement” to describe that difference as a growing rift.

The U.S. holds the view that “there is still time and space to pursue diplomacy” with Iran, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said yesterday in Washington. He said the U.S. “is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

Panetta’s Concerns

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declined to comment directly on a report by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June. Panetta and other U.S. officials have repeatedly warned Israel not to act alone.

“Israel has indicated that they’re considering this” through public statements, Panetta told reporters traveling with him on Feb. 2 in Brussels. “And we have indicated our concerns.”

Tension and distrust between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be complicating communications on the issue, according to a U.S. defense official who declined to be identified because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the news media.

Defense officials have been concerned that Obama hasn’t warned Netanyahu directly enough about the risks of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, according to the official.

‘Working Together’

James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, said Jan. 31 that communication with Israel is good. “We’re doing a lot with the Israelis, working together with them,” he told the Senate intelligence panel.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said in a Jan. 26 interview with National Journal he told Israeli leaders last month that it is “premature” to resort to military force because sanctions are starting to have an impact on Iran.

Lawmakers in Washington are pressing to ratchet up the economic pressure.

The Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved a bill on Feb. 2 that targets Iran-related banking transactions, Iran’s national oil company and leading tanker fleet and joint ventures in mining and energy projects. It also would require corporate disclosure of Iran-related activity to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Financial Transactions

One provision calls on the administration to provide a report to Congress within 60 days detailing Iran-related financial transactions facilitated by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, the Belgian member-owned institution known as Swift, and its competitors. The measure would give the president authority to sanction them for facilitating such transfers. A similar bill, with stronger language mandating the imposition of sanctions, was submitted in the House.

While leaders of both countries agree that time must be given to gauge the impact of economic sanctions on Iran, Israel’s patience is shorter than that of the U.S., said Ephraim Kam, deputy director of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies.

“It will take at least six months to see whether sanctions are effective and by then it may be too late,” said Kam, author of the 2007 book, “A Nuclear Iran: What Does it Mean, and What Can be Done.”

‘Different Clocks’

“We’re definitely using different clocks,” he said.

Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz told the Herzliya conference on Feb. 1 that his nation must be “willing to deploy” its military assets because Iran may be within a year of gaining nuclear weapons capability. Gantz said international sanctions are starting to show some results.

Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s vice prime minister and its former top military commander, played down Iran’s ability to shelter its activities from a military attack.

“It’s possible to strike all Iran’s facilities, and I say that out of my experience as IDF chief of staff,” he said at the conference, referring to the Israeli Defense Forces.

The U.S., its European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have challenged the government in Tehran to prove that its nuclear work is intended only for energy and medical research, as Iranian officials maintain. An IAEA inspection team is scheduled to hold hold talks in Iran Feb. 21 and Feb. 22, following up a three-day session that ended Jan. 31 without a breakthrough.

To contact the reporters on this story: Nicole Gaouette in Washington at ngaouette@bloomberg.net; Jonathan Ferziger in Tel Aviv at jferziger@bloomberg.net

Nuclear Inspection Visit to Iran Deemed a Failure – NYTimes.com.

By ROBERT F. WORTH and DAVID E. SANGER

¶ DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — American and European officials said Friday that a mission by international nuclear inspectors to Tehran this week had failed to address their key concerns, indicating that Iran’s leaders believe they can resist pressure to open up the nation’s nuclear program.

¶ The assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action and warning that any attack “would be 10 times worse for the interests of the United States” than it would be for Iran.

¶ While the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who returned to Vienna after a three-day mission in Tehran, said nothing substantive about their trip and were planning to return to Iran later this month, diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November.

¶ That report cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran has insisted its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful and has dismissed the evidence suggesting otherwise as fabricated or taken out of context, and has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections.

¶ Members of the I.A.E.A. delegation were told that they could not have access to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an academic who is widely believed to be in charge of important elements of the suspected weaponization program, and that they could not visit a military site where the agency’s report suggested key experiments on weapons technology might have been carried out.

¶ “The agency expressed interest in all the areas of concern,” said a diplomat based in Vienna, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The team asked for access in the future to different types of sites and personnel, and that was denied.”

¶ One senior American official described the session between the agency and Iranian nuclear officials as “foot-dragging at best and a disaster at worst.” But a diplomat at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna said “disaster is too strong a word.” He added: “Iran has refused to address the issue for three years now. To be fair, you have to give them credit for at least discussing it. The dialogue is continuing, and that’s a good sign.”

¶ In Tehran, the speech by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made during Friday Prayer and broadcast live to the nation, came amid deepening American concern about a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence.

¶ Israeli leaders have issued mixed signals regarding their intentions, suggesting that they are willing, for a short time at least, to wait and see if increasingly strict sanctions, including a European oil embargo, will force Iran to give in to inspectors’ demands, and to cease the production of at least some of the uranium that outside experts fear could be turned into bomb fuel.

¶ The ayatollah also issued an unusually blunt warning that Iran would support militant groups opposing Israel, an action that some analysts said could be held up by Israel as a casus belli.

¶ Reinforcing the concern, ABC News reported on Friday that Israeli consular officials were warning of possible attacks on Israeli government sites abroad and synagogues and Jewish schools. ABC quoted an internal Israeli document as saying, “We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase.”

¶ Without being specific, Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran “had its own tools” to respond to threats of war and would use them “if necessary,” the Mehr news agency reported.

¶ Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the sanctions as “painful and crippling,” according to Iranian news agencies, acknowledging the effect of recent measures aimed at cutting off Iran’s Central Bank from the international financial system. But he also said the sanctions would ultimately benefit his country. “They will make us more self-reliant,” he said, according to a translation by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.

¶ In recent weeks, senior American and European officials have visited Israel to counsel patience, warning that a military attack could backfire and strengthen what they called Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons.

¶ Two senior Israeli officials, including the head of the Mossad, the intelligence agency believed to be responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, visited Washington over the past week, for what officials described as sometimes contentious meetings. Israeli officials say they are worried that Iran may soon be immune to the threat of airstrikes as its enrichment facilities are moved into deep mountain bunkers.

¶ Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said at a conference in Israel on Thursday that if sanctions failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to “consider taking action,” according to the newspaper Haaretz.

¶ Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday, echoed the sentiment.

¶ “My view is that right now the most important thing is to keep the international community unified in keeping that pressure on, to try to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon, that they should join the international family of nations and that they should operate by the rules that we all operate by,” he said. “But I have to tell you, if they don’t, we have all options on the table, and we’ll be prepared to respond if we have to.”

¶ In Washington, there was evidence on Friday that a new Senate bill for tougher sanctions, which could effectively sever Iranian banks from a global financial telecommunications network, was having an effect, even before a full Senate vote.

¶ The network, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, would face unspecified penalties under the legislation if it failed to sever sanctioned Iranian banks. Swift, based in Belgium, said in a statement on Friday that it “fully understands and appreciates the gravity of the situation,” and was working with banking regulators “to find the right multilateral legal framework which will enable Swift to address the issues.”

¶ Expulsion from Swift could be catastrophic for Iran’s economy by blocking a major conduit for foreign revenue.

Zvi Bar’el / Slaughter in Syria as the UN continues to chatter – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Due to the steadfast support of Russia, Bashar Assad has nothing to be concerned about in the discussions taking place at the UN in New York.

By Zvi Bar’el

337 dead, around 1,300 wounded, body parts in the streets, destroyed homes and chatter at the United Nations. That more or less sums up a horrible day in Syria during which the Syrian military decided to attack the city of Homs in an unprecedented manner.

In the meantime, Assad does not need to be concerned about the discussions taking place at the UN in New York. The assertive parts of the Arab League proposal have been stripped and all that remain are a probable condemnation and meaningless call for Assad to transfer his powers to his deputy Farouk al-Shara. Russia has not yet given its proposals for the resolution and it is not clear if it will veto, abstain or support the new and watered down proposal that does not include any threat of military intervention, does not rule out the continuation of Russian arm sales to Syria, and does not include any hints of further sanctions. It is doubtful that the massacre in Homs will influence Russia’s steadfast support for the Assad regime.

As international pressure may end with a murmur in a minute, Assad can continue with a new strategy of heavily shelling restive cities, killing indiscriminately and using Russian methods applied in Chechnya.

It is true, however, that the flow of Syrian army deserters continues, including Friday’s report of senior Air Force officer Kasem Saad Al Din and another group of junior officers. Also, the Free Syrian Army photographed its flags flying over a military facility and is arresting Syrian army soldiers. But the Free Syrian Army does not have the capability to respond to the Syrian military’s moves. According to opposition reports, the Free Syrian Army receives funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and even manages to smuggle in weapons from Lebanon but it does not have heavy weapons to fight with like the Syrian military.

The Syrian military’s goal is now not only to restore its control over suburbs and towns seized by the Free Syrian Army and to prevent the spread of the uprising, but also to treat rebellious cities as enemy territory to be fully conquered with all means necessary. The memories of the massacre in Hama 30 years ago, in which tens of thousands of Syrians were killed, still echo in Syria, in the hearts of the demonstrators and in the head of Assad, who has not yet reached the peak of his father.

The Associated Press: Iran begins new military exercises in south.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard began military exercises Saturday in the country’s south, the latest show of force after threats to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for tougher Western sanctions.

Plans for new Iranian naval games in the Persian Gulf off the country’s southern coast have been in the works for weeks. State media announced new maneuvers in southern Iran involving ground forces, but it was not immediately clear whether they were part of the planned naval training missions scheduled for this month or a separate operation.

The latest military maneuvers got under way following stern warnings by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about any possible U.S. or Israeli attacks against Tehran’s nuclear facilities. It also comes after Western forces boosted their naval presence in the Gulf led by the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Iran officials and lawmakers have repeatedly said that their country would close the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in retaliation for sanctions that affect Iran’s oil exports. They have as yet made no attempts to disrupt shipping through the waterway, the route for one-fifth of the world’s crude oil, and the U.S. and allies have said they would respond swiftly to any attempts at a blockade.

Last month, Iran’s navy wrapped up 10 days of exercises in the Gulf, but the Revolutionary Guard — which is directly under control of the supreme leader — represents a significantly stronger military force and controls key programs such as missile development. Iranian state media announced the new maneuvers, but gave no further details.

Khamenei, in a speech nationally broadcast on Friday, staked out a hard line after suggestions by Israel that military strikes are an increasing possibility if sanctions fail to rein in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

He pledged to aid any nation or group that challenges Israel and said any military strikes would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East “10 times” more than they would hurt Iran. The comments also may signal that Tehran’s proxy forces — led by Lebanon’s Islamic militant group Hezbollah — could be given the green light to revive attacks on Israel as the showdown between the archfoes intensifies.

The West and its allies fear Iran could use its uranium enrichment labs — which make nuclear fuel — to eventually produce weapons-grade material. Iran insists it only seeks reactors for energy and medical research.

Israel has so far publicly backed the efforts by the U.S. and European Union for tougher sanctions that target Iran’s crucial oil exports. But Israeli leaders have urged even harsher measures and warn that military action remains a clear option despite Western appeals to allow time for the economic pressures and isolation to bear down on Iran.

Iran’s oil minister repeated claims that an EU oil embargo will not cripple Iran’s economy, claiming Saturday that the country already has identified new customers to replace the loss in European sales that accounted for about 18 percent of Iran’s exports.

Rostam Qassemi also reinforced Iran’s warning to Saudi Arabia and other fellow OPEC members against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran’s crude exports, saying the cartel should not be used as a political weapon against a member state.

Although Israel has raised the strongest hints that it is likely to start a military campaign, Khamenei reserved some of his strongest comments for Israel’s key U.S. ally.

“A war itself will damage the U.S. 10 times” more in the region, said Khamenei.

Khamenei claimed Iran, however, could only emerge stronger. “Iran will not withdraw. Then what happens?” asked Khamenei. “In conclusion, the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. “The hegemony of Iran will be promoted. In fact, this will be in our service.”

On Thursday, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, suggested the world is increasingly ready to consider a military strike if sanctions fail. The head of the country’s strategic affairs ministry, Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, also suggested Iran’s main military installations are still vulnerable to airstrikes — even as Iran starts up a new uranium enrichment facility deep in a mountainside bunker south of Tehran.

Yaalon’s comments appear to reinforce earlier suggestions by other Israel officials that the window for a possible attack is closing and Israel would need to strike by summer to inflict significant setbacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity under standing guidelines.

At Ramstein Air Base in Germany, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said sanctions remain the best approach to pressure Iran. But he told U.S. airmen Friday that Washington keeps “all options on the table and would be prepared to respond if we have to.”

Khamenei answered by repeating Iran’s declarations that it will never roll back its nuclear program, which he had earlier said was now part of the country’s “identity” and a cornerstone of its technological endeavors. On Friday, Iran said it successfully sent a small satellite into orbit in the third such launch in recent years, state media reported.

“From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this,” said Khamenei, using the phrase widely used by Iran’s leader to describe Israel.

Russia warns of ‘scandal’ in UN Syria vo… JPost – International.

By Mike Segar / Reuters

MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned of a “scandal” if a Western-Arab drafted resolution comes to a vote on Saturday in the UN Security Council, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The remarks, which Itar-Tass said Lavrov made in an interview to be aired later on state-run Rossiya-1 television, suggest Russia would likely veto the resolution if its latest proposed amendments were not taken into account.

“If they want another scandal for themselves in the Security Council, then we probably cannot stop them,” Lavrov said, according to Itar-Tass. Rossiya-1 said the interview was recorded early on Saturday.

Lavrov said he hoped the draft would not come to a vote without changes “because our amendments to this draft are well-known.”

“I sent them to (US Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton yesterday, and to our representative at the United Nations to convey them to our partners,” Lavrov was quoted as saying.

“The reasonableness and objectivity of these amendments should not raise any doubts. I hope that a prejudiced view does not prevail over common sense.”

At the United Nations, the Security Council was due to meet at 10 a.m. to vote on a draft resolution endorsing an Arab League plan calling for Assad to resign.

It was unclear if Russia, which has opposed significant council action on Syria would vote in favor, abstain or veto it.

Western diplomats in New York said the latest violence might make it more difficult for Russia to block it. “Would they dare, with what is happening in Homs?” one diplomat told Reuters.

The British UN mission posted on Twitter: “After the horror in Homs Friday (it is) vital all Council members back (the) resolution.”

Russia has balked at any language that would open to door to “regime change” in Syria, its crucial Middle East ally where Moscow operates a naval base.

Cal Thomas: Nearing a decision on Iran | NewsOK.com.

One of several casualties of the vitriolic name-calling between Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is what to do about Iran.

In interviews, Romney has spoken about tougher sanctions, but it’s been difficult to consider the candidates’ positions on Iran — or much else — with the childish talk about who is the bigger liar.

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, testified Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Clapper said that while American sanctions are likely to have a greater impact on Iran’s nuclear program, they are not expected to lead to the demise of Iran’s leadership.

Given the apocalyptic statements from Iran’s leadership, is anyone in doubt about Iran’s intentions? Clapper said Iran is expanding its capability to enrich uranium and that the end product can be used for either civil or weapons purposes.

Clapper acknowledged “Iran’s technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.”

The central issue for Israel and the United States is this: Can Iran be stopped by a pre-emptive attack, or must we wait until it launches — or threatens to launch — a nuclear missile at Israel, or explodes — or threatens to explode — “suitcase bombs” in U.S. cities?

In the English edition of “Israel Hayom,” the largest-circulation Hebrew daily in Israel, former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger writes about the history of pre-emptive strikes that did not materialize and the consequences of waiting to be attacked before acting.

Ettinger believes the reluctance to engage in a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities “is harmful, ignores precedents, plays into Iran’s hands and threatens Israel’s existence” because it conveys “hesitancy, skepticism and fatalism, aiming to preclude pre-emption and assuming that Israel can coexist with a nuclear-armed Iran,” which of course it cannot, any more than the United States could have coexisted with Cuba when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles there during the Kennedy administration.

The continuing problem for the United States is that every modern administration has falsely believed that what Israel and America do or don’t do can deter the stated objectives of radical Arab and Muslim leaders.

The history and consequences of American and Israeli reluctance to engage in pre-emption has been chronicled by Ettinger. Here are two of several examples: Oct. 5, 1973: Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected the option of a pre-emptive strike against mobilizing Egyptian and Syrian troops. Meir didn’t want to appear as the aggressor and damage ties with the U.S., which was pressuring Israel to do nothing. Following the resultant Yom Kippur War, many came to view the cost of waiting as greater than it might have been had Israel attacked first.

Facing another choice

In June 1981, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin considered a pre-emptive strike against Iraq‘s nuclear reactor. Begin concluded, correctly, the cost of restraint would be greater than the cost of action. The surprise Israeli air strike took out the reactor under construction near Baghdad. The United Nations Security Council denounced the attack and the Reagan administration issued the pro forma denunciations of Israel’s actions, though there were reports the president tacitly approved. The results were favorable to Israel and the U.S., delaying further action against Saddam Hussein until Desert Storm in 1991 and his ultimate overthrow in 2003.

Now Israel and the U.S. are faced with another choice: a pre-emptive strike that would set back or destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, or wait and see what might happen. Does anyone — other than Ron Paul — deny the disaster that might occur if Iran had a nuclear device and the capability to deliver it against targets in Israel and America?