WarSclerotic

Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute – NYTimes.com.

By ALAN COWELL

LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened.

The warning by the deputy head of its armed forces, quoted by a semi-official news agency, came as Tehran also appeared to place limits on a visit by a team of United Nations nuclear officials, saying the investigators would not go to nuclear facilities, despite earlier reports that its members had sought permission to inspect a military complex outside Tehran.

Growing tensions over Iran’s disputed nuclear program have provoked speculation that Israel may be contemplating a military strike against nuclear facilities, which Tehran says are for peaceful purposes but which the West suspects are inching toward the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said on Tuesday: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Reuters reported.

The statement came a day after a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in Tehran for the second time in three weeks. The Associated Press quoted the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, as saying the investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who arrived in Tehran on Monday, had no plans to visit the contentious nuclear sites, which the West maintains are part of a covert weapons program.

On Monday, The A.P. said, Iranian radio said the inspectors had asked to visit a military complex outside Tehran that is a suspected secret weapons-making location. It was not clear whether the Iranian authorities had specifically turned down the reported request. I.A.E.A. officials did not immediately return calls seeking clarification.

As the I.A.E.A. delegation left its headquarters in Vienna late Sunday, its leader, Herman Nackaerts, said the delegation wished to investigate “the possible military dimensions” that Tehran insists the program does not have and which the inspectors’ previous visit did nothing to resolve.

International tension has been rising steadily, as Iran claims significant technological advances in uranium enrichment and threatens retaliation against countries that pursue sanctions against it, including a boycott of its oil.

Shortly after the I.A.E.A. team arrived for talks with Iranian officials, the Iranian government signaled that it might expand a ban on oil shipments to Britain and France, announced on Sunday, to cover other European powers that it deems “hostile” because of broader economic sanctions by the European Union that are scheduled to come into force on July 1. The ban was apparently announced to pre-empt those sanctions, which include a boycott on new purchases.

Iran’s deputy oil minister, Ahmad Qalebani, said that oil exports to Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Italy and Portugal might also be banned, state media reported.

“Undoubtedly, if the hostile actions of certain European countries continue, oil exports to these countries will be stopped,” Mr. Qalebani, who is also the managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company, was quoted as saying by the Mehr News Agency.

The threat reflected speculation that Iran may be trying to sow division in the 27-nation European Union between the members that do not rely heavily on Iranian oil and those that do.

Over all, the European Union buys about 18 percent of the oil that Iran exports. But those exports are much more important to Italy and Spain, which each get about one-eighth of their oil supplies from Iran, or to Greece, which gets one-third, than they are to Britain and Germany, which get only 1 percent of their oil from Iran, or to France, which gets only 3 percent.

Despite Mr. Qalebani’s remarks, Iran may hesitate to compound the economic harm it suffers from existing sanctions by forfeiting significant revenue from oil sales to Europe now. Even so, the standoff between Iran and the West sometimes resembles a poker game with potentially lethal stakes, as both Iran and its adversaries maneuver for advantage with no way of knowing their opponent’s ultimate intentions.

British leaders, for instance, are trying to dissuade Israel from contemplating a military strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran boasts of enhanced enrichment capabilities.

Over the weekend, William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said that while the West should leave all of its options open, a military strike would have “enormous downsides,” and that Britain’s main priority was to “bring Iran back to the table” through diplomacy and economic pressure.

Iran, for its part, announced new military exercises on Monday “in a bid to prevent such aggressions” by Israel and the West, the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported. “The grandeur and mightiness of the country’s armed forces is a deterrent element against enemies’ recent aggressions and threats,” said Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The leader of the delegation of inspectors, Mr. Nackaerts, said “We hope to have some concrete results after this trip.” Though weapons development was the most important question, he said, “We want to tackle all outstanding issues.”

Mr. Nackaerts, the atomic agency’s deputy director general, warned that “this is of course a complex issue, which may take a while,” according to a transcript of his remarks made available on Monday by agency officials.

The latest visit is scheduled to last two days, though it may be extended, as the last one was. Diplomats who were briefed on the discussions held on the last visit said that Iranian officials failed to address the major concerns about Iran’s activities that were raised in a report issued by the agency in November.

Some of the latest Western worries center on a new uranium enrichment plant at Fordo, Iran, which is buried deep underground, making it much harder to monitor or, presumably, to attack.

Iran tried to keep construction of the plant secret, but Western intelligence agencies confirmed its existence in 2009; Iran then insisted that it had intended to make the plant publicly known all along.

Western officials appear to be divided over whether Iran is shifting toward a more conciliatory posture or is playing for time to pursue its uranium enrichment program, which it says is for strictly peaceful purposes.

Last week, in a letter to the European Union, Iran called for new talks “at the earliest possibility” with the group of six powers that have negotiated with Iran in the past on the nuclear issue: the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.

In the past, calls for talks from Iran have often been accompanied by warlike statements that it is honing its military capabilities. Iran’s defense minister, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, said Monday that the country had begun several projects to build new advanced warplanes, according to Press TV, a state-financed satellite broadcaster.

On its Web site, the broadcaster showed a photograph of what it said was a long-range land-to-sea missile called Qader, or Capable, being fired during war games in southern Iran.

Iran to take pre-emptive action if endangered, warns top general – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Deputy head of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces says if Tehran feels that its enemies want to endanger its national interests, then it will ‘act without waiting for their actions.’

By Reuters

Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered, the deputy head of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces was quoted by a semi-official news agency as saying on Tuesday.

“Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Mohammad Hejazi told Fars news agency.

	In this Sept. 22, 2011 photo, members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard march just outside Tehran, Iran.
	Photo by: AP

Iran is facing growing international pressure and isolation over its disputed nuclear activity. Expanded Western sanctions aim to block its economically vital oil exports and Tehran has said it could retaliate by shutting the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane vital to global energy supplies.

Earlier Tuesday, Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other senior officials had protested over recent comments by senior American officials critical of any Israeli attack on Iran, saying this criticism “served Iran’s interests.”

A senior Israeli official said Netanyahu and Barak told Tom Donilon, U.S. national security adviser who has been in Israel this week, of their dissatisfaction with the interview given by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, to CNN on Sunday.

Dempsey said “I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” and a strike “would be destabilizing” and “not prudent.”
Dempsey said the United States has so far not been able to persuade Israel not to attack Iran. “I wouldn’t suggest that we’ve persuaded them that our view is the correct view,” he said.

The Israeli officials also objected to a number of briefings senior American officials gave American correspondents, who wrote in recent weeks about a possible Israeli attack in Iran.

The story that angered Netanyahu most was an NBC broadcast two weeks ago saying Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with Jericho missiles, commando forces and F-151 jets.

Iran views its nuclear activities as non-negotiable.

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast has said that his country wants the world to recognize that it has the right to possess nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. (File photo)

inShare

Review & Outlook: Containing Israel on Iran – WSJ.com.

General Dempsey sends a message of U.S. weakness to Tehran.

Is the Obama Administration more concerned that Iran may get a nuclear weapon, or that Israel may use military force to prevent Iran from doing so? The answer is the latter, judging from comments on Sunday by Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.

Appearing on CNN, General Dempsey sent precisely the wrong message if the main U.S. strategic goal is convincing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran—because Iran hasn’t decided to build a bomb, because an Israeli attack probably wouldn’t set back Iran by more than a couple of years, and because it would invite retaliation and be “destabilizing” throughout the Middle East.

“That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” the General said, referring to a possible Iranian response to an attack. “That’s been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis. And we also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the capability—or the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.”

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran’s retaliation. It’s as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran’s rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.

The general is not a free-lancer, so his message was almost certainly guided by the White House. His remarks only make strategic sense if President Obama’s real priority is to contain Israel first—especially before the November election.

This might also explain General Dempsey’s comments that the U.S. doesn’t believe Iran’s regime has decided to build an atomic bomb and that it is a “rational” actor, like, say, the Dutch. This would be the same rational Iran that refuses to compromise on its nuclear plans despite increasingly damaging global sanctions, and the same prudent actor that has sent agents around the world to bomb Israeli and Saudi targets, allegedly including in a Washington, D.C. restaurant.

Iran doesn’t need to explode a bomb, or even declare that it has one, to win its nuclear standoff. All it needs to do is get to the brink and make everyone believe it can build a bomb when it wants to. Then the costs of deterring Iran go up exponentially, and the regime’s leverage multiplies in the Middle East and against American interests. General Dempsey’s assurances obscure that military and political reality.

Like most of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy, General Dempsey’s comments will have the effect of making war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel’s anxiety about U.S. support, especially if Mr. Obama is re-elected and he has a freer political hand. This may drive Israel’s leadership to strike sooner. Weakness invites war, and General Dempsey has helped the Administration send a message of weakness to Israel and Iran.

At odds with Israel, still – Right Turn – The Washington Post.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is out with this ad bashing President Obama for his decision to decrease anti-missile funding to Israel.

Perhaps even more alarming is the administration’s non-deterrence strategy of publicly warning Israel not to launch an attack on Iran. As Mario Loyola writes, this is daft:

Sanctions are a powerful vise, and they are having an effect, but they are far more likely to result in an internal regime change (eventually) than in this regime abandoning its nuclear-weapons program. The only thing that is going to stop the Iranians is the fear of a military attack. The U.S. should be helping the Israelis deter Iran’s further nuclear advance by helping them to scare the Iranians into thinking that an attack is coming. Instead, the Obama administration is doing everything possible to telegraph to Iran that we’re terrified of a conflict and are doing everything to prevent it. That’s exactly the same as inviting the Iranians to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons. If there is an explanation for this, other than incompetence, I would love to know it.

I can think of several possible explanations. First, Obama desperately wants to get back to the bargaining table with the Iranians. That’s how he’s going to declare sanctions to be a “success” and try to get through the election without an international conflagration. He doesn’t want Israel messing up his game plan with talk of an attack.

Second, the administration, as on so many matters, has seen its assumptions (e.g., we can engage Iran, economic sanctions will work) dashed. They are plumb out of ideas. Were Israel to attack, it would be obvious that the United States’s “smart strategy” has been a failure and that this country is incapable of or unwilling to lead the West.

Third, and most troubling, the administration actually might believe that military action is worse than Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability; its deterrence policy is aimed at deterring Israel from acting, making clear that the United States opposes military action (until sanctions have had “time to work,” of course) and keeping the chances of military action in the region low, thereby forestalling a spike in oil prices. (How high will oil go if Iran gets the bomb, I wonder?)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet withPresident Obama in March. He will probably take the time to remind Obama that the president has staked his own credibility and that of the United States on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The only way to ensure that that pledge is fulfilled, and for the United States to remain relevant in the region, is to make clear that the United States is prepared — with the cooperation of states in the Mideast (surely the Saudis must be as nervous as Netanyahu about Obama’s fecklessness) — to take military action if needed to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In short, if the Unites States downgrades military assistance to Israel and seeks to diplomatically undermine the Jewish state, Iran will conclude (if it hasn’t already) that we can’t bring ourselves to use force. That, in turn, will make continued progress on Iran’s nuclear program, as well as Israel’s military action, all the more likely.

By Jennifer Rubin  |  03:23 PM ET, 02/20/2012

US, Germany differ on Israeli ab… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Itamar Rabinovich: The Iranian Nuclear Threat Goes Global.

Image: Project Syndicate

TEL AVIV – The current drive to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal reflects two important, and interrelated, changes. From Israel’s perspective, these changes are to be welcomed, though its government must remain cautious about the country’s own role.

The first change is the escalation of efforts by the United States and its Western allies to abort the Iranian regime’s nuclear quest. This was instigated in part by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding in November 2011 that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon, and that it is getting perilously close to crossing the ‘red line’ – the point beyond which its progress could no longer be stopped. Moreover, the US and its allies understand that failure to take serious action might prompt Israel to launch its own unilateral military offensive.

The second change is the perception that Iran’s nuclear capacity would threaten not only Israel. In a speech to the Union for Reform Judaism in December, US President Barack Obama stated that ‘another threat to the security of Israel, the US, and the world is Iran’s nuclear program.’ But, by this February, Obama was saying of Iran that ‘my number-one priority continues to be the security of the US, but also the security of Israel, and we continue to work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this…’

That choice of words was no accident; rather, it was a sign that the US is changing tack when it comes to Iran. For more than a decade, the question ‘Whose issue is it?’ has been part of the policy debate about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s former prime minister, Ariel Sharon, used to caution his colleagues against ‘rushing to the head of the line’ on Iran. He argued that if Israel were to take the lead in sounding the alarm on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the issue would be perceived as yet another ‘Israeli problem.’

Indeed, Israel’s critics were already arguing that this was another case of the tail wagging the dog – that Israel and its American lobby were trying to push the US into serving Israel’s interests rather than its own. The most egregious examples of this view were statements made by the political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. In a paper published prior to the release of their much-debated book The Israel Lobby, they argued:

‘… Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose an existential threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, and even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep constant pressure on US politicians to confront Tehran.’

Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been less worried than Sharon was about Israel’s perceived role. He is too busy being directly engaged in the attempt to eliminate the deadly threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the Jewish state.

Prior to the 2009 election that brought him to power, Netanyahu campaigned on the Iranian danger, and his government made the issue its cardinal concern. Together with his defence minister, Ehud Barak, Netanyahu succeeded in persuading Obama and the rest of the world that Israel was preparing a military attack as a last resort, should the US and its allies fail to stop the Iranian program in time.

That policy has been effective, but it has also drawn attention to Israel’s influence on the Iran question. Curiously, this has not been held against Israel, at least not so far, partly because Obama and other leaders now regard Iran as a more serious threat, and therefore feel the need to take appropriate action.

The international community must underscore that its members are acting in the service of their national interests, and not simply for Israel’s sake. But their willingness to engage could wane, particularly if sanctions exact a high financial price or military action causes a large number of casualties.

Israel would therefore be wise to remember Sharon’s cautionary words, and reinforce its pressure on the US administration with a broader diplomatic campaign. Like it or not, Israel must urge the world to remember that Iran is everyone’s problem.

Itamar Rabinovich, a former ambassador of Israel to the United States (1993-1996), is currently based at Tel Aviv University, New York University, and the Brookings Institution.

Oman Tribune – the edge of knowledge.

TEHERAN Iran deployed warplanes and missiles on Monday in an “exercise” to protect nuclear sites threatened by possible Israeli attacks and warned it could cut oil exports to more EU nations unless sanctions were lifted.

The European Union shrugged off the threat, saying it could cope with any halt in Iranian supplies.

Teheran’s stance marked a hardening of its defiance in an international standoff over its nuclear programme — and suggested it was readying for any eventual confrontation.

The moves were announced the same day as officials from the UN nuclear watchdog agency International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in Teheran for a second round of talks they said were focused on “the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Iran, while holding out hope of reviving collapsed negotiations with world powers, has underlined it will not give up its nuclear ambitions, which it insists are purely peaceful.

Much of the West and Israel, though, fear Iran’s activities include research for atomic weapons.

The US and Europe have ramped up economic sanctions against Iran’s vital oil sector, while Israel has fuelled speculation it could be on the brink of carrying out air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon held a two-hour meeting in Occupied Jerusalem with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and held similar in-depth talks with Defence Minister Ehud Barak, whose “hawkish line” on Iran is worrying Washington, Haaretz newspaper reported on Monday.

Later this week, US intelligence chief James Clapper is also due to arrive, press reports said.

Barak has been “summoned” to Washington next week, media reports said, ahead of a visit by the premier himself on March 5.

“Israel is under pressure from all sides. The Americans don’t want to be surprised and faced with a fait accompli of an Israeli attack,” a senior Israeli official said, on condition of anonymity.

“They are telling us to be patient and see if the international sanctions against Teheran will eventually work,” he said.

In Baghdad, Iraqi planning minister Ali Al Shukri said it could lose more than half of its oil-exporting capability if neighbouring Iran shuts the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane.

Iran heats up foreign policy talk on trail – Boston.com.

WASHINGTON – Foreign policy, mostly an afterthought in the presidential contest so far, is emerging as a focal point between President Obama and his Republican challengers – and no issue has more potential to be a game-changer than Iran’s development of a nuclear program, according to several specialists.

Tensions over Iran’s alleged efforts to develop a nuclear bomb are escalating, with the United States and Europe tightening sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and financial institutions and Iran, in turn, threatening to shut down the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Intensifying fears are reports that Israel is considering launching a preemptive strike against Iran.

“Iran is one of the biggest wild cards in this election,’’ said Bill Schneider, a senior fellow and longtime political analyst at Third Way, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.

Obama has emphasized sanctions and negotiations to deter the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. His main GOP opponents assert that such an approach is bound to fail and the United States must be prepared to take military action – or at least support a unilateral strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Mitt Romney, stepping up his attacks on Obama’s handling of the issue, has described Iran as Obama’s greatest foreign policy failure. “He did not do what was necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly,’’ Romney said.

The former Massachusetts governor criticized the president first for seeking to engage Tehran’s leaders in negotiations and then for not more actively supporting protesters who took to the streets of Iran in 2009. Sanctions to isolate the nation’s leaders have been too slow and too ineffective, Romney said.

“Finally,’’ Romney said recently, “the president should have built a credible threat of military action and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.’’

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have gone so far as to advocate a US preemptive strike against Iran to halt its nuclear program, saying the current approach is little more than appeasement and imperils Americans.

“Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed?’’ Gingrich said at a recent stop in Ohio. “Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half million wounded. This is a real danger.’’

On the GOP primary campaign trail, attention to Iran and other foreign issues has been eclipsed by the economy. But recent bullish news on the job market could change that.

“If the news on the economic front looks good, the Republican candidate almost by definition has to bang the drum louder because the main issue has been taken away from him,’’ said James M. Lindsey, the director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yet despite the harsh attacks on Obama’s handling of global affairs, several specialists said unique factors could neutralize some of the Republican arguments.

Traditionally, the GOP has positioned itself as the more hawkish of the two parties on national security and as better equipped to handle a complicated world than the Democrats.

But that argument could be offset by some of Obama’s own accomplishments, such as ordering the daring raid that killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year and using American air power to help topple Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy.

Obama is preparing to make a case that he has been a good steward of American interests overseas and has helped to make the country safer.

In an interview with Time magazine last month, the president previewed his message on foreign policy, saying: “It’s going to be pretty hard to argue that we have not executed a strategy over the last three years that has put America in a stronger position that it was when I came into office.’’

He cited – in addition to the Iraq war’s end and bin Laden’s death – the rebuilding of international alliances that had frayed over some controversial US policies, such as the brutal treatment of detainees, since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“The Republican line of attack has been turned on its ear,’’ Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, said in an interview. “President Obama has been more aggressive that George W. Bush ever was in pursuing terrorists. It is one of the reasons the Republicans are casting about.’’

Even on Iran, some observers expressed doubt the eventual Republican nominee will be able to convince many voters that Obama’s approach has been weak.

“I don’t think they are going to get much mileage,’’ said Daniel Brumberg, a senior adviser at the nonpartisan US Institute for Peace in Washington. “Once bombing starts you don’t know how this ends. Is the American public interested in pursuing another war? I doubt it.’’

Another factor is the apparent resurgence of an isolationist wing of the GOP. “A rising percentage of Americans believe America should mind its own business,’’ said Lindsey, of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The isolationist strain is most prominently reflected by candidate Ron Paul, who has tapped into a deep wariness among Republicans and independent voters about the United States taking on more costly foreign entanglements.

Some of Romney’s harshest comments have decried the Obama administration’s plans to halt combat operations in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013 and withdraw all US troops by the end of 2014.

“His naivete is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom,’’ Romney said last week in Nevada.

Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have also denounced the administration’s plans to rein in military spending – what they have all described as “hollowing out’’ the armed forces.

The cuts, totally $487 billion over the next 10 years, were mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 – legislation approved by both parties in Congress to reduce the national debt.

When it comes to the challenge for voters, what is clear, according to James Carafano, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, is that the candidates in the general election will offer a clear contrast.

“There will be two very stark visions of national security and foreign policy,’’ he said. “It will seem like Venus and Mars.’’

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com

Iran will go nuclear without U.S. strength and leadership | PostIndependent.com.

By Aron Heller

Nuclear proliferation is a burgeoning threat to the security of the United States and the world. Iran is dangerously close to an atomic weapon. The Obama administration has done little to stop the mad mullahs. To the contrary, our government is weakening America’s defense capabilities and deferring leadership to other nations.

Iran is nearing what Israel terms the “zone of immunity,” when underground uranium enrichment facilities will be impregnable to the biggest bunker-busting munitions. Iran’s potential delivery systems for atomic warheads have literally rocketed forward, thanks to the North Koreans. In exchange for oil and cash, North Korea has essentially transferred Chinese missile technology to Iran.

Many American intelligence experts believe North Korea will have an intercontinental ballistic missile in less than five years. Iran isn’t far behind. The threat of a missile equipped with a nuclear warhead is very real for the United States and its allies.

President Obama talked tough in his recent State of the Union address saying, “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.” But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked about what America will do “after” Iran has nuclear weaponry. Mixed signals suggest Mr. Obama is concerned with rhetoric, not results.

Political wavering in America has likely convinced Israel to take matters into its own hands. There’s evidence that the Israelis are engaged in a covert war against the regime that vows to wipe them off the map. Tactics include cyber warfare and the assassination of some key Iranian physicists. An Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is a possibility.

What would happen if Israel launched an attack against Iran? Will the United States stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its staunchest ally in the Middle East? The answer is not clear, especially since President Obama has repeatedly snubbed Israeli leaders.

Tensions continue to mount. Iran resumed blocking U.N. nuclear inspectors. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, announced the “Great Satan” will soon be defeated.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration announced $489 billion of defense cuts over the next decade. An additional $500 billion reduction in military spending may be on the horizon. The U.S. could soon have less ground forces than at any time since 1940, the fewest amount of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged that America will lose the ability to fight more than one major regional conflict at a time.

This is part of the reason that the U.S. response to recent Iranian hostility is limited to new “stricter” sanctions. The Obama administration hopes to apply unbearable pressure by depriving Iran of oil income. Of course, China and North Korea will continue business as usual with Iran.

Short of a military strike, what can the U.S. do about Iran? We could start by assisting the rebels in Syria. With Bashar Assad in power, that nation is a key regional ally for Iran. That’s why Iranian forces are aiding Syrian troops in their campaign against rebel forces. Overthrowing Assad and promoting a new opposition government would intensify Iran’s isolation and demonstrate that America will not tolerate rogue regimes.

But it’s not likely the Obama administration will act decisively with regard to Syria. Earlier this month, Russia and China opposed U.N. initiatives to remove Assad. Aiding the rebels would probably provoke a response from Russia.

It’s like a standoff before a gunfight in the old American West. Russia and China are waiting to see if the United States will draw. So far, our government is backing down from a confrontation.

Out of answers, the Obama administration is assembling a group of “like-minded” nations led by Arab governments to coordinate a strategy against Assad. We’re not even leading this wishy-washy endeavor. Iran’s nuclear ambitions will remain unchecked.

This is a time in history when American strength is imperative. Military might, and the willingness to use it if necessary, is the only deterrent to rogue nations and their allies. The ancient Romans used to say, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Once Iran goes nuclear, there will likely be no peace.