WarSclerotic

U.N. Nuclear Agency Reports Failed Iran Talks – WSJ.com.

Agency Says Tehran Prevented Access to Sites, Scientists; Breakdown Poses New Obstacle to Renewed Talks With the West

By JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—Talks between Iran and the United Nations nuclear watchdog aimed at gaining greater access to Tehran’s nuclear sites, scientists and documents broke down Tuesday, raising serious questions about the future for any negotiations between the Islamic Republic and the West.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, listened to an expert during a tour of Tehran’s research reactor center on Feb. 15.

Inspectors from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency had sought this week to visit a military site south of Iran, called Parchin, that the IAEA believes might be involved in research to develop atomic weapons. A charge Iran has denied.

The agency has also repeatedly sought to interview key scientists allegedly involved in the nuclear program and to discuss with Iran documents that the IAEA believes could show ongoing studies to develop nuclear weapons.

In a statement released late Tuesday, though, the IAEA’s director general, Yukiya Amano, said Tehran refused to allow its inspectors to visit Parchin or to engage in substantive talks concerning the agency’s concerns about nuclear weapons work. The Japanese diplomat also refused to indicate any future high-level talks between Iran and the IAEA to address the nuclear question.

The IAEA delegation’s visit on Monday and Tuesday was its second trip to Tehran this month aimed at gaining greater cooperation. The mission was headed by the agency’s chief inspector, Herman Nackaerts of Belgium.

“It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings,” Mr. Amano said in a statement. “We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached.”

Iranian officials on Tuesday sought to play down the conflict with the IAEA by describing the meetings as constructive. They also played down the issue of Parchin by arguing that it’s not a nuclear facility.

“The aim is to negotiate about cooperation between Iran and the agency and to set a framework for a continuation of the talks,” the spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, told Iranian state news agencies. “Iran’s cooperation with the agency continues and is at its best level.”

The breakdown in the talks raises questions about the future of potential talks between Iran and world powers that the Obama administration had hoped could be used to address the nuclear issue and defuse rising tensions between Tehran and the West.

Last week, Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, wrote the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, calling for an immediate resumption of talks without preconditions. Ms. Ashton leads a bloc of nations seeking to engage with Tehran on the nuclear issue, which includes the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, U.K., China and Russia.

Ms. Ashton, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and European officials welcomed Iran’s overture, saying it could signal an opening for a resumption of serious negotiations. But they also said Tehran would need to display a seriousness to address the West’s concerns about alleged nuclear weapons work and cited Tehran’s treatment of the IAEA team as a key barometer.

Senior U.S. officials said late Tuesday that it was uncertain whether the failed IAEA talks would kill hopes for the broader negotiations.

“Won’t help. Won’t kill” them, said an American official involved in Iran policy.

Tensions between Iran and the West have escalated dramatically in recent weeks, as the U.S. and EU have imposed draconian new sanctions on Iran. Washington and Brussels have targeted Iran’s oil exports and central bank. And last week. European officials said they were banning most Iranian banks from using the electronic and communications system that’s at the center of the global banking system.

Iran has responded by threatening to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which flows around 40% of the world’s crude oil exports. And Israel has accused Tehran of attempting to assassinate Israeli diplomats in recent weeks living in Asia, a charge Tehran had denied.

On Tuesday, Iran threatened to take preemptive military action if it believed its national security interests were being undermined.

“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,” Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, told Iranian state media.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran if international efforts to contain Tehran’s nuclear advances stalled.

Many Western diplomats had hoped the Israeli threats and the mounting sanctions might force Tehran to make some concessions to the IAEA and the West. But now some analysts said Tehran might be signaling the end of any substantive cooperation with the U.N. agency.

“The Iranians now see the IAEA as an extension of the U.S, government,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank. “They feel they have no incentive to be transparent [with the IAEA] as it will only further incriminate them.”

The IAEA is scheduled to release its quarterly report on the status of Iran’s nuclear work in the next few weeks. The agency’s November report marked its most direct charge that the IAEA believes Iran has sought to develop nuclear weapons.

Corrections & Amplifications
The IAEA’s statement was released early Wednesday. An earlier wires service version of this story said it was released early Tuesday.

Iranian Threat Heats Up | FrontPage Magazine.

Iran announced Sunday that it was cutting off crude oil sales to France and England, a mostly symbolic act given that Iran provides England less than 1% of its crude, and France claims that it “practically stopped importing Iranian oil,”  according to the head of the Union of Petroleum Industries. A few days later, the head of Iran’s armed forces threatened to attack Israel preemptively through its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. The Iranians are once again using bluster to counter the E.U. ban on Iranian oil slated to begin on July 1, and the threat of Belgium-based SWIFT to ban Iran from its system for facilitating transfers of payments among nations through its international network of banks. As a further provocation, the Iranians sent two warships through the Suez Canal in a show of support for global pariah Syria. This follows the Iranian-engineered terrorist attacks on Israeli targets in India, Georgia, and Thailand.

At the same time they threaten and foment terrorist attacks, the Iranians have told the “P5+1” nations (Permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany) of its “readiness for dialogue” and its “new initiatives” concerning its nuclear program, and has allowed U.N. inspectors back in the country, even though President Ahmadinejad said last week that “Our nuclear program is not a subject for negotiations.” Consistent with this position, inspectors were denied access to military installations believed to house nuclear testing equipment. Validating Iran’s lie that its nuclear program is for domestic energy, Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that “we believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided” to make a nuclear weapon, and that “it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option is upon us.” The ominous background to all this diplomatic chatter is the continuing speculation about when or if Israel will take military action, or whether Israel has the capacity to degrade Iran’s nuclear facilities enough to make an attack worth the risk and blowback.

It’s not hard to figure out what’s going on in this diplomatic two-step we’ve been dancing with Iran for years. We know that Iran is dead set on acquiring nuclear weapons, or at least “nuclear latency,” the ability quickly to create a weapon. Since its creation in 1979, the Iranian regime has been about more than Iran. As one ayatollah said at the time, the revolution was just “the start of the story. An Islamic and divine government, much like Iran and better, will be created” in other Muslim nations. And more recently, an editorial in the newspaper Kayhan, published by “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei, proclaimed Iran’s “fixed strategic goal”: “Our late Imam [Khomeini] openly spoke of raising the flag of Islam on top of the palaces of arrogant power, notably the White House . . . as the goal and purpose of the Islamic Revolution.” Seeing itself as a world-transformative power, Iran has been the foremost inspiration and supporter of jihadist violence, its prestige enhanced by its serial humiliations of the U.S., and by its genocidal aggression against Israel, the “little Satan” to America’s “great Satan.” Given its massive oil reserves, which mean it will always have a source of revenue, an Iran with nuclear arms will be virtually untouchable, and thus able to dominate the Middle East and damage our interests, whether by holding oil exports hostage, sparking a larger arms race in the region, attacking our ally Israel, or handing off nukes to one of its numerous terrorist proxies.

Equally obvious is the feckless response of the West to this threat, which seems to have followed a Micawberesque policy of hoping “something will turn up.” Unwilling to act, for years now we have substituted inspections, “talks,” and sanctions as toothless substitutes for action. At least we are consistent, for this is precisely how the West handled the embassy hostage crisis in 1979. Then too we tried sanctions, secret offers to negotiate, and trade embargoes in order to change Iranian behavior. But political, national, and economic self-interest rendered them all ineffectual. For example, the NATO countries were begged to impose a trade embargo, but threats by President Bani-Sadr to cut off oil to Europe––sound familiar?–– led to a weakened and hence ineffectual policy. As the Economist pointed out at the time, “The denial of material things is unlikely to have much effect on minds suffused with immaterial things.” The Iranians never have acted by the materialist calculus we have used in our dealings with them.

Moreover, today’s Iran has North Korea as the model for dealing with the West by using diplomatic and inspections processes to create time for achieving nuclear capability. And North Korea is an economic basket case that can’t even feed its own people, unlike Iran, whose oil somebody will figure out a way to buy no matter how many allegedly “crippling” sanctions the West imposes. Yet despite this history, Western leaders continue to assert that “sanctions are working” and that a bit more time will bring Iran to its knees, as Dennis Ross, who was Obama’s Middle East advisor, recently asserted. Meanwhile, Iran’s thousands of recently announced new-generation centrifuges will soon start spinning out even more enriched fuel necessary for weapons.

We all know that military action is the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of a state led by religious fanatics with a world-historical mission to wave the banner of Islam over the whole world. Yet the only credible threat of force resides with Israel, and we have been doing everything we can to undercut our ally, for whom a nuclear Iran represents an existential threat. In various ways, the administration has put pressure on Israel not to attack but rather to endorse the magical thinking that Iran will suddenly change its decades-long pursuit of nuclear weapons because of economic pressure. Thus General Dempsey, at the same time he stated Iran was not pursuing such a weapon, also said of the Israelis, “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives. I wouldn’t suggest, sitting here today, that we’ve persuaded them that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion.” Of course, however “destabilizing” such an attack might be, it wouldn’t be as much so as a nuclear-armed Iran. And Israel’s first priority is not the price of oil, or the political comfort of other nations, but the continued existence of her own people.

The other tack is to highlight the prohibitive difficulty of such an attack, as the New York Times did Monday in a cover story headlined, “Iran Raid Seen As a Huge Task For Israeli Jets.” Yet as David Goldman reports, an analysis by Hans Rühl in Die Welt  “is highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s.” Over at the Wall Street Journal, Edward Luttwak argues that the difficulty of a U.S. attack on Iran results from exaggerated estimates of target numbers made by the Pentagon during the Bush administration: “The overall bill for this assault was thus hugely inflated into a veritable air armada that would last weeks rather than hours, require more than 20,000 sorties, and inevitably kill thousands of civilians on the ground.” Ruled out by such inflation was “the option of interrupting Iran’s nuclear efforts by a stealthy overnight attack against the handful of buildings that contain the least replaceable components of Iran’s uranium hexafluoride and centrifuge enrichment cycle—and which would rely on electronic countermeasures to protect aircraft instead of the massive bombardment of Iran’s air defenses.” In other words, a decision not to act resulting from political self-interest and a geopolitical failure of nerve is rationalized as based on military concerns.

The Obama administration’s pressure on Israel is baffling. It must know that no matter what, Iran will not give up its facilities or conveniently forget the expertise they have acquired over the last few decades. This means that any solution––cooperating with U.N. inspectors, for example, or agreeing to a “freeze” on enrichment––that leaves this equipment and knowledge in the hands of the current Iranian regime will not prevent the mullahs from eventually acquiring the bomb. Like North Korea, Iran will cheat, lie, delay, and otherwise game the process to buy time to complete developing the weapons. Thus for Obama to browbeat Israel as he has been doing is inexplicable. As Mario Loyola writes at NRO, “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.”

One should never rule out incompetence when explaining anything the Obama administration does. But history shows that people are usually more influenced by the unforeseen consequences and risks of action than they are by the consequences and risks of inaction. That’s where leadership comes in: good leaders show their people that the dangers of not acting are usually greater than those of acting, that there are always risks and costs to defending a nation’s interests and security, and that there is no cost-free, risk-free way to stop a determined fanatical aggressor. That’s what Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan did in their times. And that’s what Barack Obama has proven he is incapable of doing in ours.

Obama Puts Israel on Ice | FrontPage Magazine.

The Obama administration is putting another full-court press on Israel. First it was “settlements”—not to build a single home for a Jew in Judea, Samaria, or parts of Jerusalem. Now it’s even graver—not to defend itself against a growing existential threat.

The pressure is both public and behind the scenes. On Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told CNN: “It’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran. A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their [Israel’s] long-term objectives….”

On Monday—what fortuitous timing—the New York Times reported that Israel was incapable of such a strike anyway because “its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously—and use at least 100 planes.” The Times quoted various U.S. defense analysts who support that assessment.

Meanwhile National Security Adviser Tom Donilon has been the latest in a series of top U.S. officials to come to Israel and tell its leaders behind closed doors that they should trust in the god of sanctions. Israel Hayom reports that in an exchange between Donilon and Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, “Israel…demanded that the U.S. challenge Iran to immediately put an end to its nuclear program.” The U.S.—not surprisingly—responded by “urg[ing] Israel to allow sanctions against Iran to do the job and cease planning for a military strike.”

And the confrontation is set to continue. Next in line to visit Israel is U.S. national director of intelligence James Clapper on Thursday. Meanwhile Donilon has invited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to come to the U.S. and meet with President Obama on March 5.

The U.S., in other words, sees stopping Israel as very serious, top-priority business. As the Wall Street Journal asks: “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?”

But is the administration right? Would an Israeli strike on Iran be futile and fail to achieve its objectives? Can the sanctions be counted on instead?

As David P. Goldman reports, last week German security expert Hans Rühe—head of the German Defense Ministry’s planning department between 1982-1988—offered in Die Welt a diametrically different view of Israel’s capacity to hit Iran. Rühe, says Goldman, calling him “one of the toughest and most perspicacious analysts” of the Cold War period, is “highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s.”

Israeli commentator Aharon Lapidot notes that “the New York Times article failed to factor in the [Israeli air force’s] operational wisdom, its use of unexpected methods…that makes its operations such astonishing successes, often leaving the world slack-jawed.” Lapidot goes on to mention the IAF’s legendary exploits in the Six Day War, the Entebbe Raid, and other cases.

As for sanctions, prominent British commentator Con Coughlin reports in The Telegraph that China and Turkey are already helping Iran get around them. China is Iran’s biggest oil customer, and Coughlin cites Western security officials saying Chinese banks, instead of buying the oil directly, are now “using the money to buy goods on behalf of the Iranians and then shipping them to Iran.” Turkey, for its part—despite Obama’s praises of it as a great ally—has been helping Iran skirt the sanctions by gaining access to European trade and especially to German banks.

Another British paper, The Guardian, reports that U.S. officials themselves “are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran.”

Meanwhile AP reports on further, chilling operational advances by Iran. It cites “senior diplomats” who say:

Iran is poised to greatly expand uranium enrichment at a fortified underground bunker [i.e., Fordo] to a point that would boost how quickly it could make nuclear warheads….

…Tehran has put finishing touches for the installation of thousands of new-generation centrifuges at the cavernous facility—machines that can produce enriched uranium much more quickly and efficiently than its present machines.

The article also cites “diplomats accredited to the IAEA” who “expect little from [the agency’s] current visit” and “told the AP that—as before—Iran was refusing to allow the agency experts to visit Parchin, the suspected site of explosives testing for a nuclear weapon….”

This is, undoubtedly, some of what Defense Minister Barak has been talking about when he says the window is closing and time is running out.

The Obama administration thinks it has time and indeed seems more worried about the effects of an Israeli strike—particularly rising oil prices and economic disruptions in an election year—than about nukes in the hands of a fanatic, expansionist regime that has been employing international terror for over three decades.

Israel, for its part, seems near the end of its tether.

Iron Dome Tel Aviv Deployment Delayed – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

IDF soldier stands near part of Iron Dome system

Israel news photo: Flash 90

The IDF has put off deployment of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system for a military drill in the greater Tel Aviv area.

The planned deployment of the battery, which was to include a routine systems check, was temporarily suspended on Wednesday, an army spokesperson said. The battery was originally to be moved from its position in the south for the exercise.

However, the rocket, mortar and missile attacks that have rained down upon the western Negev and Be’er Sheva area since last week led the IDF to reconsider its plans, Army Radio reported.

On Tuesday night, Palestinian Authority terrorists in Gaza shelled the Eshkol Regional Council district, sending residents racing for shelters. No one was physically injured, and no property damage was reported, but a number of people were traumatized.

Although the Color Red rocket alert siren provides that region with a 15-second warning in which to run for cover from rocket attacks, it generally is not activated by incoming mortar shells. As a result, residents are often caught by surprise in such attacks.

Over the Sabbath, three Grad Katyusha rockets exploded in the Be’er Sheva area, including one that landed close to the suburban town of Omer, slightly northeast of the city.

There were also a number of other, shorter-range Qassam rocket attacks in the western Negev as well, shattering the calm of the traditional weekly Jewish Sabbath.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 22, 2012, 9:06 AM (GMT+02:00)

Parchin nuclear center

Tehran this week hardened its nuclear and military policies in defiance of tougher sanctions and ahead of international nuclear talks. The threat by Iran’s armed forces deputy chief Gen. Mohammad Hejazi of a preemptive strike against its “enemies,” was accompanied by its refusal to allow UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit the Parchin facility, following which the IAEA chief cut their mission short.
Western and Israeli intelligence experts have concluded that the transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to the underground Fordo site near Qom has shortened Iran’s race for the 90 percent (weapons) grade product to six weeks.
The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday night, Feb. 21: “It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin.” This is the site were Iran conducts experiments in nuclear explosives and triggers.
This diplomatic understatement came amid three major reverses in the quest for a non-military solution to halt Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon:
1.  Iran placed a large obstacle in the path of resumed negotiations with six world powers on which US President Barack Obama had pinned his strategy for averting a war to arrest its nuclear weapon program. This strategy depended heavily on Iran eventually consenting to making its nuclear projects fully transparent, as his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon assured Israeli leaders earlier this week.
The day after Donilon wound up his talks in Israel, the UN inspectors were sent packing empty-handed from Tehran, putting paid to any hope of transparency.
They were also denied an interview with Mohsen Fakrrizadeh, director of the Parchin project and also believed in the West to be the paramount head of Iran’s military nuclear program.
2.  The transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to Fordo is taken by Western and Israel intelligence experts to have accelerated  the pace of enriching large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium to weapons grade and shortened to an estimated six weeks the time needed for arming a nuclear bomb after a decision in Tehran.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz explained to the US official that Israel cannot afford to live with an Iran capable of build a nuclear bomb in the space of few weeks.
3. The threat that Iran will not wait for “its enemies” – Israel and/or the US – to strike and will act first.
White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to these reverses by saying Tuesday night: “Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding, however, “There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior.”
Seen from Israel, Iranian behavior has already changed – and for the worse. Its tactics in recent days have exacerbated the threat hanging over its head from Iran and brought it that much closer.
Senior Israeli military and intelligence sources said Wednesday, Feb. 22, that Israel’s strategic and military position in the Middle East has taken a sharp downturn. The failure of the IAEA mission and the threat of preemptive action from Tehran present the double threat of Iran’s earlier nuclear armament coupled with military action to sabotage Israel’s preparations for a strike on its nuclear facilities.
As one Israeli source put it:  “Since Wednesday the rules of the game have changed.”

Saudi Gazette – Israel may attack Iranian ships if they return to Mediterranean.

Saudi Gazette

JEDDAH —Two Iranian warships that docked in a Syrian port were reported on Tuesday to have left the Mediterranean, sailing south through the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. It was not clear whether the vessels, which had docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, had unloaded cargo or had visited the port as a symbolic display of Iranian support for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.
Should Iranian warships revisit Syrian ports it is likely that they would be targeted by Israel, two retired Saudi military attaches have said.
“An Israeli attack would come to show the Iranians that the Mediterranean is not an Iranian lake, a position shared by the European powers and the US,” the retired officials told the Saudi Gazette during a reception at a diplomatic mission here Monday evening.
“It (the Israeli attack) would not be an overt military operation; the docked ships could be mined, or they might go up in flames through a secret operation using Israeli frogmen,” they said.
The Iranians are trying to offset the international pressure on the ruling clique in Syria by some show of solidarity, but they have no obvious intention of engaging in direct military action on behalf of the Bashar Al-Assad regime, they maintained.
“Look,” said Al-Houwaish (first name is being withheld upon request), a commander who retired in 2005 and who last served in Morocco, “the Iranians are using Syria as a bargaining chip to see how far they can get with the other superpowers. Bashar is a fool not to realize it or arrogant not to admit it. From the Iranian position, Syria can be traded for a larger regional power role in the region. Iran’s main and only concern is its nuclear program, and I think ultimately they will accept international measures of supervision of their plants. Now, this does not negate the fact that their ultimate objective is to join the nuclear club by producing nuclear weapons but typical of the Iranians, they always think time is on their side. To them, time has no value.”
Asked how they envision that an attack on Iranian ships could take place, Rear Admiral Al-Hethlann (first name is being withheld upon request), who retired in 2008 and last served in Egypt, said: “I do not want to speculate, but think of Entebbe in Uganda and the boats of Cherbourg, the Iranians would not know what hit them, and by then it would be over. Think of what happened to the USS Cole in Aden, the Israelis have the best Seals in MENA and are among the top three worldwide… the issue besides the attack is the consequences of the action.”
Regarding the repercussions of any Israeli attack on Iranian warships, both military attaches agreed that the Iranians would not go beyond condemnation and the usual statement of reserving their right to respond at the appropriate place and time and would limit their retaliation to other places, definitely not in the Arabian Gulf. “Militarily, the Iranians are in the Stone Age; think of how Saddam’s regime was dismantled. Not a drop of blood of the coalition forces was shed in the first three weeks. Yes, they have missiles and boat power to retaliate, but if damage assessment is measurable and retrievable, then taking out the Iranian nuclear installations would be feasible,” said Al-Houwaish.
“Bomb the three known military air bases in Syria, the C&C center in the suburb of Damascus and the Ministry of Interior and Bashar is a sitting duck. The consequences would be in northern Lebanon, particularly Tripoli, and by their military arm Hezbollah in Lebanon,” added Al-Hethlann.
On the Iranian denial about the nature of their nuclear program, both retired officials agreed that Israel is the one to go to bed with one eye open. “Israel is the target. That’s how the Iranians are selling their secret activities in the region. Well, somehow one finds a measure of comfort in this. The Israelis are truly the watchdog,” said Al-Hethlann. “They may bite without barking when they sense real danger to their national security,” added Al-Houwaish. __

Ex-Mossad chief sees opportunity in Syrian… JPost – Middle East.

By EDMUND SANDERS/LOS ANGELES TIMES/MCT 02/22/2012 03:10

Israel should focus on striking Iran politically and diplomatically – through the fall of Assad, Efraim Halevy tells ‘Los Angeles Times.’

By Ariel Jerozolimski

Instability in Syria poses stark security risks for Israel, but also offers a chance to deliver a stinging blow to Iran’s regional ambitions and even its nuclear program, Israel’s former national security adviser Efraim Halevy says.

Israel in recent weeks has been consumed by a debate over the wisdom of launching a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. But Halevy, who also led the Mossad spy agency from 1998 to 2002, believes Israel should also focus on exploiting the opportunity to strike Iran politically and diplomatically – through the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, a staunch ally of Iran.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Halevy, now a leading Israeli intelligence analyst, said the country should start to look at Iran and Syria as two sides of the same problem.

You have called Syria the Achilles’ heel of Iran. What do you mean?

Iran has invested enormous efforts in trying to secure Syria as a major partner. The Alawite (Muslim) minority is very close to the Shi’ites in Iran. The Syrian army is mainly based on Alawite command and has units that are purely Alawite.

This makes the Iranian investment all the more important.

Syria is also the conduit for Iran’s arming of the Hezbollah Shi’ite forces in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. If the regime falls in Syria and the Iranians are expelled, this is going to be a horrendous defeat for Iran.

How does Israel ensure that Iran is defeated in Syria? Wouldn’t it backfire if Israel were seen to be involved?

Israel shouldn’t be directly involved for obvious reasons.

Once Israel enters the fray, this becomes an Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Muslim confrontation, which deflects attention from the main issues of Sunni- Shi’ite, and the Shi’ite repression of a majority in a foreign country. Israel should promote through its channels with major powers in the world a dialogue between leaders in Western nations and Russia to try to forge a common policy on Syria, which would entail mutual concessions at the American and Russian level.

Recently Israel has been very focused on Iran’s nuclear program and the debate over a strike. It is doing enough on Syria?

I don’t have any evidence that Israel is working on this, but I hope some work is being done. Israel has certain interests in Syria which have to be taken into account. The ultimate resolution of this crisis should not leave an Iranian presence in Syria with a weakened Assad. I don’t want to see Iran having its own finger on the button of Syria’s strategic weapons. Israel must make sure this does not happen.

You’ve said that a defeat in Syria would deal a blow to Iran’s nuclear program. Why?

The issue of Syria and of Iran’s nuclear capability are interconnected. You cannot divorce them. Iran’s effort to achieve nuclear capability and its effort to entrench itself in Syria are part of the same multifaceted regional problem.

One of the mistakes we’ve made up to this point is to deal with these issues separately.

Not that long ago, many in Israel were quietly hoping Assad’s regime would survive because he’s predictable in his relations with Israel and is the “devil you know.” With reports that al-Qaida-linked terrorists might be seeking a stronghold in Syria, do you worry that Assad might be replaced with an extremist Sunni regime that is even more hostile toward Israel?

I don’t think this is in the cards. The way things are at present, any replacement of Assad is better.

Even an extremist Sunni regime?

The Sunnis have been oppressed by the Alawites.

They are looking for freedom and dignity and all the things of the “Arab Spring.” They won’t come to power in order to launch an effort against Israel. Their immediate concerns would be to stabilize the situation inside Syria and move as quickly as possible to alleviate the pressure on the society.

There have been a lot of fears that Assad might try to move Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons and sophisticated missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Though everyone is talking about a military strike against Iran, what are the chances of such an Israeli strike in Syria to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands?

I don’t want to preempt Israeli operations or planning.

All I can say is that there are certain things, if carried out in Syria or Lebanon, that would be matters of grave concern to Israel, and Israel would not be able to accept.

IAEA: Tehran talks failed to sec… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS 02/22/2012 03:59

UN nuclear watchdog disappointed with second round of talks with Iran, says inspectors were denied access to military site; follows Iranian promise to continue negotiations.

By REUTERS

VIENNA – The UN nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site.

In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had traveled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The outcome seems likely to add to already soaring tension between Iran and Western powers, which have ratcheted up sanctions on the major oil producer in recent months.

“During both the first and second round of discussions, the agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place,” the Vienna-based IAEA said in a statement after the Feb 20-21 talks.

The IAEA named Parchin in a detailed report in November that lent independent weight to Western fears that Iran was working to develop an atomic bomb, an allegation Iranian officials reject.

“It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached,” said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.

Earlier, Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the country’s ISNA news agency that Tehran expected to hold more talks with the UN agency, whose task it is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world.

But Amano’s spokeswoman, Gill Tudor, made clear no further meetings were planned: “At this point in time there is no agreement on further discussions,” she said.