WarSclerotic

Iran threatens to cut oil to more EU nations.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Iran exports about 20 percent of its crude — some 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) — to the European Union, most of which goes to Italy, Spain and Greece. (File photo)

inShare

U.S. official to discuss Iran concerns in Israel – CBS News.

(The ignorant blather continues… – JW )

(CBS/AP)

JERUSALEM – A senior U.S. official was expected to continue voicing American concerns over the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran during a visit to Jerusalem on Monday, as worry over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program mounts.

CBS Radio News correspondent Robert Berger says U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon brought what media reports describe as a clear message to Israeli leaders: Don’t attack Iran.

But Israel isn’t making any promises, adds Berger.

“We should remember that Israel and the U.S. are independent countries,” said Israeli Cabinet Minister Daniel Hershkowitz.

The U.S. wants to give sanctions on Iran more time, but Israel says time is running out.

“If we do not stop Iran now, later on it will be impossible,” warned Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

Donilon’s arrival was the latest in a series of high-level meetings between Israel and the U.S. – all of which seem to follow the theme of Washington urging Jerusalem to hold fire.

Donilon was set to meet with Netanyahu late Sunday, and with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday before leaving.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. military intelligence officials have their doubts over Israel’s ability to effectively target Iranian nuclear sites with air strikes.

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who planned the American Afghan and Gulf War air campaigns, told the Times.

Other American defense officials say an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran’s nuclear program would be huge and highly complex.

The Times article suggests that an effective attack on Iran would require as many as 100 aircraft attacking at least four underground sites simultaneously, and they would have to refuel in midair to make the roundtrip.

Defense analysts fear the U.S. would be sucked into finishing the job – a task that the Times suggests would take weeks – and warn that an Israeli attack could spark Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.

“That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason that we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told CNN Sunday.

Dempsey said Israel has the capability to strike Iran and delay the Iranians “probably for a couple of years. But some of the targets are probably beyond their reach.”

Describing Iran as a “rational actor,” Dempsey said he believed that the international sanctions on Iran are beginning to have an effect. “For that reason, I think, that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent path at this point.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague also released a statement Sunday saying an Israeli attack on Iran would not be “a wise thing” and would have grave consequences for the entire region.

Both Dempsey and Hague urged Israel to give international sanctions against Tehran more time to work. It was not known whether their messages were coordinated.

Asked whether he believed Israel could be deterred from striking, Dempsey said: “I’m confident that they understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives. But, I mean, I also understand that Israel has national interests that are unique to them.”

Hague delivered a similar message in Britain. Speaking to the BBC, he said Britain was focused on pressuring Iran through diplomatic means.

“I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” he said. “I think Israel like everyone else in the world should be giving a real chance to the approach we have adopted on very serious economic sanctions and economic pressure and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb — a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how to respond to the perceived threat.

The U.S. and the European Union have both imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. With the sanctions just beginning to bite, they have expressed optimism that Iran can be persuaded to curb its nuclear ambitions.

On Sunday, Iran’s Oil Ministry said it has halted oil shipments to Britain and France in an apparent pre-emptive blow against the European Union. The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the National Iranian Oil Company has sent letters to some European refineries with an ultimatum to either sign long-term contracts of two to five years or be cut off. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

Israel has welcomed the sanctions. But it has pointedly refused to rule out military action and in recent weeks sent signals that its patience is running thin.

Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its very existence, citing Iran’s support for Arab militant groups, its sophisticated arsenal of missiles capable of reaching Israel and its leaders’ calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Last week, Israel accused Iran of being behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.

There is precedent for Israeli action. In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. And in 2007, Israeli warplanes are believed to have destroyed a target that foreign experts think was an unfinished nuclear reactor in Syria.

Experts, however, have questioned how much an Israeli operation would accomplish. With Iran’s nuclear installations scattered and buried deep underground, it is believed that an Iranian strike would set back, but not destroy, Iran’s nuclear program.

There are also concerns Iran could fire missiles at Israel, get its local proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to launch rockets into the Jewish state, and cause global oil prices to spike by striking targets in the Gulf.

In a sign that the diplomatic pressure might be working, Iran’s foreign minister said Sunday that a new round of talks with six world powers on the nuclear program will be held in Istanbul, Turkey. Ali Akbar Salehi didn’t give any timing for the talks.

The last round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany were held in Istanbul in January 2011 but ended in failure.

Why Diplomacy Will Really Work This Time (and Do You Want to Buy a Bridge?) | World Opinion and Editorial Right Side News.

The latest in the Obama administration’s campaign to convince an already skeptical public that Iran should not be attacked – by either the US or Israel, is none other than the Hon. Dennis B. Ross. In his February 6th appearance at The Aspen Institute he expressed confidence that “the emergence of crippling sanctions” were forcing “Iran to make a cost-benefit calculation,” that “Iran was being isolated in the region,” and so the “Iranians are increasingly aware the price they are paying.” Therefore opines Mr. Ross, Iran will hopefully drop its nuclear ambitions and make an impending Israeli attack unnecessary.

Mr. Ross, a former State Department advisor, NSC official and a special assistant to President Obama,  repeated this argument in his February 15^th op-ed in The New York Times entitled: “Iran is Ready to Talk.”

His opening line sets the tone, if not the accuracy: “Speculation about an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is rife, but there is little discussion about whether diplomacy can still succeed, precluding the need for military action.” Since he is only one more in a long line of Obamites discussing this line in recent months, it is incredulous he can suggest “there is little discussion.”

The Obama administration is in full court press mode suggesting diplomacy is the way, the only way. On February 1^st, Radio Free Europe reported: “US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on January 31^st that a combination of Western sanctions and diplomacy could still persuade Iran to abandon nuclear work which could be diverted toward an atomic weapon.” William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering in a February 2^nd New York Times op-ed entitled “Envisioning a Deal With Iran” wrote: “As the dangers mount in the confrontation between the United States and Iran, both sides will have to raise the doors high for diplomacy to work, and to avoid conflict.” And David Ignatius wrote in his February 2^nd Washington Post column that “US officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one…” These are only three examples of endless discussion which Mr. Ross must have missed by not reading, listening or viewing any American media vehicle in the last several months.

Cleverly, Mr. Ross admits from the start that “Many experts doubt that Tehran would ever accept a deal that uses intrusive inspections and denies or limits uranium enrichment to halt any advances toward a nuclear weapons capability, while still permitting the development of civilian nuclear power.”  But having said that, a basic truth to which there really is no reliably safe answer, he still claims: “But before we assume that diplomacy can’t work, it is worth considering that Iranians are now facing crippling pressure and that their leaders have in the past altered their behavior in response to such pressure.” When Iran has comparably “altered their behavior” in the past he doesn’t say. But no matter, declares Mr. Ross: “Notwithstanding all their bluster, there are signs that Tehran is now looking for a way out.” Again, the reader is left to guess the signs, since Mr. Ross doesn’t think it important to say what they are.

As proof of Iran’s growing isolation in the region, Mr. Ross points out: “Gone is the fear of Iranian intimidation, as the Saudis demonstrated by immediately promising to fill the gap and meet Europe’s needs when the European Union announced its decision to boycott the purchase of Iran’s oil.” And here, he offers the proof that “Even after Iran denounced the Saudi move as a hostile act, the Saudis did not back off.” Mr. Ross neglects to mention that Sunni Saudi Arabia has been in a tizzy about a nuclear Shi’ite Iran for sometime and not thrilled with the take-it-slow Obama approach. The Guardian (UK) reported last June 29^th that Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior NATO military officials that…  “We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don’t…. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon,” he said, “that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit.”

“Beginning in 2010, Washington worked methodically to impose political, diplomatic, economic and security pressure, making clear that the cost of noncompliance would continue to rise while still leaving the Iranians a way out,” Mr. Ross explains. “This strategy took into account how Iranian leaders had adjusted their behavior in the past to escape major pressure — from ending the war with Iraq in 1988 to stopping the assassinations of Iranian dissidents in Europe in the 1990s to suspending uranium enrichment in 2003.”

Mr. Ross fails to mention that Iran, who was attacked first by Iraq, accepted a UN brokered ceasefire after eight years of bloody combat and destroyed infrastructure, a loss of over half a million soldiers and civilians on both sides, and the pre-war borders completely restored. He also fails to point out that assassinations of Iranian dissidents in 1990’s was reduced owing to more pro-active measures by international law enforcement agencies and the fact that most of the targeted dissidents were already successfully killed. And his contention that Iran suspended uranium enrichment in 2003 is repeating the same canard promoted in the now infamous National Intelligence Estimate which was wrong when written and subsequently proven wrong by even the latest International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report. Iran merely hid their uranium enrichment operations, blithely lied about it, and certain American intelligence officials blindly bought it since it served their political line.

Mr. Ross maintains that “The Obama administration has now created a situation in which diplomacy has a chance to succeed.” Although he admits that “It remains an open question whether it will.” But meanwhile, he is suggesting that Israel should take a gamble on national survival of a potential Iranian nuclear attack just in case Mr. Obama & Co. can pull it off. Given their foreign policy record thus far, that is a scary contention.

Then to fully cover his proverbial posterior, Dennis Ross admits that “Still, it is unclear whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose regime depends so heavily on hostility to America, is willing to make a deal on the nuclear issue.” In other words, everything I’ve written until now is basically wishful thinking.

And should anyone think otherwise, Mr. Ross continues with his copout clause: “Of course, Iran’s government might try to draw out talks while pursuing their nuclear program.”  Simply put, they will continue their ongoing, and thus far highly successful, strategy of lying through their teeth while smiling at the Western dupes who want to believe them at almost any cost – especially if Israel will be the one to pay.

Iran’s standard ploy to date is to offer to negotiate predicated on a reduction of sanctions as confidence building measures, or just a pre-condition for negotiations, period. This is also standard operating procedure by the US State Department where diplomacy rarely, if ever, works, but lots of photo-op’ed meetings take place before the ultimate explosion – frequently both figuratively and literally. So the Mullahs can easily stretch out “negotiations” while they are able to cross every one of the Obama administration’s “red lines.”

As Jennifer Rubin aptly noted in her November 7^th Washington Post blog: “Our time line on sanctions seems to be lagging the timeline on the Iranians’ nuclear program. How many weeks or months will it take to get those more exacting sanctions? And even if passed, are we too late to impede the Iranians from completing their work?” At this rate, the answer seems all too obvious.

The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.

The Associated Press: Syrian army reinforcements head to Homs.

BEIRUT (AP) — A Syria-based activist says three columns of army reinforcements including tanks are heading toward the restive central city of Homs.

Mustafa Osso says the regime appears to be preparing to storm rebel-held neighborhoods in the city before a referendum is held Feb. 26 on a new constitution.

Osso told The Associated Press Monday he does not think the regime will be able to retake Homs through military force as residents plan to fight until “the last person.”

His comments came as the government kept up shelling of the rebel-held Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs. It has been under assault for more than two weeks.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

BEIRUT (AP) — Gunmen in Syria staged a guerrilla-style ambush that killed a senior state prosecutor and a judge Sunday in an attack that suggested armed factions are growing bolder and more coordinated in their uprising against President Bashar Assad’s regime.

The roadway slayings — reported in an opposition-dominated northern region by the Syrian state news agency — came a day after a deadly hit-and-run attack on a political figure in the heart of the pro-Assad city of Aleppo.

The targeted killings have not reached Assad’s inner circle, but they indicate a growing shift toward violent tactics by the opposition as it brings aboard more military defectors and seeks to tighten control over the small pieces of territory in its hands.

The fears of a looming civil war have neighboring Jordan racing to finish a refugee camp near the Syrian border to handle a possible exodus of people fleeing for safety.

Meanwhile, Egypt became the latest Arab nation to publicly snub Assad by ordering the withdrawal of its ambassador in Damascus.

The Syrian government has offered some concessions, including proposing a referendum next week that could allow more political voices to challenge Assad’s Baath Party. But the opposition demands nothing short of Assad’s resignation. And the regime has not eased off its attacks on the opposition forces, which it describes as “terrorists” carrying out a foreign conspiracy to destabilize the country.

In Homs in central Syria, government forces sent in reinforcements as they shelled the rebel-held Baba Amr district that has been under near constant barrage for nearly two weeks, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The group said at least 14 people were killed Sunday across Syria, half of them by government troops.

“I’m worried that Syria is going to slide into a civil war,” British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC on Sunday.

The U.N. last gave a death toll for the conflict in January, saying 5,400 people had been killed in 2011 alone. But hundreds more have been killed since, according to activist groups. An opposition group, Local Coordination Committees, says more than 7,300 have been killed since the uprising began more than 11 months ago.

There is no way to independently verify the numbers, since Syria bans almost all foreign journalists and human rights organizations.

The latest assassinations came on a road in the northwest province of Idlib, which has become a patchwork of areas held either by the government or mutinous soldiers who have safe-haven bases in nearby Turkey.

The state news agency SANA said gunmen opened fire on a car carrying Idlib provincial state prosecutor Nidal Ghazal and Judge Mohammed Ziadeh, who were killed instantly. The driver also was fatally wounded.

Idlib has witnessed intense clashes between troops loyal to Assad and army defectors who attack and then melt into the rugged mountains. In June, the town of Jisr al-Shugour became the first area to fall into the hands of rebels, who were accused by the government of killing scores of people and setting government buildings on fire. Syrian troops loyal to Assad retook the area shortly afterward.

On Saturday, SANA said gunmen shot to death Jamal al-Bish, a member of the city council of the nearby northern city of Aleppo. The city has been a center of support for Assad since the uprising began.

The back-to-back slayings follow the Feb. 11 killing of a Syrian army general in the first assassination to take place in the capital city of Damascus. Brig. Gen. Issa al-Khouli, a doctor and the chief of a military hospital in the capital, was shot as he left his home. Last month, the head of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent branch in Idlib was shot to death while on his way to Damascus.

In Cairo, Egyptian state news agency MENA said Foreign Minister Mohammed Amr decided to withdraw the country’s ambassador to Syria. The report gave no reason for the decision, but Arab governments have been pulling back diplomatic backing for Assad in protest against his refusal to back regional peace efforts.

Earlier this month, the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, led by powerful Saudi Arabia, said it would withdraw its ambassadors and expel Syrian envoys from the oil-rich region. Tunisia also has pulled its ambassador from Damascus.

In Damascus, a funeral was held for a man killed a day earlier when Syrian security forces fired bullets and tear gas at thousands of people marching in a funeral procession that turned into one of the largest protests in the capital.

The Local Coordination Committees said security forces pressured the parents of the victim, Samer al-Khatib, to bury him early so that his funeral would not turn into an anti-government protest.

Activist groups called for a one-day strike in Damascus to express support for other cities in revolt. But there was little response. Residents in the capital told The Associated Press that businesses were open as usual on the first day of the work week. School and universities also were operating.

Calls for strikes in the past did not succeed in tightly controlled Damascus, where government forces and informers keep a close eye on all activities. The capital has been mostly quiet since the uprising began.

Bassem Mroue can be reached on twitter at http://twitter.com/bmroue

UN nuclear inspectors to press Iran on weapons – Houston Chronicle.

US Army War College Prof: Iran A Menace to Region – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Iran tests new medium-range missile

Israel news photo: Iranian government

Iran is a “menace” to the entire Middle East and must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, according to Prof. Stephen Blank, a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College.

In an op-ed article for the Washington-based Politico website, Blank said that it has become clear “that Tehran menaces all its neighbors and rivals – not just Israel. His concern is that ‘states driven by deep ethno-racial hatreds do not necessarily know when to stop,” implying that “wiping Israel off the map” would not satisfy Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appetite for power.

He noted that Iranian-backed terror has stretched worldwide, including an Iranian plot last year to hire a Mexican cartel agent to attack Saudi Arabia’s and Israel’s embassies in Washington.

More recent plots and attacks include those on the wife of an Israeli diplomat in India last week, a foiled attack in Georgia, the botched bomb plot in Bangkok, and the Iranian scheme to blow up a Chabad school near Baku.

Iran’s “policies appear driven both by anti-Semitism and aggressive, perhaps even neo-imperial, designs on the governments (if not the territory) of its neighbors,” Prof. Blank wrote. “Tehran is likely to increase these terrorist activities, based on the belief that nuclear weapons could provide an umbrella and that its regional enemies are weak and irresolute.”

He is concerned with the threat to the Gulf States, which are afraid that if the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obtains nuclear capability, it will try to carry out its grand design to rule the Middle East as an Islamic Empire under its power.

Oil may be the most important factor. If Iran were to control the Gulf States, it would have a stranglehold on the world’s oil supplies.

Tehran previously has jealously guarded what its claims as its territory. Besides demanding sovereignty over several Gulf Island states, “Iranian forces blew up an Azeri oil exploration ship in the Caspian Sea, claiming it was in Iranian territorial waters,” the professor noted.

He added that Iran staged several cyber attacks on Azeri Internet sites last month. “The necessity of thwarting Iranian nuclear weapons should, therefore, be evident since it threatens its entire region.”

Israel has every right to defend itself against Iran – Telegraph Blogs.

According to an Associated Press report over the weekend, both Washington and London are urging Israel to hold back from military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. In his report, the AP’s Josef Federman writes:

The United States and Britain on Sunday urged Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear program as the White House’s national security adviser arrived in the region, reflecting growing international jitters that the Israelis are poised to strike.

In their warnings, both U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and British Foreign Minister William Hague said an Israeli attack on Iran would have grave consequences for the entire region and urged Israel to give international sanctions against Iran more time to work. Gen. Dempsey said an Israeli attack is “not prudent,” and Mr. Hague said it would not be “a wise thing.”

… Asked whether he believed Israel could be deterred from striking, Gen. Dempsey said: “I’m confident that they understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives. But, I mean, I also understand that Israel has national interests that are unique to them.”

Mr. Hague delivered a similar message in Britain. Speaking to the BBC, he said Britain was focused on pressuring Iran through diplomatic means.

“I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” he said. “I think Israel, like everyone else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach we have adopted on very serious economic sanctions and economic pressure and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

At this stage it is doubtful that the counsel of the White House or Foreign Office will have much effect on Israeli thinking. For the Israelis this is a matter of survival, of averting a nuclear holocaust, not a faith-based initiative that rests upon weakened sanctions advanced by a divided UN Security Council, and the non-existent goodwill of an Islamist dictatorship that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Obama administration’s naïve approach towards the Iranian nuclear threat has been one of weak appeasement, which coupled with the European Union’s foolish policy of “constructive engagement”, has bought Tehran precious time to advance its nuclear programme. While the West has dithered, the Iranians have become emboldened, strengthened in their belief that the Western powers do not have the stomach for a military confrontation. The Obama presidency has sent mixed messages to Tehran while treating Israel with contempt, part of a broader foreign policy that has rewarded America’s enemies while undercutting key US allies.

Israel has every right to defend itself against a barbaric tyranny that shows every intention of using nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews. It would be a huge mistake to underestimate the threat that Israel now faces from a regime that brutalises its own people, arms and supplies an array of terrorist groups, and is driven by a desire to dominate the Middle East and crush its enemies. The Iranians also have British and American blood on their hands through their military support for Shia militias in Iraq, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan, a point that both Washington and London would do well to remember. As Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted in his powerful address to Congress in May last year:

When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.

Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

There are moments in history when nations must stand up to evil and defeat it.

The tiny nation of Israel has fought to defend its freedom for more than six decades, its seven million inhabitants encircled in a sea of hostility, and may be forced to do the same in the face of the Iranian threat. If Israel strikes Iran to secure its own future, the West must rally alongside it, and stand shoulder to shoulder with an ally. There can be no negotiation with the Mullahs of Tehran. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and the free world must do all in its power to prevent it.

Uncertain Future of a Nuclear Iran – Forward.com.

Experts Play Out Scenarios if Islamic Republic Gets Bomb

getty images

Whither Nuclear Iran? What would happen if the Islamic Republic is able to create a nuclear weapon. Experts do not agree whether its leadership would become more or less aggressive or what it might mean for Israel.

By Nathan Guttman

Washington — It is a scenario no one wants to imagine, but scholars are already gaming out its implications: What will the world look like after Iran achieves nuclear capability?

It is, for now, no more than an intellectual exercise. All experts see dire consequences. Yet most do not believe in the “existential” doomsday scenario that Israel has portrayed for itself. Iran, experts interviewed by the Forward predict, will not launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Nevertheless, the regional and global implications of having Iran join the nuclear club, should that occur, will be dangerous and will impact Israel, the Gulf region, Europe, Latin America and, perhaps most of all, the United States.

Giora Eiland

kai mork

Giora Eiland

As a former Israeli general and top security official, Giora Eiland finds it hard even to consider the possibility that Iran will become nuclear. Official Israeli policy states that under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and Eiland believes that Israel will stick to this rule.

Pressed to speculate on how the region will look if Iran nevertheless somehow does become nuclear, Eiland draws a troubling but complex picture. Iran, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council said, will not necessarily launch a nuclear attack against Israel, since leaders in Tehran understand they’d face a devastating response from Israel and a nuclear attack from the United States that they could not sustain. “Iran doesn’t want a nuclear weapon to attack Israel,” said Eiland, who is now a senior research associate at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies. “What they want is regional deterrence.”

The real impact of an Iranian bomb will be on the region. By obtaining nuclear capability, Iran will set off a regional nuclear arms race and will threaten Iran’s Sunni neighbors, Eiland said. “Every regional conflict will look different. A nuclear Iran will force all players to face many new constraints.” But there is a silver lining. While the short term is full of threats, in the long run, other Middle Eastern nations could acquire nuclear weapons and offset Iran’s advantage.

Israel’s strategic edge will not be lost, Eiland said, because it rests not only on its reported nuclear capabilities, but also on robust conventional military activity and on the full support that Israel receives from America.

Eiland also offers a counterintuitive idea: Introduction of a nuclear weapon by Iran could create communication channels between Jerusalem and Tehran that currently don’t exist. Citing the American-Soviet Cold War scenario and relations between two other nuclear foes, India and Pakistan, it is clear that some kind of an Israeli– Iranian dialogue will be needed in order to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. “We should also remember,” Eiland added, “that at the end of the day, Iran is a natural ally of Israel after the current regime falls.”

Ash Jain

courtesy of aish jain

Aish Jain

A former member of the State Department’s policy planning team, Ash Jain recently published a paper detailing possible scenarios for a world in which Iran has nuclear power. His predictions, formulated in a research paper he prepared in his current position as visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, are gloomy, but they do not include a nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

“The major concern,” Jain said, “is that Iran will feel shielded and have the freedom to pursue its regional ambitions by using asymmetrical methods such as terror and subversion.” First to feel the pressure, Jain believes, will be Iraq and the Gulf countries, which will be pushed to adopt anti-American and anti Israeli policies. “They want to diminish Western power and replace it with Iranian power,” he said, adding that “Israel will bear the brunt” of this Iranian attempt.

According to Jain, a nuclear Iran could provide Hezbollah and Hamas with a “nuclear umbrella” that will allow these groups to carry out attacks against Israel without fear of major retaliation. “In this context,” he added, “Iran could provide them with chemical and radiological weapons that will be directed at Israel.” He also argued that the chances of reaching a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians will decrease significantly once Iran turns nuclear, since extreme players such as Hamas will be bolstered while the moderates are sidelined.

Jain predicts that the small Gulf monarchies will accommodate Iran’s power. They may, for example, refuse to host American troops. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, could respond by seeking its own nuclear capability. The challenge facing America under this scenario will be how to contain a nuclear Iran while regional players are turning their backs on the West. America will also be forced to turn south, where Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia will be used increasingly by Iran as a base for terror and perhaps for missile activity.

Shoshana Bryen

Shoshana Bryen

“Having it is better than using it.” This is how Shoshana Bryen views Iran’s calculations once it crosses the nuclear threshold. Bryen, who is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and a leading conservative thinker on issues relating to the Middle East, believes that Iran will look at the North Korean model rather than immediately seeking a nuclear war. “North Korea, now that it has it, is way more sanguine that no one will attack them,” she said.

This does not mean Iran will be any less belligerent. Bryen believes that Iran could use its nuclear status to wreak havoc around the world, even by encouraging its allies in Venezuela and Ecuador to attack American-friendly Colombia.

Iran’s rise to the status of a nuclear country, Bryen said, will play out mainly on the fault lines between Sunnis and Shi’ites in the Muslim world. Beyond craving regional dominance, the ayatollah regime sees itself “as the vanguard of international Shi’ite Muslims” and will move to assert this position. This could mean taking actions to destabilize neighboring Iraq, to overthrow the Sunni rulers of Bahrain and to support Shi’ite separatists throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

And it gets worse. Bryen can imagine a situation in which a nuclear Iran essentially blackmails Western nations to limit their support for Israel in return for a promise from Tehran not to attack the Jewish state. While some scholars believe that nuclear nations tend to behave more responsibly, Bryen does not think this is the case with Iran, at least not until the regime is changed and a nationalistic Persian government takes power.

The worst outcome, however, will be felt in the United States. A nuclear Iran, Bryen believes, will show the world that America “has no credibility,” since it did not live up to its promise not to allow Iran to become nuclear. “So what good is it to be a friend of the U.S.?,” Bryen asked.

Trita Parsi

courtesy of trita parsi

Trita Parsi

Iran scholar and activist Trita Parsi believes that a decision by leaders of the Islamic Republic to break out and become nuclear will be met by a harsh international response that will gradually fade into recognition, if not acceptance, of the new reality. “There will be a very strong drive to isolate Iran so that no other country gets the impression that Iran got away with it,” Parsi said. “But as time goes by, the world will recognize the need to create communication channels and points of contact with Iran, because any misunderstanding in the nuclear context could be lethal.”

Parsi, president and founder of the National Iranian American Council, opposes the ayatollah regime’s nuclear ambitions but at the same time does not back harsh sanctions or threats of war. His recent book “A Single Roll of the Dice” argues that the Obama administration squandered a potential diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

According to Parsi, it is the United States that Iranian leaders think of when developing the country’s nuclear capabilities. If Tehran achieves nuclear aims, its first and main goal will be to force America to negotiate with Iran “as equals,” said Parsi, meaning as one nuclear nation to another. This, he believes, will not necessarily require the use of nuclear force or of any other aggressive measure.

“A lot of what Iran does stems from insecurity,” he said. “If they feel more secure, there is a potential for us to see Iran more relaxed in regard to the U.S.,” he said. On the other hand, Parsi does not necessarily believe that Iran will relax its approach toward Israel through its proxies in Lebanon.

The impact that a nuclear breakout will have on Iran’s internal political struggle is unclear, Parsi said. Currently there is no public debate on the issue, and therefore no way to measure how becoming nuclear would change realities for the regime’s domestic opposition.

Gary Sick

courtesy columbia/sipa

Gary Sick

A former National Security Council advisor on Iran during the country’s Islamic revolution, Gary Sick does not envision a situation in which Iran decides to break out and build a bomb, unless it is first attacked. Actually crossing the nuclear threshold would be “inviting an attack,” Sick said, and would not be in Tehran’s interest.

But even if Iran doesn’t build a bomb, its demonstrated capability to do so, Sick explained, will make it a member of a small club of nations, such as Japan, Brazil and Sweden, that can acquire a nuclear weapon if they break away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In either case, Iran’s goal is to assert its position as a major player in the region, one that the world should take seriously and with which it should consult. “Iran feels that it is entitled to that,” he said. “They have an image of themselves as natural leaders.”

Sick, currently a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, does not see an imminent change in Iran’s regional behavior if the country gets closer to having a bomb. It already supports Hezbollah with all its force, and it has not shown much of an appetite for meddling in its neighboring Gulf countries, Sick said. “Their foreign policy has been not to open wars and conflicts,” he noted. But this cannot be interpreted as adopting a moderate policy toward Israel. “If Iran will be able to make life miserable for Israel, they’ll do it,” Sick said, “but this doesn’t mean they’ll go to war.”

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com

Iran’s global terror campaign has been stifled, for now – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

With international intelligence services ratcheting up their efforts against Iran, and mounting domestic pressure in advance of the country’s elections − perhaps the regime’s ability to monitor execution of terror attacks has slackened.

By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel

As of Thursday afternoon, the roster of Iran’s global terror assault on Israel had five new additions: one wounded Israeli and four injured citizens of India, as a result of the New Delhi explosion. A terror attack in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, failed. A planned attack in Thailand was thwarted and within a day, three persons, each with passports from the Islamic Republic, were detained.

Iran vociferously denied Israel’s accusation that it sponsored the attacks in New Delhi and Tbilisi.

	Illustration by Eran Wolkowski.

The explosive planted by a motorcyclist on an Israeli embassy car in
India caused limited damage. The device that was intended to destroy the car of a Georgian driver from the embassy in Tbilisi was snatched from the vehicle before it was detonated, and was then defused. And the three detainees in Bangkok were apparently unable to furnish persuasive cover stories.

The initial investigations suggest that the explosive devices employed in the different locations resembled one another. If the Iranians are operating other terror cells that were supposed to strike other targets in this wave of violence − the arrest of the Bangkok squad probably made them bring the militants back to Iran, lest Tehran’s complicity in this recent global assault become more manifest. There is a distinct possibility that Tehran’s global terror campaign has been stifled, at least for now.

	Indian police forensics experts examine the Israeli Embassy car that was invovled in the New Dehli explosion
	Photo by: AP

This week’s episodes would appear to belie the ominous comments by top
Israeli officials − this week, as well − that describe Iran’s intelligence and security services as the “world’s leading producer of terror.” Still, there are other pieces in the puzzle that deserve to be deciphered before final conclusions are drawn.

One possible explanation for the gap between the expectations and the results is that Israeli intelligence and diplomatic officials deliberately exaggerate the level of the threat posed by Iran, just as the CIA and hawkish politicians in the U.S. inflated dangers posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. It bears mentioning that Iran and Hezbollah have in recent years launched close to 20 failed attempts to attack Israeli and Jewish targets overseas, in reprisal for the death of Imad Mughniyeh, the head of Hezbollah’s terror network. Only on Monday − four years and one day after Mughniyeh’s assassination in Damascus − did these reprisal efforts tally their first success, when an Israeli diplomat’s wife, Tali Yehoshua-Koren, was wounded in New Delhi. The Iranian scheme to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year was also revealed to be amateurish in its design.

A major question mark looms over the character of the attack in Bangkok this week. It’s possible this wasn’t exactly a “work accident” that occurred in the preparation of an explosive; indeed, it might have been a foiled terror attack. Thai police raided the apartment in which the Iranian terrorists were hiding, and it was around that time that the explosion took place. Later, one of the terrorists was wounded when he tried to flee the site, while carrying explosives.

Last month, another planned attack, this one intended for Israeli tourists in Bangkok, was thwarted; a Lebanese suspect was detained after this incident. Media in Thailand estimated that local police forces operated then on the basis of a “tip” supplied by a foreign intelligence service. The possibility that the same dynamic was at play this week should not be ruled out.

Israeli intelligence officials were surprised by the attacks in India and Georgia. The picture regarding Thailand is less clear. A logical evaluation holds that the Iranians used local “subcontractors” in the three incidents this week. The safe house exposed in Bangkok served as a preparatory facility for terror: It’s possible that the Iranian citizens were not supposed to carry out the actual attacks, but that their proxies were supposed to pick up the bombs at a later time.

Haste and pressure

The attacks’ failed execution might have been the product of haste and pressure. In fact, Iran’s intelligence services are facing pressure to attain immediate results. The attacks appear to have been timed not only to coincide with the anniversary of the Mughniyeh killing; they also might have been quickly arranged reprisal attempts for the killing of five Iranian nuclear scientists, the most recent of which occurred last month. Tehran blames Israel for these killings. Ahead of parliamentary elections in March, Iran’s leaders want to demonstrate that they have ways of responding to such attacks on their nuclear program.

However, there is more than domestic election concerns at play here: Iran is conducting wars on several fronts, and it is not especially pleased with the way any of them is going.
There is, of course, the mostly clandestine global struggle being waged by Iran against Western intelligence services. Only the tip of this campaign’s iceberg is visible to the public. The struggle involves arms smuggling, the assassination of scientists, cyber-war and, now, attacks on Israeli diplomatic installations. In tandem, Iran’s main investment of effort is in the nuclear sphere.

The international sanctions campaign, whose purpose is to stifle Iran’s nuclear efforts, moved into higher gear this past January, with the declaration of a European embargo on Iranian oil, to begin in July. Israel continues to threaten about a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, plus tensions about the continued supply of oil are on the rise in the Persian Gulf.

In addition, Iran has its hands full in dealing with regimes in the Arab world. Its effort to spearhead a Shi’ite revolution in Bahrain was foiled by a joint Saudi-Jordanian effort. Furthermore, its joint attempt with Hezbollah to contain popular unrest against Bashar Assad’s dictatorial regime in Syria have not been crowned with success.

With so many things happening at once in the Arab world, and with so many world intelligence services stepping up efforts against Tehran, it’s quite possible that its regime’s ability to monitor attack plans has slackened, with one consequence being such malfunctions as the mishaps in Bangkok and Tbilisi.

Low-profile activity

Do the attacks against Israeli targets overseas this week portend anything regarding the campaign against Iran’s nuclear efforts? Might they in fact accelerate Israeli plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites? On the one hand, it would appear that the sides are maintaining a low profile vis-a-vis the dispute, and that it is not likely, for now, to spill over into full conflict. But plans can always go awry. It’s by no means certain that Israel would have been content with public censure had the explosion in New Delhi occurred after Yehoshua-Koren had picked up her kids from school and was driving with them in the embassy car.

On Monday, following the incidents in India and Georgia, urgent consultations were conducted by officials from the IDF General Staff, the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service. The historical precedents confused the issue at hand: In 1982, Israel used an assassination attempt against its ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, as a pretext to launch the first Lebanon War, which had been in planning for quite some time. In contrast, in 1992, it opted for restraint after the bombing of the embassy in Buenos Aires, which was perpetrated by Iran and Hezbollah in reprisal for the killing of the latter’s secretary-general, Abbas al-Musawi.

This time, Israel refrained from immediate responses, although it stepped up its rhetorical assaults. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu twice denounced the Iranian terror attacks, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman promised that Israel “will not carry on with business as usual” and overlook them. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was in Singapore’s airport at the time, twice pointed out that he had made an interim landing in Bangkok just hours before the explosion there.

It’s hard to imagine that Barak was the Iranians’ target. Yet the defense minister, a frequent flyer whose trip to Singapore has spilled over into a weekend excursion in Japan, implied that there was some sort of connection between the Iranian moves and his trip to the Far East. In any case, in view of Barak’s sober warnings about the critical point to which affairs related to Iran have reached, it’s somewhat surprising that he has found so much cause in recent weeks to leave the country for trips abroad.

Renewed opposition?

Iran’s regime has decided to ban stoning as a method of execution, and from now will sanction hanging alone as its means for meting out the death penalty. On Tuesday, the regime forcibly dispersed a protest rally, and arrested a few opposition activists.

The next day, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad officiated at a festive unveiling of fuel rods produced in Tehran’s nuclear research reactor. This was a deliberate ploy designed to attain a number of goals: the demonstration of a technological accomplishment; the obtainment of leverage ahead of possible future, renewed negotiations with the international community ‏(enrichment of uranium to a 20-percent level is now an established fact in Iran’s reactors‏); and a show of strength for the country’s citizenry.

Yet this week’s protest demonstration, two years to the day when two leaders of the failed Green Revolution of the preceding summer − Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karubi − were arrested, is likely to mark the start of renewed efforts on the part of opposition movements. Though a relatively small number of people took part in this latest protest, the combination of a domestic economic crisis and the winds of change generally blowing through the Middle East is liable to promote stirrings of dissent in the Islamic Republic.

In the Wall Street Journal this week, Mehdi Khalaji, an expert on Iranian affairs and a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, quoted comments made by a recently retired Iranian general, Hossein Alai, founder of the Revolutionary Guard Navy. Writing in Tehran’s Ettelaat newspaper, Alai had drawn comparisons between the current situation in Iran and the circumstances preceding the Islamic revolution. He suggested that should Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei fail to work out a compromise with the reformist leaders, Mousavi and Karubi, he will be making an error similar to ones perpetrated by the shah, prior to his fall.

For his part, Khalaji claimed that many former Revolutionary Guard officers are today businessmen involved in the oil business and in Iran’s banking system. These retired officers, like the Guard itself, are liable to incur a devastating blow when a new round of international sanctions is applied. Khalaji explained that Khamenei’s political status depends largely on the situation of the country’s nuclear program − as well as upon his image as someone who knows how to handle outside pressure. “Holding firm” against sanctions, Khalaji wrote, “is a matter of life or death” for Iran’s supreme spiritual leader.

The only factor that could lead to a change in Khamenei’s position is the disposition of the Revolutionary Guard. In Khalaji’s view, the Guard represents the sole force in Iran today with the power to make the country’s spiritual leader adopt a course of compromise.

Historic rift

Hamas’ political leadership in Gaza, headed by Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, has failed to date in its efforts to torpedo the reconciliation agreement forged by the head of the organization’s political division, Khaled Meshal, with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Surprisingly, in this showdown Meshal enjoys the support of the senior officials of the organization’s military branch, headed by Ahmed Jabari.

In an organization that has steadfastly upheld an image of unity during its 24 years of existence, the crisis in Hamas is historical. Signs of the rift surfaced last May, during the reconciliation ceremony staged by Abbas and Meshal in Cairo. On this occasion, Meshal expressed relatively moderate views regarding Israel − which stirred Zahar’s wrath. The controversy continued through the end of last year, after Meshal spoke about a transition to “popular resistance” against Israel, and announced that his organization was prepared to join the PLO.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was Meshal’s statement of his readiness a few weeks ago to establish a unity government headed by Abbas. Haniyeh, who became the main victim of Meshal’s rapprochement strategy, refused to keep mum this time.

After having been described by Israel for years as a predatory, dangerous militant, Meshal is now promoting a rapprochement strategy with the PA, and enjoys support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egyt. For his part, Haniyeh, who has been thought of as being relatively pragmatic, went off to embrace Ahmadinejad in Tehran, ignoring the sentiments of the moderate Arab camps.

In all likelihood, Benjamin Netanyahu will bring the photo of the Hamas leader’s appearance at the Tehran rally with him to the White House when he visits there early next month.

Hamas’ leadership in Gaza is apparently fed up with Meshal’s proclivity for taking independent action. As far as the organization’s political leadership in Gaza is concerned, in view of the impending collapse of the Syrian patron, and of Hamas’ strengthened position in the Strip, they deserve to play a more prominent role in decisions made by Hamas’ governing council. As the movement’s leaders in Gaza see it, rapprochement and a subsequent election campaign could jeopardize the organization, which could face a setback in the election. Plus, even a victory in the elections would not alter Hamas’ standing in the West Bank, since Israel would hunt it down there in such a scenario.

This position, however, has been offset by that of Hamas’ military wing, which decided to align itself with Meshal. In the Hamas power struggle, this military branch seems to be the big winner, at least for now, since it tips the balance in any contest between the Gaza leadership and Meshal’s political wing.

Though influenced by personal interests and ego, these arguments about Hamas’ strategy and policies reflect processes by which the organization has matured into an establishment force on the Gaza Strip, after five years of rule. Top IDF officers were asked this week to cite the last time Hamas figures took part in rocket attacks against Israeli targets. The last time that happened, they responded, was about half a year ago.

The American Spectator : Still in Denial on Iran.

By P. David Hornik on 2.20.12 @ 6:08AM

U.S. national security adviser Tom Donilon is now in Israel for talks with top officials. The Telegraph reports that while Washington claims the visit is routine, “Israel’s option of launching a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities was expected to be the urgent topic of discussion.”

Israel has indeed been getting some further unfriendly messages from Iran lately. Last week Iran attacked or attempted to attack Israeli diplomats in Azerbaijan, India, and Thailand, with Israeli sources warning of further attempts. Currently two Iranian warships have docked at Syria’s port of Tartus.

Yet the message from Washington continues to be — don’t do anything, the situation’s under control. It was further amplified over the weekend by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who 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…. We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor. We also know, or we believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decided to make a nuclear weapon.

Those finely attuned to Iran’s rationality could feel further encouraged by its recent letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, which proposes yet another round of nuclear talks and promises “new initiatives.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it an “important step.” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was more restrained, noting that “we’ve had negotiations that… ate up a lot of time and didn’t go where they needed to go.”

But is it rational to view Iran as rational? Steadily mounting evidence says no.

Last week Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu asserted that the sanctions on Iran are not working, and “if anybody needed a reminder… it was the guided tour by Iran’s president in the centrifuge hall.” He was referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s proud flaunting of Iran’s new, domestically produced nuclear fuel rods at a Tehran reactor.

Netanyahu added:

They send children into mine fields, they have suicide bombers, they send tens of thousands of rockets into our cities and towns. Such a regime should obviously not have an atomic bomb….

The Israeli leader, though, is not the only one with a grim assessment of the sanctions’ effectiveness. The Guardian reported on Friday that U.S. officials “are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran” from pursuing nukes, and that “the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.”

The Guardian quotes one U.S. official saying the “problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don’t matter, like their economy isn’t collapsing, like Israel isn’t going to do anything.” And another one: “We don’t see a way forward. The record shows that there is nothing to work with.”

And at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess said Iran is “not close” to stopping its nuclear program. Yet, while allowing that “Iran’s technical advances, particularly in uranium enrichment” mean Iran is “more than capable” of producing a weapon, Burgess said that decision would be made by Supreme Leader Ali Khameini — who “would base [it] on a cost-benefit analysis,” something that “plays to the value of sanctions….”

Again, that strange mix of recognition and denial of reality, as if to say: yes, there is a threat, but we’re dealing with it effectively even though the indications are that we’re not.

The Iran-as-rational-actor notion is even harder to sustain in light of mounting concerns about Iranian terror attacks on U.S. soil. Such worries are, of course, more than plausible given Iran’s plot, uncovered last October, to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in a Washington restaurant.

Meanwhile Britain’s Sky News reports that “Iran and al Qaeda’s core leadership… have established an ‘operational relationship’ amid fears the terror group is planning a spectacular attack against the West.” Sky News says it has seen a “secret intelligence memo” that states:

Against the background of intensive co-operation over recent months between Iran and al Qaeda — with a view to conducting a joint attack against Western targets overseas…Iran has significantly stepped up its investment, maintenance and improvement of operational and intelligence ties with the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in recent months.

Western refusal to come to grips with the fanatic nature of the mullahs’ regime has a long pedigree. Such facts as Ahmadinejad’s fervent belief in the Mahdi — the mystical Shiite redeemer whose arrival, he believes, can be hastened with violent chaos — will not impress those determined not to be impressed by them.

But in trying to get Israel — smack in the Middle East and with much direct experience of it — to wait contentedly for Tehran to apply “cost-benefit” calculations, the Obama administration has its work cut out for it.

About the Author

P. David Hornik is a writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel, blogging at PDavidHornik.typepad.com.