WarSclerotic

Rebels Say Syrian Army near Collapse — Naharnet.

Middle EastSyria

Join the conversation

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Threatens Retaliation Against Attack – NYTimes.com.

By ROBERT F. WORTH

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States in a defiant speech on Friday, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of war over Iran’s nuclear program, and asserting that any attack “would be ten times worse for the interests of the United States” than it would be for Iran.

The speech made during Friday Prayers and broadcast live to the nation came amid deepening American concern about a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli leaders have issued mixed signals regarding their intentions, suggesting they are willing, for a short time at least, to wait and see if increasingly strict economic sanctions, including a European oil embargo, might deter Iran.

The Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also issued an unusually blunt warning that Iran would support militant groups opposing Israel, in what some analysts said could be held up by Israel as a casus belli. Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks, delivered from Tehran University, were his most public response to the mounting tensions between Western powers and Iran in recent weeks.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran “had its own tools” to respond to threats of war and would use them “if necessary,” the semi-official Mehr news agency reported. He also said the threats would not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear program, which it has long maintained is for peaceful purposes only.

Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the sanctions as “painful and crippling,” according to Iranian news agencies, acknowledging the effect of recent measures aimed at cutting Iran’s central bank off from the international financial system. But he also said the sanctions would ultimately benefit his country. “They will make us more self reliant,” he said, according to a translation by Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency. “We would not achieve military progress if sanctions were not imposed on Iran’s military sector.”

In recent weeks, senior American and European officials have flown to Israel to counsel patience, warning that a military attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites could backfire and strengthen what they called its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. But Israeli officials say they are worried that Iran may soon be immune to the threat of airstrikes as its enrichment facilities are moved into deep mountain bunkers.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said on Thursday that if sanctions fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to “consider taking action,” according t a report in the daily newspaper, Haaretz.

United States Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, in comments on Friday at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, echoed a similar sentiment.

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

But Iran gave little indication it is willing to ease concerns over its nuclear program.

Iran told inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency this week that it would prevent access to sites and personnel that the West suspects of advancing the nation’s work toward nuclear arms capability, damaging what had been considered a major diplomatic opening.

“Disaster is too strong a word,” said a diplomat at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna who was briefed on the outcome of the recent talks. “Iran has refused to address the issue for three years now,” the diplomat said. “To be fair, you have to give them credit for at least discussing it. The dialogue is continuing — and that’s a good sign — although the agency would have liked to get an access pledge.”

The atomic agency, which is the nuclear proliferation monitor of the United Nations, has long tried to get Tehran to address what it calls evidence of the “military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has repeatedly dismissed the evidence as fabricated or taken out of context, and had refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections.

Then, in November, the agency made public its most detailed summary of the weapons allegations, and Iran this year agreed to its first substantive talks on the topic. The inspectors went to Iran for a three-day visit that ended this past Tuesday.

“The agency expressed interest in all the areas of concern,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the usual rules on politically sensitive topics. “The team asked for access in the future to different types of sites and personnel, and that was denied.”

But Iran did offer to continue the dialogue. The inspectors plan to return on Feb. 21.

Critics have accused Iran of using false promises and delaying tactics on the diplomatic front to buy time in the nuclear program for the making of atomic strides.

Officials discuss Israel-Iran showdown – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US, Israeli officials tell NBC News that attack on Iran would include intermediate Jericho II missiles equipped with high explosives, possible ground commandoes

Ynet

A report suggesting that US Secretary of Defense Leone Panetta believes Israel is planning to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear sites before the coming June echoed predictions formerly made by both US and Israeli officials privy to military intelligence in their respective countries.

In an extensive interview published by NBC News, the officials claimed that while US authorities are satisfied relying on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel is more of a “wild card,” and would most likely launch an attack if intelligence confirms that Tehran is inching toward developing nuclear weapons.

Asked what are the chances that Israel would go ahead with an attack, most officials maintained that there is at least a 50-50 chance, while more than one official estimated the chances at as high as 70%.

Natanz nuclear facility (Photo: AP)

As for the method of attack, many officials believed Israel would employ a “multi-pronged attack, using its fighter bombers as well as its Jericho missile force.

The officials explained that Israel has an intermediate Jericho missile – the Jericho II – which is capable of hitting targets up to 1,500 miles away, and would most likely be equipped with high explosives, which officials described as highly accurate.

Missile exercise in Iran (Photo: MCT)

As for ground operations, some officials claimed Israeli commandos either from the IDF or Mossad would possibly be dropped at the sites to collect forensics or assist with illumination of the targets.

Instead of trying to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program, officials told NBC they believe the strikes will focus on the facilities that are deemed most critical, in an effort to set back the program.

Asked about the Iranian response to such an attack, officials estimated that it would be constrained due to both its limited capabilities and from fear that a harsh retaliation would lead to further attacks by Israel.

And what about other regional countries? Most officials agreed that both Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates would support the move, as they are also threatened by a nuclear Iran. As for Turkey, officials are expecting more of a muted response, though they claim Ankara has been keeping a close watch on the developments in Iran.

Ayalon in Germany: Pressure Iran… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Courtesy

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon warned German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere that heavy pressure must be immediately applied to Iran “until it breaks,” speaking during a panel at the Munich Conference on Friday.

“We do not have the privilege to wait on the results of sanctions against Iran,” Ayalon told de Maiziere. Germany, he added, “as the strongest country in the European Union,” must send a message to policy-makers in those European countries that are reliant on Iranian oil to break their reliance on it in order for EU sanctions to be significant.

Ayalon said there had been “very, very positive steps” in toughening curbs on Iran including EU sanctions, although some of these might only take affect gradually over some months.

“It is not enough yet in the sense that the lead time is a little bit too much, I believe the crunch should be now. It is a matter of weeks and months that can make a difference,” he said.

“We know that Iran is actually accelerating its nuclear activities maybe to preempt sanctions, so this is why now is the time to do it, so the Iranians will blink. The Iranian regime, as fanatic, as radical, as dangerous as it is, it’s not irrational when it comes to its own political survival.”

“Now the dilemma will all be theirs. They will have the dilemma to stop or bear the consequences.”

Speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of the conference in Germany, Ayalon added that the key point of international concern should be the amount of enriched uranium Iran has managed to bury at a deep site at Fordow, its best sheltered nuclear site south of Tehran.

Ayalon was responding to a US newspaper report that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believed Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it building a nuclear bomb.

He added: “I don’t want to get into specifics because I don’t think we may necessarily reach that fork in the road of taking such a decision by all of us in the international community, if indeed sanctions will be imposed now, and the Iranians will stop completely their illegal activities now, then we may not even need to discuss such issues.”

U.S. Fears Iran’s Links to al Qaeda – WSJ.com.

By SIOBHAN GORMAN

WSJ Intelligence Correspondent Siobhan Gorman reports on U.S. fears that Iran has freed as many as five al Qaeda operatives who had been under house arrest.

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials say they believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

The men, who were detained in Iran in 2003, make up al Qaeda’s so-called management council, a group that includes members of the inner circle that advised Osama bin Laden and an explosives expert widely considered a candidate for a top post in the organization.

The assertions are likely to amplify tensions between Washington and Tehran. A Senate committee on Thursday moved to intensify sanctions to force Iran into negotiations on its nuclear program, while Tehran has largely defied pressure. This week, Iran prevented U.N. nuclear inspectors from gaining access to sites and scientists, according to diplomats.

Skeptics caution that intelligence on Iran’s activities is limited and worry that some policy makers might use provocative reports to justify military action against Tehran. Iran has denied any connection with al Qaeda.

U.S. officials believe there have been recent indications officials in the Iranian government have provided al Qaeda operatives in Iran limited assistance, including logistical help, money and cars, according to a person briefed on the developments.

Adding to the U.S. pressure on Iran, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told senators in an annual intelligence assessment that U.S. agencies believe the Iranian regime is now more willing to conduct an attack in the U.S.

“We have to be vigilant for more of that,” Mr. Clapper told lawmakers Thursday.

The reports come at a time of growing concern about Iran’s decision-making. President Barack Obama, in last month’s State of the Union address, said “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

Even among U.S. officials who believe Iran has given greater freedoms to al Qaeda operatives, there is substantial debate within the U.S. government about whether that means there are significant ties between Iran and al Qaeda.

Some officials say it is too early to draw conclusions about Iran’s intentions and caution against judgments that Iran is posing an imminent threat.

Associated Press

This undated image provided by the FBI shows a wanted poster for Saif al-Adel on the FBI’s most wanted list.

“There is not significant information to suggest a working relationship between Iran and al Qaeda,” said a U.S. official.

Said another U.S. official: “Al Qaeda moving fighters or money is one thing, while planning major terrorist attacks against the West from Iranian soil is probably something [Iran] won’t allow.”

Iran and al Qaeda have a long history of differences, particularly religious ones: Iran is Shiite Muslim and al Qaeda is Sunni. The regional aims of Iran and al Qaeda remain sharply divergent, particularly in Iraq. Iran has long supported Shiite extremist groups and militias, which are bitterly opposed to Sunni groups, the sect from which al Qaeda has drawn support.

Hillary Mann Leverett, a former National Security Council aide in the Clinton and Bush administrations, strongly urged caution in drawing links between Iran and al Qaeda, noting that Iran in the past repatriated more than 200 al Qaeda operatives that had crossed into Iran, and even provided copies of their passports to the United Nations.

“I think [there] is a war-fevered hysteria that is going on now,” she said. “A lot of this stuff is really flimsy and is really questionable.”

Ms. Leverett added that if Iran is in fact granting more freedom to al Qaeda members, it may not represent an effort to partner with al Qaeda, but rather a decision that letting them go could stir up trouble for the U.S. “‘Let the United States deal with it,'” would be Iran’s logic, she said.

Nonetheless, some officials and experts worry conditions may be ripe for a more direct partnership between Iran and al Qaeda as both come under pressure by the U.S. and the West.

Much of the al Qaeda senior leadership has been killed by the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone campaign and the commando raid that killed bin Laden last year—meaning the organization needs to replenish its leadership ranks.

“For al Qaeda core, it’s one of their best hopes of reviving themselves,” said Bruce Hoffman, an al Qaeda specialist at Georgetown University.

“Al Qaeda is in deep trouble right now, but they do have some senior leaders outside the country in some locations that are not easy to get at,” said Seth Jones of Rand Corp., who wrote a recent article in Foreign Affairs on the potential Iran-al Qaeda partnership.

Tehran, for its part, under growing pressure from Western sanctions, needs allies.

Iran has, in effect, provided sanctuary to several senior al Qaeda leaders over the years, Mr. Jones said. Some al Qaeda operatives fled to Iran when the U.S. launched its Afghan offensive in 2001. Since then, these operatives have communicated, moved money and facilitated recruiting from their Iranian beachhead, Mr. Jones said. Some lower-level al Qaeda operatives are also believed to be in Iran.

After an al Qaeda attack in Saudi Arabia in 2003, Iran placed most of the operatives under house arrest. But they still were permitted to communicate with other operatives and transfer funds to their counterparts in Pakistan, said Mr. Jones.

The management council, a group of advisers to al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, includes planner and explosives expert Saif al Adel, who is from Egypt; spokesman Sulayman Abu Ghayth, of Kuwait; Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, of Egypt, who was a member of bin Laden’s inner shura council; planner Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, of Egypt; and spiritual leader Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, a Mauritanian.

Together, they comprise some of the group’s financial, spiritual and operational leaders, many with long-standing ties to senior al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

It isn’t clear whether the five men would take advantage of an offer to return to their home countries—where they could face arrest and prosecution—or if Iran would allow them to go to another country, such as Pakistan, U.S. officials said. Nor is it clear what restrictions, if any, would be placed on them if they remain in Iran, the officials said.

Mr. Adel has been considered a rising star within al Qaeda. He is under U.S. indictment for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. In the wake of bin Laden’s death, Mr. Adel’s name was floated in reports out of the region as a potential candidate to lead the international organization.

Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com

Iran Blocks U.N. Nuclear Team – WSJ.com.

Move Comes as U.S. Approves New Sanctions to Curb Teheran’s Energy Sector and Targets Global Banking Clearinghouse

By JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—Iran denied United Nations inspectors access to a suspected nuclear site, scientists and documents during a visit to Tehran this week, dimming already scant hopes for a breakthrough to end a standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, said diplomats briefed on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mission.

In a sign the visit did little to ease international condemnation of Iran, on Thursday the U.S. Senate Banking Committee approved a sanctions bill to further curb Iran’s access to high technology and munitions, intended to help cripple Tehran’s energy sector and the businesses of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s elite military unit.

An amendment to the bill provides for possible sanctions against the management and ownership of the Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or Swift, which facilitates the flow of electronic financial transactions globally.

U.S. lawmakers are alleging that Swift has aided blacklisted Iranian banks in evading U.S. and European Union sanctions, a charge the organization denies. “The measures…will further increase the pressure on Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and sponsorship of global terrorism,” said Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

The Obama administration and the EU have significantly increased financial pressure in recent weeks, including decisions to put sanctions on Iran’s central bank and an embargo on Iranian oil shipments to Europe. Tehran has branded these measures as acts of war and threatened to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the sea route for oil shipments from the Persian Gulf.

The IAEA said it will return a senior-level team to Iran later this month to try to build on three days of discussions that were held with senior Iranian officials, which ended Tuesday. The two sides largely discussed the mechanisms through which they could address the IAEA’s concerns, and a possible future work plan, according to the officials briefed on the trip.

But U.S. and European officials are already voicing concerns that Tehran is seeking to use the dialogue to divide the international community and stave off additional financial penalties that are being crafted in Washington and the EU.

The IAEA’s trip to Iran was led by the agency’s top nuclear inspector, Herman Nackaerts of Belgium. The visit was the U.N. watchdog agency’s first high-level mission to Tehran since it released a report in November that alleged Iran has sought to develop the technologies used in developing atomic weapons.

Iran, which denies it is working to develop nuclear weapons, rejected the report and said the IAEA’s conclusions were drawn from falsified documents.

The IAEA’s staff has been seeking to gain access to Iranian facilities suspected of conducting nuclear-weapons research, as well as to scientists and documents believed to be associated with this alleged clandestine work. The U.N. agency specifically has been seeking to interview nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, whom the IAEA and U.S. government believe may be the lead Iranian official in organizing nuclear-weapons research.

Mr. Nackaerts also asked Iranian officials to visit a military facility just south of Tehran, called Parchin, but was denied, according to the officials briefed on the trip. The IAEA believes the facility may have housed a containment vessel used in conducting tests of the high explosives used in triggering a fissile reaction from the uranium metal used in a nuclear warhead, according to the agency’s November report.

Iranian officials hailed the IAEA’s trip to Iran as opening a new chapter of cooperation between Tehran and the agency. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said his government was ready to show its nuclear facilities to Mr. Nackaerts, but that the agency didn’t request a visit.

Iran maintains that Parchin is solely a military facility, not one working on nuclear technologies.

The new financial penalties being pursued by the U.S. Congress could significantly increase tensions with Iran, and possibly disrupt global finance, according to Western diplomats.

The Swift financial system is used by virtually every major international bank and finance firm to send transactional data and messages via a secured network. Swift said it operates transparently and complies fully with all applicable sanctions laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Obama administration officials said they were also seeking to safeguard the global economy and the interests of U.S. allies.

Op-Ed: Israel Will Attack Iran In 2012 : NPR.

As tensions mount between Iran and the U.S. and Israel, the international community struggles to determine the best way to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman predicts that Israeli political leadership will launch an attack on Israel in 2012.

LISTEN

This is TALK OF THE NATION. I’m Neal Conan.

And now the opinion page, but something of a departure from our usual 800-word argument. In the cover story of this weekend’s New York Times magazine, Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman says Israel has long posed a three-part test to decide whether it’s time to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. Would such attacks make a severe dent in Iran’s program? Can Israel count on international support, particularly from the United States? Have all measures short of war been exhausted? Bergman concludes that Israel’s political leadership is convinced that for the first time, the answers to all those questions is yes.

If you have questions about the logic and consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, give us a call. 800-989-8255. Email: talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation at our website. That’s at npr.org, click on TALK OF THE NATION. Ronen Bergman is an analyst for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and author of the “Secret War with Iran.” He joins us now, via Skype, from Jerusalem. Nice to have you back on the program. Ronen Bergman, are you there? And we’re having difficulties reaching Ronen Bergman, who’s the analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth in Jerusalem. He’s also the author of the New York Times cover story on its most recent Sunday Times magazine. He’s back with us by phone now. Are you with us there?

DR. RONEN BERGMAN: Yeah, I’m here. I’m sorry. Something has gone wrong with the Skype connection. Can you hear me?

CONAN: Yes, fine. And things happen from time to time. You sound fine on the phone. We’ll stick to that. You’ve come to the conclusion at the end of your story that Israel will attack Iran in this calendar year. Why now?

BERGMAN: Because of a few reasons, and the most important of them is that, according to the latest intelligence estimates from Israel, Iran is just about to enter, what is termed by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak and by Israeli intelligence, as the immunity zone. And that immunity zone is a point in time, on the timeline of the advancement of the Iranian nuclear project, after which the Iranian nuclear facilities are going to be immune, or almost immune, to an Israeli strike. And according to the latest intelligence available to Israel, Iran is about to enter the immunity zone within nine to 12 months.

And the Israeli’s are trying to warn that if a decision is not taken during this time, from now until the mid or end of 2012, then it would be too late to take a decision. Or as the Defense Minister Barak has said, he said that after 2012, the issue of a nuclear Iran would be also important. Serious, interesting, but then he says the issue is going to be taken from our hand – the decision making process, the makers of policy, politicians – to your hands, journalists and historians.

CONAN: And it’s…

BERGMAN: Therefore, 2012 is the critical year.

CONAN: And it’s important to say it’s not the conclusion that Iran would have a deliverable nuclear weapon at the end of this calendar year, just that the window for a successful attack would close.

BERGMAN: The latest intelligence suggests – and I think this is agreed by most intelligence agencies working on the Iranian issue – is that once an order is given – and this is according to a promise that the scientist of Iran gave it to the supreme leader. Once the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, gives the order, they are able to produce the first nuclear device within a nine-month period, and then to take another half a year to a year to miniaturize that device to fit the shoulders of a Shahab-3 missile that can hit Israel. And therefore, from the point of view of Israel, Israel seeing an Iranian nuclear bomb as a sort of an existential threat, the threat is imminent or almost imminent.

CONAN: And I’m sure that there will be objections on any number of levels. But one of them is that Israel, the United States and most other intelligence services around the world believed in 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were wrong.

BERGMAN: Yeah. The Iraqi lesson is important and should be taught and learned throughout the intelligence services throughout the world, but this is very, very different. In Iraq, there were speculations. There was some dangerous information. In the Iranian case, we are talking about the IAEA, who has just released a very, very clear report accusing Iran of violation of the NPT. And this report is based upon the inspectors of the agency taking whatever inspection they should have taken in – on Iranian (unintelligible) inside the Iranian facility. And the Iranians themselves, you know, they have claimed that they have – they are enriching uranium to the point of 19.7 percent, and they are far beyond closing the nuclear fuel cycle.

The argument is what are the targets of the Iranian leadership in this nuclear project? The Iranians claim that they have only peaceful targets, and the intelligence services worldwide do not believe them. And I can tell you, Neal, that even in all (unintelligible) conversation, even Russian intelligence, the Chinese intelligence official, all of them agree that Iran is aiming at assembling a bomb. And if they were not aiming, then the whole mouse-and-cat game that they are playing with the international community and the IAEA wouldn’t have happen because they wouldn’t have anything to hide.

CONAN: Just a clarification of the couple of the acronyms Ronen Bergman used, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which was highly skeptical of the claims of a nuclear weapon in Iraq before the war in 2003. Also the NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory and to which binds it to not produce nuclear weapons. And let me just follow up. There are – as you point out in your article, this is hardly a debate that is one-sided. In Israel, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan says an attack would be a serious mistake. It would set Iran back only temporarily, and that Israel then would risk a ferocious counterattack.

BERGMAN: The debate is – was heated in Israel following up Meir Dagan’s meeting with some journalists. I was among them on his last day in office. And basically he said that the idea to attack here militarily is stupid. That Mossad was able – hinting to covert actions that were attributed to Mossad sabotaging the Iranian nuclear facilities and killing some scientists. These attempts were able to delay the project significantly. He was talking about 215(ph) as the year in which Iran will be able to assemble the first nuclear device. And thus, the sword, he said, is not on our neck, and we should not take a military action that would have an inevitable day-after effect that are going to be horrific to the Israeli population. That is his point of view and his point of view should be heard and taken seriously.

But I would say that after weeks of researching for this New York Times piece that you mentioned, I would sum up and say that most of the leadership of Israel, including Mossad’s current assessment, military intelligence and others, all of them agreed that the timeline is very different, that Iran would be able to produce the first device within a year, and that sanctions, the – or the combination between sanctions and covert actions are not significantly effective, and are not holding the Iranian nuclear project. Therefore, unless something happens and the Iranians agree suddenly to all conditions posed by the international community – but unless something unexpected is happening, my assessment is that the leadership of Israel would take the decision knowing that it would lead to a possible problematic outcome.

And we can discuss this maybe later. What are going to be these outcomes? But knowing that it might lead to these outcomes – but when comparing the possible outcomes, including rockets fired at Israel (unintelligible) cities, including terrorist attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets overseas, but banishing these as problematic and as tragic as they can be with the possibility of Iran being armed with nuclear arsenal, they would make a choice, they will make a decision to send the bombers.

Israel being a country I would say suffering past traumas, with the mindset to do everything to prevent a second holocaust, and with this comparison being drawn – I think, it’s the wrong comparison, but yet it’s still there – a comparison between Adolf Hitler and President Ahmadinejad, a comparison that is prompt by Prime Minister Netanyahu – when you put all of this together, you end up with one administration only, and this is to do whatever Israel can to prevent Iran from obtaining this capability.

CONAN: Ronen Bergman is our guest, a senior analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth, the Israeli newspaper, the author of a article on the cover of this week’s New York Times’ Sunday Magazine, “Will Israel Attack Iran?” You’re listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And Chris(ph) is on the line. Chris is with us from Central California.

CHRIS: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I understand clearly that the United States is a big part of the equation at – in striking Iran from the Israeli standpoint. But we’re in an election year, and the timetable of having to strike between nine to 12 months would indicate that the strike would have to come before the election. And if this strike went poorly and had a very negative effect, say, on the election, is that part of the calculation?

CONAN: Ronen Bergman, what the kinds of advance notice would Israel give to the United States? What terms of the election timing does Israel take into account?

BERGMAN: Yeah, these are two different questions. The first about the alert. The United States has urged Israel not to strike and also request Israel to give the U.S. administration a heads up on a possible strike. The Israelis – the high rank Israelis negotiating with the administration have not given both. They did not promise not to attack, and they did not promise not to – or to give an early warning. On the other hand, the Americans use the same vague language when it came to the Israeli questions on what the United States exactly is willing to do in order to fulfill the presidential promise to do – to be determined to prevent Iran from being nuclear. So both sides are using – on the crucial questions are using a very vague language.

I would assume that Israel would give a few hours alert and hours – two hours, five hours alert to the United States just to hear the State’s side and say, we have given you some sort of a pre-warning. The elections in the United States are considerations as the overall structure and the quality of the relations between the United States and Israel, which are perceived with all good reason as the most important strategic asset that Israel has. But at the end of the day when the main consideration is to prevent Iran from being a nuclear country when this threat is perceived as a national or as a major threat to national security of Israel is not an existential threat, then, I’m sorry to say, but I think that all other considerations are becoming minor. And…

CONAN: Chris, thanks very much for the call. Israel itself possesses, what, 300 nuclear weapons we believe, maybe more? Why does not deterrence work? Israel, of course, would retaliate if Iran were to use a nuclear weapon.

BERGMAN: I would assume that – oh, I know that most of Israel’s leaders do not believe that Iran is going to use nuclear weapon against Israel. The problem is not the nuclear threat. The Iranians are not stupid. They want to live. They might be in support of suicide moment, but they are not suicidal themselves. And I think that most leaders, and me personally as well, see that there are only few people who believe that Iran would be hesitant enough to – sorry, brutal enough and stupid enough to use nuclear weapon against Israel.

The problem is that once Iran acquires this ability, it would change the balance of power in the Middle East. And a country that possesses nuclear weapon is a different country when it comes to support proxy jihadist movement. And these Israeli leaders afraid would significantly narrow down the variety of options from the point of view of Israel just to quote one example coming from Minister of Defense Barak when he said, just imagine – he told me in a meeting we had on the 13th of January in his house – said just imagine, Ronen, that tomorrow we go into another war with Hezbollah in Lebanon like we did in 206(ph), and this time we are determined to take them out. But Iran comes forward and say, to attack Hezbollah is like attacking Iran, and we threaten you with nuclear weaponry.

Now, Minister of Defense Barak says it’s not necessarily that we would be threatened not to attack, and we would decide to cancel the war, but it would certainly make us think twice. And also – and this is something that you need to live in Israel (unintelligible) put some time to understand. If Iran declares a successful nuclear test, people in Israel are going to be, I would say – I think I’m not exaggerating if I say in a hysteria. This would change the – some of the society of Israel, and it would damage the economy of the country. And Israel for years have adopted the policy that it should maintain a monopoly of a nuclear – or nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, and I think it would do everything to maintain this monopoly.

CONAN: Ronen Bergman is the author of “The Secret War with Iran,” most recently the author of The New York Times Magazine cover story this week, “Will Israel Attack Iran?” He joined us on the phone from his office in Jerusalem where he’s an analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth. Thanks very much for your time today.

BERGMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me.

CONAN: You could find a link to that New York Times Magazine article at our website. Go to npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Tomorrow, we’ll talk about the fine art of the pitch. If you got a great idea, you’re probably going to need financial backers who will need some convincing. Join us for that. I’m Neal Conan. It’s the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

How much can U.S. influence Israel on Iran? – CBS News.

(CBS News)

Watch video here.

There is new drama this morning over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that any attack halt that program would be harmful to America – this after Israeli leaders issued unusually blunt warnings about possibly striking Iranian nuclear sites. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly believes that could happen within the next few months.

Bob Schieffer says Washington wants to do everything it can to keep Iran off-balance. “We also want them to know that we know a lot about what they are doing,” he said on “CBS This Morning.”

But how much consultation might take place if Israel made a decision to attack?

The White House, says John Miller, doesn’t know the answer to that.

“The questions from the National Security Council on out are, do we get a day’s notice? Do we get a week’s notice? Or do we get two hours’ notice?” Miller said. “I think the latter scenario, a couple of hours, is the most likely, because Israel is not going to want to put itself in the position of having the U.S. have a lot of time to weigh in and gather any pressure once they know. So I think it will be pretty fast.”

Schieffer suggests that the United States wants Iran to know that we can’t control Israel. “This is something that we might urge them not to do this, but in the end we can’t control it,” he said.

Miller said, “Yesterday we arrived at the intersection of intelligence information and political messaging, with Panetta on “60 Minutes” on Sunday saying, ‘Well, it will take them a year to get the material and another year to get the bomb.’ Kind of takes a lot of air out of the urgency saying, ‘Well, sanctions have plenty of time to work. We can kind of get through this in time.’

“Whereas, an Israeli military uniformed official [doesn’t] make a statement like that without Bibi Netanyahu saying it’s okay to do it.”

Miller said there is a difference between American and Israeli estimates on the timing of Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, but not in what constitutes the “red line” that would prompt action.

Miller said he foresaw a “layered approach” with regards to action by Tehran: “Iran will move their missiles into Lebanon. That will be Hezbollah acting as a surrogate. You’ll see a lot of those launched in the settlements, and then depending on what happens next, you will probably also see terrorist attacks against Jewish, Israeli and American targets in places like South America, the tri-border area, and U.S. bases overseas. “

Iran Supreme Leader: U.S., Israel will suffer for threats on nuclear program – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

In televised address, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says has no fear of saying that Iran would support any ‘nation or group that wants to confront and fight against the Zionist regime.’

By Reuters

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Friday the Islamic Republic would not yield to international pressure to abandon its nuclear course, threatening retaliation for sanctions aimed at Iran’s oil exports.

“Threatening Iran and attacking Iran will harm America….  Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course…. In response to threats of oil embargo and war, we have our own threats to impose at the right time,” Khamenei told worshippers in a speech broadcast live on state television.

	Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L) talking with Iran’s naval chief, after a military exercise in the Persian Gulf in February 2010.
	Photo by: AP

The official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran’s Supreme Leader as saying that war threats would “disfavor the US itself; the war would be ten times against interests of the US itself,” said the Supreme Leader.

“I have no fear of saying that we will back and help any nation or group that wants to confront and fight against the Zionist regime [Israel].”

On Thursday, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in an interview that he was concerned that “certain” countries” would take the Iran nuclear issue into their own hands, refusing to say whether or not Britain would “participate” the military conflict that could ensure as a result from such a move.

Clegg was quoted as telling The House Magazine, a weekly British political journal, that he feared Israel could carry out a pre-emptive strike on Iran amid suspicion in the West that Tehran is secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Tensions have been heightened over Iran’s intentions, leading UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday to warn Israel that the standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program must be resolved peacefully.

Asked if he feared Israel could launch an attack against Iran, Clegg — leader of the Liberal Democrats, the junior member of Britain’s coalition government, acknowledged he had concerns.

“Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Clegg was quoted as saying.

He said Britain had been attempting to demonstrate “that there are very tough things we can do which are not military steps in order to place pressure on Iran.”
Last week, the European Union agreed to tougher sanctions, including an embargo on Iranian oil imports.

However, Clegg said he would not speculate on whether “Britain would participate” if the standoff eventually led to a military response.

West making case to Israel | The Baxter Bulletin | baxterbulletin.com.

An Iranian protester holds a placard against Israel and the International Atomic Energy Organization Sunday at the Imam Khomeini airport in Tehran. A U.N. nuclear team arrived in Tehran early Sunday for a mission expected to focus on Iran’s alleged attempt to develop nuclear weapons. The agency delegation includes two senior weapons experts, Jacques Baute of France and Neville Whiting of South Africa, suggesting that Iran may be prepared to address some issues related to the allegations. / Vahid Salemi/The Associated Press