WarSclerotic

Will Saudi Arabia Support an Israeli Attack on Iran In June? – Forbes.

One of the great cliches of war-craft is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This expression comes to mind in considering the plausibility of a claim made in my recent conversation with a weapons dealer. He thinks that this June, Israel will use Saudi Arabia as its base for an attack on Iran’s suspected nuclear site.

This weapons dealer has been traveling to Tel Aviv and Jeddah to meet with military leaders who are loading up on his specific weapon category in anticipation of a war with Iran. According to my source — who is planning another trip to both countries soon to sell more weapons – the military leaders are looking to launch the attack in June.

Why would Saudi Arabia support Israel instead of attacking it? The answer there is that Saudi Arabia is dominated by Sunnis; whereas Iran’s leaders are Shi’ite. My source believes that Saudi Arabia’s rage against the Shi’ites exceeds its dislike of its Jewish neighbors.

Meanwhile, my source claims that along with launching missiles on the nuclear site in Iran, Israel will also occupy southern Lebanon in order to take control of millions of missiles that Iran has stationed there to launch aerial attacks on Israel in the event of an Israeli airstrike on Iran.

Moreover, the U.S. will not be simply an innocent bystander in the event of a Saudi supported Israeli attack on Iran. Rather, my source believes that U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in the wake of the recent killing of two Americans in a NATO facility.

He expects the U.S. to announce victory in the next few months and to make the troops in Afghanistan available to support the Israeli attack on Iran in some way.

Is any of this plausible? The Economist reports that there is a perception that Iran is enriching uranium. It writes that Iran is ”acquiring the technology it needs for a weapon. Deep underground, at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, it is fitting out a uranium-enrichment plant that many say is invulnerable to aerial attack.”

And certainly the price of oil has spiked since last February despite tepid demand and an increase in supply. Oil’s price is up 20% in the last year — Brent Crude sold for $104 a barrel in February 2011 and was a whopping $125 a barrel, as of February 24, 2012.

Supply and demand do not explain a 20% leap in the price of crude. After all, demand growth has been very slow. For example, in 2011, world oil demand crept up a mere 0.8% and that demand is expected to rise a mere 0.9% in 2012 to 89.9 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency.

Meanwhile, the IEA reports that supply is up and is likely to rise in 2012 as well. For example, in January 2012, global oil production was 90.2 million barrels/day — a million barrels/day higher than the year before. Meanwhile, IEA forecasts a considerable increase in OPEC and non-OPEC supply in 2012.

And even if Iran stops producing, supply should not be affected. How so? Reuters reports that Saudi Arabia plans to “increase its output to cover any shortfall to the world supply from Iranian exports.”

And Reuters reported Saturday that Saudi Arabia had increased exports to “just over 9 million barrels a day last week, compared with an average of about 7.5 million in January.” Meanwhile, Iran currently produces 2.2 million barrels of oil per day — supplying “2.24% of the daily oil consumption in the world,” according to SeekingAlpha.

Nevertheless, an attack on Iran raises the level of political uncertainty quite considerably. For example, if there are countries that are supplying arms to Iran — such as Russia and China – they may feel compelled to take sides against Israel’s backers.

This would probably be good for those betting on a rise in the price of oil and gold. But it would not be so good for the global economy — after all a rise in oil prices would boost gasoline prices and put the brakes on an economic recovery in the U.S.

Certainly, rising gasoline prices tax consumers’ budgets. According to AP, “every one-cent increase in the price of gasoline costs the economy $1.4 billion.” If the price of gasoline rises by, say, $2 a gallon, that would reduce GDP by about $280 billion — representing 2% of GDP.

Politically, such a war has the potential to boost President Obama’s chances for reelection. Even if the U.S. is not directly involved in fighting Iran, such a military action would make Americans focus their attention on whether they would prefer the Republican candidates — none of whom have experience in the military – to a commander-in-chief who gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, and led the coalition that took out Gaddafi.

Frederick Kagan and Maseh Zarif: America’s Iranian Self-Deception – WSJ.com.

Let’s admit the facts about its nuclear program and then have an honest debate about what to do.

By FREDERICK W. KAGAN AND MASEH ZARIF

Americans are being played for fools by Iran—and fooling themselves. There is no case to be made that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. There is no evidence that Iran’s decision-makers are willing to stop the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions or anything else. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Friday that it has made no progress in its negotiations with Iran and that Iran continues to accelerate its enrichment operations, which are in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and agreements with the IAEA.

Yet the policy discussion in the U.S. is confused. Former Ambassador Dennis Ross writes that the Iranians are ready for talks. Anonymous administration officials refer to one of the most dangerous Iranian nuclear installations, Fordow, outside the city of Qom, as “a Potemkin facility.” The media are full of comparisons to Iraq in 2003, when suspicions that Iraq was pursuing a covert nuclear program led to war.

People are conflating intelligence assessment with policy recommendation. The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.

IAEA inspectors on the ground at Iran’s nuclear facilities reported the following facts on Friday: Iran’s inventory of centrifuges enriching uranium isotopes has been steadily expanding, along with the stockpiles of uranium enriched to 3.5% and 20%—important stages on the road to weapons-grade uranium. Iran has installed and run advanced centrifuges in the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. Iran has buried an enrichment facility under a small mountain at Fordow, installed air-defense systems around it, and brought new centrifuges online there.

Iran is developing techniques and technologies needed to turn weapons-grade uranium (which it is not yet producing) into an atomic bomb. The IAEA reported that the Iranians “dismissed the Agency’s concerns [about weaponization] . . . largely on the grounds that Iran considered them to be based on unfounded allegations.” The Iranians have denied inspectors access to the facilities that inspectors suspect are being used to work on weaponization.

The price of this refusal, including U.N. and international sanctions, has devastated the Iranian economy. Unemployment and popular dissatisfaction with the regime are high. Unprecedentedly harsh sanctions imposed by the Obama administration are driving off customers for Iran’s oil.

What peaceful purpose could be served by accepting such damage to pursue an illegal nuclear program? The international community has repeatedly offered Iran enriched uranium for its reactors to produce both electricity and medical isotopes—and Iran has refused. Iran’s behavior makes sense only if its leadership is determined to have a nuclear program that can develop and field atomic weapons.

The pressure on Iran’s economy and tensions within its political elite persuade some observers that Iran’s leaders are nearing a decision to trade the nuclear program for relaxed sanctions. That may be true—but there is no evidence for it. Iran’s leaders continue to insist on Iran’s right to the nuclear program as it is being built. No Iranian leader has suggested that Iran should comply with the IAEA or abandon the program.

Western observers are confusing internal Iranian disagreements about how to manage their economic challenges with disagreements about foreign policy. Increasing external pressure this year could fracture the Iranian leadership on this issue, but no one has adduced any convincing evidence that is happening.

Iran is, however, preparing rhetorically for war with the West. Iran’s military has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, attack American naval ships passing through it, and pre-empt what it perceives to be preparations for an attack on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other political figures have seconded these threats, and no Iranian leader has denounced them.

By contrast, there has been no vocal outcry for military action against Iran in the U.S. Even Israel’s threats have been muted and confused. The bellicosity in this crisis is coming almost entirely from Tehran. Why should a state seeking a peaceful nuclear program work so hard to whip up war fever?

Some say that Iran’s leaders are irrational. But their statements and actions in this instance—juxtaposing bellicosity with offers of negotiations—make perfect sense if they are intended to cover the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

The Iranians are advancing technically as fast as they can to acquire the fuel for a nuclear bomb. They also are pursuing key elements of a weaponization program separately and covertly. At the same time, they have attempted to draw the IAEA inspectors into protracted negotiations that would buy time to reach what the Israelis call the “zone of immunity” after which Israel no longer has a viable military option.

Add it up any way you like: Iran is starting to race to reach a breakout point at which the international community will be unable to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, short of a massive American military strike. The evidence available supports no other conclusion.

This is not a recommendation for a military strike on the Iranian nuclear program. One could decide that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities is preferable to the consequences of a military strike, or one could accept at face value President Obama’s statements that the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal is unacceptable (which implies a willingness to use military force to prevent it). But the debate must take place on the basis of a reality not skewed to support one or another policy option.

Those who oppose military action against Iran under any circumstances must say so, and must accept the consequences of that statement. Those who advocate military action must also accept and consider the consequences—regional and possibly global conflict and all of the associated perils of war. But neither American nor Israeli nor any Western interest is served by lying to ourselves and pretending the predicament will go away.

Mr. Kagan is director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Zarif is research manager at the Critical Threats Project and leads its Iran team.

Barak heads to DC for Iran talks – JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

By HERB KEINON 02/27/2012 04:38

US, Israel see unprecedented frequency of high-level talks as defense minister prepares to meet with Biden, Panetta; President and PM to follow Barak to Washington for meetings with Obama.

By Reuters/Blaire Gable

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is scheduled to leave for Washington on Monday for talks expected to center on Iran, as the frequency of senior- level US-Israeli meetings is at a pace not seen in years.

Barak will be followed to Washington later in the week by President Shimon Peres, who will address the annual AIPAC policy conference next Sunday, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who will speak to the conference the next day.

Both Peres and Netanyahu will meet President Barack Obama, with Peres doing so on Sunday, and Netanyahu on Monday.

The two men met on Friday to coordinate positions ahead of those meetings.

The Peres-Netanyahu meeting came a day after a Haaretz report, strongly denied by Peres, claimed that the president would tell Obama he was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran.

Barak – who was in Washington just two months ago and who has since hosted Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff – is scheduled to meet Vice President Joe Biden; Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, who was in Israel just last week; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

US Ambassador Dan Shapiro said last week that the frequency of the visits, as well as the senior levels that were involved, was unprecedented.

“There is no other country in the world, relationship in the world, where senior leaders invest that kind of time to ensure that they have total coordination,” he said.

Barak is expected to be in the US for just over two days, returning on Thursday to brief Netanyahu before he leaves for North America.

Netanyahu is slated to leave Thursday evening for Ottawa, where he is set to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper before continuing on to Washington on Sunday.

Netanyahu told the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday that while the events in the region – including the “deplorable massacres that we see being perpetrated against innocent civilians in Syria” – would be among the topics discussed during his visit, there is no doubt that the “continued strengthening of Iran and its nuclear program” will be at the center of the talks.

Netanyahu said the newest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released over the weekend provided further proof, to those still in need, that “Israel’s assessments were correct,” and that “Iran is continuing to make rapid progress in its nuclear program, without let-up, while defying and grossly ignoring the decisions of the international community.”

The IAEA issued a report on Friday saying Iran has increased its capacity to enrich uranium to 20 percent, while ignoring international demands not to do so.

Fall of Assad will Break Syria-Iran Axis: Meridor – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Dan Meridor

Israel news photo: Flash 90

The fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad will break the Iranian-Syrian axis and will be good for Israel, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor told Army Radio Sunday morning.

“There is an Assad-Ahmadinejad axis, a Tehran-Damascus axis. Breaking this axis would be good for Israel,” said Meridor, who is on the left flank of the Likud party.

“We are not giving advice,” he added. “Practically the whole Arab world is against the regime. We have to wait to see what will happen.”

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed Meridor to a Cabinet position after the last elections, despite his views that favor ceding most, if not all, of the strategic Golan Heights to Syria in return for a peace treaty.

Meridor said the IDF is prepared for a Syrian attack on Israel intended to take attention off his brutal suppression of the year-long uprising, but he asserted, “I don’t think that is on the agenda.”

Thousands of refugees and army deserters have fled from Syria into Jordan and Lebanon, and the government, and the IDF has said it is prepared to absorb thousands of Syrians.

If Assad loses power, tens of thousands of his Alawite loyalists may want asylum in another country out of fear of reprisals from the majority. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shi’ite Muslims, which reject several of its planks.

Netanyahu: Upcoming meeting with… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Marc Israel Sellem

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that his upcoming meeting with US President Barack Obama in Washington scheduled for March 5 will largely center around Iran’s continued development of its nuclear program.

Speaking at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu said, “Our region is volatile and quickly changing in the North, South and East, including the atrocious massacre we are seeing in Syria against innocent civilians. All of these subjects will be raised at the meeting, but one issue will be central: the increasing power of Iran.”

Netanyahu’s comments came after the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report on Friday, which said that Iran has sharply stepped up its controversial uranium enrichment drive.

The IAEA report to member states showed Iran had carried out a significant expansion of activities at its main enrichment plant near the central city of Natanz, and also increased work at the Fordow underground facility.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, which is Iran’s stated aim, or provide material for bombs if refined much further, which the West suspects is Tehran’s ultimate aim.

Netanyahu stated on Saturday that the IAEA report proves that Iran is continuing its nuclear program “without let-up,” despite interantional sanctions levied against the Islamic republic.

Iran “is enriching uranium to a high level of 20%, while grossly ignoring the demands of the international community,” Netanyahu said in a written statement.

Netanyahu was scheduled to travel to the United States next week, where he will address the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC’s annual policy conference, which will be held from March 4-6. The March 5 meeting between Netanyahu and Obama will mark the first face-to-face-conversation between the leaders since they met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September.

Iran military official: Only burning White House can make up for burning Koran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Commander of Iran’s Basij force tell Fars news agency that Muslims worldwide should reject Obama’s apology following the burning of the holy Muslim text in a U.S. base in Afghanistan.

The Muslim world should not accept an apology issued by U.S. President Barack Obama over the burning of Korans in an American base in Afghanistan, a top Iranian military commander said on Saturday, adding that nothing short of “burning the White House can relieve the wound of us.”

Obama’s Thursday apology in a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai sought to quell spiraling furor among Afghans, who have been protesting the act for five straight days, after Afghan workers found charred copies of the Muslim holy book on a military base near Kabul.

	Supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf stand on top of a U.S. flag during an anti-American demonstration in Quetta February 25, 2012.
	Photo by: Reuters

According to White House spokesperson Jay Carney, while the apology was “wholly appropriate given the sensitivities” about treatment of the Koran, he said Obama’s primary concern was “the safety of American men and women in Afghanistan, of our military and civilian personnel there.”

Responding to Obama’s apology on Saturday, the commander of Iran’s Basij force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd claimed that the holy book was burned by U.S. forces over the heavy slap it has been given by Islam,” urging Muslims worldwide to reject the American apology.

“Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us, the Muslims, caused by the Burning of Quran in the US,” he said adding: “Their apology can be accepted only by hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders means an apology,” he was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying.

Naqd’s comments came after, earlier Saturday, a gunman killed two American military advisers inside a heavily guarded government building in the heart of Kabul.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was retaliation for the Koran burnings, and the NATO commander recalled all international military personnel working in Afghan ministries in the capital.

U.S.¬ officials said the assailant remained at large and a manhunt was under way.

At least 28 people have been killed and hundreds wounded since Tuesday, when it first emerged that Qurans and other religious materials had been thrown into a firepit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large U.S.¬ base north of Kabul.

Among those dead were two U.S. ¬soldiers who were killed Thursday by one of their Afghan counterparts while a riot raged outside their base in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

PM: IAEA report proves Iran cont… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Marc Israel Sellem

A report by the UN’s nuclear watchdog proves that Israel’s analysis of Iran’s nuclear program is correct, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Saturday.

Netanyahu said the International Atomic Energy Agency report proves that Iran is continuing its nuclear program “without let-up.”

Iran “is enriching uranium to a high level of 20%, while grossly ignoring the demands of the international community,” Netanyahu said in a written statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Netanyahu was responding to the UN nuclear watchdog report which said that Iran has sharply stepped up its controversial uranium enrichment drive.

The IAEA also reported its failed mission to Tehran this week to try and get Iran to respond to allegations of research relevant for the development of nuclear weapons.

The IAEA report to member states showed Iran had carried out a significant expansion of activities at its main enrichment plant near the central city of Natanz, and also increased work at the Fordow underground facility.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, which is Iran’s stated aim, or provide material for bombs if refined much further, which the West suspects is Tehran’s ultimate aim.

At Natanz, the IAEA report said 52 cascades – each containing around 170 centrifuges – were now operating, up from 37 in November.

At Fordow, almost 700 centrifuges are now refining uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent and preparations are under way to install many more, the IAEA report showed.

Fordow is of particular concern for the West and Israel as Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, refining uranium to a level that takes it significantly closer to potential bomb material, to the site.

Estimated to be buried beneath 80 meters of rock and soil, it gives Iran better protection against any Israeli or US military strikes.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak has warned that the Islamic state’s nuclear research could soon pass into what he called a “zone of immunity,” protected from outside disruption.

The IAEA report showed Iran had now produced nearly 110 kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg is needed for a nuclear weapon.

Electronic Warfare: North Korea Nears Completion of Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb – ABC News.+

hn Young-joon/AP Photo

North Korea Nears Completion of Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb

By JOOHEE CHO

March 9, 2011

North Korea appears to be protesting the joint U.S. and South Korean military maneuvers by jamming Global Positioning Devices in the south, which is a nuisance for cell phone and computers users — but is a hint of the looming menace for the military.

Since March 4, Pyongyang has been trying to disrupt GPS receivers critical to South Korean military communications apparently in protest of the ongoing joint military training exercises between South Korean and U.S. forces. Strong jamming signals were sent intermittently every five to 10 minutes.

The scope of the damage has been minimal, putting some mobile phones and certain military equipment that use GPS signals on the fritz.

Large metropolitan areas including parts of Seoul, Incheon and Paju have been affected by the jamming, but “the situation is getting wrapped up, no severe damage has been reported for the last two days,” Kyoungwoo Lee, deputy director of Korea Communications Commission, said.

The jamming, however, has raised questions about whether the Korean peninsula is bracing for new electronic warfare.

The North is believed to be nearing completion of an electromagnetic pulse bomb that, if exploded 25 miles above ground would cause irreversible damage to electrical and electronic devices such as mobile phones, computers, radio and radar, experts say.

“We assume they are at a considerably substantial level of development,” Park Chang-kyu of the Agency for Defense Development said at a briefing to the parliament Monday.

Park confirmed that South Korea has also developed an advanced electronic device that can be deployed in times of war.

The current attempts to interfere with GPS transmissions are coming from atop a modified truck-mounted Russian device. Pyongyang reportedly imported the GPS jamming system from Russia in early 2000 and has since developed two kinds of a modified version. It has also in recent years handed out sales catalogs of them to nations in the Middle East, according to South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo.

North Korea Jams GPS Signals in Ominous Threat of More to Come

Major Korean newspaper editorials today called the recent jamming a “wake-up call,” pointing out that consequences could be severe if North Korea succeeds in discharging full-fledged electromagnetic waves.

On top of disrupting major communication tools used by both civilians and the military, the waves would affect financial transactions and civilian airplanes dependent on radio signals.

“The problem could be further exacerbated by the fact that our military equipment increasingly relies on commercial GPS standards,” wrote JoongAng Daily, one of South Korea’s largest newspapers.

This is the second time North Korea has sought to interfere with military communications. Pyongyang is thought to have been behind a failure of GPS receivers on some naval and civilian aircraft during another joint military exercise in August.

South Korea’s minister of defense at that time had reported to the Congress, warning that the North poses “a fresh security threat” capable of disrupting guided bombs and missiles by sending signals over a distance of up to 60 miles.

Some modern weapons are equipped with an alternative guided system in addition to GPS, which means the bomb would find its way to the target even if it loses contact with the satellite.

But the Korean military weaponry still largely remains vulnerable to GPS jamming signals, said Kwon Oh-Bong of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, answering questions from concerned politicians at a parliamentary working session Monday.

“Because we have a special code for the military, it is unlikely to be affected by such an attack, but there are some weapons that do not require a special code, so we are researching preventive measures,” he said.

U.S. Forces Korea spokesman David Oten declined to assess the effects, saying it is a matter of intelligence but added in an e-mail response that they are conducting extensive analysis of potential threats and ensured that “United States forces operate using multiple, redundant navigational systems and train extensively to operate in a contested electronic environment.”

Euri Son and Esther Kim contributed to this article.

Don’t Underestimate Israel’s Capability to Strike Iran, Insiders Say – The Daily Beast.

Feb 25, 2012 4:45 PM EST

Skeptics say the Jewish state may not be able to deal a fatal blow to an Iranian nuclear-weapons program. But maybe that’s what Jerusalem wants you to think.

US planning to boost sea and land defences as Iran fears grow – Telegraph.

Iranian navy soldiers take part in a military exercise in the strait of Homruz in the Oman Sea: Gen James Mattis, the head of the US Central Command, has privately informed Congress of his intentions to place mine detection and clearing equipment in and around the Strait and to boost surveillance capabilities in the Gulf Photo: EPA