WarSclerotic

Clinton: Syrian forces in Aleppo could be red line for Turkey.

Big powers move in on Syria: Russian troops for Tartus. US forces ready to go.

DEBKAfile Special Report June 15, 2012, 7:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Syria   US military action   Russian military 

A contingent of Russian special forces is on its way to Syria to guard the Russian navy’s deep-water port at the Syria’s Mediterranean coastal town of Tartus, Pentagon officials informed US NBC TV Friday, June 15. They are coming by ship. According to debkafile’s sources, the contingent is made up of naval marines and is due to land in Syria in the coming hours.

In a separate and earlier announcement, US Defense Department sources in Washington reported that the US military had completed its own planning for a variety of US operations against Syria, or for assisting neighboring countries in the event action was ordered – a reference, according to our sources, to Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Syrian civil war is now moving into a new phase of major power military intervention, say debkafile’s military sources. Moscow, by sending troops to Syria without UN Security Council approval, has set up a precedent for the United States, the European Union and Arab governments to follow. They all held back from sending troops to Syria because all motions to apply force for halting the bloodshed in Syria was blocked in the UN body.

According to US military sources, in recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed and how many troops. The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said.

Lovely summer for a war.

One of these lazy, sunny days, we’re likely to hear on the news that Israel has just bombed Iran.

The question of whether Israel will soon attack Iran is one of those things where your senses completely deceive you. The more Israeli politicians and generals talk about it, the closer it seems, and the more fearful you become – but the bombast is a good sign that it’s not about to happen because if it was, they wouldn’t be talking about it so loud for Iran to hear. No, it’s when the rhetoric has quieted down, when things seem too peaceful for a war to just suddenly break out – when you don’t sense danger, when you’re not afraid – that’s when Netanyahu would have the maximum (though still miniscule) element of surprise against Iran and be most likely to pull the trigger.

Actually, now that I write this, I think Netanyahu figures this is exactly what the Iranians are thinking, so at some point he’s going to start beating the war drums really loud, and when they’re at their peak, when the Iranians are thinking that this isn’t the time, that’s when he’ll give the order.

Well, who really knows if Bibi is second-guessing or third-guessing Iran on how to catch them unawares, or as unawares as is still possible. What I am pretty well convinced of, though, is that barring the virtual impossibility of Iran’s agreeing very soon to shut down its entire nuclear project and let Israel verify that it has, then at that point if Obama will not attack Iran – and it seems he won’t – Bibi will. Within the coming months. Sometime before the November 2 presidential election – a one-time window of opportunity when Israel can do whatever it wants and get the White House’s support – but long enough before the vote so it doesn’t look like Bibi is timing the war to influence its outcome. Before October, I’d say.

I don’t understand people who think Netanyahu is bluffing. Sure, he’s threatening war partially for effect – he wants to scare America and Europe into pressuring Iran in the hope that this will convince Khameini to halt the nuclear project; naturally, Bibi would prefer to neutralize Iran without having to fire a shot. But what if Iran doesn’t agree and goes on enriching uranium and acting suspiciously, as it’s doing? Is Bibi then going to trust Obama or Romney to save Israel from what he envisions as a second Holocaust,  knowing that he will bear eternal responsibility if they don’t? I don’t believe he considers that an option. And I think that in Netanyahu’s position, most of the prime ministers before him would probably size things up the same way. Israeli-style fear and aggression didn’t start with Bibi, I’m afraid.

Three months ago, he told Channel 2 that stopping Iran’s nuclear program was “not a matter of days or weeks. It is also not a matter of years.” That would seem to leave “months” as the time frame he had in mind.

And today, Moshe “Bugi” Ya’alon, the vice premier and former IDF chief of staff, told Haaretz’s Ari Shavit in a long interview that everything we’re seeing and hearing is absolutely for real.

There’s one other thing that convinces me Bibi’s going to do it:  He has this Roman air about him now. He has this flat stare, he talks quietly, with little expression – as if it’s beneath his station to exert himself, as if all he has to do is be there for everyone and everything to arrange itself according to his will, which is unerring. He’s always been a hugely arrogant, vain person, the power and prestige have always gone straight to his head – but he’s never had such power and prestige as he has now, and his head is the size of the sun. Obama is nothing to him, America is nothing to him, other people’s opinions are nothing to him. He’s invincible. He will do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it.

I know this is hard to imagine. The sun’s shining, people are looking forward to going on vacation; the idea that Israel is about to start a war with Iran that could bring in (as Ya’alon expects it will) Lebanon, Gaza and maybe Syria, too, seems ridiculous. It contradicts the evidence of our senses. But the senses are one thing, and reason is another, and my reason, at least, says that one of these lazy, sunny days, the war Bibi’s been promising us for so long will be here. And on schedule.

IDF chief of staff-turned-vice premier: ‘We are not bluffing’ – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(This is one of the few articles that I consider to be a “must read” for followers of this site.  I have excerpted only that portion relating to the Iran/Israel conflict. – JW)

Moshe Ya’alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He suggests you do the same.

Men watching the launch of a Shahab-3 missile near Kom. Photo by AP

Iran’s Natanz reactor. Photo by AP

Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?

“I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say, as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others. But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

If you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today, would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is negligible, low, middling or high?

“The probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low. I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders − not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East, we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it’s clear that Iran will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against Iran’s nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There is also a high probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate against us. That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to that possibility that we have to deploy.”

What the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of truth regarding Iran.

“Definitely. When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about 150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred centrifuges, most of which were substandard.

“At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic bombs.

“In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development system which they are hiding from the international supervisory apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types, which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of Europe. Those missiles were built from the outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear. Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a nuclear-threshold power.”

But to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a level of 90 percent and above. At the moment it is still not there.

“True, but if Iran goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the capability to enrich uranium to above 90 percent within two or three months. Even if it does not build a standard nuclear bomb, within less than six months it will be in possession of at least one primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb.”

If so, maybe it’s already too late. The Iranians won and we lost and we have to resign ourselves to Iran’s being in possession of nuclear weapons in the near future.

“Absolutely not. It will be disastrous if we or the international community become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of values and its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional weapons. Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and it is not propaganda. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to world peace.”

Crossing red lines

But you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no return. Doesn’t that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or bombing?

“We are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The international community can still act aggressively and with determination. Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or bombing, the answer is clear: bomb.

The answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the Cold War. We also survived the nuclearization of Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is said to possess strategic capability that is able to create decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say that just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live in the future with the Shiite bomb?

“No and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that if Iran goes nuclear, four or five more countries in the Middle East are liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also need a bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear Middle East will not be stable and therefore the world will not be stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in its wake nuclear chaos.

“The second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will allow Iran to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states, finding themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they prefer: distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of the energy sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very large slice of the world’s oil supply. That will have far-reaching international implications. But a nuclear Iran will also challenge Israel and bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our borders. That will have serious consequences for Israel.

“The third answer to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is liable to use its nuclear capability. That does not mean that the day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a plane or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of the use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist organization could smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or the port of London or the port of Haifa. I also do not rule out the possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by means of missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is not impossible.”

But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.

“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”

Bombing too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious war, thousands of civilians killed.

“Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to assume that Israel will be attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low, but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the alternative of a nuclear Iran, there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war than to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as I am concerned.”

How many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?

“I cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we not terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have to be ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not go nuclear. Again: I hope it does not come to that. I hope that it will be done by others. In the Iranians’ eyes, Israel is only the Little Satan, and the United States is the Great Satan. But as I told you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? “

Hezbollah scenario

Hezbollah can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases, strategic targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive missile attack make you lose sleep?

“My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the government of Lebanon will bear very great responsibility.”

You answered my question about the home front. But what about the argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear capability?

“First things first and last things last. In regard to a religious war, isn’t the regime in Iran waging a religious war against us today? In regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not accept that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime. In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid of the regime of the ayatollahs.

“Let me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more. If so, they will say, ‘What did we accomplish? What did we gain?’ But the question is far broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the Iranian regime that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability. And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of force?

“Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its results only from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in the discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on [the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community. The president of the United States has undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear power. If Iran defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a collision course with the West.”

But the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in head-first?

“There is agreement between the United States and us on the goal, and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear bomb.

“We do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First, because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as long as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our assessment there is no certainty that it will be possible to intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave the order to build a bomb . Third, there is a disparity between the sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of threat and urgency in Washington.”

Yet, Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of ‘Hold me back.’

“Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not bluffing.’ If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb, decisions will have to be made.”

Is there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already in the year ahead?

“There was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we talked about years. Now we are talking about months. It is possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword touch its throat.”

Israel Hayom | Syria and the decline of the UN.

Dore Gold

Jordan: Assad sent assassins to kill foes – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Jordanian officials charge that Syria’s president sent agents to Hashemite kingdom, say arrests prevented attacks against refugees, assassinations of former Assad soldiers

Smadar Peri

Jordanian officials are charging that Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime sent would-be-assassins into the Hashemite kingdom in order to kill dissidents, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

The agents reportedly entered Jordan under the guise of refugees and Syrian opposition activists seeking asylum.

Jordan says that local intelligence officials detained Assad’s agents, thereby preventing terror attacks against Syrian refugees and assassinations of soldiers and officers that defected from Assad’s army.

The Jordanians accused Syria of also planning to assassinate local officials in an effort to destabilize the Hashemite kingdom as punishment for hosting Assad’s foes.

‘Armed agents nabbed’

The arrests of Assad’s agents at refugee tents along the border with Syria and elsewhere prompted Jordanian officials to introduce stricter rules for taking in Syrian refugees.

Thus far, more than 125,000 Syrian refugees were reportedly taken in by Jordan. According to the new regulations issued by security officials, would-be-refugees must report to Jordan’s embassy in Damascus and present relevant documents before coming in.

Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat reported Thursday that dozens of Assad supporters and Syrian intelligence agents were nabbed in Jordan in possession of smuggled arms and were returned to Damascus.

Russia denies allegations

Elsewhere, Russia, which has come under increasing criticism from the West for arms deliveries to Syria, responded to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s allegations that attack helicopters were on the way from Russia to Syria.

In a statement on the Foreign Ministry website, Russia said it had made no new deliveries of military helicopters to Syria but under old contracts it had repaired helicopters sent to Syria “many years ago.”

“There are no new deliveries of Russian military helicopters to Syria. All arms industry cooperation with Syria is limited to a transfer of defensive arms,” the ministry said on its website.

West and Russia not discussing Assad’s departure: Lavrov.

Friday, 15 June 2012

Russia is not holding discussions with other nations on a political solution to the crisis in Syria that would see President Bashar al-Assad leaving power, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday.

Lavrov also stressed that Russia would insist on Iran joining any future international talks on the crisis.

The escalating bloodshed in Syria is hampering a hard-won U.N. observer force’s ability to carry out its mission, its chief Major General Robert Mood said on Friday.

“The escalating violence is limiting our ability to observe, verify reports as well as assist in local dialogue and stability,” the veteran Norwegian peacekeeper told reporters in Damascus.

“Violence, over the past 10 days, has been intensifying, again willingly by both the parties, with losses on both sides and significant risks to our observers.”

A U.N. convoy trying to reach the town of Al-Haffa under siege by regime troops, came under fire on Tuesday and was forced to turn back by a stone-throwing crowd of pro-regime residents of a nearby village.

The observer team was finally able to visit the town on Thursday, finding it all but deserted with a strong stench of dead bodies and most state buildings burned to the ground.

Mood said it was the Syrian people who were suffering the consequences of the increased violence. “In some locations, civilians have been trapped by ongoing operations,” the general said.

“The six-point plan does not belong to Kofi Annan, it does not belong to UNSMIS (United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria). It belongs to the Syrian parties that have accepted it and the international community that endorsed it.

“There is no other plan on the table, yet it is not being implemented.”

Mood expressed concern that neither side was willing to bring about a “peaceful transition”.

“Instead there is a push towards advancing military positions,” he said.

“This is not a static mission,” he stressed, adding that the observer mission’s mandate would soon come under review by the Security Council.

“It is important that the parties give this mission a chance.”

From their side, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Friday it was working around the clock to provide food and medical assistance to thousands of civilians who have fled the escalating violence in Syria.

ICRC water engineers were also trying to upgrade supplies or deliver clean drinking water to the displaced staying in the flashpoint areas of Homs and Houla, it said.

“The ICRC and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent are carrying on with their efforts to help the tens of thousands of people in fighting-stricken areas in the shortest possible time,” it said in a statement issued in Geneva.

The ICRC, the only international agency to deploy aid workers in Syria, said its teams have visited Aleppo, Idlib city and surrounding rural areas, and al-Nabak, some 80 km (50 miles) northeast of Damascus, in the past week.

“More and more people are in need of help,” said Alexandre Equey, deputy head of the ICRC delegation in Syria. “In some areas, people are unable to get out, and help cannot get in.”

In a strategy aimed at ensuring supplies are on hand if fighting breaks out, it has delivered food, mattresses, blankets and medical items to branches of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent all over the country.

TheP5 +1, Iran and the Perils of Nuclear Brinkmanship – International Crisis Group.

Washington/Vienna/Brussels  |   15 Jun 2012

Read the media release in Persian

The nuclear negotiations with Iran that resume in Moscow on Monday are likely to hit a wall and, without a change in approach, risk break-down with dire consequences.

The P5+1, Iran and the Perils of Nuclear Brinkmanship, the latest International Crisis Group briefing, examines the diplomatic rollercoaster, from the rush of optimism that followed the April session in Istanbul to the pessimism resulting from last month’s Baghdad talks and proposes a pragmatic way forward. Washington and Brussels seem to count on sanctions to force Iran to compromise. Tehran appears to bank on a re-elected President Obama displaying more flexibility and an economically-incapacitated Europe fearing the adverse consequences of tougher sanctions. None of this is likely. If prospects for a deal fade, mutual escalation is more probable – and pressure by Israel for a military strike.

“If negotiations collapse now, it is hard to know what comes next”, says Ali Vaez, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst for Iran. “The optimism that greeted the Istanbul talks was largely illusory. Success was measured against a negative starting point – the absence of talks for the preceding fifteen months and a series of escalatory steps by all sides in the interim”.

Istanbul was largely devoid of polemics but also of substance. All were on their best behaviour, because they shared a tactical goal: to gain time and avoid a crisis that could lead to an Israeli military strike.  Iran saw benefit in delaying pending sanctions; the P5+1 (the Security Council permanent members plus Germany) feared further regional instability could send oil prices soaring, complicating Europe’s recovery and Obama’s re-election. But, that commonality aside, the parties had widely differing expectations. European and U.S. officials believed Tehran came to the table due to the devastating impact of sanctions and fear of an attack. Iran felt it was in the driver’s seat, having increased its low-enriched uranium stockpile, enriched at higher levels and completed the underground Fordow facility. Both felt confident; neither was in a mood to give in. In Baghdad, it showed.

Should progress not soon be forthcoming, the diplomatic process could grind to a halt. Even if it eventually resumes, precedent teaches that reciprocal escalatory steps are likely and that the hiatus could last longer than anticipated. Meanwhile, Israel will look warily at Iran’s growing stockpile of enriched uranium, and even though the Islamic Republic is years away from acquiring a bomb, might believe the time has come to take military action.

This argues for new thinking, beginning at Moscow. The sides should agree to ongoing, technical-level negotiations for a limited agreement on Iran’s 20 per cent enrichment and drop some demands: there will not be significant sanctions relief at this stage, and it is equally unlikely Iran will close Fordow, its only installation that could resist an Israeli strike. In exchange for Iran’s suspension of 20 per cent enrichment and conversion of its stockpile, the West should offer its own serious concessions, related to easing the sanctions and recognition in principle of its right to enrich.

“The talks could well fail. Then, the goal will be to avert all kinds of destructive steps, including military confrontation, the most destructive of all”, says Robert Malley, Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa Program Director. “But, before reaching that phase, there is much work to do to see if a deal can be reached and if what little optimism is left over from Istanbul can still be salvaged”.

Israeli experts predict that after US elections, attack on Iran nuclear facilities imminent | Alaska Dispatch.

JERUSALEM — The countdown to a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations appears to be inching closer to the zero hour. Some experts in Israel are predicting an attack soon after the US election in November.

“The United States has been very clear about their red line being the acquisition of weapons,” said an Israeli expert on Iran, speaking on background. “If Iran takes steps toward the acquisition of weapons in the next few months, I don’t doubt that the American president would take military action.”

Analysts here say that the possibility of a strike, either by the US or by Israel, seems more and more likely as diplomatic negotiations sputter, European companies lose patience with economic sanctions, and Iranian leaders and Western powers engage in a new round of verbal sparring.

Non-European based subsidiaries of European companies, for example, have already begun to claim exemptions from participating in the sanctions on Iran, which would undermine the US effort to pressure the country into giving up what the US believes is a militarized nuclear program.

Iran’s chief negotiator, meanwhile, has threatened to withdraw from the third round of talks, now scheduled for June 18 in Moscow. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton countered that Iran must be prepared to “take concrete steps” if it wishes to continue talks.

The United States is particularly concerned about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s announcement on May 25 that it believed Iran was enriching uranium to 20 percent, for which there is no known civilian use. Iran, meanwhile, deflected questions about the announcement, and continues to maintain that its nuclear enrichment program exists solely for non-military use.

“As things are, I think the chance is 100 percent,” an Israeli intelligence officer told GlobalPost, referring to a possible strike. “But we don’t know who will attack, or when.”

“Quite honestly, things are not at a healthy place,” said Ilan Berman, the vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and an expert on Iran. “We are talking about the reactivation of a negotiations track that so far has not led to tangible benefits for the US and its allies but has, on the other hand, led to many tangible benefits for Iran.”

Berman, like the Israeli government, thinks that in the absence of verifiable evidence that Iran’s not seeking to militarize its nuclear program, the continuing international discussions serve as no more than a fig leaf for Iran.

Severe sanctions against the country’s central bank and against importing Iranian oil are set to begin over the next few weeks. But Berman points out that European companies are already chafing at the limitations being imposed on them, and are requesting exemptions in the face of the added cost of non-Iranian oil.

“Diplomacy inherently works to Iran’s advantage,” Berman said. “It allows the regime greater time to work on its nuclear effort. It is hard to envision that in the midst of these negotiations, there’s going to be a dramatic tightening of sanctions. It will make a deal more difficult to achieve.”

Speaking to the German newspaper Bild on July 6, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed this sentiment.

“The demands that accompany the sanctions are inadequate,” he told the paper. “You apply this whole set of pressures — for what? For practically nothing! Iran could stop the 20 percent enrichment at any moment now and not in any way retard their advancement in their [civilian] nuclear program.”

Netanyahu listed three demands Iran should meet to avoid an attack: The halt of all uranium enrichment, the removal from Iran of all enriched uranium and the dismantling of the underground nuclear bunker in Qum, which is a point of noteworthy concern in Jerusalem.

Many observers are troubled by the possibility that Iran’s recent acquiescence to full international inspections is, in fact, not much more than a ruse.

This concern was heightened last week with the publication of images that appear to show major installations being destroyed at the Parchin nuclear refinement facility. The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), which released the images, said Iran might be attempting to hide the tracks of its nuclear enrichment before the arrival of international inspectors.

“Buildings are being torn down, and it looks like they could be cleansing the site, not wanting someone to inspect it,” said David Albright, ISIS’s president.

If so, it is a tactic Iran has used before. In 2004, six industrial-sized buildings at a nuclear research center were razed. The IAEA was then allowed to sample the rubble. The site is now a soccer complex.

Both the United States and Israel have always refused to rule out a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nevertheless, amid radio silence and conflicting signals, it is unclear whether the United States and Israel fundamentally agree or disagree on the basic facts of an Iranian threat.

Albright said the differences between the two nations can be measured in terms of each one’s ability to respond to a potential Iranian move to weaponize its nuclear stores.

“Their military capabilities lead them to look at things differently. The United States has no trouble destroying the Fordow enrichment plant,” Albright said, referring to the underground facility outside the city of Qum. “The US can make sure it is not operational. Israel may not be able to do that. That means the US can be a little more relaxed about Iranian nuclear capabilities developing. If Iran moves to make nuclear weapons, they can be struck militarily.”

The situation remains ever more volatile and murky, with many Israelis convinced their government is planning an attack. Public fighting among senior intelligence officers has not lessened these concerns. Speaking at the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, Israeli Chief of Staff General Benny Gantz derided former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who has argued against the usefulness of an attack on Iran in recent months.

“People boast about things they don’t know,” Gantz said. “If they once knew something about Iran, it doesn’t mean they know anything now.”

Others see a calmer outlook — for now. Meir Javedanfar, a professor at the InterDisciplinary Center in Herzliya, views talk of an attack with skepticism, at least until US elections.

“The fact that the chances of an attack have receded will place more focus on other powerful methods of isolating the Iranian government. I think the Iranian government should really worry about the possibility of a military attack after the US election, especially if all is quiet in Israel.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Dong-Feng 21 ballistic missiles

King Abdullah restored National Security Adviser Prince Bandar bin Sultan to favor for a very special mission. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources reveal that the talented former ambassador to the US was recently brought back from exile to conduct secret negotiations with China for the oil kingdom’s acquisition of single-nuclear warhead, medium-range MRBM ballistic missiles – the Dong-Feng 21 (DF-21) model (NATO code name CSS-5).
After acting as the king’s confidential coordinator of Saudi intelligence in the Arab revolt, Bandar removed himself (or was removed) some months ago from Riyadh to escape the royal infighting plaguing the court.
Facing him across the negotiating table in Beijing was Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie who reported directly to Chinese President Hu Jintao.
The first Saudi approach for these missiles was made when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called on the Saudi monarch on January 15. In their official communiqué, the two leaders announced they had “agreed to make concerted efforts to enhance bilateral relations under a strategic framework.”
The phrase “under a strategic framework” referred to the Saudi request for Chinese nuclear missiles.

The Saudis keep one-third of their missiles ready for instant launch

Saudi Arabia’s present arsenal, our military sources report, contains three Chinese CSS-2 ballistic missile batteries from the 1970s (IRBM, with conventional warheads and a range of 2,600 kilometers), the oldest type of liquid propellant ballistic missiles in the Chinese inventory.
Responsible for their maintenance is a Chinese missile corps battalion composed mostly of missile technicians who are employed at three military facilities – Sulail, 500 kilometers south of Riyadh near the Khamis Mushait military complex, which is Headquarters of the Saudi Southern Area Command and home to the Field Artillery and Infantry Schools and to the King Khalid Air Base; Prince Sultan Air Base in Al Kharj, 77 kilometers south of Riyadh; and Al-Dilam, also south of Riyadh and bordering on the Sultan Air Base.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military sources note that the Saudis keep their ballistic missiles in three stages of readiness – those at Sulail sit on pads prepared for instantaneous launch; those at Al Kharj are also on launching pads with their tanks half full; and the third group is still in storage at Al-Dilam.
The newest updated variants of the DF-21s are capable of delivering either nuclear warheads or conventional weapons. They have a maximum range of 1,700 kilometers and a payload of 600 kg. Submunitions with high explosives and chemical warheads are believed to be available.

A colossal price payable in 23 years’ worth of oil supplies

Confident that Washington was unaware of the secret negotiations going on in Beijing, our intelligence sources report the Saudis offered the Chinese two major incentives for the deal:
1. The fabulous sum of $60 billion in payment for the purchase of the missiles. Part of the package would be the construction of new bases to house them in Saudi desert regions most inaccessible for Iranian attack.
2. Since solid investment outlets are hard to find in the global economy’s present state and Beijing suffers from a surfeit of cash, Bandar also put on the table as part of the price a long-term Saudi commitment to cover all of China’s oil needs until the year 2035, no matter what happens in the interim and irrespective even of an oil crisis besetting the desert kingdom.
Never before has any oil-producing country offered such terms – least of all the world’s largest oil exporter. In effect, Gulf sources point out, Riyadh agreed to open its oil fields to partial Chinese control for the sake of gaining nuclear missiles.
Not surprisingly, Chinese President Hu informed the Saudi King of his assent to the transaction once all the particulars are ironed out.
One of the weightiest would be the criteria to be fixed for calculating the price of oil on sale to China and the number of barrels; whether the baseline would be the 2020 or 2030 market prices.

Back-up talks for Pakistan’s Gauri nuclear missiles

Also to be decided is how China will get around its signature on the Missile Technology Control Regime, the MTCR, an informal and voluntary association of countries dedicated to the non-proliferation of unmanned systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.
Another snag is presented by the commitments Riyadh undertook in signing nuclear conventions at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s intelligence sources report further that Saudi Arabia has launched back-up negotiations with Pakistan for the purchase of its Ghauri nuclear ballistic missiles in case the transaction with China falls through.