WarSclerotic

Iran to fire missiles in desert war games in warning to U.S. and Israel threats.

Sunday, 01 July 2012

Although Iran frequently holds war games, the upcoming exercises appeared to underline Tehran’s threat to strike U.S. military bases in neighboring countries. (File photo)

inShare

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards announced they are to fire ballistic and other missiles at desert targets during three days of war games starting Monday in a warning to threats of military action by Israel and the United States.

“Long-, medium- and short-range surface-to-surface missiles will be fired from different locations in Iran… at replica airbases like those used by out-of-region military forces,” the head of the Guards aerospace division in charge of missile systems, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, said.

“These maneuvers send a message to the adventurous nations that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is standing up to bullies alongside the determined and unified Iranian nation, and will decisively respond to any trouble they cause,” he was quoted as saying by the Guards’ official Sepah news website.

Although Iran frequently holds war games, these exercises appeared to underline Tehran’s threat to strike U.S. military bases in neighboring countries — in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — if it comes under attack by Israel or the United States.

Tel Aviv and Washington have said that military action against Iran remains an option if diplomacy and sanctions fail to convince the Islamic republic to curb its sensitive nuclear program.

Hajizadeh said the war games, titled Great Prophet 7, would “test the accuracy of missile warheads and systems” by hitting the mock camps in the Kavir Desert in central Iran.

He mentioned two types of ballistic missiles that would be used: the Qiam, which has an estimated range of around 500 kilometers (300 miles), or 750 kilometers according to Iranian media; and the Khalij Fars anti-ship missile, which has a range of 300 kilometers.

Tehran refers to its ballistic missiles as “long-range” although other world militaries qualify them as “short-range”.

The longest-range ballistic missile Iran possesses in its arsenal is the medium-range Shahab-3 which, with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers, is capable of hitting Israel. There was no indication in Hajizadeh’s remarks that a Shahab-3 would be used in the maneuvers.

AN ISRAELI “PLAN B” FOR A NUCLEAR IRAN.

Assuming that Iran does indeed obtain nuclear weapons and Israel doesn’t launch an attack on its facilities, what is Israel’s “plan B” to deal with the new situation? This article analyzes the issue.

INTRODUCTION

Despite substantial sanctions designed to curb its nuclear program, Iran has refused to bend to international pressure. It has consistently violated U.N. resolutions calling for it to abandon its uranium enrichment and has continually managed to trick the skilled inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[i] There have also been far-reaching Israeli efforts to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. Nonetheless, Iran may indeed acquire a nuclear arsenal.[ii] Such a scenario would pose a serious threat to the Jewish state and would require it to take immediate action.

While neither the diplomatic channel nor sanctions guarantee success, so a limited military assault–Israeli, American, or a joint one–would not necessarily prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.[iii]  Instead, a military assault could lead Tehran to toughen its positions, act firmly to silence the opposition movements, rally the Iranian masses around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and provide the ayatollahs with the necessary domestic support to continue its pursuit of nuclear power.[iv] A nuclear Iran would be dangerous to Israel and its containment difficult, but Jerusalem would have no choice but to attempt to contain a nuclear Iran and to reduce the risks as much as possible.[v]

Before Iran becomes nuclear, and especially if and once it does, Jerusalem should clearly delineate to Tehran and the international community its red lines, which if crossed would automatically lead to an Israeli response. The first would be to make clear the consequences of Tehran’s use of the bomb against Israel. Israel must display its strategic arsenal before Tehran. Jerusalem should also rely on a triple American-British-French nuclear umbrella, with which it should sign protection agreements very soon, before Tehran were to acquire the bomb.

This proposed strategy also seeks to reduce the severe regional and global consequences of a nuclear Iran. Jerusalem should make clear to other hostile actors in the region that an Iranian bomb would not provide them with protection. Jerusalem should also act decisively toward the friendly Western capitals, some of which may conclude it best to “abandon the sinking Israeli ship” before its decline and strengthen their relations with Tehran instead.

Thus, Israel must develop two parallel yet separate strategic channels. Even if the chances of preventing Iran from developing the bomb are slim, Jerusalem should adhere to its efforts. Moreover, despite Iran’s built-in advantages of land and population, Israel could successfully cope with its nuclearization. This, however, would require the development of an innovative and effective strategy.

AN ISRAELI PLAN B FOR A NUCLEAR IRAN: BACKGROUND

Iran is influenced by radical Islamist Shi’i ideology and has acted decisively to achieve regional power status. The country has not been deterred by the United States, despite American forces stationed on Iran’s borders, a clear manifestation of this ambition.[vi] Under the shah’s regime, Iran had already turned to the nuclear option. After the Islamic Revolution, however, the plan was abandoned, since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed nuclear weapons were against Islamic law. Yet following its war with Iraq in the 1980s, when Iran was attacked with chemical weapons and the international community largely ignored this offense, Tehran decided to return to the nuclear option.[vii] For Iran, a nuclear arsenal serves several purposes: to obtain status as a regional power, to impress potential followers and allies in the region, to deter any attack on Iran in retaliation for its foreign activities, and to build national pride and fear among the opposition so as to ensure the regime’s power at home.[viii]

A nuclear Iran would be dangerous to Israel, as Tehran could adopt a more aggressive policy toward Israel. Consequently, the strategic environment within which Israel presently operates would totally change.[ix] During the first phase after becoming nuclear, Tehran might consider testing Jerusalem’s limits. It could encourage its proxies, Hizballah and Hamas, under the protective Iranian nuclear umbrella, to begin extensive operations against Israel. This could include the launching of thousands of missiles and rockets into population centers and at strategic targets. Jerusalem, therefore, must draw clear red lines. At the same time, Israel should be ready for an automatic and strong response by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) against any provocation by Iran’s proxies, which could lead Tehran and its agents to adopt more moderate behavior.

An Israeli “plan B” for a nuclear Iran must deal with two types of threats. The first would include three major actions: first and foremost, the use of Iran’s nuclear power directly against Israel; second, the transfer of a nuclear device from Tehran’s hands to terrorist organizations, which would then use it directly against Israel; and third, heightened attacks on Israel–notably by Hizballah and Hamas–inspired by a belief in Iran’s new power.  The second type of potential threat involves four lower level risks: 1) Iranian leaders’ threats to destroy Israel; 2) the sale of nuclear know-how to countries hostile to Israel, such as Syria; 3) convincing the Gulf states to jump onto the Iranian bandwagon, instead of balancing it; and 4) the expansion of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

No less serious would be the political-military propaganda resulting from the Israeli failure to contain Tehran. Nuclear Iran would fully exploit its new position. Its leaders would mock and attack the failed Israeli policy. Jerusalem’s stated policy since the early 2000s that “Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran” would be portrayed as empty threats and Israel a “paper tiger.” Such propaganda could be detrimental to Jerusalem’s status, and this element should not be played down. Israel’s rivals in the Middle East could interpret this as a rare opportunity and may then adopt an aggressive policy accompanied by defiant and threatening acts. Jerusalem’s few allies in the international arena may choose to stay away, seeing Israel’s days as numbered. Each of these developments would significantly increase the threat directed toward the Jewish state.

While Iran is a dangerous and persistent rival, it is also well aware of its limitations of power, seeks to preserve its strength, and knows that it operates within an area of regional and international hostility.[x] Moreover, if Jerusalem takes the necessary steps before Iran goes nuclear, it could successfully reduce the risk from its eastern border and have relative security.

Extent and Quality of Iranian Nuclear Arsenal and Degree of Risk to Israel

The degree of risk a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel depends directly upon the extent and the quality of its nuclear arsenal and launching capabilities. Iran as “a nuclear threshold state” constitutes a much smaller threat than an actual nuclear Iran. Even a small nuclear arsenal might make Iran believe it could launch a successful first strike on Israel.[xi] An Iran that thought it possessed a reliable second-strike capability–even if that assessment were wrong–would be even more dangerous.[xii]

As long as Iran holds limited-launching capabilities, covering only Israel’s territory, its containment would be difficult, since France, Britain, and the United States would remain outside the direct threat. Nuclear weapons launched from Iran would not threaten them directly, and they would not be bound to attack first. This could lead them to adopt a “sit and do nothing” policy. During this transition period, Jerusalem would need to act decisively, even if at the risk of its actions being interpreted as reckless and dangerous. Israel would also need to transmit a message of being on the brink of action and set clear lines that Iran should not dare to cross. Any intelligence warnings of Iranian preparations to use the bomb would necessarily lead Israel to ready its strategic weapon. If Tehran did not retreat, this would lead to an Israeli attack.

Once Iran has gained long-term launching capabilities, containment of Iran would be easier. If Tehran were to pose a potential threat to important European countries and the United States, Western countries would no longer be able to sit aside and do nothing. Instead, Washington, London, and Paris would put their own nuclear arsenals on alert, which they would not hesitate to use if Tehran were to begin arming its own nuclear missiles. They would act without making any distinctions between missiles aimed at Israel and at their own territories.

American Willingness to Deter Iran and Its Impact on Israel

Israel’s position regarding a nuclear Iran is dependent on how Jerusalem evaluates U.S. readiness and deterrence capability. There are several factors at play here: first, the overall degree of American support for Israel, which has been weaker under President Obama’s administration; second, U.S. willingness to take political and strategic risks to provide Israel with the necessary security; and third, the global and regional leadership capacity of the United States in light of Washington’s failure to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, as well as the U.S. response to this crucial failure.[xiii]

The day after an Iranian bomb were to exist, Israel would find itself in an even more complicated international position. The United States, Israel’s greatest and most powerful ally, would be revealed as an unreliable partner, unwilling or unable to protect Israel. Other Western countries would also note Washington’s failure to impose order in the region. Israel’s enemies may well conclude that the United States would no longer stand firmly by Israel’s side and even that Washington had abandoned Israel in the face of its enemies.

One element Jerusalem could strive for in the face of a nuclear Iran would be additional U.S. military aid. This could include the transfer of F-22 jet fighters and advanced Tomahawk missiles[xiv] or placing missile defense systems within Israeli territory.

AN ISRAELI PLAN B FOR A NUCLEAR IRAN: DANGERS & MITIGATING THE THREAT

Israeli strategy should respond to two key questions. First, what does Jerusalem seek to deter? Second, what is Jerusalem willing to do for this? In order to deter Iran from using the bomb, Jerusalem has to send Tehran sharp and clear messages. Israel should set clear limits for Iran and propose a hierarchy of expected responses dependent upon the risks posed by Tehran: first, and above all, an absolute prohibition of the use of Iran’s nuclear power against Israel; second, and no less significant, a complete ban on transferring a nuclear device to terrorist organizations; and third, to stop using Hizballah and Hamas to cause indirect damage to Israel.

These red lines must be clear to Tehran on the day it acquires the bomb. Jerusalem should send a unified message to Tehran, Washington, and other Western and Arab/Muslim capitals. It should be transmitted directly and indirectly, overtly and covertly, making clear the price Iran would pay for any violation. Jerusalem’s reaction would be aggressive. Israel would use all means, including its strategic arsenal, without restraint. Crossing the third red line would also lead Jerusalem to respond decisively. In the case of an affront from Iran’s agents and allies–Hizballah, Hamas and Syria–Jerusalem would react harshly in order to bring about Hizballah’s demise; a fatal blow to Syria, including overthrow of the regime and the amputation of Assad’s dynasty; or eliminating the Hamas government in Gaza.

In order for these messages to be truly effective, they should be emphasized to the ayatollahs long before Iran were to become nuclear, and even more forcibly after. Consequently, Jerusalem should anticipate this need and create communication channels with Tehran. Several players in the international community maintain ties with Iran. Switzerland, for example, has an active Embassy in Tehran, which could be used for transmitting messages. Initially, the messages would be unilateral, from Israel. However, Jerusalem should invest a considerable effort in developing direct lines of communication with Tehran in order to create a two-sided interaction between the capitals.

Jerusalem should be aware that both Tehran and other regional players would perceive the nuclearization of Iran as Israel’s failure. Egypt and Turkey as well as Syria, Hizballah, and Hamas would focus on the colossal Israeli failure. Therefore, Israel must back its statements. If Teheran were to cross Israel’s red lines, this should elicit an immediate Israeli response. If Israel commits itself to firm red lines, the level of the threat will rapidly fall, both from Tehran and the other actors in the region who attempt to challenge Israel.

Absolute Prohibition on Iran Using Nuclear Power Against Israel

An absolute prohibition on Iran on using its nuclear power against Israel would be challenging, but not impossible. Tehran must recognize the negative consequences of using nuclear weapons against Israel. In order to enforce this prohibition, Israel would have to reduce the risk of Iran using the bomb. This might include a guarantee to Tehran that Israel would not launch a preemptive attack and would honor Iranian territorial integrity.

The prohibition should also include deterrence elements, such as the creation of a second- and third-strike capability as well as mutual defense agreements with Western powers. Such developments should take place in complete secrecy. More importantly, they must be presented to the ayatollahs slowly and carefully. Jerusalem would be required to maintain an element of surprise, while creating a real but gradual and growing sense that Israel had the complete ability to deal with the potential threat posed by Tehran.

Absolute Prohibition of Transferring Nuclear Devices to Terrorists

The danger of Tehran transferring a nuclear device to a terrorist organization still exists.[xv] While this would be difficult to prevent, the chance that the ayatollahs would indeed do so is slim. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has avoided crossing certain lines. Despite its strong support of Hizballah and Hamas, Tehran has refrained from equipping them with strategic weapons–whether chemical or biological–which apparently exist in its military arsenal.[xvi] Despite the active support of movements acting against the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mullahs have not supplied them with weapons that violate the status quo–such as missiles for attacking American aircrafts like those that the United States supplied the guerrillas fighting the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan War.

The ayatollahs would probably not turn to this channel for fear they would be removed from power. Despite their extreme views, they know that such actions would elicit severe reactions from the United States and Israel. Washington has made it clear that any transfer of a nuclear device to terrorists would be perceived as a direct threat to U.S. national security and lead to a military response.

If Iran were to violate this, Israel would have two main options. The first option would be to mobilize the United States into action. In order to do this, Israel must act soon to expand and deepen its intelligence network within Iran and along its borders. With this monitoring system in place, Jerusalem could provide Washington with evidence of Iranian attempts to transfer nuclear devices, or their actual implementation. The second option would be to threaten with a decisive response if Tehran were to provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups in conflict with Israel. If Jerusalem relays to the Iranian regime a clear and firm message that would threaten its existence, it would be reasonable to conclude that a nuclear Iran would refrain from taking this route.

Ending the Use of Hizballah and Hamas to Cause Indirect Damage to Israel
Iranian nuclear weapons may encourage Tehran’s agents in the region–Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza–to provoke Israel. Instead of acting with restraint, Israel should respond harshly to any attempt by such players to penetrate its territorial sovereignty, abduct soldiers, launch short/long-range missiles, or challenge its existence. Jerusalem should confront these players with its full conventional strength. Israel should also intercept all Iranian ammunition transfers to these organizations—whether sent directly or through Damascus–even at the cost of direct confrontation with Syria. What Jerusalem should make clear is that it would no longer practice restraint. It would act decisively to prevent the transfer of arms shipments to Hizballah and Hamas. Firm messages from Jerusalem backed by decisive military operations–but at the same time limited in scope–would lead Hizballah and Hamas leaders to desist from challenging Israel. Past lessons would lead them to conclude that they were alone in their confrontation with the conventional power of the IDF.

It is unlikely that Iranian leaders will act upon their declarations of solidarity and calls for unity with Hamas and Hizballah. Past experience indicates that the priority of the ayatollahs is the preservation of their power. While Iran openly challenges the United States and calls for the destruction of Israel, thus far, Tehran has not initiated any direct military confrontation with either.[xvii] Iran has frequently called for protecting the Palestinians and the Lebanese but refrained from supporting militarily in confrontations with Jerusalem. This was also the manner in which Iran behaved during the Second Lebanon War between Hizballah and Israel. Nor did Teheran interfere in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009, when the IDF struck back at Hamas.

Iran itself does not possess significant conventional capabilities. Its capacity to provide additional weapons systems to Hizballah and Hamas has been exhausted over the past few decades, during which Tehran has supplied them with the best military arsenal available. Its ability to transport military force threatening Israel’s borders is limited and may be easily thwarted. These attempts could be blocked by the U.S. military forces, a large number of which would remain in the Gulf after the planned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, it is unlikely that Iran’s conventional capacity will grow in the foreseeable future. To the contrary, if Iran were to become nuclear, it would face a growing weapons embargo and severe sanctions on its already ailing economy. These measures would reduce Tehran’s ability to constitute a real conventional threat on Israel.

Preventing Iran from Using the Bomb

A nuclear Iran may turn to the bomb for the wrong reasons, as a result of certain miscalculations or misperceptions of its leaders. Teheran could launch a nuclear attack due to false concerns of a preemptive Israeli attack, as a kind of revenge for past Israeli aggressions, or as a result of general feelings of deprivation in comparison to the advanced technology of the Western world. Israel and the international community should thus work together to prevent this danger.

As a new nuclear state, which holds a limited number of nuclear warheads but lacks a reliable second-strike capability, Iran would be very dangerous. Tehran may challenge Jerusalem the first chance it gets. Iran could strike first for fear of real or false plans to attack it. Therefore, Tehran would need reliable guarantees that Israel and/or the United States did not intend to impose a strategic attack on it. This would ensure the safe crossing of the dangerous transition period until Iran were to achieve the second-strike capability, which is essential to maintaining stability between nuclear rivals.

Internal divisions between the various factions of the Iranian regime could also endanger the application of credible and effective central control over its strategic weapon systems. This could cause organizational failures and splits leading to an attack on Israel neither planned nor approved by the top leadership. In addition, Jerusalem should convey a clear message to Teheran that Israel would launch a strategic first-strike against it in any case of opening of launching shafts, mechanical transfer of ballistic missiles for their launch or fueling them, or sending Iranian jets or bombers into Israeli airspace.

Iran has been strongly opposed to allowing any external involvement in its internal affairs. This tendency was revealed to the West in the early 1950s, when Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), an action that won the overwhelming sympathy of the Iranian masses, who flooded the streets.[xviii] The founder of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Reza Shah, also acted in light of this tendency and was subsequently removed from power by Britain. His son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, echoed this and believed in Iran’s need to stand on its own. However, understanding that this would ultimately lead to his own removal from the throne softened his opposition. Finally, the shah was forced to give up his seat for the same reason: the demand of the elites and masses to free Iran from the colonial forces that controlled the palace and the king.[xix]

Reducing the fear of an Israeli attack against Tehran would reduce the danger of Iran initiating an initial nuclear attack. Israel should send Iran official covert messages through a trusted third party and, if possible, also directly. These should highlight Israeli respect for Iran’s culture and its territorial integrity, and reassure Teheran that Jerusalem does not intend to attack first without significant risk directed from Tehran.

At the same time, these messages should also sanctify Israeli territoriality. They should include an explicit threat of a massive strategic Israeli attack on Iran if Tehran were to target Israeli territory. Accordingly, Israel should convey the message that it would not hesitate to cause serious damage to those who were to challenge its existence. This process should be gradual. The messages should first be delivered by junior representatives. Later, the prime minister should explicitly present them as Israel’s official policy.

If the ayatollahs feel their future might be endangered–whether a reasonable or false concern–this could lead them to take to extreme measures. In such a scenario, they may order the use of the bomb as a last resort, turning them into eternal Islamic saints. However, it is still possible to contain such an extreme act. Iranian leaders should be flooded with messages that such action would lead to the complete opposite result: Any Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would lead to a comprehensive Israeli retaliation.

Deterrence

Deterrence is the most essential element for containing Iran. Such deterrence, however, should be of a completely different kind than the U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.[xx] The rational-Western/modern deterrence is based on mutual assured destruction (MAD), focusing on attacking power components, including nuclear weapons and their launching sites.

Rational deterrence is simple. Jerusalem should invest the necessary resources for developing a reliable second-strike capability. A total arsenal of six submarines carrying advanced launching platforms would adequately serve this strategic goal. The constant presence of two or three of them outside Israel’s territorial waters would send a clear message regarding Jerusalem’s ability to destroy Iran as a response to an initial Iranian nuclear strike.

Jerusalem should not completely rely on this solution, as it could fail; thus, it should develop additional elements. Based on models from South Korea and Japan, Jerusalem should use the interim period before Iran becomes nuclear to develop a third-strike capability–mutual defense agreements signed with the United States, Britain, and France. Accordingly, the ayatollahs would understand that any nuclear attack against Israel would automatically be considered an attack on Israeli’s Western allies, which would have large-scale troops placed on Israeli soil in advance. This agreement would put Israel under the American nuclear umbrella.[xxi] It would include a triple American-British-French commitment to launch a nuclear retaliation against Iran by using their strategic forces stationed outside of Israel as well. This would be regardless of Jerusalem’s second-strike capability, which would survive after an Iranian nuclear assault.

Coping with Additional Threats of a Nuclear Iran

The integration of intent with practical ability could be catastrophic to Israel. Accordingly, Israel should send Tehran a sharp message that it will no longer accept such behavior on the part of Ahmadinejad and his fellow leaders. The message should first be sent indirectly. This may not initially have an effect, thus highlighting the presence of Israeli submarines off the coast of Bandar-e Abbas may be a more practical response.

Second, Iran may sell nuclear know-how, which could find its way to Israel’s enemies. As Pakistan and North Korea’s advanced nuclear programs have been available for over a decade on the nuclear black market, it unlikely Iran becoming nuclear would worsen the situation. Nevertheless, credible threats from the international community have led the United States to impose strong sanctions on Iran, and Tehran’s fear of an Israeli and/or American strategic first-strike would deter Tehran from pursuing this route.

Third, the plan to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could move Iran to challenge its neighbors in the region. It could persuade the Gulf States to jump on the Iranian bandwagon. This is more of a risk for the smaller Gulf States, Bahrain and Kuwait, where there is a large Shi’i population, and less so for Saudi Arabia.

The United States is a trusted source of security for Saudi Arabia. Riyadh relies on Washington and recognizes the fact that the Saudi royal existence depends on petrodollars and the White House’s commitment to the al-Saud dynasty. Iran is a strategic and ideological rival to Riyadh. Tehran also lacks the economic and military capabilities of the United States. Thus, it is not likely that Riyadh will join its eastern Shi’i rival and forgo the continuous and reliable security provided by the United States. It is more reasonable to conclude that the Saudis would strengthen their relations with Washington, call for the United States to expand its presence in the Gulf, and ask for its nuclear protection.

If well-prepared for the new emerging reality, Jerusalem would be able to reap the benefits of Iran’s nuclear buildup in the region. Numerous Gulf States, first and foremost Saudi Arabia, may actually strengthen their ties with Washington, and through this with Israel as well.[xxii]

Fourth, Israel may find a nuclear Iran to be only the beginning of a much larger confrontation. Other countries in the region, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, may purchase the bomb.[xxiii] Israel should engage the United States to prevent regional proliferation, while cleverly using the last decade of American promises of preventing Iran from becoming nuclear.

Past experience shows that countries in the region will not automatically develop the bomb, despite their well-founded fear that Israel has a nuclear arsenal. There is no reason for Jerusalem not to preserve the status quo, given its proper strategic conduct and skilled use of the strong lever it has in Washington. Israel should conduct a comprehensive campaign to encourage the White House and the two houses of Congress to take action: Egypt depends on annual U.S. support of a $1.5 billion of advanced military equipment supply; Turkey depends on Washington’s support for joining the EU and maintaining its position within NATO. Ankara also needs the White House to reject the U.S. Congressional law recognizing the Armenian genocide; and Riyadh depends on Washington promising the flow of petrodollars, ensuring the security of the kingdom, and protecting the perpetuation of the al-Saud dynasty.[xxiv]

CONCLUSION

As goes the old Persian proverb, “When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.” If Iran were to acquire the bomb, such a scenario could also open the door to new opportunities. Jerusalem could improve its relations with Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. With Washington’s help, a historic defense alliance could be created among the four as a counterweight to an Iranian nuclear threat.

Acquiring the bomb would necessarily lead to Iran’s absolute military strengthening and could lead Tehran to act against Israel. However, there is no reason to assume that Iran would use its nuclear weapons immediately.[xxv] It would be more reasonable to assume that the regime would instead direct its efforts toward producing a large nuclear arsenal and a reliable second-strike capability. During this period, Tehran would discover that its membership in the exclusive nuclear club would not be without its obligations and limitations.

*Dr. Ofer Israeli teaches at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) at Herzliya. From 2009-2011, he was a Visiting Researcher at the Center for Peace & Security Studies (CPASS) within Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service (SFS). His postdoctoral research is in the field of Complexity of International Relations.

*The author gratefully acknowledges support from the Center of Peace and Security Study (CPASS), within Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Prof. Daniel Byman. He is also grateful to Robert J. Lieber, Andrew Bennett, Ophir Falc, and especially Judith Green for their most helpful comments.

International – Robert Wright – Are Cooler Israeli Heads Reining Bibi In? – The Atlantic.

(Robert Wright, the brilliant but helplessly anti-Israel leftist writer had the misfortune of publishing this article in the same few hours that Iran more specifically than ever, threatened to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.”  Whatever fallout, if any, he receives has been coming to him for years; together with what’s coming to the hate-filled mullahs.  – JW )

Jul 1 2012, 12:39 PM ET 11

Iran threatens Israel; new EU sanctions take force | Top News | Reuters.

By Yeganeh Torbati

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran announced missile tests on Sunday and threatened to wipe Israel “off the face of the earth” if the Jewish state attacked it, brandishing some of its starkest threats on the day Europe began enforcing an oil embargo and harsh new sanctions.

The European sanctions – including a ban on imports of Iranian oil by EU states and measures that make it difficult for other countries to trade with Iran – were enacted earlier this year but mainly came into effect on July 1.

They are designed to break Iran’s economy and force it to curb nuclear work that Western countries say is aimed at producing an atomic weapon. Reporting by Reuters has shown in recent months that the sanctions have already had a significant effect on Iran’s economy.

Israel says it could attack Iran if diplomacy fails to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear aims. The United States also says military force is on the table as a last resort, but U.S. officials have repeatedly encouraged the Israelis to be patient while new sanctions take effect.

Washington said the EU’s oil ban might force Tehran to give ground at the next round of nuclear talks, scheduled for this week in Istanbul.

Announcing three days of missile tests in the coming week, Revolutionary Guards General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the exercises should be seen as a message “that the Islamic Republic of Iran is resolute in standing up to … bullying, and will respond to any possible evil decisively and strongly.”

Any attack on Iran by Israel would be answered resolutely: “If they take any action, they will hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth,” said Hajizadeh, head of the Guards’ airborne division, according to state news agency IRNA.

The missile tests will target mock-ups of air bases in the region, Hajizadeh said, adding that its ability to strike U.S. bases in the Gulf protects Iran from U.S. support for Israel.

“U.S. bases in the region are within range of our missiles and weapons, and therefore they certainly will not cooperate with the regime (Israel),” he told IRNA.

Iran has repeatedly unnerved oil markets by threatening reprisals if it were to be attacked or its trade disrupted.

The threat against the Jewish state echoed words President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke in 2005, saying Israel “must be wiped off the page of time” – a phrase often translated as “wiped off the map” and cited by Israel to show how allowing Iran to get nuclear arms would be a threat to its existence.

The EU ban on Iranian oil imports directly deprives Iran of a market that bought 18 percent of its exports a year ago. The sanctions also bar EU companies from transporting Iranian crude or insuring shipments, hurting its trade worldwide.

“They signal our clear determination to intensify the peaceful diplomatic pressure,” British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement.

The EU sanctions come alongside stringent new measures imposed by Washington this year on third countries doing business with Iran. The United States welcomed the EU sanctions as an “essential part” of diplomatic efforts “to seek a peaceful resolution that addresses the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said he hoped the sanctions would force Tehran to make concessions in technical-level talks with six world powers later this week.

MALICIOUS POLICIES

“Iran has an opportunity to pursue substantive negotiations, beginning with expert level talks this week in Istanbul, and must take concrete steps toward a comprehensive resolution of the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear activities,” Carney said in a statement.

The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – foes of Iran which face it across the oil-rich Gulf – announced their own joint air force exercises on Sunday which they said would take “several days,” their state news agencies reported.

In three rounds of talks between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the Western powers have demanded Tehran halt high-grade uranium enrichment, ship out all high-grade uranium and close a key enrichment facility.

The talks lost steam at the last meeting in Moscow last month and there was not enough common ground for negotiators to agree whether to meet again. Officials – but not political decision-makers – meet in Turkey on Tuesday.

Washington sees the sanctions and talks as a potential way out of the standoff to avert the need for military action, but has not said it would block Israel from attacking Iran.

Tehran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technologies and is not seeking the bomb. It accuses nuclear-armed states of hypocrisy. Officials said they were taking steps to reduce the economic impact of the new sanctions.

“We are implementing programs to counter sanctions and we will confront these malicious policies,” Mehr news agency quoted Iranian central bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani as saying.

Bahmani has struggled to prevent a plunge in the value of the rial currency and steadily rising inflation as the sanctions have taken effect. He said the effects of the sanctions were tough but that Iran had built up $150 billion in foreign reserves to protect its economy.

Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi said oil importing countries would be the losers if the sanctions lead to price rises.

“All possible options have been planned in government to counter sanctions,” Qasemi said on the ministry’s website.

Last Friday, another Revolutionary Guards commander, Ali Fadavi, said Iran would equip its ships in the Strait of Hormuz – the neck of the Gulf and a vital oil transit point – with shorter-range missiles.

(Additional reporting by Marcus George and Isabel Coles in Dubai and by Jeff Mason in Washington; Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Peter Graff)

Iran ‘prepared’ for EU sanctions… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By JOANNA PARASZCZUK, REUTERS

07/01/2012 22:28

As oil embargo comes into force, Iranian officials warn Israel against strike, say strategies in place to counter sanctions.

Photo: Tim Chong/Reuters

Iran issued new threats to wipe Israel “off the face of the earth” Sunday as a new EU sanctions against its oil sector came into full force.

Announcing three days of missile tests in the coming week, Revolutionary Guards General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the exercises should be seen as a message “that the Islamic Republic of Iran is resolute in standing up to … bullying, and will respond to any possible evil decisively and strongly.”

Any attack on Iran by Israel would be answered resolutely: “If they take any action, they will hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth,” said Hajizadeh, head of the Guards’ airborne division, according to state news agency IRNA.

The missile tests will target mock-ups of air bases in the region, Hajizadeh said, adding that its ability to strike US bases in the Gulf protects Iran from US support for Israel.

“US bases in the region are within range of our missiles and weapons, and therefore they certainly will not cooperate with the regime (Israel),” he told IRNA.

Playing down sanctions, the governor of the Islamic Republic’s central bank said his country had built up $150 billion of foreign currency reserves to combat the effects of the embargo.

Mahmoud Bahmani said that Iran had not sat idle in the face of Western sanctions, but had implemented programs to counter the impact of what he described as “spiteful policies”, according to Iran’s Mehr News Agency, which is owned by the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization.

Bahmani did not give details about what those Iran’s plans may be but told Mehr that Iran’s oil sales have been over $100 billion in addition to $40 – $50 billion of exports, giving a $150 billion foreign reserve chest.

Meanwhile, Mehr listed what it said were four main scenarios that Iran could employ to counter sanctions. These included using foreign currencies other than the Euro and US dollar, closing the Strait of Hormuz, increasing oil stores and reducing oil production from certain oilfields.

Also on Sunday, Iran’s Petroleum Minister, Rostam Ghasemi, said Iran was “fully prepared to deal with sanctions.”

In a lengthy statement published on the Petroleum Ministry website, Ghasemi said that “the government has planned and prepared for all possible options in order to counter sanctions”.

He added that though sanctions prevented oil exports to US and EU markets, Iranian crude is still being sold on international markets.

Ghasemi commented that the world’s oil market “ought not to be political” because “the most vulnerable citizens in oil-importing countries are suffering”, and added that only “a few” countries had imposed sanctions on Iran, “due to [those countries’] irrational demands”.

Noting that the US had allowed China and other countries to be exempt from oil sanctions, Ghasemi added: “America knows that if Iranian oil is removed completely from the market, prices increase.”

The European government passed sanctions against Iran’s crude oil sector in January, to punish the Islamic Republic for its nuclear program.

The EU sanctions prohibit EU members from importing Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals and from insuring vessels transporting them. All contracts for importing Iranian oil that were concluded before January 23 had to be terminated by Sunday.  Last year, the EU accounted for almost a quarter of Iran’s oil exports.

The US, Israel and EU believe Iran is aiming to build nuclear weapons, while the Islamic Republic claims its nuclear program is peaceful.

In three rounds of negotiations, Western powers have demanded Tehran halt its high-grade uranium enrichment activities, ship all high-grade uranium out of the country and close down a key enrichment facility.

But the talks have lost steam. At a meeting among political leaders in Moscow last month, there was not enough common ground for negotiators to agree yet whether to meet again.

Last Thursday, the US enforced sanctions on countries carrying out oil transactions with Iran’s Central Bank, although China and 19 other countries are exempted.

There are signs that sanctions are causing significant damage to Iran’s energy sector.

Last October, the US Treasury told the US Senate Bank Committee that Iran faced a projected loss of $14 billion per year in oil revenues through 2016.

The Iranian rial has also plummeted while the country’s official inflation rate skyrocketed over the past year to 21.5%.

In April, Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani admitted that Iranians were suffering from high youth unemployment.

On Sunday, with sanctions set to bite even harder, Iran’s media voiced doubts on the effectiveness of the oil embargo.

Tabnak, the website of ex-Revolutionary Guards Commander and Expediency Discernment Council secretary Mohsen Rezae,  said the sanctions were based on the “rational actor model”,  according to which Iran will abandon its nuclear program after the embargoes squeeze the Iranian middle class, leading to civil unrest.

However, Tabnak said Iran believes the West’s dependence on oil and petrochemicals will result in a “feedback loop” that will ultimately force some Western countries to scale back the oil embargo.

Iran’s ISNA news agency translated a lengthy article that appeared on the OilPrice.com oil and energy news site on Friday, and which argues that oil sanctions against Iran have not worked because Teheran has implemented tactics – including a barter deal with Pakistan to exchange wheat for oil – to “give itself breathing room.”

Meanwhile, the Irdiplomacy website, which is headed by Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Kharazi, Iran’s former ambassador to the UN and France, and who is close to reformist former PM Mohammed Khatami, said oil sanctions cannot be effective because if Iran fails to sell its oil to Europe it will sell to other countries.

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

( Nasser 1967 redux?  – JW )

Iran to test long-range missiles and new ‘radar-buster’ in 3-day drill from Monday | The Times of Israel.

Great Prophet 7′ war games, aimed to boost ‘combat readiness,’ to be held in an eastern province close to the Strait of Hormuz

By Ilan Ben Zion and AP July 1, 2012, 6:28 pm Updated: July 1, 2012, 7:44 pm 1  

Iran announced Sunday that it will test-fire long-range missiles during a three-day missile exercise from Monday.

The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps’ Aerospace Force said that “Great Prophet 7″ war games would include the test-firing of long-range, medium-range, and short-range missiles at target bases modeled after those of foreign armies, Iranian media reported.

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh also said Iran has produced an anti-radar missile called “Arm” that can hit any source of radar. He said the weapon could travel at several times the speed of sound, had an estimated range of 300 kilometers, and could “damage” missile shields in Turkey and Gulf countries.

Iran’s Shihab-3 missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) and can reach Israel and southern Europe.

Hajizadeh said that the annual missile training drill would be held in Iran’s eastern Sistan-Baluchestan province and aims to bolster combat readiness against hypothetical enemies.

Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province lies due north of the approaches to the Strait of Hormuz.

The announcement coincides with Sunday’s introduction of a European Union oil embargo meant to pressure Iran over its nuclear program. Iran denies Western accusations that it wants to build nuclear weapons.

The Iranian Mehr news agency said Iran could take measures to counter the new international oil sanctions, including shutting the vital Strait of Hormuz off its southern coast. A fifth of the world’s oil supply comes through the Strait, and Iran has threatened repeatedly to close it.

On Sunday, however, Iran’s Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi made statements to the official IRNA news agency about the Strait in which he did not mention any plans to close it.

Vahidi said Iran is the main protector of the waterway, and that Tehran “has confronted anybody who tried to endanger the Strait.”

Israel fears Hezbollah will blockade sea in fu… JPost – Defense.

By YAAKOV KATZ

07/01/2012 20:00

Navy assessments are that Hezbollah will try to target cargo ships within 30-kilometer radius of Israel to try to get commercial vessels to refuse to sail there during war; senior navy officer: Operational capability exists.

Photo: Thinkstock/Imagebank

Israel is concerned that in a future war with Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerilla group will try to impose a sea blockade on Israel by attacking civilian cargo ships.

Israel’s sea lines of communication (SLOC) span the length of the Mediterranean and around the Magreb region of North Africa with some 99 percent of all goods arriving in the country by sea, including ammunition and military hardware.

Navy assessments are that Hezbollah will try to attack cargo ships within a 30-kilometer radius of Israel in an effort to get commercial vessels to refuse to sail there during a war.

During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, a Hezbollah-fired missile hit the INS Hanit, killing four sailors and causing extensive damage. Another missile hit and sunk a nearby cargo freighter.

“Hezbollah has already proven that it can fire missiles so the operational capability exists as does the readiness to act,” a senior navy officer said.

The officer warned of the economic ramifications for Israel if Hezbollah succeeded in stopping cargo freighters from sailing to the ports of Ashdod and Haifa.

“People have not internalized what it means that 99 percent of what we import as a country comes by sea,” he said. “Ships stopping to sail here would have economic and security ramifications and is therefore the first and primary challenge we will need to confront.”

Hezbollah is believed to have a significant arsenal of Chinese-developed anti-ship missiles like the C-802 which is radar-guided and was used to hit the Hanit in 2006.

In addition, the navy is concerned with Syria’s recent purchase of the Russian Yakhont anti-ship missile, which could be transferred to Hezbollah in a future war. Syria already tested the Yakhont in recent maneuvers and the missile is said to have a range of about 300 km.

“We are closely following what is happening in Syria and if a response is needed, we will know how to respond,” the officer said.

One of the failures that led to the missile strike on the Hanit was the navy’s decision to deactivate its Barak missile defense system due to a lack of intelligence that Hezbollah was in possession of sophisticated anti-ship missiles.

The Navy plans in the coming years to equip its ships soon with the a new missile defense system called Barak-8, which is scheduled to become operational in the coming years. The new missile will reportedly feature a more advanced seeker and be capable of longer ranges, close to a few dozen km.

Iran: We’ll introduce missile against Iron Dome – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As European oil embargo kicks in, Tehran announces three-day surface-to-surface missile drill. Revolutionary Guards general: We’ll soon launch missile that can hit Iron Dome defense system

Dudi Cohen

As the EU’s oil sanctions against Iran take effect, the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guards announced Sunday that they will hold a three-day surface-to-surface missile exercise, targeting bases modeled after those of foreign armies.

The IRNA agency said Sunday the maneuvers, dubbed “Great Profit 7,” would begin Monday in Iran’s central desert and last three days.

The report quoted Gen. Ami Ali Hajizadeh, chief of the Revolutionary Guards’ airspace unit, as saying that the maneuver is aimed at assessing the accuracy and effectiveness of warheads and systems.

Hajizadeh added that Iran will soon introduce a new missile that can also penetrate the Iron Dome missile defense system, threatening that if Israel plans any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, “They will provide us a reason to remove Israel from the earth.”

He said Israel is not capable of attacking Iran “since it was defeated by Hezbollah” in 2006.

Missile drill in Iran (Archives photo: EPA)

However, in a conflicting report, Fars new agency quoted Hajizadeh as saying that the range of the new missile is only 300 kilometers.

Iran has reportedly a few hundred surface-to-surface missiles with a range of approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles), which can reach Israel, southern Europe and other states in the Persian Gulf, where US maintains military bases.

The announcement coincides with the beginning of a European Union oil embargo meant to pressure Iran over its nuclear program. Iran denies Western suspicions that it wants to build nuclear weapons.

The announcement came after US Army General Martin Dempsey said Friday that the United States and Israel are expected to hold a joint military exercise sometime around October or November, after postponing it earlier this year.

In response to the oil embargo, Iranian Central Bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani told Mehr news agency that his country has “plans” to deal with the embargo, and warned that Tehran will confront hostile policies against it. According to Bahmani, Iran has enough hard currency to meet its import needs.

Russia helped Syria shoot down Turkish plane, UK newspaper claims | The Times of Israel.

London’s Sunday Times reports that Russian technicians helped make split-second decision to fire at jet as a warning to NATO

An RF-4E recon plane. (CC-BY Torugatoru, Flickr)

Russian technicians played a key part in the shooting down of a Turkish jet near the Syrian coast late last month, sources told a British newspaper in a story published Sunday.

The Turkish RF-4E Phantom fighter jet was on a routine surveillance run when it was shot down by Syrian gunners near the coastal city of Latakia. The incident sparked a serious international incident, with Turkey sending tanks and anti-aircraft weapons to the Syrian border and Damascus responding with tanks of its own.

Turkey, which admits that the plane strayed into Syrian airspace, has promised to shoot down any Syrian plane that enters its territory.

According a Sunday Times of London report, the Russians and Syrians believed the plane was on a NATO mission to test Syria’s airspace and was shot down, in a split-second decision, to send a message to the organization.

Analysts had suspected Russian involvement in the incident, which drew harsh condemnations, but no military action, from NATO. Russia has protected Syrian President Bashar Assad in the UN Security Council and recently sent a number of refurbished helicopters to Damascus.

Russians supplies Syria with its anti-aircraft batteries and trained its soldiers on their use. Diplomats say the Russians are still on hand in Syria in an advisory role, the Sunday Times reported.

The story quotes an Israeli air force source as suggesting Russia had a hand in the incident: “We would not be surprised if these Russian experts, if they didn’t push the button, at least were beside the Syrian officers who did it.”

Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zubi said last week that Syrian soldiers who downed the plane may have thought it was an Israeli aircraft.

“Turkish planes and Israeli planes look alike,” the minister told the Turkish news station A Haber.

Al-Zubi also noted that the “Zionist country” was in the area, and that the Syrian military is on alert for Israeli aircraft.

“If an Israeli plane enters Syria, it is welcomed by fire. [The Turkish plane] might have been believed to be an Israeli plane; we did not want to take down a Turkish plane,” he said.

Syria has been embroiled in a nearly 18-month-long civil war as rebels attempt to oust Assad from power. Turkey, once a close ally of Syria, has harbored fleeing rebels and called for Assad to step down.