Iron Dome battery deployed near Tel Aviv – Israel News, Ynetnews.
|
The Air Force has deployed an Iron Dome battery to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area for training purposes. The battery is expected to remain in the region for the next few days. The IDF said that the deployment was part of the calibration of the missile defense system. (Yoav Zitun) |
via Israel Hayom | Defending Obama on Israel gets tougher by the day.
In the last few days, Yedioth Ahronoth, until recently the country’s highest-circulation daily newspaper, has disclosed that officials in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama reached out to the government of Iran through two European countries to communicate that the U.S. had no intention of participating in any attack on Iran that might be launched by Israel. Washington’s message also indicated that as a result of the U.S. staying on the sidelines, Iran had no reason to respond militarily against U.S. assets in the region following an attack by Israel, and that the U.S. did not want to be drawn into a conflict between the two countries.
This news story followed an extraordinary comment by the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, that the U.S. would not be “complicit” in any attack by Israel against Iran. Complicit is a word that suggests participation in a crime of some sort, and for the Obama administration, an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially one that took place before Election Day, November 6, would very likely be viewed as a serious crime against the Obama re-election campaign’s carefully crafted narrative of Obama the peacemaker, the president who brought the troops home. Hence the two-step narrative: Tell Israel to do nothing about Iran, but for insurance, tell Iran we will have no part in anything Israel might attempt — that Israel is on its own.
So much for the oft-repeated narrative that Obama has Israel’s back. Only a fool (or an Obama supporter reading from talking points) could argue at this point that sanctions, with all the waivers already granted by the administration, will bring the Iranians to their knees and force them to give up or suspend their nuclear program. Even less persuasive is the argument that diplomacy still needs more time to run its course.
The president’s foreign policy story in the campaign is a simple one: He ended the Iraq war, killed Bin Laden (and please give the president all or most of the credit for this), and he is beginning the disengagement from Afghanistan. Israel is an inconvenient subtext to this story.
Jews gave a large majority of their votes to Obama in 2008 (78 percent according to exit polls), believing (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) that Obama was a longtime strong supporter of Israel. Most Jews did not vote for Obama in 2008 because of his alleged love for Israel, but because Jewish Americans above all are committed liberals, and Obama was the most liberal of the candidates — both in the primary against Hillary Clinton and in the general election against John McCain. Israel is an issue in the voting decision for most American Jews only to the extent that the Democratic candidate can climb over a very low bar that has been established to demonstrate a candidate’s support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. That bar includes voting for foreign aid, publicly vowing one’s support for Israel and its security, committing oneself to working for peace and a two-state solution, and revealing a list of prominent (meaning wealthy) Jewish supporters (proving lack of guilt of being hostile to Israel by positive association).
For several years, Obama has been criticized by many on the Right, including the Republican Jewish Coalition, for having abandoned the traditional strong ties between the two countries. Obama’s personal relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been chilly on the warmest days. Obama has argued at meetings with leaders of major Jewish organizations that he has deliberately created space between the U.S. and Israel, since the close ties during the Bush years did not bring peace with the Palestinians. Many fear that in a second term, with no need to raise any more money for his campaign in the Jewish community, and no need to secure Jewish votes, Obama would show his true colors with regard to Israel. As Daniel Pipes summarizes in this situation:
“When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (‘This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility’), and in the context of Obama’s publicly displayed dislike for Netanyahu (as in this photo from 2008, in which he points a finger at the prime minister), it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on November 6, things will ‘calm down’ for him and he finally can ‘be more up-front’ about so-called Palestine. Then Israel’s troubles will really begin.”
On Tuesday, the Democratic National Convention began in Charlotte, North Carolina, with a tutorial for Jewish advocates on how to make the case that Obama is still a great friend of Israel, and has worked “tirelessly” to protect Israel’s security. Clearly, there is concern that some of that Jewish support from 2008 is ebbing away, as it has among almost every other group in America, mainly due to the very weak economic recovery and high unemployment levels. But Israel is a specific additional concern, since it could enable Mitt Romney to peel off some traditional liberal Jewish voters, threatening the president’s chances in some key battleground states, starting with Florida. Not surprisingly, after going through the checklist of all the good things Obama has done for Israel, the Jewish Obama advocates were encouraged on Tuesday to change the subject when making the case for the president’s re-election to things that really resonate with liberal Jews — abortion rights, separation of church and state, Obamacare, gay rights, taxing the rich, helping the poor, and perhaps a second helping of abortion rights.
The task of the Obama Jewish advocates did not become any easier due to two late developments. At the tutorial, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, stated that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, had told her that Republican criticism of Obama was dangerous to Israel. It did not take long for Oren to make a categorical denial of the claim, suggesting that Wasserman Schultz had invented the story, as she has many other things this election season. “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”
Even worse, the Democratic National Committee’s platform on Israel was released, and even the staunch liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz was taken aback with all the changes and retreats from positions the party had adopted at previous conventions, calling them deeply troubling. The platform seemed to read more like one that could have been written by J Street, rather than supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
“I think one shouldn’t give too much weight to platform pronouncements, but in this case, I think the omissions are troubling — particularly the omission about the Palestinian refugee issue and Hamas are, I think, deeply troubling,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller, responding to a report in the Washington Free Beacon demonstrating how this year’s Democratic Party platform is not as pro-Israel as in years past.”
So too, on the issue of Jerusalem, this year’s Democratic platform does not explicitly state that the city is the capital of Israel, while in past platforms it was explicitly stated. Since administration officials have now refused to acknowledge that any part of Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, the retreat on this issue is not surprising.
With the administration’s top officials running to Iran, and distancing themselves from Israel, and with a platform that will be hard to defend to pro-Israel supporters, Jewish voters should expect to hear a lot about abortion, contraception and women’s rights in the next two months.
Exclusive: Rivlin says Obama does… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.
US President Barack Obama’s administration does not understand the realities of the Middle East, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said Wednesday, amid ongoing speculation of a rift in US-Israel relations.
“The fact that the Democrats removed a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from their platform is more worrying than the argument over Iran,” Rivlin told The Jerusalem Post. “The change may have far-reaching consequences.”
Published earlier this week, the new Democratic platform speaks of US President Barack Obama’s “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” and describes the security assistance provided by Obama to Israel. It also emphasizes that “the president has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met” and that “President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel.”
According to Rivlin, anyone who thinks that dividing Jerusalem will bring peace is mistaken, and does not understand the Middle East. “A united Jerusalem will help bring peace and stability,” he stated.
The Knesset Speaker added that “rumors of a rift between Israel and the US are wrong,” and that the two countries have a “sharp, unambiguous understanding” on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions threaten not only Israel, but the whole free world.
Rivlin plans to discuss the Iranian threat with Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi later Wednesday.
MK Uri Ariel (National Union), chairman of the Knesset Caucus for Jerusalem, said Wednesday that “finally, Obama’s true face is revealed.”
According to Ariel, Obama previously acted against Jerusalem via surrogates and messengers, but now his actions show his intentions. “We must not worry. With or without Obama, Jerusalem will stay united under Israeli sovereignty forever,” the National Union MK added.
Iran Supplying Syrian Military via Iraq Airspace – NYTimes.com.
WASHINGTON — Iran has resumed shipping military equipment to Syria over Iraqi airspace in a new effort to bolster the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, according to senior American officials.
The Obama administration pressed Iraq to shut down the air corridor that Iran had been using earlier this year, raising the issue with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq. But as Syrian rebels gained ground and Mr. Assad’s government was rocked by a bombing that killed several high officials, Iran doubled down in supporting the Syrian leader. The flights started up again in July and, to the frustration of American officials, have continued ever since.
Military experts say that the flights have enabled Iran to provide supplies to the Syrian government despite the efforts Syrian rebels have made to seize several border crossings where Iranian aid has been trucked in.
“The Iranians have no problems in the air, and the Syrian regime still controls the airport,” said a retired Lebanese Army general, Hisham Jaber, who heads the Middle East Center for Studies and Research in Beirut.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has played the lead role on Iraq policy for the Obama administration, discussed the Syrian crisis in a phone call with Mr. Maliki on Aug. 17. The White House has declined to disclose details, but an American official who would not speak on the record said that Mr. Biden had registered his concerns over the flights.
The Iranian flights present searching questions for the United States. The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide arms to the Syrian rebels or establish a no-fly zone over Syria for fear of being drawn deeper into the Syrian conflict. But the aid provided by Iran underscores the reality that Iran has no such hesitancy in providing military supplies and advisers to keep Mr. Assad’s government in power.
And Mr. Maliki’s tolerance of Iran’s use of Iraqi airspace suggests the limits of the Obama administration’s influence in Iraq, despite the American role in toppling Saddam Hussein and ushering in a new government. The American influence also appears limited despite its assertion that it is building a strategic partnership with the Iraqis.
Mr. Maliki has sought to maintain relations with Iran, while the United States has led the international effort to impose sanctions on the Tehran government. At the same time, the Iraqi prime minister appears to look at the potential fall of Mr. Assad as a development that might strengthen his Sunni Arab and Kurdish rivals in the region. Some states that are the most eager to see Mr. Assad go, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, have poor relations with Mr. Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government.
Iraq could take several steps to stop the flights, including insisting that cargo planes that depart from Iran en route to Syria land for inspection in Baghdad or declaring outright that Iraq’s airspace cannot be used for the flights.
Iraq does not have a functioning air force, and since the withdrawal of American forces last December, the United States has no planes stationed in the country. Several airlines have been involved in ferrying the arms, according to American officials, including Mahan Air, a commercial Iranian airline that the United States Treasury Department said last year had ferried men, supplies and money for Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force and Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese group backed by Iran.
One former American official said it was not entirely clear what cargo was being sent to Syria before the flights stopped in March. But because of the type of planes involved, the nature of the carriers and the Iranians’ reluctance to have the planes inspected in Iraq, it was presumed to be tactical military equipment.
At the time the flights were suspended, Iraq was preparing to host the Arab League summit meeting, which brought to Baghdad many leaders opposed to Mr. Assad. Immediately after the meeting, President Obama, in an April 3 call to Mr. Maliki, reinforced the message that the flights should not continue.
Iran has an enormous stake in Syria. It is Iran’s staunchest Arab ally, a nation that borders the Mediterranean and Lebanon, and has provided a channel for Iran’s support to Hezbollah.
As part of Iran’s assistance to the Assad government, it has provided the Syrian authorities with the training and technology to intercept communications and monitor the Internet, according to American officials. Iranian Quds Force personnel, they say, have been involved in training the heavily Alawite paramilitary forces the government has increasingly relied on, as well as Syrian forces that secure the nation’s air bases.
The Iranians have even provided a cargo plane that the Syrian military can use to ferry men and supplies around the country, according to two American officials.
In a new twist, according to one American official, there have been reliable reports that Iraqi Shiite militia fighters, long backed by Iran during its efforts to shape events inside Iraq, are now making their way to Syria to help the Assad government.
While they have not specifically discussed the assistance it is airlifting to Syria, American officials have spoken publicly about Iran’s involvement there. “Iran is playing a larger role in Syria in many ways,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said last month. “There’s now an indication that they’re trying to develop, or trying to train, a militia within Syria to fight on behalf of the regime.”
David Cohen, a senior Treasury Department official on terrorism issues, said last month that Hezbollah has been training Syrian government personnel and has facilitated the training of Syrian forces by Iran’s Quds Force.
In his comments last month, Mr. Panetta insisted that the Iranian efforts would merely “bolster a regime that we think ultimately is going to come down.” But some Iranian experts believe that the Iranian leadership may be unlikely to stop its involvement in Syria even if Mr. Assad is overthrown, having calculated that a chaotic Syria is better than a new government that might be sympathetic to the West.
“Plan A is to keep Bashar al-Assad in power,” said Mohsen Sazegara, an Iranian pro-democracy activist who lives in the United States and who was one of the founding members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. “But Plan B is that if they can’t keep him in power anymore they will try to make another Iraq or another Afghanistan — civil war — then you can create another Hezbollah.”
As vocal as the Pentagon and the State Department have been about the Iranian role, they have been loath to publicly discuss the Iranian flights or the touchy questions it poses about American relations with the Maliki government. The State Department, when asked Tuesday about the Iranian flights over Iraq and what efforts the United States had made in Baghdad to encourage the Iraqi government to stop them, would not provide an official comment.
Iran on the verge of severe financial crisis: intelligence report.
Wednesday, 05 September 2012
An apparent classified Iranian intelligence report that has been leaked online warns of an imminent financial crisis in the country that would cause nation-wide upheaval.
Excerpts of the report, posted this week on several Iranian websites, revealed that the government might not be able to pay the full salaries of its employees in the coming three months, which threatens the eruption of massive popular protests across the country.
Large portions of the population might suffer from starvation, the report said, adding that riots are expected to take place in border cities where living conditions are rapidly deteriorating.
According to the report, Iran’s reserve of foreign currency might run out within the coming six month owing to extreme budget deficiency.
Other official reports have stated that Iranian factories are working on only half their capacity, and that a large number of them have declared bankruptcy.
Under international sanctions, inflation in the country has reached 33 percent and prices of meat, chicken, and milk saw an unprecedented hike that reached 80 percent last year.
The European embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil is costing the country an estimated $133 million in daily revenues, and the Iranian riyal has also witnessed an unprecedented drop.
The governor of the Iranian Central Bank, Mahmoud Bahmani, has announced a raising the official rate of the riyal against the dollar over the next 10 days in order to deal with the “international developments.”
But according to Iranian bankers, the official rate – 12,260 riyals to the dollar — was only a reference. There was a wide gap between the official and actual rates, which reportedly increased the prevalence of corruption within the Iranian government, since purchasing dollars with the official rates has become extremely profitable.
Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.
The comments came after the White House denied an Israeli news report that it was negotiating with Tehran to keep out of a future Israel-Iran war and as US President Barack Obama fends off accusations from his election rival that he is too soft on Tehran.
“The Zionist regime separated from America has no meaning, and we must not recognize Israel as separate from America,” Ali Fadavi, naval commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.
“On this basis, today only the Americans have taken a threatening stance towards the Islamic Republic,” Fadavi said. “If the Americans commit the smallest folly they will not leave the region safely.”
Too soon… too soon… too late! – JPost – Opinion – Op-Eds.
Technically, this is true, but Iran is just months from having sufficient fissile materials for its first bomb and if it disperses them, or actual bombs once operational, around the country, the US too will no longer have the ability to strike.
President Barack Obama maintains that his policy is one of prevention, not containment, and that the US will have sufficient intelligence to know if Iran is about to cross the nuclear threshold and would act to prevent this. The record, however, is not encouraging.
His predecessors, Bush and Clinton, maintained that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable, but it went nuclear nonetheless, and US intelligence on the North Korean, Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs was insufficient. The US did not even know about Libya’s or Syria’s programs and the intelligence on Iraq proved flawed. The question is whether Obama is wisely and cautiously navigating American policy in the face of an unusually difficult threat, or lacks the courage to make historic decisions in the face of grave dangers.
For Israel, no decision is more fateful.
A fierce and unprecedented debate is underway in Israel about the necessity and likely consequences of an Israeli strike, between those who believe that a nuclear Iran poses a truly existential threat and thus that Israel must act, and those who believe that it is “merely” grave, and that Israel could, in extremis, live with it.
As long as any viable alternatives exist, no one wishes to take military action, certainly not in the face of strong American opposition. Time, however, is running out.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both appear to be firmly among the existentialist camp and thus believe that Israel must act. Failing to do so and allowing Iran to go nuclear, they maintain, poses dangers to Israel that far outweigh the costs of the Iranian response and so they prefer to pay a limited, if certainly painful, price today, to forestall having to pay a far greater one in the future.
The question is whether Netanyahu and Barak are courageous leaders doing, as they repeatedly aver, what Western leaders failed to do in 1938 and may be failing to do once again, or are reckless. No matter how they act, they will be judged harshly.
An Israeli attack prior to November would expose Israel to charges that it was trying to “play” the American electoral cycle to its own advantage, even if the two were totally unrelated, and should be avoided. Immediately thereafter, however, Israel should demand clear assurances from the next president regarding his intentions, which would be more difficult in the event of a Romney victory, and which leaders are admittedly always loathe to give. After years of discussion, the two sides will finally have to put their cards on the table and make a decision.
If Obama is elected, but maybe not if Romney is, there may still be time for one last diplomatic push, but only if backed up with a clear threat and deadline, and the US should put a far more generous proposal on the table, so that no one can argue that it has not fully tried. Simply strengthening sanctions will no longer cut it, it is too late for that.
The next president will rapidly have to choose between an American naval blockade of Iran, as a prelude to direct attack, should this be necessary; defacto acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power, along with various attempts to promote deterrence and containment, possibly through security arrangements with Israel and Arab countries; an American military strike, or acceptance of an Israeli one.
Israel, too, will have to decide between an attack, or relying on its own and American deterrence. If the former, a major peace initiative would help deflect some of the criticism.
The choices are harsh, but they are the available choices and time is now measured in months, not years. Otherwise we may truly find ourselves in a situation of too soon… too soon…sorry, too late.
The writer is a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, and was a deputy national security adviser in Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming Zion’s Dilemmas: How Israel makes National Security Policy.
Iran: Zionists spread homosexuality to c… JPost – International.
BERLIN – A report in a state-controlled Iranian paper last week asserting that the “Zionist regime” “spreads homosexuality” across the globe in order to pursue its goal of world domination has sparked fierce criticism from experts on Iran because of its homophobia and anti- Semitism.
Mashregh News, an outlet affiliated with radical Islamists in Qom, wrote that the US and the UK are using money from Jews to spread homosexuality throughout the world. The article blasted Israel for promoting demonstrations for gay rights and specifically decried Tel Aviv as the gay paradise on earth. It also ridiculed Conservative Judaism for accepting gay rabbis, and urged Western governments to stop people from engaging in gay – and therefore immoral – actions, and provide medical treatment for homosexuals in order to stop their conduct.
Writing on Monday on the gay website GGG, Chris Karnak said the Mashregh item “reads like an article from the Nazi agitation paper Der Stürmer.”
Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, an expert on minority groups in Iran, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that the article is “against gays, against the West and anti-Semitic.” He added that “the text legitimizes the execution of gays in Iran; they made a text not only to ridicule the West but to provide a reason why Iran executes gays.”
The Iranian report also attacked Hollywood for depicting gays in positive terms on the silver screen. Moreover, according to the article, schools in California include homosexuality in their education plans because of a recommendation of a Jewish university.
Saba Farzan, a German-Iranian expert in the field of human rights in the Islamic Republic, wrote the Post via email on Tuesday: “This recent attack on human decency by the Iranian regime is tragically not surprising, but these vicious words continue to hurt. Once again this barbaric dictatorship has revealed its hatred towards gays and lesbians as well as towards the State of Israel and Western countries.”
“This is especially ridiculous as in the Middle East, Israel is the only state where the gay community is safe and protected,” she continued. “The Islamic Republic shows with this uncivilized world view how desperate it actually is.”
Netanyahu adjourns Iran security … JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.
In a rare and dramatic move, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday adjourned, because of leaks to the press, the second part of a security cabinet meeting that began Tuesday and dealt with Iran.
Netanyahu, according to a statement issued by his office, said at the outset of the meeting that “something grave happened shortly after the conclusion of the meeting yesterday: leaks from the security cabinet meeting.”
Netanyahu convened the security cabinet on Tuesday for an annual meeting on the country’s intelligence assessments, a meeting that dealt in depth with the Iranian issue.
Netanyahu said the security of the country rests on the ability of the security cabinet to hold classified and in-depth discussions where all the “facts, opinions and ramifications” are presented.
“This is basic tool for managing the country’s security. Someone yesterday harmed in a grave manner the confidence that the citizens put in this body. He broke the basic rules governing discussions in the security-cabinet. He also harmed the good name of all those who were in the meeting and did not leak the information,” he said.
Netanyahu’s ire was apparently aroused by the lead headline in Wednesday’s Yediot Aharonot, which read: “Disagreement about Iran among the intelligence agencies.”
According to the story, the members of the security cabinet were shocked to hear that the country’s different intelligence agencies – the Mossad, Shin Bet, and Army Intelligence – do not agree about the Iranian issue.
According to the report, the disagreement is over the so-called “zone of immunity,” that period where the Iranians will have progressed on their nuclear program beyond the point where an Israeli attack would be effective.
Netanyahu, adjourning the second part of the meeting, told the ministers that he did not have anything against the media, which was just doing its job. “I have a grievance against the person who broke the most basic trust needed to hold security cabinet meetings, and harmed the ability to hold classified meetings. I have a responsibility to the citizens of Israel and to the country’s security, and therefore I am disbanding this meeting.”
Tuesday’s meeting was the first in-depth meeting on Iran held by the security-cabinet in months.
While Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s inner cabinet, which is made up of Netanyahu and eight other ministers, can give an advisory opinion on whether to attack Iran, the actual decision needs to be made by the security cabinet. This body could also choose to bring such a decision to the full 29-member cabinet.
In addition to Netanyahu, the security cabinet also includes Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, Construction and Housing Minister Arial Attias, Minister Bennie Begin, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Interior Minister Moshe Ya’alon, National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau, Intelligence Agencies Minster Dan Meridor, Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, and Regional Development Minister Silvan Shalom.
Israel in danger thanks to Obama’s weak Iran policy – Conservative News.
Iran’s ayatollah likely favors the re-election of President Barrack Obama over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who calls for a get-tough Iran nuclear policy and has a reputation for delivering results. On this issue American voters have a real choice fueled by startling new revelations.
The diabolical Iranian nuclear issue earned headlines last week with the release of a report by the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That report includes frightening new details that Iran will soon have a nuclear-weapons “breakout” capability; the means to quickly build a weapon if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gives the order.
Iran’s nuclear program is the most pressing foreign policy issue in this presidential race because the consequences of failure are so costly. Should Iran achieve nuclear weapons, the Middle East’s balance of power will shift in favor of the ayatollahs, which will spark an arms race, pose an existential threat to Israel and eventually threaten our homeland.
Further, American voters must understand the Iranian regime is unlike any other enemy. Iran’s apocalyptic clerical leaders have a world view that justifies suicide bombings and they believe in the messianic return of their “hidden imam” as the world descends into chaos, perhaps precipitated by the use of nuclear weapons. The imam allegedly comes to establish Islam throughout the world.
The IAEA’s new report indicates Iran has sixteen declared nuclear facilities of which the most important is the regime’s underground Fordow facility near the holy city of Qom, which is safe from most aerial attacks. The IAEA reports the formerly secret facility houses 2,140 centrifuges for enriching uranium which is more than double the 1,064 centrifuges found there just three months ago.
Iran’s stockpile includes 15,127 pounds of 5 percent low enriched uranium for reactors and 417.6 pounds of 20 percent enriched uranium, which is 87 percent of the processing needed for bomb-grade material. Half of Iran’s 20 percent enriched uranium is allegedly intended for Tehran’s medical reactor and the balance could become part of the approximately 385 pounds requiring further enrichment to 90 percent to become bomb material. One hundred pounds of 20 percent uranium was produced at the Fordow facility just since this May, according to the IAEA.
The IAEA further reports Iran refuses to grant inspectors access to the Parchin military complex where Iranian scientists allegedly tested a type of detonator used to trigger nuclear explosions. UN officials cite satellite imagery showing “Significant ground scraping and landscaping … with new dirt roads” at Parchin, buildings have been demolished and August 2012 images “show the containment vessel building (used for explosive tests) shrouded.”
Iran denied the IAEA’s request to interview Mohsen Fakhrizadeth, a senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the physicist who previously oversaw Iran’s nuclear warhead research that was allegedly halted in 2003. The IAEA believes Mr. Fakhrizadeh opened a new nuclear weapons research facility in 2011, which is staffed by many of the same personnel who previously worked for him.
Finally, “We have concerns in various areas that indicate activities that are relevant to nuclear explosive devices,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Amano raised questions about weapons-related work post-2003 such as computer modeling to simulate the detonation of a nuclear bomb, evidence Iran worked on a neutron initiator to ignite a fissile reaction, and “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Iran has a large inventory of accurate ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and much of Eastern Europe and it “may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015,” which puts America’s homeland within striking distance, according to a recent Pentagon study.
The preponderance of the IAEA’s and other evidence suggests Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon capability. But Obama administration officials repeatedly tell the media they are not entirely sure if Iran really intends to build a bomb but they grant that ultimate intentions are unknowable.
Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak is convinced Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon capability and will soon cross a red line: the capability to produce nuclear weapons in a location safe from Israeli air attack such as Fordow. Barak says that “zone of immunity” is only a matter of weeks away and then Israel faces an existential threat.
Iranian leaders routinely threaten Israel’s existence. Last week Iran’s supreme leader said he was confident “the fake Zionist will disappear from the landscape of geography,” Iran’s Mehr News Agency reported.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity” and former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said “Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” Israel is a small country of 8 million souls.
No wonder Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so insistent the U.S. take action. But to date, Obama’s promise that he has “Israel’s back” failed to slow Iran’s nuclear advances.
Specifically, Obama came to office promising to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program through diplomacy and sanctions. But his failed diplomacy gave Iran three more years to advance its nuclear program and Iran is working around sanctions to sell its oil and import what it needs.
At last week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Mitt Romney said President Obama “has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat. In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We’re still talking. And Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning. President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.”
Romney proposes a tough Iran policy that includes a credible military option, repairs relations with Israel, imposes harsh sanctions that deny the regime financial resources, creates true diplomatic isolation for the mullahs, supports the Iranian opposition that Obama has denied, and commits America to a fully capable missile defense system for Europe.
Iran’s ayatollah understandably favors Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney, who is a pro-Israel, hard-nosed businessman with a tough Iran policy agenda and years of executive experience. American voters have a real choice this election, which could well decide Israel’s future and our own security.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments