WarSclerotic

No ‘rational’ country would challenge the US with a nuclear program, says Iran’s foreign minister | The Times of Israel.

Ali Akbar Salehi tells Council on Foreign Relations in New York that a ‘phantom third-party’ is disrupting nuclear talks

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi speaks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (photo credit: CFR screenshot)

NEW YORK — Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that nuclear talks between his country and Western powers were being “disrupted” by “a phantom third-party,” and that his country had no desire to challenge the US with a nuclear weapons program.

“Each time that the two sides came close to some kind of understanding, mutual understanding, somehow it was disrupted… A phantom third-party has disrupted this,” he said at an event Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“But we have not lost hope,” he added.

Salehi, a longtime senior Iranian nuclear negotiator and former Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, gave no details on who the third party might be.

Salehi indicated Iran was opposed to developing a nuclear weapon, saying such a weapon would “invite more threats” and pit the Islamic Republic against a better-armed United States.

Asked if an Iranian bomb might bring about greater regional stability, Salehi said, “No … Had Iran chosen to go nuclear in the sense of weaponization … it would attract more threats and invite more threats from the other side. Because suppose we wanted to go nuclear and manufacture one or two rudimentary bombs, who is on the other side? It’s not India and Pakistan. Seemingly, it is Iran and the US.”

He added: “Can we ever be on equal footing with the US in this regard? Does any rational person think to challenge the US? A country like Iran? Nuclear wise?” No, he said. “Certainly not.”

Iran, he said, is “a morally driven” political entity, he said, and a nuclear bomb “would go against its beliefs.” Moreover, he stated, Iran had good relations with what he said were its “15″ neighbors; he did not mention Israel.

Salehi spoke out in support of the Assad regime, though he acknowledged that “some mistakes” were committed by the Syrian government in its response to an opposition-led insurgency against President Bashar Assad. Tens of thousands have been killed in 19 months of bloody conflict between government forces and the opposition.

“We wish [the Syrian government] had taken a better position… in the outbreak of the uprising,” Salehi said. “There were some mistakes committed, but this does not justify in any way interference from outside. We are not in a position… we never think, ever, to tell the president of a country, ‘Please step down.’”

The Iranian foreign minister seemed to draw a line at the suggestion that the Syrian regime might use chemical weapons. The Obama administration has stated that it regards the use of such weapons as its own red line that would justify military intervention on the part of the United States.

“If a country, any country, including Iran, uses weapons of mass destruction, that is the end of the validity, eligibility, legality of that government…. It is something that is not at all acceptable,” Salehi said.

“Therefore, if your hypothesis [that Syria might deploy chemical weapons in its battle with the insurgency], God forbid, ever materializes, I think nobody can justify it anymore; Nobody can go along with anybody who has been involved in such… inhuman acts.”

Israel Hayom | Iranian leaders furious at failure to defeat Syrian insurgents.

Netanyahu Aligns With Obama On Iran – By Joel Rubin | The Middle East Channel.

Posted By Joel Rubin Tuesday, October 2, 2012 – 12:13 PM

While most media attention focused on the cartoon bomb presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, something even more newsworthy passed almost without notice:  Netanyahu made it clear that he has endorsed U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy on Iran. By literally drawing a red line to show how far he could tolerate Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu in effect approved of the international efforts led by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

In fact, while he would never admit it in the midst of a campaign, even Mitt Romney picked up on this view and has, in practice, endorsed Obama’s approach. That sudden outbreak of unspoken consensus is the real story of the last week of diplomacy. The real question now is what can be done with the broad agreement that there is both time and space for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program that has created a new window of opportunity. And that depends on two big wildcards: what Netanyahu’s red lines really are, and Iran’s real intentions and capabilities.

In Netanyahu’s speech, he made it clear that Israel has a red line for the Iranian nuclear program. While this red line for military action has evolved over the years, it now appears to be the point at which Iran has enough low enriched uranium — at nearly 20 percent enrichment levels — to potentially produce one nuclear bomb. In Netanyahu’s estimation, that time won’t come until sometime next year, perhaps in the spring or even the summer. If Iran were to achieve that level, it would be threatening enough for Israel to justify striking Iran, according to Netanyahu.

The prime minister identified this as his red line because it would be the furthest point at which Israel could feasibly attack Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

As the prime minister said:

“The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb. The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.”

Israel, according to nearly three-dozen bipartisan national security leaders who signed onto a report by the Iran Project, doesn’t have the capacity to conclusively destroy Iran’s nuclear program. However, it does have the capacity to delay it through bombing enrichment facilities. But that would be a disaster, as it would likely unravel the international pressure on Iran to come clean, unleash a devastating war in the region, fuel antagonism toward the United States, and fail to permanently end the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Yet if past is prologue, Israel tends to strike its adversaries’ nuclear facilities when it feels vulnerable, not when the international community deems it wise. Israel struck the nuclear facilities at Osirak in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 — but only made limited strikes. In the case of Iraq, the attack drove the program underground and accelerated its push for nuclear weapons — an outcome that Israel would not want today in Iran.

In this case, by appearing to set a red line, Netanyahu actually gave a boost to the role of serious U.S. diplomacy to resolve this issue. This is because of what Netanyahu didn’t say in his speech: that any Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable. This little-noticed absence gives a crucial boost to the prospects for a nuclear deal. He only said that Iran should not be allowed to enrich enough uranium to have the makings of a bomb. By implication, this means that — with strict safeguards, commitments to cap enrichment levels, and export or conversion of uranium for reactor fuel plates — Israel could live with an Iranian nuclear program. This is where the international negotiations, led by the Obama administration, have been heading. And now Netanyahu has publicly signed off on this approach.

Of course, Iran has a role to play, and could continue to keep Israel and the international community on the edge of their seats by proceeding to raise and lower the levels of its stockpile as it sees fit. This is because it takes roughly 225 kg of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium to make one bomb’s worth of fissile material — although that material would still need to be purified up to 90 percent levels. It’s important to remember that, according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, Iran recently reduced its stockpile of 20 percent uranium to less than half of that red line, from 101 kg to 91 kg, by converting a portion of the stockpile into fuel plates for use at the Tehran Research Reactor.

But there are severe downsides for Iran to continue to play such games, as the devastating sanctions currently in place will remain. Iran, which needs to get out from under the international pressure and isolation, should seize the opportunity to credibly deal at the negotiating table with the United States and its international partners. There is no guarantee that it will do so, but the time will soon come when it must show its cards.

Now that the speeches are over and the threat of immediate war has receded, the real work of diplomacy must step in to resolve this dispute. It’s clear from Netanyahu’s speech last week that a diplomatic deal that allows for some type of Iranian nuclear program is in the cards. It’s also clear that Israel depends on the sanctions that the Obama administration has orchestrated, on the information gathered by IAEA inspectors about Iran’s nuclear program, and on the multilateral negotiations underway.

So all eyes are on Washington to guide the diplomacy to resolve this sticky situation without a war. Backing up the support for diplomacy is the fact that the American people oppose getting involved in another war of choice in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the United States and Israel may still decide that they, in fact, have no choice. Yet one thing is certain from last week: U.S. leadership in the Middle East is neither diminished nor irrelevant. If anything, it is clear that it is working, and that it will be counted-on even more in the days to come.

Joel Rubin is the Director of Policy and Government Affairs at Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

‘To annihilate Israel, we need j… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: REUTERS/Fars News

Iranian source: Nuclear program hiring ‘non-stop,’ ramping up enrichment | The Times of Israel.

‘The knowledge is there but getting the right parts has been difficult at times,’ says secretive contact

Iranian technicians work at a facility producing uranium fuel for a planned heavy-water nuclear reactor, outside Isfahan, 255 miles (410 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran, in 2009. (photo credit: AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

Iran is recruiting staff relentlessly to work on its nuclear program, is making steady progress in its uranium enrichment, and has constructed several facilities for nuclear testing outside Tehran whose precise location is known only to high-ranking officials, according to an Iranian source who said he was hired recently as a researcher at one of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In a telephone interview with this reporter, who has made several reporting trips to Iran in recent years, the source — who spoke on condition of anonymity — said it had been “very hectic” of late at the facility where he is employed. “More and more young graduates and people are brought in every day,” he said. “We have been working non-stop.”

The information provided by the source could not be independently verified. The contact would not specify where he is employed.

The Iranian researcher said he was speaking because he wanted the outside world to know that, despite attacks on Iran’s top scientists and other pressures aimed at halting the nuclear program, “we are not afraid and we have continued to progress.”

Without detailing the quantities involved, the source said that Iran had already enriched uranium to 30 percent, and “by next year, we hope to reach up to 50 or even 60 percent. The experience and knowledge is there, but getting the right parts at times has been difficult.” He said some equipment being received was “not reliable and sometimes defective.”

An Iranian member of parliament spoke earlier this summer about a need for 50-60% enriched uranium, ostensibly for nuclear propulsion for ships.

Iran has received assistance for its nuclear program from various countries, including Russia, Pakistan and North Korea, Western diplomats say. Some centrifuges and centrifuge components were obtained in the 1990s from a procurement network run by the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and some subsequent Iranian centrifuge design has reportedly been based on the Pakistani designs.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sets out his ‘red line’ for Iran on a cartoon bomb drawing during a September 27 speech to the General Assembly (photo credit: Avi Ohayun, GPO)

The Iranian researcher’s comments came soon after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted in TV interviews that Iran’s nuclear drive had to be halted “at the enrichment stage.” In a speech to the UN last Thursday, Netanyahu said Iran was “well into the second stage” — of “medium enrichment” of uranium for a bomb. “By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”

The researcher said “many of our laboratories and testing facilities” have been constructed underground, and spoke of “other non-official test facilities outside of Tehran.” Only high-ranking officials had information on these, he said.

Professor Uzi Even at his Tel Aviv University office (Photo credit: Mitch Ginsburg/ Times of Israel)

Professor Uzi Even, one of the founders of Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona, told The Times of Israel a month ago that he believes the regime in Iran has already covertly created the 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary to conduct a successful underground test.

In response to the Iranian contact’s comments, Even elaborated on Iran’s progress. He said there was “no reason or need for Iran to enrich uranium” unless it was aiming to build a nuclear arsenal,” and then described how Iran has gone about doing so.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz enrichment facility in 2008 (photo credit: http://www.president.ir)

Even said the “amount of material flow required for the first enrichment stage — to 3% from natural abundance of 0.7% — is highest, and thus requires many thousands of centrifuges.” This had been going on at Iran’s Natanz facility for five years.

The second stage of enrichment — to 20% — “requires a much smaller effort,” he said, involving 2,000 centrifuges — a fifth of the centrifuges used in stage one. This has been carried out at Iran’s Fordo underground plant, near Qom, for the past two years, Even said, stressing that he was basing himself solely on publicly available information and had no access to classified material.

Finally, the third stage of enrichment — from 20% to 90%, or weapon-grade — “requires even fewer centrifuges, 500 units, and can be easily hidden in a small underground unit, not much bigger than 1,000 square meters, that is almost impossible to detect from a satellite and can be easily hidden anywhere in Iran.”

“At this concentration,” Even went on, “turning the gaseous compound used in enrichment into a solid core required for weapon is tricky, because it can become ‘critical’ and cause a radiation accident.” He stressed that such an accident would not be akin to a bomb exploding, but would “release enough radiation to kill the people handling the device.”

There have been various reports of mysterious explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities in recent years, including one at the uranium enrichment facility at Isfahan last November. The IAEA has also repeatedly sought access to the Parchin facility, where it suspects Iran has carried out tests relating to its nuclear program and has then sought to cover up evidence of such testing.

Even estimated that the Iranians have already accumulated enough weapons-grade fissile material to try to design a nuclear warhead. “They could test it underground tomorrow,” he said, “but it is still several years before such a design could be made to fit the missiles they have. For two or three years,” he concluded, “Iran cannot be considered a nuclear threat to anyone.”

Syrian media raps Hamas leadership for abandoning Assad regime – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

State TV describes militant group leader Khaled Meshal as ‘ungrateful and traitorous;’ fighting intensifies in Damascus, as video of missing U.S. journalist surfaces.

Empty streets are seen as smoke rises from Aleppo’s Bustan al-Qasr district, due to heavy shelling on the area, October 1, 2012. Photo by Reuters

Syria’s state-run media have criticized the leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas – once a staunch ally of the Damascus regime – for turning his back on President Bashar Assad.

Syrian TV in a late Monday broadcast described Hamas leader Khaled Meshal as “ungrateful and traitorous.”

Meshal used to be based in Damascus but now spends most of his time in Qatar, which backs Syrian rebels battling Assad’s troops. Most Hamas leaders have left Syria to settle in Egypt, where their allies in the Muslim Brotherhood are in power.

Relations between Assad’s regime and Hamas have been disintegrating since Syria’s uprising erupted over 18 months ago. Hamas at first took a neutral stance, but then in February, the group praised Syrians for “moving toward democracy and reform.”

Syrian troops intensified their attack on an area near Damascus for the second day on Tuesday, activists said. “Nine people were killed and 30 wounded in the area of Douma as troops stormed the outskirts of the region,” activist Haytham al-Abdallah said from the Syrian capital.

The heavy shelling prompted many residents to flee to safer regions overnight.

Activists in Lebanon said Syrian troops had also launched a wide-scale attack on Zabadani, near Lebanon, from where the shelling could be heard.

Syrian ebels seized overnight an undisclosed number of missiles when they attacked an air force base in the eastern Damascus area of Ghotta, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Fighting also continued in Aleppo, the country’s largest city and commercial center, with rebels claiming to have scored advances in the key neighborhood of Hanano.

Meanwhile, a video allegedly showing Austin Tice, an American freelance journalist who has been missing in Syria since August 13, surfaced online.

In the 47-second-long video, headlined “Austin Tice still alive,” the journalist was shown blindfolded, repeating verses from an Islamic prayer before crying out in English, “Oh, Jesus.”

He had written for several news outlets, including the Washington Post and McClatchy Newspapers.

The video, which was posted on YouTube on September 26 but had previously escaped notice, shows the alleged Tice held hostage by what appeared to be Islamist militants who hid their faces from the camera.

Iran targets speculators as rial… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Russia warns NATO to stay away from Syria – JPost – Middle East.

Why US won’t attack Iran – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

The US has a number of reasons not to attack Iran. These are some of them:

Op-ed: Americans weary of war in distant countries; changing Democratic Party less supportive of Israel

Avraham Zilkha

The violent protests that erupted in the Arab and Islamic world recently serve as a reminder to the US of what may happen should it attack Iran. If this was the reaction to a primitive movie about the prophet Mohammed, how will the Muslims respond to a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations? It is safe to assume that in such an event the Sunni-Shia divide won’t serve as a moderating factor. Even if Israellaunches a go-it-alone attack, the US will be accused at least of assisting the Jewish state – if not of actually taking part in the strike – and will be exposed to more acts of terror.

The Obama administration’s fear of a rift with the Muslim world was evident in the numerous conciliatory statements made by the American president during his speech before the UN General Assembly. He dedicated a significant part of his address to lauding the revolutions which swept the Arab world over the past year and stressed Washington’s support for the uprisings. At the same time, he addressed the Iranian crisis only briefly.

The US has a number of reasons not to attack Iran. These are some of them:

1. Since the Vietnam War the US has not gone to war without an international coalition, although it has always shouldered most of the burden. This was the case in the Gulf War, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the campaigns in the former Yugoslavia and in Libya. Obama was criticized for leading the NATO forces’ victory in Libya ‘from afar,’ and some considered this to be his new doctrine. Even during the invasion of the island of Grenada in 1983 President Reagan had a small coalition. Obama will need a much broader coalition of nations to share the military and economic burden of an attack on Iran, but the chances that he will succeed in forming such a coalition for a war that will mostly benefit Israel are slim. In 1967, President Johnson failed to form an international force to break the naval siege of Eilat. Even if Obama does succeed, the process will be long and will not coincide with Netanyahu’s timetable.

2. Just like Israel’s security establishment, the American security establishment is not interested in a war in Iran at this juncture. The recent statements made by the chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the defense secretary have made this abundantly clear. The opposition to an attack stems mainly from the fact that the US armed forces are spread out in a number of countries and are worn out after 10 consecutive years of fighting. The US Army is also fearful of budget cuts that would make it difficult to replenish its arsenal after any campaign against Iran.

3. A sharp rise in the price of oil, which would almost certainly follow any attack on Iran, would severely hurt the US economy. Such a development would hinder Obama’s plans to rescue the American economy from the current crisis. The cost of a war on Iran would also increase the US’ national debt, which currently tops $16 trillion.

4. While the average American is hostile to the Iranian regime, the majority of the US public has grown weary of war, particularly in distant countries, and is no longer interested in being the ‘world’s police officer.’ Israel’s harsh threats have made Iran’s nuclear program an Israeli problem, and despite the support for the Jewish state among Conservatives and Evangelicals, recent polls show that 60-70% of Americans are against going to war with Iran.

5. Within the Democratic Party, the traditional pro-Israel consensus between the workers’ unions and the liberal camp is dissipating, to some extent due to Israel’s policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Moreover, many Jewish supporters of the Democratic Party are disgusted by what they view as the domination of religion, racism and nationalism over the Jewish state. The party’s character is changing with the addition of many African-Americans and Hispanics, who do not support Israel. The omission of language declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from the Democratic Party’s platform is indicative of this trend. Due to demographic changes, if he is reelected Obama will have difficulties waging a war that appears to be an Israeli interest without the support of his party, at the very least. It must also be remembered that Obama believes in diplomatic solutions to international disputes and also seeks reconciliation with the Muslim world.

There is no doubt that Obama wants to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb, but he has many reasons not to employ military force to achieve this goal. We shouldn’t expect Romney to act any different if he is elected president.

Avraham Zilkha is an associate professor of Hebrew and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas at Austin