WarSclerotic

America’s Credibility Problem with Iran | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

In recent weeks, Iran has been ratcheting up pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), accusing its inspectors of spying and sabotage, and threatening to further restrict the agency’s access to its nuclear facilities. The target of the regime’s finger pointing has typically been Israel and the United States. Its new focus on the IAEA likely reflects a continuation of its current strategy, namely, to keep stalling for time as unending diplomatic rounds continue, all the while continuing to expand its nuclear program.

Much of Tehran’s decision to focus on the IAEA appears as a response to the agency’s latest report, which reveals that Iran has doubled down on its uranium enrichment activities in recent months, doubling the number of centrifuges at its Fordo nuclear site while blocking the agency’s access to the Parchin military installation where nuclear-related experiments were believed to be carried out.

Meanwhile, Tehran’s nuclear enrichment activities have proceeded apace. According to Hossein Mousavian, former head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council, when the P5+1 talks were taking place in Moscow in June, Iran had not only mastered enrichment to the 20 percent level, but it had domestically produced fuel rods for use in the Tehran reactor, about 10,000 centrifuges, more than 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (LEU), and 150 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium.

With diplomatic efforts to bring Iran’s nuclear program to heel continuing to fail, American policy toward the Islamic Republic remains problematic. For the first two years of Barack Obama’s term as president, U.S. policy sought
to reverse Iran’s nuclear progress through open dialogue—Obama’s outstretched hand and diplomatic engagement based on mutual respect and mutual interests. As it became clear that the U.S. and Iran have divergent interests with respect to their nuclear program, the White House jettisoned that approach and imposed economic sanctions. But with the mixed messaging coming out of Washington and partially enforced economic sanctions, Iran’s leaders remain unconvinced that the U.S. would resort to military force so they’re pressing ahead.

Mixed Messages from Washington

Although the purpose of the economic sanctions leveled at Iran is to provide more time for diplomacy to work, the Obama administration has sent contradictory messages to the regime that serve to undermine that very effort. In fact, the U.S. currently has no clear policy objectives for Iran’s nuclear program. While President Obama has said that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that U.S. policy “is to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons capability.” The key word is capability. The difference is not mere semantics; it is significant because Obama’s policy would allow Iran to enrich and stockpile weapons-grade uranium. The last step necessary to make a nuclear weapon from that point can be carried out secretly and quickly.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper also weighed in earlier this year telling the Senate that “Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.” Adding to the administration’s messaging mess are the frequent comments made by senior U.S. officials stressing that there is no clear evidence that Iran has decided to make a nuclear weapon. How, then, does the current administration measure nuclear capability? If the administration believes that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon, is Iran’s nuclear program even seen as a problem?

All of this should be seen in a context where the United States used to accept zero percent enrichment from Iran and previously worked to pass six United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for it to suspend its nuclear enrichment program in toto. Despite those UN resolutions, Western powers appear ready to grant Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the right to enrich uranium to 5 percent. According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director of the IAEA, enrichment to 5 percent would put Iran two-thirds of the way toward making weapons-grade uranium. If the West draws a new enrichment red line at 20 percent, it would leave Iran with 13,000 pounds of LEU, which is enough to make five nuclear weapons. Tehran would then be free to process its 5 percent stockpile and continue its centrifuge development. The regime would also be able pursue nuclear arms development through several easily concealable and compartmented programs. And it could do so without any formal weapons program. The key is not playing with enrichment percentages; it is preventing Iran’s production of centrifuges.

America’s Credibility Gap

Each red line offered by this administration has been pink and the Iranian regime has yet to be presented with the kind of repercussions that would induce a lasting change in behavior. This creates a credibility problem for the U.S. when it claims that there will be consequences for continued Iranian intransigence.

Indeed, President Obama’s crossed signals extend not just to Iran but to Israel as well. Following reports in the media would lead one to believe that U.S. and Israeli objectives vis-à-vis Iran are different, as the lion’s share of U.S. messaging is devoted to preventing Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, rather than preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons capability. President Obama’s formulation, where “all options are on the table,” or Leon Panetta’s formulation, where if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Washington would “take whatever steps necessary to stop it” are not credible when both Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsy publicly state how problematic a U.S. attack on Iran would be, let alone an Israeli attack. The U.S. military deterrent is further compromised when Defense Secretary Panetta emphasizes that a military attack would be “really destabilizing” and “of greater concern to me are the unintended consequences.”

The truth, however, is that setting a red line is a tool of diplomacy that can create stability and avoid possible conflicts. It provides a context for negotiations. Yet Barack Obama’s insistence that “time is not unlimited” while publicly pleading for Israel’s patience is a far cry from a red line. From Iran’s perspective, the threat of military force is not credible when Mr. Obama’s red lines are not fixed and his administration disparages the effectiveness of a military strike, while belittling Israel’s security concerns by likening its unease to “noise.”

A Focus on Sanctions

The core of President Obama’s effort to sanction Iran is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which expanded the scope of existing sanctions to cover refined petroleum products, a wide range of financial transactions, and abuses of human rights. The White House followed the move with several Executive Branch orders and Treasury Department designations targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, prohibiting international financial institutions from conducting transactions with Iran’s central bank, and taking aim at Iran’s petrochemical sector.

In March 2012, American and European pressure led the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to blacklist scores of Iranian banks, essentially cutting the country off most international commerce. Also in mid-2012, the European Union went ahead with its ban on importing Iranian oil, which until then accounted for almost a fifth of Iran’s crude exports. Collectively, the sanctions have impacted Iran’s economy.

President Obama is fond of proclaiming that his administration passed “the toughest sanctions ever imposed on the Iranian government.” But while they are extensive, they remain under-enforced and are only crippling the Iranian people—not the regime.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fiscal policies have also greatly exacerbated Iran’s already dire economic situation. Iranian currency has been dropping like a stone since September 2010, losing more than 80 percent of its value. As Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy explained, the official consumer price index in August saw a dramatic 23.9 percent increase over the previous year with the sharpest rise associated with food products, such as a 74 percent increase for both chicken and fresh fruit, and an 81 percent increase for vegetables. But it would be a mistake for Washington to claim credit for Iran’s financial woes. As Iran’s Majlis speaker, Ali Larijani, revealed in July, “The country’s economic problems are only 20 percent due to sanctions. Unfortunately, the main origin of inflation comes from the maladroit application of the plan to suppress subsidies.”

However one applies blame, there are both external and internal reasons for Iran’s economic crisis and relying on economic sanctions alone to affect the regime’s thinking when it comes to its nuclear program would be foolhardy. Given Tehran’s crushing response to the thousands that gathered in 2009 to protest the fraudulent presidential elections, it is clear that the well-being of the Iranian people is far less a consideration than maintaining the stability of the regime—a position that it views as greatly enhanced and insulated from foreign threats if it possesses nuclear weapons.

Yet despite the centrality of economic sanctions to the White House’s effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the full arsenal of U.S. economic sanctions has yet to be brought to bear against the threat from Iran. China, Singapore, Japan, and 10 European countries including France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium have been extended waivers. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been reluctant to enforce the sanctions against foreign companies that do business with Iran, despite the wide and bipartisan room Congress has granted the president to maneuver. That reluctance is because successive administrations have demonstrated a preference for trade over international security. Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council explains:

“As a result, they have repeatedly shied away from truly imposing harsh economic penalties on Iran’s trading partners. The countries and companies that serve as Iran’s economic lifeline thus haven’t truly been asked to choose between their dealings with Iran and their relationship with the United States. And because they haven’t, these entities continue to harbor a “business as usual” approach to the Islamic Republic… Instead, leery of roiling relations with vital international trade partners and worried about imperiling America’s fragile economic recovery, the Obama administration has shied away from seriously harnessing the economic tools at its disposal… The end result is a U.S. sanctions regime that, while robust on paper, is flimsy in practice—systematically underutilized by an Executive skittish over its potential adverse consequences.”

The Need for an Iran Strategy

The structural problem in America’s current Iran policy persists in that the Obama administration often confuses tactics for strategy. Sanctions are a tactic; they are not a strategy in and of themself. For sanctions to be effective in modifying the behavior of the Iranian regime they have to be combined with other tactics such as military, messaging, and ideological components. Moreover, most evidence suggests that sanctions grow less effective over time. The only way they could succeed is if the people in Iran rise up to depose the regime. And that will require a different approach than the policy President Obama promulgated in 2009, when he stood by as the Iranian regime brutally crushed the opposition.

With a non-credible military threat, confused messaging, and a growing credibility gap, under-enforced economic sanctions have become the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s deterrent strategy. And that will likely leave the Iranian regime undeterred.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is the Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly.

United States, Israel conduct Austere Challenge anti-missile exercise – UPI.com.

Israeli soldiers stand near the Iron Dome, a new anti-rocket system, stationed near the southern city of Beersheba, Israel, March 27, 2011. The Israeli Defense Force deployed the $200 million Iron Dome system in response to dozens of rockets fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza in the past weeks. The Iron Dome is meant to protect Israeli towns from rockets fired from Gaza. UPI/Debbie Hill

License photo

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/10/23/Biggest-anti-missile-drill-for-Israel-US/UPI-88561351017201/#ixzz2ABeEqyTr

Hezbollah Prepares for a Wider War Than It May Want – Bloomberg.

Illustration by Clay Hickson

Hezbollah’s launching of a pilotless spy plane, which was shot down by Israel’s air force in the southern part of the country in early October, has been seen as more evidence that the Lebanese militia is preparing for war.

Israelis assume that the drone was gathering visual intelligence to help Hezbollah in its goal of bombarding distant targets with long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

No doubt it was collecting information in case of another confrontation with Israel, but whether the terrorist group is seeking a full-blown war is a more complicated question that may depend less on what Hezbollah wants than on the heat it is getting from its patrons.

The group’s possession of so sophisticated a craft (which was assembled from Iranian-made parts) is further evidence that Hezbollah is the most advanced and best-equipped militia of its kind the world has ever seen.

Ever since it forced the Israelis’ panicky retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been building up an immense military force, with firepower that 90 percent of the world’s countries don’t possess, according to Meir Dagan, the former director of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

The militia’s war doctrine is based on the assumption that Israel is hypersensitive to civilian casualties, that it cannot wage a protracted war and that it will always aim for the quickest possible clear-cut victory. With this in mind, Hezbollah has constructed a complex network of underground bunkers with the goal of assuring survivability, redundancy and an ability to maintain a prolonged missile barrage against Israeli cities.

Successful Strategy

The doctrine proved itself in the war between the two sides in 2006, when Israel failed in its attempt to liquidate Hezbollah and was once again forced to withdraw from Lebanon, bruised and bleeding.

Hezbollah’s approach to combat came from Iran. The organization was founded in 1983 by Iran’s revolutionary guards as part of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s plan to export his revolution. Over the years, with Iranian funding and encouragement, the group has become the most important political and military player in Lebanon.

In recent years, Hezbollah has taken on an additional role, serving as an effective bargaining chip in the balance of fear between Iran and Israel, deterring the latter from going ahead with any mission to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. One reason that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has held back is Hezbollah’s ability to wreak havoc in Israel with its huge stockpile of some 70,000 missiles and rockets, the most powerful of which is the Scud D, with a range of 700 kilometers (about 435 miles). Were it not for Hezbollah’s missiles, a top Israeli defense official told me, Israel would have struck Iran’s sites long ago.

That said, one shouldn’t draw conclusions based only on Hezbollah’s past and potential successes. The organization is at a crossroads. Syria, its second-most-important ally, is going through upheaval and faces fundamental changes. The munitions from Iran to Hezbollah are transported through Syria. The regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has also supplied large weapons to Hezbollah, as well as provided access to launching sites — “the strategic bases,” as Mossad calls them — for its missile barrages against Israel.

Any regime that takes over from Assad will remember who supported him as he slaughtered thousands of civilians. Being cut off from Syria is a nightmare for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Lebanon’s Role

No less menacing is the possibility, which is by no means far-fetched, that the Arab Spring will reach Lebanon, a prospect that might include a rebellion against Hezbollah’s state within a state. Even the regime in Iran is far from rock solid, and changes there could significantly worsen Hezbollah’s relations with its patron.

With the perspective of time, what appeared to be a victory over Israel in 2006 takes on a more complex cast. The war began when Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Israel’s massive response came as a surprise to Nasrallah, and he admitted publicly that he hadn’t expected it. Although Hezbollah survived and was seen to have won that round, Lebanon as a whole sustained heavy damage and many Lebanese blamed Nasrallah for precipitating it.

Nasrallah is aware that the next confrontation with Israel will look different. The Israelis have invested in vast intelligence operations since 2006. Hezbollah believes that these efforts were evident in the February 2008 killing in Damascus of Imad Moughniyeh, the group’s military commander, with a booby-trapped headrest in his car, as well in mysterious explosions at some of its illicit missile depots in Lebanon.

More important, Israel has already declared several times that if and when war breaks out again, it will hold the Lebanese government responsible and will destroy government targets.

The 2006 war created a mutual deterrence: the Israelis refrain from an open pre-emptive assault against Hezbollah’s missile stockpiles, while the militia is compelled to moderate its responses. Instead, it has tried to avenge Mughniyeh’s assassination and other suspected Israeli actions by attacking Israeli tourists and diplomats in far-flung locations, outside of the Middle East, from New Delhi, and Baku, Azerbaijan, to Bangkok.

Nasrallah’s predicament springs chiefly from his dual role as Iran’s proxy and an authentic Lebanese leader who would like to be seen as leader of all the Arabs, not only of the Shiites. It was on behalf of the Iranians, senior Israeli intelligence officials told me, that Hezbollah operatives attacked Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian resort of Burgas on July 18, killing six people.

Iran’s Power

This was seen as revenge for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists for which Iran blames Israel. And it is for Iran’s benefit that Hezbollah has made such intense preparations for war, including the recent drone reconnaissance mission. Iran, in the event of an Israeli assault on its territory, will demand that Hezbollah wreak vengeance on its behalf, and Nasrallah, the Lebanese politician, is aware that this could lead to devastation in his country, for which he will be blamed.

Yet it is doubtful that Nasrallah, who owes everything he possesses to Iran, could say no to such an order from his patrons. Israeli intelligence sources reckon that he may well select a middle path — a barrage that is limited in both the number of missiles launched and in time, so that Israel won’t feel obligated to launch a full-scale military attack in response. This would be a dangerous gamble.

As Nasrallah has learned, it is not always possible to know what to expect from the other side, especially when it comes to the Israelis. Even a limited engagement could deteriorate into a war.

(Ronen Bergman is a senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs for Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli daily, and a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Obama, Netanyahu Curb Iran Feud to Avoid Election Boomerang – SFGate.

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advised President Barack Obama last month to back off, saying the U.S. had “no moral right” to stop Israel from attacking Iran in a bid to cripple its nuclear program.

In turn, Obama decided not to meet the Israeli leader on his next visit to the U.S. The president compounded the snub when he said in a “60 Minutes” interview that he would “block out the noise” if Netanyahu kept pushing for military action.

What a difference a month makes when both Obama and Netanyahu are fighting for re-election. Heeding advisers who said the nasty exchanges were hurting them both, Netanyahu pushed his horizon for an assault against Iranian nuclear facilities from October to next spring while speaking at the United Nations Sept. 27. Obama issued a press release the next day saying the two chatted by phone and were in “full agreement” on Iran, easing the confrontation between them.

“There’s a great feeling of relief that Netanyahu switched gears,” David Makovsky, an Israel-watcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in a telephone interview. “The only people who win when the U.S. and Israel are squabbling are the Iranians.”

Israel is the world’s biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, collecting more than $3 billion a year. While 78 percent of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008, Israelis are less enthusiastic. A poll released June 15 showed 38 percent had a positive attitude toward the U.S. leader, the same number were neutral and 23 percent had negative views.

Support for Attack

If diplomatic efforts fail, two-thirds of the Israelis said they would support a military strike against Iran. The survey of 540 Israeli Jews, sponsored by Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv and the Anti-Defamation League, had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Obama, a Democrat, and Republican Mitt Romney competed at last night’s presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida, to show who was the bigger supporter of Israel.

Romney faulted the president for failing to visit the Jewish state during his term in office, saying Obama would “create daylight between ourselves and Israel.” Obama said his administration has developed “unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation” with Netanyahu’s government, noting that he visited Israel in 2008 during his campaign for president.

Joint Exercise

With both nations eager again to play up their alliance, the Pentagon announced that the U.S. and Israel will begin the largest joint air and missile defense exercise, which started this week. The war-games — billed as “another milestone in the strategic relationship” by Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro — involve some 3,500 U.S. personnel performing exercises on mock battlefields and at sea with 1,000 Israeli soldiers.

The two countries also signed an agreement last week tearing down a trade barrier between them on quality testing for the sale of telecommunications equipment, according to the office of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

The Obama administration has publicly disagreed with Netanyahu on how to halt Iran’s nuclear capability and the timing of any military strikes. Iran’s leaders say the nuclear program is just for civilian purposes.

‘Red Lines’

Netanyahu has called for setting “red lines” for military action if Iran continues to enrich uranium. Obama responded that setting deadlines would only limit his options, saying pressure should be applied through economic sanctions.

“For several weeks, there was weekly, almost daily criticism from the Israeli government as to how the U.S. administration is handling Iran,” Isaac Herzog, a parliamentary representative from the opposition Labor party, said in an interview today at Bloomberg’s Tel Aviv office. “The most sensitive matters should be dealt with in intimate close quarters between the Oval Office and Jerusalem.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Obama-Netanyahu-Curb-Iran-Feud-to-Avoid-Election-3974093.php#ixzz2ABdDyfyK

‘Gaza Roulette’ Blows Up,Bibi Vows ‘Hard’ Response – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Hamas terrorists in Gaza

“We will fight and we will hit them [Hamas] very, very hard – very hard. That’s the only way to fight them.  The way to fight terror is to fight terror, and that we shall do with great force,” the Prime Minister told visiting Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev.

Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded Plevneliev, “Iran supported Hezbollah’s terror attacks in Bulgaria; Iran is supporting terror attacks now against us in Gaza.

“Today we engaged in exchanges against terrorist aggression that comes from our southern border in Gaza, but it actually comes from Iran and a whole terror network that is supporting these attacks.”

His promise of a responding with “great force” is a continuation of the government policy to stage symbolic retaliations following rocket and bomb attacks that do not cause injuries or extensive property damage. In most cases, the Air Force targets a “terrorist smuggling tunnel” or a “weapons factory,” usually a small workshop. When there is a “ticking bomb” terrorist cell preparing to attack, or after serious injuries such as occurred Tuesday morning, the IDF carries out harsher counterterrorist measures.

The “Gaza roulette” tactic keeps violence from escalating to the level of a large-scale ground invasion into Gaza, similar to the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist operation nearly four years ago.

However, the tactic leaves southern Israel residents in the same war-time preparedness routine they have suffered since the outbreak of the 12-year-old Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War.

Tuesday morning’s bomb blast on a patrol route at the Gaza security fence coincided with an historic visit by the Emir of Qatar, the first head of a country to visit since Hamas wrested control from the rival Fatah terrorist organization in a bloody militia war five years ago.

The Qatar leader promised $250 million in aid to Gaza.

AP NEWS ANALYSIS: Calm Romney pins hopes on momentum.

( Very similar to my own analysis. – JW )

A series of vids I hope to make on a daily basis regarding stories posted on “A Sclerotic Goes to War.”

Topics covered include:

1. The debate and Romney’s unassuming performance.
2. Iran threatens to cut off oil sales… Right!
3. Fort Hood victims unable to receive combat benefits because Obama refuses to recognize it as a terrorist attack.
4. Netanyahu promises to respond to the wounding of our soldier on the Gaza border: “Very forcefully.  Very, very forcefully…”

Any and all feedback in the comments on this post would be most appreciated.

Joseph Wouk

Obama: Cooperation with… JPost – 2012: The US Presidential race.

( This was said at a campaign rally in FLORIDA.  Lotsa Jews in Florida.  “Phasers on pander!” – JW )

Prime minister promises to respond to injury of officer on Gaza border ‘with great force’ | The Times of Israel.

Platoon commander in hospital in critical condition after bombing near Kissufim crossing

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu meets with Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev as they meet at Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem on October 23 (photo credit: Moshe Milner/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would respond to a recent wave of terror attacks originating from the Gaza Strip “with great force.”

Earlier, an IDF platoon commander was injured by a roadside bomb during a patrol near the Kissufim crossing on the Gaza border.

The officer received first aid treatment at the site and was then evacuated by helicopter to Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba. Initially said to be in moderate condition, the IDF Spokesman’s Office later said his condition was critical. The officer reportedly suffered from injuries to his face and limbs.

During a meeting with the visiting Bulgarian president Tuesday morning, Netanyahu said Gaza-based terror organizations were receiving aid from Iran and pledged to strike back at them.

“Today we engaged in exchanges against terrorist aggression that comes from our southern border in Gaza, but it actually comes from Iran and a whole terror network that is supporting these attacks,” said Netanyahu. “Iran supported Hezbollah’s terror attacks in Bulgaria; Iran is supporting terror attacks now against us in Gaza. We will fight and we will hit them very, very hard – very hard… The way to fight terror is to fight terror, and that we shall do with great force.”

Residents of the villages surrounding Gaza were instructed to remain near bomb shelters.

On Monday the air force killed three Palestinian terrorists and injured four others in airstrikes on the Gaza Strip.

Gaza’s Hamas rulers reported in a text message to reporters that one of the men killed was a member of the group’s military wing. The Popular Resistance Committees said in an email that the second man was from its ranks.

A third man died of his injuries later Monday night. His affiliation was not clear.

Hamas’s military branch promised to retaliate.

The Israeli strikes came in response to rockets fired on southern towns and mortar fire on an IDF patrol.

No injuries or damage were caused by the rockets.

On Monday, Netanyahu had told visiting Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair that Israel was ready to use force to restore calm to the Gaza border. “We’re not going to let anyone arm themselves and fire rockets on us and think that they can do this with impunity,” Netanyahu told the former British prime minister. “They’re not going to get away with it. We attacked them before, we attacked them after and we’re going to prevent them from arming themselves. This is our policy. This is a very different policy that I put in. You don’t let them get away with it. And they know that’s what we’re doing.”

Also Monday, an IDF paratroopers brigade commander said the army may soon need to launch another ground incursion into Gaza.

Col. Amir Baram told Channel 2 News: “I think there won’t be a choice… we’ll need to enter Gaza soon.” Baram, the commander of the 202nd Battalion of the Paratroopers Brigade, said the IDF may need to “enter Gaza again” and its fighters may “have to go in, house by house” in order to maintain deterrence in the Strip.

Iran threatens to cut oil exports if Western sanctions tighten – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The Islamic Republic’s oil minister tells reporters that Iran has prepared plans on how to run the country without oil revenues.

By Reuters | Oct.23, 2012 | 11:40 AM | 2

Gas flares from an oil production platform at the Soroush oil fields with an Iranian flag in the Persian Gulf, 1,250 km (776 miles) south of the capital Tehran, July 25, 2005. Photo by Reuters

By Barak Ravid | Oct.23,2012 | 11:40 AM | 13

Iran said on Tuesday it would stopoil exports if pressure from Western sanctions got any tighterand that it had a “Plan B” contingency strategy to survivewithout oil revenues.

 Western nations led by the United States have imposed toughsanctions on the Islamic Republic this year in an attempt tocurb its nuclear program that they say is designed to produceatomic weapons. Tehran says its nuclear plans are peaceful.

“If sanctions intensify we will stop exporting oil,” Iranianoil minister Rostam Qasemi told reporters in Dubai.

Qasemi’s statement is the latest in a series of threats ofretaliation by Tehran in response to the sanctions, which haveheightened political tensions across the Middle East andanalysts say, led to a sharp drop in Iranian oil exports.

“We have prepared a plan to run the country without any oilrevenues,” Qasemi said, adding, “So far to date we haven’t hadany serious problems, but if the sanctions were to be renewed wewould go for ‘Plan B’.

“If you continue to add to the sanctions we (will) cut ouroil exports to the world… We are hopeful that this doesn’thappen, because citizens will suffer. We don’t want to see

European and U.S. citizens suffer,” he said, adding that theloss of Iranian oil on the market would drive up oil prices.

The U.S. government has focused on blocking Iran’s oilexports because it estimates that crude sales provide about halfof Iranian government revenues and that oil and oil productsmake up nearly 80 percent of the country’s total exports.

The rial plunged by about a third against the U.S. dollar inthe week to Oct. 2, reflecting a slide in oil income wrought bytightened sanctions over summer aimed at pressuring Tehran todrop its nuclear program.

How long the economy could function without selling any oilis unclear, but Iran has large currency reserves accumulatedover decades as one of the world’s largest oil suppliers.

“What else can they export to generate the necessaryrevenues?” Carsten Fritsch of Commerzbank said in the ReutersGlobal Oil Forum.

Because of the slide in the rial and oil export earnings, the government is already moving onto an austerity footing, cutting imports of non-essential goods and urging its citizensto buy fewer foreign products.

Iran has in the past said it could shut the vital shippinglane of Hormuz at the head of the Middle East Gulf. However, alarge Western naval force sent to keep open the route, throughwhich about a third of the world’s seaborne oil exports pass

might be a large obstacle to such an attempt.

Earlier on Tuesday, Qasemi said Iran was still producing 4million barrels per day (bpd), rejecting reports the country’soutput has fallen to around 2.7 million bpd.

According to the latest secondary source estimates publishedby the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iranpumped just 2.72 bpd in September, and Iran’s own data submittedto OPEC showed the country produced 3.75 million bpd in August.

 The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that Iranianexports fell to a new low of 860,000 bpd in September, down from 2.2 million bpd at the end of 2011.

Assuming a crude oil price of e110, such a sharp drop meansIran making just e95 million dollars from daily crude sales lastmonth, about e147 million less every day than it was making latelast year.

Nevertheless, Qasemi said Iran was pumping oil at fullcapacity and refining more of its own oil to meet domesticdemand.

“It is currently 4 million barrels per day,” he said,declining to give export figures.

“Iran has been facing U.S. sanctions for 30 years whilesuccessfully managing its oil sector,” he said.

He said Iran’s refining capacity was now 2 million barrelsper day (bpd) with another 200,000 bpd of capacity to be addedbefore the end of Iranian year next March.

The increase in refining capacity had already ended Iran’sneed to import vehicle fuel and could soon drive a boom in fuelexports, the minister said.

“Our daily consumption of petrol (gasoline) is 90 millionliters … Earlier, a big portion of that was being imported butwe no longer import products,” he said.

“Right now, we not only don’t import but we also export someproducts … there are always customers for Iranian oil.

“By the end of the Iranian year they will reach theirmaximum capacity and then we can export more Iranian oilproducts,” he said