Archive for June 20, 2013

Analysts Assess Impact of Military Attack on Iran

June 20, 2013

Analysts Assess Impact of Military Attack on Iran.

Voice of America

Andre de Nesnera
The United States and the European Union believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran says its program is for peaceful, civilian purposes.

The international community has been trying for years to persuade Iran to end its uranium-enrichment program, but to no avail.  Low-enriched uranium can be used for civilian nuclear-power plants, but highly enriched uranium is an integral part of a nuclear bomb.

In an effort to pressure Tehran to end its enrichment program, the U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran.  And several individual nations, such as the United States, have imposed their own measures, for example targeting Tehran’s oil industry and financial sector.

In addition, two rounds of international negotiations held this year failed to yield any progress.  But some analysts believe there may be a chance for movement with the election of moderate cleric Hassan Rowhani as Iran’s new president.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, said the international community must not engage in what he called “wishful thinking” about Iran’s leadership.

Iran Seen as an Existential Threat to Israel

Israel considers a nuclear armed Iran to be an existential threat.  And it has hinted that it is capable of carrying out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities to make sure Iran does not build a bomb.

Paul Rogers, a military analyst at Bradford University in England, northeast of Manchester, said the Israelis are faced with a difficult task.

“The Iranians have been quite dedicated in recent years in putting a proportion of their nuclear facilities quite deep underground, probably too deep for the Israelis to hi,” said Rogers.  “The U.S. Air Force does now have a very powerful new deep bunker buster, but there is no indication that it is willing to give that to Israel. It has given other, medium-level bunker busters to Israel, but not the really powerful one, the ‘Massive Earth Penetrator.’”

Thomas Hammes, a military expert at the National Defense University, said the Iranian targets must be well defined.

“This makes the huge assumption that we know where these facilities are,” he said.  “Remember, we invaded Iraq because we were sure there were weapons of mass destruction there and we knew exactly where some of them were.  And we were right zero percent of the time.”

Hammes asks if the U.S. intelligence capability has improved so much in the last 10 years?

Attack on Iran May be Counter-productive

Former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, whose foreign posts included Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria, said if there is going to be any military action, it must be successful.

“The only thing worse than an Iran with nuclear weapons would be an Iran with nuclear weapons that one or more countries attempted to prevent them from obtaining by military strikes – and failed,” he said.

Jim Walsh, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said military action against Iran might be counter-productive.

“I fear that a military strike will produce the very thing you are trying to avoid, which is the Iranian government would meet the day after the attack and say: ‘Oh yeah, we’ll show you – we are going to build a nuclear weapon,’” he said.  “I think we will get a weapon’s decision following an attack, which is the last thing we want to produce right now.”

Is a Nuclear-armed Iran Unacceptable?

Many governments, and analysts, say a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.

But Thomas Hammess at the National Defense University takes another view.

“We certainly lived with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union for a long time.  We are currently living, perhaps, with a nuclear-armed North Korea and we are with a nuclear-armed China,” said Hammess.  “So the presence of nuclear arms does not necessarily mean you can’t live with or operate with a country.  I don’t understand what makes Iran so much more dangerous with a nuclear weapon.”

Hammess said if Iran ever manufactures nuclear weapons and decides to use them, Israel will probably destroy that country.  If not Israel, says Hammess, then the United States probably will.

Russia to fulfill S-300 missile deal with Syria

June 20, 2013

Russia to fulfill S-300 missile deal with Syria | The Times of Israel.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: ‘We are honoring all our contractual obligations’

June 20, 2013, 1:23 pm
A Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system on display in an undisclosed location in Russia (photo credit: AP)

A Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system on display at an undisclosed location in Russia (photo credit: AP)

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia will honor its controversial contract to deliver S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Thursday.

“We respect all our contracts and are honoring all our contractual obligations,” Lavrov said in an interview with state-run Rossiya 24 TV. “As yet, the contracts are not finished, they have not been delivered in full,” he added.

Russia last month acknowledged it has agreed to sell Syria advanced S-300 air-defense missiles, which are considered to be the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.

Russia has stood by Syrian President Bashar Assad during the two-year civil war, blocking several UN resolutions and calls for his ouster. The death toll from the conflict is at least 93,000.

Lavrov said that Russia would block all demands for the Assad government’s resignation at a planned peace conference to be held in Geneva. He said those calls were a “direct affront to us and the Americans” from unnamed Gulf states.

No date has been set for the conference, which Lavrov blamed on Western countries’ fears they would not be able to “prevail upon” the Syrian opposition to attend.

Lavrov renewed Russia’s objections to a potential no-fly zone in Syria, which the S-300 systems would make extremely difficult to implement, and said Western plans to arm the opposition would see most weapons fall into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate that is believed to be among the most effective rebel factions.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Rebel group won’t fight Israel if it enters Syria

June 20, 2013

Rebel group won’t fight Israel if it enters Syria | The Times of Israel.

June 20, 2013, 1:23 pm
Smoke rises from a fire as a result of fighting in the Syrian village of Quneitra, near the border with Israel, on June 6, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Smoke rises from a fire as a result of fighting in the Syrian village of Quneitra, near the border with Israel, on June 6, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

A rebel group that operates on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights stated Thursday that it would not fight Israel if Israel sends forces into Syria. A spokesman for the rebel group, which is based in Quneitra, made the comments to Al-Jazeera.

“We’ll leave the fighting to Hezbollah and to [Syrian President] Bashar Assad’s men,” said Abu Jafar. “We won’t fight Israel.”

Hezbollah, which has taken an increasing active role in defending Syrian President Bashar Assad, threatened recently to open up a new front against Israel in the Golan Heights. Also, in comments attributed to Assad in a Lebanese daily last week, the embattled Syrian leader allegedly said that opening a new front against Israel in the Golan could serve to unify his people.

Amid the rhetoric, a mortar shell fired from Syria landed on the Israeli side of the Golan Heights early Thursday morning. There were no reports of injuries or damage from the rocket, which landed just over the border, according to Army Radio.

Mortar shells have struck Israel several times over the past year as fighting in the Syrian civil war has spilled over into Israel, though they largely tailed off during June. The rockets and small arms fire are usually assumed to be errant strikes, but Damascus recently boasted that it had retaliated against Israel for reported air strikes against Damascus weapons sites.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has vowed to respond to spillover of the Syrian civil war into Israel, and the IDF has shot at Syrian army positions in the past after incidents of cross-border fire.

Joshua Davidovich and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Report: Rohani involved in 1994 Buenos Aires bombing

June 20, 2013

Report: Rohani involved in 1994 Buenos Aires bombing – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US paper says Iran’s president-elect was on special government committee that plotted 1994 bombing of Jewish community center that killed 85 people

Ynet

Published: 06.20.13, 10:01 / Israel News

Iranian President-elect Hassan Rohani was on the special Iranian government committee that plotted the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, the Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday. The bombing left 85 people dead and hundreds wounded.

Argentina had accused the Iranian government of planning the attack and Hezbollah of carrying it out and numerous Iranian officials are still wanted by Interpol in connection with the attack.

Former Iranian intelligence official Abolghasem Mesbahi, who defected from Iran in the late 1990s, testified that the decision to launch the attack was made within a special operations committee connected to the powerful Supreme National Security Council in August 1993, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
בואנוס איירס, 1994. 85 הרוגים בפיגוע (AFP)

Buenos Aires, 1994 (Photo: AFP)

According to a 2006 indictment by the Argentine government prosecutor investigating the case, Mesbahi testified that Rohani, who was then serving as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, was also a member of the special committee when it approved the AMIA bombing.

The report further stated that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei led the special committee and Khamenei and Rafsanjani made the ultimate decision to go ahead with the attack.

While Rohani was allegedly present for deliberations about the planned bombing, it is highly unlikely he would have had approval authority, Iran experts claim.

“Rohani’s power at that time comes directly from one individual, and that’s Rafsanjani,” said Reuel Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy.
אתר זיכרון לקורבנות (צילום: AP)

Monument for victims (Photo: AP)

“As far as that bombing was concerned, because Rafsanjani had to give his approval for that, there was no doubt Rohani was aware of it, and obviously his approval’s not necessary,” Gerecht continued. “He’s a subordinate. But he certainly would have been aware of all the discussions that led to the attack.”

Rohani has been portrayed as a moderate reformer by the media and some Iranian regime supporters despite his close relationship Khamenei. He also supported deadly crackdowns on student protesters in 1999, and claimed that he deceived the West into allowing Iran’s nuclear program to progress while serving as Iran’s nuclear negotiator with the Europeans.

Gerecht said it is difficult to determine exactly what role Rowhani may have played in the AMIA bombing but added that there was “nothing in his background that would suggest he has any moral qualms about bombing the enemies of the (Islamic) Republic.”

“In all probability, we would have heard about it if (Rohani) had risen up (at the meeting) and said ‘Don’t do that, it’s a disgrace,’” said Gerecht. “We would have known that.”

Netanyahu: EU must join call to stop Iranian enrichment

June 20, 2013

Netanyahu: EU must join call to stop Iranian enrichment | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF
06/20/2013 11:16
In meeting with EU foreign policy chief, PM says elections tested by whether Iran changes nuclear aims; asks Ashton to blacklist Hezbollah; says Israel ready for peace talks “today, yesterday and tomorrow” ahead of Kerry visit.

Netanyahu at meeting with Catherine Ashton, EU High Rep for Foreign Affairs, June 20, 2013.

Netanyahu at meeting with Catherine Ashton, EU High Rep for Foreign Affairs, June 20, 2013. Photo: Courtesy – GPO

“It is crucial that Europe joins the international community in demanding a cessation of Iran’s nuclear program,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday morning.

In a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the prime minister said the recent elections in Iran will be tested by whether Iran changes its policies and stops all enrichment, takes out the nuclear material and shuts down the illicit nuclear facility in Qom.

“Iran’s feet should be held to the fire. It’s not a question of political spin, but the spinning of centrifuges,” Netanyahu stated.

Referring to the ongoing debate to put Hezbollah’s armed wing on the EU’s terror list, Netanyahu questioned wryly: “If Hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization, I don’t know what is.”

“They’re butchering people all around the world,” Netanyahu claimed.
“If Hezbollah is not terror organization, who is?”

Following the formal announcement of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Jerusalem next week, the prime minister said Israel is ready to resume talks without preconditions “today, yesterday and tomorrow.”

He stated that Kerry is undertaking an effort to resume direct negotiations without preconditions.

“That’s the right thing to do,” Netanyahu added.

A few miles from my home: U.S. Marines Land In Aqaba, Jordan for exercise “Eager Lion”

June 20, 2013

A few miles from my home: U.S. Marines Land In Aqaba, Jordan for exercise “Eager Lion” – YouTube.

U.S. Marines and Sailors assigned to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), are transported from the USS San Antonio (LPD 17), to Port Aqaba, Jordan, via a landing craft utility while offloading for Exercise Eager Lion 2013, June 7, 2013.

Exercise Eager Lion 2013 is an annual, multinational exercise designed to strengthen military-to-military relationships and enhance security and stability in the region by responding to realistic, modern-day security scenarios. This is a recurring exercise.

The 26th MEU is deployed to the 5th Fleet area of operations as part of the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group. The 26th MEU operates continuously across the globe, providing the president and unified combatant commanders with a forward-deployed, sea-based quick reaction force.

Analysis: US arming Assad’s foes forces Iran to bleed resources in Syria

June 20, 2013

Analysis: US arming Assad’s foes forces Iran to bleed resources in Syria | JPost | Israel News.

By MICHAEL WILNER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
06/20/2013 02:39
Keeping Iran and Hezbollah engaged in the conflict and pouring resources into Syria weakens them substantially.

Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade fighters in Mleha suburb of Damascus, January 26, 2013.

Free Syrian Army’s Tahrir al Sham brigade fighters in Mleha suburb of Damascus, January 26, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic

WASHINGTON – In a darkening Syria, airstrips serve as the veins of the Assad government. Flying over quiet, unsupervised Iraqi airspace, Iranian craft transport undocumented weapons to their chief ally in the region on a routine basis.

To the frustration of military experts and Western officials, the Iranians release no defense budget, and certainly no inventory for covert aid.

Unlike in the United States, the Iranians don’t experience military leaks. So no one can say confidently how much the Islamic Republic is spending to keep Assad in power. But they have made no secret of their priorities: Iran will not tolerate Assad’s fall, and its leadership will do whatever is necessary to prevent it.

Over two years into the conflict, that promise has manifested itself in the form of arms, loans, hard cash and people. Gunmen and lifelong guards, from both Lebanon and Iran itself, are directly changing the outcomes of important battles with their boots on the ground.

But Iranian blood is being spilled in Syria as the conflict drains Iran’s resources. Considering the veracity of the regime’s pledge, it is safe to conclude that the longer the conflict lasts, the more Iran will exhaust itself.

Iran capitalized on a similar realpolitik in 2006 in Iraq, after Ayatollah Khamenei saw that America’s democratic project was falling apart. His preferred plan was to use political influence in a weak Iraq to elevate Shi’ite allies within the newly created democratic system. His backup plan was to bleed American resources, soldiers and willpower through the arming of insurgents with light weaponry.

A covert network was built through 2005 in the form of safe houses and couriers, and contact was made with virtually every group. But Iran activated the network only in 2006, when the idyllic, peaceful jockeying of influence gave way to harsher realities.

The United States was committed to the Iraqi project, and a terrorist hub was seeded on Iran’s doorstep. It was an opportunity for the Iranians amid a plethora of bad options.

Now, in the greater chess game that is the Middle East, tactical lessons from Iraq could be playing in reverse in Syria.

In his decision to arm Syrian rebels with light weaponry, President Barack Obama may see merit in bleeding Iran, just as Iran bled the US in Iraq, so much so that the American people are simply unwilling to shed any more of their treasure in the Middle East.

Columnist Fareed Zacharia called that consideration a “clever, effective, brutal strategy to bleed America’s enemies” on Sunday, calling other justifications for the decision to provide only light arms “like trying to get a little bit pregnant.”

“The fact that Iran and Hezbollah are sending militias, arms and money into Syria is not a sign of strength. It is a sign that they are worried that the regime might fall,” says Zacharia. “Keeping them engaged and pouring resources into Syria bleeds them. It weakens them substantially.”

But Kenneth Pollack, formerly a CIA intelligence analyst and National Security Council staffer now with the Brookings Institution, said that the US “has no clue” what the Iranians are truly providing, or what those provisions are costing the regime.

“We know that Iranian support is important to Assad, but we couldn’t quantify it, and we don’t know the extent of the support,” Pollack told The Jerusalem Post. “Typically, we find it doesn’t cost a whole lot of money to provide Kalashnikovs and RPGs. The Iranians can provide lots and lots of them, and it’s really not going to affect their bottom line.”

“As a strategy, I’m not sure it’s really going to send a political signal to Iran writ large,” says Frederic Wehrey, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who says the Iranian strategy in Iraq was to play both arsonist and fireman. “This new war can be conducted in the shadows, and the costs of it are largely hidden from the Iranian public and even parts of the Iranian political elite, because its Guards force is so compartmentalized.”

But the alternatives for the president are unclear.

A consistent bombing campaign of Syria’s key airstrips would present multiple problems for the US. The Pentagon is definitively opposed to such moves. But it would perhaps force Iran to face an even starker choice: accept steeper costs in alternative forms of delivery for weapons, or risk losing Assad to rebel forces.

“That strategy is asking people to stand in front of a moving bus to slow it down,” says Danielle Pletka, a veteran senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who says she would be surprised if a strategically protracted conflict was a consideration in the White House. “The immorality of that strategy would be striking.”

Indeed, the interventionists in Congress and in the president’s national security team seem to be advocating for action based on a mix of strategic and humanitarian grounds.

Driving the angst on both sides of the aisle are liberal and protectionist ideals: a desire to protect the lives of foreign peoples, and an imperative to keep American troops out of harm’s way.

That may be the key difference constricting the military options of the United States and those of its adversaries.

“Even with their own people, if they have a few hundred or even a few thousand people in Syria, you’re not bleeding Iran,” Pollack added. “Our society is very casualty sensitive, and it becomes very politically costly. It’s just not that way for the Iranians.”