WarSclerotic

EMP Blackout Could Be Closer than You Think – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

North Korea is prepared, probable target the USA. Iran is not far behind and has already told the world its intentions.

Four days before Halloween, on Sunday morning, October 27, 2013, terrorists in Mexico’s Michoacan state blacked out the electric grid, leaving some 420,000 powerless and thirteen dead. That same Sunday night, National Geographic aired the docudrama American Blackout.  This fictionalized account of a cyber attack on the electric grid depicts some of the horrific consequences of a nationwide blackout in the USA lasting 10 days:

People get trapped in elevators and become virtual prisoners in their high-rise apartment buildings.  Gasoline is rationed to the military and hospitals, so the average American has no transportation–except for his legs.  Food and water become so scarce that there is a life and death struggle over a can of peaches.  Before day 10 of the blackout, when the lights come back on, society starts breaking down into anarchy as gangs and vigilante groups run wild.

National Geographic is to be applauded for American Blackout which is essentially a training film to educate the American people about the very real threat posed to their lives by a cyber attack on the electric grid.  If there is any fault or unrealism in the docudrama, it is that the blackout lasts only 10 days, and recovery is achieved so quickly.

While Mother Nature can also be a source of EMP disasters, this article deals with the possible threats posed by man. In real life, terrorists or rogue states would probably not limit their attack on the nation’s electric grid to computer viruses or hacking, as implied in the docudrama.  They would also use other more destructive means–that could cause a protracted national blackout lasting months or years.

Nuclear EMP–The Ultimate Cyber Threat

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is a dimension of the cyber threat that is not usually considered a cyber threat in Western doctrine, but is in the playbooks for an Information Warfare Operation of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.  These potential adversaries in their military doctrines include as part of cyber warfare a wide spectrum of operations beyond computer viruses, including sabotage and kinetic attacks, up to and including nuclear EMP attack.

It is vitally important that we understand that a nuclear EMP attack is part of cyber and information warfare operations as conceived by our potential adversaries.  Our cyber doctrine must be designed to deter and defeat the cyber doctrines of our potential adversaries by anticipating how they plan to attack us–but our doctrine currently does not.

Our cyber and information warfare doctrines are dangerously blind to the likelihood that a potential adversary making an all-out information warfare campaign designed to cripple the U.S. electric grid and other critical infrastructures would include an EMP attack.

The assessment that nuclear EMP attack is included in the cyber and  information warfare doctrine of potential adversaries, and the effects of an EMP attack described here, are based on the work of the Congressional EMP Commission that analyzed this threat for nearly a decade (2001-2008).  The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission and several other major U.S. Government studies independently arrived at similar conclusions, and represent collectively a scientific and strategic consensus that nuclear EMP attack upon the United States is an existential threat.

Nuclear EMP Attack

A nuclear weapon detonated at high-altitude, above 30 kilometers, will generate an electromagnetic pulse that can be likened to a super-energetic radio wave, more powerful than lightning, that can destroy and disrupt electronics across a broad geographic area, from the line of sight from the high-altitude detonation to the horizon.

For example, a nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 30 kilometers would project an EMP field with a radius on the ground of about 600 kilometers, that could cover all the New England States, New York and Pennsylvania, damaging electronics across this entire region, including electronics on  aircraft flying across the region at the time of the EMP attack.  The EMP attack would blackout at least the regional electric grid, and probably the entire Eastern Grid that generates 70 percent of U.S. electricity, for a protracted period of weeks, months, possibly years.

The blackout and EMP damage beyond the electric grid in other systems would collapse all the other critical infrastructures–communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water–that sustain modern civilization and the lives of millions.

Such an EMP attack, a nuclear detonation over the U.S. East Coast at an altitude of 30 kilometers, could be achieved by lofting the warhead with a meteorological balloon.

A more ambitious EMP attack could use a freighter to launch a medium-range missile from the Gulf of Mexico, to detonate a nuclear warhead over the geographic center of the United States at an altitude of 400-500 kilometers.  The EMP field would extend to a radius of  at least 2,200 kilometers on the ground, covering all of the contiguous 48 United States, causing a nationwide blackout and collapse of the critical infrastructures everywhere.

All of this would result from the high-altitude detonation of a single nuclear missile.

The Congressional EMP Commission warned that Iran appears to have practiced exactly this scenario.  Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a ballistic missile from a vessel at sea.  Iran has also several times practiced and demonstrated the capability to detonate  a warhead on its medium-range Shahab III ballistic missile at the high-altitudes necessary for an EMP attack on the entire United States.  The Shahab III is a mobile missile, a characteristic that makes it more suitable for launching from the hold of a freighter.

Launching an EMP attack from a ship off the U.S. coast could enable the aggressor to remain anonymous and unidentified, and so  escape U.S. retaliation.

EMP In Cyber Warfare

The Congressional EMP Commission warned that Iran in military doctrinal writings explicitly describes making a nuclear EMP attack to eliminate the United States as an actor on the world stage as part of an Information Warfare Operation.  For example, various Iranian doctrinal writings on information and cyber warfare make the following assertions:

“Nuclear weapons…can be used to determine the outcome of a war…without inflicting serious human damage [by neutralizing] strategic and information networks.”

“Terrorist information warfare [includes]…using the technology of directed energy weapons (DEW) or electromagnetic pulse (EMP).”

“…today when you disable a country’s military high command through disruption of communications you will, in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country….If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then they will disintegrate within a few years.”

China’s premier military textbook on information warfare, written by China’s foremost expert on cyber and information warfare doctrine, makes unmistakably clear that China’s version of an all-out Information Warfare Operation includes both computer viruses and nuclear EMP attack.  According to People’s Liberation Army textbook World War, the Third World War–Total Information Warfare, written by Shen Weiguang, “Therefore, China should focus on measures to counter computer viruses, nuclear electromagnetic pulse…and quickly achieve breakthroughs in those technologies…”:

With their massive destructiveness, long-range nuclear weapons have combined with highly sophisticated information technology and information warfare under nuclear deterrence….Information war and traditional war have one thing in common, namely that the country which possesses the critical weapons such as atomic bombs will have “first strike” and “second strike retaliation” capabilities ….As soon as its computer networks come under attack and are destroyed, the country will slip into a state of paralysis and the lives of its people will ground to a halt. Therefore, China should focus on measures to counter computer viruses, nuclear electromagnetic pulse…and quickly achieve breakthroughs in those technologies in order to equip China without delay with equivalent deterrence that will enable it to stand up to the military powers in the information age and neutralize and check the deterrence of Western powers, including the United States.

Surprise EMP Attack

North Korea appears to be attempting to implement the information warfare doctrine described above by developing a long range missile capable of making a catastrophic nuclear EMP attack on the United States.  In December 2012, North Korea demonstrated the capability to launch a satellite on a polar orbit circling the Earth at an altitude of 500 kilometers.

An altitude of 500 kilometers would be ideal for making an EMP attack that places the field over the entire contiguous 48 United States, using an inaccurate satellite warhead for delivery, likely to miss its horizontal aimpoint over the geographic center of the U.S. by tens of kilometers.

North Korea appears to have borrowed from the Russians their idea for using a so-called Space Launch Vehicle to make a stealthy nuclear attack on the United States.  During the Cold War, Moscow developed a secret weapon called a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that looked like a Space Launch Vehicle, but was designed to launch a nuclear warhead southward, away from the United States initially, but deliver the warhead like a satellite on a south polar orbit, so the nuclear attack comes at the U.S. from the south.

The United States has no Ballistic Missile Early Warning (BMEW) radars or missile interceptors facing south.  We might not even see the attack coming.

Miroslav Gyurosi in The Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System describes Moscow’s development of the FOBS:

The Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) as it was known in the West, was a Soviet innovation intended to exploit the limitations of U.S. BMEW radar coverage. The idea behind FOBS was that a large thermonuclear warhead would be inserted into a steeply inclined low altitude polar orbit, such that it would approach CONUS from any direction, but primarily from the southern hemisphere, and following a programmed braking maneuver, re-enter from a direction which was not covered by BMEW radars.

“The first warning the U.S. would have of such a strike in progress would be the EMP…,” writes Gyurosi.

The trajectory of North Korea’s satellite launch of December 12, 2012 looked very much like a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System for EMP attack.  The missile launched southward, away from the United States, sent the satellite over the south polar region, approaching the U.S. from the south, at the optimum altitude for EMP attack–although the test trajectory deliberately avoided flying over the United States initially.

In subsequent orbits the North Korean satellite did overfly the central U.S. at the optimum location for an EMP attack.

Super-EMP Attack

North Korea appears to have borrowed from Russia more than the FOBS.  In 2004, a delegation of Russian generals met with the Congressional EMP Commission to warn that design information for a Super-EMP nuclear warhead had leaked from Russia to North Korea, and that North Korea might be able to develop such a weapon “in a few years.”

A few years later, in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, of a device having a very low yield, about 3 kilotons.  All three North Korean nuclear tests have had similarly low yields.  A Super-EMP warhead would have a low-yield, like the North Korean device, because it is not designed to create a big explosion, but to produce gamma rays, that generate the EMP effect.

According to several press reports, South Korean military intelligence concluded independently of the EMP Commission that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop a Super-EMP nuclear warhead.  In 2012, a military commentator for the People’s Republic of China stated that North Korea has Super-EMP nuclear warheads.

One design of a Super-EMP warhead would be a modified neutron bomb, more accurately an Enhanced Radiation Warhead (ERW) because it produces not only large amounts of neutrons but large amounts of gamma rays, that cause the EMP effect.  One U.S. ERW warhead (the W-82) weighed less than 50 kilograms.  North Korea’s so-called Space Launch Vehicle, which orbited a satellite weighing 100 kilograms, could deliver such a warhead against the U.S. mainland–or against any nation on Earth.

Iran has not yet tested a nuclear weapon, but may already have a FOBS delivery capability, as it has successfully launched several satellites on polar orbits, assisted by North Korean missile technology and North Korean technicians.

Iranian scientists were present at all three North Korean nuclear tests, according to press reports.

Defending America and the World

What is to be done about the Cyber and EMP threats?

There is no excuse for the United States to be vulnerable to EMP or to the worst case cyber scenarios as depicted in American Blackout.  The U.S. Department of Defense has understood for 50 years how to protect military systems from EMP.  Private vendors specializing in EMP protection are standing by with faraday cages, surge arrestors, blocking devices and other technology, ready to protect the national electric grid.

Technically, it is important to understand that surge arrestors and other hardware designed to protect against EMP can also protect against the worst-case cyber scenarios that, for example, envision computer viruses collapsing the national power grid.  For example, surge arrestors that protect Extra High Voltage transformers from EMP can also protect transformers from  damaging electrical surges caused by a computer virus that manipulates the grid Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition Systems (SCADAS).

Unfortunately, the electric power industry so far shows no inclination to invest in the technologies necessary to protect the national electric grid.  The congressional EMP Commission estimates that robust protection of the national electric grid could be achieved for a one-time investment of $2 billion–which is what the U.S. gives every year in foreign aid to Pakistan.  The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) estimates that EMP protection of the national grid would increase the electric bill of the average rate payer by 20 cents annually.

Administratively, a coherent and effective answer will not likely arise from uncoordinated decisions made independently by the thousands of individual electric utilities and  industries at risk.  Because cyber preparedness should encompass EMP preparedness–and since EMP is an existential threat–it is imperative that Government play a supervisory and coordinating role to achieve protection against these threats swiftly:

–The President should sign the Executive Order provided to the White House by the Congressional EMP Commission directing that the national electric grid shall be protected against EMP;

–The Congress should pass the SHIELD Act, which has been stalled before the House Energy and Commerce Committee for three years.  SHIELD empowers the U.S. FERC with legal and financial authorities to protect the national grid from EMP;

–States should not wait for Washington, but should immediately launch their own legislative initiatives, as done already by the State of Maine, to protect that portion of the electric grid within their states.  States can “island” their grids, which will in no way impede their ability to receive or export electric power from or to other states, and thereby protect their people from an EMP catastrophe.

–Industry should start manufacturing Extra-High Voltage (EHV) transformers, SCADAS, and other critical technologies hardened against EMP.  Defense Department experience with hardening military systems has shown that, when systems are built with EMP protection as part of the original design, it only adds 1-3 percent to manufacturing cost.  As old EHV transformers are retired and other systems are replaced with new systems designed EMP hard, not only the United States, but the entire Free World would eventually become protected from an EMP catastrophe.

The Unfree World, Russia and China, have already hardened their grids against EMP. Israel may have done the same – and if it has not, there is no time to be lost.

Frustrated Kerry’s peace critique a heavy slap in Netanyahu’s face | The Times of Israel.

A patently bitter secretary of state asks why Israel keeps taking Palestinian land, and why the Israeli public doesn’t seem to care about it

By Raphael Ahren November 7, 2013, 11:06 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a meeting with US Secretary Of State John Kerry in Jerusalem, Wednesday, November 6, 2013 (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his old friend John Kerry in Jerusalem that he was concerned about the peace process, and asked the visiting US secretary of state to “steer [the Palestinians] back to a place where we could achieve the historical peace that we seek.” John Kerry quickly responded by lauding both sides’ “good faith,” and said he was “very confident” the negotiations would succeed.

But on Thursday, he loosened the diplomatic straitjacket, and we all got a much better look at what John Kerry really thinks about progress — and blame — in the new peace effort he worked so strenuously to revive a little over three months ago. He turned directly to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and showed them rather more of his true colors. To the prime minister, it is safe to assume, they did not look particularly blue and white.

For the first time since he managed to restart the talks in July, Kerry dropped his statesman-like public impartiality, and clearly spoke from the heart — and what emerged were a series of accusations that amounted to a forceful slap in the face for Netanyahu. It was a rhetorical onslaught that the prime minister cannot have expected and one he will not quickly forget.

In an extremely unusual joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 and the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, a very frustrated Kerry basically blamed the Israeli government for stealing the Palestinians’ land and the Israeli public for living in bubble that prevents them from caring much about it. If that wasn’t enough, he railed against the untenability of the Israel Defense Forces staying “perpetually” in the West Bank. In warning that a violent Palestinian leadership might supplant Mahmoud Abbas if there was not sufficient progress at the peace table, he appeared to come perilously close to empathizing with potential Palestinian aggression against Israel.

“If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis,” Kerry warned early in the interview, “if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel [and an] increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel.

“If we do not resolve the question of settlements,” he continued more dramatically, “and the question of who lives where and how and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually within the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to non-violence, you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence.”

He later elaborated, expressing apparently growing dismay over continued Israeli settlement expansion: “How, if you say you’re working for peace and you want peace, and a Palestine that is a whole Palestine that belongs to the people who live there, how can you say we’re planning to build in a place that will eventually be Palestine? So it sends a message that perhaps you’re not really serious.” That was a critique that will have resonated widely among those many Israelis, and critics from outside, who have long argued that Israel should limit any settlement building to areas it envisages seeking to retain in a permanent accord.

Kerry seemed to place the blame for the failure to make rapid and major progress in negotiations overwhelmingly on Israel, with no acknowledgement — in his statements as broadcast Thursday — of two intifadas, relentless anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian territories, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and the constant rocket fire from the Strip. (It is important to note that Channel 2 aired only part of the full interview on Thursday. More is set to air Friday evening.)

In lamenting the IDF’s presence in the West Bank, Kerry positioned himself directly opposite Netanyahu, for whom an ongoing Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley is a stated crucial condition for an agreement. Perhaps more surprisingly, he showed no evident concern over the danger of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank were the IDF to withdraw, disregarding a widely held concern — borne of the rapid ease with which Hamas swept Abbas’s forces aside in Gaza in 2007 — that the official Palestinian Authority forces alone would not be able to hold sway.

His comments, which indicated an assessment that Israelis are unrealistic about where the region is heading, seemed particularly bitter. “The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos. I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?” Kerry asked rhetorically, before lashing out at ordinary Israelis. “I know there are people who have grown used to this,” he said referring to the current relatively peaceful stalemate. “And particularly in Israel. Israel says, ‘Oh we feel safe today. We have the wall, we’re not in a day-to-day conflict, we’re doing pretty well economically.’

“Well, I’ve got news for you,” he said, apparently addressing the Israeli public. “Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s or next year’s. Because if we don’t resolve this issue, the Arab world, the Palestinians, neighbors, others, are going to begin again to push in a different way.”

That line of thinking reflects much international conventional wisdom on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the assumption that Israel could attain peace with the Palestinians if only it wanted to, but that it just doesn’t want to enough. Many Israelis, Netanyahu most certainly among them, would counter that Israel cannot impose terms on a Palestinian leadership that, among numerous other problematic negotiating positions, still demands a “right of return” that would constitute suicide for the Jewish state. Many Israelis, their prime minister among them, too, would note that Israel is only too aware of how easily the relative calm could deteriorate, and thus are wary of relinquishing territory to a Palestinian leadership that, relatively moderate though it may be, might not be in a position to retain power and honor any accord amid sweeping regional instability.

For Netanyahu, watching Kerry’s from-the-heart interview must have topped what was already a pretty lousy day. In Geneva, the six world powers were inching toward a deal with the Iranians that the prime minister fears would leave Tehran with an enrichment capability even as the sanctions are eased — something Netanyahu considers a “historic error.”

Kerry weighed in on that, too, in the interview. Ultimately, if Iran doesn’t “meet the standards of the international community,” said the secretary unhappily, “there may be no option but the military option.” But, he quickly insisted, “we hope to avoid that.”

Just the sort of message Netanyahu has been urging the US not to deliver to Tehran.

‘Iran, world powers to announce initial deal as early as Friday’ | The Times of Israel.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, sides preparing ‘joint draft’ ahead of possible agreement

By Times of Israel staff November 8, 2013, 10:21 am

P5+1 delegations meet for talks on Iran’s nuclear program at in Geneva November 7, 2013. (Photo credit: State Department/Twitter)

The P5+1 world powers and Iran are set to announce an initial deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program as early as Friday, marking a breakthrough in the second round negotiations that have been talking place in Geneva.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal,  the two sides were “jointly preparing a draft” ahead of the possible announcement.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was making his way to Geneva Friday to participate in the talks — a last-minute decision that further suggests a deal could be imminent.

On Thursday, the US delegation led by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman held bilateral talks with the Iranian delegation headed by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Jazad Zarif on the sidelines of the P5+1 talks.

“It was a substantive and serious conversation,” said a US official who was in the meeting.

The deal could see international sanctions on Iran scaled back in exchange for Iran halting and possibly reversing parts of its nuclear program.

According to the Telegraph, the deal’s four main points were that Iran would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent and convert its existing stockpile into harmless uranium oxide. Iran would be able to continue enrichment to 3.5% purity necessary for nuclear power plants — but would agree to limit the number of centrifuges running for this purpose. The inactive centrifuges would be able to remain intact. Iran would also agree not to activate its plutonium reactor at Arak, which could provide an alternative route to a nuclear weapon, during the six-month period in which Iran will limit uranium enrichment to 3.5%. Lastly, Iran would agree not to use the advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which enrich uranium three to five times faster than the older model.

In return, the British paper reported, the US “would ease economic sanctions, possibly by releasing some Iranian foreign exchange reserves currently held in frozen accounts” and ease “some restrictions on Iran’s petrochemical, motor and precious metals industries.”

“One idea being explored to help Tehran in the short term,” the Wall Street Journal reported, “[was] to establish a financial mechanism to help Iran unfreeze as much as $50 billion in oil export revenue that Tehran has been blocked from repatriating from Asian and European banks.”

“The mechanism would amount to one-time relief from the banking and oil sanctions, leaving them broadly in place,” the report went on.

The last round of talks between the world powers and Tehran three weeks ago reached agreement on a framework of possible discussion points. The two sides kicked off Thursday’s round focused on getting to a “first step” — described by Western negotiators as an initial curb on uranium enrichment and other activities.

Though Tehran says it needs to do this work for peaceful purposes, the United States and its allies fear that Iran could turn it to use to arm warheads with fissile material.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Thursday that the offer to Tehran would be a “mistake of historic proportions” and a “deal of the century” for Iran.

Sanctions had brought Iran to the brink of economic collapse, and the P5+1 countries have the opportunity to force Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program, the prime minister said. “Anything less than that” would reduce the likelihood of a peaceful solution to the crisis, he said, and Israel would always reserve to protect itself against any threat.

In an interview with Channel 2 Thursday night, Kerry defended the overtures to Tehran, stressing that the negotiators in Geneva were requiring Iran to “provide a complete freeze over where they are today.” He argued that it was “better” to be talking to Iran, and seeking to “expand” the time it would take Iran to break out to the bomb, than not to be talking to Iran, and have it continuing to advance its nuclear program. “We have not taken away any of the sanctions yet,” he said. “We will not undo the major sanctions regime until we have absolute clarity,” he said.

If Iran did not “meet the standards” required by the international community, Kerry said, it knew “worse sanctions” were in prospect, and even, as the “clock ticks down… there may be no option but the military option. We hope to avoid that.”

All diplomatic options had to be exhausted before a resort to force, he said.

US President Barack Obama made similar comments on NBC News Thursday night, saying an interim deal with Iran could provide “very modest relief” from international sanctions and that the bulk of them would remain in place.

“There is the possibility of a phased agreement in which the first phase would be us, you know, halting any advances on their nuclear program, rolling some potential back, and putting in place… some very modest relief, but keeping the sanctions architecture in place,” Obama said.

“We don’t have to trust them. What we have to do is to make sure that there is a good deal in place from the perspective of us verifying what they’re doing,” he added.

AP contributed to this report.

Kerry meets Netanyahu before heading to Geneva for Iran nuclear talks | The Times of Israel.

After scathing remarks on Israel’s West Bank policies, secretary of state, PM discuss possible Tehran deal

By Times of Israel staff and AP November 8, 2013, 7:57 am

US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to Israel on November 6, 2013. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

US Secretary of State John Kerry is meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the third time in just 72 hours Friday morning as part of his Mideast tour, before heading to Geneva for continued nuclear talks with Iran in the framework of the P5+1 negotiations.

Kerry and Netanyahu’s meeting is being held at Ben-Gurion International Airport and is reportedly set to focus on a possible deal — of “limited” sanctions relief in response to an Iranian agreement to start scaling back nuclear activities — between world powers and Tehran, which Netanyahu labeled a historic mistake. US officials said Kerry will fly to Geneva on Friday to participate in the ongoing negotiations — a last-minute decision that suggests a deal could be imminent.

According to the Telegraph, the deal’s four main points were that Iran would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent and convert its existing stockpile into harmless uranium oxide. Iran would be able to continue enrichment to 3.5% purity necessary for nuclear power plants — but would agree to limit the number of centrifuges running for this purpose. The inactive centrifuges would be able to remain intact. Iran would also agree not to activate its plutonium reactor at Arak, which could provide an alternative route to a nuclear weapon, during the six-month period in which Iran will limit uranium enrichment to 3.5%. Lastly, Iran would agree not to use the advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which enrich uranium three to five times faster than the older model.

In return, the British paper reported, the US “would ease economic sanctions, possibly by releasing some Iranian foreign exchange reserves currently held in frozen accounts” and ease “some restrictions on Iran’s petrochemical, motor and precious metals industries.”

On Thursday night, Netanyahu said the proposals “on the table in Geneva” would “ease the pressure on Iran in return for ‘concessions’ that aren’t concessions at all.” He said Israel completely opposes these proposals, which would leave Iran with a capacity to build nuclear weapons.

“I believe that adopting [these proposals] would be a mistake of historic proportions. They must be rejected outright,” he said at a conference of Israeli and Diaspora leaders in Jerusalem Thursday.

Later, during a meeting with a US Congress delegation, Netanyahu angrily called the offer being discussed in Geneva the “deal of the century” for Iran.

Sanctions had brought Iran to the brink of economic collapse, and the P5+1 countries have the opportunity to force Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program, the prime minister said. “Anything less than that” would reduce the likelihood of a peaceful solution to the crisis, he said, and Israel would always reserve the right to protect itself against any threat.

In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 Thursday, Kerry stressed the negotiators in Geneva were requiring Iran to “provide a complete freeze over where they are today.” He argued that it was “better” to be talking to Iran, and seeking to “expand” the time it would take Iran to break out to the bomb, than not to be talking to Iran, and have it continuing to advance its nuclear program. “We have not taken away any of the sanctions yet,” he said. “We will not undo the major sanctions regime until we have absolute clarity,” he said.

If Iran did not “meet the standards” required by the international community, Kerry said, it knew “worse sanctions” were in prospect, and even, as the “clock ticks down… there may be no option but the military option. We hope to avoid that.”

On Thursday, the White House said world powers negotiating with Iran are pursuing an agreement that would offer some sanctions relief if Tehran halts and possibly reverses parts of its nuclear program.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the first step would deal with Iran’s most advanced nuclear activities.

Carney said that, in exchange, the world powers would consider targeted and limited sanctions relief. He said the relief would be reversible, and sanctions could even be tightened, if Iran breaks its word.

The meeting between Kerry and Netanyahu Friday takes place a day after the secretary of state launched an unusually bitter public attack on Israeli policies in the West Bank, during an interview with Israel’s Channel 2.

The visiting US secretary of state launched a scathing critique of Israel’s West Bank policies, warning that if current peace talks fail, Israel could see a Third Intifada and growing international isolation, and that calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions would increase.

“The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos,” Kerry said during the interview. “I mean, does Israel want a Third Intifada?” he asked. “Israel says, ‘Oh, we feel safe today, we have the wall. We’re not in a day-to-day conflict,’” said Kerry. “I’ve got news for you. Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s…” Israel’s neighbors, he warned, will “begin to push in a different way.”

“If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, there will be an increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel that’s been taking place on an international basis,” he went on.

Turning to settlements and Israel’s presence in the West Bank, he added: “If we do not resolve the question of settlements, and the question of who lives where and how and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually within the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to nonviolence, you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence.”

Israel’s Channel 2 quoted an unnamed official in Jerusalem responding bitterly to the secretary’s remarks, saying Israel would not “succumb to fear tactics” by the secretary, and would not compromise on its vital security needs. The official also reportedly noted that Kerry’s comments would not “encourage” the Palestinians to compromise.

The Israeli official seemed to be angrily echoing Kerry’s own comments in connection with the Iranian nuclear program in late October, when he said that America “will not succumb to those fear tactics” — remarks interpreted by commentators as criticism of Israeli warnings about the dangers of talking to Tehran.

Kerry warns of third intifada, Israel’s isolation, if peace talks break down | JPost | Israel News.

US Secretary of State John Kerry painted a very bleak picture of what would be the result of a break-down in the current Israeli-Palestinian talks, warning on Thursday of a third intifada and international isolation of Israel

Kerry’s warnings came in an unusual joint interview with Channel 2’s Udi Segal and Maher Shalabi of Palestine TV.

“The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos,” Kerry said. “Does Israel want a third intifada?”

The Secretary of State’s warnings of a third intifada came two days after a poll conducted by the Arab World For Research & Development showed that only 29% of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians said they would support a third intifada, though 60% believe one is possible.

Kerry’s dire warnings echoed comments he made in Jordan after meeting King Abdullah II, and before a second meeting in two days with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In a signal that the three-month old talks were indeed in a troubled spot, Kerry extended his visit another day and is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday morning, for the third time since Wednesday. A meeting the two held Wednesday evening, following Kerry’s first meeting with Abbas, went on past midnight, Israeli officials said.

“I believe that if we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, three will be an increasing campaign of the de-legitimization of Israel that has been taking place on an international basis,” he said in the interview..

“If we do not resolve the question of settlements, and who lives where and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually in the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if you cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to non-violence, we may wind up with a leadership that is committed to violence,” he added.

In a press conference alongside Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh in Amman on Thursday, Kerry reiterated this theme. “What is the alternative to peace?” he asked. ” Prolonged continued conflict. The absence of peace really means you have a sort of low-grade conflict, war.”

He said that “as long as the aspirations of people are held down one way or another” and as long as the conflict continued without a solution, the “possibilities of violence” increase.

He did say, however, that both Netanyahu and Abbas “reaffirmed their commitment to these negotiations despite the fact that at moments there are obviously tensions.”

Following his scheduled meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Friday, Kerry is to continue his regional visit with trips to the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Morocco. He has already visited this week – in addition to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan – Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Ya’alon rails against Iran-Palestinian linkage, dismisses forecasts of violence | The Times of Israel.

Without mentioning Kerry by name, defense minister bemoans US stance on Iran and rejects notion that conflict with Palestinians could soon be solved

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on a recent tour of the Gaza border (Photo credit: Alon Basson/ Ministry of Defense/ Flash 90)

In a combative speech issued as world powers surge toward a preliminary deal with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians flounder, Israel’s defense minister brushed aside all talk of a third Palestinian uprising and warned against the dangers of concessionary diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program.

“We’ve reached a stage where Iran is crawling on all fours toward the West and asking: remove the sanctions or we’ll collapse,” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Thursday at an annual meeting of Israel’s CPA institute. If those sanctions are lifted before the program has been decisively dismantled, he added, “the Iranians will laugh all the way to the bomb.”

Ya’alon was equally blunt about the prospect of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within US Secretary of State John Kerry’s allotted nine-month time frame. “We are handling an open-ended and ongoing conflict, which from the Palestinian perspective does not end with the 1967 borders,” he said.

Depicting Palestinian society as unwaveringly attached to Sheikh Munis and Majdal – the Arab names for the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Ashkelon – and Palestinian youth as educated to believe that Akko and Haifa are Palestinian ports, he said, “There’s an incident here that does not have a solution now, but in the long term. We’ll handle it wisely and there’s no need to worry about threats of yes a third Intifada or not a third Intifada.”

Ya’alon spoke hours after a seemingly fatigued, frustrated and petulant Kerry, visiting Israel and the West Bank to push the two sides closer together, sat for an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News. Speaking with correspondent Udi Segal, he called settlements “illegitimate” rather than the more commonly used “unhelpful,” lashed out at Israel for its entrenched — but possibly well earned — pessimism, and issued forecasts of widespread violence in return for a lack of progress on the peace track.

“The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos,” Kerry said. “I mean does Israel want a third Intifada?” he asked. “Israel says, ‘Oh we feel safe today, we have the wall. We’re not in a day to day conflict’,” said Kerry. “I’ve got news for you. Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s…”

Ya’alon, however, speaking as the nuclear talks in Geneva moved close to an possible agreement that would provide sanctions relief in exchange for a freeze in the nuclear program — terms that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a “grievous historic error” — depicted the Middle East as a region governed not by good will and optimism undaunted, but rather by interests and large sticks.

“We judge every sector based not on wishful thinking but on interests. And in the Middle East interests are a thick club and carrots.”

This stance, in a Middle East that Ya’alon described as neither black nor white, pessimistic nor optimistic, but rather “far more colorful,” explained why Hezbollah was deterred from striking Israel despite the 70,000 rockets at its disposal, he said.

Characterizing the Iranian regime as possessing sincere goals of global hegemony, he said that the regime had to be pushed further to the brink, to the choice between the bomb and survival, and that such a position could be held through “tough, non-conciliatory diplomacy.”

Finally, in a direct jab at President Barak Obama’s new streamlined Middle East policy objectives, and a long held belief among many in the Pentagon, he ridiculed the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was related to any of the other regional conflicts.

“Unfortunately, [some] tie the Iranian issue to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he said. “They tie anything to this conflict. We say, ‘enough, this region is unstable not on account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’”

And though he said it was in Israel’s interest to maintain a peace process, “there are those who know and explain to us what the solution is, and they know how to reach it in a short period of time. There are some who say this conflict is only territorial, that it began in ’67 and will end along the ’67 lines, but I haven’t heard any Palestinian leadership, including [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s], say that it is willing to consider any territorial concession as an end to the conflict and a culmination of claims, and to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

Israel in danger of being ‘party pooper’ as Iran, West eye preliminary accord – Middle East Israel News | Haaretz.

( I’ll take being a living “party pooper”  rather than a dead “Ooops! Sorry…” – JW )

Positive noises from Iranian representatives at two-day talks in Geneva contrast with Israel’s perceived negative approach.

Mohammad Javad Zarif at the talks with the P5+1 powers in Geneva on November 7. Photo by AP

It’s enough to glance at Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s Facebook page to grasp the joy, almost gaiety, that overtook him on the eve of the nuclear negotiations that began Thursday in Geneva. In almost emotional detail, he described his meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who noted that for a French and Iranian foreign minister to be meeting in such a positive atmosphere was itself a novelty. “We both expressed hope that the talks would succeed,” Zarif wrote.

Soon afterward, he declared that “if the parties make the necessary effort,” an initial agreement could be reached that very day. Not for the first time, it seems the Iranians are actively pushing for a quick agreement, seeking an initial achievement that would block the internal opposition to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rohani, and lengthen the rope the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has given him.

What would constitute an achievement at the two-day talks, concluding Friday? An Iranian website, citing “informed sources,” said Tehran sought to remove the sanctions on its central bank and restrictions on its oil ministry. This report claimed that an agreement on lifting those sanctions for six months had already been reached in preparatory talks over the last three weeks, and this could explain Zarif’s optimistic messages. Sanctions on Iran’s central bank are relatively easy to remove, since the law allows U.S. President Barack Obama to waive them without needing to seek approval from Congress.

But the report didn’t mention what price Iran would have to pay for this achievement.

For the West, the key is apparently a freeze on uranium enrichment – not a complete end to enrichment, but a six-month hiatus – as one of the confidence-building measures on which the negotiations will be based. However, it’s still unclear whether this freeze would apply to all enrichment, including to a level of 3.5 to 5 percent, or only to 20 percent enrichment. Iran has already hinted that it would be willing to freeze the latter, but has not so far indicated any willingness to freeze low-level enrichment.

For Iran, such a deal would grant it access to about $50 billion in overseas bank deposits, money received in payment for oil or other exports. An end to central bank sanctions would also allow it to provide merchants with bank guarantees for overseas deals, thereby reducing their dependence on cash transactions.

This sum wouldn’t significantly change Iran’s economic situation, but it could serve as proof that Rohani’s conciliatory policies are bearing fruit and thus persuade Khamenei to give him more time to pursue these policies. This matters because, in addition to satisfying the West, Rohani must also allay the fears of his country’s conservatives, who are currently remaining silent mainly because he has Khamenei’s backing.

Both the lifting of sanctions on the central bank and a freeze on enrichment are easily reversible; either side could do so at any moment. In contrast, any easing of the more significant sanctions, some of which were imposed by the UN Security Council, will come only in the final stages of the negotiations, since this would effectively be irreversible. Adopting these sanctions required an enormous international effort and, if they are lifted, it’s doubtful that enough international support could ever be mobilized to reinstate them.

Iran’s goal is to remove all the sanctions within six months to a year. The question is whether the parties will wait until the end of the six-month trial period to decide on the next steps, or whether they will be able to conclude the principles of a final deal during this trial period, thereby shortening the time until they are able to announce an “end of the conflict” between Iran and the West.

If an agreement is reached Friday on Iran’s offer and the West’s quid pro quo, Iran will also be free of the threat of a military attack – not only from the United States, but also from Israel. According to diplomatic sources, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that Israel won’t attack Iran during the negotiations, as long as Iran isn’t progressing toward the development of nuclear weapons.

“The criticism of Iran, and of the negotiations with it, that is being heard from Israel is understandable,” a European diplomat told Haaretz. “But [Israel] must take care not to overdo it, because it is liable to be pushed into a corner in which it will no longer be relevant, even if it is right. The atmosphere in both Europe and the United States is that we’re on the brink of a new era with Iran. And in such a situation, people don’t like party poopers.”

John Kerry To Join Iran Nuclear Talks In Geneva After Mideast Trip, Officials Say.

AP/The Huffington Post  |  Posted: 11/07/2013 6:35 pm EST  |  Updated: 11/07/2013 10:07 pm EST

GENEVA — GENEVA (AP) — Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator signaled progress at talks with six world powers Thursday on a deal to cap some of his country’s atomic programs in exchange for limited relief from sanctions stifling Iran’s economy, saying the six had accepted Tehran’s proposals on how to proceed.

U.S. officials said Secretary of State John Kerry will fly to Geneva on Friday to participate in the negotiations — a last-minute decision that suggests a deal could be imminent.

A senior State Department official traveling with Kerry in Amman, Jordan, said the secretary would come to Geneva “to help narrow differences in negotiations.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release information about the Geneva visit.

Even if an agreement is reached, it would only be the start of a long process to reduce Iran’s potential nuclear threat, with no guarantee of ultimate success.

Still, a limited accord would mark a breakthrough after nearly a decade of mostly inconclusive talks focused on limiting, if not eliminating, Iranian atomic programs that could be turned from producing energy into making weapons.

Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, told Iranian state TV that the six — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — “clearly said that they accept the proposed framework by Iran.” He later told CNN that he thinks negotiators at the table are now “ready to start drafting” an accord that outlines specific steps to be taken.

Though Araghchi described the negotiations as “very difficult,” he told Iranian state TV that he expected agreement on details by Friday, the last scheduled round of the current talks.

The upbeat comments suggested that negotiators in Geneva were moving from broad discussions over a nuclear deal to details meant to limit Tehran’s ability to make atomic weapons. In return, Iran would start getting relief from sanctions that have hit its economy hard.

U.S. officials said Kerry will travel to the Geneva talks after a brief stop in Israel, where he will hold a third meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has spoken out against any limited deal that would allow the Iranians sanctions relief.

In Geneva, Kerry is expected to meet Friday with the European Union’s top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the schedule.

The talks are primarily focused on the size and output of Iran’s enrichment program, which can create both reactor fuel and weapons-grade material suitable for a nuclear bomb. Iran insists it is pursuing only nuclear energy, medical treatments and research, but the United States and its allies fear that Iran could turn this material into the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

President Barack Obama, in an interview with NBC on Thursday, described any sanctions relief as “modest” but said core sanctions against Iran would remain in place.

“Our job is not to trust the Iranians,” Obama said. “Our job is to put in place mechanisms where we can verify what they’re doing and not doing when it comes to their nuclear program.”

International negotiators representing the six powers declined to comment on Araghchi’s statement. Bur White House spokesman Jay Carney elaborated on what the U.S. calls a “first step” of a strategy meant to ultimately contain Iran’s ability to use its nuclear program to make weapons.

An initial agreement would “address Iran’s most advanced nuclear activities; increase transparency so Iran will not be able to use the cover of talks to advance its program; and create time and space as we negotiate a comprehensive agreement,” Carney told reporters in Washington.

The six would consider “limited, targeted and reversible relief that does not affect our core sanctions,” he said, alluding to penalties crippling Tehran’s oil exports. If Iran reneges, said Carney, “the temporary, modest relief would be terminated, and we would be in a position to ratchet up the pressure even further by adding new sanctions.”

He described any temporary, initial relief of sanctions as likely “more financial rather than technical.” Diplomats have previously said initial sanction rollbacks could free Iranian funds in overseas accounts and allow trade in gold and petrochemicals.

Warily watching from the sidelines, Israel warned against a partial agreement that foresees lifting sanctions now instead of waiting for a rigorous final accord that eliminates any possibility of Iran making nuclear weapons.

At a meeting with U.S. legislators in Jerusalem, Netanyahu spoke of “the deal of the century for Iran.” While divulging no details, he said the proposed first step at Geneva “will relieve all the (sanctions) pressure inside Iran.”

The last round of talks three weeks ago reached agreement on a framework of possible discussion points, and the two sides kicked off Thursday’s round focused on getting to that first step.

Thursday’s meeting ended about an hour after it began, followed by bilateral meetings, including one between the U.S and Iranian delegations. EU spokesman Michael Mann said the talks were “making progress.”

Before the morning round, Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, met with the EU’s Ashton, who is convening the meeting. Asked afterward about the chances of agreement on initial steps this week, Zarif told reporters: “If everyone tries their best, we may have one.”

After nearly a decade of deadlock, Iran seems more amenable to making concessions to the six countries. Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has indicated he could cut back on the nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions.

Despite the seemingly calmer political backdrop, issues remain.

Iranian hardliners want a meaningful — and quick — reduction of the sanctions in exchange for any concessions, while some U.S. lawmakers want significant rollbacks in Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for any loosening of actions.

UPDATE 6:35 p.m. ET:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, a deal could come as early as Friday.

Kerry’s trip is expected to be met by an initial agreement to reel in Iran’s nuclear program in return for an easing of sanctions. The Wall Street Journal notes that it would be the “first breakthrough in a decade” to ease ongoing tensions over Iran’s potential of developing nuclear weapons.

The deal would halt Iran’s most advanced nuclear programs, including development of fuel that could propel weapons. In doing so, sanctions that have long hindered Iran will be eased by the U.S. and Europe, diplomats told the Wall Street Journal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been outspoken on his lack of confidence in the attempts for an accord, saying “Israel totally opposes these proposals” in a speech. He tweeted Thursday:

BBC News – John Kerry changes plans to join Iran nuclear talks.

Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Zarif said the sides could sit down by Friday morning to prepare “some sort of a joint statement”

US Secretary of State John Kerry is to fly to join negotiations in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear programme, amid rising expectation of a breakthrough.

Mr Kerry had been on a tour of the Middle East, but changed his plans at the invitation of the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Iran’s foreign minister said a deal could be reached on Friday.

The talks bring together world powers – the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany (P5+1) – and Iran.

The BBC’s Kim Ghattas, who is travelling with Mr Kerry, says his dramatic decision to change his travel plans and go to Geneva is a clear sign that a deal with Iran may be within reach.

A senior state department official told the BBC that he was going “to help narrow differences in negotiations” between Iran and the 5P+1.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told CNN on Thursday that Iran would not suspend uranium enrichment completely but could “deal with the various issues on the table”.

The West suspects Iran’s uranium enrichment programme is a step towards building nuclear weapons.

On Thursday, the US confirmed some sanctions relief was being offered in return for “concrete, verifiable measures”.

But Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said a nuclear deal would be a “historic” mistake, accusing Iran of only offering fake concessions.

Mr Kerry is due to meet Mr Netanyahu early on Friday before flying to Geneva.

‘End game’

Mr Zarif said the sides could sit down by Friday morning to prepare “some sort of a joint statement” that would address three elements – a common objective, an “end game… in less than a year” and mutual confidence-building measures.

Iran’s lead negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, said the world powers had “clearly” accepted his country’s proposed framework and were now discussing details.

However, there was no official confirmation from the P5+1 – the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany.

In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Thursday that the six powers “would consider limited, targeted, and reversible relief that does not affect our core sanctions architecture”.

The broader sanctions regime would be maintained until there was a “final, comprehensive, verifiable” agreement that resolved international concerns, he said.

If Iran failed to show progress on its nuclear programme, the “moderate” sanctions relief could be reversed, and stiffer sanctions could be imposed, he added.

Hopes of a long-awaited deal on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions were given fresh momentum this year by the election of President Hassan Rouhani, seen as a relative moderate.

Since 2006 the UN Security Council has imposed a series of sanctions – including asset freezes and travel bans – on entities and people involved in Iran’s nuclear programme.

Separate US and EU sanctions have targeted Iran’s energy and banking sectors, crippling its oil-based economy. Iran wants the sanctions lifted.

Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem before the talks began, Mr Netanyahu said the proposals would allow Iran to retain the capabilities to make nuclear weapons.

“Israel understands that there are proposals on the table in Geneva today that would ease the pressure on Iran for concessions that are not concessions at all,” he said.

Mr Netanyahu said economic sanctions had brought the Iranian economy to the “edge of the abyss” and the P5+1 could “compel Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear weapons programme”.

“Anything else will make a peaceful solution less likely. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself, by itself, against any threat,” Israel’s prime minister said.