Archive for December 10, 2013

Iran claims to have improved missile accuracy

December 10, 2013

Iran claims to have improved missile accuracy | The Times of Israel.

Defense minister says that surface-to-surface missiles can now strike within two meters of target

December 9, 2013, 6:48 pm

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has dramatically improved the accuracy of its ballistic missiles by using laser systems, its defense minister said Monday.

In comments broadcast on state TV, Hossein Dehghan said Iranian missiles can now strike within two meters (approximately 2.9 yards) of their targets, compared to 200 meters (about 219 yards) previously.

“The inaccuracy of (our) ballistic long-range missiles in hitting targets is so minimal that we can pinpoint targets. The accuracy of surface-to-surface missiles is now two meters, while at some stage in the past it was 200 meters. We strive to reach zero inaccuracy,” Dehghan said. The remarks were also posted on his ministry’s website.

Iran frequently announces breakthroughs in military technology that are impossible to independently verify. But the Pentagon released a rare public report last June noting significant advances in Iranian missile technology, acknowledging that the Islamic Republic has improved the accuracy and firing capabilities of its missiles.

Many of Iran’s missiles use solid fuel, or a combination of both solid and liquid fuel, improving the accuracy of the weapons.

Iran has a variety of missiles, some with a reported range of 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles), enough to reach much of the Middle East. Military commanders have described them as a strategic asset and a strong deterrent, capable of hitting US bases or Israel in the event of a strike on Iran.

Commanders said Iran’s capability of firing multiple missiles within seconds is another technological achievement by Iran’s military. They say this would create a challenge for the US or Israel to intercept incoming missiles should a war break out.

Iran unveiled several underground missile silos in 2011. Revolutionary Guard commanders say the medium- and long-range missiles stored in them are ready to launch in case of an attack on Iran. Such sites are harder to detect and can arm faster than missiles outdoors.

Iran’s military leaders believe future wars will be air- and sea-based. Tehran has sought to upgrade its missile and air defense systems as well as naval power in anticipation of such a possibility.

Iran considers both the United States and Israel as potential adversaries. Neither country has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, which they say could have a military dimension. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes.

Israel is about 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) away from Iran’s western borders, while the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, some 200 kilometers (120 miles) from Iranian shores in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s military leaders have said Israel would “disappear from the Earth” if it attacks Iran. Guard commanders have also warned that at least 35 American military bases in the Middle East are within Iran’s missile range and would be destroyed within seconds after any US attack on Iran.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, it has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles, torpedoes, drones and fighter planes.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Articles: Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran

December 10, 2013

Articles: Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran.

By Karin McQuillan

Individuals who have even visited Israel, or who observe Judaism, or who carry a Bible are banned from Saudi Arabia.  Yet Saudi Arabia’s Israel-hating King Abdullah just flew in an Israeli scientist to have dinner with him, to enjoy some royal hospitality, accept a medal and the $200,000 “Arab Nobel Prize.”  It’s a not-so-subtle message to President Obama: the unthinkable can happen, so don’t assume the Saudis won’t join with Israel to bomb Iran.

Obama’s new Iran policy moves the Mid-East closer to war over oil and religion — Sunni Saudis versus Shia Iranians.  There is no more strategic commodity than Gulf oil to the entire world economy.  American national security stakes could not be higher.   Iran’s end game, some say more than an attack on Israel, is to seize the Saudi oil fields.  There is a Shiite majority in the oil province that the Saudi Princes fear could be turned by Iran.  The Saudis no longer see the U.S. as an ally in stabilizing the Middle East.  We have become a force for chaos. The UK Telegraph:

Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, said the great unknown is how Saudi Arabia will react to a move deemed treachery in Riyadh… The great question is whether they can live with this deal, or whether it is intolerable,” he said.

Mr Skrebowski said the Middle East is a tinder box, in the grip of a Sunni-Shia civil war comparable in ideological ferocity to the clash between Catholics and Protestants in early 17th Century Europe. Saudi Arabia has already shown how far it will go to protect its interests, helping to overthrow Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The Saudis are signaling that they will unleash a pre-emptive war in the Middle East in response to Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran.  These signals are an effort to change Obama’s decision to prop up the mullahs and green light their nuclear program.  Can the Saudi threats become real?  It’s a wild card our President is willing to play.

The Saudis are allowing leaks on a deal to get nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Larry Bell in Forbes:

Pakistan is rumored to have recently delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles (a version of the U.S. two-stage Pershing I, with a range of more than 450 miles) to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads. Mark Urban, the diplomatic and defense editor of BBC’s “Newsnight”, told a senior NATO decision maker earlier this year that “Nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.”

The Saudis are not so secretly negotiating with the Israelis.  This goes beyond allowing the use of Saudi air space, to active support in a bombing raid on Iran. Bell again:

A diplomatic contact told the London Sunday Times that “The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs” to counter the unresolved nuclear threat, noting that their relations with the U.S. had been breached by Obama’s overtures to Iran.

This new cooperation represents a major policy realignment given the fact that satellite images show a new Saudi CSS-2 missile base capable of deploying A-bombs with launch rails pointing towards both Iran and Israel. According to the Times, Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency and Sunni royal rulers of Saudi Arabia are even developing joint contingency plans for a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear program. 

There is also talk by the Saudis of using oil prices to punish America for Obama’s betrayal. 

Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UK …Ambassador Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, who was speaking to the British Times, called the Obama administration’s “rush” to embrace Tehran “incomprehensible.”

“We are not going to sit idly by and receive a threat there and not think seriously how we can best defend our country and our region,” Prince Mohammed, who is Saudi King Abdullah’s nephew, said.  “Let’s just leave it there, all options are available,” he added, referring to possible defense plans made in response to Iran developing its nuclear capability.

The Saudis have collected a long grievance list of things our President has done to destabilize their neighborhood.  Their power rests uneasy, and maintaining it requires constant work.  Our President is the grand saboteur. 

  • They are still shocked and enraged that we forced Mubarak out of Egypt and pressured the military to let the Muslim Brotherhood take over. The Saudis helped depose the Brotherhood and fix Obama’s mess. It has cost the Saudis upwards of $5 billion dollars in aid to the new transition government.
  • The Saudis are angry that we pushed out another ally, Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh, creating turmoil on Saudi Arabia’s southern border and a stronghold for al Qaeda.
  • We invited violent radicals to our embassy in Bahrain; the Saudis had to dispatch troops to stop the uprising there.

Richard Miniter in Forbes:

Obama’s move made no sense to the Saudis. Bahrain is home to some 15,000 American soldiers, sailors and Marines. Why would the U.S. endanger Americans and Arab allies for the sake of militants supported by its most fevered enemy?

The tone with which this question is asked — a mixture of exasperation, regret and anger — itself is telling. This is the tone you hear as long-term relationships die.

When Obama breached his own “red line” on chemical weapons in Syria and claimed that he had never drawn any red lines, undercutting Saudi support for the Syrian rebels, America’s credibility collapsed. 

In a very public protest, the Saudi king rejected a seat on the U.N. Security Council, which the kingdom’s diplomats had spent months lobbying for.  This was a warning shot in diplomatic terms.  Obama ignored it.

With his concessions to Iran’s nuclear program, President Obama has betrayed both Israel and Saudi Arabia, our two most important allies in protecting the world’s oil supply.  In contrast to President Bush’s close cooperation with our Middle East allies, Obama did not consult them on the Iran deal, nor was their safety considered.  One result is certain: our influence in the region is diminished.  Other results, more dire, to follow.

Egypt Kills Terrorist Behind Eilat Rocket Attack

December 10, 2013

Egypt Kills Terrorist Behind Eilat Rocket Attack – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Egyptian soldiers eliminated Ibrahim Abu Atiyeh, leader of the group responsible for recent rocket attacks on Eilat in August.

By David Lev

First Publish: 12/9/2013, 9:51 PM

Eilat

Eilat

Egyptian sources said Monday night that Egyptian Army soldiers had eliminated Ibrahim Abu Atiyeh, a terrorist belonging to the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar Beit al-Makdis terror group. Abu Atiyeh was a leader of the group, which has claimed responsibility for a recent rocket attack on Eilat in August. Abu Atiyeh  was killed in a shootout with Egyptian soldiers in northern Sinai.

The group has been at odds with Eypt’s new military government, and has attempted to kill Egyptian officials, including the country’s interior minister.

Three people suffered shock from the rocket attack on the city of Eilat that took place in the early hours of August 17. The Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted the rocket before it could do damage to the city, but sirens went off, waking residents from their slumber and frightening tourists at the height of the summer season.

A defiant Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said at the time that he considered the attack a one-off attack.

“Right now we do not see a concrete warnings” of further attacks, he said, adding that that terrorists based in the Sinai Peninsula may try to stir up trouble but that the Israel Defense Force is ready and prepared for any scenario.

Americans dislike Obama’s Iran deal

December 10, 2013

Americans dislike Obama’s Iran deal.

Secretary of State John Kerry gestures during a statement on the situation in Egypt. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

Secretary of State John Kerry (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

Politicians should not run foreign policy by polls. Voters often hold contradictory views (e.g. don’t tolerate weapons of mass destruction, but don’t act against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad). Moreover, foreign policy is not central to most people’s lives and, it is fair to say, they take less interest in the subject. For this reason, leadership is particularly important when it comes to informing and rallying the public in support of national security objectives. The president has a lot to do — both positive and negative — in shaping the public’s willingness to sacrifice for sometimes indirect national security benefits.

Therefore, it is significant that the public, despite the administration’s efforts to appease Iran, remains uncomfortable with his approach. USA Today reports:

The White House and Iran face an uphill selling job to convince Americans to embrace the interim nuclear pact negotiated with Tehran last month, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds.

In the survey, taken Tuesday through Sunday, 32% approve of the agreement and 43% disapprove. One in four either refuse to answer or say they don’t know enough to have an opinion.

By more than 2-1, 62%-29%, those who have heard something about the accord say Iranian leaders aren’t serious about addressing international concerns about their country’s nuclear program.

The American people remember the hostage crisis and understand all too well that Iran is out to eradicate Israel. They may be “war weary,” but they are not suckers, and they know enough to be wary. The partisan breakdown is interesting: “Democrats were the most supportive of the agreement: By 50%-27%, they approved.  Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it —  14% approved, 58% disapproved — and 72% of Tea Party Republicans disapproved. Independents were divided 29%-47%.” The lackluster support even from Democrats reveals a limit to their partisan loyalty to the president. Republican and independent aversion is in line with those groups’ support more generally for the Jewish state.

So what does this mean? To begin with, the president’s decline in credibility is not limited to domestic policy. The lack of public support and his ineffectiveness in shifting public opinion suggest that lawmakers may be emboldened to follow their conscience and good sense. Congress is traditionally closer to public opinion on foreign policy (e.g. sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s, anti-communism in the Cold War). So critics of the deal will and should focus their efforts on Congress, which could prevent a rotten deal legitimizing Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Iran’s threats to call off the “deal” (not actually concluded) if Congress passes sanctions contingent on Iran’s noncompliance or refusal to enter into a final deal are entirely predictable. Iran has figured out it can “play” the Obama administration and threaten the collapse of the talks when we displease the mullahs. (Hence the folly of “containment” even before Iran has a bomb.) Congress now needs to make clear neither the American people nor their elected lawmakers will be blackmailed.