WarSclerotic

Off Topic: Hizballah calls off annual Mughniyeh memorial for fear of terrorist attacks – Debka.

(Supreme irony. – Artaxes)

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 14, 2014, 10:44 AM (IST)

Saudi Arabia May Go Nuclear Because of Obama’s Iran Deal – The Daily Beast.

President Obama wants an agreement with Iran to prevent a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, but it’s pushing Saudi Arabia toward its own nuke program.

Last month, America’s top Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman had some bad news for ambassadors from America’s Arab allies. In a meeting with envoys from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Gulf states, Sherman said that any bargain with Iran would likely leave Tehran, the Gulf states long-time enemy, with the capacity to enrich uranium, according to U.S. officials briefed on the encounter.

Sherman regularly briefs these allies after diplomatic talks with Iran, but in recent weeks those conversations have been different. While most of America’s Middle East allies—with the exception of Israel—have publicly supported the current Iran negotiations, behind the scenes, envoys from the region have expressed grave concerns that Iran could be left with a break out capacity to make the fuel for a nuclear weapon at a time of their choosing.

And now, one of the countries in the region without a full-blown nuclear programs—Saudi Arabia—may be changing its mind. Riyadh has a long-standing interest in nuclear power. But Western and Israeli intelligence services are starting to see signs that this interest is growing more serious, and extends into nuclear enrichment. Until recently, the pursuit of nuclear enrichment—or the fuel cycle—was considered by arms control experts as a tell-tale sign of a clandestine weapons program. Nuclear fuel is sold to all members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it’s far more costly to build the infrastructure and produce it indigenously. Saudi Arabia appears to be getting more serious about going down that path.

If Saudi Arabia pursue nuclear enrichment even if there is an Iran deal, then the victory to curb atomic weapons that Obama has tried to achieve will be at least partially undone by his own diplomacy.

“They view the developments in Iran very negatively. They have money, they can buy talent, they can buy training,” said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector. “The Saudis are thinking through how do you create a deterrent through capability.”

Albright said in this particular case, an indigenous Saudi program is in the very early stages. In 2012, the Saudi government announced plans to build 16 commercial reactors by 2030 and signed a technology agreement with China. But Albright said he has heard concerns expressed by a European intelligence agency that Saudi Arabia in recent years has quietly been developing the engineering and scientific knowledge base to one day master the nuclear fuel cycle, or produce the fuel indigenously for the reactors it’s trying to build. He said Saudi Arabia was hiring the scientists and engineers needed to build the cascades of centrifuges needed to produce nuclear fuel. “We don’t worry about the Saudis learning to operate a reactor,” he said. “I worry that they will learn the skills needed to master the fuel cycle.”

Late last year, the BBC reported that Saudi Arabia invested heavily in the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and could easily acquire nuclear technology or even weaponry if the Iranians cross a threshold. Albright, however, said he did not think Saudi Arabia would likely try to acquire a weapon from Pakistan.

A senior administration official told The Daily Beast that the U.S. was working to avoid enrichment proliferation in the Arab world and arguing to Gulf leaders that the Iranian nuclear deal is a net benefit for their own security.

“The logical response by any of Iran’s neighbors to an agreement that severely restricted Iran’s program to the point that we have confidence they would never pursue nuclear weapons, the logical response is not to build up a protomilitary capability in enrichment, it’s rather to go in the opposite direction,” said the official.

This prospect of the Saudis beginning an enrichment program was broached earlier this month at the Munich Security Conference. Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal, the kingdom’s powerful former intelligence chief, if any final agreement that allowed Iran to maintain an enrichment capability would cause Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to invoke their own right to enrich uranium.

“I think we should insist on having equal rights for everybody, this is part of the (Non-Proliferation Treaty) arrangement,” the prince said.

Saudi Arabia is not alone in this regard. Last month, Turkey and Japan began re-negotiating a pact whereby Japan would provide Turkey with nuclear technology, but the deal could be modified later to give the Turks its own enrichment capability if Japan agreed.

The State Department has been working towards the longstanding U.S.-stated goal of a nuclear free Middle East. There have been three meetings of Arab countries and Israel in an attempt to set up a conference in Helsinki how to pursue a Middle East without WMD. But there’s no agreement on an agenda and no expectation the conference will commence any time soon.

Whether or not the rest of the Middle East begins to acquire nuclear weapons after Iran depends a great deal for now on the Iran negotiations. Marie Harf, the deputy spokeswoman for the State Department, acknowledged that the United States is prepared to consider allowing Iran to keep a limited enrichment program.

“We are prepared to consider a strictly limited enrichment program in the end state, but only if the Iranians address all of our concerns about their capacity to get a nuclear weapon and accept rigorous limits and transparent monitoring of the on level, scope, capacity, and stockpiles,” said Harf. “If we can reach an understanding with Iran on strict constraints, then we can contemplate an arrangement that includes a very modest amount of enrichment that eliminates Iran’s capacity to obtain a nuclear weapon in any reasonable way. If we can’t, then there will be no agreement, and we will increase even further the pressure on Iran.”

Off Topic: Laser War – The Washington Free Beacon.

(Definitely no joke. Really cool!. – Artaxes)

Israel unveils laser defense system to shoot down short-range rockets

Iran Renews Demand for U.N. Atomic Evidence – Global Security Newswire.

(There are good jokes. There are bad jokes. And then there is the Iran interrim deal.
Police officer: “You are suspected of having illegal weapons in your car. Please, open your car, Sir.”
Suspect: “Show me first your evidence!”
– Artaxes)

Iran reaffirmed its call for a U.N. agency to provide records being cited to justify suspicions about the nation’s nuclear ambitions, Agence France-Presse reports.

Iran last weekend agreed to supply new information for an International Atomic Energy Agency investigation into allegations that the Middle Eastern nation once pursued experiments capable of supporting nuclear-arms development. The long-stalled U.N. probe is intended to clarify whether the Middle Eastern nation has ever considered tapping its peaceful nuclear program to build weapons.

Iranian Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi said his country “will not accept any of the [International Atomic Energy] Agency allegations unless its documents are proven and the person who presented them clarifies on what basis we have been accused.”

“The authenticity of each allegation should be proven first, then the person who submitted it to the agency should give us the genuine document. When we are assured of the authenticity, then we can talk to the agency,” Salehi said in a Wednesday report by the state-run Mehr News Agency.

Washington is commonly thought to have provided the records to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, according to AFP. However, the Vienna-based organization has only said they came from an IAEA “member state” and “participants in a clandestine nuclear supply network.”

In remarks to Mehr News, Salehi said Iranian officials “told the IAEA negotiators that we would not accept any evidence as authentic and thus accept the accusations made in the evidence.”

Meanwhile, a new International Monetary Fund analysis suggests Iran could reinvigorate its stagnant economy with help from an international nuclear deal finalized with six other countries in November, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The United States and other governments hope the half-year deal will help negotiators hammer out enduring restrictions on Iranian activities that could support nuclear-arms development. However, the new IMF finding may support arguments that Tehran accepted the agreement largely to gain relief from financial sanctions, according to the Journal.

Off Topic: Being Anti-Israel is Being Anti-Semitic – The Algemeiner.

February 13, 2014 11:48 am
By Marc J. Rauch

What I’m really trying to understand are those insane Irish people. I mean what’s wrong with just simply being part of England. England is a great country, they have the whole royalty and pageantry stuff down pat, and they all basically speak the same language. So what’s the problem? I guess it’s just those radical Irishists.

And while I’m on the subject, what’s up with Portugal? After all, Portugal was originally part of Spain, and Portugal and Spain are on the same bit of land, and they’re all Catholic. Can someone please tell those crazy Portagees to knock it off and just let the Spanish take control.

I just remembered about Finland and Norway, what is happening with those wacky SOBs. You mean being part of Sweden wasn’t good enough for them? They’re all on the same chunk of territory and everyone knows that there’s no difference between a Fin, a Swede, and a Norwegian. So why did they feel they needed national homelands for three different groups of the same people?

Speaking of same people, c’mon why does the world really need a separate Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar? They’re all Muslim, they all rely on oil for revenue, and they live in the desert. How could anyone but insane Desertists want to separate themselves from one another?

Then there’s Bangladesh. What, they couldn’t be happy just being East Pakistan, they had to break off from regular Pakistan and form their own country with their own national goals. Isn’t it enough that the Indian Muslims were able to split from India’s Hindus? Did they really need two separate Muslim countries?

Don’t even get me started on North Carolina and South Carolina, why not just one big Carolina. The people look the same, speak the same, and they’re both part of the same U.S. It’s ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, how about North and South Dakota? The two states together hardly have enough population to make one decent other state. Can the North Dakotians really not get along with the South Dakotians? Does one group of Dakotians have worse breath than the other?

What’s going on? Why can’t people just all get along?

Oh, hey, here’s some bigger questions: Why aren’t the Irish vilified throughout the world for wanting their own country? Why are the Finlandists not vilified for wanting to be separate from Sweden and Norway? You never hear North Dakota being called an apartheid state. Why not? Don’t you know that at the North Dakota state capitol that they refuse to fly the South Dakota flag? What kind of sadistic neighbors are those North Dakotians?

Then there are those who try to claim that being against the existence of a Jewish nation has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic.

Navy moves carrier amid talks on Iran – The Hill.

(Pathetic appeasement. And still it doesn’t work. – Artaxes)

February 13, 2014, 06:00 am
By Kristina Wong

Getty Images

The U.S. Navy has reduced its carrier presence in the Persian Gulf as the Obama administration seeks to complete a nuclear deal with Iran.

The Navy denies it has reduced its strength in the strategically vital waterway, let alone done so to help diplomatic efforts, and it points to an increase in the number of smaller ships that are regularly patrolling at close quarters with Iranian vessels.

But records show that the U.S.S. Harry Truman, now the sole aircraft carrier in the region, has spent more time outside the Persian Gulf in the last six months than inside it. Just a year ago, the Navy had placed two carriers in the region.

In addition, a Navy source familiar with the issue said the Truman isn’t spending as much time in the Persian Gulf as its predecessors, and that this is intended to give space for negotiators to work on the nuclear deal.

Retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, CEO of the United States Naval Institute, said it is reasonable to think the Navy is sending a signal by limiting the Truman’s time in the Gulf.

“A carrier is an effective symbol and instrument of national power. Its mere presence is a deterrence to bad actors and bad behavior, and if necessary, it is an instrument of force,” Daly said. “That’s true in the Gulf and that’s true anywhere in the world.” 

The U.S. is seeking a final nuclear deal with Iran after reaching an interim accord in November. Congress is fiercely debating whether to threaten Iran with additional sanctions if it fails to comply with the interim deal, which eased some sanctions in exchange for Iran’s halting of elements of its nuclear program. The Obama administration opposes any new sanctions.

The Hill reviewed public data posted by officials on Facebook to estimate the days the carrier has been in the Gulf. 

From August 2013 to January 2014, the Truman spent roughly 101 days inside the Gulf of Oman and the North Arabian Sea, and only about 45 days inside the Persian Gulf, not including approximately 11 days spent transiting between or in unknown locations. 

That’s a significant shift from last year during the same period, when the U.S. had two carriers in the region.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered a two-carrier presence to the region in 2010, with one inside the Persian Gulf, in response to Iranian-threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil supply travels. The carrier presence was reduced to one in February 2013, partly because of pressure from Pentagon budget cuts.

The Truman arrived to the Gulf last summer to relieve the U.S.S. Nimitz, which was temporarily extended in case of a Syria contingency. 

It’s difficult to determine exactly how many days carriers spent in the Gulf in 2011 and 2012, however, because comparable data was not posted on the carriers’ location. Still, at least one of the two carriers was devoted to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. 

The Pentagon says U.S. presence can’t be measured just by aircraft carriers, and that the Navy has actually increased the number of smaller coastal patrol ships and other assets that are regularly patrolling the Gulf.

“There has been no diminished focus or effort with respect to the Arabian Gulf,” said Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby. 

Other Navy officials said the Truman is focusing on operations in Afghanistan, though carriers typically only provide a third of the air operations there, which have decreased as Afghan forces take the lead in the country. 

The U.S. last summer added three coastal patrol boats to its 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain on the Persian Gulf. A report in the Times of Israel said the U.S. planned to have 10 of those ships in the Gulf by early 2014.

Daly said that the increase in the number of smaller ships also sends a signal of commitment, but that the carrier is the “biggest, most powerful symbol on the scale” of doing nothing to a full kinetic response. 

“It’s demonstrated itself as the most effective visible iconic symbol of American power and resolve,” he said. 

Iran in recent days has signaled worry, not relief, about the size of the U.S. presence in the Gulf.

Over the weekend, it announced it was sending two warships toward the Atlantic Coast in response to the U.S. presence in the Gulf, and on Sunday, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Ali Fadavi warned his country would sink a U.S. aircraft carrier if the U.S. took any force against Iran.

U.S. officials, however, have dismissed Iran’s bellicose rhetoric as being directed toward a domestic audience. They also argue Iran lacks the ability to reach the Atlantic Coast. 

A Navy official speaking on background played down the fact that the Truman is spending less time in the Persian Gulf even as he acknowledged the Navy works to defuse tensions in the region.

“Our goal out here is to do everything we can to prevent miscalculations, and not pressurize a situation that could easily be pressurized,” the Navy official said. 

“We’re doing a lot out there … it’s not just this stare-down across the way with the Iranians.”

In December, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visited Bahrain and sought to reassure the region the U.S. would maintain a “strong military posture” in the Gulf.

“DOD will not make any adjustments to its forces in the region or to its military planning as a result of the interim agreement with Iran,” Hagel said at a Dec. 7 press conference.

Iran Official Rules Out Change to Heavy-Water Reactor – Global Security Newswire.

An Iranian official on Wednesday set aside the idea of potentially altering a nuclear reactor that other nations fear could produce atomic-bomb fuel.

Iran cannot convert its Arak heavy-water reactor to a light-water facility, Hamid Babaei, a spokesman for Iran’s delegation to the United Nations, wrote in a Wednesday commentary published by the London Guardian.

Such a change would reduce the unfinished site’s capacity to produce weapon-usable plutonium once activated, addressing a major concern shared by world powers as they seek a deal with Iran aimed at preventing its atomic assets from supporting any nuclear-arms production. But the diplomatic official said this kind of modification would prove infeasible.

“It is now too late to change [the Arak reactor] into a light-water prototype, as some have suggested in the West,” Babaei wrote. “This ‘generous’ offer should have been made much earlier.”

His assertion came a week after Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, reportedly expressed openness to modifying the Arak site “to produce less plutonium.”

On Tuesday, a former U.S. national security staffer said shutting down or significantly altering the Arak reactor would be one of the Obama administration’s “key considerations” in seeking a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. The Persian Gulf power, which insists the site is strictly for medical use, is set on Feb. 18 to begin talks on the potential deal with China, Germany, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

“If Iran genuinely intends Arak to be a facility that produces medical isotopes only, it should be able to agree to such modifications without significant fuss,” Jofi Joseph, a former White House nonproliferation official, wrote in a Tuesday analysis for Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

In Senate testimony last week, the Obama administration’s senior Iran negotiator dismissed Tehran’s rationale for building the heavy-water facility.

“We do not believe there is any reason for a heavy-water reactor at all in a civil nuclear program of the type that Iran is interested in,” Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. She did not explicitly say in testimony whether the United States would demand the facility’s closure or conversion.

Iranian official: Hezbollah’s arsenal has deemed Israel’s Iron Dome a joke – Jerusalem Post.

(Yet another reason why nukes in the hands of cavemen is a bad idea. – Artaxes)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, a top Iranian adviser on foreign affairs, says Hezbollah has “tens of thousands” of missiles pointed at Israel; Senior aide to Khamenei: US threats of all options on the table “foolish rhetoric.”

By JPOST.COM STAFF

Iran: Ballistic Missile Test a ‘Firm Response’ to U.S. – Washington Free Beacon.

White House vows to press issue in final deal

Washington’s Strange Silence on Iran – Commentary Magazine.