Archive for the ‘Iran / Israel War’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ahmadinejad: Sanctions won’t deter us

April 8, 2010

Ahmadinejad: Sanctions won’t deter us.


Iranian defense minister says “Israel is no match for Iranian military.”

Sanctions imposed by the United Nations will hold no weight over Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying Thursday.

“We can do without those countries which exercise pressure on us,” Ahmadinejad said in an exclusive interview with German television network RTL, due to be aired Thursday evening, according to IRNA.

Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would not be influenced by other countries on the nuclear issue, reported the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Ahmadinejad claimed that the Iranian nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

“We are in principle against atomic bombs. For us, weapons of mass destruction are inhumane,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi commented on US and Israeli pressure saying that “they should be held accountable for their aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they try to impose empty threats on other countries instead.”

“If the Zionists dare to target Iran, there will remain no trace of them. They know that they are no match for Iran in any military confrontation,” Vahidi asserted.

Vahidi finished by saying that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is in full combat readiness and will give a crushing response to any threat posed against it.”

In addition, Iranian Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said, “If the US threatens Iran…the attack will be very costly for the US… and none of its soldiers will go back home alive,” reported IRNA.


Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Reactions in the Gulf to Tension over Iranian Nuclear Issue

April 8, 2010

MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute.

By: L. Barkan*

In late January 2010, as the U.S. media was reporting on the background to the tension between Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue and on U.S. attempts to draw up sanctions to be implemented against Iran, the U.S. was stepping up its deployment of defense systems in the Gulf region – including Patriot missile batteries, warships, and fighter planes.

In response, Iran sent some threatening messages and other reassuring ones. Iranian Ambassador to Qatar Abdollah Sohrabi warned the Gulf against allowing the U.S. to attack Iran from their territory, saying that “when there is war, no one knows who is attacking whom, and the fire scorches everyone in its path.”[1] Likewise, the conservative Iranian daily Qods warned that if attacked, Iran would immediately strike the Gulf states, and not only the U.S. forces on their soil – and that the results of this attack would be unbearable for these states. [2]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likewise warned the Gulf states about the U.S. presence in the region.[3] However, on other occasions he said that the deployment of defense systems by the U.S. was a routine matter that did not bother Iran, because no country dared attack it.[4] Iranian Ambassador to Kuwait Ali Jannati also took a reassuring line, making it clear that Iran had no intention of attacking the Gulf states.[5]

Official Reaction of the Gulf States: Reinforcing Inter-Gulf Cooperation and Activity vis-à-vis Iran

The Gulf states did not hide their apprehension at the possibility of a military conflict, and acted in two main directions. They sought to strengthen cooperation among themselves – for example, on March 2, 2010, they declared that security cooperation was being stepped up and joint armored forces were being strengthened, and that joint naval forces would be established.[6]

At the same time, they engaged in diplomatic activity vis-à-vis Iran in accordance with that of the Western countries; on March 9, they declared that they were working to persuade Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but that if their efforts failed, they would act to impose sanctions on Iran.[7]

It should be noted that the Gulf states have chosen almost overwhelmingly to ignore the news about the deployment of defense systems in the U.S. bases in their countries; isolated responses were heard from Bahrain, whose foreign minister, Khalid bin Ahmad, clarified that the missile deployment was strictly a defensive move that threatened no one.[8]

Alongside the joint Gulf activity, individual countries also held contacts with Iran that sometimes seemed not in synch with official Gulf activity. The most prominent of these countries was Qatar; it expressed its full confidence in the peaceful intent of Iran’s nuclear program, and moved towards closer relations with it via a security cooperation agreement and reciprocal diplomatic and security visits.[9]

Also, Iran stated that it had signed nonaggression pacts with three Gulf countries – Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait. While elements in Kuwait hastened to deny this, they stressed that Kuwait was adhering to the principle of not serving as a platform to attack neighboring countries.[10]

While the official Gulf position is in accordance with the West’s stance in all things concerning Iran’s nuclear issue – i.e. diplomatic activity and support for sanctions when necessary – the Gulf media has been singing a different, and more aggressive, tune. Publicists and columnists have expressed fears of an upcoming war and of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and have proposed ways of dealing with the situation. The discussion has centered on the question of cooperation with the U.S. – whether the Gulf countries should prepare to defend themselves against Iran by cooperating with the U.S., or to abandon the alliance with the West and form a uniform Gulf front against Iran.

Following is a summary of reactions, as they appeared in the Gulf press:

I. Apprehensions about Iran’s Nuclear Program

Al-Arabiya Director: An Iranian Bomb Will Help Iran Take Over the Region

‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya network, wrote in the Saudi London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands would help it take over the region: “We are not afraid of an Iranian bomb. This weapon will not be put to military use; it will be used as a way to change the rules of the game.

“What we are afraid of is Iran’s policy, that uses all means to force its existence [as a regional power], and nuclear weapons is only [one of these] means. If Saddam [Hussein] had had a nuclear bomb when he invaded Kuwait, it would have remained occupied to this day, because the superpowers would not have risked war with a state with nuclear weapons. If [a nuclear] Iran tomorrow takes over Bahrain – something that is altogether possible – or if its militias take over southern Iraq, no superpower will dare to use military means to stop it. The international community will [only] have the options of conducting negotiations and bargaining with Iran, or of implementing economic sanctions against it – [tactics] that everyone knows never deterred any occupier in the past, and will certainly not deter Iran…

“We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country’s funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella to protect him from deterrence by [any] superpower.

“The Gulf states, that built giant cities and factories all along the coast, will, when Iran possesses nuclear weapons, become hostage to the caprices of Ahmadinejad and his extremist government…

“The region cannot be left to the test of reality. When we find out that the reality is painful, we will have already missed the chance [to change it].”[11]

Editor of Kuwaiti Daily: Imperialist Iran – An Existential Threat to the Gulf

Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, explained that Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons threatened the existence of the Gulf states, and called on the international community to curb these efforts: “…Iran thundered about the deployment of the missile defense system in some Arab Gulf countries as a precaution to any unexpected instance; at the same time, it announced that this system did not threaten it, and that it knows how to jam it. If so, why did it thunder?…

“The Iranian arrogance rejects any opposition to building nuclear reactors near the borders of these states, and poses an existential and environmental danger for them… The entire region has become hostage to fears of [possible] rash actions by Iran that could cause nuclear catastrophes that neither Iran nor the world will be able to bear. After all, examples of such catastrophes, some of which were the result of unexpected events, are still etched in memory, and the world continues to pay for them.”

Al-Jarallah compared Iran’s actions to those of Saddam Hussein, saying: “The current Iranian position is reminiscent of the stands taken by Saddam, particularly in all things concerning his [threat to] burn half of Israel with chemical [weapons]… We have seen how this murderer’s life ended on the gallows… Now the Iranian symphony is playing the same tune, and carrying out deceptive political maneuvers that could lead to disasters – which [Iran] is preparing without even a minimal sense of human responsibility.

“Clearly, the political path taken by the Tehran regime is controlled by imperialist aspirations; this inspires much fear. [This is worrying] not only due to [Iran’s] support for several extremist groups of various kinds, but also due to the nuclear issue and the real intentions that the Iranian leadership is concealing. This evasion and deception hint that Iran is not interested in a reactor for peaceful purposes but aspires to produce nuclear weapons with the aim of becoming the new empire in the region…

“Now more than ever, the entire international community must stop Iran’s rashness and bring it back to the right path – particularly in light of the obvious signs of the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the region. Beyond the economic cost, this race will affect all areas of life, and will drown the region in a quagmire of chaos and [evoke] reactions that none can predict.”[12]

Kuwaiti Columnist: Iran Is Warmongering

Kuwaiti columnist Mutlaq Musa’id Al-‘Ajmi explained that the U.S. bases in the Gulf had never posed a threat to Iran, but that nevertheless Iran is amassing arms in order to attack them and the Gulf states: “We are under direct threat by Iran, and [we are] within the range of its missiles. I do not believe that Iran is designating its missiles [for targets] beyond the Gulf. [Iran] claims that the Western military bases in the Gulf states – and now also Iraq – pose a threat to its security. But these bases have existed for a long time, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran has coexisted with them for 30 years, without them causing it any harm… These bases are there in order to strengthen the security and stability of the Gulf region, and to ensure the flow of oil, especially since this region is situated within the burning Middle East, whose fires Iran is fanning and stoking… [For their part], the Gulf states have always made sure not to threaten Iran from their territories…”

II. The Gulf States Must Defend Themselves While Cooperating with the U.S.

In the same article, Al-‘Ajmi justified the deployment of defense systems, writing: “The deployment of a U.S. defense shield in the Gulf is intended to reassure the countries in the region, and to deter Iran, not to threaten it or attack it. It is also intended to reassure Israel, which is threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. These goals are consistent with the interest of regional stability, including stability in Iran, and they achieve the balance and the calm necessary [in order to reach] a solution to the problems of the Middle East. If Iran views this as igniting an arms race in the region, it should know that it was [Iran itself], not the Gulf states, that started the race and got onto the racecourse before anyone else!”[13]

Kuwaiti MP: The Gulf’s Military Development Is Strictly Defensive

Kuwaiti MP Ma’suma Al-Mubarak was of a similar opinion; in the Qatari daily Al-Watan, she wondered at Iran’s response to the strengthening of the Gulf defense systems: “In light of U.S. and Israeli threats against Iran, the Gulf states must develop their own security systems, so as not to become caught in the vise [created by] the U.S. and Iran. Therefore, these countries have declared their intention to develop their own military capabilities, particularly their bases’ Patriot missile systems, as a precautionary means against any development or military confrontation that would have consequences for the countries in the region, as has happened under previous circumstances…

“However, the Islamic Republic’s response to the announcement of the development of special defense [systems] in the GCC countries – that is, that this development was aimed against Iran, its sovereignty, and its stability – was surprising and unrealistic, because all the Gulf countries had clarified that they were acting for the sake of calm, and calling for self-restraint, and that their lands had not and would never be used as a launching pad for missiles directed against Iran…”[14]

Saudi Daily: The Gulf States Must Prepare for War

In an editorial, the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah criticized Iran over its provoking of the international community, and clarified that the Gulf states must plan for a possible war: “…In our region, or to be more precise, in the Arab Gulf region, the Iranian regime is not stopping its provocation of the international community, or to be more precise, of the five great powers and the industrialized and influential countries. Iran has focused the enmity of these countries on it, to an extraordinary degree. They hastened to respond to its provocation and sent forces and warships to fill the Gulf with all the elements of war and destruction, threatening the Gulf states and their residents. This is the result of the power madness of the Tehran regime – which is insignificant next to the forces that it is provoking.

“The Arab Gulf states found themselves between two evils – the provocation and the response to it. Each of the sides is gathering its forces and getting equipment ready for a duel that will certainly harm the Arab Gulf states – particularly in light of the proliferation of threats [by Iran] to strike at Western interests in the region.

“Preparations [for the duel] have been stepped up, as warning signs of a new war about to break out in the region proliferate. This means that the Gulf countries must plan, and their governments must prepare, so as to protect the people and repel any attack on their soil.

“Therefore, all the Arab Gulf countries are hastening – and a good thing too – to complete the efforts for effective self defense, as manifested in the deployment of batteries of interception missiles (Patriot), and additional military equipment that defends the Gulf states’ land, air, and sea. These measures are purely defensive and legitimate, in order to defend the sovereignty and security of the Gulf states, which are not party to a conflict in which even the victor has nothing to gain. These measures must not worry Iran or anyone else.”[15]

Qatari Liberal: No Choice But to Cooperate With U.S.

Qatari cleric and liberal journalist ‘Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari referred to statements made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her February 2010 visit to the Gulf, regarding the Gulf states’ options. He called for cooperating with the U.S., even though, he said, Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped: “If Iran obtains nuclear [weapons] it will not use them against Israel or against us… On the one hand, [it] will exploit its possession of them in order to take over the Gulf and to dictate to us; at the same time, it is likely to push the countries of the region into a nuclear arms race…

“Iran’s nuclear program threatens not only the Gulf but also national Arab security – after Israel, of course, which is the greatest danger – and whoever does not see this must uncover his eyes and [start] worrying…

“The American administration has reached a dead end, and there is no reasonable chance for war because America is at a political, economic, and military ebb. If Bush the fighter did not launch [a war], his peace-seeking successor [certainly] cannot be expected to do so – not to mention that that the countries of the region reject a military solution for fear of harming their interests.

“Economic sanctions will not prevent Iran from moving ahead with its [nuclear] program… It will continue on its way to becoming a nuclear state – whether we want it or not – and we must prepare to coexist with it. Nothing is left for us but to pray [to Allah] the Supreme, the Omnipotent, to protect the Gulf from nuclear dangers.

“Clinton presented [us with] three options: submit to the Iranian threat, act to build our [own] nuclear capabilities, or ally with the U.S. to defend ourselves. It seems that we have no choice but the third option, Allah help us.”[16]

III. The Gulf States Should Abandon Alliance with U.S., Form United Front

A different opinion was voiced by Kuwaiti columnists who called to stop the cooperation with the U.S. Columnist Ibrahim Al-Hadban called to stop purchasing American weapons because they will not help to defend the Gulf: “…The Gulf must prepare for many conspiracies and upheavals that the Americans and Zionists will cause, especially if they attack Iran and expose us to retaliation on its part. We must stop purchasing American weapons. [These weapons] will not help us anyway in case of a confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, for we are within the range of Iran’s missiles, and Iran can destroy us with its conventional and chemical weapons, without needing nuclear weapons.”[17]

Columnist Mash’al Al-Nami wrote that the West was collaborating with Iran out of its own interests, and that the Gulf states should therefore stop cooperating with the U.S. and form a united front in order to pressure Iran. “…Iran’s ongoing effort to obtain nuclear weapons is fueled by Western aspirations, or rather by American ones – because a nuclear Iran will prompt the Gulf states to seek America’s approval by any means, in order to obtain its protection…

“Iran is disregarding the Gulf states because they are not making serious efforts to prevent it from spreading its influence throughout the countries of the region… The Gulf states can cause [Iran] to change its plans if they stand united and reach a mutual understanding regarding [their] relations with Iran – something that is currently not happening. At present, one Gulf state is engaged in a heated media war with Iran, while the head of another Gulf state is exchanging mutual friendly visits with Iran…

“After [the Gulf states] reach a mutual understanding, they will be able to consolidate their [status] in the region by pressuring Iran [and threatening it] with their weapons. They will also be able to hobble Iran, first by banning Iranian imports – which will economically burden the Iranian regime – and later on by stopping the import of labor from Iran.

“In the second phase, the pressure on Iran will be intensified by means of expelling [its] intelligence elements deployed in the region, and at the same time cultivating and supporting the [groups] struggling against the Iranian [regime], such as [those in] Baluchistan and Ahwaz, in response to Iran’s blunt intervention in the internal affairs of many countries in the region…

“The Gulf states must create for themselves a foothold in the heart of the current struggle over the spread of influence in the Gulf region. If they continue to ignore the problem that is directly harming their security, American control of the region will be stronger than it was after the war to liberate Kuwait – and then regret will be useless.”[18]

*L. Barkan is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:

[1] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 1, 2010.

[2] Qods (Iran), February 21, 2010.

[3] Al-Arab (Qatar), March 12, 2010.

[4] Fararu (Iran), February 3, 2010.

[5] Al-Rai (Kuwait), February 9, 2010.

[6] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), March 3, 2010.

[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 10, 2010

[8] Alarabiya.net, February 4, 2010.

[9] Al-Watan (Qatar), March 10, 2010.

[10] Al-Rai (Kuwait), March 6, 2010; Aljazeera.net, March 5, 2010.

[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 21, 2010.

[12] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), February 7, 2010.

[13] Awan (Kuwait), February 2, 2010.

[14] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 8, 2010.

[15] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), February 5, 2010.

[16] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 22, 2010.

[17] Al-Rai (Kuwait), February 3, 2010.

[18] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), February 16, 2010.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Armageddon Scenario – Op-Eds – Israel National News

April 8, 2010

The Armageddon Scenario – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

Published: 04/08/10, 5:17 PM
by Prof. Chuck Freilich

The Iranian nuclear threat has obscured another threat: the possibility of waging nuclear terrorism against Israel.

There is a clear rationale for employing nuclear terrorism and countering it needs calibrated policies of prevention
The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.
and possibly US-Israeli cooperation. The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.

For the past 15 years, Israel’s focus on the Iranian nuclear threat has been nearly all-encompassing, eclipsing virtually all other threats. While understandable, this preoccupation may have distracted Israel from a threat which may be no less likely and actually far more dangerous; nuclear terrorism. Unlike “traditional” terrorism, nuclear terrorism poses a catastrophic threat to the state.

Moreover, those most likely to conduct nuclear terrorism (al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, and others) may be fundamentally nihilistic and thus undeterrable. As millennial movements who believe that Israel’s destruction is a sacred mission, they may view a nuclear attack, even assuming a devastating Israeli response, to be a worthy means of ushering in a messianic era.

A nuclear terrorist threat against Israel might be designed for:

Actual Use – to deal Israel a devastating blow
Deterrence – to counter Israel’s conventional superiority and purported nuclear capability, to deter Israeli attacks, or to conduct attacks with relative impunity
Compellence – to exert a decisive influence on Israeli decision making during crises or over fundamental issues, holding it hostage by the threat of an attack
Weakening – to severely erode Israel’s national resilience due to the ongoing need to live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism
Back Up – to strengthen the deterrent value of a state-based (Iranian or Syrian) capability
Decapitation – to remove the Israeli political and/or military leadership

The potential means of conducting nuclear terrorism against Israel would be similar to those applicable to other
Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads
countries (sea, air, and land-based), with one important addition: rockets. Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Though unsuited for ordinary military purposes, they could be effective weapons of terror.

Policy Options

Prevention

Prevention includes a variety of intelligence, interdiction, and other offensive measures to detect and prevent a nuclear terrorist capability from being developed or used. If still under development, Israel will have sufficient time to pursue a range of preventative options, alone and in conjunction with the US, from targeted to massive military operations. Once a capability exists, the window for action will be severely attenuated and preventative efforts will have to include any and all capabilities to guarantee success at all costs. While a unilateral Israeli operation might be sufficient if the capability is still being developed, the need for immediate and guaranteed success to thwart an operational capability may require American involvement. The challenges posed by detection and elimination of a terrorist nuclear weapon are hugely difficult.

Deterrence

Deterrence is commonly thought to be ineffective against nuclear terrorism, due to the presumed nihilistic nature of potential perpetrators. However, Hizballah and Hamas, while certainly extremist, have populations for which they take responsibility and have proven over the years to be deterrable. Although their acquisition of a nuclear capability would pose severe threats, such as the ability to terrorize Israel’s population with relative impunity, it does place them in the appropriate context.

Iran would presumably be willing to suffer great losses in pursuit of Israel’s destruction, but would have to take into account that Israel is considered by the international community to be a nuclear power and that a nuclear crisis could lead to a devastating exchange. While a precise assessment of Iran’s cost-benefit analysis is unknowable, it does appear to be fundamentally rational and thus deterrable.

The biggest question mark is in regard to al-Qaeda, whose presumed nihilism may indeed make it undeterrable. It is questionable whether this would truly be the case in the face of threats of annihilation of their leadership and families, Muslim population centers, and sites of major importance to the Muslim world.

Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly. For Israel, this means a “shoot first, no questions asked” policy. Both those clearly responsible for an actual attack (if any) and those reasonably suspected of involvement must be held accountable, and Israel must retaliate with all the means at its disposal.  In the absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary, Israel’s retaliatory
Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly
 policy should hold Iran and/or al-Qaeda responsible with an absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary. In the event of a declared nuclear terrorist capability, a stated intention to acquire one, or an advanced suspected one, the known or suspected perpetrator and host country should be attacked in advance with the amount of all of the force necessary to prevent the threat’s materialization.

As a global power, the US will be unlikely to adopt such a “no questions asked” policy and will require nuclear forensics. Nevertheless, American determination to prevent nuclear terrorism and retaliate devastatingly against those responsible must be beyond question. US declaratory policy on the nuclear terrorist threat to Israel would not need to be significantly different from its posture on nuclear terrorism generally, but could be further elucidated.

US-Israeli Cooperation

As with so many other areas of Israeli national security, cooperation with the US is a primary option for dealing with nuclear terrorism. In this case, however, the US would only be able to provide limited assistance. “Extended deterrence” would have little if any value in the face of nihilistic terrorists. Heightened cooperative preventative efforts, while important, may not suffice when the US lacks a satisfactory response to nuclear terrorism.

Conversely, global American efforts to minimize the threat of nuclear terrorism might be of significant indirect benefit for Israel. These efforts include, inter alia: heightened diplomacy to make better international use of existing diplomatic tools and to adopt new ones; intensified pressure on states to deny terrorists assistance and sanctuary; improvements in control over nuclear facilities, stockpiles and personnel; strengthening the NPT; heightened international cooperation regarding border security, export controls, intelligence sharing, and interdiction; and a variety of covert operations.

Ending Nuclear Ambiguity

Israel is widely thought by foreign observers to be nuclear and any potential perpetrator of nuclear terrorism must take this into account. It is doubtful whether ending nuclear ambiguity would be of significant deterrent value.

Defensive Measures

Israel has an extensive operational homeland security system (Arrow and Iron Dome) and an attacker must consider the probability of interception and massive retaliation. However, if “only” one nuclear warhead got through, this would constitute unacceptable failure for Israel, rendering defensive measures an insufficient option.

Conclusion

To date, no terrorist group has apparently acquired a nuclear weapon or the materials needed to make one. Al-Qaeda has tried repeatedly, but currently the technical challenges are daunting. This good news comes with a crucial caveat; it is true only “as far as we know.” Even if the risk may be low at this time, the potential costs are monstrous and the threat assessment is likely to change significantly in the coming years. Israel must take into account that a nuclear terrorist threat could emerge in the foreseeable future and therefore devote greater attention and resources to it, in order to develop the necessary doctrine and undertake the preparations possible. The time to act is now.

This perspective is based on a more comprehensive study to be published by the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

Nisan 24, 5770 / 08 April 10

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘No US troop survives if Iran is attacked’

April 8, 2010

‘No US troop survives if Iran is attacked’.

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:41:27 GMT
Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says if the United States attacks Iran, none of the American troops in the region will go back home alive.

Iran’s Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi has warned the US against making any military moves on the Islamic Republic.

Firouzabadi said that if the United States attacks Iran, none of the American troops in the region will go back home alive.

“If the US seriously threatens Iran and takes an action against Iran, none of the US soldiers in the region will return to America alive,” Fars news agency quoted him as saying on Thursday.

Firouzabadi made the remarks in reaction to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said on Tuesday that Washington was keeping “all options” on the table for dealing with Iran and North Korea.

“If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is that if you’re going to play by the rules, if you’re going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you,” AFP quoted Gates as saying.

Firouzabadi also said if the US takes action against Iran, the threats it would face increase exponentially and its economic problems skyrocket.

“If the US seriously threatens Iran and takes an action against Iran, the threats against it will become a thousand times more, its economic problems will increase and it will lose more markets,” he said.

Firouzabadi’s speech comes a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Washington’s latest nuclear policy.

The policy authorizes the use of nuclear arms against nations which violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Obama’s mention of Iran is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence indicating Iran is violating the NPT.

In response to the new nuclear strategy, Ahmadinejad lambasted the plan and advised his US counterpart not to repeat the “past mistakes” of the previous US governments.

“I advise Mr Obama to be careful. If he tries to follow in the footsteps of Mr [George W.] Bush, the response of the [Iranian] nation will be the same crushing response they gave to Bush,” President Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northwestern city of Orumiyeh.

The 50-page “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) issued by the US administration was released on Tuesday. It purportedly restricts the use of US nuclear arms against some non-nuclear countries.

The new NPR by the Obama Administration restricts the use of US nuclear arms against some non-nuclear countries. Countries that “from the US perspective” do not comply with the NPT will be at risk of a possible nuclear attack.

The US has repeatedly accused Iran of failing to meet its obligations defined in the NPT — an allegation categorically denied by Tehran.

Iran was among the original countries that signed the NPT, a global pact aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe.

Tehran says its nuclear work is monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog and is conducted in accordance with the NPT.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Three Disturbing Reports from the White House

April 8, 2010

Three Disturbing Reports from the White House | Editorial.

Lots of strange and disturbing things are coming from the White House now that the health-care issue is over:

1) Islamic terrorism is dropped into the memory hole.

President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century… – AP (Ha’aretz)

Well, I can understand him wanting to say “we are not fighting against Islam.” But we are fighting something and somebody. Someone killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 and someone is shooting at our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly motivated someones are lobbing rockets at Israel from Gaza and preparing a massive bombardment from Lebanon. And someone in Iran is developing nuclear weapons for some reason. How can we fight an ideology that we are not allowed to name?

The AP piece continues:

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a new beginning in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.'” That doesn’t make much sense, said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

My brain actually hurts from thinking about this. Certainly the US should try to have good relations with Muslim countries. But should we ignore the fact that there is a vicious strain of Islamic extremism that expresses itself by trying to kill us? And worse, that there are many – in some Muslim countries a majority – who, while they don’t physically engage in terrorism themselves, support the extremists in principle or materially?

2) Contradictory nuclear guidelines appear.

I’m not going to try to analyze the administration’s new nuclear guidelines in detail; specialists in this sort of thing say that practically speaking there will be little change. But what is the advantage of proposing something that is intended to appear as a limitation, even if in practice it isn’t? Isn’t the whole idea of a deterrent to give the impression that if attacked we will respond in a devastating way? The assertion that we wouldn’t retaliate with nuclear weapons against a biological attack (but we reserve the right to do so) is self-contradictory and confusing.

Why is Obama playing with something that has been kept substantially unchanged by the last eleven US presidents?

Can I be excused for being suspicious, even paranoid? Do I suspect that this means that the administration is laying the groundwork for dealing with a nuclear Iran, which it considers inevitable? Do I also expect more pressure on Israel to join the non-proliferation treaty and give up its own nuclear deterrent? Yes on all.

3) Obama’s imposed ‘peace’ plan is floated.

Given the way this article in the NY Times is written, we can take it as having been dictated to the friendly newspaper by the administration. Replete with references to Netanyahu’s “right-wing party” and a suggestion that talks have been held up by Israeli intransigence on settlements – an outright lie – the piece appears to be a White House trial balloon. The plan implies an imposed settlement, possibly including US or NATO troops along the Jordan!

The most frightening part is that three out of the four presidential advisors mentioned in connection with the idea – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Robert Malley – are among the most anti-Israel elements in White House circles. Indeed, Obama was forced to disavow Brzezinski during the campaign when Jewish voters complained. Dennis Ross, the most experienced and knowledgeable Mideast expert associated with the administration was not quoted or mentioned in the article.

Can’t we get Obama interested in something else? He’s really out of his depth in foreign affairs.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear threat | Reuters

April 8, 2010

Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear threat | Reuters.

EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on leaving the office to report, film or take pictures in Tehran. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) holds a flag as he waves to his supporters during his provincial trip to Orumieh, 946 km (591 miles) north west of Tehran, April 7, 2010. REUTERS/President.ir/Handout

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s president issued a scathing personal attack on U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday, calling him an “inexperienced amateur” who was quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies.

Commenting on new U.S. policy restrictions on the use of atomic weapons which sent a stern message to nuclear-defiant Iran that it remained a potential target, hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Obama that Iran would not yield to threats.

“Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician,” Ahmadinejad said on Iranian television. “American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns.”

Obama made a diplomatic overture to Tehran soon after taking office in 2009, urging it to “unclench its fist.”

But since then a confrontation has intensified over Iran’s nuclear activities which the West suspects are aimed at developing an atomic bomb and Tehran says are for civilian use.

Obama is urging U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions against Iran.

His changes to U.S. weapons policy were announced before a nuclear summit in Washington next week. He renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear armed states.

But this came with a condition. Countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected and be potential targets.

“Yesterday some news was published saying that he (Obama) has threatened to use nuclear and biochemical weapons against countries that don’t comply with America and which do not yield to America’s pressure,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech from the northwestern city of Urmia. “We hope these reports are false.”

Iran will host its own Nuclear Disarmament Conference on April 17-18. China, which has been courted by Obama to support sanctions against Iran, has said it might attend.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Wednesday that China would join talks with the United States, Britain, Russia, France and Germany in New York on Thursday to discuss possible sanctions against Iran

But he indicated this was not necessarily a sign that China was dropping its resistance to sanctions.

“Negotiations will be long, will they be over by the end of April? I hope so,” Kouchner said.

IRAN WARNS ISRAEL

Iran repeated warnings to Israel not to attack.

“If they (Israel) attack Iran, possibly no trace will be left from the Zionist regime (Israel),” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi was quoted as saying by semi-official Mehr news agency.

Israel has hinted it could strike Iran in an effort to halt the nuclear activities. Iran has threatened to retaliate for any attack by firing missiles at Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal.

A deputy of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the elite Revolutionary Guards made similar threats on Tuesday.

The United States and its allies hope to get new sanctions imposed in the coming weeks over Iran’s nuclear enrichment work, after failing to reach a fuel-swap agreement with Tehran.

Iran, which says it needs nuclear technology to generate power and for medical reasons, says it would hand over its low-grade enriched uranium in return for higher-grade uranium, but the swap must be carried out inside the country under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“We have a positive attitude toward the fuel swapping idea … provided it is done within Iran,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference on Wednesday.

Russia, which, like China, is under intense Western pressure to support tougher U.N. sanctions has so far failed to deliver a S-300 anti-aircraft system Iran has ordered, a move which has irritated Iranian officials.

But Defense Minister Vahidi said Russia had no intention of breaking the agreement to sell the missile system. “Russia is committed to our agreements over the S-300 system. They have told us that the system will be delivered to Iran on time.”

Analysts say the S-300 could help Iran to thwart any attempt by Israel or the United States — which have refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the atomic row — to bomb its nuclear facilities.

The truck-mounted S-300PMU1, known in the West as the SA-20, can shoot down cruise missiles and aircraft. It has a range of 150 km (90 miles) and travels at more than 2 km per second.

(Additional reporting by Ramin Mostafavi and Hossein Jaseb, Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Noah Barkin)

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: 1 Comment

Is Israel Facing War With Hezbollah and Syria?

April 8, 2010

Is Israel Facing War With Hezbollah and Syria?.

By David Schenker for JCPA
on Thursday, April 08, 2010
•Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on recent pronouncements from Syria, if the situation degenerates, fighting could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973.

•On February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Damascus. Afterward, Hizbullah’s online magazine Al Intiqad suggested that war with Israel was on the horizon.

•Raising tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict. The transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a “red line.”

•In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted, took credit for the “divine victory.”

•Damascus’ support for “resistance” was on full display at the Arab Summit in Libya in late March 2010, where Assad urged Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and “take up arms against Israel.”

•After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration as well. Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.
In February 2010, tensions spiked between Israel and its northern neighbors. First, Syrian and Israeli officials engaged in a war of words, complete with dueling threats of regime change and targeting civilian populations. Weeks later, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah pledged to go toe-to-toe with Israel in the next war.1 Then, toward the end of the month, Israel began military maneuvers in the north. Finally, on February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah for an unprecedented dinner meeting in Damascus.
Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on recent pronouncements from Damascus, if the situation degenerates, fighting could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973. In January and February, Syrian officials indicated that, unlike during the 2006 fighting in Lebanon, Damascus would not “sit idly by” in the next war.2 While these statements may be bravado, it’s not difficult to imagine Syria being drawn into the conflict.
The Israeli government has taken steps to alleviate tensions, including, most prominently, Prime Minister Netanyahu issuing a gag order forbidding his ministers to discuss Syria.3 Still, the situation in the north remains volatile. Within a three-day span in mid-March: the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) fired at Israeli jets violating Lebanese airspace;4 four Lebanese nationals were charged with spying for Israel against Hizbullah;5 and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Shiite militia was “building up its forces north of the Litani (river).” Currently, according to Ashkenazi, the border was calm, “but this can change.”6
It’s easy to see how the situation could deteriorate. Hizbullah retaliation against Israel for the 2008 assassination of its military leader Imad Mugniyyeh could spark a war. So could Hizbullah firing missiles in retribution for an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The transfer of sensitive Syrian technology to the Shiite militia could also prompt an Israeli strike. Regrettably, even if Israel continues to try and diffuse tensions in the north, given the central role Tehran has in determining Hizbullah policy, a third Lebanon war may be inevitable.

Martyrs Month Pronouncements

In mid-February, Hizbullah held the annual commemoration for its pantheon of heroes, a week of celebrations marking the organization’s top three martyrs – founding father Ragheb Harb, Secretary General Abbas Mussawi, and military leader Imad Mugniyyeh. On February 16 – Martyred Leaders Day – Nasrallah gave a speech where he defined a new, more aggressive posture toward Israel, upping the ante in the militia’s longstanding “balance of terror” strategy. Promising parity with Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Nasrallah threatened:
If you [Israel] bomb Rafik Hariri international airport in Beirut, we will bomb Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you bomb our docks, we will bomb your docks. If you bomb our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries. If you bomb our factories, we will bomb your factories. And if you bomb our power plants, we will bomb your power plants.7

With current estimates suggesting that Hizbullah now possesses in excess of 40,000 missiles and rockets, Nasrallah’s threats have some resonance. Raising tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict.8 The transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a “red line.”9 It is unclear whether such a transgression remains a casus belli.
In addition to laying out Hizbullah’s new targeting strategy, Nasrallah also discussed his yet unfulfilled pledge to retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Mugniyyeh. Two years ago, immediately after the assassination, Nasrallah declared an “open war” against Israel, swearing vengeance for the group’s martyred leader. However, to date, the militia’s attempts to strike Israeli targets – in Azerbaijan and Turkey – have failed.10 During his speech, Nasrallah reiterated Hizbullah’s commitment to retaliate. “Our options are open and we have all the time in the world,” he said, adding, “What we want is a revenge that rises to the level of Imad Mugniyyeh.”11
The Damascus “Resistance” Summit

In recent years, meetings between Assad and Ahmadinejad have been routine occurrences. It has also been customary for senior Syrian and Iranian officials to visit their respective capitals – and to sign defense or economic agreements – immediately following meetings between the Assad regime and U.S. officials. So it came as little surprise that Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus just days after Undersecretary of State William Burns departed the Syrian capital. The surprising part about his visit was that Hassan Nasrallah joined the presidents for dinner.
On the day before Nasrallah’s visit, Assad and Ahmadinejad made great efforts to demonstrate that Washington’s transparent efforts to drive a wedge between the thirty-year strategic allies had failed. In a press conference on February 25, Assad famously mocked U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the administration’s gambit to split Syria from Iran, announced the end of visa requirements for travel between the two states, and described “support for the resistance [a]s a moral and national duty in every nation, and also a [religious] legal duty.”12 He also said that he discussed with his Iranian counterpart “how to confront Israeli terrorism.”
While the Syria-Iran bilateral meeting and subsequent press conference was described in some detail by Assad regime insider Ibrahim Humaydi in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, far less is known about what Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah discussed during their dinner meeting the next day. According to the account in Hizbullah’s online magazine Al Intiqad, the meeting was about “the escalating strategic response of the axis of the confrontationist, rejectionist, and resistance states” to the U.S.-Israeli threat.13 Significantly, this article also suggested that war with Israel was on the horizon.
Resorting to the most extreme decision – that is, launching and setting a war on its path – will decide the final results. In any case, if reasonable calculations prevail, they will lead to producing comprehensive and specific [Israeli] compromises or it will lead to postponing the war which still waits for its most appropriate time for everyone.14

Based on its analysis of the trilateral summit in Damascus, this Hizbullah organ seems to be suggesting that a war, while not imminent, is inevitable.
The Weak Link

In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted, took credit for the “divine victory.”15 Since then, Syria has upgraded its rhetorical and materiel support for the Shiite militia.16 Damascus has helped Hizbullah to fully rearm, reportedly providing the militia with cutting-edge Russian weaponry from its own stocks. In this context, Syrian officials have been increasingly trumpeting their support for, and loyalty to, the resistance, so much so that the official government-controlled Syrian press now proclaims that “Syrian foreign policy depends on supporting the resistance.”17
Damascus’ support for “resistance” was on full display at the Arab Summit in Libya in late March 2010. According to reports, at the meeting Assad urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and “take up arms against Israel,” imparting his own experience that “the price of resistance is not higher than the price of peace.”18 During his speech before his fellow Arab leaders, Assad was equally hard-line in his prescriptions. At a minimum, he said, Arab states should cut off their relations with Israel. The “maximum” – and presumably preferable – policy option, he said, would be to support the resistance.19
Despite the rhetoric, however, it’s not clear that Syria is presently itching for a fight with Israel. After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration, which recently announced the posting of a new ambassador and indicated a willingness to revise sanctions and modify U.S. economic pressures on Damascus.20 Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.
War would change this comfortable dynamic. In the event of an Israel-Hizbullah conflagration, pressures on Syria to participate would be intense. Furthermore, could Syria really watch an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without responding? After so much crowing about its support for Hizbullah and its regional ilk, could Syria sit out yet another fight?

Conclusion

While it’s too early to predict the timing or the trigger, on Israel’s northern border there appears to be a growing sense that war is coming. Iran may have an interest in maintaining Hizbullah’s arsenal until an Israeli strike. Likewise, for Hizbullah, which lately has been playing up its Lebanese identity in an effort to improve its image at home, waging war on Israel on behalf of Iran could be problematic. In any event, it is all but assured that a war on Israel’s northern front will be determined, at least in part, by Tehran.
In early February, Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak told the IDF: “In the absence of an arrangement with Syria, we are liable to enter a belligerent clash with it that could reach the point of an all-out, regional war.”21 Regrettably, regardless of what happens between Syria and Israel in the coming months, the decision of war or peace with Hizbullah may be out of Israel’s hands.
To read more go to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=0&IID=3647&TTL=Is_Israel_Facing_War_with_Hizbullah_and_Syria?

*     *     *

Notes
* The author would like to thank his research assistant Cole Bunzel for his excellent assistance in the preparation of this article.

1. “Full Text of H.E. Sayyed Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders,” http://english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=10225&cid=214.

2. “Syria Will Back Hizbullah Against IDF,” Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2010. Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem echoed this threat in February 2010; see “Al-Mouallem at Press Conference with Moratinos,” SANA, February 4, 2010. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/02/04/270781.htm.

3. Attila Somfalvi, “Bibi Tells Ministers to Keep Mum on Syria,” Ynet, February 4, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3844619,00.html. Netanyahu also reassured Syria that Israel remained interested in peace.

4. “Lebanese Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes,” AFP, March 21, 2010, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100321-260030/Lebanese-army-fires-on-Israeli-warplanes.

5. “Lebanon Charges Four with Spying for Israel,” Press TV, March 20, 2010, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121274§ionid=351020203.

6. Amnon Meranda, “Ashkenazi: Hamas Doesn’t Want a Flareup,” Ynet, March 23, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866883,00.html.

7. “Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders.”

8. See, for example, Barak Ravid, “Israel Warns Hizbullah: We Won’t Tolerate Arms Smuggling,” Ha’aretz, October 12, 2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009384.html.

9. “Report: Hizbullah Trains on Missiles,” UPI, January 17, 2010, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/01/17/Report-Hezbollah-trains-on-missiles/UPI-51221263741141/.

10. See Yossi Melman, “Hizbullah, Iran Plotted Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Azerbaijan,” Ha’aretz, May 31, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089204.html. Also Avi Isaacharoff, “Turkish Forces Foil Attack on Israeli Target,” Ha’aretz, December 9, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133747.html.

11. “Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders.”

12. Ibrahim Humaydi, “Al Asad: Ta‘ziz al-‘alaqat bayna duwal al-mintaqa tariq wahid li-l-qarar al mustaqill,” Al Hayat, February 26, 2010, http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112984.

13. “Qimmat Nejad-Al-Asad-Nasrallah: Ayy hisabat ba‘daha?” http://www.alintiqad.com/essaydetails.php?eid=27878&cid=4.

14. Ibid.

15. “Speech of Bashar Asad at Journalist Union 4th Conference,” August 15, 2006,

http://www.golan67.net/NEWS/president%20Assad%20Speech%2015-8-6.htm.

16. In addition to the Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, some unconfirmed reports indicate that Syria may have transferred some of its Scud-D missiles – capable of delivering chemical warheads – to Hizbullah.

17. “Junblatt wa-l-Tariq ila Dimashq,” Al Watan, March 10, 2010, http://alwatan.sy/dindex.php?idn=75718. That support for resistance is central to Syrian foreign policy comes as little surprise: in 2009, Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem volunteered to join Hizbullah. See “Muallem Says He’s Ready to Join Hizbullah,” Gulf News, May 3, 2009, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/muallem-says-ready-to-join-hezbollah-1.248887.

18. “Arab Leaders Support Peace Plan,” AP, March 28, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/middleeast/article.aspx?id=171981.

19. Ziyad Haydar, “Qimmat sirte infaddat ‘ala ‘ajal…wa bila za‘al,” As Safir, March 29, 2010, http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3020&EditionId=1496&ChannelId=34736. In an interview following the summit, Syrian advisor Buthaina Sha‘ban declared victory for the Syrian position, saying that “an agreement took place among the Arab leaders in a closed session to support the resistance and reject normalization” with Israel.

20. Ibrahim Humaydi, “Washington tarfa‘ mu‘aradataha ‘udwiyat Suriya fi munazzimat al-tijara al-‘alamiya,” Al Hayat, February 24, 2010,. http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112646.

21. Amos Harel, “Barak: Without Peace We Could Be Headed for All-Out War,” Ha’aretz, February 2, 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146731.html.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran will strike U.S. troops if attacked: army chief | Reuters

April 8, 2010

Iran will strike U.S. troops if attacked: army chief | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Iran would respond to any military attack from the United States by hitting U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, its military commander said on Thursday.

“If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.

His comments intensified hostile rhetoric in a week when U.S. President Barack Obama excluded Iran from a new policy restricting the use of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Obama is urging U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions in the coming weeks to pressure Iran to curb a nuclear program which the West fears could lead it to make nuclear weapons.

Iran has also repeatedly warned Israel — which has hinted it could use military strikes against Iran’s nuclear activities — that it would respond militarily to any attack.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Firouzabadi said a strike on Iran would also put oil supplies at risk.

“If America wants to have the region’s oil and its markets then the region’s markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims’ control over oil would increase,” he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.

Pressure on Iran could increase next week when Obama will host a summit on nuclear security to be attended by the leaders of China and Russia — the two Security Council veto holders he has been courting to support new U.N. sanctions.

(Reporting by Hashem Kalantari; writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Israel PM doubts sanctions have ‘teeth’ to dissuade Iran

April 7, 2010

IC Publications.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he doubts the sanctions being mulled against Iran would be tough enough to rein in the Islamic republic’s nuclear ambitions.

“I doubt that such a programme will have teeth,” he said at a news conference in Jerusalem, referring to US-led efforts to slap new UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear defiance.

Israel shares the US conviction that Iran, its arch-foe, is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, a claim Tehran denies.

The sole, if undeclared nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, the Jewish state has repeatedly said it would not rule out a military option in dealing with Iran.

Netanyahu made the comments ahead of next week’s international summit on nuclear security summit in Washington, which he will attend.

The US administration said in a policy document presented on Tuesday that it would only use atomic arms in “extreme circumstances” and would not attack non-nuclear states, although Iran and North Korea were exceptions.

The Nuclear Posture Review described “nuclear terrorism” as an immediate and extreme threat, with efforts to prevent the spread of atomic weapons given top priority.

“This is a very, very serious issue that nuclear weapons, even crude nuclear weapons would find their way into the hands of terrorists and the consequences could be very very dire for all of humanity,” Netanyahu said.

Responding to a question, he deflected concerns the spotlight could be turned onto Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

“I’m not concerned that anyone will think that Israel is a terrorist regime. Everybody knows a terrorist and rogue regime when they see one, and believe me they see quite a few around Israel.”

Israel has never publicly acknowledged it has nuclear weapons and has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity since it inaugurated its Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert in 1965.

“This policy of ambiguity constitutes one of the pillars of Israeli national security and the Americans consider it very important,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told army radio.

“There is no reason for the Americans to change their approach or for Israel to change its position,” he said.

For the past four decades, Israeli governments have insisted the Jewish state will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

“This policy will continue and no pressure from any country will make it change,” Ayalon said.

In a slight departure from the usual wording, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said in an interview with CNN last year that “to introduce” meant “to deploy.”

Foreign military experts believe Israel has an arsenal of several hundred nuclear weapons.

In 1969, Israeli leaders undertook not to make any statement on their country’s nuclear potential or carry out any nuclear test, while Washington agreed to refrain from exerting pressure on the issue.

The Israeli programme is under military censorship.

Like nuclear-armed countries India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to avoid inspections by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama is right to keep America’s nuclear weapons trained on Iran – Telegraph

April 7, 2010

Obama is right to keep America’s nuclear weapons trained on Iran – Telegraph Blogs.

Ahmadinejad greets his supporters in the city of Oroumieh today (Photo: EPA)

Ahmadinejad greets his supporters in the city of Oroumieh today (Photo: EPA)

The hardline regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would do well to take note of U.S. President Barack Obama’s carefully-worded caveat about the conditions under which America might use its devastating stockpile of nuclear weapons.

In his Nuclear Posture Review, Mr Obama stresses that the role of America’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks on the U.S. and its allies, and rules out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, even if they were to attack the U.S. with non-conventional weapons, such as chemical or biological devices.

But he makes an important exception with regard to both Iran and North Korea. While stating that he would refrain from launching nuclear attacks against countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this constraint only applies to those countries that are in compliance with the NPT, which both North Korea and Iran are most certainly not.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might think he can drum up domestic support by denouncing Mr Obama’s policy as that of a “cowboy”, but he would do well to give its implications serious consideration. The West is heading for a fresh confrontation with Iran over its refusal to freeze its uranium enrichment programme, with a new round of sanctions likely to be implemented in the next few weeks.

But if Iran continues to defy world opinion and presses ahead with its attempts to build an atom bomb, it could easily find itself in the target sights of America’s nuclear technicians.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »