Archive for the ‘Iran’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Pentagon: Iranian Forces Board Marshall Islands-Flagged Ship in Gulf

April 28, 2015

Pentagon: Iranian Forces Board Marshall Islands-Flagged Ship in Gulf, Reuters via Washington Free Beacon, April 28, 2015 at 11:20 am, EDT

(According to other sources, the ship is U.S. owned. — DM)

WASHINGTON – Iranian forces boarded a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf on Tuesday after patrol boats fired warning shots across its bow and ordered it deeper into Iranian waters as it was traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, the Pentagon said.

The ship, the MV Maersk Tigris, initially ignored Iranian patrol boats that ordered it deeper into Iranian territorial waters but complied after the vessels fired several warning shots, U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren said.

U.S. forces in the region responded to distress calls from the Maersk Tigris, sending the destroyer USS Farragut to monitor the situation along with reconnaissance aircraft. No U.S. citizens were aboard the cargo ship, Warren said.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran, Iranian navy, U.S. Military
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Raid on Iran

April 28, 2015

Raid on Iran, Jerusalem Post, Harry Moskoff, April 28, 2015

The only question now is:  when could an attack on Iran be carried out? At this point, Israel can’t afford NOT to make a strike, as the policy of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran has changed from prevention, to containment.  Indeed, all have come to agree that if the military option isn’t utilized by either the US or Israel, a nuclear Iran is simply a fait accompli.

If a preventative strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is going to happen, it must be both before the P5+1 negotiating deadline of June 30th, and before the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles are delivered and setup on Iranian soil. Indeed, if and when that eventuality comes into play, Israel may be forced to destroy that weapons convoy on route to Iran. I’m pretty sure this threat has already been issued.

**********************

As a rule, I don’t usually get involved in war scenarios, but after seeing the Israeli Air Force (IAF) jets put on their brilliant display this week for Israel Independence Day, I was inspired.  I was thinking: what if they just continued flying southwest? There’s an important point that I want to make here.

Sooner rather than later, Israel will be forced to make that raid. You know the one. It’s the BIG one. It will make the 1981 precision strike on Iraqi’s Osirak reactor, otherwise known as Operation Raid on the Sun, look like a walk in the park. Back then (just like now), when some argued that the attack would alienate both the United States and Europe, Ariel Sharon allegedly quipped “If I have a choice of being popular and dead or unpopular and alive, I choose being alive and unpopular.” Prime Minister Begin ultimately agreed and the rest of the cabinet fell in behind him. The only question now is:  when could an attack on Iran be carried out? At this point, Israel can’t afford NOT to make a strike, as the policy of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran has changed from prevention, to containment.  Indeed, all have come to agree that if the military option isn’t utilized by either the US or Israel, a nuclear Iran is simply a fait accompli.

If a preventative strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is going to happen, it must be both before the P5+1 negotiating deadline of June 30th, and before the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles are delivered and setup on Iranian soil. Indeed, if and when that eventuality comes into play, Israel may be forced to destroy that weapons convoy on route to Iran. I’m pretty sure this threat has already been issued. Effectively, we’re looking at a window of opportunity of a little over 2 months to initiate an attack that could take many hours, if not days to carry out, with hundreds or even thousands of missile strikes per day.  Simply put, if there is no attack now, Israel must prepare for the day after – a new, grim reality in the Middle East.

However, here’s an interesting point. If the arms shipment isn’t destroyed, there may be another answer to the S-300. Israel’s Defense Ministry sent a Letter of Request to Congress in 2003 asking for authorization to purchase “up to” 75 brand new, top of the line jet fighters that have significant new counter-missile capabilities. In 2010, it signed a deal with the US-based Lockheed-Martin aeronautical company for 19 F-35As, with the first few aircraft set to arrive in late 2016. The total cost of that deal was $2.75 billion, a spokesman for Lockheed-Martin said, out of which $475 million was for non-recurrent costs for the incorporation of upgraded Israeli technology. It’s interesting to note that the approximate cost of the aircrafts was (a staggering) $120 million. Each! These are stealth fighters with highly advanced radar, which will see its targets before it is seen.  Armed with the intelligence of where the surface to air missile systems are located, the IAF will then take the necessary measures to first avoid the S-300 systems, then destroy them.  What other choice is there – finding the Ark of the Covenant and using that, as in biblical times? True, the planes are insanely expensive, but obviously quite necessary!

On April 15 at Yad Vashem, and echoing his recent, now-famous address to Congress, PM Netanyahu said: “Even if we are forced to stand alone against Iran, we will not fear…”  Well folks, I dare say that we have reached that point.  Everyone knows by now that where the negotiations are concerned, the US no longer considers use of force in the cards, and quite the contrary, President Obama has indicated that even sanctions have become negotiable. People here in Israel feel that the State Dept. may even act AGAINST Israel if it unilaterally attempts a pre-emptive attack.  Besides the obvious existential threat to Israel, one of the other problems is that Iran seeks to “dominate the region” (Netanyahu’s words), and impose a Khomeini-style revolution in the Middle East.  We now see clearly that they are doing just that in places like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and even here in Gaza. Whether Israel sees a right-wing government emerge in the coming weeks, or even a broad-based coalition with the Left, all agree at the end of the day that it’s just a matter of time before Iran breaches their side of an already bad deal, and action will need to be taken, whether backed by the US or not.

What most Israeli’s don’t realize is that once a breach in the agreement is discovered (publicly), there is simply no way the US will neutralize Iranian capabilities with a military strike.  Obama won’t do it, and the reason why he won’t do it is because he is not prepared to cast and label Iran as an Enemy of the State. To him, those days are over and it doesn’t lie in synch with his doctrine. In fact, the US President apparently vetoed a potential Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities back in 2012. Is it so hard to see why? Back door negotiations were going on even then between the US and Iran, as Hillary Clinton recently admitted herself.  It is crystal clear that the White House CAN forcibly bring the Iranian nuclear program to a halt, it simply chooses not to do so. Will this change after, let’s say – an Iranian nuclear test?  Perhaps, but unlikely.

As such, practically speaking, can Israel attack Iran with any real success? Is it worth it? The following are some salient points to consider.

We know that Saudi Arabia has already given tacit permission for Israel to use its airspace to reach the Iranian military targets because as a Sunni Muslim state, they are considered as ‘infidels’ to Iran, who are Shiite Muslims. In fact, they have more to worry about than Israel does, and as a result of the framework agreement that was signed in Vienna, they are demanding the same rights to nuclear capabilities that Iran is apparently going to get. Credible sources state that Pakistan is now prepared to ship a nuclear package to the Saudis. As for Iran, it already has the ballistic missile capability that could hit Saudi Arabia with a warhead at the push of a button. And they know it. So does Jordan.

The truth is that Israel has sufficient nuclear and conventional power to destroy the Islamic Republic in one day in the event of any war. In this case though, we’re talking about a surprise attack (more or less). As mentioned above, Israel is believed to have a fully prepared plan to launch a strike, which by necessity, would likely involve some 80 planes, and perhaps up to several hundred aircraft according to some military experts. In reality, this has been in the planning for over 10 years. Israel possesses the advanced midair refueling capabilities required for carrying out sorties over multiple Iranian targets situated between 1,500 and 2,000 km away from home. Possible targets could include uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and Qom, the uranium-conversion plant at Isfahan, and a heavy water reactor in Arak suspected of being used to pursue a plutonium-based nuclear arms program, as well as additional facilities. The mission would require the use of powerful, penetrating warheads, otherwise known as bunker-buster bombs, as well as possible repeated strikes to ensure success. According to a Newsweek article from September of last year, the US Congress signed and transferred 55 such bombs to Israel. Further, the attack would likely be coordinated with the assistance of Israeli intelligence satellites that could provide real time detailed images from the battle arena, as well as Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft. It could also involve the use of a fleet of giant Heron 2 drones, which are the size of 737 commercial airliners. The UAVs form the first line of defense against an expected Iranian counterstrike, involving the launch of long-range Shihab 3 missiles, or worse.   These drones can reportedly reach Iran and hover over missile launch sites. Israel’s Arrow missile defense shield would undoubtedly also come into play to intercept missiles heading into Israeli airspace.

In terms of other forms of weaponeering capabilities, Israel maintains (at least) two elite special forces units dedicated to assisting with air strikes, one dedicated to laser target designation (Sayeret Shaldag/Unit 5101) and one to real time bomb damage assessment (Unit 5707).  These units are extremely well-trained and could potentially be infiltrated to the target zone prior to attack.  While it would be both difficult and risky to deploy these units inside Iran, they would be very useful in aiding the strike package, particularly in bad weather.

Obviously, such a strike would touch off conflict with Iran’s proxy in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah, which is armed with thousands of rockets, as well as Hamas in Gaza, and possibly with Syria. The resulting chain of events could easily lead to a major regional war and long-term instability, so much so that some senior Israeli defense figures have reportedly been rejecting the idea of attacking Iran for years.  Assuming that a military strike is issued in the near future, Israel cannot hope to destroy Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure, as facilities are distributed across the country and there are simply too many sites to plan to attack them all.  To have a reasonable chance of success, both in the mission and in the ultimate goal of rendering Iran’s nuclear program impotent, the target set must be narrowed to concentrate on the critical nodes in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which seems to be growing by the day!

The main focus of an imminent strike must be to target the Natanz facility first.  Natanz is by far both the most difficult and most important target to destroy.  The main enrichment facility apparently has two large (25,000-32,000 m2) halls located 8 to 23m underground and protected by multiple layers of concrete.  The combination of large size and target hardening mean that only a very robust strike could hope to destroy or at least render unusable the centrifuges within.  In order to ensure penetration of a target with these high levels of hardening, one technique is to use the bunker busters targeted on the same aimpoint but separated slightly in release time to ‘burrow’ into the target. What happens essentially, is that one bomb hits the crater made by the previous weapon, a technique contemplated by the U.S. Air Force in the first Gulf War.  This takes advantage of the extremely high accuracy of bombs in combination with a penetrating warhead.  The IAF appears to have purchased these with this technique in mind. In fact, Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, former commander of the IAF (and a participant in the Osirak strike), commented on this method of attacking hardened facilities in Jane’s Defense Weekly: “Even if one bomb would not suffice to penetrate, we could guide other bombs directly to the hole created by the previous ones and eventually destroy any target.”

Has the point been made yet? This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg on Israel’s military capability, and there is no doubt that the IAF can pull off an attack and get the job done. And let’s not forget about our Dolphins (nuclear subs) in the Gulf.  The factor that complicates matters so much is that, unlike in 1981 where the mission was so secret that the pilots themselves only learned of their target the day before, the US government must be notified before an attack of this magnitude.

On that note, the Obama administration has been exerting great pressure in the back halls for some time now in order to convince (even by means of veiled threats to withhold their veto power in the UN), their Israeli counterparts to refrain from issuing an attack order on Iran.  The only problem is that if Israel chooses again to wait it out and not attack, the world is bound to lie in dread of a new, powerful Iranian nuclear regime – to shake under their threat, similar to the way the world was just 70 years ago regarding the appeasement of Germany. Saudi Arabia will then look to the US for advice, and to provide an umbrella defense mechanism. Needless to say, a third world war might just emerge (heaven forbid).  This scenario is actually already depicted in the Zohar, the Midrash and other traditional Jewish texts in reference to the future world war of ‘Gog and Magog.’  Let’s pray it doesn’t come to that! In our lifetimes, or our offspring.

What bothers me the most right now though, is that even as the West is negotiating with a fanatical, expansionist Islamic regime in those posh Viennese boardrooms, the people on Tehran’s streets are chanting: “Death to the US; death to Israel” (in that order). The recent military parade echoed the same rhetoric.  HELLO…… isn’t someone paying attention over there? This is the reason why Israel shouldn’t just flex its military muscles for display to the Mullahs. It must attack. And it must attack now. This is precisely what the IDF was created for! Ben Gurion knew it. Menachem Begin knew it, and now Netanyahu knows it too. At this juncture in time, Iran cannot be trusted, and we know this to be an undeniable and unfortunately, well proven fact. Especially since, as of last week, the world discovered that Iran’s intent to destroy Israel is “non-negotiable.”  I believe that the citizens living in Israel (like myself) should, and will, accept the inevitable consequences that come with protecting our beautiful country.

A raid on Iran? My point here is:  The best defense is a good offense.

Categories: Airstrikes, Arab nations, Drones, Foreign policy, IDF, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Israeli attack on Iran nukes, Kerry, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Rogue nations, Russian missiles
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Hizballah terror attack on Golan stokes face-off between Israel and the Syrian-Hizballah alliance

April 27, 2015

Hizballah terror attack on Golan stokes face-off between Israel and the Syrian-Hizballah alliance, DEBKAfile, April 27, 2015

Israel over SyriaAlleged Israeli air strikes over Syria

Last week, the Obama administration managed to hold back the clash threatening to blow up opposite Yemen by the US, Saudi and Egyptian navies against an Iran convoy. Washington is likely to lean hard on Israel and Tehran to make sure that the current sparring does not run out of control and explode into a military showdown.

If this happened, Tehran would likely refuse to sign the nuclear deal which is nearing conclusion with the world powers led by the US.

*********************

According to Arab media, Israeli executed its third strike against Syrian and Hizballah targets in the Qalamoun area on the Syrian Lebanese border Sunday night, April 26 – shortly after Hizballah attempted to plant an explosive device near an Israeli Golan military post.

But then, Monday morning, anonymous Israeli sources improbably attributed this air strike to possible Syrian opposition action by the Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Hizballah was meanwhile identified as responsible for the thwarted bomb attack on the Israeli Sheita military post guarding the northern Golan border with Syria. “Four terrorists placed an explosive on a fence near Majdel Shams. The air force thwarted the attack, killing all four,” a military spokesman said.
On the face of it, Israel’s purported third air strike over Syrian territory in five days, this time targeting the Wadi a-Sheikh and Al Abasiya regions of the Qalamoun mountains, was in retaliation for the thwarted Hizballah attack on the Golan.

However, DEBKAfile’s military sources give the exchange of blows a different slant: It is more likely to be the onset of a systematic Israeli campaign to wipe out Syrian-Hizballah military bases repositioned on the mountain range as depots and launching-pads for firing long-range missiles into Israel from Syrian territory.

A clue to this objective was offered Sunday night by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in a firm statement that Israel would not permit Iran to arm Hizballah with advanced weapons. He did not explicitly admit to the air strikes of last Wednesday and Saturday,which were reported by Arab TV stations to have hit surface-to-surface missile depots on Qalamoun. But he nearly gave the game away. He accused Iran of trying to arm Hizballah with advanced weapons by every possible route. “We will not allow the delivery of sophisticated weapons to terrorist groups, Hizballah in particular… or allow Hizballah to establish a terror infrastructure on our borders with Israel,” the minister said, adding: “We know how to lay hands on anyone who threatens Israeli citizens, along our borders or even far from them.”

In a previous report, DEBKAfile disclosed that Syrian and Hizballah forces were on the point of conducting an offensive, under Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers, to flush Syrian rebels out of their last remaining pockets on the mountain slopes in order to clear the Syrian-Lebanese highway link for troop and arms convoys between the two countries.

We also reported that Hizballah had already relocated substantial military manpower and missile stocks from northern Lebanon to an enclave it now controlled on the Syrian Qalamoun mountains.

The anonymous sources’ attribution of Sunday night’s air strike to the Nusra Front sounded more like a lame cover story than a serious supposition. The Syrian opposition has never managed to use air power against the armies of Assad and Hizballah. Nusra did capture a few fighter-bombers from the enemy, but never acquired the technical infrastructure, ordnance or trained pilots to fly them.

This improbable theory would in any case contradict the warning message Israel was clearly addressing to Damascus and Hizballah that any violations of Israel’s red lines on their part would be met with action to knock over their military set-up on their shared border, section by section – even at the risk of a showdown with Iran in the Syrian arena.

Israel’s destruction of the Qalamoun war machine would have four far-reaching ramifications:

1. It would impair the Syrian army’s capabilities and strike at the heart of the Assad regime.

2. It would give a strong leg up to the Syrian opposition, especially Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which is emerging as the strongest and most effective paramilitary force in the Syrian opposition camp.

3. It would curtail the transformation of the Qalamoun Mts. into Hizballah’s most important forward base of attack against Israel.

It is hard to see Tehran standing by if the sparring escalates further and Israel continues to punch away at the Islamic Republic’s two most valuable strategic assets. Direct action by Iran would not be its style. Tehran would rather put the Syrian army and Hizballah up to stepping up its campaign of terror against Israel, possibly by expanding the arena across two borders into Lebanon and Israel itself.

Last week, the Obama administration managed to hold back the clash threatening to blow up opposite Yemen by the US, Saudi and Egyptian navies against an Iran convoy. Washington is likely to lean hard on Israel and Tehran to make sure that the current sparring does not run out of control and explode into a military showdown.

If this happened, Tehran would likely refuse to sign the nuclear deal which is nearing conclusion with the world powers led by the US.

Categories: Diplomacy, Egypt, Foreign policy, Golan, Hezbollah, IDF, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Terrorism, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

IDF Eliminates Terror Cell Planting Bomb on Syrian Border

April 26, 2015

IDF Eliminates Terror Cell Planting Bomb on Syrian Border, Israel National News, Kobi Finkler, Ari Yashar, April 26, 2016

IDF forces on Sunday night eliminated a terrorist cell as it was trying to place an explosive on the Israeli-Syrian border on the Golan Heights.

Reportedly four terrorists were killed in the incident; no IDF soldiers were wounded in the exchange.

A senior IDF source said that an army surveillance patrol located the terrorists who had arrived at the border from Syria, and tracked them as they advanced.

When they reached the border and placed an explosive on it, IAF aircraft fired missiles at them, taking out every single terrorist member of the cell.

The IDF reports that the incident took place on Israeli territory just east of the security barrier.

The last security incident involving an attempted border bombing similar to this one took place last March, when an explosive was placed on the border. As a result of the explosion, an IDF paratrooper officer was critically wounded.

Earlier on Sunday Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud) warned that Israel will strike Iranian attempts to smuggle advanced weapons to the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon, following Arab reports that an IAF airstrike the day before took out a Scud missile depot in Syria transferring weapons to Hezbollah.

According to the reports in Arabic media, a Scud depot in the Qalamoun mountain region rife with smuggling to Hezbollah was targeted, after a weapons convoy was hit last Wednesday.

“Iran continues to try and arm Hezbollah, even in these very days, and it hopes to equip the Lebanese terrorist organization with advanced and precise weapons,” said Ya’alon. “We won’t allow Iran and Hezbollah to establish a terrorist infrastructure on our border with Syria, and we will know to put our hands on all those who threaten citizens of Israel, along all our borders and even far from them.”

 

Categories: Golan Heights, Hezbollah, IDF, Iran, Syria
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

How does sanctions-ridden Iran find a multibillion war chest to fund 6 armies fighting in 4 Mid East wars?

April 24, 2015

How does sanctions-ridden Iran find a multibillion war chest to fund 6 armies fighting in 4 Mid East wars? DEBKAfile, April 24, 2015

(The sanctions on Iran have been of decreasing significance since the initial “framework” of 2013 went into effect. — DM)

According to figures reaching DEBKAfile in March, Iran is spending a vast fortune – up to an estimated $6-8 billion per year – to keep six armed forces fighting in four Middle East war campaigns for expanding its sphere of influence.  Month after month, Tehran forks out close to half a billion dollars – and sometimes more – to keep those conflicts on the boil. How Iran manages to keep this war chest flowing so abundantly from an economy crippled by international sanctions has never been explained.

Syria
As the Syrian war enters its fifth year, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are found to be running it from four command and control centers, our military and intelligence sources report:

1. In Damascus, the IRGC operates as a part of the Syrian General Staff, with two imported pro-Iranian militias at its independent disposal. This command center has three tasks: To oversee the Syrian general staff and monitor its operational planning; to guard President Bashar Assad’s regime and his family; defend key locations such as the military airport and Shiite shrines, and keep the highways to Lebanon open.

2.  In the Aleppo region of the north, IRGC officers were engaged in drawing up plans for a general offensive to rout rebel forces from positions they have captured in the city. Tehran attaches prime importance to a peak effort for the recapture of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. The IRGC command has transferred large-scale Hizballah forces from Lebanon to this arena, along with Afghan and Pakistani Shiite militias. Thousands of these combatants underwent training at specialist IRGC bases. Our military sources disclose that those militias recently took so many casualties that Iranian officers decided to hold off the Aleppo offensive.

3.  In the Qalamoun Mts., which are situated athwart the Syrian-Lebanese frontier, Tehran has given high priority to flushing rebel forces, including the Nusra Front and the Islamic State, out of the pockets they have seized on the mountain slopes, so as to clear the mountain roads for the passage of Hizballah units. This offensive has also been delayed.

4.  In South Syria, Iranian officers led a large-scale month-long drive to drive rebel forces out of the area they hold between Deraa and Damascus, in order to position Iranian-led Hizballah and pro-Iranian militia forces face to face with the Israeli army on the Golan. This drive has so far been stalled.

Tehran establishes – and pays for – new Syrian army

Iranian officers have established, trained and equipped a new 70,000-strong fighting force called the Syrian National Defense Force. Its operations, including the soldiers’ wages, are financed from Tehran’s pocket.

Iran runs airlifts day by day to re-supply the Syrian army with weapons systems and ammunition, and the Syrian Air Force with bombs and ordnance for attacks against rebel forces – of late, mostly barrel bombs. Intelligence sources estimate that Iran’s expenditure in the Syrian conflict now hits $200 million per month – around $2.5 billion a year.

Iran bankrolls Hizballah from top to bottom

The 25,000-strong Lebanese Shiite Hizballah operates under the direct command of IRGC officers. All its military equipment comes from Tehran, which also draws up its annual budget. Each month, Iran transfers to Beirut $150-200 million, as well as paying for all the Lebanese militias’ expenses for maintaining an expeditionary force in Syria. Hizballah costs Tehran an approximate $2 billion per annum.

An all-Shiite “people’s national army” for Iraq, re-supplies for Yemen

Iran’s deep military intervention in Iraq includes the creation of an all-Shiite “people’s national army.” It follows the same template as the Syrian National Defense Force and consists of the same number of fighters – 70,000 troops.

Tehran has also invested in barricades to fortify Baghdad against invasion from the north and the west.

The offensive to retake the Sunni town of Tikrit from the Islamic State was led by Iranian officers, and fed constantly with high-quality weapons systems, including missiles and tanks.

All the war materiel required by the Iraqi army and Shiite militias fighting the Islamic State is airlifted to Baghdad, some directly from Iran.

There is no reliable estimate of the Islamic Republic’s current contribution to Iraq’s war budget (estimated at a quarter of a billion dollars per month) because part of the cost is carried by the Iraqi government from oil revenues.

In Yemen, until Saudi Arabia and Egypt imposed an air and sea blockade a month ago, Iran ran supplies by air and sea to the Shiite Zaydi Houthis and their Yemeni army allies whom Tehran championed, sponsored and funded directly. The deployment of US warships in the Gulf of Aden this week put a stop to this traffic. But by then, Iran had sunk an estimated half a billion dollars in a Houthi victory.

Sanctions are no bar to Iran’s ambitions

This arithmetic is testimony to Iran’s mysteriously deep pockets. The sanctions the US, Europe and the United Nations clamped down on Tehran clearly had no effect on its willingness and ability to lay out fabulous sums to promote its ambitions as Middle East top dog.

Categories: Economy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Middle East, Obama, P5+1, Sanctions
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

China Warns Of Rising Nuclear Threat From North Korea – Lou Dobbs

April 24, 2015

China Warns Of Rising Nuclear Threat From North Korea – Lou Dobbs, Fox News via You Tube, April 23, 2015

(The first four minutes is about the mess in Yemen and the last four minutes is about the North Korean nuclear threat. — DM)

 

Categories: Arab nations, Department of Defense, Egypt, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian navy, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Khamenei, Middle East, North Korea, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Empowering Iran

April 24, 2015

Empowering Iran, Weekly Standard, Lee Smith, May 4, 2015 (print date)

Obama’s foreign policy legacy will be to have tied America’s fortunes to an imperial and nuclear Iran governed by an ambitious and ruthless anti-American regime.

*****************

Last week, the Obama administration urged Saudi Arabia to halt its air campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who have wrested control of the Yemeni capital Sanaa. The White House’s professed concern was that Riyadh’s Operation Decisive Storm was killing too many civilians. Unfortunately, that’s hardly surprising since Iranian proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas, typically stash their missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Presumably, the Houthis have read from the same playbook. The effect of the administration’s diplomatic efforts, then, was to protect Iranian arms in Yemen. And this, in turn, the administration no doubt believes, protects Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

Houthi rallyHouthis rally against Saudi Arabia, April 1. Newscom

In public, Obama is eager to show that the United States still stands by its traditional allies, like Riyadh. But behind the scenes, it’s clear that the White House’s real priority is partnering with Iran. Sure, the White House dispatched an aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea, but this was not to stop Iran from shipping arms to the Houthis. As Obama himself explained, America’s blue-water Navy was present to ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. The notion that the White House really intended to interdict Iranian arms shipments beggars belief. For more than four years Obama has done nothing to stop Bashar al-Assad from killing nearly a quarter of a million people in Syria, lest he endanger his nuclear agreement with Iran. With a deal so close, Obama is certainly not going to risk what he sees as the capstone of his foreign policy legacy by disarming Iranian allies in Yemen.

The problem is that by protecting his nuclear agreement with Iran, the president has protected and empowered the Islamic Republic. Tehran may boast of controlling four Arab capitals, but the reality is that its regional position is a house of cards. Pull out one of those Arab capitals, or the nuclear program, and Iran’s burgeoning empire quickly collapses. It’s Obama who is propping it up.

It’s interesting to imagine how these last six years might have gone for the Islamic Republic had the White House not been so determined to have a nuclear deal. Perhaps the Tehran regime would have been toppled when the Green Movement took to the streets in June 2009 to protest a fraudulent election if the American government had decided to back the opposition early, openly, and resourcefully. Perhaps another administration would at least have seen that uprising as an opportunity to gain leverage over the Iranian regime. Not Obama. He wanted a nuclear deal with the existing regime.

Another White House might have backed the Syrian rebels in order to bring down Assad. Indeed, a good portion of Obama’s cabinet counseled as much. To topple Tehran’s key Arab ally would have been the biggest strategic setback to Iran in 20 years, said Gen. James Mattis. Obama chose to leave Assad alone, and even ignored his own red line against the use of chemical weapons. Instead of the airstrikes he threatened on Syrian regime targets, Obama made a deal to ostensibly remove the chemical weapons that Assad is still employing.

As Assad’s position became weaker, Hezbollah entered the Syrian war to prop him up. The Iranian-backed militia was stretched thin between Syria and Lebanon, but the Obama administration helped the terrorist organization cover its flank by sharing intelligence to keep Sunni car bombs out of Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut. Another administration might have understood this as an opportunity to weaken Iran’s position in Damascus and Beirut, but not Obama. He had his eyes on the prize.

In sum, over the last six years, almost all of Iran’s advances in the region, including its move into Iraq to fill the vacuum in Baghdad after the American withdrawal from that country, has taken place with either the overt or tacit assistance of Obama. The White House brags about it. Israel might have attacked Iranian nuclear facilities, as one administration official told the press, but we deterred Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from striking. If the Iranians strut with confidence these days, that’s because they understand who has their back.

The nuclear deal, as the president has explained, means that within a little more than a decade, Iran’s breakout time will be down to zero—which is a nice way of saying the clerical regime will have the bomb. The likely result is that the agreement will ensure Iran’s regional position long after Obama’s presidency is around to safeguard it. It will strengthen the hand of the hardliners. It is not Rouhani or Zarif or other so-called moderates who hold the nuclear file, but Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. And in the future, American policymakers will have a vital interest in ensuring there are no internal regime fights over who controls the bomb.

In other words, Obama’s foreign policy legacy will be to have tied America’s fortunes to an imperial and nuclear Iran governed by an ambitious and ruthless anti-American regime.

Categories: Arab nations, Department of Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Houthi, Ideology, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Khamenei, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Syria, Terrorism, Theocracy, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Progressives at the Poker Table

April 24, 2015

Progressives at the Poker Table, Mishpacha Magazine, Jonathan Rosenblum, via Jewish Media Resources, April 24, 2015

A comparison of the progressive approach to the threat of climate warming and that of a nuclear-armed Iran offers interesting insights into the progressive mind.

Let’s start with climate warming, which according to the best measures, inconveniently stopped about 18 years ago. First, what is the magnitude of the threat? The most alarmist predictions of future catastrophe are based on computer-generated climate models that have been consistently refuted by events of the real world. According to the alarmists, there would be fifty million refugees from global warming by 2010. Never happened.

Those models are based on a variety of assumptions about “feedback mechanisms” generated by increased CO2 in the atmosphere trapping more heat. NASA satellite date from 2000-2011 showed far more heat escaping the earth’s atmosphere than predicted by the computer models, according to study in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing.

Nor is clear to what extent the global warming of the 20th century was generated by anthropogenic forces – i.e., increased CO2 emissions. Many leading climate scientists now think that solar activity — about which we can do nothing — may be a larger contributor to temperature variation than carbon emissions. That would be consistent with the wide fluctuations between warm and cold periods over the last millennium, even prior to the onset of the Industrial Resolution.

Scientists at CERN, the European Organization of Nuclear Research, which involves 600 universities and national labs and 8,000 scientists, have shown that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that grow and seed clouds. And clouds trap heat in the atmosphere. The magnitude of cosmic rays emitted by the sun depends on variations in the sun’s magnetic field.

Finally, that which the alarmists consider an unmitigated disaster — higher levels of CO2in the atmosphere may have many beneficial effects. A 2012 statement signed by 16 distinguished scientists from universities like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and the Hebrew University, pointed out that CO2 is “not a pollutant,” but rather a “key component of the biosphere’s life cycle.” Higher concentrations of CO2 spur plant growth.

In sum, the threat, if any, is one for the indeterminate future, of unknown magnitude and causation, and may not even be subject to ameliorative action. Yet climate alarmists propose a Global Green Carbon Treaty of such cost and intrusiveness that Yale’s Walter Russell Mead compares it to the 1928 Kellogg-Brand Pact outlawing war for sheer folly. He describes GGCT as less a treaty and more a constitution for world government regulating all economic production in every country on earth. That constitution would be for a “global welfare state with trillions of dollars ultimately sent by the taxpayers of rich countries to governments (however feckless, inept, corrupt or tyrannical) to poor ones.”

These proposals are put forward seemingly oblivious to the economic cost or loss of liberty involved. In his 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist, Danish statistician Bjorn Lonborg calculated that enforcement alone of the Kyoto Treaty would cost $150,000 billion a year, money which could save tens of thousands of lives annually.

The above-mentioned statement of the 16 scientists cited the work of Yale economist William Nordhaus, whos showed that the highest benefit-to-cost ratio would be achieved via a policy of fifty years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. The least developed countries would benefit most by being able to share some of the advantages of material well-being — i.e., health and life expectancy — with the more developed world.

NOW TO THE OTHER SIDE of the comparison. Even President Obama admits that under the unsigned understanding reached at Lausanne, Iran will have zero breakout time to a nuclear weapon thirteen years from now. (Today, he puts the breakout time at three months.)

That fact alone creates a world with as many tripwires leading to war as Europe on the eve of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in August 1914. Only this time the weapons of choice will be nuclear.

The proposed agreement with Iran means the end of nuclear non-proliferation. If the world’s leading rogue state and sponsor of terrorism can have its nuclear weapons program effectively endorsed by the members of the U.N. Security Council, every other nation that was dissuaded in the past by international pressure from expanding its civilian nuclear program to include enrichment to weapons level – e.g., South Korea, Brazil – will reconsider.

The most rapid nuclear proliferation will take place in the world’s most volatile region, the Middle East, in which the millennial hatred of Sunnis and Shiites still burns hot. Saudis have made it clear that they will purchase nuclear weapons off-the-shelf from Pakistan, as per a prior agreement, to counter Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear weapons. Egypt and Turkey will almost certainly follow suit.

An already aggressive Iran would become vastly more so with the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues from the lifting of sanctions and the ability to provide a nuclear umbrella for its regional proxies. As a consequence, the Middle East would become all the more volatile.

The nations most likely to acquire nuclear arms and unstable, which increases the possibility of terrorist groups acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has long eyed the “holy cities” of Mecca and Medina, and is already stirring up the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia’s eastern, oil-producing provinces and in Yemen on its southern border. Egypt cannot feed its population.

And Iran might find it useful to supply some of its non-state allies, like Hezbollah or Hamas, with dirty nuclear weapons that do not require missiles to deliver. Non-state actors are far harder to deter or hold accountable.

A nuclear Iran should terrify not only Israel, which it has repeatedly threatened to obliterate. Iranian leaders have publicly speculated for years about the grim calculus of a nuclear exchange with Israel: one bomb wipes out Israel; Israeli retaliation still leaves us with tens of millions survivors. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and Peter Fry, a member of the congressional EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) Commission, stress the vulnerability of the United States. The recent “understanding” (the terms of which are unknown and perhaps unknowable given the wide divergence between American and Iranian descriptions of what has been concluded) makes no reference to any limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program, on which it works closely with North Korea.

Iran may soon possess long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States or the capacity to launch a nuclear-armed satellite above the United States. Even one nuclear weapon detonated above the United States could potentially knock out much of the national power grid. The congressional EMP Commission estimated that a nationwide blackout lasting one year from such an EMP attack could result in the deaths of nine out of ten Americans, with ISIS-like gangs ruling the streets.

Nor are traditional doctrines of nuclear deterrence relevant to the Middle East, in general, and Shiite Iran, in particular. Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz ask in their devastating critique of the recent agreement how will traditional doctrines of deterrence based on stable state actors “translate into a region where sponsorship of non-state proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?”

As the dean of Middle East scholars Bernard Lewis has pointed out, for Shiite fanatics awaiting the return of the “hidden Imam,” after a cataclysmic event, the destruction of nuclear war might be an inducement rather than a deterrent.

WHAT DOES PRESIDENT OBAMA offer as the response to this description of a nuclear tinderbox waiting to be lit? Pure fantasy.

He and Secretary of State Kerry have made repeated references to a fatwa of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini against the use of nuclear weapons, which does not exist and certainly is credited by none of Iran’s enemies.

And he speaks hopefully of a newly mellowed Iran after the conclusion of an agreement. What is it about the Supreme Leader’s repeated chants of “Death to America” and insistence that current negotiations have nothing to do with reconciliation that the President can’t hear?

One option that the President has completely excluded is an air campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and cut of the “head of snake,” as Woolsey once described the Revolutionary Guard to me. Obama has repeatedly accused the opponents of the Lausanne understanding as being advocates of war.

Clearly, then, all the tough talk about “all options are on the table,” “a bad deal is worse than no deal [followed by military attack],” “I will never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” had the same truth content as “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

Yet no one doubts that the United States has the capability to destroy Iran’s enrichment infrastructure. (If Russia goes through with the delivery of advanced anti-aircraft batteries, as a consequence of the Lausanne understanding, the task will be complicated.) And there will be consequences that cannot be fully known in advance. Iran has terrorist sleeper cells around the world. But it also has lots of assets, besides its nuclear infrastructure, which would be subject to further attacks if it unleashes those cells.

Whatever the Iranian response, the price to be paid will certainly be less than consigning all humanity to live in a world perpetually poised on the cusp of nuclear war.

SO WHY in the case of global warming are progressives willing to incur unbearable costs to combat a future threat of unknown magnitude and immediacy, and against which their solutions may well prove futile, while with respect to the easily identified and imminent danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, they write off from the start a clear and known remedy?

For progressives the solution of worldwide government, run by the executive decree of “the best and the brightest,” is not a cost too great to be contemplated, but rather the fulfillment of the progressive dream. But they will never countenance military action, even to save millions of lives down the road. Churchill’s dictum, “If you want peace, prepare for war,” remains foreign to them.

Categories: Climate change, EMP attack, Foreign policy, Ideology, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Progressives, Rouhani, Sanctions, Terrorism, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Fleet of Iranian ships heading to Yemen turns around after being tracked by US warships

April 23, 2015

Fleet of Iranian ships heading to Yemen turns around after being tracked by US warships, Fox News, April 23, 2015

(But see Iranian Warships Arrive in Yemen Port. ?????????????? — DM)

A nine-ship Iranian convoy believed to be laden with weapons bound for rebels in Yemen turned around Thursday after being followed by U.S. warships stationed in the area to prevent arms shipments, multiple sources in the Pentagon told Fox News.

The sources said the nine-ship convoy is south of Salalah, Oman, and now headed northeast in the Arabian Sea in the direction of home. The ships, which include seven freighters and two frigates, had sailed southwest along the coast of Yemen heading in the direction of Aden and the entrance to the Red Sea. They appeared to drop anchor in the north Arabian Sea, after the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Normandy and a half-dozen other American ships arrived in the Arabian Sea on Monday, and U.S. officials said that they could intercept the convoy.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt, a 100,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier known as the “Big Stick” and her escort, the USS Normandy, a guided missile cruiser, have been shadowing the convoy for the past few days, the sources said.

Fighter jets taking off from the carrier have been relaying the convoy’s location to the U.S. Navy’s higher command since the start of the week.

The Iranian Navy ships are characterized as “smaller than destroyers,” a Pentagon official with knowledge of the convoy said Tuesday. Asked what type of weapons the freighters are carrying, one Pentagon official said, “they are bigger than small arms.”

The reversal was welcomed by Pentagon officials, but they expressed caution saying, “this isn’t over yet,” and insisted Roosevelt will maintain observation on the convoy.

Iran backs the Houthi rebels, who chased the Yemeni president from Sanaa and are fighting for control of the Gulf nation. Warships from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who back Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, are positioned to the southwest of the convoy, forming a blockade of the Gulf of Aden and the port city of Aden.

Western governments and Sunni Arab countries say the Houthis get their arms from Iran. Tehran and the rebels deny that, although Iran has provided political and humanitarian support to the Shiite group.

The U.S. also has been providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition launching airstrikes against the Houthis. That air campaign is now in its fourth week, and the U.S. also has begun refueling coalition aircraft involved in the conflict.

The campaign meant to halt the rebel power grab and help return to office Hadi, a close U.S. ally who fled Yemen.

The defiant Shiite rebels pressed their offensive in the country’s south on Thursday, apparently ignoring an overture from Saudi Arabia earlier this week, while the kingdom’s warplanes continued to target their positions, officials said.

The rebels’ prized goal — the port city of Aden — remained an elusive one, in part thanks to the Saudi-led airstrikes.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s top leaders, including Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif, arrived Thursday in Saudi Arabia to push for negotiations in the Yemen conflict. The two are to meet with King Salman to discuss the crisis, according to Pakisitan’s Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.

Both predominantly Sunni majority countries, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are close allies, and Islamabad has supported the Saudi-led coalition, though it declined to send troops, warplanes and warships to join it.

The kingdom and Gulf Arab allies launched the airstrikes March 26, trying to crush the Houthis and allied military units loyal to ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The Saudis believe the rebels are tools for Iran to take control of Yemen.

Loud explosions shook the cities of Taiz and Ibb in western Yemen on Thursday, as well as Aden when coalition warplanes bombed the rebels and their allies, witnesses said.

Residents also said the Houthis and Saleh’s forces were attacking the city of Dhale, one of the southern gateways to Aden, with random shelling.

All Yemeni officials and witnesses spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media or feared for their safety amid the fighting.

Categories: Air strikes, Arab nations, Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Houthi, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iranian navy, Obama, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iranian Warships Arrive in Yemen Port

April 23, 2015

Iranian Warships Arrive in Yemen Port, The Jewish Press, Hana Levi Julian, April 23, 2015

YemenKSA.jpgSaudi Arabia airstrikes were aimed at Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who seized positions in neighboring Yemen. Iran is believed to be arming the rebels. Photo Credit: KSA

Iranian warships arrived Thursday in the southern Yemen port of Aden despite the presence of several U.S. warships in the area as well. It is believed the Iranian vessels are carrying weapons to re-arm the Shiite Houthi rebels who have seized control over the port city and the nation’s capital, Sa’ana.

Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, said Wednesday that his nation’s air force had achieved its objectives and has concluded its bombing campaign.

“We destroyed the air force, we destroyed their ballistic missiles as far as we know; we destroyed their command and control; we destroyed much, if not most of their heavy equipment and we made it very difficult for them to move from a strategic perspective,” al-Jubeir said. He added that Saudi forces had “eliminated the threat they posed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” but . said that in the long run, there is “no military solution” to the conflict.

According to the World Health Organization, 1,080 people have been killed in the past month in Yemen, and 4,352 others have been wounded.

Coalition warplanes picked up where Saudi Arabian air force pilots left off and continued on Thursday to pound Houthi rebels in southern Yemen. The international forces targeted rebel positions in Aden and the central city of Taiz, according to Voice of America.

A severe humanitarian crisis has been created in the war-torn region, according to VOA, but the Shi’ite rebels still remain. Yemen President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi has fled for his life to Saudi Arabia.

Although Iran claimed that it welcomes an end to “killing innocent and defenseless civilians” and seeks a political resolution to the conflict, its warships laden with arms for the rebels– as usual – tell a different story.

Categories: Air strikes, Arab nations, Department of Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Houthi, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iranian navy, Obama, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »