Archive for the ‘Middle East’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Khamenei Smashes Terms of Nuclear Agreement

April 12, 2015

Khamenei Smashes Terms of Nuclear Agreement, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, April 12, 2015

(Obama demands, don’t mention Iran’s mumblings about his once in a lifetime deal. Partisan wrangling must stop!– DM)

Iran-Ayatollah-Khamenei-HP_3Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kamenei (Photo: © Reuters)

Khamenei’s accusations make Saudi Arabia a legitimate target under any understanding of jihad. He even went so far as to say the Saudis’ actions are equivalent to Israel’s so-called “genocide” in Gaza. This implies that a violent jihad against Saudi Arabia is as justifiable as one against Israel.

Iran believes that these end times prophesies correlate to the death of Saudi King Abdullah, the Houthis’ overthrow of the Yemeni government, the civil war in Syria, Saudi military action and the fierce fighting in Iraq. The regime sees the confluence of all these crises as beyond the realm of coincidence and signaling the imminent arrival of the “Hidden Imam” which will herald military victory for Iran.

Before the “Hidden Imam” can arrive, two other condition must be fulfilled: instability in Saudi Arabia and the march of a prophetic figure titled “Yamani” who will lead Shiite forces from Yemen into Mecca. The Houthis recently pledged to invade Saudi territory, capture Mecca and overthrow the royal family in Riyadh. They were likely referring to this prophecy.

“We’re not going to respond to every public statement made by Iranian officials or negotiate in public,” said State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke during a daily press briefing.

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

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ended his eerie silence since the nuclear framework agreement was announced with a fiery speech accompanied with “Death to America” chants. Khamenei essentially smashed the viability of the nuclear framework to pieces, signalled a major escalations in the war in Yemen and essentially endorsed a violent jihad against the Saudi royal family.

Wishful thinkers can’t dismiss the speech as theater for a domestic audience. Khamenei tweeted highlights in English to make sure the world, especially Americans, saw them. The threats and demands are so unequivocal that failing to follow through would sacrifice his entire credibility and prestige.

The Iranian Supreme Leader is unsatisfied with the nuclear framework agreement even though it generously permits Iran to retain the ability to produce nuclear weapons while getting major sanctions relief.

First, he said that the fact sheet published by the U.S. contains lies and does not reflect what Iran agreed to. The statement obliges the regime to seek significant revisions shortly after it gave President Obama the go ahead to make a high-profile victory lap.

Khamenei’s demands are inescapably incompatible with America’s requirements for a deal.

First, Iran is demanding that all sanctions be lifted on the first day that a final deal is signed. The framework only agrees to lift sanctions in phases and only those related to nuclear activity, not terrorism or human rights. Doing so would unfreeze the assets of individuals and entities involved in terrorism around the world, sparking a massive growth in Iran’s terrorist apparatus and proxy warfare.

The inherently flawed hope by the West that “moderate” President Rouhani and other Iranian figures can reign in Khamenei can be immediately ruled out, since Rouhani said the same exact thing.

Iran-Khamenei-Nuke-Tweets

Second, Iran is insisting that there will be no “unconventional,” “special” or “foreign” inspections or monitoring. In other words, Iran will not be subject to exceptionally intrusive inspections. Khamenei’s tweets do not specify Iran’s standards, but it is clear that Iran does not intend to give the IAEA unlimited access.

Iran-Khamenei-Rejects-Inspections-Tweets

This is almost definitely a reference to military sites, to which Iran consistently says it has the option of denying access. Iran wants the ability to deny access to any location by declaring it a military institution.

This is how Iran denies access to the critical Parchin site, where damning evidence may exist to prove that Iran conducted major nuclear weapons research until at least 2003. An Iranian opposition group identified an alleged nuclear site in February that is within a military compound. It is claimed that the facility is used for uranium enrichment and the production of advanced centrifuges.

Notice the language of the tweets, which was reported to be equally non-compromising in Farsi. There is no wiggle room. Khamenei would have left some ambiguity if he was willing to budge. If you believe this is just talk, then you must believe that Khamenei made the calculated decision to cause an easily avoidable self-inflicted wound for no reason.

Another flurry of tweets related to the war in Yemen, where Iran is backing the Shiite Houthi rebels who have overthrown the government.

A U.S.-supported coalition of Sunni countries intervened militarily to support President Hadi and stop Iran from threatening the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait. This alliance includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan and Sudan. The last two are especially significant because of their close ties to Iran. Separately, Al-Qaeda is gaining ground in Yemen and the Islamic State (ISIS) is rising up as a competitor.

Interestingly, the tweets only threatened Saudi Arabia and did not mention any of these other participants by name. Khamenei stopped just short of a formal declaration of jihad, instead laying out the justification for it.

Iran-Khamenei-Yemen-1-Tweets
Iran-Khamenei-Yemen-2-Tweets

Khamenei’s accusations make Saudi Arabia a legitimate target under any understanding of jihad. He even went so far as to say the Saudis’ actions are equivalent to Israel’s so-called “genocide” in Gaza. This implies that a violent jihad against Saudi Arabia is as justifiable as one against Israel.

Don’t be comforted by Khamenei’s mentioning of prosecuting Saudi leaders in international courts. This is not meant to substitute jihad. Khamenei is making a point about how blatant the Saudi crimes are. He’s not even saying that this is Iran’s chosen course of action.

This comes as Iran dispatches two ships to the front in Yemen, including a destroyer to “safeguard naval routes” — meaning it will challenge the challenge the Saudi-Egyptian naval blockade.

Iran sent a flotilla to Bahrain in 2011 after Saudi and Emirati forces intervened to stomp out a revolution against the Sunni monarchy. The regime blinked at the last moment when the Arabs made it clear they would use force to stop it. However, the Yemen conflict has significant differences that Khamenei’s tweets help explain.

Khamenei is signaling that unprecedented hostilities with Saudi Arabia will now commence. The previous Saudi leaders, he says, could be dealt with. The new Saudi King and his circle must be handled more toughly.

However, Iran orchestrated massive terrorist attacks on Saudi interests even under the previous “composed” leaders, a campaign that put the U.S. economy and homeland at risk.

For example, in 2011, the U.S. prevented an Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C. by blowing up a restaurant, which inevitably would have taken the lives of American citizens as well. The scheme involved hiring a Mexican drug cartel to perpetrate the attack, along with bombings of the Israeli embassy in D.C. and the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Argentina.

In 2012, Iran launched a cyber attack on the Saudi Aramco oil company in response to the country’s policies in Bahrain and Syria. Aramco said the hackers tried to take down the country’s oil and gas production (which failed), but they did erase the data on 30,000 computers, three-fourths of the corporate computers.

Khamenei says that the new Saudi leadership is committing far worse crimes, so we should expect a far worse response.

We must also remember the prophecies cited by the Iranian regime.  Iran believes that these end times prophesies correlate to the death of Saudi King Abdullah, the Houthis’ overthrow of the Yemeni government, the civil war in Syria, Saudi military action and the fierce fighting in Iraq. The regime sees the confluence of all these crises as beyond the realm of coincidence and signaling the imminent arrival of the “Hidden Imam” which will herald military victory for Iran.

Before the “Hidden Imam” can arrive, two other condition must be fulfilled: instability in Saudi Arabia and the march of a prophetic figure titled “Yamani” who will lead Shiite forces from Yemen into Mecca. The Houthis recently pledged to invade Saudi territory, capture Mecca and overthrow the royal family in Riyadh. They were likely referring to this prophecy.

Khamenei’s speech wasn’t the typical bluster we are used to hearing from Islamist radicals and dictators. The timing, language and high-profile nature makes it very significant.

Even though the U.S. State Dept. responded by saying that sanctions against Iran would be removed gradually based on verification that Iran had kept its commitments, its response lacked conviction:

“We’re not going to respond to every public statement made by Iranian officials or negotiate in public,” said State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke during a daily press briefing.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Gulf states, Hamas, Houthi, Iran, Iran in Yemen, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Islamism, Kerry, Khamenei, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Could Saudi Arabia Need Israel More than Vice Versa?

April 12, 2015

Could Saudi Arabia Need Israel More than Vice Versa? Israel National News, Gedalyah Reback, April 12, 2015

Israel’s status as a regional superpower is unusual for its lacking a reliable set of local allies. Even where security ties with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia might be strong, the country is forced to keep those ties in the background. Regardless, it exerts a degree of influence just by its own strategic value. While ties are not public, they are also not available for public scrutiny, perhaps enhancing the relationship opportunities with the above mentioned countries as well as other Arab states.

“Rather than a charm offensive,” asserts Robert Kappel of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, “Israel needs an assertive regional foreign policy” in order to gain more allies.

But is that really true?

“I don’t think that it’s either-or,” says Professor Eytan Gilboa of Bar Ilan University. “I think Israel has a regional policy. We don’t see it but it collaborates with Arab countries and the Persian Gulf, especially on Iran and much more on counter-terrorism. It has a regional policy but it’s undercover.”

Solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not a Condition for an Alliance

Turning back specifically to Kappel, Gilboa states “I think he means to use it to deal with the Palestinian issue; then comes the Arab Peace Initiative. The assumption is the PA is unable, unable, to reach an agreement with Israel.”

Gilboa sees an Arab desire to expand relations with Israel in spite of the conflict with the Palestinians. Thus, the Arab Peace Initiative might be evidence the Arab countries are eager to reach out with a public offer that would allow them to open the door for Jerusalem without necessarily having to seal a deal on the conflict.

“I reject one claim: that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a condition for a regional alliance. The reason for this is simple – all these countries couldn’t care less about the Palestinians. They have an interest in blocking Iran and extremist Islamic organizations. They made all kinds of statements to the contrary but that is not the issue. I don’t think there’s a linkage here.”

Pressing his point, Gilboa says “There’s much less opportunity for regional pressure on the Palestinians than most people think. ‘Collaboration’ is a euphemism for security cooperation on ‘negative interests.’”

Those negative interests are opposition to common regional security challenges like the above mentioned Iran and Islamist terrorist organizations. But to create an alliance, you need much more than common enemies, says Gilboa – you need common interests.

“Turkey ambivalent to ISIS – they share an ideology but still see it as a competitor. Erdogan would like to revive the Ottoman Empire where a non-Arab country leads the Arab world. Where you see this kind of geopolitics, there are a lot of opportunities for collaboration with these countries.”

And actually, “there’s criticism of Israel for not exploiting the situation,” says Gilboa.

New Countries?

When Arutz Sheva asked if Israel’s chances for regional alliances might actually increase if Syria were to collapse into several smaller states or the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) were to become a full-fledged independent state, Gilboa sees the idea as having validity.

“I think this is a valid point. I am only hearing that Israel is collaborating with the Kurds there and you can do a little bit more, but it is a lot more than it used to be. The alliance with Turkey had prohibited close collaboration with the Kurds. But now that the relationship is bad, this condition is nonexistent. I think indeed they could do more.”

Focusing on the much more developed autonomy, infrastructure and ambitions of the Iraqi Kurds than other groups that could emerge in Syria, Gilboa says Kurdistan could definitely become a game-changer in the region’s mixture of waxing and waning alliances. Most significantly, it could be something that does not necessarily replace Arab states as a reliable ally, but actually enhances the chances of a strong alliance between those Arab countries and Israel.

“I also think there is room for a strategic alliance between Israel and pro-US Arab states. Not just potential between Israel and the non-Arab groups, but collaboration with Israel, non-Arab states and those emerging new political entities in the Middle East. It could be done on a bilateral basis first – perhaps between Israel and Kurdistan – or multilateral. Once you gain influence with a group like the Kurds, you could translate that into the other (multilateral) type of alliance.”

Israel and Kurdistan have a long history of both covert and overt relations, especially on security. Kurdistan might then be an example of an emerging country where Israel could carry more influence than the Saudis (assuming Kurdistan is able to gain more autonomy or full sovereignty). Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic and military clout is still behind that of Israel, according to Gilboa.

“Saudi Arabia’s power is limited to its ability to manipulate oil markets, but their strength is precarious as major importers like the United States become self-sufficient in that realm. Even their military strength might turn out to be limited as its operation in Yemen is one of the largest it has ever undertaken. The assumption the Saudis might have strong influence over Pakistan and could persuade Islamabad to sell Riyadh a nuclear bomb to pull ahead of the Iranians has been thrown into doubt by Pakistan’s decision not to join the military operation against the Houthis.”

Ultimately, it might be Israel’s power that the Saudis need more.

Anything but a Saudi win (in Yemen) would not be good for Saudi Arabia,” emphasizes Gilboa. On the other hand, “Israel is much stronger diplomatically, militarily and its society is much more vibrant.”

Categories: Arab nations, Egypt, Gulf states, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Israel, Palestinians, Jordan, Kurds, Middle East, P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama still believes in a nuclear deal, although Iran is skittish – even against a military option

April 12, 2015

Obama still believes in a nuclear deal, although Iran is skittish – even against a military option, DEBKAfile, April 12, 2015

Ashton_Carter_4.15US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter:The nuclear option is on the table

In the last two days, the Obama administration has swung between conflicting signals on the Iranian nuclear deal. Unable to wave away the tough conditions laid down by Tehran, the US president was nonetheless optimistic about a final deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in comments he made at the Americas summit in Panama Sunday, April 12. Obama said he was not surprised at the way supreme leader Ali Khamenei had characterized the framework agreement, because “Iran has it own politics and hardliners who need to be satisfied, but there may be ways to structure the final nuclear deal that achieve core objectives while satisfying Iran’s pride.”

Just Saturday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said: “We have the capability to shut down, set back and destroy the Iranian nuclear program.” He referred to the Massive Ordinance Penetrator-MOP, aka the “bunker buster” which is capable of penetrating fortified facilities up to 200 feet underground. “My job is among other things to make sure that the so-called military option is on the table,” he said.

Iranian media headlines screamed: “US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has threatened Tehran with war.”

This is exactly what Khamenei was aiming for when on April 9, he laid down two implacable terms for a deal: the removal of sanctions on the day a final deal is signed and a firm refusal to allow international inspections of Iran’s military sites.

Both of these provisions contradicted Washington’s presentation of its core conditions for a comprehensive accord as being gradual sanctions relief and intrusive inspections.

One of Khamenei’s objects was indeed to remove all suspicion on his home front that Iran’s negotiators had given ground to the world powers either in the overt agreement or in any secret annexes.

The Iranian media headlines achieved this purpose.

But underlying the vocal exchanges between the two capitals is Iran’s confidence that President Obama has discarded the option of military force against its nuclear sites. This confidence gave Tehran the edge in round after round of diplomacy with the US and the world powers.

Senior negotiator Foreign Minister Javad Zarif boasted on April 7, that Iran was “capable of producing an atomic bomb at any given moment,” and was contained solely by “religious Islamic injunctions.”

His boast was amply illustrated by the 20,000 centrifuges Iran had built up during the years of negotiations, plus thousands of advanced machines standing by to further accelerate uranium enrichment – even though its stockpile of 3.6 percent had soared to 10 tons – enough to build 4-6 nuclear bombs.

This edge further enabled the Iranians to bring the Arak heavy water plant capable of producing plutonium to its final stages of construction, without encountering a prohibition in Lausanne, any more than the Fordo enrichment site, stealthily installed some years ago, or its ballistic missile program were sentenced to be dismantled.

That Iran would continue to get away with its tactic of talking while enriching was borne out by Obama assurance Sunday that ways would be found “to structure the final nuclear deal that achieve core objectives while satisfying Iran’s pride.”

The negotiating tactics pursued by Secretary of State John Kerry in Lausanne and in the previous round in Geneva not only diluted America’s military option but virtually took it off the table – not only for America but for everyone else, including Israel. To put it back, much more is needed than Ashton Carter’s reference to the bunker-buster. To make it credible, the United States must rebuild its military presence in the Gulf and the Middle East – bringing back two aircraft carriers to reinforce the lone USS Carl Vinson, for starters.

This, however, would contradict the doctrine Obama expounded on April 2 when he said: “When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented and backed by the world’s powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?”

But he failed to explain the multiple versions of the Lausanne deal published in Washington, Tehran and latterly Paris, whose discrepancies can no longer be glossed over.

Speaking after his historic meeting with Cuba’s Raul Castro Sunday, Obama rebuked Republican senators for pointing this out, accusing them of “partisanship which has crossed all boundaries.”

Sen. John McCain shot back that discrepancies between US and Iranian versions of the deal extended to inspections, sanctions relief, and other key issues. ‘‘It is undeniable that the version of the nuclear agreement outlined by the Obama administration is far different from the one described by Iran’s supreme leader,’’ he said.

This exchange took place two days before members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plan to vote on Senator Bob Corker’s bipartisan Iran nuclear agreement review act. This would give members of Congress 60 days after a nuclear deal is reached to decide if they want to waive sanctions against Iran.

But most of all it calls into question the Obama administration’s presentation of a tentative set of disputed concepts reached in Lausanne as a finalized framework, which left just a few loose ends for resolving by the next deadline of June 30. The very real gaps have been highlighted and exploited by Tehran.

US tactics don’t work well in the Persian bazaar, where the carpet seller pretends to be unwilling to sell his merchandise to an interested customer, while putting the price up in round after round of haggling.

Khamenei falls naturally into the role of the reluctant carpet seller when he is confronted with an especially keen American customer.

Categories: Bunker buster bombs, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Khamenei, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Supreme Leader, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Andrew Klavan: Obama’s Clown-Car Diplomacy

April 10, 2015

Andrew Klavan: Obama’s Clown-Car Diplomacy, Truth Revolt via You Tube, April 10, 2015

 

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Humor, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Middle East, Nukes, Obama
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

There is no better deal with Iran

April 9, 2015

There is no better deal with Iran, Israel Hayom, Prof. Efraim Inbar, April 9, 2015

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

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

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions about the details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. And the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will not change much. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally-built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the U.S. and its negotiating partners already have awarded legitimacy to Iran’s nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to get a formal deal, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal — which won’t be worth the paper on which it is printed.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the U.S. agreed to the “Joint Plan of Action” on Iran’s nuclear program. Already back then, the U.S. decided not to insist any longer on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment, as well as discarding the security concerns of American allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which should not surprise anybody. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: the capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran’s nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama’s administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the U.S. is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region — a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.

Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama’s penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) has led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the U.S. Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran fulfills only one main function — to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israel, Israeli attack on Iran nukes, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Peace in our time, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Take Them At Their Word: Iran Might Destroy Us | Bill Whittle

April 9, 2015

Take Them At Their Word: Iran Might Destroy Us | Bill Whittle via You Tube, April 9, 2015

 

Categories: Arabs, Bill Whittle, Chamberlain, Churchill, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Gulf states, History, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Israel, Khamenei, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Munich, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Peace in our time, Shiite, Sunni
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Can and should Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

April 5, 2015

Can and should Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? Dan Miller’s Blog, April 5, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)

It has been suggested that Israel should seriously consider destroying Iranian nuclear facilities, but Israeli officials obviously haven’t said, and won’t say, if, how or when she might.

Iran fenced in

Speaking to Arutz Sheva Friday, Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said the deal had realized Israel’s worst fears by leaving Iran’s nuclear program essentially intact.

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has been granted “legitimacy” by the agreement, which still allowed it to continue enriching uranium and to maintain a reactor capable of producing enriched plutonium, he said. “And that’s what worries Israel, that they (Iran) will be able within a short time frame to reach a nuclear bomb.”

“I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means,” Inbar maintained, suggesting that “Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities” to head off the threat.

On March 28, former U.S. Ambassador Bolton said that it should be done.

The P5+1 nuclear “deal,” proudly announced by President Obama on April 2nd, is a sham. There is no “deal,” and public announcements by Iran and Obama cast it in very different lights. According to Iran, all sanctions will be lifted immediately when an agreement is reached on or before June 30th. According to Obama, sanctions relief will be gradual and based on Iran’s compliance with invasive inspections and other conditions. Even National Public Radio (NPR) has pointed out differences. NPR observed that, according to Iran,

all sanctions relief – U.N., EU and U.S. – would be immediate. It was unequivocal. It stated that Iran under the deal was free to pursue industrial scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors – unequivocal. It stated that Iran was unhindered in its ability to conduct centrifuge R&D.

Iran has also emphasized that its intention to destroy Israel is non-negotiable, and the Obama Administration has rejected any efforts to make Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist, on the ground that

“This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters on Friday night, according to Fox News. “This is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it.” [Emphasis added.]

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable.

Iran is very unlikely to retreat from its perception of the “deal,” Obama is very likely to retreat in Iran’s favor, and Israel is very unlikely to retreat from its perceptions about Iran, the “deal” or Israel’s right to exist.

What should Israel do?

In Martin Archer’s novel Islamic War, which I reviewed here, Israel dispatched elderly, large and substantially refurbished remove controlled aircraft, full of high explosives, from Somalia to half dozen nuclear facilities operated by hostile nations. They flew circuitous routes at varying altitudes to avoid detection until it was too late to stop them. Over a period of weeks, they crashed into and destroyed their targets, amid speculation about who had done it and why. Israel was not suspected. Would that have been possible then? Now? I don’t know.

It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has given Israel clearance to use her airspace for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Fox News reports that US Defense sources claim the Saudis are conducting tests on their air defense systems after giving Israel permission to to enter a narrow corridor to shorten the distance to attack Iran.

The testing would make sure that Saudi jets don’t get scrambled when Israel entered Saudi airspace. Once the IAF planes complete their mission and exit Saudi airspace, Saudi defenses would go back online again. [Emphasis added.]

Might Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps other Gulf States go beyond not interfering with an Israeli attack to provide air support and other help? They seem to be as displeased with the “deal” as Israel is.

Assuming that Israel is not overly concerned about being identified as the attacker and is willing to act alone, she might:

Detonate one or more high-altitude atomic bombs to emit sufficient electromagnetic pulses (EMP) to fry all above-ground Iranian electronics. That would substantially disable Iranian above-ground command and control facilities as well as other communications, hence diminishing (but not eliminating) the possibility of counter-strikes by Iran and/or its proxies. Perhaps she has other, non-nuclear, means of generating EMPs; she hasn’t said.

Immediately thereafter, drop whatever suitable bombs she may have on all Iranian military and nuclear facilities. Does Israel have bunker-buster bombs? Probably not of U.S. manufacture, but that does not mean that she has not developed her own. It would be surprising if she had not.

Obama and other “leaders of the free world” would complain and the U.N. would emit fits of angry censures. However, that happens with great frequency in any event, and would be an insufficient reason for Israel to commit national suicide through inaction against Iran.

I am no “military expert” and would appreciate any comments on the suggestions I have made as well as any other suggestions anyone might care to offer.

Categories: Diplomacy, Egypt, Foreign policy, Free world, Gulf states, Iran, Iran / Israel War, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, John Bolton, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Department
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 10 Comments

Egypt sends large naval-marine force to Bab el-Mandeb

April 5, 2015

Egypt sends large naval-marine force to Bab el-Mandeb , DEBKAfile, April 5, 2015

(Please see also, Khamenei sends Iranian navy to Bab el-Mandeb Straits. Iran arms store for Hamas bombed in Libya. — DM)

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Egypt Sunday transferred war ships and marine forces as reinforcements for securing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait against Iranian-backed Houthi control. Egypt now deploys six warships and at least 1,000 marines at the vital shipping gateway.

Egypt will defend its Gulf allies “if we have to,” said President Abdel-Fatteh Al-Sisi Saturday night after a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. He stresse that Bab Al-Mandab Strait was a national security issue for Egypt and Arab countries. Arab national security would only be protected by Arab countries, said the president.

Egypt has closely monitored the civil war in Yemen, especially since the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm began to end the Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion. The disruption of shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would directly affect traffic, including energy shipments, to and from the Gulf and Far East through Egypt’s Suez Canal.

Categories: Egypt, Gulf states, Houthi, Iran, Middle East, Sisi
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Arabs Blast “Obama’s Deal” With Iran

April 4, 2015

Arabs Blast “Obama’s Deal” With Iran, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, April 4, 2015

“This is a dangerous agreement…[It ]provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds.” —Salah al-Mukhtar, Ammon News”

“Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it’s not paying any price…There is also a feeling in Tehran that the U.S. is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians.”– Hassan al-Barari, Al-Sharq

The deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power.” — Hani ala-Jamal, al-Wafd

Many Arabs have expressed deep concern over the nuclear deal that was reached last week between Iran and the world powers, including the US.

Arab leaders and heads of state were polite enough not to voice public criticism of the agreement when President Barack Obama phoned them to inform them about it. But this has not stopped Arab politicians, political analysts and columnists reflecting government thinking in the Arab world from lashing out at what they describe as “Obama’s bad and dangerous deal with Iran.”

The Arabs, especially those living in the Gulf, see the framework agreement as a sign of US “weakness” and a green light to Iran for Iran to pursue its “expansionist” scheme in the Arab world.

“Some Arab countries are opposed to the nuclear deal because it poses a threat to their interests,” said the Egyptian daily Al-Wafd in an article entitled, “Politicians: (President Barack) Obama’s deal with Iran threatens Arab world.” http://www.alwafd.org/838527

The newspaper quoted Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, as saying that the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power. He predicted that the framework agreement would put Iran and some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt on a course of collision.

Al-Jamal advised the Arab countries to form a “Sunni NATO” that would guarantee Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power Arab ally in face of the “Iranian and Israeli threat.”

Jihad Odeh, an Egyptian professor of political science, said that Obama’s “achievements are designed to dismantle the Arab world. Obama wants to make historic achievements before the end of his term in office by destroying Al-Qaeda, seeking rapprochement with Cuba and reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran.”

http://www.alwafd.org/838527

Although Saudi Arabia, which is currently waging war on Iranian-backed Houthi militiamen in Yemen, “welcomed” the nuclear agreement, it has privately expressed concern over the deal.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/public-saudi-welcome-for-iran-nuclear-deal-but-unease-remains-1.1485119

Similarly, several Gulf countries that initially welcomed the agreement are beginning to voce concern over its repercussions on the region. For the past several months, the Arabs have been warning against Iran’s ongoing effort to take control over their countries.

“The US surely does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, but at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region,” said Nasser Ahmed Bin Gaith, a United Arab Emirates researcher. “Iran has been seeking to reclaim its previous role as the region’s police.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-150401061906177.html

Bin Gaith said that it was clear that a Western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf countries.

“The Gulf states should build strategic partnerships with the regional powers of Pakistan and Turkey, who share the Gulf nations’ fears of Iranian ambitions in the region,” he added.

Echoing widespread fear among Arabs of Iran’s territorial ambitions in the Middle East, political analyst Hassan al-Barari wrote in Qatar’s daily Al-Sharq against the policy of appeasement toward Tehran.

“Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it’s not paying any price; on the contrary, there are attempts by the big powers to reach understandings with Iran,” al-Barari pointed out. There is also a feeling in Tehran that the US is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians and their proxies. The Gulf countries have learned from the lessons of the past in various areas. The policy of appeasement has only led to wars. Any kind of appeasement with Iran will only lead it to ask for more and probably meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries and increase its arrogance.”

http://www.al-sharq.com/news/details/324014#.VR7KLjuUevV

Even Jordanians have joined the chorus of Arabs expressing fear over Iran’s growing threat to the Arab world, especially in wake of the nuclear deal with the US and the big powers.

Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist, wrote an article entitled, “Oh Arabs wake up, your enemy is Iran,” in which he accused the US of facilitating Tehran’s wars against the Arab countries.

http://www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleno=225764

Describing Iran as “Eastern Israel,” al-Mukhtar said that the most dangerous aspect of the framework agreement is that allows Iran to continue with its “destructive wars” against the Arabs. “This is a dangerous agreement, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the opposition forces in Iraq and Syria,” the Jordanian columnist cautioned. This agreement provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds. Lifting the sanctions is America’s way of backing the dangerous and direct wars against Arabs; the lifting of the sanctions also provides the Iranians with the funds needed to push with their Persian advancement. The US wants to drain Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries in preparation for dividing them.”

Lebanon’s English language The Daily Star newspaper also voiced skepticism over the nuclear deal. “For all the talk of this deal contributing to making the world safer, if Obama is truly concerned with his legacy, especially in the Middle East, he must now work with Iran to encourage it to become a regular member of the international community once again, and not a country which sponsors conflict, whether directly or via proxies, across the region,” the paper editorialized. “Otherwise, this deal could just leave Iran emboldened in its expansionist designs.”

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Editorial/2015/Apr-03/293201-a-deal-or-legacy.ashx

In addition to the Arabs, Iranian opposition figures have also come out against the nuclear deal.

Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian politician and President of the National Council of Resistance, commented that the a “statement of generalities, without spiritual leader Khamenie’s signature and official approval, does not block Tehran’s path to a nuclear bomb nor prevent its intrinsic deception.

“Continuing talks with religious fascism in Iran – as part of a policy of appeasement – will not secure the region and world from the threat of nuclear proliferation,” Rajavi warned. “Complying with UN Security Council resolutions is the only way to block the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons. Leniency and unwarranted concessions by the P5+1 to the least trustworthy regime in the world today only grants it more time and further aggravates the dangers it poses to the Iranian people, to the region and to the wider world.”

http://irannewsupdate.com/news/nuclear/2047-iran-maryam-rajavi-fearful-mullahs-reluctantly-take-one-more-step-backward-toward-drinking-the-chalice-of-nuclear-poison.html

Categories: Arab nations, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iraq, Islamism, Israel, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Syria, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

COLUMN ONE: The diplomatic track to war

April 3, 2015

COLUMN ONE: The diplomatic track to war, Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick, April 4, 2015

Iran negotiationsIran negotiations. (photo credit:REUTERS)

No one trusts Washington when Obama claims that he is committed to the security of Israel and the US’s Sunni allies in the region.

Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

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

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

The world powers assembled at Lausanne, Switzerland, with the representatives of the Islamic Republic may or may not reach a framework deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But succeed or fail, the disaster that their negotiations have unleashed is already unfolding. The damage they have caused is irreversible.

US President Barack Obama, his advisers and media cheerleaders have long presented his nuclear diplomacy with the Iran as the only way to avoid war. Obama and his supporters have castigated as warmongers those who oppose his policy of nuclear appeasement with the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism.

But the opposite is the case. Had their view carried the day, war could have been averted.

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

In recent weeks we have watched the collapse of the allied powers’ negotiating positions.

They have conceded every position that might have placed a significant obstacle in Iran’s path to developing a nuclear arsenal.

They accepted Iran’s refusal to come clean on the military dimensions of its past nuclear work and so ensured that to the extent UN nuclear inspectors are able to access Iran’s nuclear installations, those inspections will not provide anything approaching a full picture of its nuclear status. By the same token, they bowed before Iran’s demand that inspectors be barred from all installations Iran defines as “military” and so enabled the ayatollahs to prevent the world from knowing anything worth knowing about its nuclear activities.

On the basis of Iran’s agreement to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, the US accepted Iran’s demand that it be allowed to maintain and operate more than 6,000 centrifuges.

But when on Monday Iran went back on its word and refused to ship its uranium to Russia, the US didn’t respond by saying Iran couldn’t keep spinning 6,000 centrifuges. The US made excuses for Iran.

The US delegation willingly acceded to Iran’s demand that it be allowed to continue operating its fortified, underground enrichment facility at Fordow. In so doing, the US minimized the effectiveness of a future limited air campaign aimed at significantly reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

With this broad range of great power concessions already in its pocket, the question of whether or not a deal is reached has become a secondary concern. The US and its negotiating partners have agreed to a set of understanding with the Iranians. Whether these understandings become a formal agreement or not is irrelevant because the understandings are already being implemented.

True, the US has not yet agreed to Iran’s demand for an immediate revocation of the economic sanctions now standing against it. But the notion that sanctions alone can pressure Iran into making nuclear concessions has been destroyed by Obama’s nuclear diplomacy in which the major concessions have all been made by the US.

No sanctions legislation that Congress may pass in the coming months will be able to force a change in Iran’s behavior if they are not accompanied by other coercive measures undertaken by the executive branch.

There is nothing new in this reality. For a regime with no qualms about repressing its society, economic sanctions are not an insurmountable challenge. But it is possible that if sanctions were implemented as part of a comprehensive plan to use limited coercive means to block Iran’s nuclear advance, they could have effectively blocked Iran’s progress to nuclear capabilities while preventing war. Such a comprehensive strategy could have included a proxy campaign to destabilize the regime by supporting regime opponents in their quest to overthrow the mullahs. It could have involved air strikes or sabotage of nuclear installations and strategic regime facilities like Revolutionary Guards command and control bases and ballistic missile storage facilities. It could have involved diplomatic isolation of Iran.

Moreover, if sanctions were combined with a stringent policy of blocking Iran’s regional expansion by supporting Iraqi sovereignty, supporting the now deposed government of Yemen and making a concerted effort to weaken Hezbollah and overthrow the Iranian-backed regime in Syria, then the US would have developed a strong deterrent position that would likely have convinced Iran that its interest was best served by curbing its imperialist enthusiasm and setting aside its nuclear ambitions.

In other words, a combination of these steps could have prevented war and prevented a nuclear Iran. But today, the US-led capitulation to Iran has pulled the rug out from any such comprehensive strategy. The administration has no credibility. No one trusts Obama to follow through on his declared commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

No one trusts Washington when Obama claims that he is committed to the security of Israel and the US’s Sunni allies in the region.

And so we are now facing the unfolding disaster that Obama has wrought. The disaster is that deal or no deal, the US has just given the Iranians a green light to behave as if they have already built their nuclear umbrella. And they are in fact behaving in this manner.

They may not have a functional arsenal, but they act as though they do, and rightly so, because the US and its partners have just removed all significant obstacles from their path to nuclear capabilities. The Iranians know it. Their proxies know it. Their enemies know it.

As a consequence, all the regional implications of a nuclear armed Iran are already being played out. The surrounding Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear weapons. The path to a Middle East where every major and some minor actors have nuclear arsenals is before us.

Iran is working to expand its regional presence as if it were a nuclear state already. It is brazenly using its Yemeni Houthi proxy to gain maritime control over the Bab al-Mandab, which together with Iran’s control over the Straits of Hormuz completes its maritime control over shipping throughout the Middle East.

Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Eritrea, and their global trading partners will be faced with the fact that their primary maritime shipping route to Asia is controlled by Iran.

With its regional aggression now enjoying the indirect support of its nuclear negotiating partners led by the US, Iran has little to fear from the pan-Arab attempt to dislodge the Houthis from Aden and the Bab al-Mandab. If the Arabs succeed, Iran can regroup and launch a new offensive knowing it will face no repercussions for its aggression and imperialist endeavors.

Then of course there are Iran’s terror proxies.

Hezbollah, whose forces now operate openly in Syria and Lebanon, is reportedly active as well in Iraq and Yemen. These forces behave with a brazenness the likes of which we have never seen.

Hamas too believes that its nuclear-capable Iranian state sponsor ensures that regardless of its combat losses, it will be able to maintain its regime in Gaza and continue using its territory as a launching ground for assaults against Israel and Egypt.

Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq have reportedly carried out heinous massacres of Sunnis who have fallen under their control and faced no international condemnation for their war crimes, operating as they are under Iran’s protection and sponsorship. And the Houthis, of course, just overthrew a Western-backed government that actively assisted the US and its allies in their campaign against al-Qaida.

For their proxies’ aggression, Iran has been rewarded with effective Western acceptance of its steps toward regional domination and nuclear armament.

Hezbollah’s activities represent an acute and strategic danger to Israel. Not only does Hezbollah now possess precision guided missiles that are capable of taking out strategic installations throughout the country, its arsenal of 100,000 missiles can cause a civilian disaster.

Hezbollah forces have been fighting in varied combat situations continuously for the past three years. Their combat capabilities are incomparably greater than those they fielded in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. There is every reason to believe that these Hezbollah fighters, now perched along Israel’s borders with Lebanon and Syria, can make good their threat to attack and hold fixed targets including border communities.

While Israel faces threats unlike any we have faced in recent decades that all emanate from Western-backed Iranian aggression and expansionism carried out under a Western-sanctioned Iranian nuclear umbrella, Israel is not alone in this reality. The unrolling disaster also threatens the moderate Sunni states including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The now regional war in Yemen is but the first act of the regional war at our doorstep.

There are many reasons this war is now inevitable.

Every state threatened by Iran has been watching the Western collapse in Switzerland.

They have been watching the Iranian advance on the ground. And today all of them are wondering the same thing: When and what should we strike to minimize the threats we are facing.

Everyone recognizes that the situation is only going to get worse. With each passing week, Iran’s power and brazenness will only increase.

Everyone understands this. And this week they learned that with Washington heading the committee welcoming Iran’s regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities, no outside power will stand up to Iran’s rise. The future of every state in the region hangs in the balance. And so, it can be expected that everyone is now working out a means to preempt and prevent a greater disaster.

These preemptive actions will no doubt include three categories of operations: striking Hezbollah’s missile arsenal; striking the Iranian Navy to limit its ability to project its force in the Bab al-Mandab; and conducting limited military operations to destroy a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear installations.

Friday is the eve of Passover. Thirteen years ago, Palestinian terrorists brought home the message of the Exodus when they blew up the Seder at Netanya’s Park Hotel, killing 30, wounding 140, and forcing Israel into war. The message of the Passover Haggada is that there are no shortcuts to freedom. To gain and keep it, you have to be willing to fight for it.

That war was caused by Israel’s embrace of the notion that you can bring peace through concessions that empower an enemy sworn to your destruction. The price of that delusion was thousands of lives lost and families destroyed.

Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Hezbollah, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Islamism, Israel, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Sanctions, Shiite crescent, Supreme Leader, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »