Prepare Now for the Coming Middle East War

[American Patriot]

Chinese Premier: Beijing Against Iran Closing Strait of Hormuz

Posted Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 5:30 am
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says Beijing is opposed to any “extreme action” by Iran to shut off the Strait of Hormuz.


Wen said it would be against the interest of the global community if Iran followed through on its threat to block the waterway, which is a key shipping lane for global oil supplies. He made his comments Wednesday at a news conference in Doha, Qatar.


Tehran has threatened to close the strait in response to U.S. sanctions aimed at getting it to abandon its disputed nuclear program.


China has supported United Nations sanctions on Iran, but has so far criticized the much tougher U.S. measures, saying they will lead to heightened tensions and could drive up global oil prices.


Wen said that China “firmly opposes” Iran producing a nuclear weapon. But he says the issue should be resolved through peaceful means, saying the so-called P-five-plus-one talks are one way to do so.


The negotiations between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – plus Germany last took place a year ago. Iran and the United States have both hinted that the talks could soon resume, although no date has been set.


The recently enacted U.S. sanctions impose financial penalties against foreign banks that do business with Iran’s central bank, which is responsible for most of its oil deals.


Wen again on Wednesday defended his country’s purchase of Iranian oil, saying it is “normal” and does not worry him. Earlier this month, China rejected a U.S. request to cut back on its consumption of Iranian oil. China is Iran’s top oil customer.

[American Patriot]

Strike on Iran risks 'catastrophe'

• From: AFP
• January 19, 2012 2:21AM

Huge risk: A military strike on Iran would be a catastrophe and would inflame relgious tensions in the Middle East, Russia has said. Above, Iran launches a drill in the Strait of Hormuz earlier this month. Source: AP



A MILITARY strike on Iran would be a "catastrophe" that risked inflaming religious tensions, Russia has said.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also accused the West of trying to suffocate the Iranian economy and incite popular discontent with new sanctions such as a proposed oil embargo.
"As for the chances of this catastrophe happening, you would have to ask those constantly mentioning it as an option that remains on the table," said Mr Lavrov said when asked about the chances of military action.
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak had earlier said his country was not even close to deciding to attack Iran over its nuclear weapons programme and still believed that a military option remained "very far away".
Mr Lavrov told an annual foreign policy briefing that the chances of war were too dire too contemplate because they would incite inter-communal tensions within the region and flood neighbouring countries with Iranian refugees.

"I have no doubt in the fact that it will only add fuel to the fire of the still-simmering Sunni-Shiite conflict. And I do not know where the subsequent chain reaction will end," he said.
"There will be large flows of refugees from Iran, including to Azerbaijan, and from Azerbaijan to Russia. ... This will not be a walk in the park," he said of possible military involvement.
Mr Lavrov added that punitive sanctions aimed at winning more transparency from Iran had "exhausted" themselves and only hurt the chances of peace.
"Additional unilateral sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with a desire to ensure the regime's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation," said Mr Lavrov.
"It is seriously aimed at suffocating the Iranian economy and the well-being of its people, probably in the hope of inciting discontent."
His comments came as EU diplomats closed in on a July date for a full oil embargo that would suit nations such as Italy with a strong reliance on Iranian supplies.
Mr Lavrov said Russia had evidence that Iran was ready to cooperate more closely with inspectors from the United Nations IAEA nuclear watchdog and was preparing for "serious talks" with the West.
He also hinted that Europe and the United States were imposing the measures with the specific purpose of torpedoing new rounds of talks.
Russia has been one of the few world powers to enjoy open access to senior Iranian leaders and yesterday hosted its Supreme National Security Council deputy chief Ali Bagheri.
The Iranian embassy said Mr Bagheri would hold talks with Mr Lavrov and discuss the option of resuming nuclear negotiations with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.
Moscow was also due to receive Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar on Sunday for talks focusing on domestic security issues and drugs trafficking.
Tehran's ambassador to Moscow for his part said he expected Russia's support to continue because it too was being threatened by the West.
"We expect Russia not to agree to a deal with the West," Iranian Ambassador Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi told the Interfax news agency.
"If there are (non-Western) countries that want to see Iran become a victim of the West, they must understand that the West will get to them too," said Mr Sajjadi.
"We hope that the Russian government and the Russian people will take note of this."

[American Patriot]

The Russians have ONE aircraft carrier... so they can shut up. We're not afraid of them, or their whining.

We're not afraid of Iran.

So personally, I'd say to Russia, Iran, China... "Shut up".

[vector7]

Russia Warns Against Iran Attack

Topic: Iran's nuclear program


Russia Warns Against Iran Attack
© REUTERS/ Fars News/Hamed Jafarnejad

19:18 18/01/2012
MOSCOW, January 18 (Marc Bennetts for RIA Novosti)

Tags: United Nations, Ehud Barak, Sergei Lavrov, Bashar al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, Iran, Tehran, United States, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Moscow

Related News

• Russia Warns of Iran Attack 'Catastrophe'
• U.S. slaps Iran sanctions on 3 energy companies
• Uncertain World: The war of nerves around Iran
• U.S. condemns Iran’s decision to start uranium enrichment
• Iran to stage new ‘massive’ naval drills near Strait of Hormuz
• Paris considers Iran’s missile tests ‘bad signal’

Multimedia

• Iran’s nuclear program: civilian purposes or nuclear weapons?
• The situation around the Strait of Hormuz

Russia warned on Wednesday that an attack on Iran would be a "catastrophe" for the region and said world powers should adopt a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East and North Africa.

“It is impossible to list all the consequences [of an attack],” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an annual address. “But I have no doubt that it would pour oil on the still smoldering fire of Sunni-Shia confrontation, which would lead to a chain reaction.”

"As for how likely such a catastrophe is, you need to ask those who constantly mention this as an option," Lavrov added. He also said that Russia would “do everything” in its power to prevent an attack on Iran.

Although Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel was "very far off" from taking the decision to strike Iran, Washington and Tel Aviv have refused to rule out military force against Tehran over suspicions that its nuclear program is aimed at the production of atomic weapons.

Iran, which recently began enriching uranium at an underground bunker, denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its program is to provide peaceful civilian energy.

Lavrov also said that sanctions on Iranian oil exports being discussed by the European Union would “hurt” ordinary people and were more about stirring up unrest than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

"This has nothing to do with a desire to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation," he said. "It's aimed at stifling the Iranian economy and the population in the apparent hope of provoking discontent."

Sanctions would also prove “an obstacle” to the revival of a dialog between Iran and the six world powers involved in negotiations on its nuclear program, Lavrov said.

Oil exports make up some 80 percent of Iran’s foreign revenues and Tehran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the export route for one third of global seaborne traded oil, in response to sanctions.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said such a move would provoke a response.

But analysts are doubtful Russia has the military and economic clout to play a decisive role on Iran.

“Russia has practically no real influence left in the Middle East,” analyst Sergei Demidenko of the Moscow-based The Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis told RIA Novosti. “It does not play a decisive role and we have no way of returning our Soviet-era influence.”

“Iran can not rely on Russia to defend it. The U.S. and Israel are certainly not afraid of this. Russia will definitely not go to war over Iran,” he added.

Another analyst suggested Russia’s reluctance to antagonize Iran was partly linked to fears that Tehran could finance and support the ongoing Islamist insurgency in its volatile North Caucasus region.

“No one needs an Iranian nuclear bomb…but we do not need Iran to attack Russia’s interests in the North Caucasus either,” Yevgeny Satanovsky of the Institute of Middle Eastern studies told RIA.

“It would be very easy for Iran to organize something like Hezbollah in south Lebanon on Russian territory, if Moscow supported an attack,” he said.

Lavrov also said the landmark events that swept the Middle East and North Africa last year were far from at an end, but that world powers should refrain from interference – even if developments were not always to their liking.

“The changes in the region are far from being concluded and we are witness to what is merely the start of this transition,” Sergei Lavrov told journalists.

“If we are in favor of the people of these countries determining for themselves their own futures, then we must accept their choices and not interfere in national dialogues or electoral campaigns,” he said.

Islamist parties dominated Egypt’s first parliamentary elections since last February's overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, securing almost two-thirds of the vote between them.

But Lavrov said that the international community should seek to work with such “radical” movements and that the use of force as a means of influencing events in the region was unacceptable.

“It is important to be governed by the principles that govern doctors - ‘do no harm,’” Lavrov said.

On Syria, Lavrov said Russia would offer no explanations or justification to the U.S. for an alleged recent arms delivery to Damascus.

"We don't consider it necessary to explain or justify ourselves, as we are not violating any international agreements or any [U.N.] Security Council resolutions," Lavrov said.

“We are only dealing with Syria in those items not outlawed under international law,” he added.

Lavrov’s comments followed the arrival last week of a Russian-operated ship in Syria. An official in Cyprus, where the vessel was briefly held up, said the ship was carrying ammunition.

The United States later said it had raised the issue of the ship’s cargo with Moscow. U.S. envoy to the United Nations Susan Rice said on Tuesday that Washington had "very grave concerns about arms flows into Syria from any source."

Russia and China in October vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have imposed an arms embargo on Syria. The UN says some 5,000 people have died since an uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began in March.

Moscow has insisted, however, that violence in Syria is being instigated by both government forces and rebels and on Wednesday Lavrov repeated calls for the two sides to lay down their arms.

"Weapons are being supplied to fighters and extremists in Syria who are trying to exploit the protest movement to seize power…this is unacceptable and non-productive,” he said. "We consider necessary a halt to any form of violence in Syria, wherever it might originate, and the start of an all-inclusive national dialogue."

Lavrov also slammed unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe against Syria.

“Unilateral sanctions are always an undermining of collective efforts,” he said, “be they against Iran, Syria or any other country.”

[vector7]

'Attack on Iran won't be an easy walk' - Lavrov

email story to a friend print version
Published: 18 January, 2012, 15:55
Edited: 19 January, 2012, 13:23


AFP Photo / HO / IIPA / Ebrahim Noroozi

TAGS: Conflict, Meeting, Military, NATO, UN, Medvedev, Russia, Obama, Middle East, Politics, Mass media, Iran, USA, Robert Bridge

During his annual news conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the scenario Russia and the global community could face if things in the Middle East, especially in Iran, get out of hand.

Addressing what is certainly the most worrisome development on the global stage, Lavrov spoke at length on the standoff involving Iran, which faces deepening sanctions, as well as the threat of military attack, over its nuclear energy program.

The Russian Foreign Minister did not mince his words when he spoke about the “grave” consequences of a military strike against Iran.

"As for the chances that this disaster (a military attack against Iran) could occur, this question would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said in a comment apparently intended for Israel and the United States. “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.”

A possible military attack against Iran would trigger a huge migration of refugees, who would pour into Azerbaijan, possibly pushing up against the Russian border.

"This is one and perhaps not the main aspect of the problem,” Lavrov admitted. “This will not be an easy walk, and it's impossible to calculate all of the possible consequences."

Finally, an attack against Iran would also "pour oil on the…smoldering flames of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation," Lavrov said. "Then a chain reaction will begin, and I don't know where it will stop.”

*Unilateral sanctions work against united front

The Foreign Minister told the conference that “unilateral sanctions” against the Islamic Republic could backfire by placing a “suffocating grip” on the national economy and its people.

"What Western states…have been adding as they adopt their additional unilateral sanctions against Iran has nothing in common with the desire to keep the nuclear weapons nonproliferation regime unshaken,” Lavrov warned at his Q&A press conference in Moscow. “This is seriously calculated to put a suffocating grip on the Iranian economy and on Iranian citizens, possibly in the hope of provoking discontent.”

The UN-backed sanctions regime against Iran over its nuclear energy program, which some Western countries suspect is a cover for a nuclear weapons program, threatens to hit at Iran’s central bank, as well as its oil exports to Europe. Lavrov says the effort to impose sanctions on Iran to influence its policies have been “exhausted.”

"This was so when the resolution on Iran was being negotiated 1.5 years ago,” he said. “After its adoption, all thinkable sanctions that could influence Iran in the nuclear field and its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency were exhausted."

A more effective way of dealing with Iran would be to continue the negotiation process, he believes.

"We are calling for the six negotiators to continue their work,” Lavrov stressed. “Currently we have information that the Iranians are also prepared for this (the six-party talks). We are working with Iran.”

Although the way is clear for six-party talks – between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany – Lavrov alluded to Russia’s concern over “obstacles” that are thwarting the start of the negotiations.

"We are convinced that we now have an available opportunity to restart the talks between the Sextet and Iran,” he said. “And we are deeply concerned that these processes sometimes run up against obstacles.”

Addressing the heightened tensions in and around Iran, which recently threatened to impose a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for about 20 per cent of the world’s oil shipments, the foreign minister stressed that Russia objects to unilateral sanctions in international affairs, saying this undermines the UN Security Council's authority.

"Unilateral sanctions always undermine collective efforts, whether this concerns Iran, Syria, or any other situation," Lavrov said.

*Launch negotiations, not attacks on Syria

Russia opposes military intervention in Syria, proposing instead to launch an immediate internal national dialogue in this country without delay, Lavrov told journalists at his press conference.

"We insist that a political settlement is a must and we support the efforts which the monitoring mission of the Arab League have been making," the Foreign Minister said. "We think all manifestations of violence must cease in Syria, wherever they derive, and a national, all-inclusive dialogue must be launched.”

Meanwhile, Lavrov suggested that foreign governments could actually feign a humanitarian disaster in an effort to discredit the ruling authorities.

"There are other ideas that are being implemented in practice: sending so-called humanitarian convoys to Syria in the hope of provoking a reaction on the part of government forces and border guards, and feigning a humanitarian catastrophe," he said at a news conference in Moscow.

He also mentioned disturbing incidences of weapons infiltrating Syria for use by the opposition.

"It is also known, which no one has denied, that weapons are coming to Syria for militants and extremists to be used for seizing power," the head of Russian diplomacy said. "This is unacceptable and absolutely counterproductive, since this is only spurring the spiral of violence."

Finally, Lavrov said it would be “unacceptable” to attempt to apply the so-called “Libyan scenario” to resolve similar internal conflicts in other countries.

"We deem attempts to expand the so-called Libyan precedent to other conflicts absolutely unacceptable," he said.

*Taking aim at missile defense

Concerning Russia-US relations, the conversation turned to the issue of US missile defense in Europe, a subject that threatens not only to short-circuit the so-called reset, but even spark another arms race.

The Foreign Minister said he hopes the United States will take Russia's legitimate concerns into account over the thorny issue.

"We hope the US will finally hear our legitimate concerns, which we have been absolutely, specifically and professionally bringing to them, and take them into account,” Lavrov said. “And we hope that our partners will opt for concerted efforts to find agreed responses to modern challenges, which are common for both of us.”

Relations between the two former Cold War foes took a dramatic turn for the worse when Washington announced it was building a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border, and without Russia’s assistance.

President Dmitry Medvedev warned the US and NATO on numerous occasions that Russia would be forced to respond in military language unless the two sides came to acceptable terms. Both sides continue to work on resolving the issue.

*Business as usual following presidential elections

Russian foreign policy will not undergo significant changes following the presidential election in March 2012, Lavrov said.

“I think that our partners abroad have every reason to count on the continuity of our foreign policy in relation to the forthcoming presidential election in our country," the Foreign Minister said.

Lavrov stressed that the Kremlin’s foreign policy enjoyed “broad consensus” throughout Russian society.

"We estimate that there is broad consensus in our society in support of the basic guidelines of the foreign policy course that is set down in Russia's foreign policy concept," he said.

Lavrov outlined the key elements of Russia’s foreign policy, which includes “pragmatism and predictability of our foreign policy, its focus on protecting our national interests, the well-balanced multi-vector nature of our actions on the international stage with a view to … facilitating economic growth, solving social problems and in general securing the welfare of Russian citizens.”

[American Patriot]

Iran calls for Israel to be "punished"

• 11:18am EST

By Ramin Mostafavi and Ori Lewis
TEHRAN/JERUSALEM | Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:18am EST



(Reuters) - An ally of Iran's supreme leader called on Friday for Israel to be "punished" for killing a nuclear scientist and the top U.S. general urged his Israeli ally to coordinate with Washington as crisis builds in the Middle East.


Alarmed Arab neighbors in the Gulf made a plea to scale back confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. France, calling on China and Russia to back Western sanctions, said time was running out for diplomacy to deflect Tehran from a course that Washington and Israel have threatened to stop by war.


One diplomat told Reuters that the major powers seeking to negotiate an end to Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons would probably issue a statement later on Friday laying out what Tehran would need to do to resume talks. The group was expected to provide details of an offer it made to Iran in October in an effort to bring Iranians back to the negotiating table.


An Iranian lawmaker, however, had said earlier there was no chance of resuming negotiations with the group - the five U.N. Security Council permanent members plus Germany - unless they agreed in advance to exclude the nuclear issue from the agenda.
After Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei paid his respects to the families of two scientists assassinated on what Tehran believes were Israel's orders, one of them just last week, a close ally who is a former nuclear negotiator and currently speaker of parliament demanded retribution.


"Terrorism has a long history in some countries like the Zionist regime," Ali Larijani said of Israel, which views an atomic bomb in the hands of the Islamic Republic as a threat to the survival of the Jewish state.


"The Zionist regime should be punished in a way that it can not play such games with our country again."


Such threats have been made before in Tehran and it is unclear how or when they might be carried out. Israel, widely assumed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, is on guard against attacks on its borders and within, notably by Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, which is supported by Iran.


STRAINS


Israel's deputy foreign minister has denied accusations that it deployed the hit squad which blew up Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan on a busy Tehran street last week. But the country has a record of such attacks and is widely presumed by Western analysts to be engaged, along with allies, in a covert war against a nuclear development program which Iran insists is entirely civilian.


Sharp U.S. disavowal of American involvement in the killing have drawn some analysts to see it as a form of rebuke to Israel, amid speculation that President Barack Obama is wary, while he campaigns for re-election in November, that Israel could launch unilateral action that might inflame the region.


Obama's top military official, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, paid a brief visit to Israel and was quoted by its defense ministry as telling officials there that Washington was keen to coordinate on strategy.


"We have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we'll all be," Dempsey was quoted as saying in a statement issued by the Israeli defense ministry.


The United States has led Western pressure on Tehran to curb uranium enrichment that might provide material for weapons. In November Dempsey said he did not know whether Israel would give him advance warning if it decided to strike Iran.


Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, was quoted as saying on Thursday that the Obama administration would be ready to move beyond sanctions against Iran if they fail to curb the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.


"We know that the sanctions on Iran might fail to work, and therefore we are leaving all the options on the table, as the president has said explicitly, and has instructed the top military officers to do everything necessary to be prepared for any action at any stage," Shapiro said in remarks at Haifa University that were relayed by a member of the audience.


Shapiro later told reporters that consultations were intended to "coordinate efforts ... toward the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
SARKOZY WARNING


French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday that time was running out to avoid a military intervention, however, and he appealed to China and Russia, veto-wielding U.N. powers who have been reluctant to back tightening Western embargos let alone military force, to support new sanctions.


"Time is running out. France will do everything to avoid a military intervention," Sarkozy told ambassadors gathered in Paris. "A military intervention will not solve the problem, but it will unleash war and chaos in the Middle East."


"We need stronger, more decisive sanctions that stop the purchase of Iranian oil and freezes the assets of the central bank, and those who don't want that will be responsible for the risks of a military conflict," Sarkozy warned.


"Help us guarantee peace in the world. We really need you," he said, in an appeal to Moscow and Beijing.


France has been at the forefront of international efforts for tougher measures to increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program after talks between Tehran and six world powers -- the P5+1 of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- stalled a year ago.


Following Obama's approval of U.S. sanctions on New Year's Eve that are intended to choke Tehran's oil sales, European Union foreign ministers are expected to agree on Monday to an oil embargo.


The United States, like other Western countries, says it is prepared to talk to Iran but only if Tehran agrees to discuss halting its enrichment of uranium.


Western officials say Iran has been asking for talks "without conditions" as a stalling tactic while refusing to put its nuclear program on the table.


Hossein Naqavi, a member of parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying on Friday that using the P5+1 to discuss the nuclear issue was unacceptable:


"Iran will on no account attend the negotiations if the P5+1 is looking to make any comments on Iran's nuclear activities or wants to make any decision about that," he said, repeating however Tehran's willingness to cooperate with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.


With tensions, including mutual threats of disrupting the oil trade, creating worries across the region, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, the wealthy, U.S.-allied state sitting across the Gulf from Iran, offered a warm welcome to a call for calm on Thursday by his Iranian counterpart.


"It's important to get far away from any escalation and we stress the stability of the region," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan was quoted as saying by state news agency WAM.


"I welcome the comments of my colleague the Iranian foreign minister to create distance from any escalation.


"What matters to us is that stability prevail in the region. We don't want anything to damage stability in the region and there is an effort from all to work towards stability."


(Writing by Alastair Macdonald)

[American Patriot]

An Iran war is brewing from mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation

US talk of regime change via military action is as deluded as Tehran thinking it stands to gain from a conflict

• 
• 
  
  • Simon Tisdall
  • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012 10.49 EST

Iran test-fires a missile in the Sea of Oman. US hardliners are talking up military action to force regime change in Iran. Photograph: Hamed Jafarnejad/AP



Nicolas Sarkozy's warning that "time is running out" to avoid western military intervention in Iran was largely aimed at Russia and China, which have refused to back tougher EU and US sanctions. But for Tehran, the French president's words will likely sound like a calculated, alarming escalation. How much longer, they may ask themselves, before we are attacked by the US or Israel or a combination, including the perfidious British and French? Why wait for the inevitable? Perhaps we should attack first?


This is how wars start, through a process of hostile rhetoric, mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation. Anybody in Tehran following the impassioned US debate on Iran will be aware that an influential Washington constituency, aided and abetted by leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, favours military action sooner rather than later. For these American hardliners, it is no longer merely a question of destroying Iran's suspected nuclear facilities.



Regime change is the name of the game because, it is argued, that is the only way to ensure Iran never gets the bomb.


"A limited strike against nuclear facilities would not lead to regime change. But a broader operation might," argued Jamie M Fly and Gary Schmitt in Foreign Affairs.



"It would not even need to be a ground invasion aimed at toppling the government. The US would basically need to expand its list of targets beyond the nuclear programme to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials. The goal would be to compromise severely the government's ability to control the Iranian population. This would require an extended campaign."


Luckily, this sort of horror-fantasy does not reflect Obama administration thinking – not yet, anyway. But while both sides' rhetoric could be dismissed as so much hot air, the infantile idea the Iranian nation would welcome US bombers and suddenly rise up as one to overthrow the theocratic regime reflects a more dangerous ignorance. This lack of mutual insight is not surprising given the estrangement that followed the 1979 revolution. But it needs to be recognised for the bear trap that it is.


When the White House sent a private message to Tehran last week about its so-called "red lines" in the Strait of Hormuz, the reaction was both puzzled and incredulous. "Out in the open they show their muscles but behind the curtains they plead to us to sit down and talk," said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's foreign minister.


Salehi should study American history – and what happens when red lines are ignored. Geoffrey Kemp of the German Marshall Fund in Washington noted: "Many Americans will recall that in 1964 a military encounter between North Vietnamese torpedo boats and the USS Maddox resulted in a pitched sea battle, which was enough to persuade Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to begin the massive escalation in south-east Asia".


Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute suggested Tehran's leadership appeared to think it could "win" a Tonkin-like sea war in the Gulf if it managed to sink a single American warship. This idea might be called the "Hezbollah paradigm", named after the 2006 Lebanon conflict, when Hezbollah claimed victory over Israel, despite suffering greater losses, simply because its forces had not been utterly destroyed.


"Iranian leaders might also decide the US and European strategy of escalating pressure leaves them with few options, in which case resistance may offer the best prospects. After all, when the US got its nose bloodied by the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing and the 1993 Somali 'Black Hawk down' incident, Washington withdrew its forces from both countries," Clawson said.


Iran's regime may also calculate that conflict with the US and/or Israel would serve its purposes by justifying a nuclear deterrent, by portraying them as valiant leaders of the global fight against Zionism and American imperial "global arrogance", and by rallying the nation (rather than dividing it) behind their defiant banner. These are frightening delusions, but all are part of the developing pseudo-reality of a war in the making.


Responding to the war drums in Washington, Robert Wright, writing in Atlantic Monthly, was at pains to show that regime change is no panacea. "You'd think that our eight-year adventure in Iraq would have raised doubts about the extent to which changed regimes will hew to our policy guidelines. There we deposed an authoritarian leader and painstakingly constructed a government, only to see the new regime (a) tell America to get the hell out of the country; and (b) cosy up to an American adversary (Iran!)."


This really happened, as did much else following the invasion of Iraq that could yet be disastrously replicated in Iran on a much larger scale. But as in 2002-03, the sense grows that decision makers and opinion leaders on both sides, caught up in their own false narratives, are not listening.

[American Patriot]

Time running out for Iran diplomacy: Sarkozy





By John Irish and Daniel Flynn
PARIS | Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:00am EST

(Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday that time was running out to avoid a military intervention in Iran and he appealed to China and Russia to support new sanctions to force Tehran to negotiate over its uranium enrichment program.


France has led international efforts for tougher measures to increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program since talks between Tehran and six world powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- stalled.


Western nations have voiced mounting concern that Israel could launch a preemptive attack against Tehran, deepening instability in an already volatile region.


"Time is running out. France will do everything to avoid a military intervention," Sarkozy told French ambassadors gathered in Paris. "A military intervention will not solve the problem, but it will unleash war and chaos in the Middle East."


Israel and the United States have refused to rule out military action while Iran continues enrichment operations which they say are aimed at seeking nuclear weapons. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday, however, that any decision about an Israeli assault on Iran was "very far off." [nL6E8CI0NH]
Tehran insists its nuclear research has only peaceful civilian ends and has refused to discuss it with Western powers.


EU foreign ministers are expected to agree an oil embargo against Iran, the world's fifth largest exporter, and a freeze on the assets of its central bank at a meeting on Monday in Brussels.


Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, used for a third of the world's seaborne oil trade, if Western moves to ban Iranian crude exports cripple its lifeblood energy sector.


Sarkozy urged Russia and China to back the tougher sanctions. The two emerging powers, which have also blocked efforts at the EU Security Council on Syria, have shown their unwillingness to back further oil sanctions on Iran, creating a rift in the international community.


"We need stronger, more decisive sanctions that stop the purchase of Iranian oil and freeze the assets of the central bank, and those who don't want that will be responsible for the risks of a military conflict," Sarkozy said.


"Help us guarantee peace in the world. We really need you," Sarkozy said, in a direct appeal to Moscow and Beijing.


Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said during a visit to the region on Thursday that Beijing opposes any Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons but he defended his country's extensive oil trade with Tehran.
(Editing by Tim Pearce)

[American Patriot]

IAEA rejects Iran accusation over scientist's killing






By Fredrik Dahl
VIENNA | Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:51am EST



(Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog rejected on Friday Iranian suggestions it may have been partly to blame for the assassination of a nuclear scientist last week by leaking information about him, saying it did not know him.


The International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear body, separately confirmed that senior IAEA officials would travel to Tehran later this month for rare talks about the Islamic state's disputed nuclear program.


The IAEA delegation, to be headed by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information that indicates Iran has engaged in research and development relevant for nuclear weapons.


"I am fully committed to working constructively with Iran and I trust that Iran will approach our forthcoming discussions in an equally constructive spirit," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in a statement about the meeting.


Iran's ambassador to the IAEA told Reuters on Tuesday the visit would take place from Jan 29-31 and that his country was open to discuss "any issues" of interest for the agency.


Tension between Iran and the West over Iran's nuclear program has increased since November, when the IAEA published a report that said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.


Iran said on Thursday that the assassins who killed nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, on January 11 may have used information obtained from the United Nations.


U.S. DENIES INVOLVEMENT


Ahmadi-Roshan was killed by a motorbike hitman who put a magnetic bomb on his car during the morning rush hour. Iran, at odds with Western governments over its nuclear program, has accused U.S. and Israeli agents of being behind the killing.
Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador Eshagh Al Habib told the Security Council on Thursday that Ahmadi-Roshan recently met IAEA inspectors, "a fact that indicates that these U.N. agencies may have played a role in leaking information on Iran's nuclear facilities and scientist."


But IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said in an e-mail: "The Agency has not released this man's name. We do not know him."


Iran has in the past accused the IAEA of leaking the names of nuclear scientists, making them potential targets for the security services of Iran's foes in the West and Israel. IAEA officials have dismissed the allegations.


The murder of Ahmadi-Roshan was the fifth such attack in two years on technical experts involved in Iran's nuclear program, which Western countries believe is aimed at producing an atomic weapon but Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.
The United States has denied involvement in the killing and has condemned it. An Israeli minister said this week that Iran's charges of Israeli involvement were "completely baseless."


The Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities. Its list of sanctioned individuals does not include Ahmadi-Roshan, but does name another scientist, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, wounded in a Tehran car bomb blast in November, 2010.


(Reporting by Fredrik Dahl; editing by Andrew Roche)

[American Patriot]

News number: 9010171835 19:34 | 2012-01-20 Politics

Cleric: Assassination of Iranian Scientist Proves Enemies' Helplessness TEHRAN (FNA)- The recent assassination of Iran's young scientist proved helplessness of the enemies, Tehran's provisional Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said.

Iran's 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, a chemistry professor and a deputy director of commerce at Natanz uranium enrichment facility, was assassinated during the morning rush-hour in the capital ten days ago. His driver was also killed in the terrorist attack. "This terror showed the helplessness and paralysis of the enemies of Islam and the Revolution," Jannati said, and added that Roshan was assassinated by the agents of those enemy states which "allege to be fighting against terrorism while they lead and breed terrorists". "We expect that people hear the news of the punishment of those responsible for this terror as soon as possible and this is something which must be done at the earliest," he continued. Meantime, Ayatollah Jannati underlined the futileness of such enemy measures, reminding that over 300 university students demanded a change in their academic field of study to start studying nuclear sciences after Roshan was assassinated. Over 300 Iranian students studying at Sharif University of Technology demanded their university chancellor on Monday to allow them change their course of study to nuclear-related sciences to prove that assassination of Iranian scientists like Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan can never discourage them from joining the country's nuclear program. "Also over 900 university students and graduates have demanded voluntary cooperation with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)," member of Sharif University of Technology's Central Council for Graduate Students Mehrdad Bazrpash said on Sunday. Jannati said such actions prove that righteousness cannot be buried, "rather this terror will boost resistance". Roshan was killed on the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, who was also assassinated in a terrorist bomb attack in Tehran in January 2010. The method used for Roshan's assassination was similar to the 2010 terrorist bomb attacks against the then university professor, Fereidoun Abbassi Davani - who is now the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization - and his colleague Majid Shahriari. Abbasi Davani survived the attack, while Shahriari was martyred. Another Iranian scientist, Dariush Rezaeinejad, was also assassinated through the same method on 23 July 2011. Iran has condemned the CIA, MI6 and Mossad for the five assassinations.

[American Patriot]

Iran oil to be sanctioned by Europe Monday

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney January 20, 2012: 11:11 AM ET Sanctions will ban the import of Iranian crude to Europe and also target Iran's central bank.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The European Union will announce tough new sanction on Iran's oil industry Monday.
According to a source familiar with the matter, the sanctions will ban the import of Iranian oil and also restrict Iran's trade in gold and precious metals, as well as freeze certain Iranian financial assets.
Of the 2.2. million barrels of oil Iran exports a day, about 18% is bound for European markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The world consumes about 89 million barrels of oil per day.
Final details are still being worked out, and it's expected the sanctions will have a grace period of three to eight months, an EU diplomat told CNN.
Iran's 'distressed' oil to keep flowing - at deep discount

The grace period will allow European refiners to find new suppliers and Iran to find new buyers.
The move, which was widely expected, follows similar actions by the United States and the United Kingdom. They are all aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran to give up its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes buy many suspect is intended to produce a bomb.
The Iranian government gets about half its revenue from oil exports, according to the EIA.
Analysts have said that while the new sanctions, are the toughest ever imposed, they still contain many loopholes.
Iran is expected to still be able to sell its oil to places like China, India or other Asian countries, but perhaps at a discount of 10% to 15%. About 35% of Iran's oil exports currently go to China and India.
Western leaders have been walking a fine line with Iran, working to come up with a plan that squeezes the country's finances yet doesn't result in a loss of Iranian oil exports, which could send crude and gasoline prices skyrocketing.
With reporting in London from CNN producer David Wilkinson

[American Patriot]

And in related news.... Barbie is DANGEROUS

Iran shuts down shops selling Barbie dolls

BY NASSER KARIMI | Associated Press | Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:16 am

Hamid Reza Delband displays a doll at his toy shop April 28, 2008, in Tehran, Iran. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)






TEHRAN, Iran — Police have closed down dozens of toy shop for selling Barbie dolls, part of a decades-long crackdown on signs of Western culture in Iran, the semiofficial Mehr news agency reported Friday.


Mehr quoted an unnamed police official as saying police confiscated Barbie dolls from toy shops in Tehran in a “new phase’’ of its crackdown against “manifestations of Western culture.’’


Barbie dolls are sold wearing swimsuits and miniskirts in a society where women must wear head scarves in public, and men and women are not allowed to swim together.


A ban on the sale of Barbie dolls, designed to look like young Western women, was imposed in the mid-1990s.


In 1996, a government-backed children’s agency called Barbie a “Trojan horse’’ sneaking in Western influences like makeup and revealing clothes.


Authorities launched a campaign of confiscating Barbie dolls from toy shops in 2002, denouncing what they called the un-Islamic characteristics of the uniquely American doll. The campaign was eventually dropped.


Also in 2002, Iran introduced its own competing dolls — twins Dara and Sara — who were designed to promote traditional values with modest clothing and pro-family stories. But the dolls proved unable to stem the Barbie tide.


Despite bans on many Western books, movies, satellite TV channels, music, haircuts and fashions, young people maintain their interest in Western culture.


Even channels of Iran’s state TV broadcast several Western and Hollywood films every week. Islamists have repeatedly tried to fight what they see as a Western cultural “invasion’’ since 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted a pro-Western monarchy.


Since then, importing Western toys has been discouraged by a regime that seeks to protect Iranians from what it calls the negative effects of Western culture.


In 2008, the Iranian judiciary warned against the “destructive’’ cultural and social consequences and “danger’’ of importing Barbie dolls and other Western toys.


Even so, Iranian markets have been full of Western toys aimed at Iranian children. One-third of Iran’s population of 75 million are under 15 years old.

[American Patriot]

Friday, January 20, 2012


Iran

Iran's Press TV To Disappear From British Television Screens













TEXT SIZE
January 20, 2012




Iranian channel Press TV will disappear from British television screens after the British media regulator revoked its license.

The Iranian state-owned news channel’s English-language service will be removed from Sky TV's satellite platform in Britain later on January 20 as a result of the decision.

Press TV said on its website the move was "a clear example of censorship."

Media regulator Ofcom said editorial control of Press TV was exercised from Tehran rather than London and that the broadcaster had failed to amend its license accordingly.

It also said that Press TV had not paid a $154,700 fine imposed after the channel aired an interview with an imprisoned “Newsweek” journalist (Maziar Bahari) that had been conducted under constraint.

[American Patriot]

World News

China warns Iran against nuclear weapons


Published: Jan. 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM




Chinaese Premier Wen Jiabao speaks at the National People's Congress in Beijing March 5, 2011. During a visit to the Middle East, Jiabao warned Iran against obtaining nuclear weapons. UPI/Stephen Shaver


Related Stories

• U.S. open to diplomacy with Iran
• U.S. tells Iran to come clean on nukes
• China unmoved on Iranian oil

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- China is warning Iran against developing nuclear weapons, observers said.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, on a visit the Middle East, appeared to be trying to send Iran the message that China will not alienate itself from the rest of the world with regard to Iran, a foreign policy expert told Britain's Daily Telegraph.
"China adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons," Wen said.
The Washington Post said China cut its oil imports from Iran this month nearly in half to 285,000 barrels a day.
"Iran would not have wanted China to make this statement, but Iran must understand that if it comes down to a choice China will not alienate itself from the rest of the world for the sake of a single country," Yu Guoqing, a researcher on the Middle East at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Telegraph.
On Wednesday, Wen said China opposed Iran's threats to blockade an important oil-transport route through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has threatened to close the strait if an oil embargo is imposed against the country.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...#ixzz1k1JuXkjp

[American Patriot]

Intervention in Iran would trigger war and chaos: Sarkozy



News Comments (0)
AFP 1 hrs ago | Comments (0)

PARIS - French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Friday that any foreign military intervention against Iran’s nuclear programme would trigger “war and chaos” across the Middle East and beyond. “Time is limited. France will do everything to avoid military intervention, but there is only one way to avoid it: a much tougher, more decisive, sanctions regime,” Sarkozy told an audience of diplomats in Paris. He called on all countries to freeze Iranian central bank assets and halt imports of Iranian oil. “Those who do not want to reinforce sanctions against a regime which is leading its country into disaster by seeking a nuclear weapon will bear responsibility for the risk of a military breakdown,” he warned.
“And I say to our Chinese and Russian friends: Help us guarantee peace in the world ... we clearly need you,” he added. “A military intervention would not solve the problem but would unleash war and chaos in the Middle East and perhaps, alas, the world,” he warned. France has been one of the loudest Western voices pushing for economic sanctions to force Iran to abandon its nuclear programme, which Paris fears could lead to the Islamic regime developing an atomic bomb.

[American Patriot]

Heads Up.

FNC reporting this right this second:
US Military Chief Holds Talks in Israel on Iran

Share

Email
Comment
Print
Text Size
- / +







By DANIEL ESTRIN Associated Press
JERUSALEM January 20, 2012 (AP)




The U.S. military's top general conducted an intense string of closed-door talks with Israeli leaders Friday, amid apparent disagreements between the two countries over how to respond to Iran's disputed nuclear program.
The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Israeli leaders kept silent about the exact content of their discussions. Dempsey was expected to urge Israel not to rush to attack Iran at a time when the U.S. is trying to rally additional global support to pressure Tehran through sanctions to dial back its nuclear program.
Dempsey met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been warning about the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade.
Netanyahu told Dempsey the U.S. should ratchet up sanctions against Iran to ones that would target its central bank and oil exports, Israeli news site YNet reported. It quoted Netanyahu as saying such measures must be imposed immediately.
At the start of a meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Dempsey said the U.S. and Israel "have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time, and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we'll all be."
"There is never a dull moment, that I can promise you," Barak replied, in comments released by Barak's office.
Israel believes Iran is close to completing the technology to produce an atomic weapon. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

AP
Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz,... View Full Caption






Israel has said it prefers employing international diplomacy to solve the problem, but it has not taken the option of a military strike off the table.
Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile development, support of radical anti-Israel forces in Lebanon and Gaza and frequent references by its president to the destruction of the Jewish state.
In an interview published Friday in the Israeli daily Maariv, Israel's recently retired military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, said the U.S. and Israel now agree that Iran is deliberately working slowly toward nuclear weapons, to minimize international diplomatic pressure and sanctions.
The U.S. and Israel differ about what would be considered unacceptable Iranian behavior that would require a military strike, the former chief claimed.
"While Israel defines the red line as Iran's ability and potential for a breakthrough, the Americans draw the red line a lot farther away," said Yadlin, who stepped down as intelligence chief in late 2010.
He said the Iranian nuclear program was Israel's "only existential threat," noting that in addition to the possibility of a nuclear attack from Iran, its possession of nuclear weapons would spark a regional arms race.
"In that situation, in a nuclear neighborhood, the chance grows that a nuclear weapon could slip into the hands of terrorists," Yadlin said.
Gen. Dempsey also met with Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, and President Shimon Peres.
"I am sure that in this fight (against Iran) we will emerge victorious," Peres said to Dempsey, in comments provided by the president's office. He called Iran a "center of world terror."
Dempsey told reporters he "couldn't agree more" with Peres' "characterization of the common challenge we face."
In between the meetings, Dempsey visited Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial and museum. He wrote in its guest book, "We are committed to ensuring that such a human tragedy (as the Holocaust) never happens again." He added, "God bless the victims and protect Israel."
In the past, Netanyahu has sharply criticized Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and has drawn parallels between the world's treatment of Iran today and its failure to act against Nazi Germany in time to save European Jewry.

[American Patriot]

It is looking more and more like this is going to get down to business pretty soon.

Iran is going to get what they have been trying to provoke for years now, a fight with Israel and with the US.

Seems like it to me anyway.

[American Patriot]

Volume. 11349

Iran, Russia discuss ‘step-by-step’ plan

Political Desk On Line: 20 January 2012 17:00 In Print: Saturday 21 January 2012

Font Size

TEHRAN – Ali Baqeri, the deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed various aspects of the Russian proposal for a “step-by-step” plan toward Iran’s nuclear program during a meeting in Moscow on January 19.


On July 13, 2011, Russia made a proposal for a step-by-step approach, according to which Iran could address questions about its nuclear program and be rewarded with a gradual easing of sanctions.

In the meeting, the Iranian official also said that the dialogue-pressure approach toward Iran, which has been adopted by some major powers, does not work.


Iran believes that it is the dialogue-cooperation approach which could be fruitful and result in a win-win situation, he said.


He also highlighted the role of Russia in the new round of talks between Tehran and the 5+1 group (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany), which is expected to be held in Turkey in the near future.


On Tehran-Moscow bilateral relations, Baqeri said cooperation between Iran and Russia could guarantee stability in the region.


Pointing to the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, he said that the world believes that those politicians who have repeatedly said that all options are on the table to curb Iran’s nuclear activities are first and foremost responsible for these terrorist incidents.


The Russian foreign minister also criticized certain Western countries for adopting a confrontational approach toward the Islamic Republic and a praised Iran for continuing its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.


Lavrov added that Russia will make every effort to ensure the success of the new round of talks between Iran and the six major powers.


After meeting with Russian officials, Baqeri headed for China to discuss Iran’s nuclear issue with Chinese officials.

[American Patriot]

• Published 05:51 20.01.12
• Latest update 05:51 20.01.12

U.S. determined to avert an Israeli strike on Iran, be it with a rebuke or an embrace

Washington is crowing about sanctions on Iran working and Jerusalem is downplaying the chances of an attack. Yet tensions from the Strait of Hormuz to Jerusalem are rising and everybody involved is still on edge.

By Amos Harel


Get Haaretz on iPhone


Get Haaretz on Android



The international media have adopted an all-encompassing script regarding the Persian Gulf: Israel is determined to bomb Iran, and the U.S. is doing everything in its power to restrain the Netanyahu government. Every report about new developments in the gulf, from a war of words over the Strait of Hormuz to magnetic bombs in central Tehran, is wedged into this pre-determined narrative of an impending military confrontation.



Speculation has heightened over the last two weeks, as reports continue to emerge from Israel, Iran and the U.S. First came the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist, and then the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. President Barack Obama tried to calm down Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; then came the decision to defer a joint Israeli-American military exercise for a few months, along with the news of the visit to Israel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who arrived yesterday.

	An Iranian soldier during a drill near the Strait of Hormuz.
	Photo by: Reuters

Defense Minister Ehud Barak was drafted on Wednesday to allay anxieties. In an Army Radio interview, Barak declared: "We haven't reached a decision to undertake [an attack on Iran]. We haven't set a date for reaching a decision. Everything is in the distance. I don't think we should deal with this as though it were going to happen tomorrow." Even the Kadima primaries, scheduled for March 27, "will happen before this," Barak added, a nod to the opposition party, which set its primary date just a few hours before. "I don't think that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is coming to pressure Israel. All of the handling of our relations with the United States comes out a little distorted in the media."
A few hours after Barak's interview, a top State Department official in Washington gathered Israeli journalists for an unusual briefing. Her message: International sanctions led by the Obama administration against Iran are working. They have already caused real damage to the Iranian economy, and they will be stiffened during the coming year, she said. Concurrently, the U.S. is working to enlarge oil reserves around the world, and to pressure large oil-consuming nations, such as India and China, into curtailing their oil imports from Tehran.
Taken together with Gen. Dempsey's first visit, undertaken just four months after he assumed his post, along with the stream of top officials who have arrived here since the summer, it is hard not to conclude that the Americans are worried.
Cause for anxiety
The official American stance of total opposition to an Israeli attack on Iran has not changed, certainly not under present circumstances. U.S. tactics, however, have changed. In a San Francisco forum two months ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained why an Israeli attack, which would be also be viewed as an American strike, would be a bad idea. Panetta referred to concerns about rises in oil prices, which would hurt the pockets of American consumers during a presidential election year.
He also estimated that the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites would not delay the nuclear project by more than a year or two.
Panetta assumed that his comments were off the record. After they were leaked, Washington changed its orientation, from one of implicitly rebuking Jerusalem to one of embracing Israel's leadership. Now the Americans are talking about fulfilling a joint objective while working shoulder-to-shoulder; once again, they are hinting about a military option, and speaking effusively about the success of the sanctions.
The Americans' ultimate objective seems to remain constant: They want to stop Israel from attacking during the coming months. The U.S. respects Israel's sovereignty, and its right to self-defense, as Barak stridently notes; yet the string of warnings issued by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan about intentions harbored by Netanyahu and Barak surely sent alarm bells ringing in Washington.
It can be assumed that the Americans have other information and intelligence sources that have given them reasons to worry.
Barak told Army Radio that Obama is providing "unprecedented support" to Israel, and is assisting its defense more than his predecessors. He hinted that the U.S. president is also "prepared for other options."
All parts of the defense minister's analysis are correct, yet the deep loathing that Netanyahu incurred in the Obama administration by deploying stalling tactics for three years on the Palestinian track cannot be discounted.
The Obama White House appears to suspect that Israeli willingness to launch an attack this year does not stem only from the Iranians' progress in installation of centrifuges in the underground facility near Qom. There is also a feeling that Netanyahu and Barak reason that the U.S. president will not risk losing the Jewish vote in an election year by precipitating a diplomatic fracas with Israel's leadership.
Springtime strike
The passage of time is also having an effect on the chances of an attack. Western analysts believe that winter clouds above Iran mean that an effective strike against the country's nuclear facilities could not be undertaken at least until March. The fear of an Israeli attack on Iran, which saturated international media until the end of autumn, is making its way back to the headlines as spring gets a little closer. The level of agreement between Israel and Western states regarding Iran's intentions and the pace of its nuclear program's advance is wider than it has been in the past.
Israeli officials regarded last November's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency as confirmation of their assumption that Iran is active on the military track in an effort to attain nuclear strike capability.
Based on this shared assessment, Israel continues to send aggressive signals. Netanyahu's appearance at the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff forum, flanked by senior officers, should be seen as one such signal.
The threat of a strike is supposed to serve two purposes: In theory, it ups the ante, provoking more substantive international action against Iran (because unless measures are taken, those crazy Israelis will attack ), and it improves the IDF's operational readiness. The problem is that prolonged preparations for an action in Iran pull the Israel Air Force in all sorts of directions, and they come at the expense of IDF preparation for other possible scenarios.
The final decision is in Netanyahu's hands, and is subject to a cabinet vote. Yet Barak exerts considerable influence on the prime minister.
Netanyahu currently enjoys considerable strength in the domestic political arena, and sometimes his popularity translates into acts of hubris. A number of factors - the realization of the Shalit prisoner-exchange deal, Netanyahu's rise in popularity, and the apparent lack of serious political rivals in Likud, or in other parties - have political analysts wondering how the prime minister will comport himself. Will Netanyahu be goaded into trying an attack on Iran, or, conversely, will his political ascendancy lead him to think that he should not endanger his popularity?
The Barak riddle
At least two retired IDF major generals, both of whom worked closely with Netanyahu in the past, believe that despite his deep ideological commitment (the prime minister talks about an Iranian bomb as though it poses a threat of a second holocaust of the Jewish people ), Netanyahu will not take the risk of launching a strike against Iran in the absence of consent of, and coordination with, the Obama administration.
The defense minister, on the other hand, remains an enigma wrapped within a riddle. Only total cynics believe that his intensive involvement of the Iranian issue is motivated by a desire to rise to the top of Likud's list. As Barak ages (next month he will turn 70 ), interviews with him, particularly in the electronic media, become more interesting. His interview on Army Radio was particularly revealing, as was an interview he did with CNN in November where he declared that less than a year remained to stop the Iranian nuclear program from reaching its objective.
That interview was an attempt to spell out Israel's ultimate red lines for Iran. When a significant amount of enriched uranium reaches the fortified facility at Qom, Israel will lose any possible first strike capability and may have to take the military option off the table altogether.
Since it has more sophisticated military wherewithal, the window of opportunity for an American strike against Iran would last a few months beyond this "red line" point for Israel.
In other words, Barak has been hinting that the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, has chosen the wrong focus by directing attention to the question of when exactly Iran might move from the development of nuclear capability to a specific campaign to attain nuclear weaponization (particularly by arming missiles with nuclear warheads ). Once enough materials have reached heavily fortified underground sites, Iran's nuclear program might be shielded in a way that allows it to choose whatever time it wants to accelerate a nuclear weapons effort.
Israeli intelligence officials believe that Iran has yet to reach a final decision regarding an attempt to assemble a nuclear bomb. The Americans concur with this analysis. Moving ahead with an effort to make a bomb entails a cost - by demonstratively blocking any IAEA monitoring efforts, Iran would have to endure yet stiffer sanctions.
Mixed on sanctions
The issue of sanctions seems vital. Iran is indicating that the sanctions cause vast economic damage, since the country's currency has devalued by 60 percent against the dollar in recent months. The European Union is prepared to engage in a full embargo on oil imports from Iran, starting this July. Russia claims that such international actions will mainly harm Iran's citizenry, and that their main intention is to topple the regime in Tehran, rather than to forestall its nuclear program.
Israel has been sending mixed signals regarding the efficacy of sanctions. In an interview with an Australian newspaper last week, Netanyahu praised the sanctions; yet on Monday, he cast doubt about their utility during a briefing given to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and on his trip to Holland on Wednesday he called for tougher sanctions.
Barak told Army Radio that "there's no doubt that we're seeing effects from the sanctions," but he doubted that these effects would be powerful enough to persuade Iran's leaders to forgo the nuclear weapon option.
The sanctions will influence developments Iran's parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March. International pressure is expected to strengthen the regime's opponents.
Will the sequence of events lead to an attempt to manipulate the election's results, as many claim the regime did after balloting in the 2009 presidential race?
The "Green Revolution" in Iran that summer foreshadowed the coming of the Arab Spring last year. A sequel involving accusations of election fraud could ignite fires of domestic unrest, and the dissent this time could be reinforced by residents of neighboring states.
Faced with such domestic turmoil as well as with the international sanctions, Iran's leadership is signaling willingness to undertake a review about the aims of its nuclear effort. Such signals about a reassessment are surely a mere stalling tactic; but they nevertheless reflect anxieties in Tehran.
While eyes around the world are watching out for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, another possible theater of conflict is the Strait of Hormuz, where the Iranians are renewing threats that they might disrupt the supply of oil from the Gulf states, in response to the sanctions. July 2012 is the date scheduled for the opening of a new pipeline that would bypass the strait and supply 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.
Until this pipeline comes online, Iran has the power to hold hostage about 20 percent of the world's oil supply. Britain and the U.S. are currently deploying unusually large naval presences around the Gulf. A third U.S. aircraft carrier is scheduled to reach the Persian Gulf area in another two weeks.
This has yet to reach a level of tension on a par with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, yet temperatures are definitely rising. A miscalculation, particularly by Iran, could cause an eruption of violence, even one that seems to be against Tehran's objective interests.
This could be the background to the Americans' somewhat surprising disavowal regarding the killing of the nuclear scientist last week, and also to the decision to defer a joint drill involving missile defense systems, from April to the end of the year. The real game is now being played in the sanctions arena, and it would be wrong to downplay the damage sanctions cause to the Iranian regime's stability.
Active efforts to derail the nuclear project, such as the liquidation of scientists, are likely to be held in abeyance. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, should violence erupt in the near future, it should come as the result of coordinated international action, and not as a result of what Iran might be able to portray as acts of military aggression against it. This being Washington's agenda, it is asking Israel's boat not to enter the path charted by its aircraft carrier.

[American Patriot]

World powers signal openness to Iran nuclear talks

By REUTERS
01/20/2012 20:13

EU's Ashton states diplomatic path remains open to Iran despite tougher sanctions; diplomats say major powers divided over what incentives to offer Tehran if talks resume.


WASHINGTON - Major powers seeking to negotiate an end to Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons on Friday signaled their openness to renewed talks with Tehran but diplomats said the powers remain divided on their approach.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the group, issued a statement making clear that a diplomatic path remains open to Iran despite tougher sanctions and fresh speculation of a military strike on its nuclear facilities.

RELATED:
Iran calls for Israel to be 'punished' for scientist
UAE cautions against escalating Iran tension
'Iran's economy in shambles from sanctions'
Sarkozy: Time running out for Iran diplomacy

The group, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, includes Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

"The EU3+3 has always been clear about the validity of the dual track approach," Ashton's spokesperson said in a statement that included her Oct. 21 letter. "We are waiting for the Iranian reaction."

The release of the statement and the letter itself appeared be an effort to demonstrate that the major powers are willing to talk to Iran, while reiterating their demands that Tehran must return to the table willing to talk about its nuclear program.

It also appeared to reflect frustration at recent Iranian statements hinting at a willingness to return to the table but Tehran's failure to formally respond to the letter and commit to discussing the nuclear program in earnest.



One diplomat said Iran had been sending mixed signals on whether it might be willing to return to talks in the face of tighter US sanctions focused on its crude oil exports and the possibility of a European Union petroleum embargo.

"This is a way to ensure that our offer is absolutely clear," said the diplomat, adding that the central point was to make clear that "we are prepared to sit down with you if you are prepared to demonstrate serious intent."

There have been signals in recent weeks that Iran might be willing to hold a new round of talks about its nuclear program.

Major powers differ on negotiation strategy

Diplomats said that major powers are divided over what incentives to offer Iran if talks resume and whether to allow it to keep enriching uranium at lower levels.

If the Iranians were willing to sit down, the question would then become how the major powers, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, might approach Iran during any such negotiations, notably on any "confidence-building measures."

"There is no agreement inside the P5+1 on how such confidence-building measures should or should not be presented to the Iranians," said one diplomat.

A central issue is whether the group might ask Iran to cease enriching uranium to the higher level of 20 percent but allow it, at least for a time, to continue enriching at lower levels - a stance partly at odds with the group's past positions.

Uranium enrichment is a process that at low levels can yield fuel for nuclear power plants or, if carried out to much higher levels of purity, can generate fissile material for bombs.

Multiple UN Security Council resolutions have called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities and the P5+1 has taken the view that it must suspend such activities during any serious negotiation.

To permit Iran, even for a period, to enrich at lower levels would be something of a concession by the P5+1, although it has previously offered a temporary "freeze-for-freeze" in which Iran would halt expansion of its nuclear program and the major powers would not pursue additional sanctions.

Asked why some members of the group might be willing to let Iran continue to enrich at lower levels, at least for a period, one diplomat said it reflected a desire to give diplomacy every possible chance to succeed.

"That really is the crux of it. You want to be able to say that you pursued every option diplomatically to try to get Iran to halt its program," he said.

A senior Obama administration official told Reuters that if talks were to resume, the group would have a common stance.

"If the Iranians accept the offer of the P5+1 to have talks on the basis of High Representative Ashton's October letter, we fully expect a unified P5+1 approach to the talks," the official said.