Netanyahu Prepared To Go It Alone On Iran

[vector7]

Things are heating up...


Israel launches new Ofek 9 military spy satellite

Ofek 9, equipped with a high resolution camera, to join two previously launched active Israeli satellites.

By The Associated Press


IDF Israel's Defense Ministry announced Tuesday that it had launched a military satellite, named Ofek 9, the latest in a series of spy satellites.

The Defense Ministry said the satellite was sent skyward from the Palmachim air force base on Israel's coast south of Tel Aviv.

The statement said technical crews were examining the data.

Defense officials said Ofek 9 is a spy satellite with a high resolution camera. It was to join two other active spy satellites.

Israel is known to direct satellites over Iran to keep track of its nuclear program.

The officials said the three satellites would give Israel considerable coverage of sensitive areas. They spoke on condition of anonymity because details were not made public.


-------------------------------------------

Ofek 9 satellite begins transmitting

By JPOST.COM STAFF AND YAAKOV KATZ

06/23/2010 11:27

Newly launched spy satellite makes first contact with ground crews




Israel put up a new surveillance satellite last night. You don't just do that for grins and giggles.

JERUSALEM — Israel launched a spy satellite called "Ofek 9" late Tuesday, Israel's Defense Ministry and officials said, increasing Israel's capacity to keep an eye on enemies like Iran.

The Defense Ministry issued a statement saying the satellite was launched late Tuesday from the Palmachim air force base on Israel's coast south of Tel Aviv. An hour later, after the satellite completed its first circuit, the ministry said it had achieved its proper orbit, describing it as "a surveillance satellite with advanced technological capabilities."

Defense officials said Ofek 9 is a spy satellite with a high resolution camera. It would join two other active spy satellites in the Ofek series already orbiting the earth. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because details were not made public, said the three satellites would give Israel considerable coverage of sensitive areas.

Addition of a new satellite gives Israel the capability of sending space-borne cameras over sensitive areas more frequently. One of Israel's main targets for spy photos is Iran, because of its nuclear program.

Israel considers Iran to be a strategic threat, charging that its nuclear program is meant for developing bombs, despite Iranian denials. Also, Iran has tested missiles that can reach Israel, and its leaders frequently refer to Israel's destruction.

Israel is also thought to be targeting Syria with its satellites. In 2007, warplanes struck a site in Syria thought to be a nuclear facility under construction. Israel has not commented, but it was widely reported that the attacking aircraft were Israeli.

Defense officials said that with each successive Israeli satellite, cameras are more advanced and offer higher resolution. They said the camera aboard Ofek 9 was made by Elbit, a leading Israeli high-tech optics firm.

They said the camera could pick out missiles and launchers on the ground.

Isaac Ben-Israel, a former head of the Israeli space agency, told Israel Radio that the new satellite weighs about 650 pounds (300 kilograms), small in comparison to American spy satellites. He said it would take another two or three days before it could be determined if its camera was working properly. So far, he said, Israel has not had problems with cameras aboard its satellites.

In 2008, an Israeli spy satellite launched from India took aloft an advanced radar system that would allow photography in all weather conditions and at night.

[vector7]

Report: IAF planes in Saudi Arabia

06/23/2010 14:59

Israel Air Force aircraft have been spotted in recent days at a Saudi Arabian military base unloading military equipment in the city of Tabuk, in northwestern Saudi Arabia, according to a report from Iranian news agency FARS.

The base will reportedly be used as a forward operating base by the Israelis as part of an offensive on an Islamic country.

[vector7]

Iran on war alert over "US and Israeli concentrations" in Azerbaijan

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 23, 2010, 1:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags: Azerbaijan Iranian war preparations US-Israel


Iran's land forces on the ready

In a rare move, Iran has declared a state of war on its northwestern border, DEBKAfile's military and Iranian sources report. Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps men and equipment units are being massed in the Caspian Sea region against what Tehran claims are US and Israeli forces concentrated on army and air bases in Azerbaijan ready to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

The announcement came on Tuesday, June 22 from Brig.-Gen Mehdi Moini of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), commander of the forces tasked with "repelling" this American-Israeli offensive. He said: "The mobilization is due to the presence of American and Israeli forces on the western border," adding, "Reinforcements are being dispatched to West Azerbaijan Province because some western countries are fueling ethnic conflicts to destabilize the situation in the region.”

In the past, Iranian officials have spoken of US and Israel attacks in general terms. DEBKAfile's Iranian sources note that this is the first time that a specific location was mentioned and large reinforcements dispatched to give the threat substance.

Other Iranian sources report that in the last few days, Israel has secretly transferred a large number of bomber jets to bases in Azerbaijan, via Georgia, and that American special forces are also concentrated in Azerbaijan in preparation for a strike.

No comment has come from Azerbaijan about any of these reports. Iranian Azerbaijan, the destination of the Revolutionary Guards forces reinforcements, borders on Turkey, Iraq and Armenia. Witnesses say long IRGC convoys of tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft units and infantry are seen heading up the main highways to Azerbaijan and then further north to the Caspian Sea.

On Tuesday, June 22, Dr. Uzi Arad, head of Israel's National Security Council and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest adviser, said "The latest round of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran is inadequate for thwarting its nuclear progress. A preemptive military strike might eventually be necessary.”

DEBKAfile's intelligence and Iranian sources point to three other developments as setting off Iran's war alert:

1. A certain (limited) reinforcement of American and Israeli forces has taken place in Azerbaijan. Neither Washington nor Jerusalem has ever acknowledged a military presence in this country that borders on Iran, but Western intelligence sources say that both keep a wary eye on the goings-on inside Iran from electronic surveillance bases in that country.

2. Iran feels moved to respond to certain US steps: The arrival of the USS Harry S. Truman Strike Group in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea and its war games with France and Israel, which included live-fire bombing practices against targets in Iran.

3. The execution of Abdolmalek Rigi, head of the Sunni Baluchi rebel organization (including the Iranian Baluchis), on June 20 was intended as a deterrent for Iran's other minorities. Instead, they are more restive than ever. Several Azeri breakaway movements operate in Iranian Azerbaijan in combination with their brethren across the border. Tehran decided a substantial buildup in the province would serve as a timely measure against possible upheavals.

[vector7]

Published: 06/23/10, 4:20 PM / Last Update: 06/23/10, 4:36 PM
Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border

Air Force F-15
Israel news photo: Flash 90

(Israelnationalnews.com) The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran.

Both reports follow by less than a week the Pentagon’s confirmation that an unusually large American fleet sailed through the Suez Canal Saturday. Several reports stated that an Israeli ship joined the armada.

The Pentagon played down the news, saying the American maneuvers were routine. However, a report by Iran on Wednesday that it has enriched dozens of pounds of 17 per cent enriched uranium serves as a reminder that time is running out to stop Iran from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Fars News Agency said the Israeli military aircraft landed 10 days ago at the Saudi base near the city of Tabuk, located in northwest Saudi Arabia, one of the closest areas in the oil kingdom to Iran.

Fars said that the Tabuk base will be the central station for an Israeli attack on Iran. It quoted an Islamic news site that a commercial airline passenger said the airport in Tabuk was closed to all other traffic during the alleged Israeli landings. The passenger said that "no reasonable explanation” was given for shutting down the airport and those passengers were compensated financially and booked in four-star hotels.

“The relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel have become the talk of the town,” the passenger added. The chief authority in Tabuk, Prince Fahd ben Sultan, was reported be coordinating the cooperation with Israel.

Azerbaijan
Iran’s government-funded Press TV reported that the Revolutionary Guards began closely patrolling the Islamic Republic’s northwestern border after noticing the American forces, which Iran claimed also included Israeli troops. Azerbaijan’s independent Trend news site also reported on Wednesday that American armed forces are in the country, which is in an armed conflict with rebels.

Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said Tuesday that his forces are mobilized “due to the presence of American and Israeli forces on the western border.” The Guards reportedly have called in tanks and anti-aircraft units to the area in what amounts to a war alert.

Enriched Uranium
As signs point to a higher American-Israeli military profile aimed at Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Islamic Republic’s vice president and director of the nuclear program, announced Wednesday that Iran has produced another 37 pounds of uranium enriched to 20 percent. The production of the uranium defies United Nations demands that Iran stop its unsupervised nuclear development, although the 20 percent level is far below level that is needed to build a nuclear weapon.

"Potentially, we can produce 5 kilograms (11 pounds) a month, but we are not in a hurry over this," Salehi told the semiofficial ISNA news agency.

[American Patriot]

So.. countdown.

Anyone wanna guess the date? LOL

[vector7]

Report: IAF Helicopters Unload Equipment 'Meant For Attacking A Muslim State' At Saudi Airport

Haaretz ^ | June 24, 2010 | By Jack Khoury

Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:40:15 AM by Fennie

A semi-official Iranian news agency reported Wednesday that Israel Air Force helicopters recently landed at a Saudi Arabia airport and unloaded equipment intended for attacking targets in a Muslim state.

(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...

[American Patriot]

No, I think they will do something. I think they can, they are just holding off for support from the US.

If we have US troops sitting there, I'd say they have support.

Of course, that's just a guess, not like I know anything about it or anything.

[American Patriot]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0627/rep...iranian-coast/

Report: US warships stationed off Iranian coast

By Daniel Tencer
Sunday, June 27th, 2010 -- 4:22 pm


As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities pick up steam in the Middle Eastern media, a US-based strategic intelligence company has released a chart showing US naval carriers massing near Iranian waters.

The chart, published by Stratfor and obtained by the Zero Hedge financial blog, shows that over the last few weeks a naval carrier -- the USS Harry S Truman -- has been positioned in the north Indian Ocean, not far from the Strait of Hormuz, which leads into the Persian Gulf. The carrier joins the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was already located in the area. The chart is dated June 23, 2010.

Reports of mass movements of Israeli and US naval warships have been circulating through the media for weeks. On June 19, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that 12 US and Israeli warships were seen moving through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.

And a report from the Associated Press published Saturday evening cited "unconfirmed" reports from Israeli and Iranian media that Saudi Arabia has allowed Israel to use its territory in preparation for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"The allegation could not be independently confirmed, and the Saudis deny cooperating with the Israeli military," AP reported.

An article in the Gulf Daily News, largely dismissed by Western observers, did not mention any Saudi involvement but said Israel is preparing to attack Iranian targets from the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The claims that Israel may be preparing for an assault on Iranian nuclear facilities were strengthened this weekend by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who told reporters at the G8 summit in Canada that G8 leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel will "probably" strike Iran.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi said, as quoted at Ha'aretz.

CIA director Leon Panetta said Sunday that Iran has enough enriched uranium to build two nuclear bombs. In an interview on ABC's This Week, Panetta also said he believed the recent spate of international and US sanctions against Iran will not convince the country to change course on its nuclear program.

"Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not," Panetta said.

[American Patriot]

the USS Harry S Truman -- has been positioned in the north Indian Ocean, not far from the Strait of Hormuz, which leads into the Persian Gulf.

Somewhat... apocolyptic, wouldn't you all say?

Iran is to atomic weapons as Harry S. Truman is to Hiroshima....

/chuckles

More than one message in THAT vessel movement...

[American Patriot]

I don't know, but even with respect to US troops nearby, I think all of this is just posturing. Depends on which wing of Moslems Pres. Obama is covertly part of too.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

It is a matter of course that once a man takes the Office of the President, no matter how arrogant and ambivilent of the peoples' opinions tend to fall back into a clear way of life.

Having known several Presidents personally, I can tell you that the position is an awesome... no make that AWESOME repsonsibility. Being as close on a daily or weekly basis with Presidents and Vice Presidents gives you some inkling of the awesomeness of that position.

Not having served in that capacity, I can only guess at the amount of serious stresses placed on a person in the job of keeping America as American as possible.

Thus, I have my fingers crossed that even the as the Clintons went, so goes Obama, toward the middle eventually. He might not have that wake up call until he is booted out of the Office, but he certainly will have an understanding by that time.

No - I think America has greater interest in this than what the current Administration puts on as a front, and even now, the chips are "falling as they may".

Placing a large naval force there is a clear message that America isn't going to bluff about this.

I'm of the belief at this point that more things were said in the background than the media got wind of, and part of the "dissing" Netanyahu got was all part of the charade.

[American Patriot]

Not sure what you're saying

[vector7]

Russia Says It Will Begin Fueling Iran's First Nuclear Plant Next Week

Published August 13, 2010
| Associated Press

• Comments (128)

AP
FILE: The reactor building of Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is seen, just outside the port city of Bushehr. Russia's nuclear agency spokesman Sergei Novikov said it will load fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week, marking the start of its launch.

MOSCOW — Russia will load fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week despite U.S. demands to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear energy until the country proves that it's not pursuing a weapons capacity, officials said Friday.

Uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning a startup process that will last about a month and end with the reactor sending electricity to Iranian cities, Russian and Iranian officials said.

"From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation," said Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the Russian nuclear agency, told The Associated Press.

Russia signed a $1 billion contract to build the Bushehr plant in 1995 but it has dragged its feet on completing the project.

Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays, but analysts say Moscow has used the project to press Iran to ease its defiance over its nuclear program.

Russian officials say, however, that U.N. sanctions against Iran, including a new, more stringent set approved in June, don't directly prevent Moscow from going ahead with the Bushehr project. It has argued that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

Russian officials did not say why they had decided to move ahead with loading fuel into the Bushehr plant now.

The uranium fuel used by the Bushehr plant is enriched to a level too low to be used in an nuclear weapon. Iran is already producing uranium enriched to that level — about 3.5 percent — and has started a pilot program of enriching uranium to 20 percent. Iran claims it needs the 20 percent enriched uranium to produce fuel for a medical research reactor, but the move has further heightened international concerns about its nuclear program.

Uranium must be enriched to over 90 percent to be used in a nuclear warhead.

Iran's semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that the country had invited International Atomic Energy Agency experts to watch the transfer of fuel, which was shipped about two years ago, into the Bushehr reactor.

"Fuel complexes are sealed (and being monitored by IAEA). Naturally, IAEA inspectors will be there to watch the unsealing," ISNA quoted Salehi as saying.

Russia has said that the Bushehr project has been closely supervised by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which declined comment Friday. It also says Iran has signed a pledge to ship all the spent uranium fuel from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, excluding a possibility that any of it could used to make nuclear weapons.

Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. It is one of the six powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop an atomic bomb. It has backed U.N. sanctions, but strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate, even stronger sanctions.


Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to get fuel next week

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV and GEORGE JAHN (AP) – 2 hours ago

MOSCOW — Russia announced Friday it will begin the startup next week of Iran's only atomic power plant, giving Tehran a boost as it struggles with international sanctions and highlighting differences between Moscow and Washington over pressuring the Islamic Republic to give up activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.

Uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning a process that will last about a month and end with the reactor sending electricity to Iranian cities, Russian and Iranian officials said.

"From that moment, the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear energy installation," said Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the Russian nuclear agency.

If Russia carries out its plan, it will end years of foot-dragging on Bushehr. While Moscow signed a $1 billion contract to build the plant in 1995, its completion has been put off for years.

Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays. But Bushehr has also been an ideal way to gain leverage with both Tehran and Washington.

Delaying the project has given Russia continued influence with Tehran in international attempts to have it stop uranium enrichment — a program Iran says it needs to make fuel for an envisaged reactor network but which also can be used to create fissile warhead material. The delays also have served to placate the U.S., which opposes rewarding Iran while it continues to defy the U.N. Security Council with its nuclear activities.

After Russia said in March that Bushehr would be launched this year, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that until Iran reassures the world it is not trying to build a nuclear weapon, "it would be premature to go ahead with any project at this time."

Formally, the U.S. has no problem with Bushehr.

Although at first opposed to Russian participation in the project, Washington and its allies agreed to remove any reference to it in the first set of Security Council sanctions passed in 2006 in exchange for Moscow's support for those penalties. Three subsequent sanctions resolutions also have no mention of Bushehr.

The terms of the deal commit the Iranians to allow the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. Additionally, Iran has said that International Atomic Energy Agency experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted.

Still, the U.S. sees the Russian move as a false signal to Tehran as Washington strives to isolate Iran politically and economically to force it to compromise on enrichment.

A senior diplomat from an IAEA member nation said Friday the Americans had "raised those concerns with the Russians" in recent weeks. The diplomat, who is familiar with the issue, spoke on condition of anonymity because his information was confidential.

Russia, in turn, argues that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

Russian officials did not say why they had decided to move ahead with loading fuel into the Bushehr plant now. But the move could have been triggered in part by Moscow's desire show the Iranians it can act independently from Washington after its decision to support the fourth set of U.N. sanctions in June and its continued refusal to ship surface-to-air missile systems that it agreed to provide under a 2007 contract to sell the S-300s.

The sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missiles would significantly boost Iran's ability to defend against airstrikes. Israel and the United States have strongly objected to the deal.

Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. One of six world powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, it has strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate sanctions after the latest U.N. penalties — which Moscow supported — were passed.

Iran's semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that the country had invited IAEA experts to watch the transfer of fuel, which was shipped about two years ago, into the Bushehr reactor.

"Fuel complexes are sealed (and being monitored by IAEA). Naturally, IAEA inspectors will be there to watch the unsealing," ISNA quoted Salehi as saying.

Russia has said the Bushehr project has been closely supervised by the IAEA. But the U.N. watchdog has no monitoring authority at the plant beyond ensuring that its nuclear fuel is accounted for, and U.S. and EU officials have expressed safety concerns.

They note that Iran — leery of opening up its nuclear activities to outsiders — refuses to sign on to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, making it subject to international monitoring of its atomic safety standards.

[vector7]

Russian S-300s in Abkhazia block possible Israeli air route to Iran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 12, 2010, 10:12 PM (GMT+02:00)


Russian S-300 interceptors now in Abkhazia

US and Israeli military sources told debkafile Thursday, Aug. 12, that a threat from Georgia was not the reason why Russian posted advanced S-300 interceptor batteries Russia in Abkhazia and air defense weapons in South Ossetia on the northern shore of the Black Sea -as Moscow officially maintained, but rather possible moves by the US and/or Israel against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

Georgia's armed forces do not run to the sophisticated warplanes, missiles or drones that would warrant establishing the high-powered S-300 interceptors for defending the breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Ordinary air defense batteries would do for deterrence.

Therefore, US military sources believe Moscow placed the sophisticated batteries on the Black Sea shore more as a counterweight for the US Sixth Fleet warships present in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and the two big American bases close to the latter waterway - the Mikhail Kogalniceanu Air Base near Constanta, Romania, and the Bezmer Air Base used by the US Air Force just 50 kilometers from the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Their location gives the US Air Force the freedom to operate over both the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

Our military sources disclose that attention was drawn in Moscow and Tehran to the exercises the Israeli Air Force has been conducting from the two American bases to simulate strikes against Iran's concealed nuclear sites.

They noticed in particular the Israeli Yasur CH-53 helicopter which crashed in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania on July 26, killing six Israeli airman and a Romanian flight captain. It was obvious to Russian and Iranian observers from the way the CH-53 crashed and the veil of secrecy clamped down by Israeli authorities that it had been engaged in practicing touch-and-go attacks on nuclear sites which the Iranians have holed up in tunnels burrowed in the sides of lofty mountain precipices.

DEBKfile's intelligence sources do not doubt that Russian placed the top-of-the line air defense systems in Abkhazia for intercepting flights taking off from the American bases in Bulgaria and Romania and heading east over Georgia and Azerbaijan and on to the Caspian and Black Seas to northern Iran.

By deploying the S-300s, Moscow has put paid to any plans Israel may have had for using this northern route for attacking Iran.

The deployment was also a message of reassurance from Moscow to Tehran: Although Russia is withholding the advanced S-300 interceptors from Iran it has its own methods for blocking an American or Israel raid on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.

[vector7]

Russia builds up sea border patrols around Abkhazia

21:32 12/08/2010

© RIA Novosti. Vyacheslav Popov

Related News

• Abkhazia says Russian missile deployment 'under agreement'
• Russia deploys S-300 air defense systems in Abkhazia (Update 1)
• Georgia condemns Medvedev's recent visit to Abkhazia
• Medvedev visits Russian military base in Abkhazia

Multimedia

• President Dmitry Medvedev visits Abkhazia
• Abkhazia through the eyes of a tourist a year after Russia recognized the former Georgian republic as independent
• South Ossetia, August 2008

The fifth Russian Mangust class patrol boat has arrived in Abkhazia to help the former Georgian republic guard its maritime border in the Black Sea, a source in the local administration said on Thursday.

Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November following Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, Moscow pledged to help both republics protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.

A Russian coast guard division, based at the Black Sea port of Ochamchira in Abkhazia, is expected to have up to 10 Mangust and Sobol class vessels in the future to patrol 215 kilometers (about 133 miles) of the Abkhazian maritime border.

The 19-meter Project 12150 Mangust patrol boat, with a maximum speed of 53 Kts, is equipped with a 14.7-mm machine gun. The 28-meter Project 12200 Sobol patrol boat is equipped with a machine gun and a gun mount, and has a maximum speed of 50 Kts.

The head of the Russian Federal Security Service's coast guard department, Col. Gen. Viktor Trufanov, has said the patrol boats will seize Georgian ships if they illegally enter Abkhaz waters.

Georgia considers Abkhazia and its waters part of Georgian territory, and has declared any unauthorized maritime shipments of goods to be illegal. It has already seized a number of cargo vessels heading to Abkhazia.

MOSCOW, December 12 (RIA Novosti)

[vector7]

The Point of No Return

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation.

But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence.

In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how?

As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.

By Jeffrey Goldberg



Image credit: Alex Williamson

It is possible that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is also possible that Iran’s reform-minded Green Movement will somehow replace the mullah-led regime, or at least discover the means to temper the regime’s ideological extremism.

It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way.

It is also possible that President Obama, who has said on more than a few occasions that he finds the prospect of a nuclear Iran “unacceptable,” will order a military strike against the country’s main weapons and uranium-enrichment facilities.

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely.

What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

[vector7]

Repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran

An Atlantic Monthly article argues there's a high chance of an Israeli attack on Iran next summer. What might happen next if they did?

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
posted August 12, 2010 at 5:23 pm EDT

Boston — If Israel is likely to decide to attack Iran next summer, as argued in an Atlantic Monthly story by Jeffrey Goldberg out this week, the big question is, what happens in the aftermath?

A common view among strategists and political analysts is that the US will be held responsible by Iran and much of the Muslim world. Tehran is expected to use the relationships it has carefully cultivated with militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to lash out at US troops, and some say it could provide fighters in Afghanistan with the surface-to-air missiles they crave.

"There are segments of the [Iranian] regime, parts of the military apparatus especially, that will welcome an attack, the heightening of tensions and even confrontation," says Kaveh Ehsani, a political scientist who studies Iran at DePaul University in Chicago. "Their strategy to react to this is to export conflict – to Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and Gaza… they’ll raise hell anywhere they can, like in Saudi Arabia."

But how big the Iranian reaction would be remains an open question. More US soldiers would die, that much is almost certain. But how many is unclear. And while Iran can bottle up tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and drive up world oil prices, or encourage Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to rain missiles on Israel, analysts are divided on whether the country will take the plunge.

US response could be far more threatening than Israeli one

Wayne White, former deputy director of the Middle East desk at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, says a there's a complex web of calculations being made by both the Israelis and the Iranians, and that Iran may show restraint in the wake of an attack, not wanting to be drawn into a conflict that could threaten the Islamic revolution.

"The Iranians might also appreciate that if they up the ante ... there could be more blowback on them," he says, pointing out that a dramatic Iranian attack on US interests, or a precipitous withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN nuclear monitoring could provoke a US response far more threatening to Iran than the limited strike Israel is capable of.

He says some retaliation against both Israeli and US interests is inevitable, "but not in such a visible form, such a dramatic shift that could be immediately placed upon them. They may be cunning about this, knowing that they still have a lot of their [nuclear] program, and not give us a pretext to wade into the situation and take what they have left.... the thing they really fear most is that huge attack from the United States that could, in the end, involve several thousand sorties against a great array of targets."

Why might Israel attack Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes? It's no secret that Israel is deeply skeptical that harsh new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program will prevent it from progressing. Israel also dismisses Tehran's assurances of peaceful intent out of hand.

Israeli leaders like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an anti-Semitic madman who wouldn't be deterred by the risk of a massive nuclear retaliation from Israel, the region's only nuclear power. Often Israeli rhetoric compares a possible Iranian nuclear bomb with the Holocaust.

Mr. Ehsani says those sorts of fears are clouding Israeli and American strategic thinking. Both are "obsessed with the nuclear program at the expense of long term, geostrategic thinking about Iran," says Ehsani. "If everything you’re doing in terms of setting up your pieces on the chess board is to stop them from developing their nuclear program, which Iran is pursuing because of concerns about regime survival, then you've got a sort of vicious circle that could backfire."

Intentions and capabilities

The actual outcome of an Israel strike is likely to be murky. Israel's successful attacks on an unfinished Syrian nuclear reactor in 2006 and Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 (which Iran had tried to and failed to destroy with jets of its own the previous year) are sometimes held up as models. But those were single sights, much closer to Israel and above ground.

Iran has 17 known nuclear sites and has placed many of its key facilities deep below ground, so deep that there are doubts that even "bunker buster" bombs could destroy them. But "if there’s one tunnel complex that we’ve discovered, there’s probably seven or eight we haven’t," says White. "They've been preparing for this for a long time."

And an attack wouldn't be easy: Long flights over Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Turkey, limited time over their targets, and a need to hustle home to deal with possible Hezbollah retaliation are just a few of the problems.

As Steven Simon, a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, put it in a briefing on the odds of an Israeli strike on Iran last winter: "Israeli officials are aware that no conceivable Israeli strike could completely eliminate the nuclear threat posed by Iran and that an attack might only intensify longer-term risks as Iran reconstituted covertly, advancing an argument long made by counterterrorism officials that any effort to counter Iran’s nuclear challenge is going to be like 'mowing the lawn.' "

Col. (ret.) Pat Lang, a former head of the Middle East desk at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, writes on his blog that a 50 percent chance of an Israeli attack is "about right" though he cautions of the consequences for US interests. "Goldberg doesn't think that the US would eventually be drawn into such a war? That is foolish. The escalation ladder that would be climbed would be likely to include attacks on US forces and a strike on Israel would be probable from some quarter. That would create a political situation in which US entry into the war would be likely."

Repercussions and triggers

That's an outcome US officials are well aware of, and at least one reason that a unilateral Israeli attack, something the Obama administration opposes as the Bush administration did before it, would strain US ties.

But if Netanyahu becomes convinced that sanctions aren't working and that the US is unlikely to lead an attack, Goldberg argues the Israelis "will state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission."

White predicts that the strains on the US relationship with Israel would be manageable since "the US population is well inclined to Israelis and has a dismal view of Iran."

"The US doesn’t want to do this at all, and doesn’t want them to light the fuse, either," he says, "because it would be presumed that we gave them the green light. This is an unfortunate belief in the Middle East – it just isn't true. When the Israelis wish to do something exceedingly dramatic like the [Osirak] raid in 1981, they don’t tell us anything at all."

He says he would expect Israel to carry out a strike on Iran if it received intelligence about a specific site or nuclear progress that they viewed as "alarmingly actionable." He adds that there is no strategic hesitation "except for the difficulty of the mission, because they believe Israel will survive the bulk of the blowback.... In the long run, I’m alarmed. In the short run, I think the Israelis don’t want to do this."

Unintended consequences

At times, the US military establishment has appeared less eager for a confrontation than members of the Obama administration, who have repeatedly said that "all options are on the table" when asked about what the US might do if sanctions don't make a dent in Iran's nuclear program.

Admiral Mike Mullen, at the World Leaders Forum at Columbia University in April, said that the "unintended consequences" of an Israeli attack on Iran would "be substantial in an area that's so unstable right now. We don't need more of that." He even appeared ambivalent about which was worse -- a nuclear armed Iran or a war with Iran.

"What we need is engaged political and diplomatic leadership from around the world to make sure that that doesn’t – that neither one of those things happens. And I don’t believe – I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome."

[vector7]

John Bolton: Russia's Loading of Nuke Fuel Into Iran Plant Means Aug. 21 Deadline for Israeli Attack

Friday, 13 Aug 2010 01:41 PM
Article Font Size

By: David A. Patten
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively "immune" to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.

Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, "it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia's state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.

The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama's plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran's clerics not to go nuclear.

Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.

"If they're going to do it that's the window that they have," Bolton declared. "Otherwise as I said before, once the rods are in the reactor, if you attack the reactor you're going to open it up and radiation will escape at least into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf.

"So most people think that neither Israel nor the United States, come to that, would attack the reactor after it's been fueled."

Bolton cited the 1981 Israeli attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor outside Baghdad and the September 2007 Israeli attack on a North Korean reactor being built in Syria. Both of those strikes came before fuel rods were loaded into those reactors.

"So if it's going to happen in Bushehr it has to happen before the fuel rods go in," Bolton said.

The conversation that touched off the de facto deadline for Israeli military action was a telephone conversation with wire services involving Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, the Russian Energy State Nuclear Corp.

Novikov said: "The fuel will be loaded on Aug 21. This is the start of the physical launch” of the reactor.

"From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation," Novikov said, adding that the head of Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, will visit Bushehr Aug. 21 to conduct a ceremony for the event.

According to Bolton, once the reactor is operational, it is only a matter of time before it begins producing plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

"And in the normal operation of this reactor, in just a fairly short period of time, you could get substantial amounts of plutonium to use as nuclear weapons," Bolton told Fox.

Russia, which is operating under a $1 billion contract with Iran, has spent more than a decade building the reactor. If Russia moves forward with its plan to fuel the reactor, it could be seen as a major setback to the Obama administration's strategy of engaging Russian leaders in order to win their cooperation.

"The U.S. urged them not to send the Iranian's fuel rods," Bolton said. "They did that. The Obama administration has urged them not to insert the fuel rods in the reactors, but as they've just announced that will begin next week. What that does over time is help Iran get another route to nuclear weapons through the plutonium they could reprocess out of the spent fuel rods."

The developments mean Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu soon may face a stark choice: Attack the Bushehr reactor in the next 8 days, or allow it to become operational despite the certainty it would greatly enhance Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.

Russian leaders have said the Bushehr reactor project is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog group. According to Iran's ISNA news agency, IAEA inspectors will be on hand to observe the fuel-rod loading process that is now scheduled to begin Aug. 21.

According to Russian officials, Iran has promised in writing to send all spent fuel rods from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, to ensure they cannot be used for nuclear weapons.

Bolton said the reactor has been "a hole" in American foreign policy for over a decade.

The failure to demand it be shut down began in the Bush years, he said, and continues with the Obama administration "under what I believe is the mistaken theory that Iran is entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

"I don't think Iran is entitled to that, or I don't think we ought to allow it to happen, because they're manifestly violating any number of obligations under the non-proliferation treaty not to seek nuclear weapons. But this has been a hole in American policy for some number of years, and Iran and Russia are obviously exploiting it," Bolton said.

Russia’s move would put Iran "in a much better position overall," he said, adding, "I think this is a very delicate point, as I say, it closes off to the Israelis one possible target for pre-emptive military action.

U.N. sanctions against Iran, he said, "have not had and will not have any material effect on Iran's push to have deliverable nuclear weapons."

[vector7]

'Israel has 8 days to strike Iran'

By JPOST.COM STAFF
08/17/2010 15:09

Ex-US envoy to UN Bolton: Attack before Bushehr facility ready.

Talkbacks (61)

Former US envoy to the UN John Bolton said Monday that if Israel wants to prevent Iran from acquiring a working nuclear plant, then a military strike must be launched against the Bushehr nuclear power facility within the next eight days. The comments were made in an interview with the Fox Business Network.

Russia, who is supplying the uranium fuel for the plant, announced last week that they will begin loading the Bushehr reactor on August 21.

Bolton warned that once the Bushehr facility is operational it will be too late for a military air strike against Iran because such an attack would spread radiation and harm Iranian civilians.

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it," Bolton said.

RELATED:
Odds of US strike on Iran could rise after Gates departure
'Iran to build third plant'

"So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days."

Although he didn't think an Israeli attack on Iran was very likely, Bolton expressed the belief that without such a strike both Israel and the US would be in trouble.

"Iran will achieve something that no other opponent of Israel, no other enemy of the United States in the Middle East really has and that is a functioning nuclear reactor."

Bolton was critical of Russia for aiding Iran in the fueling of the nuclear reactor.

"The Russians are, as they often do, playing both sides against the middle. The idea of being able to stick a thumb in America's eye always figures prominently in Moscow.", Bolton concluded.

[American Patriot]

I just heard about this a few minutes ago. Just getting around to reading after being absent for several days from the internet, beer drinking... life in general. lol

So, really it's seven days left now.

My question is, how does anyone in their right mind figure it's only 7 or 8 days?

A strike can be much more effective if the nuclear reactor is up and running, wouldn't everyone agree?

I mean before, all you have is a mess to clean up, that will keep them busy for months or years at most.

After it is running, you have a radioactive mess to clean up. This would keep the Iranians busy for years running into decades.

I say wait until it's up and running for a couple of weeks.

[vector7]

Gulf States Pushing for Attack on Iran

by Hillel Fendel

First it was the United Arab Emirates ambassador in Washington, now it’s a Saudi Arabian editorial, and John Bolton says the entire Persian Gulf feels the same: an attack on Iran is the only option - if it's not too late.

An editorial in an official Saudi Arabian newspaper indicates that a military attack against Iran might be the only way of stopping it from obtaining nuclear weapons. “Tehran is moving its conflict with the international community into high gear,” the Al Madina daily wrote this week, “and [in this case] some may consider the military option to be the best solution.”

Delaying recourse to this option, the paper continues, “may lead to a point where it is impossible to implement it - if Tehran manages to produce a nuclear bomb of its own.”

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton goes a bit further, saying it is the only way of stopping it – but adds that it might already be too late.

Just last month, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington said at a conference, "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."

Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba was unusually candid in his remarks, saying, "I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion… there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what… Am I willing to live with that, versus living with a nuclear Iran? My answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Former Ambassador Bolton feels that many states in the Persian Gulf region feel the same. He told Army Radio today (Thursday), however, that it might very well be too late to attack Iran because of the radioactivity that will emanate from the bombed reactor, harming the civilian population.

"Diplomacy and sanctions against Iran have failed," Bolton told Army Radio's Nitzan Fisher on the Ma Bo'er program, "and don't think the West took seriously enough Iran's efforts over the course of decades to get nuclear power. Frankly, I think the most likely outcome now is that indeed Iran does get nuclear weapons. I think the only possibility of stopping this is the use of military force - an extremely unattractive option, but it's even more unattractive to consider a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons."

He explained, though, that it might be too late: "With Russia beginning to supply fuel in Bushehr [two days from now], it makes the reactor essentially immune to attack, except in the most dire circumstances - because to attack it would mean, almost inevitably, the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf."

"I don't think there's a ghost of a chance that the Obama Administration will use force against Iran's nuclear weapons program," Bolton said. "If anyone will do it, it's going to have to be Israel - and I don't know what Israel is going to do... I am very worried that Obama's fallback position is to accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. I think that can have potentially catastrophic consequences in the Middle East and beyond - but I think that's where the Obama Administration is."

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmed Wahidi said this week that Israel's existence will be endangered if it attacks the Bushehr reactor. He said such an attack would be an "international crime."