Netanyahu Prepared To Go It Alone On Iran

[vector7]

Israel’s Next Hizbullah War May Escalate Into Fight With Lebanon

by Malkah Fleisher

(IsraelNN.com) If Israel and Hizbullah ever go to battle again, it may lead to a full-out war between the Jewish State and Lebanon. According to the Washington Post, Hizbullah’s rearmament deep in northern Lebanon would force Israel to fight the terrorist army far past the border.

Although 10,000 U.N. troops patrol southern Lebanon and believe they are putting a damper on Hizbullah maneuvering close to Israel’s border, analysts say the group of international soldiers is essentially obsolete.
Hizbullah’s redeployment has focused away from the border and further north into Lebanon, where UNIFIL troops do not patrol.

Israeli intelligence suggests that Hizbullah rocket sites may extend north of the Lebanese capital of Beirut. Because of new capabilities in the terror group’s estimated 40,000-70,000 missile arsenal, the range of some their rockets – even from Beirut – may reach Tel Aviv. Lebanese politicians and analysts, as well as analysts from the U.S. Army War College, all agree that Hizbullah has performed very effectively and has grown stronger since 2006, according to the Post.

With Iran backing Hizbullah and the United States traditionally aligning with Israel, the next Israeli exchange with Hizbullah could mushroom into a massive battle on Lebanese soil.

Retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, said Israel will “not contain” the next war against Hizbullah, and that “the only way to deter the other side and prevent the next round — or if it happens, to win — is to have a military confrontation with the state of Lebanon.”

[vector7]

Tehran's War Strategy I

Iran-Hizballah Mark out Patches of Northern Israel for Capture


Click to see attached map

In its first decades, Israel's standard military doctrine was built around responding to any offensive by its Arab neighbors by taking the battle into enemy territory to destroy their military capabilities and so bring the attack up short.

This doctrine showed its first cracks under the onslaught of the 2001-2002 Palestinian campaign of suicide-terror against civilians and urban areas deep inside Israel. Only on March 29, 2002, after the population had been battered for 16 months, did the Israeli military succeed in pushing the war back into Palestinian strongholds in Operation Defensive Shield.

More cracks appeared in 2005 and 2006: the Israel Defense Forces stood by as Syria and Iran armed Hizballah with 16,000 rockets and missiles, all pointing into northern Israel, including anti-tank and shore-to-ship projectiles. The cost of military passivity was heavy, paid in strategic, political and human terms in the summer of 2006. Hizballah raiders crossed the border and attacked an Israeli patrol, killing eight if its members and capturing two. Israel was goaded into declaring war, drawing forth a Hizballah blitz which exposed the million inhabitants of northern Israel to daily pounding by hundreds of rockets.

But although Israeli forces crossed into Lebanon to push the war onto enemy turf, their effort to crush the Lebanese Shiite terrorist group's military strength was thrown back.

The Middle East was stunned by the first visible failure of Israeli military might. A campaign which ought to have contained Iran's military expansion into Arab Lebanon had the opposite result.

Iran plans to turn the IDF doctrine against Israel



The fall of 2009, three years after the IDF's failure to break the back of Iran's surrogate, found the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt signing away Lebanese independence and accepting a Hizballah-dominated national unity government in Beirut, in violation of a row of UN Security Council resolutions. Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri was forced to pay homage to Damascus and Tehran, the undisputed masters of Lebanon.

By then, Hizballah had trebled its rocket arsenal to 40,000 and extended their reach as far south as Beer Sheba, the gateway to the Israeli Negev, and the Dimona nuclear center.

The military situation had slipped out of Israel's control so disastrously that even its September 2007 success in destroying the Iranian-North Korean plutonium reactor under construction in northern Syria was unable to turn it around. Needless to say, Iran carried on with its nuclear drive regardless.

The 2006 Lebanon war dynamic was replicated in the Dec.

2008-Jan.2009 Operation Cast Lead, waged by the IDF to douse eight year's of Hamas' missile war on southern Israeli cities and farms.
While in strictly military terms, this campaign was a lot more successful than the Lebanon offensive, its premature curtailment left Hamas, sponsored likewise by Syria and Iran, unbowed and capable of a fast recovery.

Today, a year later, Hamas too has trebled its missile stocks and for the first time extended its reach to Tel Aviv with the help of Iranian Fajr-5 missiles.

Given Israel's dented deterrent strength, DEBKA-Net-Weekly military experts were not surprised to find Iran and Hizballah hatching schemes for turning the classical IDF doctrine on its head: the next war, such as one triggered by an Israeli decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, could well see Iran using Hizballah to drive into northern Israel and seize predetermined locations.

Israel to be attacked from four fronts



This strategy was finalized, our Iranian sources report, in visits to Damascus paid by Iranian National Security Adviser Saeed Jalili on Nov. 3 and Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi on Dec.17, 2009 at the head of a military delegation representing all the service branches of Iranian military and intelligence.

In their secret war conclaves with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the two Iranian officials divided up the military responses expected of the Syrian military and Hizballah in the event of an Israel strike against the Islamic Republic's nuclear sites.

Both Iranian war leaders rated the chances of an Israeli military operation as no more than 50:50. Our Iranian sources reckon they chose to sound reasonably optimistic in order to clinch Syrian military cooperation and avoid frightening their hosts away from a commitment to come to Tehran's aid.

But their private estimate of the chances of a war eruption in 2010 is a lot higher. It prefigures the tempo and shape of Iran's preparations, in which its proxy, Hizballah, will be playing a key role. (For details read a separate article in this issue.)
DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military and intelligence sources outline here for the first time the general format of Iran's four-pronged war plans for Israel:

1. Ballistic missile attacks will focus on disabling Israel's strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.

2. Hizballah elite units will sweep across the Lebanese border into northern Israel to capture large swathes of Central and Western Galilee. They will apply Israel's invasion doctrine at the same time as Israeli armored columns and infantry divisions head north to hit Hizballah strongholds in southern and central Lebanon and open their way to Damascus.

3. The Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad will open a southern front from the Gaza Strip: It will consist of a missile bombardment of southern Israel and deep cross-border terrorist raids via hidden tunnels running under the dividing fence. Hizballah agents will organize and mount terrorist attacks from covert cells buried in the West Bank and inside Israeli-Arab communities.

4. Syria's initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.

Tehran's War Strategy II

A Conflagration Could Erupt without an Israeli Strike, Could Involve Syria Too


Hizballah elite units

According to the planning Iran's war leaders developed in recent weeks in conjunction with Syria and its Lebanese Shiite proxy, Hizballah elite units would respond to a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities by sweeping south across the border and taking hold of swathes of northern Israel. This would be in pursuance of the classical IDF doctrine of taking the war into enemy territory and assume that, at the same time, Israeli armored columns and infantry divisions would head north to hit Hizballah strongholds in southern and central Lebanon and blaze a path to Damascus.

According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources, Tehran favors retaliation-by-invasion in preference to the missile blitz of population centers which Hizballah unleashed in 2006 - both in terms of military gains and because it would put Israel's back to the wall in a way it has not experienced since the Yom Kippur War of October 1973.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces.

At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.

(See attached map for the territories assigned to each Hizballah battalion).

Capturing and holding Galilee towns of Nahariya and Shlomi



1^st Battalion:
This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000 - or parts thereof.

UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack

A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon.

2^nd Battalion:
This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east. (See map).

3^rd Battalion:
Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of B'ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel's Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains.

An Arab-Israeli uprising to hamper Israeli military movements



Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages:

One: To acquire a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground "Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers.

Hizballah's West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North.

Two: To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country to relieve these northern towns. The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.

4^th Battalion:
This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel's northernmost region, the Galilee Panhandle.

5^th Battalion:
Hizballah's Strategic Reserve.

The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency.

The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus.

Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran's nuclear program turns out.

Sunday, January 17, he said: "I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today… that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we [the Lebanese resistance movement] will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region.

"God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!"

Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.

Syria may step in even without an Israeli attack



Political insider Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Security and Foreign Relations Committee said earlier this month: "Since it is obvious that the Obama administration is not going to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, 2010 will be a fateful year in the history of Israel."

Our analysts took him to mean that Israel would have to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat itself while appreciating that the cost might be heavy.

A senior US official, speaking on condition of confidentiality, chipped in by leaking this comment to the Kuwait newspaper Al-Rai: “If Syria allows surface-to-air missiles SA-2 to go through to Hizballah in Lebanon, war will break out and Tel Aviv will hit Damascus directly.”

This official was confirming the perception that more than one trigger existed for a possible outbreak of hostilities and Syria would probably be involved. Israel is determined as a top priority to prevent the SA-2 reaching Hizballah's hands.

Following reports that Syria has ignored the Israeli warning and begun training Hizballah crews in Damascus in the use of the SA-2 missiles, the US official added: “A possible military attack by Hizbollah on Israel will be met with a damaging attack on Lebanon. Israel made the mistake of not striking Syria once before in 2006, but if Hizballah goes back to the offensive, Damascus will not be spared again."

[vector7]

Report: US readies new Iran sanctions at UN

Published: 01.28.10, 00:04 / Israel News

US officials are telling The Associated Press that the Obama administration could circulate an outline of possible tough new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program as early as this week at the United Nations.

[vector7]

Russian reports: No obstacles over Iran arms deals


Head of Russia's state arms export monopoly says trade with Tehran not covered under current UN sanctions Associated Press Published: 01.28.10, 11:44 / Israel News

Russian news agencies are quoting the head of Russia's state arms export monopoly as saying there are no obstacles to military cooperation with Iran, despite international tensions over its nuclear program.

RIA Novosti and Interfax cite Anatoly Isaikin, head of Rosoboronexport, as saying Thursday "nothing is blocking the continuation of military-technical cooperation" with Iran.

He adds Russia's arms trade with Iran isn't covered under current UN sanctions.

Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Tehran, but so far has not delivered them. Moscow is under international pressure to cancel the contract.

Isaikin's statement comes a day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested Moscow could support stronger sanctions against Iran.

[vector7]

Document reveals scope of EU trade with Iran

While European countries talk of imposing harsher economic sanctions on Iran, Foreign Ministry document obtained by Ynet shows trade ties very much intact, with Germany, Italy and France in the lead

Roni Sofer
Published: 01.28.10, 00:47 / Israel News

Europe boasts of its efforts to foil the Iranian nuclear program, but in reality has been trading with the Islamic Republic in the amount of some €65 billion (roughly $91 billion) in the past three years.

The leading countries in trade with Iran include Spain, France, Italy, Holland and Belgium, a document obtained by Ynet that has been circulating in the Foreign Ministry and based on European Union numbers showed.

Calls for harsher sanctions against Iran in hopes of stopping its nuclear armament continue to increase. Among other things, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the matter with German Chancellor Angela Merkel during his visit to Germany last week.

Nuclear Threat

Merkel: Time to talk sanctions on Iran / Associated Press
During joint press conference with visiting Israeli president, German chancellor says 'time has come to discuss new round of economic sanctions' against Tehran. Peres: Iranian regime dictatorial
Full Story

France has also adamantly demanded that Iran put an end to its nuclear program, and has threatened harsher sanctions if it fails to do so.

However, the document circulating in the Foreign Ministry shows that these very same countries continue to maintain extensive trade ties with Tehran estimated at billions of euros per year.

This means that even if European governments do seek sanctions against Iran, they are likely to be faced with opposition from the hundreds of thousands of employees of companies that trade with Iran whose livelihood may suffer.

According to the data presented in the document, between January and July of 2009, trade between the 27 European Union countries and Iran amounted to some €10 billion (about $14 billion).

While this is a decline compared to the same period in 2008, when trade amounted to €14.5 billion (around $20 billion), it is still a significant amount, which could make it difficult for these countries to impose economic sanctions on Tehran.

The drop in trade in 2009 compared to 2008 was mainly a result of the global economic crisis, but was also affected by European Union countries' policies aimed at cutting back on trade with Iran amid the diplomatic dispute.

In 2007, trade between the European countries and Iran amounted to some €24 billion (around $33.7 billion) and in 2008 reached nearly €26 billion ($36.5 billion), almost a 7% increase.

European export to Iran amounted to some €11 billion ($15.4 billion) in 2007, and around €11.5 billion ($16.7 billion) in 2008. Import stood at some €14 billion ($19.6 billion) in 2007 and some €14.5 billion ($20.3 billion) in 2008.

In the first half of 2009, European import from Iran stood at some €4 billion ($5.6 billion), and export amounted to around €6 billion ($8.4 billion).

Germany, Italy leading in trade with Iran

The scope of trade with Iran by country, from the largest to the smallest, shows that in the first half of 2009 Germany was at the top of the chart with over €2 billion ($2.8 billion) in trade with Iran. Italy came in second with similar numbers, and France following with €1.46 billion ($2 billion) in trade with Iran.

Next came Holland, with €1.3 billion ($1.8 billion), followed by Spain, with €1.2 billion ($1.7 billion).

However, the decline in trade between the EU and Iran in 2009 should be noted. The overall numbers of import and export last year showed a 31% drop in the first half of the year.

The country with the steepest decline in trade with Iran was Greece, with a 67% drop. Next was Portugal, with a 65% decline in trade with the Islamic Republic, and Finland with a 60% drop.

With regards to import from Iran, a 48.5% general drop was recorded in the first half of 2009. The leading country to cut back on import from Iran was Portugal, with a 70% decline in import, and was followed by Romania with a 58% drop, and France with a 57% drop.

The decline of exports from the European Union during the first half of 2009 was less dramatic. No country, in the wake of the economic crisis, was able to allow itself to cut back on exports.

The data in the hands of the Israeli Foreign Ministry shows a decline of around 8.2% in exports to Iran in the time period of January to July, 2009.

A number of countries even increased trade with Iran, including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Poland.

The data shows that many European nations, despite extolling additional sanctions on Iran, do business worth billions of euro a year with the country. This will no doubt hinder their ability to impose sanctions without doing harm to their own markets.

Many of these states are still in the grips of an economic crisis, which will render the move all the more difficult, and it appears the EU as a whole will have trouble supporting additional economic sanctions on Iran.

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

China "under pressure" on Iran sanctions: Clinton

By Andrew Quinn Andrew Quinn – Fri Jan 29, 2:11 pm ET

PARIS (Reuters) – The United States is trying to persuade Beijing that it's time to get tough with Iran on its nuclear program, even though Tehran is a major oil supplier to China, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday.

China was "under pressure" to agree to new sanctions on Iran, Clinton told an audience in Paris, saying that efforts to negotiate with Tehran were clearly failing.

In unusually blunt comments addressed to China, Clinton said all members of the U.N. Security Council needed to move ahead with sanctions on Iran over the nuclear dispute.

"The argument we and others are making to China is: we understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs," she said.

"But think about the longer term implications," added Clinton, who personally lobbied Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Thursday while they were both in London.

Western governments fear that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons but Tehran says the program is for peaceful purposes.

The five permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- along with Germany have been negotiating with Iran, but U.S. officials say drafts of possible sanctions should circulate among the group soon.

Russia and China, which reluctantly supported three earlier rounds of sanctions, have appeared less eager to impose fresh curbs this time, complicating efforts to show a united front.

FRANCE SEES NO RUSSIAN PROBLEM

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said after meeting Clinton that Russia's position was not problematic.

"We are very pleased with the position taken by our Russian friends and we are still working with our Chinese friends," he told reporters, adding that he hoped to reach a deal over a fourth round of U.N. sanctions.

Clinton noted that China also got oil from elsewhere in the Gulf region.

"As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the results that some had hoped for, and move forward (on) the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Gulf," she said.

Clinton said among the dangers posed by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be a regional arms race and the possibility that Israel would feel a threat to its existence, which many fear could provoke a preemptive strike.

"All of that is incredibly dangerous," she said.

Clinton made her comments during a question-and-answer session after a speech in which she emphasized the need for international cooperation to improve security worldwide.

During her quick trip to Europe, Clinton has worked hard to raise support for tightening sanctions on Iran.

Following discussions in London with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday, Clinton said she felt that the international community was moving toward a common understanding of what the next steps on Iran should be.

But China's Yang appeared less cooperative on Thursday, repeating Beijing's contention that Iran should be given more time to negotiate before any sanctions are considered.

(reporting by Andrew Quinn; editing by Tim Pearce)

[vector7]

Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy

Ali Gharib

WASHINGTON, 29 Jan (IPS) - In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refinery capabilities.

The voice vote came at the eleventh hour before the chamber recessed so legislators could go home to campaign. The bill cannot come before the president to be signed into law until a conference procedure combines it with a similar House bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), passed in October.

The Senate move reveals an administration losing control of even its own party in foreign policy dealings, as U.S. President Barack Obama has tried to maintain engagement with Iran aimed at curbing its nuclear programme, which the Islamic Republic insists is for peaceful purposes.

Along with scores of Democrats, who favored the bill over the administration's objections, the effort was supported by Iran hawks including Republican co-sponsor John Kyl and neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman, and was characterized by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a shot at Obama.

"If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must," McConnell said.

The administration had raised its issues with the bill in a December letter from Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg to Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, complaining that the bill limited the president's flexibility.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made late December comments urging caution in applying broad sanctions that might harm and alienate the struggling Iranian opposition movement, asking instead for sanctions that targeted Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), thought to be responsible for crackdowns against opposition demonstrators.

The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital.

However, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – beset by a host of political problems from slow economic recovery to stalled health care reform – made it clear that he intended to pursue the bill, the administration dropped its public opposition, perhaps hoping that it could change the bill with amendments or in conference.

But a compromise scuttled amendments in Thursday night's brief deliberations.

In a dramatic twist reported by ForeignPolicy.com, Republican Senator John McCain tried to introduce an amendment to the bill that would name, shame and sanction specific Iranian human rights violators – a theme that echoes the administration calls for more targeted sanctions.

But McCain dropped his amendments at the behest of Sen. Lieberman. The leadership of both parties was apparently concerned that if amendments were introduced, the process would be slowed and the bill might not come to a vote in time.

And Patrick Disney, the assistant policy director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which supports engagement, said that even in conference, it will be difficult to remove the language that binds Obama's hands.

"I wouldn't be surprised if they expedited the conference," he told IPS. "I don't know if they'll be able to take that part out because it's the main central architecture of the bills."

The rushed vote with almost no debate came a week before France, which supports sanctions on Iran, is to take the presidency of the United Nations Security Council from China, which has balked at punishing Iran as negotiations are ongoing. Passing the bill as the administration negotiated with the Security Council was viewed as diplomatically problematic.

But Richard Sawaya, the president of USA*Engage, a group that opposes unilateral sanctions, told IPS that passing the bill before or during Security Council negotiations was "a distinction without a difference."

Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran imposed by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

Disney of NIAC said that the bill, rather than giving the president more tools for negotiating with Iran, virtually takes the embargo off the table as a U.S. bargaining chip.

"This means that no president can lift the embargo without certifying to Congress that Iran has met a laundry list of demands that no president in his right mind will certify," Disney told IPS.

"All of the things that this bill sought to do, the president had the power to do already," he said. "By Congress passing these bills, it removed the president's ability to walk things back without Congress."

One of the prime dangers of pursuing such draconian sanctions is that, while Obama's tentative year-end deadline for negotiations to bear fruit has passed, a slow-paced back and forth between Iranians and the multilateral team including the U.S. is still evolving.

The U.S. has not even responded to the latest Iranian counter-offer for a uranium swap proposal.

The situation is also complicated by the resilient Iranian opposition, which has maintained its struggle against Iran's hard-line leadership after alleged widespread voter fraud in the June election that re-installed Mahmood Ahmadinejad as Iran's president.

While the Obama administration has taken a considerably more cautious tone since June – and especially in the subsequent months, as the opposition has refused to cower in the face of a brutal crackdown – hard-liners in Congress appear to be deaf to the fluid realities on the ground in the Islamic Republic.

"I would think the first rule is the physician's rule, which is 'do no harm,'" said Sawaya of USA*Engage.

Furthermore, "crippling sanctions," as broad-based gas sanctions are often called, is a potential checklist item on a path to military confrontation with Iran. But some think imposing and enforcing the sanctions themselves could be tantamount to war.

"Even half of the people that proposed (gas sanctions) say the only way to really impose that is a naval blockade," said Sawaya. "Well, that's an act of war!"

In a statement Friday, Debra DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now, urged that the bill be modified when members of the House and Senate meet to reconcile their respective versions of the legislation.

"The House-Senate conference offers the last chance for Congress to do the right thing here: to amend this bill to make it consistent with a rational approach to Iran, with the national interests of the United States, and with the multilateral approach that is being pursued by the president of the United States," she said.

Posted by World Watch at 2:08 PM

[vector7]

'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:30:44 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

"If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.

MJ/HGL

[vector7]

Iran to mark national holiday with missile launches


© AFP/Behrouz Mehri

Related News

• Ahmadinejad hails Iran's nuclear progress
• Iran to hold military drills next month
• Russia free to sell weapons to Iran - state arms exporter
• Moscow dismayed by Iran's reaction to nuclear proposals
• Iran Six weighs new sanctions against Tehran over dialogue

10:4829/01/2010

On Monday, February 1, Iran will start traditional 10-day celebrations of the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with missile and satellite launches expected.

The festivities, known as the "Decade of Fajr" (Dawn) will culminate on February 11, the date when revolutionary forces, led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, defeated pro-government troops in armed street clashes.

The celebrations traditionally coincide with demonstrations of the country's recent advancements, mainly in the military sphere. This year, Iranian authorities plan to launch three satellites and to hold large-scale military drills, thought to involve missile tests.

In addition, Iran's hard-line leader Mahmound Ahmadinejad is expected to make a statement on the country's recent achievements in uranium enrichment.

During the festivities, opposition forces might again gather for an attempt to revive demonstrations against alleged fraud in June presidential elections. The latest major unrest in the Iranian capital took place late last year during Ashura, a 10-day period of religious ceremonies.

Below is a brief historical background on the holiday:
- The Decade of Fajr celebrations will officially begin at 9:33 local time (06:03 GMT) on Monday, the exact time Khomeini returned to the country from exile. This date, along with February 11 and April 1 (the Islamic Republic Day), are the three major Islamic Revolution holidays.

- The first protests against U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi started in 1977. The demonstrations, which initially gathered a few hundred people, later grew into mass rallies.

- The Iranian revolution officially began on January 8, 1978, when the first major opposition rally was clamped down on by the government in the city of Qom. Protests against the rule of the Shah, organized by the Islamic clergy, continued in all major Iranian cities until early 1979.

- As tensions between the authorities and the opposition almost paralyzed the country in late 1978, the Shah made an attempt to appease protestors by giving the post of prime minister to an opposition leader, Shapour Bakhtiar.

- Under the growing pressure, the Shah and the empress had to leave Iran on January 16, 1979. The royal family was granted asylum in Egypt following a denial by the United States.

- Prime Minister Bakhtiar dissolved the Shah's secret police, released political prisoners, pledged free elections and invited Khomeini supporters to join the national unity government. He later allowed Khomeini, who had been in exile since 1964, to return to Iran.

- Greeted by a welcoming crowd of several million Iranians, Khomeini landed at Tehran airport in a chartered Air France Boeing 747 on February 1. Shortly after his arrival, he made an historical speech at the Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, in which he lashed out at Bakhtiar's government. Four days later he appointed Mehdi Bazargan as his own competing prime minister.

- Armed clashes between forces loyal to Bakhtiar and pro-Khomeini military groups broke out on February 9 and spread to the whole capital in the next few days.

- On February 11, Iran's Supreme Military Council declared its neutrality in the conflict, resulting in Bakhtiar's overthrow.

- On April 1, Iran declared itself an Islamic Republic, following the March 31 nationwide referendum

MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti)

[vector7]

Secret Report: Iran will Have Nuclear Bomb This Year

by Malkah Fleisher
Follow Israel news on and .

(IsraelNN.com) A secret intelligence dossier currently being reviewed by US, Israeli, German, and Austrian governments reveals secret Iranian tests and hierarchies of power dedicated to the successful development of a nuclear bomb, and predicts that Iran will have a primitive nuclear bomb by year's end.

According to the classified document featured in an exposé by Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Iran is well on its way toward obtaining its first nuclear bomb. The country's nuclear research program, it turns out, has a military wing answering to the Defense Ministry which the West was not aware of until now.

Der Spiegel explained the structure of Iranian nuclear establishment at length. Iran's new Minister of Science, Research, and Technology, Kamran Daneshjoo, 52, is in charge of the country's nuclear energy agency. A close ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Daneshjoo was educated in Manchester, England. He worked for some time at Tehran's "Center for Aviation Technology", which later developed into FEDAT, the "Department for Expanded High-Technology Applications". FEDAT ultimately became what the German paper calls "the secret heart of Iran's nuclear weapons program", answering directly to the Defense Ministry.

FEDAT is currently run by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, 48, a professor at Tehran's Imam Hussein University and officer in the Revolutionary Guard. Western intelligence agencies say FEDAT and the Ministry of Science are working together to create the bomb. They also believe that a primitive nuclear weapon the size of a truck will be completed this year.

Two to four years after that, the bomb will be compressed to a size capable of fitting into a nuclear warhead and being launched at Israel.

Iran is believed to have conducted successful tests of a nuclear detonating device 6 years ago.

'Not just Israeli propaganda'
Despite the severity of the situation, the international community is still undecided on sanctions of Iran. China is considered likely to try to block sanctions, as it currently holds billions of dollars in energy deals with the country.

A military option may prove difficult, according to military experts, because many of the Iranian nuclear installations are deep underground.

The report will likely cause the US government to raise its alarm level from yellow to red, according to Der Spiegel. "Skeptics who in the past, sometimes justifiably so, treated alarmist reports as Israeli propaganda, are also extremely worried," including IAEA officials, said the magazine.

The report also says, somewhat cryptically, that a laptop computer passed on to the IAEA by way of German and American intelligence agencies contained highly volatile material.

No compromise
Fears of a nuclear Iran have been compounded by information provided by Iran's former deputy defense minister, Ali Reza Asgari, and nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, both of whom defected to the United States and were given new identities.

Iran has consistently stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful provision of nuclear energy to the country's citizenry.

In October, the IAEA presented a plan to Iran which had been developed by the US government. Under the plan, Iran would send 70% of its low-enriched uranium abroad. A year later, the uranium would be exchanged for fuel rods, a potent form of nuclear fuel which is very difficult to enrich for military purposes.

The plan would have provided sufficient fuel for a nuclear energy program and to fuel the reactor for scientific experiments. At the same time, the world would have been assured that Iran truly had no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

On January 19, Tehran offered a "counter-proposal", effectively rejecting the IAEA plan and casting off illusions of a compromise with the West.

[vector7]

Supreme Leader: Region to Witness Annihilation of Zionist Regime




TEHRAN (FNA)- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said that the region would soon witness annihilation of the Zionist regime, stressing that Muslim countries can make such a happening even more imminent.

"Certainly, the regional countries will witness the annihilation of the Zionist regime one day and its proximity in terms of time depends on the function of the Islamic countries and Muslim nations," Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz on Wednesday.

He further stressed that Mauritanian government's severance of ties with Israel last year served a good model for certain Arab governments.

"The Zionist regime is a big danger to the Muslim world, which hatches plots every day to expand its infiltration and dominance in the region," Ayatollah Khamenei warned.

He pointed to the crimes committed by the Israelis in the Palestinian territories, specially against the people in Gaza, and said the Zionist regime strives to continue pressures, siege and genocide in Palestine to remove the country's Islamic identity.

"But it will surely fail to do so," the Leader added.

During the meeting, Abdel Aziz lauded the Islamic Republic of Iran's role in the region and the world and its efforts to establish peace and tranquility.

The Mauritanian president, heading a high-ranking politico-economic delegation, arrived in Iran on Monday for a two-day visit to confer with Iranian officials on bilateral ties and regional and international issues.

[Malsua]

Abdel Aziz lauded the Islamic Republic of Iran's role in the region and the world and its efforts to establish peace and tranquility.

Yeah, the whole world under Moo submission would be quite "peaceful". Would suck donkey balls to live in such a world, but it'd be peaceful.

[vector7]

Iran to unveil five space projects

13:0101/02/2010

Iran will unveil five space projects at ceremonies starting on Monday to celebrate the victory of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Fars news agency said.

On the third day of the festivities, known as the "Ten Days of Dawn", Iranian authorities will hold on Wednesday a presentation of the Tolou (Rise) satellite, the Mesbah-2 and Mehdi research satellites, and the engine for the Simurgh booster rocket, all of which were domestically built.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the country's defense officials will also attend the opening of a mission control designed to process data from the satellites.

Tehran is expected to launch the Mesbah-2 in 2011 as part of the country's ambitions to run an independent space program.

Iran's first research satellite, Omid (Hope), designed for gathering information and testing equipment, was orbited last February during the country's annual celebration and successfully completed its mission on April 25, 2009.

In 2005, Iran launched its first commercial satellite, Sina-1, into orbit from a Russian rocket. Moscow appears to be Iran's major partner in transferring space technology to the Islamic country.

The festivities will culminate on February 11, the date when revolutionary forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defeated pro-government troops in armed street clashes.

MOSCOW, February 1 (RIA Novosti)

[vector7]

'Iran to unveil new missiles in Feb.'

By JPOST.COM STAFF
26/01/2010 14:32

Guards commander makes comments day after damning report.

Just one day after a Der Spiegel report which claimed that new intelligence acquired by Germany's BND offered conclusive proof that Iran's nuclear program had a military angle, a Revolutionary Guards commander on Tuesday declared that the country planned to inaugurate "several new missiles and arms projects" in February, Reuters reported.

"Iran's Defense Ministry will inaugurate several missiles and arms projects during the Fajr (Dawn) 10-day period, marking the victory of the 1979 Islamic revolution," Massoud Jazayeri said during a news conference, which was quoted by Reuters. Jazayeri was also quoted as saying that new satellite projects would be unveiled at the same time.

The 31st anniversary of its 1979 Islamic revolution begins on February 1, and will continue until the 10th of the month.

The announcement will likely only stoke the latest furor which has followed Der Spiegel's revelation of the damning German intelligence showing the Iranian nuclear program's military side.

Such documents, as well as information passed on to Western intelligence agencies by Iranian defectors and sources within Iran, are causing growing alarm among US and European leaders. In its report, Der Spiegel assessed that the White House may consequently raise threat levels from yellow to red. World leaders and even the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the magazine, are beginning to understand that rumors of Iranian defiance, noncompliance and warmongering are neither Israeli propaganda nor a figment of the imagination.

Reports which have surfaced in recent years hint that Iran's National Energy Council may not be the only body to which its nuclear scientists answer. In fact, according to Der Spiegel, Iranian Science, Research and Technology Minister Kamran Daneshjoo - a close ally of the country's hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - worked for several years at a Teheran research and development center devoted to military technology. This government-sponsored scientific body is believed by Western intelligence agencies to have become subservient to Iran's defense ministry. Vague estimates state that the body, headed by 48-year-old Revolutionary Guard officer Mohsen Fahrizadeh, now deals in "high technology" in a manner that differs greatly from that of the country's energy council.

Der Spiegel suggested that the two bodies divide the labor of nuclear research and development between them, with the energy council focusing on uranium enrichment - the production of what could potentially evolve into fissile warhead material - and the defense ministry responsible for research on warheads compatible with Iran's North Korean-developed Shahab ballistic missile line.

[vector7]

U.S. missile test mimicking Iran strike fails

2:25pm EST
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. attempt to shoot down a ballistic missile mimicking an attack from Iran failed after a malfunction in a radar built by Raytheon Co, the Defense Department said.

The abortive test over the Pacific Ocean coincided with a Pentagon report that Iran had expanded its ballistic missile capabilities and posed a "significant" threat to U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East region.

The Missile Defense Agency said that in Sunday's test both the target missile, fired from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, and the interceptor, from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, had performed normally.

"However, the Sea-Based X-band radar did not perform as expected," the agency said on its web site. Officials will investigate the cause of the failure to intercept, it said.

The SBX radar is a major component of the ground-based midcourse defense, the sole U.S. bulwark against long-range missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads.

It was the first time the United States had tested its long-range defense against a simulated Iranian attack.

Previous drills have imitated a flight path from North Korea, another country in a standoff with the international community over its nuclear program.

The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Review released on Monday said Tehran had developed and acquired ballistic missiles capable of striking targets from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and had fielded increasing numbers of mobile regional ballistic missiles.

The Iranian program has received support in the past from Russia, China and North Korea, and Tehran still depends on outside sources for many missile components and parts, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

DEFENSES AGAINST IRAN

To counter the Iranian threat, the United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf, according to U.S. officials.

The deployments include expanded land-based Patriot defensive missile installations in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, as well as Navy ships with missile defense systems in and around the Mediterranean, the officials said.

The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile report also singled out Syria's short-range missiles as a "regional threat". It said Damascus may have chemical warheads available for some of its missiles.

After Sunday's failed Pacific test, Raytheon and Boeing, which manages the overall system, had no immediate comment. Harris Corp, which provides systems engineering for the SBX radar, said their technology was not involved.

Speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington in December, Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, said the test, costing about $150 million, would break new ground.

He described it then as "more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States." It was the first time such a scenario was being tested, he said.

Experts have compared the simulation to a bullet hitting another bullet in space. O'Reilly said the goal was to destroy the target over the north central Pacific when the missiles had a combined closing speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

"Whenever we have a situation where we're taking on a missile more head on than from the side, that increases the challenges," O'Reilly had said.

The SBX radar is mounted on a mobile, ocean-going oil-drilling platform designed to provide the layered U.S. missile defense system with a powerful sensor that can be positioned to cover any spot on the globe.

(Additional reporting by Adam Entous)
(Editing by Alan Elsner and David Storey)

[vector7]

Iran puts sat into orbit for 1st time

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:32:42 GMT



Iran has placed a domestic research satellite into orbit for the first time, ushering in an era of independence in its space program.

Press TV has received confirmation that the first domestically launched Iranian satellite has been placed into orbit via two carrier rockets.

Omid (meaning 'Hope' in Persian) was sent into space by the Iranian-produced satellite carrier Safir 2 early on Tuesday, Press TV correspondent Saman Kojouri reported from the launching site. Safir 2 is an upgraded model of carrier Safir 1.

Equipped with two frequency bands and eight antennae, Omid will transmit information to and from earth while orbiting the planet 15 times per day.

The lightweight telecommunications satellite is equipped with remote sensing, satellite telemetry and geographic information system technology as well as remote and ground station data processing.

Omid is a research satellite that has been designed for gathering information and testing equipment. After orbiting for one to three months, Omid will return to earth, returning with data that will help Iranian experts send an operational satellite into space.

[vector7]

Obama prepares to accept a nuclear Iran

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration is not confident in its ability to remove the Iranian program surgically

A Defensive Buildup in the Gulf

February 1, 2010 | 1757 GMT

Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

By George Friedman

This weekend’s newspapers were filled with stories about how the United States is providing ballistic missile defense (BMD) to four countries on the Arabian Peninsula. The New York Times carried a front-page story on the United States providing anti-missile defenses to Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman, as well as stationing BMD-capable, Aegis-equipped warships in the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, the front page of The Washington Post carried a story saying that “the Obama administration is quietly working with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to speed up arms sales and rapidly upgrade defenses for oil terminals and other key infrastructure in a bid to thwart future attacks by Iran, according to former and current U.S. and Middle Eastern government officials.”

Obviously, the work is no longer “quiet.” In fact, Washington has been publicly engaged in upgrading defensive systems in the area for some time. Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus recently said the four countries named by the Times were receiving BMD-capable Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) batteries, and at the end of October the United States carried out its largest-ever military exercises with Israel, known as Juniper Cobra.

More interesting than the stories themselves was the Obama administration’s decision to launch a major public relations campaign this weekend regarding these moves. And the most intriguing question out of all this is why the administration decided to call everyone’s attention to these defensive measures while not mentioning any offensive options.

The Iranian Nuclear Question

U.S. President Barack Obama spent little time on foreign policy in his Jan. 27 State of the Union message, though he did make a short, sharp reference to Iran. He promised a strong response to Tehran if it continued its present course; though this could have been pro forma, it seemed quite pointed. Early in his administration, Obama had said he would give the Iranians until the end of 2009 to change their policy on nuclear weapons development. But the end of 2009 came, and the Iranians continued their policy.

All along, Obama has focused on diplomacy on the Iran question. To be more precise, he has focused on bringing together a coalition prepared to impose “crippling sanctions” on the Iranians. The most crippling sanction would be stopping Iran’s gasoline imports, as Tehran imports about 35 percent of its gasoline. Such sanctions are now unlikely, as China has made clear that it is not prepared to participate — and that was before the most recent round of U.S. weapon sales to Taiwan. Similarly, while the Russians have indicated that their participation in sanctions is not completely out of the question, they also have made clear that time for sanctions is not near. We suspect that the Russian time frame for sanctions will keep getting pushed back.

Therefore, the diplomatic option appears to have dissolved. The Israelis have said they regard February as the decisive month for sanctions, which they have indicated is based on an agreement with the United States. While previous deadlines of various sorts regarding Iran have come and gone, there is really no room after February. If no progress is made on sanctions and no action follows, then the decision has been made by default that a nuclear-armed Iran is acceptable.

The Americans and the Israelis have somewhat different views of this based on different geopolitical realities. The Americans have seen a number of apparently extreme and dangerous countries develop nuclear weapons. The most important example was Maoist China. Mao Zedong had argued that a nuclear war was not particularly dangerous to China, as it could lose several hundred million people and still win the war. But once China developed nuclear weapons, the wild talk subsided and China behaved quite cautiously. From this experience, the United States developed a two-stage strategy.

First, the United States believed that while the spread of nuclear weapons is a danger, countries tend to be circumspect after acquiring nuclear weapons. Therefore, overreaction by United States to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries is unnecessary and unwise.

Second, since the United States is a big country with widely dispersed population and a massive nuclear arsenal, a reckless country that launched some weapons at the United States would do minimal harm to the United States while the other country would face annihilation. And the United States has emphasized BMD to further mitigate — if not eliminate — the threat of such a limited strike to the United States.

Israel’s geography forces it to see things differently. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth while simultaneously working to attain nuclear weapons. While the Americans take comfort in the view that the acquisition of nuclear weapons has a sobering effect on a new nuclear power, the Israelis don’t think the Chinese case necessarily can be generalized. Moreover, the United States is outside the range of the Iranians’ current ballistic missile arsenal while Israel is not. And a nuclear strike would have a particularly devastating effect on Israel. Unlike the United States, Israel is small country with a highly concentrated population. A strike with just one or two weapons could destroy Israel.

Therefore, Israel has a very different threshold for risk as far as Iran is concerned. For Israel, a nuclear strike from Iran is improbable, but would be catastrophic if it happened. For the United States, the risk of an Iranian strike is far more remote, and would be painful but not catastrophic if it happened. The two countries thus approach the situation very differently.

How close the Iranians are to having a deliverable nuclear weapon is, of course, a significant consideration in all this. Iran has not yet achieved a testable nuclear device. Logic tells us they are quite far from a deliverable nuclear weapon. But the ability to trust logic varies as the risk grows. The United States (and this is true for both the Bush and Obama administrations) has been much more willing to play for time than Israel can afford to be. For Israel, all intelligence must be read in the context of worst-case scenarios.

Diverging Interests and Grand Strategy

It is also important to remember that Israel is much less dependent on the United States than it was in 1973. Though U.S. aid to Israel continues, it is now a much smaller percentage of Israeli gross domestic product. Moreover, the threat of sudden conventional attack by Israel’s immediate neighbors has disappeared. Egypt is at peace with Israel, and in any case, its military is too weak to mount an attack. Jordan is effectively an Israeli ally. Only Syria is hostile, but it presents no conventional military threat. Israel previously has relied on guarantees that the United States would rush aid to Israel in the event of war. But it has been a generation since this has been a major consideration for Israel. In the minds of many, the Israeli-U.S. relationship is stuck in the past. Israel is not critical to American interests the way it was during the Cold War. And Israel does not need the United States the way it did during the Cold War. While there is intelligence cooperation in the struggle against jihadists, even here American and Israeli interests diverge.

And this means that the United States no longer has Israeli national security as an overriding consideration — and that the United States cannot compel Israel to pursue policies Israel regards as dangerous.

Given all of this, the Obama administration’s decision to launch a public relations campaign on defensive measures just before February makes perfect sense. If Iran develops a nuclear capability, a defensive capability might shift Iran’s calculus of the risks and rewards of the military option.

Assume, for example, that the Iranians decided to launch a nuclear missile at Israel or Iran’s Arab neighbors with which its relations are not the best. Iran would have only a handful of missiles, and perhaps just one. Launching that one missile only to have it shot down would represent the worst-case scenario for Iran. Tehran would have lost a valuable military asset, it would not have achieved its goal and it would have invited a devastating counterstrike. Anything the United States can do to increase the likelihood of an Iranian failure therefore decreases the likelihood that Iran would strike until they have more delivery systems and more fissile material for manufacturing more weapons.

The U.S. announcement of the defensive measures therefore has three audiences: Iran, Israel and the American public. Israel and Iran obviously know all about American efforts, meaning the key audience is the American public. The administration is trying to deflect American concerns about Iran generated both by reality and Israel by showing that effective steps are being taken.

There are two key weapon systems being deployed, the PAC-3 and the Aegis/Standard Missile-3 (SM-3). The original Patriot, primarily an anti-aircraft system, had a poor record — especially as a BMD system — during the first Gulf War. But that was almost 20 years ago. The new system is regarded as much more effective as a terminal-phase BMD system, such as the medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) developed by Iran, and performed much more impressively in this role during the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. In addition, Juniper Cobra served to further integrate a series of American and Israeli BMD interceptors and sensors, building a more redundant and layered system. This operation also included the SM-3, which is deployed aboard specially modified Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers and destroyers. The SM-3 is one of the most successful BMD technologies currently in the field and successfully brought down a wayward U.S. spy satellite in 2008.

Nevertheless, a series of Iranian Shahab-3s is a different threat than a few Iraqi Scuds, and the PAC-3 and SM-3 have yet to be proven in combat against such MRBMs — something the Israelis are no doubt aware of. War planners must calculate the incalculable; that is what makes good generals pessimists.

The Obama administration does not want to mount an offensive action against Iran. Such an operation would not be a single strike like the 1981 Osirak attack in Iraq. Iran has multiple nuclear sites buried deep and surrounded by air defenses. And assessing the effectiveness of airstrikes would be a nightmare. Many days of combat at a minimum probably would be required, and like the effectiveness of defensive weapons systems, the quality of intelligence about which locations to hit cannot be known until after the battle.

A defensive posture therefore makes perfect sense for the United States. Washington can simply defend its allies, letting them absorb the risk and then the first strike before the United States counterstrikes rather than rely on its intelligence and offensive forces in a pre-emptive strike. This defensive posture on Iran fits American grand strategy, which is always to shift such risk to partners in exchange for technology and long-term guarantees.

The Arabian states can live with this, albeit nervously, since they are not the likely targets. But Israel finds its assigned role in U.S. grand strategy far more difficult to stomach. In the unlikely event that Iran actually does develop a weapon and does strike, Israel is the likely target. If the defensive measures do not convince Iran to abandon its program and if the Patriots allow a missile to leak through, Israel has a national catastrophe. It faces an unlikely event with unacceptable consequences.

Israel’s Options

It has options, although a long-range conventional airstrike against Iran is really not one of them. Carrying out a multiday or even multiweek air campaign with Israel’s available force is too likely to be insufficient and too likely to fail. Israel’s most effective option for taking out Iran’s nuclear activities is itself nuclear. Israel could strike Iran from submarines if it genuinely intended to stop Iran’s program.

The problem with this is that much of the Iranian nuclear program is sited near large cities, including Tehran. Depending on the nuclear weapons used and their precision, any Israeli strikes could thus turn into city-killers. Israel is not able to live in a region where nuclear weapons are used in counterpopulation strikes (regardless of the actual intent behind launching). Mounting such a strike could unravel the careful balance of power Israel has created and threaten relationships it needs. And while Israel may not be as dependent on the United States as it once was, it does not want the United States completely distancing itself from Israel, as Washington doubtless would after an Israeli nuclear strike.

The Israelis want Iran’s nuclear program destroyed, but they do not want to be the ones to try to do it. Only the United States has the force needed to carry out the strike conventionally. But like the Bush administration, the Obama administration is not confident in its ability to remove the Iranian program surgically. Washington is concerned that any air campaign would have an indeterminate outcome and would require extremely difficult ground operations to determine the strikes’ success or failure. Perhaps even more complicated is the U.S. ability to manage the consequences, such as a potential attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian meddling in already extremely delicate situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Iran does not threaten the United States, the United States therefore is in no hurry to initiate combat. And so the United States has launched a public relations campaign about defensive measures, hoping to affect Iranian calculations while remaining content to let the game play itself out.

Israel’s option is to respond to the United States with its intent to go nuclear, something Washington does not want in a region where U.S. troops are fighting in countries on either side of Iran. Israel might calculate that its announcement would force the United States to pre-empt an Israeli nuclear strike with conventional strikes. But the American response to Israel cannot be predicted. It is therefore dangerous for a small regional power to try to corner a global power.

With the adoption of a defensive posture, we have now seen the U.S. response to the February deadline. This response closes off no U.S. options (the United States can always shift its strategy when intelligence indicates), it increases the Arabian Peninsula’s dependence on the United States, and it possibly causes Iran to recalculate its position. Israel, meanwhile, finds itself in a box, because the United States calculates that Israel will not chance a conventional strike and fears a nuclear strike on Iran as much as the United States does.

In the end, Obama has followed the Bush strategy on Iran — make vague threats, try to build a coalition, hold Israel off with vague promises, protect the Arabian Peninsula, and wait — to the letter. But along with this announcement, we would expect to begin to see a series of articles on the offensive deployment of U.S. forces, as good defensive posture requires a strong offensive option.

[vector7]

Iran: Moscow gave missile reassurance



Photo by: Associated Press

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
04/02/2010 21:24

"Our Russian colleagues have assured us they'll meet their obligations," says Iranian envoy.

Russia has assured Iran that it still intends to deliver long-range air-defense missiles, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow said Thursday.

Russian news agencies cited Seyyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi as saying, "Our Russian colleagues have assured us that they will meet their obligations." A Kremlin spokesman declined to comment.

Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell the S-300 missile complex, but so far has not delivered.

The delay has not been explained, but Israel and the United States strongly objected to Iran obtaining the missiles, which would significantly boost the country's defense capability.

The ambassador was quoted as saying Iran is ready to receive the weapons.

A top Russian arms trade official recently signaled the delivery may go ahead.

[vector7]

Iranian threat of a stunning punch causes concern in D.C.

KMOX ^ | 10 February 2010 2:02PM

WASHINGTON (KMOX Radio) -- A warning earlier this week from Iran's supreme ruler that his country will deliver a "punch" February 11th that will "stun" the West is being taken seriously at the highest levels of the U-S government, according to Missouri's two Senators.

Democratic Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill described the concern about Iran today in Washington as a matter of "almost hyper focus."
"I know the military is monitoring it carefully. I know the intelligence community is monitoring it carefully. I can't share many of the details of that. But I will say that I think our government is very, very, very concerned."
Earlier this week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech that: "The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western Powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned."

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

[vector7]

Don't miss: Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a 'Nuclear State'

Iran: Destroy Israel if it strikes


Photo by: AP

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel "must be resisted" and finished off "once and for all" if it launches a military operation in the Middle East, Reuters cited an Iranian report as saying on Thursday.

"We have reliable information ... that the Zionist regime is after finding a way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats by the people of Gaza and Lebanon's Hizbullah," Ahmadinejad told his Syrian counterpart in a phone conversation on Wednesday evening, according to IRIB, Iran's state broadcaster.

"If the Zionist regime repeats its mistakes and initiate a military operation, then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all," Ahmadinejad reportedly asserted

The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" multiple times and has voiced harsh criticism against Israeli policies.

At the UN General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad gave a fiery speech that targeted Israel as a "Zionist regime" guilty of "inhumane policies in Palestine."

Through a translator, the Iranian leader likened actions by Israel in Gaza to "genocide,"' and said the international community "is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza."

Ahmadinejad portrayed Israel and its allies, including the United States, as part of a vast conspiracy.

[vector7]

No reason to stall Iran missiles deal, Moscow says

Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:58am EST

Credit: Reuters/Viktor Korotayev


Picture shows a Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.

Credit: Reuters/Viktor Korotayev

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia sees no reason to stall on the sale of its S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Iran, the Kremlin's powerful Security Council said Sunday, hours before the premier of Iran's adversary Israel was due to visit Moscow.

The possible sale of Russian air defense hardware to the Islamic Republic is a major irritant for both Israel and close ally the United States. Both have pressed Moscow not to go ahead with a deal that may help protect Iran's nuclear facilities from potential air strikes.

"There is a signed contract (to supply S-300 missiles) which we must implement, but deliveries have not started yet," Vladimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council secretary, told Interfax news agency in an interview.

"This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because the talk is about deliveries of an exclusively defensive weapon," he said.

Nazarov also said a military strike on Iran would be a big mistake and that the problems linked to Iran's nuclear program must be resolved only by diplomatic means.

"Any military action against Iran will explode the situation, will have extremely negative consequences for the entire world, including for Russia, which is a neighbor of Iran," he said.

It was a separate issue that Russia's actions should help strengthen international and regional security, respect international law and international commitments including those within the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Nazarov said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was due to hold talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on Monday, planning to push the Kremlin for urgent "crippling sanctions" against Iran over its nuclear program.

Medvedev chairs the Security Council.

"Israel believes that heavy pressure must be applied on Iran -- above all very severe sanctions, which were referred to by the U.S. secretary of state as 'crippling sanctions'," Netanyahu told the weekly cabinet meeting earlier Sunday.

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

Experts: Netanyahu's visit to Moscow will not change Russia's position on Iran's nuclear program

11.02.2010 10:45

Azerbaijan, Baku, Feb. 10 / Trend News U. Sadikhova /

The upcoming visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow late this week will not change Russia's position on Iran's nuclear program, experts said.

"Netanyahu's visit will be nothing more than tactical. Rather, the Israeli prime minister will need to 'compare notes' with Russia's leadership on the Iranian nuclear program," Middle East Institute President Yevgeny Satanovsky told Trend News over the phone from Moscow.

During a three-day trip to Moscow, Netanyahu intends to make every effort to get Russia's support for the adoption of new sanctions against Iran, the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post reported on Monday.

Netanyahu's first official visit to Moscow will be realized amid increasing signs of impatience by the West.

On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged the international community to exert pressure on Iran and compel it to abandon its nuclear program. At the same time, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave instructions to produce nuclear fuel, capable of feeding a research atomic reactor, RIA News reported.

However, analysts do not link the Israeli prime minister's visit to Moscow with Russia's stance on Iran's nuclear program. Israeli press reported that he secretly visited the capital of Russia in September last year.

One of the major issues discussed at the meeting was a delivery agreement of anti-missile system S300 between Russia and Iran two years ago. Russia's media reported that later Moscow refused to sell the anti-missile system to Iran, due to U.S. and Israeli dissatisfaction.

Discussions about S300 supplies will not be the main part of Netanyahu's visit to Moscow, Zvi Magen, Israeli Institute for National Security Studies research fellow on Russia-Middle East Policy, said.

Russia, along with China, is against the sixth round of sanctions against Iran.

Up to now, the Security Council has approved five resolutions to suspend Iran's nuclear program. Three of them envisage economic sanctions against Iran.

Magen is not sure that Israel will be able to persuade Moscow to support sanctions because the main pressure on Russia comes from the West.

"I am not sure that this issue is relevant to Israel because the main pressure on Russia about this subject is done by the U.S. and the western powers. Despite the support for sanctions against Iran, Israel does not play a key role in this," Magen told Trend News over the phone.

Theodore Karasik, specializing in Middle East security, thinks that Russia always joins the West on talks of sanctions against Iran at the last minute.

At the same time, according to Iranian analyst on international relations, Hassan Behishtipur, the Iranian nuclear program will become one of the points of discussions between Israel and Russia.

"But it is doubtful that such a country as Russia, will follow Israel's advice and guidance on the issue of cooperation with Iran," Behishtipur told Trend News over phone from Tehran.

Some observers do not rule out that Russia's role in the peace process in the Middle East will be censured in the agenda of Israeli prime minister's visit.

Netanyahu will arrive in Russia in a week will meet with Russia's top officials in Moscow.

"This visit will be linked to Middle East peace process, because Russia has so far intensified in that direction," Magen said.

Karasik agrees with him. He also believes that Russia and Israel can once again raise questions of military cooperation.

Before the Russian-Georgian war in August 2008, Russia and Israel had close military cooperation ties that were interrupted by this short conflict. Perhaps those relations are on the mend, director of research and development of Military-Analytical Institute Middle East and Persian Gulf (INEGMA), Karasik told Trend News via e-mail.

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


Despite Netanyahu pressure, Russia defends Iran missile deal

Last update - 03:12 15/02/2010

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies

On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Moscow, senior Russian security officials were speaking out on defense-related issues that have provoked tensions between the two countries.

An hour before Netanyahu's plane took off on Sunday, Russian officials said that Moscow sees no reason to delay the sale of the S-300, a powerful air-defense system, to Iran. In addition, on Friday, Russian intelligence officials leaked comments expressing their displeasure with plans by an Israeli firm to close a major arms deal with Georgia.

"There is a signed contract [for the S-300 missiles] which we must follow through on, but deliveries have not started yet," Vladimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council secretary, told Interfax news agency in an interview. "This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because we are talking about deliveries of an exclusively defensive weapon."

Nazarov added that a military strike on Iran would be a big mistake and that the problems linked to Tehran's nuclear program must be resolved by diplomatic means only.

"Any military action against Iran will make the situation explode and will have extremely negative consequences for the entire world, including for Russia, which is a neighbor of Iran," he noted.

Israel has expressed concern in the past over Russian plans to sell Iran the S-300 system, which will be used to defend its nuclear installations against a possible attack. During the past two years, both Israel and the United States have pressured Russia not to implement the agreement with Iran, and there may be other opposition, according to sources in the premier's entourage.

Netanyahu is expected to raise the subject of the arms sales to Iran in meetings with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putting. In recent months Russia had promised not to go through with the deal. However, the economic crisis and pressure from the military establishment have resulted in major disagreements within the country's leadership on the issue.

Medvedev recently told President Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Russia needs the revenue from the deal and suggested that a different buyer be found.

Netanyahu plans to tell his Russian hosts that Moscow must take an active role in halting Iran's nuclear program.

"We will discuss a broad spectrum of issues, first and foremost the Iranian issue," he said. "Israel believes that Iran must come under serious pressure, first very strict sanctions, which Secretary of State [Clinton] described as paralyzing."

Russia's declarations about the S-300 system were also meant to send a message to Israel that it does not approve the resumption of its arms sales to Georgia, which were frozen in August 2008.

According to the Russian government news agency, Itar-Tass, Israel resumed the sale of arms to Georgia and "is no longer limiting itself to the sale of UAVs [drones]," which are perceived to be defensive weapons.

A Russian intelligence source was quoted as saying that a private Israeli firm is providing weapons to the Georgian armed forces .

Specifically, according to the Russian news agency Ropadia, a company registered in Cyprus signed a contract for the delivery of 50,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 1,000 RPG launchers, and 20,000 40mm shells for the rocket launchers, in addition to 15,000 assault rifles of different types. The report stated that the arms deal was also carried out through Arsenal, a Bulgarian firm.

Foreign Ministry sources did not confirm the reports, but said that the timing of the leak to Itar-Tass is not coincidental and it appears that certain figures in Russia wish to link the arms sales to Georgia with Israel's demand for a freeze on the S-300 deal to Iran.

Sources at the ministry confirmed that security ties with Georgia were recently resumed, but they involve provision of basic training for the Georgian army by Israeli firms.