Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by The Consul » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:43 pm
by Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:57 pm
by seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:07 pm
The Inevitable War With Iran
by Philip Giraldi, December 15, 2011
One might regard the pledges made to Israel and its friends in the United States by aspiring presidential candidates as pro forma and vaguely amusing, but that would be a mistake. Policy commitments, even if they are lightly entered into, are a serious matter with real-world consequences. At the moment, the obligation to Israel goes far beyond the willingness to give Tel Aviv billions of dollars in aid and unlimited political cover each year. Every Republican candidate but one has affirmed that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of a “Jewish state,” the precise formula demanded by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and each has affirmed his or her eagerness to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would end forever any chance of actual peace talks with the Palestinians and would also invite a violent reaction against Americans in many parts of the Muslim world. Michele Bachmann has even found a private “donor” willing to pay for the move. Newt Gingrich, who would shift the embassy to Jerusalem within his first two hours as president and who has also promised to name John Bolton as his secretary of state, has meanwhile discovered that the Palestinian people do not actually exist, which certainly solves the problem of the two-state solution or any solution at all. They were invented by hostile Arabs and are out to destroy Israel.
Mitt Romney and Gingrich might well take the prize for lack of any connection with reality with their demand that U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman, who is Jewish, be fired for suggesting that some anti-Semitism might be the result of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Romney has also criticized President Barack Obama for “insulting” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, surely one of the most interesting inversions of truth and fiction ever to occur. Not to be outdone, Rick Perry has promised to increase assistance to Israel, calling it “strategic defensive aid” that benefits the United States.
While this kind of ignorant crackpottery is unfortunately what one expects, there might be worse to come. As part of the pro-Israel package, the same presidential hopefuls have made clear their willingness to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel even if Israel is the initiator of the conflict, while the media and the Republican Party have together conspired to keep any contrary opinions on that issue marginalized and nearly invisible.
As Washington has demonstrated itself unwilling to negotiate with Iran over outstanding issues and has refused every attempt by the Iranians to compromise, there can be only one outcome to the game that is being played, and that is war. And the characteristically chickenhawk Republicans are ready to rock and roll based on the pseudo-information about the perfidious Persians. Gingrich again leads the charge, calling for a stepped-up program of sabotage and assassination inside Iran coupled with a covert operation to shut down the country’s main oil refinery, which will supposedly lead to “regime change.” Newt also suggested that the United States and Israel join together in “joint operations” to attack the Iranians. Perry and Rick Santorum also agree that it is time to order military strikes, while Mitt Romney is keen on indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “the crime of incitement to genocide.”
The overly ambitious and ethically challenged wannabes who pass as statesmen in today’s United States fail to appreciate that the feckless promises made in their lust for high office could produce a catastrophic result. War is serious stuff, as the past 10 years have surely taught us, and Iran, which has had seven years to prepare for an attack, is a much larger and tougher nut than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Numerous commentators have observed how fuel prices would soar because of threats to close the Straits of Hormuz. Many in the Pentagon, including current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and former Secretary Robert Gates, oppose such a conflict in recognition of the fact that Tehran would have the ability to hit U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. As the subsequent involvement of Hezbollah from Lebanon is a near certainty, the strike against Iran would quickly escalate into a regional war and would spin out of control.
No matter how one feels about Iran’s government and its ambitions, everyone should be taking notice of what is happening to fuel the drive to war. The drumbeat is incessant, fed by weekly warnings from leading Israeli politicians and truculent editorials and poorly informed op-eds in leading American newspapers. On Dec. 9 and 11 alone, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and a lead editorial all calling for more pressure on Iran. The op-ed by Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute accused Tehran of building a nuclear weapon that could be ready by January 2013. Thiessen also charged Iran with complicity in al-Qaeda attacks, which most observers would find ridiculous.
The American people are being told over and over again that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, that Tehran is threatening U.S. soldiers, and that Ahmadinejad has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.Though all those assertions can be challenged and even debunked, the case is being made that Tehran’s perceived intransigence is irreversible, and this is making war inevitable. A majority of Americans already believe that Iran has a nuclear weapon and that it poses a threat to the United States that should be dealt with, using military force if necessary.
Pushing back against the tide of conformity on the Iranian menace is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul’s crimes against the status quo consist of saying that he would eliminate all foreign aid, of which Israel is the principal beneficiary, and that he would not go to war with Iran for Israel because Israel, with its large nuclear arsenal and sophisticated military, is quite capable of making its own decisions relating to its security. Paul is also willing to talk with the Iranians instead of constantly threatening them. Those positions, which appear to be reasonable enough, arouse an almost palpable anger among some pundits. Paul was the only leading Republican excluded from last week’s Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) presidential debate, where many of the positions in support of Israel made by leading Republicans and related above were actually spelled out. RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks explained that Paul was “far outside of the mainstream of the Republican Party and this organization.”
Over at Red State, “mikeymike 143″ wrapped the message of hate in vitriol, declaring that Paul was an “anti-Semite loser” and that his “followers are the dirtbags of society. Conspiracy loons, antiwar leftists, and anti-Semites. That is why the Republican Jewish Coalition banned him and his Paulbots from the presidential debate they moderated.” Eric Golub of the Washington Times ramped it up a notch more, writing that “Ron Paul supporters are angry at his exclusion … despite Dr. Paul himself not publicly even caring. Supporters of the Klan do not get angry when they are excluded from NAACP banquets. Go on Ron Paul message boards, read the anti-Semitism, and then understand why nobody wants these miscreants anywhere near respectable events.”
Well, if that is the case, count me as a miscreant. Apparently objecting to the billions of dollars in foreign aid lavished on Israel and refusing to go to war on her behalf is enough to cast one out into the wilderness, but there is even more. Josh Block, a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), sent out a message on a neoconservative journalist listserv called “The Freedom Community” describing as anti-Semitic anyone who is anti-Israel or who does not agree that “Iran with a nuke is a problem.” Criticizing Israel or questioning the Iran nuclear narrative therefore makes one an anti-Semite, a conclusion that certainly simplifies thinking about the Middle East. It also makes the broader arguments being made by the friends of Israel come full circle. Any questioning of the United States’ relationship with Israel is anti-Semitism. Any change in how Washington hands out tax money that would in any way reduce aid to Israel is anti-Semitism. Any criticism of Israel’s policies with its neighbors is anti-Semitism. Any questioning of Israel’s “right” to start a regional war with Iran that will inevitably drag the United States in is also anti-Semitism. I’m sure that the picture is clear. Claims of anti-Semitism fit every situation where Israel is even peripherally involved. The slightest suggestion of anti-Semitism is the ultimate weapon, intended to end every debate and to ease the way into yet another Middle Eastern war that the United States does not need to fight, cannot afford, and from which it will likely reap the whirlwind.
Will Iraq Debacle Prevent Iran War?
December 15, 2011
Exclusive: Neoconservatives are livid over President Obama’s declaration that the Iraq War is over, fearing that its disastrous outcome will undercut plans for a new war with Iran. But Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich says, if elected, he stands ready to join Israel in invading Iran, Robert Parry reports.
By Robert Parry
President Barack Obama is putting the best face on the final American troop withdrawal from Iraq, declaring that the last soldiers will leave with “their heads held high.” Meanwhile, neoconservative war hawks are denouncing Obama’s failure to twist enough arms to get Iraqi leaders to accept “residual” U.S. military bases.
Yet, however it is spun, the Iraq War represents one of the worst strategic defeats in American history. An arrogant President George W. Bush invested about $1 trillion and nearly 4,500 American lives in a conflict that did little to advance U.S. national security interests and overall harmed U.S. standing in an economically crucial part of the world.
Poster of George W. Bush and his advisers by Robbie Conal (robbieconal.com)
Yes, it’s true that the United States retains a vast diplomatic presence protected by thousands of security contractors. But whatever advantage those huge outposts in Baghdad and other cities will give U.S. companies – if any – the giant embassy and the sprawling consulates represent more monuments to American hubris than anything else.
The diplomatic outposts were designed when the Bush administration anticipated a de facto pro-consul role for the United States, dictating policy to Iraqi politicians and using the country as a land-based aircraft carrier to project American power across the region. Now, those dreams have been swept away like confetti in an Iraqi sandstorm.
You could hear the bitterness over this defeat in the words and tone of Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who took to the Senate floor to decry Obama’s decision to stick with a withdrawal timetable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced on Bush in 2008, but that neocons hoped would be aggressively renegotiated.
“It is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of United States troops from Iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests,” McCain said, adding: “I believe that history will judge this president’s leadership with scorn and disdain, with the scorn and disdain that it deserves.”
McCain left little doubt that if he had won the presidential election in 2008, he would have battled hard for a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. In his speech, he also pushed the neocons’ favorite Iraq War narrative which holds that Bush’s heroic “surge” in 2007 – with neocon support – essentially “won” the war, but that Obama then threw their “victory” away.
Though this neocon narrative was popular in the mainstream U.S. press in 2008, it was never true. There were a variety of other factors that reduced the levels of violence in Iraq, including some like the so-called Sunni Awakening that preceded the “surge” and others like the Shiite militia ceasefire that was predicated on political commitments that the U.S. military would eventually leave.
But the neocons are highly skilled at creating favorable narratives and disseminating them to the American public. Contrary narratives, even when supported by hard facts and strong analysis, usually get short-shrift in the U.S. press. For instance, little U.S. press attention was afforded disclosures from al-Qaeda leaders that they saw the 9/11 attacks as a way to lure the United States into a trap.
Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a book by the late Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, quoted al-Qaeda leaders explaining how the attacks on New York and Washington were designed to provoke U.S. government “cowboys” into an over-reaction that would outrage the Muslim world and undermine pro-U.S. governments in the region.
Even though many al-Qaeda leaders have died in the process, their strategy might merit a “Mission Accomplished” banner a lot more than Bush’s premature Iraq victory celebration on May 1, 2003, did.
But the neocons are determined that such a narrative – portraying them as being tricked into a self-destructive over-reach into the Muslim world and handing a gift to Islamic extremists – does not become the accepted history of the Iraq War. So, one can expect an ugly debate over “who lost Iraq?” – just as the United States suffered through recriminations over “who lost China?” and “who lost Vietnam?”
The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine
Another thing the neocons don’t want is for the American people to connect the painful and costly disaster in Iraq to neocon plans for using U.S. military power to advance Israeli security interests, though that is what the historical record points to. In the neocon fantasies of a decade ago, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to transform it into an ally of Israel and a base to pressure other anti-Israeli Muslim states for “regime change,” especially Syria and Iran.
Then, once “regime change” came to Syria and Iran, the neocons believed support would dry up for Hezbollah in Lebanon and for Hamas in the Palestinian territories, freeing Israel to dictate terms to its Arab neighbors and thus bring a form of enforced peace to the region.
The early outlines of this aggressive concept for remaking the Middle East predated the 9/11 attacks by half a decade, when a group of American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu during his 1996 campaign for prime minister.
The neocon strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” advanced the idea that only regime change in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary “clean break” from the diplomatic standoffs that had followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Under the “clean break,” Israel would no longer seek peace through mutual understanding and compromise, but rather through confrontation, including the violent removal of leaders such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
The plan called Hussein’s ouster “an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right,” but also one that would destabilize the Assad dynasty in Syria and thus topple the power dominoes into Lebanon, where Hezbollah might soon find itself without its key Syrian ally. Iran also could find itself in the cross-hairs of “regime change.”
But what the “clean break” needed was the military might of the United States, since some of the targets like Iraq were too far away and too powerful to be defeated even by Israel’s highly efficient military. The cost in Israeli lives and to Israel’s economy from such overreach would have been staggering.
In 1998, the U.S. neocon brain trust pushed the “clean break” plan another step forward with the creation of the Project for the New American Century, which urged President Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
However, Clinton would only go so far, maintaining a harsh embargo on Iraq and enforcing a “no-fly zone” which involved U.S. aircraft conducting periodic bombing raids. Still, with Clinton or his heir apparent, Al Gore, in the White House, a full-scale invasion of Iraq appeared out of the question.
The first key political obstacle was removed when the neocons helped engineer George W. Bush’s ascension to the presidency in Election 2000. However, the path was not fully cleared until al-Qaeda terrorists attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, leaving behind a political climate across America for war and revenge.
Of course, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 had other motives besides Israeli security – from Bush’s personal animus toward Saddam Hussein to controlling Iraq’s oil resources – but a principal goal of the neocons was the projection of American power deep into the Muslim world, to strike at enemy states beyond Israel’s military reach.
In the heady days of 2002-2003, when the high-tech capabilities of the U.S. military were viewed as strategic game-changers, neocons were fond of joking about which way to go next, into Iran or Syria, with the punch-line, “real men go to Tehran.” However, the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. conquest dashed those hopes. “Real men” had to postpone their trips to Tehran or Damascus.
These grandiose geopolitical ambitions were rarely mentioned publicly. Instead, the American people were scared with falsehoods about Iraq’s WMDs and Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda.
Gingrich’s War
But the Iraq debacle, now given a stamp of finality by Obama’s removal of the last U.S. combat troops, threatens to solidify among many Americans a recognition that they were “had” by the neocons, that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake that shouldn’t be repeated again.
So, the neocons must move quickly to change that perception, by asserting that the war had actually been “won” by Bush but that Obama “lost” it. That way, Americans won’t close the door on the next neocon adventure, a war with Iran.
Besides stepping up attacks on Obama, the neocons have regrouped inside the campaigns of several Republican presidential contenders, including Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. In particular, former House Speaker Gingrich is selling himself as the one who would not just bomb Iran but would invade the country with the determination to force “regime change.”
Earlier this week, Gingrich told an audience in New Hampshire that he views the threat from Iran and its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon much as the U.S. government worried about the Soviet Union during the early Cold War. A nuclear Iran, Gingrich said, threatened not only Israel but – if a weapon were shared with terrorists – the United States, too.
“We are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon,” Gingrich assured his listeners. But he added that bombing Iran would not be enough, that “regime change” brought by the force of U.S. arms was the only answer. Gingrich played out a scenario of an Israeli prime minister asking a U.S. president for help in a conventional military invasion of Iran, and Gingrich made clear that he, as president, would join the war effort.
“What I won’t do is allow Israel to be threatened with another Holocaust,” Gingrich said. “This is a not-very-far-down-the-road decision.”
Also, the Republicans in Congress – as well as the leading presidential hopefuls (with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul) – have sided with the neocons in sparing the Pentagon from budget cuts – even as the GOP proposes slashing key social programs, including Medicare.
David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director, noted in an op-ed that congressional Republicans and their deficit-hawk budget chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, backed away from challenging the neocons on military spending. “Ingratiating himself with the neo-cons, Mr. Ryan has put the $700 billion defense and security budget off limits,” Stockman wrote.
So, for Americans who say presidential elections don’t matter, here is evidence that they do. John McCain has said that as president he would have continued the Iraq War indefinitely, and Newt Gingrich says that if he becomes president, you can expect him to launch a new one against Iran.
by gnosticheresy_2 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:20 pm
by seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:39 am
U.S. Worried Iran on Brink of Underground Nuclear Activity
December 15, 2011, 8:19 PM EST
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
(Updates with announcement of Israel visit by U.S. officials in sixth, seventh paragraphs.)
Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration is concerned Iran is on the verge of enriching uranium at a facility deep underground near the Muslim holy city of Qom, a move that may strengthen those advocating tougher action to stop Iran’s suspected atomic weapons program.
Iranian nuclear scientists at the Fordo facility appear to be within weeks of producing 20 percent enriched uranium, according to Iran analysts and nuclear specialists in close communication with U.S. officials and atomic inspectors. Enriched uranium is used to fuel power plants and reactors, and may be further processed into atomic weapons material.
Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, worry Iran’s actions may bolster calls for a military response and ratchet up pressure to limit Iran’s oil exports, which might send oil prices soaring.
“Senior advisers to President Obama privately express concern that Israel might see Iran’s commencement of the Fordo facility” as a justification for a military strike, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington who has frequent discussions with U.S. officials.
Avoiding Miscalculation
Sadjadpour said some White House officials question whether Iran is trying to provoke an Israeli strike in order to rally support at home and abroad. The Obama administration, he said, wants to prevent miscalculations that might trigger a military conflict. The U.S. and Israel say military action remains an option if diplomacy and other measures fail to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Two State Department officials who direct U.S. policy on Iran’s nuclear activities are heading to Israel this week. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and Robert Einhorn, a State Department special adviser for nonproliferation, will be in Israel Dec. 17 and 18 to discuss regional matters including “common security challenges,” according to a State Department announcement today.
Their trip follows Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s meetings yesterday with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in Washington. It “reinforces the strong and enduring security cooperation between our two governments,” the State Department said.
Pressuring Iran
The visits come amid growing pressure to tighten financial and energy sanctions on Iran. Congress this week approved measures against the Central Bank of Iran that the administration previously resisted on the grounds that targeting an important oil supplier for Asia and Europe threatens to fracture the coalition against Iran and raise oil prices.
“There’s absolutely a risk” that the price of oil would go up, “which would mean that Iran would, in fact, have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions,” Sherman testified on Dec. 1.
Crude for January delivery fell $1.08 to $93.87 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange today, the lowest settlement since Nov. 2. Prices have risen 2.7 percent this year after climbing 15 percent in 2010. Futures have tumbled 6.3 percent in the past two days.
Oil Prices
Concerns about confrontations with Iran sent oil up 2.4 percent on Dec. 13, the biggest gain in almost four weeks, on speculation shipments from the Persian Gulf would be disrupted after a report that Iran will hold drills to practice closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Gholamreza Jalali, head of Iran’s civil defense organization, said yesterday that Iran will move its uranium enrichment centers to locations that are safer from attack if necessary, according to the state-run Mehr news agency.
U.S. officials say Iran is close to starting up Fordo’s two cascades of 174 centrifuges each, fast-spinning machines that enrich uranium for use as a nuclear fuel. Uranium enriched at higher concentrations of 90 percent can be used for a bomb.
Dennis Ross, who until last month was special assistant to President Barack Obama for the region including Iran, said Israel has reason to be concerned about enrichment at Qom.
‘Israeli Calculus’
Iran’s accumulation of low-enriched uranium, its decision to enrich to nearly 20 percent “when there is no justification for it,” its hardening of sites, and other “activities related to possible weaponization” are factors that “affect the Israeli calculus and ours,” Ross, now a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an e-mail. “Qom is important, but it is worth remembering that IAEA inspectors go there, and I would not isolate Qom and say this alone is the Israeli red-line” to spur a military response.
Last month, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran moved a large cylinder of 5 percent enriched uranium from the Natanz fuel enrichment plant to the Fordo facility near Qom. Iranian nuclear engineers have installed centrifuges that need only to be connected to cooling and electric lines to become operational, the IAEA said.
The Nov. 8 report went further than any previous public document in listing nuclear activities that inspectors said had no purpose other than for weapons capability. Iran insists its program is for peaceful energy and medical research.
Nuclear physicist David Albright, founder of the independent Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and a former weapons inspector, said in an interview yesterday that what concerns Israel most is Iran’s plan to triple the rate of enrichment by installing new generation centrifuges at Fordo that are being tested at the Natanz site.
‘Slower Than Expected’
“The program has gone slower than expected -- they’re having trouble building and operating the centrifuges, which could be the result of Stuxnet or other sabotage,” Albright said, referring to a computer worm that is believed to have damaged Iran’s centrifuges last year.
At the current rate, Albright said, it would likely take Iran till the end of 2013 to enrich enough 20 percent uranium to be further processed for use in one bomb. If Iran were to get three sets of new generation centrifuges working at Fordo and Natanz, they could produce enough material by the end of next year that could be further enriched to weapons-grade, he said.
“Where Israel would get more nervous is if Iran started to install hundreds of advanced centrifuges underground,” which would mean a “breakout capability over about six months,” Albright said, referring to the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. And at Fordo, “there’s no way to blow it up because it’s 90 meters under rock.”
Mountain Facility
Iran only admitted the existence of the Fordo plant, built deep into a mountain south of the capital Tehran, in September 2009 after U.S., British and French intelligence agencies gathered information on the clandestine facility.
In Congress, growing concern has played out in a measure to sanction transactions with the Iranian central bank in an effort to choke off its overseas oil sales.
Iran is the world’s third-largest crude exporter and oil is Iran’s major source of income, supplying more than 50 percent of the national budget, according to International Monetary Fund figures. The second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia, Iran exported an average 2.58 million barrels a day in 2010, according to OPEC statistics.
--With assistance from Jonathan Tirone in Vienna, Ladane Nasseri in Tehran, Robert Tuttle in Doha, Margaret Talev in Washington and Mark Shenk in New York. Editors: Terry Atlas, Steven Komarow
by seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:33 pm
Russian customs seize radioactive metal from Iranian’s luggage bound for Tehran
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, December 16, 11:51 AM
MOSCOW — Russia’s customs agency announced Friday it had seized pieces of radioactive metal from the luggage of an Iranian passenger bound for Tehran from Moscow’s main airport.
It was not immediately clear if the substance could be any use to Iran’s controversial nuclear program.
Federal Customs Service agents found 18 pieces of metal at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport after a radiation alert went off, the agency said in a statement. It said the gauges showed that radiation levels were 20 times higher than normal.
Spokeswoman Kseniya Grebenkina told The Associated Press the luggage was seized some time ago, but did not specify when. The Iranian wasn’t detained, she said, and it was not clear whether he was still in Russia or not. She did not give his name.
The pieces contained Sodium-22, she said, a radioactive isotope of sodium that could be produced in a particle accelerator. Sodium-22 is a positron-emitting isotope that has medical uses, including in nuclear medicine imaging.
Grebenkina said prosecutors have launched a probe into the incident but insisted that the material seized is not highly radioactive.
The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military option against Iran’s controversial nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.
Last month, the U.S. and its western allies bluntly accused Iran of deceiving the world by trying to hide work on nuclear arms, and the U.N. atomic agency passed a new resolution criticizing Tehran’s nuclear defiance.
Sergei Novikov, spokesman for Russia’s Rosatom nuclear agency, told the AP that the pieces seized at Moscow airport are highly unlikely to have come from Rosatom and said the isotope is produced by particle accelerators, not by nuclear reactors.
In Russia, universities, research institutes and big medical centers have the technology to produce it, he said.
“There is an extremely slim chance that it could have come from Rosatom,” he said.
Novikov said Rosatom has never sold Sodium-22 to Iran, but it has supplied Iran with other types of medical isotopes.
James Adelstein, a professor of medical biophysics at Harvard Medical School, told the AP “the fact that it’s in bars bothers me” because its “a funny way” to use Sodium-22.
“I’d be a little suspicious that this was primarily used for medical purposes,” he said Friday in a phone interview.
Earlier this year, Atomstroiexport, a Rosatom subsidiary, launched Iran’s first nuclear reactor in Bushehr. Russian officials have insisted the deal is in line with international agreements and will oblige Tehran to ship all the spent fuel from the plant back to Russia for reprocessing to avoid a possibility of it being used in a covert weapons program.
The U.S. House of Representatives, meanwhile, endorsed harsher sanctions Wednesday against Iran aimed at derailing its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons.
by eyeno » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:45 pm
by American Dream » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:43 am
by seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:56 am
Iran warns could stop oil flow if sanctions: IRNA
TEHRAN | Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:45am EST
(Reuters) - Iran's first vice-president warned on Tuesday that the flow of crude will be stopped from the crucial Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if foreign sanctions are imposed on its oil exports, the country's official news agency reported.
"If they (the West) impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz," IRNA quoted Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.
About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.
Israel Didn’t Know High-Tech Gear Was Sent to Iran
By Ben Elgin - Dec 23, 2011 12:16 PM CT
Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Meg Roggensack, a professor at Georgetown University, discusses efforts by Western companies to prevent authoritarian regimes from acquiring surveillance technologies that can be used as weapons for repression. She spoke with Bloomberg's Ben Elgin from Washington on Dec. 21. (Source: Bloomberg)
The clandestine arrangement worked smoothly for years. The Israeli company shipped its Internet- monitoring equipment to a distributor in Denmark. Once there, workers stripped away the packaging and removed the labels.
Then they sent it to a man named “Hossein” in Iran, an amiable technology distributor known to them only by his first name and impeccable English, say his partners in Israel and Denmark.
Israeli trade, customs and defense officials say their departments didn’t know that the systems for peering into Internet traffic, sold under the brand name NetEnforcer, had gone to a country whose leaders have called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Israel’s ban on trade with its enemy failed, even though a paper trail on the deals was available in Denmark.
The transactions illustrate how ineffective governments have been in blocking a global trade in new, intrusive surveillance technologies that authoritarian regimes can use as weapons for repression. Such gear from Western companies -- including tools that intercept e-mails and text messages, record Internet activity and map cell phone locations -- has been used to track and torture dissidents in countries including Iran, Bahrain, Syria and Tunisia, a Bloomberg News investigation this year showed. It’s unclear who Hossein’s customers were, or how the technology may have been used in Iran.
‘Dirty Trade’
“The fact that the most murderous regimes are using Western technologies for surveillance highlights the fact that the current framework for controlling this dirty trade is not working,” says Brett Solomon, executive director of Access, a New York-based nonprofit that promotes online freedom. “How long are the innocent people of Syria and Iran to wait before Congress and the EU turn words into law?”
Yet there are ways to stem the flow of such technology, which can be used as a weapon but isn’t regulated like one. Many companies selling surveillance equipment that connects to the Internet have the ability to monitor their own customers, and governments could require them to do so while tightening export laws.
Anything connected to the Internet “can phone home and provide some sort of location data,” says Jon Oltsik, senior principal analyst at Milford, Massachusetts-based Enterprise Strategy Group, a technology consulting firm. Companies often stay in touch with their products to send software updates, and can also examine customers’ Internet addresses to determine where the equipment is, he says.
The method has already proved effective, stymieing Syrian efforts to circumvent the U.S. embargo during a crackdown that has killed more than 5,000 people.
‘Is Ignorance Bliss?’
San Diego-based Websense, Inc., a maker of Internet- filtering software, routinely scans the Internet addresses of prospective buyers, as well as its 40,000 existing customers, in order to prevent its products from going to embargoed countries or falling into the wrong hands, says Michael Newman, the company’s general counsel and interim chief financial officer.
In October, Websense blocked sales to two potential buyers, who listed their physical addresses in Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates, but who asked for the product to be downloaded to Internet addresses that the company traced to Syria.
“Companies should be taking these steps,” Newman says. “The question is, how much are you trying to know? Or is ignorance bliss?”
Spotting Locations
Such steps could have helped Blue Coat Systems Inc., a Sunnyvale, California-based maker of Web security and filtering products. Telecomix, a group that promotes online freedom, earlier this year uncovered computer logs that showed the company’s machines being used in Syria to filter Internet sites.
Blue Coat says its products were illegally shipped to Syria by a distributor and it had been unaware they were there. Spokesman Steve Schick declined further comment on the Syria sales, citing an ongoing investigation by the Department of Commerce.
Had Blue Coat been paying attention to the Internet addresses when connecting with its deployed machines, it would have spotted the suspect locations, says Peter Fein, a Chicago- based member of Telecomix.
“Claiming a lack of knowledge is no excuse anymore,” says Solomon, of Access. “Technology can be used as a weapon and should be treated with the same care and sold with the same due diligence.”
Violent Repression
In this growing industry, with sales estimated at $3 billion to $5 billion, the potential for human rights abuse is profound. The 10-month investigation by Bloomberg News documented use of Western surveillance technology in political crackdowns and violent repression by governments across the Middle East and North Africa.
In Bahrain, authorities used European equipment to intercept phone calls and text messages of activists, who were confronted with details of their communications while being arrested and tortured. Amid Syria’s uprising, construction moved forward on a $17 million Internet surveillance system built with U.S., French, German and Italian technology.
“Stopping this trade is a shared responsibility across government and business,” says Meg Roggensack, an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., and a senior advisor to Human Rights First, a non-profit organization based in New York and Washington. “It is extremely urgent. This is playing out in real time with real consequences for real people.”
Restricting Trade
Western governments are now trying to better regulate the trade. The European Union restricted sales of the technology to Syria after Bloomberg News exposed the project in that country. A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 8 would bar sales of surveillance technologies by American companies to repressive regimes.
The U.K.’s Business Minister, Judith Wilcox, said the government was examining a block on the sale of mobile-phone surveillance software to Iran and Syria after Bloomberg News reported a British company sold location-tracking technology to Iran this year for use by the regime’s law enforcement.
Yet efforts to date have stumbled. After the U.S. Congress in 2010 prohibited government business with any company selling equipment to Iran that would restrict the flow of information or speech of its citizens, no companies were identified. Under current EU rules, each member state makes its own export decisions, which allows regulatory gaps.
Trusting Distributors
“Right now, we’re not even trying,” says Marietje Schaake, a Dutch member of the European Parliament who is pushing for EU-wide standards. “The digital arms trade needs more scrutiny and regulations.”
Even when they impose bans, governments struggle to track surveillance sales. Often, technology vendors rely on distributors to sell their products, and simply trust that it isn’t falling into hands that will abuse it.
The shipments of Internet-inspection equipment from Israel to Iran illustrate the enforcement loopholes.
Allot Communications Ltd., a Hod Hasharon, Israel-based firm whose stock trades on Nasdaq and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and which reported $57 million in sales last year, sold its systems to a Randers, Denmark-based technology distributor.
Workers at that company, RanTek A/S, repackaged the gear and shipped it to Iran, according to four former employees of Allot and RanTek. The shipments were legal under Danish law.
Skirting a Ban
A sale as early as 2006 is corroborated by an export license application filed by RanTek, though the name of the customer in Iran was redacted by Danish authorities who provided the document to Bloomberg News.
The former employees identified the buyer as the technology distributor, Hossein.
The sales skirted a strict Israeli ban that prohibits “trading with the enemy,” including any shipments that reach Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
“This covers everything,” says Gavriel Bar, manager of the Middle East department at Israel’s Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. “Imports, exports, direct, indirect. An Israeli company is not allowed to trade with Iran in any way.”
Israeli lawmaker Nachman Shai called for a parliamentary investigation today, and the country’s Defense Ministry said it had begun to examine the report. Allot shares fell 5.1 percent to $15.84 at 11:04 a.m. in New York, after earlier plunging as much as 13 percent.
Three former sales employees for Allot say it was well known inside the company that the equipment was headed for Iran. Allot officials say they have no knowledge of their equipment going there and are looking into RanTek’s sales.
‘Breach of Contract’
“We do not authorize any sales to Iran,” says Jay Kalish, executive director of investor relations at Allot. If its products were shipped there by RanTek, it would be a “breach of contract,” he says.
Kalish says it’s challenging to track where its products go after they’ve been sold. Customers often don’t connect digitally to Allot, making electronic tracking difficult. The company has hundreds of distributors and their products have even appeared for sale on eBay, he says.
Allot said in a statement today that its policy is to comply fully with Israeli and non-Israeli laws, including all applicable export laws and regulations.
The product sold by Allot, NetEnforcer, conducts “deep- packet inspection” of networks. The technology has commercial uses, such as helping a mobile network operator prioritize certain types of traffic or eliminating spam.
Deep-Packet Inspection
But deep-packet inspection has also been used to snoop into e-mails in countries including Tunisia, even allowing officials to change the contents, Bloomberg News found. It can also prevent activists from using the Web anonymously, leading to arrest and torture in countries such as Iran, says Ben Wagner, of the European University Institute near Florence, Italy, who has studied the technology.
“I cannot conceive a way that DPI could be exported to Iran without a concern,” he says.
Allot’s Kalish says the equipment sold through RanTek was best suited for managing a company’s Internet traffic and lacked the capacity for wide-scale Internet surveillance.
RanTek officials didn’t respond to e-mails and phone calls seeking comment.
The lax controls on the Israeli technology shipments, which didn’t require export licenses, contrast with tighter restrictions on weapons sales, which do need licenses.
Companies such as Allot are almost on an honor system to comply with the rules, says Rifat Azam, a professor of international business law at the Interdisciplinary Center, a private university in Herzliya, Israel.
Reputational Risk
In the absence of strong laws and policing, bad press and the threat of reputational damage has spurred companies to curb dealings with repressive regimes.
Area SpA called off construction of the Internet surveillance system in Syria only after Bloomberg’s story was picked up by Italy’s major newspapers and sparked a protest by Syrian and Internet-freedom activists outside the company’s headquarters near Milan. The coverage also spurred an online petition by Access that gathered more than 10,000 signatures calling for a stop to the Syria project.
Paris-based Qosmos SA, which had supplied deep-packet inspection probes for Area’s Syria system, said when contacted for the story that it had already decided to pull out. Qosmos’s head of marketing, Erik Larsson, later added that the company would exit all work in interception and focus on other uses of the technology, such as market research and network management.
Suspending Business
“We don’t want to be in that business because we don’t have the control and there’s not enough regulation,” he said. “If you’re using it to track down opponents and torturing them and killing them, then the technology is in the wrong hands.”
In the case of Iran, Dublin-based AdaptiveMobile Security Ltd. had sold and proposed systems for blocking and filtering text messages. When asked about the Iran business for a Bloomberg News story, the company said it plans to cease doing business in Iran when its contract is up in 2012, because continuing in the country’s current political climate could damage its reputation.
Measures that governments could take include examining the trade records of foreign customers. Such checks of public records in Denmark would have exposed the shipments of Israeli goods to Iran.
For now, self-regulation by companies may be critical to any recipe for change.
In a Dec. 8 speech, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said lawmakers’ efforts to employ sanctions and control surveillance exports will only go part of the way.
Remote Shut-Down
“In the 21st century, smart companies have to act before they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy,” she said.
Websense says self-policing kept it from falling afoul of Syria sanctions in October. The company also can refuse to provide updates, shutting down a product within weeks if it moves to a location where Websense doesn’t want it or if the company finds it’s being used for repression, Newman says.
It took such steps in 2009, for example, when it learned that two of its customers in Yemen were using its products to carry out government censorship of the Internet, says Newman.
In a digital arms race that pits repressive regimes against their citizens, says Access executive director Solomon, anything that loosens the tyrants’ grip on electronic communications might just save lives.
Iran seeks death penalty for alleged US spy
Prosecution says Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was working for CIA and entered Iran's intelligence department three times
An American man accused by Iran of working for the CIA could face the death penalty, an Iranian news agency reported.
In a closed court hearing, the prosecution applied for capital punishment in the case of Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, Fars reported. It said Hekmati "admitted that he received training in the United States and planned to imply that Iran was involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries" after returning to the US.
The prosecutor alleged that Hekmati entered Iran's intelligence department three times. Fars said Hekmati repeated a confession broadcast on state TV on 18 December. Hekmati's lawyer, who was identified only by his surname, Samadi, denied the charges.
The lawyer argued that Iranian intelligence had blocked Hekmati from infiltrating and that under Iranian law intention to infiltrate was not a crime. Samadi said Hekmati had been deceived by the CIA.
Under Iranian law spying can lead to death penalty only in military cases. No date for the next court hearing was released.
Hekmati, 28, was born in Arizona and is of Iranian descent. His father, who lives in Michigan, has said his son is not a CIA spy and was visiting his grandmothers in Iran when he was arrested.
Iran alleges that as a US marine Hekmati received special training and served at US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before heading to Iran for an intelligence mission.
‘Syria trying to reveal secrets behind abduction of Iranian engineers’
TEHRAN – Damascus’ ambassador to Tehran has said that the Syrian government is making efforts to identify abductors of Iranian engineers and reveal the hidden agenda behind the incident.
Ambassador Hamed Hassan made the remarks during a press conference in Tehran late on Sunday.
Unidentified gunmen abducted five Iranian engineers and technicians on December 20 and two other Iranian experts on December 21 in the restive Syrian city of Homs.
Hassan said that since early March, the opponents of the Syrian government have chanted slogans against Iran and Hezbollah.
The U.S. and the Zionist regime have armed the Syrian opposition with weapons and also provided them with financial assistance, he said.
Hassan also stated that the U.S. is training forces in southern Libya, Lebanon, and Turkey with the aim of supporting opponents of its enemies in the region.
Elsewhere in his remarks, he said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will continue addressing legitimate public demands, including protecting the people’s lives, maintaining national stability and unity, and eradicating terrorism.
Commenting on the two recent suicide blasts in Damascus, the ambassador said many Syrians, including police officers, security forces, and civilians lost their lives in the incident.
Twin suicide car bombs blasted outside two buildings of Syria's intelligence agencies on December 23, killing at least 44 people and wounding more than 150.
Iranian abductees in good health
The Iranian ambassador to Syria said on Monday that based on the information received so far, all Iranian abductees are in good health.
A joint security team consisting Iranian and Syrian experts are pursuing the issue to find the best way to find the abductees, Ambassador Mohammadreza Sheibani added.
by seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:27 pm
Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions
By DAVID E. SANGER and ANNIE LOWREY
Published: December 27, 2011
WASHINGTON — A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by the United States, saying his country would retaliate against any crackdown by blocking all oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.
The declaration by Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, came as President Obama prepares to sign legislation that, if fully implemented, could substantially reduce Iran’s oil revenue in a bid to deter it from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Prior to the latest move, the administration had been laying the groundwork to attempt to cut off Iran from global energy markets without raising the price of gasoline or alienating some of Washington’s closest allies.
Apparently fearful of the expanded sanctions’ possible impact on the already-stressed economy of Iran, the world’s third-largest energy exporter, Mr. Rahimi said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,” according to Iran’s official news agency. Iran just began a 10-day naval exercise in the area.
In recent interviews, Obama administration officials have said that the United States has developed a plan to keep the strait open in the event of a crisis. In Hawaii, where President Obama is vacationing, a White House spokesman said there would be no comment on the Iranian threat to close the strait. That seemed in keeping with what administration officials say has been an effort to lower the level of angry exchanges, partly to avoid giving the Iranian government the satisfaction of a response and partly to avoid spooking financial markets.
But the energy sanctions carry the risk of confrontation, as well as economic disruption, given the unpredictability of the Iranian response. Some administration officials believe that a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States — which Washington alleges received funding from the Quds Force, part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps — was in response to American and other international sanctions.
Merely uttering the threat appeared to be part of an Iranian effort to demonstrate its ability to cause a spike in oil prices, thus slowing the United States economy, and to warn American trading partners that joining the new sanctions, which the Senate passed by a rare 100-0 vote, would come at a high cost.
Oil prices rose above $100 a barrel in trading after the threat was issued, though it was unclear how much that could be attributed to investors’ concern that confrontation in the Persian Gulf could disrupt oil flows.
The new punitive measures, part of a bill financing the military, would significantly escalate American sanctions against Iran. They come just a month and a half after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report that for the first time laid out its evidence that Iran may be secretly working to design a nuclear warhead, despite the country’s repeated denials.
In the wake of the I.A.E.A. report and a November attack on the British Embassy in Tehran, the European Union is also contemplating strict new sanctions, such as an embargo on Iranian oil.
For five years, the United States has implemented increasingly severe sanctions in an attempt to force Iran’s leaders to reconsider the suspected nuclear weapons program, and answer a growing list of questions from the I.A.E.A. But it has deliberately stopped short of targeting oil exports, which finance as much as half of Iran’s budget.
Now, with its hand forced by Congress, the administration is preparing to take that final step, penalizing foreign corporations that do business with Iran’s central bank, which collects payment for most of the country’s energy exports.
The sanction would effectively make it difficult for those who do business with Iran’s central bank to also conduct financial transactions with the United States. The step was so severe that one of President Obama’s top national security aides said two months ago that it was “a last resort.” The administration raced to put some loopholes in the final legislation so that it could reduce the impact on close allies who have signed on to pressuring Iran.
The legislation allows President Obama to waive sanctions if they cause the price of oil to rise or threaten national security.
Still, the new sanctions raise crucial economic, diplomatic, and security questions. Mr. Obama, his aides acknowledge, has no interest in seeing energy prices rise significantly at a moment of national economic weakness or as he intensifies his bid for re-election — a vulnerability the Iranians fully understand. So the administration has to defy, or at least carefully calibrate, the laws of supply and demand, bringing to market new sources of oil to ensure that global prices do not rise sharply.
“I don’t think anybody thinks we can contravene the laws of supply and demand any more than we can contravene the laws of gravity,” said David S. Cohen, who, as treasury under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, oversees the administration of the sanctions. But, he said, “We have flexibility here, and I think we have a pretty good opportunity to dial this in just the right way that it does end up putting significant pressure on Iran.”
The American effort, as described by Mr. Cohen and others, is more subtle than simply cutting off Iran’s ability to export oil, a step that would immediately send the price of gasoline, heating fuel, and other petroleum products skyward. That would “mean that Iran would, in fact, have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less,” Wendy R. Sherman, the newly installed under secretary of state for political affairs, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month.
Instead, the administration’s aim is to reduce Iran’s oil revenue by diminishing the volume of sales and forcing Iran to give its customers a discount on the price of crude.
Some economists question whether reducing Iran’s oil exports without moving the price of oil is feasible, even if the market is given signals about alternative supplies. Already, analysts at investment banks are warning of the possibility of rising gasoline prices in 2012, due to the new sanctions by the United States as well as complementary sanctions under consideration by the European Union.
Since President Obama’s first months in office, his aides have been talking to Saudi Arabia and other oil suppliers about increasing their production, and about guaranteeing sales to countries like China, which is among Iran’s biggest customers. But it is unclear that the Saudis can fill in the gap left by Iran, even with the help of Libyan oil that is coming back on the market. The United States is also looking to countries like Iraq and Angola to increase production.
Daniel Yergin, whose new book, “The Quest,” describes the oil politics of dealing with states like Iran, noted in an interview that “given the relative tightness of the market, it will require careful construction of the sanctions combined with vigorous efforts to bring alternative supplies into the market.” He said that it would “add a whole new dimension to the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline,” the oil pipeline from Canada to the United States that the administration has sought to delay.
“The only strategy that is going to work here is one where you get the cooperation of oil buyers,” said Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “You could imagine the Europeans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans cooperating, and then China would suck up all of the oil that was initially going to everyone else.”
A broader question is whether the sanctions — even if successful at lowering Iran’s oil revenue — would force the government to give up its nuclear ambitions.
One measure of the effects, however, is that the Iranian leadership is clearly concerned. Already the Iranian currency is plummeting in value against the dollar, and there are rumors of bank runs.
“Iran’s economic problems seem to be mounting and the whole economy is in a state of suspended expectation,” said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University. “The regime keeps repeating that they’re not going to be impacted by the sanctions. That they have more money than they know what to do with. The lady doth protest too much.”
by Ben D » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:32 am
America warns Iran that blocking oil route will 'not be tolerated'
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 December 2011 18.35 GMT
Paul Harris in New York
Tensions mount between US and Iran as Fifth Fleet warns that any attempt to block Strait of Hormuz will elicit naval response
Iranian navy soldiers take part in a military exercise in the Strait of Homruz on Wednesday Photograph: Ali Mohammadi/EPA
Tensions between the United States and Iran have dangerously ratcheted up as naval officials with America's Fifth Fleet warned any attempt by Iran to close a strategically vital oil route through the Strait of Hormuz would "not be tolerated".
The news heightens a sense of growing crisis in the Persian Gulf after two days of threats by senior Iranian figures that they might shut down the important trade route in response to any future international sanctions against the country's oil exports.
"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated," US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt Rebecca Rebarich told the Associated Press. She added that the US Navy was "...always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."
The Fifth Fleet is based in the tiny Gulf state of Bahrain and commands a huge flotilla of American naval might, including air craft carriers.
That US response came shortly after the head of the Iranian Navy warned that the country could easily close the Strait of Hormuz if it desired to do so.
"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces... it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told the state-run Press TV channel. However, he did add that Iran currently had no plans to carry out the act.
U.S. aircraft carrier 'spotted' in Iran wargames zone
December 29, 2011 08:47 AM (Last updated: December 29, 2011 11:32 AM)
TEHRAN: A U.S. aircraft carrier entered a zone near the Strait of Hormuz being used by the Iranian navy for war games, an Iranian official said Thursday amid rising tensions over the key oil-transit channel.
"A US aircraft carrier was spotted inside the maneuver zone... by a navy reconnaissance aircraft," Commodore Mahmoud Mousavi, the spokesman for the Iranian exercises, told the official IRNA news agency.
The Iranian aircraft took video and photos of the U.S. vessel, he added.
The U.S. aircraft carrier was believed to the USS John C. Stennis, one of the US navy's biggest warships.
U.S. officials announced Wednesday that the ship and its accompanying battle group moved through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch at the entrance to the Gulf that is the world's most important choke point for oil shipments.
by seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:56 pm
U.S. Seals $30 Billion Deal to Sell Fighter Jets to Saudi Arabia
By NATHAN HODGE And CAROL E. LEE
The Obama administration said it has reached a $30 billion agreement to sell advanced fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia, part of a broader push by Washington to counter Iranian power.
The government-to-government deal announced on Thursday includes the sale of 84 new F-15 fighter jets and an upgrade of 70 others.
The package, which follows more than a year of discussions, comes amid escalating tensions between Iran and the U.S., and will help beef up the military of one of Washington's principal Middle East allies.
"This agreement reinforces the strong and enduring relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a strong Saudi defense capability as a key component to regional security," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
The White House also cast the agreement as one that would help give a lift to the U.S. economy, saying it would generate more than 50,000 manufacturing and supplier jobs in 44 states. The F-15s are manufactured by Boeing Co. in St. Louis.
Dennis Muilenburg, head of Boeing's defense segment, said in an interview the sale was a very important deal that reinforced the company's strategy of expanding international sales.
Boeing has set a target of making international business account for around 25% or 30% of defense segment revenues, up from a 7% share around five years ago.
"We're well on our way of achieving that" with the Saudi deal, Mr. Muilenburg said.
Boeing said the deal would create jobs in Saudi Arabia as well as in the U.S. Mr. Muilenburg said the sale would include Saudi industrial participation, including parts assembly and manufacturing at a facility in Riyadh.
Sales of advanced U.S. military equipment to allies in the Middle East have been a concern for Israel, which is keen to preserve its military edge.
U.S. officials have sought to reassure Israel that the fighter deal would benefit Israel's security by bolstering moderate allies in the Gulf.
The fighter sale "will not have an impact on Israel's qualitative military edge," said Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro in Washington.
"We did not gin up a package in response to current events in the region," he said, pointing out that Congress had received formal notification of the deal.
The Obama administration informed Congress last year of a plan to sell Saudi Arabia up to $60 billion in new weaponry, including the F-15s. While some lawmakers expressed reservations about the proposal, Congress didn't move to block the deal.
The Israeli Embassy in Washington didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
U.S. officials have said the F-15s would be highly capable aircraft, comparable to the F-15s operated by South Korea and Singapore.
The new and upgraded fighters would be Saudi Arabia's "most capable and versatile aircraft" and could carry a range of precision-guided weapons and air-to-air missiles, said James Miller, U.S. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.
The first of the new aircraft are expected to be delivered around 2015.
Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Israeli military's concerns about Iran outweighed the potential risks Israel might perceive from Saudi Arabia or other Arab states acquiring improved military hardware.
"It's not as if it came as a surprise to anyone in Israel," he said.
by seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:36 pm
Report: Israel, US Discuss Excuses for Attacking Iran
Israeli Hawks 'Furious' at Panetta for Comments on War
A report today is claiming that the Obama Administration is in secret talks with the Israeli government to figure out exactly what would constitute a good excuse for launching an attack on Iran.
The talks came after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made comments suggesting that attacking Iran is something that the US and Israel “would regret,” apparently causing many top Israeli officials to react furiously and for Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren to file an official complaint with the Obama Administration.
Panetta followed up the speech with much more hawkish ones, apparently aimed at publicly placating Israel, but behind the scenes the administration has been seeking to clarify what exactly counts as a “red line” that would give the US and Israel the excuse to launch an attack.
Officially, of course, both sides would insist such an attack was about Iran’s nuclear program. But since both nations have been claiming Iran is within striking distance of acquiring nuclear weapons since the mid-1980s, the excuse isn’t going to really fly internationally, so both nations are hoping to settle on something which could be the “trigger” for the attack.
by tron » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:34 pm
by seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:42 pm
U.S. in $3.5 billion arms sale to UAE amid Iran tensions
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42am EST
(Reuters) - The United States has signed a $3.5 billion sale of an advanced antimissile interception system to the United Arab Emirates, part of an accelerating military buildup of its friends and allies near Iran.
The deal, signed on December 25 and announced on Friday night by the U.S. Defense Department, "is an important step in improving the region's security through a regional missile defense architecture," Pentagon press secretary George Little said in a statement.
The U.S. Congress had been notified of the proposed sale in September 2008 by former President George W. Bush's administration. At that time, the system built by Lockheed Martin Corp had been projected to involve more missiles, more "fire control" units, more radar sets, all at a cost roughly twice as much to UAE.
It marks the first foreign sale of the so-called Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), the only system designed to destroy short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles both inside and outside the Earth's atmosphere.
The United States, under the government-to-government deal, will deliver two THAAD batteries, 96 missiles, two Raytheon Co AN/TPY-2 radars plus 30 years of spare parts, support and training with contractor logistics support to the UAE, Little said.
"Acquisition of this critical defense system will bolster the UAE's air and missile defense capability and enhance the already robust ballistic missile defense cooperation between the United States and the UAE," he said.
Lockheed Martin did not immediately respond to a request for its delivery timetable for THAAD, part of a layered bulwark being built by the Obama administration in Europe and the Middle East against Iran's growing missile capabilities.
IRAN TENSIONS
UAE lies across the Gulf from Iran. The announcement of its purchase underlined rising tensions since a November 8 report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog that Iran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end.
Iran delayed promised long-range missile tests in the Gulf on Saturday and signaled it was ready for fresh talks on its disputed nuclear program.
Tehran on Tuesday threatened to stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz if it became the target of an oil embargo over its nuclear ambitions.
The THAAD follows a $1.7 billion direct commercial contract this year to upgrade Saudi Arabia's Patriot antimissile missiles, and a sale this year of 209 advanced Patriot missiles to Kuwait, valued at roughly $900 million, the Defense Department said.
On Thursday, the Obama administration announced it had sealed a deal on December 24 to sell $29.4 billion in advanced Boeing Co F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, the priciest single U.S. arms sale yet.
The Saudi sale involves 84 new F-15SA models to be delivered starting in 2015 plus upgrades to 70 F-15s already in the Saudi fleet and new munitions. Congress had been notified of that deal in October 2010.
The ongoing U.S. buildup of Saudi Arabia as a counterweight to Iran is projected to total as much as $60 billion over 10 to 15 years, including the F-15s, three types of helicopters and advanced missiles, bombs and other hardware and services.
Saudi Arabia was the biggest buyer of U.S. arms from January 1, 2007 through the end of 2010, with signed agreements totaling $13.8 billion, followed by the United Arab Emirates, with $10.4 billion, according to a December 15 report by Congressional Research Service analyst Richard Grimmett.
In another pending arms sale to the region, the Obama administration formally proposed in November to sell 600 "bunker buster" bombs and other munitions to UAE in an estimated $304 million package to counter what the Pentagon called current and future regional threats.
Israel, the closest U.S. regional partner, is also being built up. It is to get Lockheed Martin's new radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, the first country in the region that will fly it. Israel views Iran's nuclear program as a threat to its existence.
Dennis Cavin, a Lockheed vice president for missile defense programs, told Reuters in August that, in scaling back their planned THAAD purchase, UAE officials had identified some elements "that they think they can do without right now."
Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, is being awarded an initial U.S. government contract worth up to $1.96 billion for the two THAAD batteries under the government-to-government sale to UAE, the Defense Department said in its contract digest on Friday. It said the work was to be carried out through June 30, 2016.
Raytheon's related deal is valued at up to $582.5 million for radars and services, with details expected to be finalized in June 2012, the digest said. It said Raytheon also was getting a Pentagon deal worth up to $363.9 million to start building two more AN/TPY-2 radar sets.
Lockheed Martin is pleased that the U.S. government and the United Arab Emirates have reached an agreement on the first foreign sale of the THAAD weapon system, Tom McGrath, a company vice president and program manager, said in a release.
"We look forward to working with our customers to deliver this important capability," he said.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests