...
It's clear the Obama administration wants to avoid confrontation with Iran.
It's clear a Romney administration wants the opposite.
I love the half past human.
...
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Hammer of Los » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:26 am
by seemslikeadream » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:19 pm
Published on Sunday, November 11, 2012 by Common Dreams
Is Netanyahu Planning Nuclear Attack on Iran?
- Common Dreams staff
The Sunday Times of London is reporting that 'Rivals fear Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu is plotting nuclear strike on Iran.'
Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz unveiling his party’s campaign slogan at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Thursday. His campaign poster says “Bibi will endanger Israel” over the image of a mushroom cloud. (Photo/Yaron Brenner)
Netanyahu thinks ballistic missiles carrying tactical nuclear warheads will be necessary to take out Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. The site is buried deep beneath a mountain.
Western sources say Israel firing a Jericho-3 missile carrying a tactical nuclear warhead would be "sufficient to 'bury' the plant." The United States is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons thus far.
From The Sunday Times:
Well aware of the hostile international response to even the suggestion of a nuclear attack, the option is not being debated publicly. But last week it was referred to indirectly by Shaul Mofaz, head of the Kadima party and leader of the opposition.
For some time Mr Mofaz, 64, a former defense minister and one of the few Israeli politicians privy to the country’s nuclear secrets, has believed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing a dangerous game.
Mr Mofaz shocked many Israelis last week when during a press conference he unveiled a poster showing a red mushroom cloud with the slogan: “Bibi will endanger Israel.”
Most Israelis assumed the poster referred to the Iranian threat. But its message may have been more subtle, hinting at an argument that Mr Mofaz cannot articulate in public: that he believes Mr Netanyahu could be considering a nuclear option.
Mr Netanyahu signaled in a television interview last week that he was prepared to strike Iran without the support of the US. “When David Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the state of Israel, was it done with American approval?” he asked.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:26 am
Brinkmanship over Iran Tensions
November 12, 2012
Like a decade ago with Iraq, the Washington press corps today is hyping every dubious incident that raises tensions with Iran, such as shots fired at an unmanned U.S. drone off Iran’s coast. Downplayed are the endless Israeli threats to bomb Iran, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains.
By Paul R. Pillar
Recent reports that in 2010 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the Israeli military to increase its readiness level in anticipation of war with Iran appeared to leave some unanswered questions.
Since none of us who do not have Israeli military manuals on our shelves know exactly what level “P-plus” means, it is hard to adjudicate the reported disagreement between Israeli military chiefs, who resisted the order on grounds that it could precipitate a war, and Netanyahu and Barak, who reportedly assured them that it would not.
A Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, better known as a drone. (Photo credit: U.S. Defense Department)
A subsequent analysis by Israeli journalist Yossi Melman helps to clear matters up. Melman explains: “The truth is that Netanyahu and Barak did not order the military to plan a direct, all-out attack on Iran. Their true intention was to trigger a chain of events which would create tension and provoke Iran, and eventually could have led to a war that might drag in the United States.”
The Israeli military’s chief of staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi, warned Netanyahu and Barak that what they were ordering could “create uncontrollable facts on the ground” that would touch off an unwanted war. “If you open and press an accordion, the instrument starts playing music,” is the way Ashkenazi put it. The understandable worry among the generals was about a 1914-style situation in which the responses and fears engendered by mobilization measures lead to a war that nobody had specifically chosen in the first place.
Netanyahu surely is smart enough to understand these dangers. The incident highlights a game he is playing; to stoke tensions with Iran sufficiently that the United States may be ensnared in a war that it does not want — but in which once war breaks out, the United States would do Israel’s dirty work by inflicting more destruction on Iran than Israel could inflict on its own.
The timing of the incident underscores another purpose of Netanyahu’s tension-stoking brinksmanship: to divert attention from continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and inaction on the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He issued his order about the same time, in the late summer of 2010, that President Obama was making an ultimately unsuccessful attempt at getting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks restarted.
Netanyahu’s efforts to precipitate an unwanted war are made all the more worrisome by an incident a couple of weeks ago off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf. A U.S. Predator drone was met by two Iranian SU-25 fighters that fired some shots in the vicinity of the drone but did not hit it. According to the Pentagon, at the time of the encounter the drone was 16 nautical miles off the Iranian coast, four more that the 12-mile territorial waters. An Iranian military spokesman confirmed that the incident occurred and said Iran would defend its territory.
It has not been established, and the Iranians did not explicitly say, whether the intent of the shots was to issue a warning or whether they were aimed at the drone but missed. The Pentagon sought to downplay the difference. Suffice it to note that in terms of the capabilities of the equipment the slow-flying Predator would be no match for SU-25s, even though the latter are designed primarily for ground-attack missions rather than air-to-air combat.
Any firing of live ammunition over international waters is serious business, but to understand the Iranian perspective do a little role reversal. Imagine that Iran was flying aircraft within 16 miles of the U.S. coast. Imagine the Iranians were doing this with aircraft that can be armed as well as perform reconnaissance, and that not long ago one of these aircraft came down on U.S. soil. And imagine that this was all happening amid endless talk in Iran about possibly launching an armed attack on the U.S. homeland.
The screams in Congress and elsewhere to do something about this threat are not at all hard to imagine. Given how much talk we hear about preemption, there would surely be demands to do something more forceful than just to fire warning shots, international waters or no international waters.
And yet the encounter off the Iranian coast is now being added to the litany of things cited to show that Iran supposedly is a dangerously aggressive regime that must be stopped. Such an interpretation evokes memories of another sequence of events leading to war in the past, this time not in 1914 but instead 50 years later, in 1964. Purported North Vietnamese aggressiveness against U.S. military assets in the Gulf of Tonkin was taken as a sign that the Vietnamese communists needed to be stopped.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the trigger for a congressional resolution authorizing what became the Vietnam War, and the rest is history. As with the recent incident over the Persian Gulf, no shots hit any American assets in the encounter in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the alleged attack that was the focus of the war resolution probably never occurred.
The difference between a 12-mile territorial limit and a flight path that is 16 miles from a coast is an awfully thin margin on which to rest the avoidance of war. To put that margin in perspective, an SU-25 flying nearly at top speed could traverse the four-mile difference in about 30 seconds. It is hard enough as it is to avoid accidentally stumbling into war under such conditions. It is harder still when the prime minister of Israel is doing what he can to help make accidents happen.
by gnosticheresy_2 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:22 pm
Navy to briefly reduce carriers in Persian Gulf
AP National Security Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy says it will temporarily shrink its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf area from two to one this winter because of a mechanical problem with the USS Nimitz, a carrier based in Bremerton, Wash.
Navy officials said Wednesday the Nimitz, which had been scheduled to deploy to the region in January to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, will put that off until summer in order to complete repairs to its propulsion system.
As a result, the Navy decided to bring the Eisenhower home in December and resurface its flight deck so it can go back to the Gulf area in February and remain for four months. That means that in December and January the USS John C. Stennis will be the only carrier in that area.
Is Israel's Gaza Campaign Laying the Groundwork for an Attack on Iran?
By Moran Stern
A close observation of the recent developments in Gaza might reveal broader implications for the region: Israel's operation Amud Anan ("Pillar of Cloud") in Gaza could be preparation for an Israeli strike on Iran.
The story begins late October when a mysterious blast destroyed the Sudanese military base Yarmouk on the outskirts of the capital, Khartoum. The Yarmouk was a base camp to receive arms shipments from Iran and stolen weapons from Libya that were smuggled continentally to Hamas and the Iranian terror proxy in Gaza, Islamic Jihad. The Sudanese authorities hurried to accuse Israel, which remained silent. Satellite images of the site indicate that the bombing of Yarmouk was executed from the air. As The Atlantic reported at the time, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) is the only one in the region with the capabilities to execute such a strike.
The immediate impact of the Yarmouk's destruction on Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza were the cutting of a planned shipment of additional arms, primarily the Iranian-made Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 artillery rockets that can cover a range of approximately 47 miles and easily reach Tel Aviv. These are the exact rockets that Hamas has recently launched at the vicinities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
The operation in Sudan, assuming that it was an Israeli one, sent two clear messages to Tehran: First, that the Israeli intelligence follows Iran's whereabouts in the region, even deep into Africa. Second, that if the IAF can safely reach and destroy a target some 1,120 miles from Israel, it can make the 1000 miles journey to Iran's nuclear facilities. To be sure, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be infinitely more complex than the Yarmouk operation. But it can be interpreted as a possible rehearsal for a long distance strike similar to one that would be required to attack on Iran.
Operation Pillar of Cloud is not aimed at destroying the Hamas regime in Gaza, but rather at paralyzing it militarily. Aside from the immediate respite it would provide southern Israel from rocket fire, this would also ensure that Hamas and Islamic Jihad stay out of the conflict in case Israel strikes Iran. It undermined Hamas's command structure by starting its operation this month with the assassination Ahmad Jabari, chief of Hamas's armed forces. Shortly after, the IAF destroyed most of Hamas' Fajr missiles. With both the Yarmouk facility and most of the Fajr missiles eliminated, Israel has severely limited the capability of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to fire beyond southern Israel and threaten high population concentrations around Tel Aviv.
Regardless of the damage Israel inflicts on Hamas, the movement's leaders will portray their resilience as a victory. But it will take Hamas and Islamic Jihad some time to regroup and restock their long-range missiles inventory, making it almost impossible for them to engage in a second round of intense fire in the near future. Though this may seem like a short- or medium-term achievement for Israel, it does provide important breathing room for an imminent operation against Iran.
Beyond neutralizing Hamas, the current operation is helpful in other ways in preparing for an Iran attack. If Israel were to attack Iran, the likelihood of a direct Iranian or a combined Iranian-Hezbollah response against Israeli cities is high. The heavy exchange of fire with Gaza is an excellent opportunity for the Israeli authorities to examine the preparedness of its home front, emergency infrastructure, defensive military capabilities, and Hezbollah's response. Immediately after the Thursday attack near Tel Aviv, many Israelis have begun preparing their shelters in case the fight escalates.
Psychologically, the longer the fire continues, the broader the media coverage will be, the more alert the Israeli public becomes. A responsive public, who closely follows the instructions of the home front authorities, is an utmost important element in minimizing the number of potential victims in case of an Iranian strike. Militarily, a large scale operation enables the Israeli forces to examine the coordination between the different units as well as the capabilities of its air defense system, the Iron Dome. And, as of now, aside from a declaration of support to Hamas, Hezbollah has refrained from joining the fray. While it is difficult to imagine that Israel launched its current offensive primarily to gauge these factors as a test-run for an attack on Iran, it certainly provides important ancillary benefits toward that end.
The heavy fire on southern Israel and Tel Aviv strengthens Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak's argument that possibility of terror from Gaza backed by a nuclear Iran demonstrates the urgency of stopping the latter's nuclear program. Israel actions also send a strong message to the reelected President Barack Obama: Israel is ready to act against its enemies and to bear the consequences. If the United States dithers in dealing with Iran, Israel will not hesitate to take action unilaterally.
Not overlooking the immediate threat of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Israel's security, the Israeli operation in Gaza may also be preparing the ground for a more ambitious goal: Iran. By the time the current round of violence ends, the Israeli general elections will be just around the corner. With a smooth victory for Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish bloc and a relaxed southern front, the path to Tehran will be as open as ever.
by Ben D » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:19 pm
Drone Iran Captured Appears to Be U.S.-Made, Pentagon Says
Bloomfield By Tony Capaccio & Ladane Nasseri - Dec 6, 2012 8:35 AM GMT+1000
The drone Iran says it captured appears to be a U.S.-made Scan Eagle, Pentagon spokesman George Little said, in a change from the initial U.S. rejection of the Iranian claim.
While Iran said it extracted valuable data from the unmanned aerial vehicle, Little told reporters yesterday that it was “highly improbable” that useful intelligence could be gained from the relatively unsophisticated drone. He said it couldn’t be determined if it was operated by the U.S.
The ScanEagle, made by Boeing Co. (BA), is used by a number of countries and is less advanced than other unmanned aircraft employed by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, such as the Global Hawk and Predator.
Iran said its capture of the drone proves the Persian Gulf nation can protect itself from foreign aggression. The drone’s mission was to “gather military data and information pertaining to the energy sector and shipment of crude from Iran’s oil terminals,” Brigadier General Ramezan Sharif, head of the public relations department of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in a report published yesterday in the Tehran-based Etemaad newspaper.
The state-run Press TV news channel showed images yesterday of what it said was a ScanEagle drone that had been captured intact. The aircraft was seized after violating the Islamic Republic’s airspace, Iranian officials said.
The ScanEagle weighs 40 pounds (18 kilograms) and has a 10-foot (3-meter) wingspan. The system carries cameras and is used “individually or in groups to loiter over trouble spots and provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data,” according to Boeing’s website. Source: Boeing Co.
by seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:44 pm
The Path To War
By Massimo Calabresi Monday, Mar. 11, 2013
One year ago, Barack Obama convened his National Security Council in the Situation Room in the basement of the West Wing to talk about war with Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was publicly threatening to attack Iranian nuclear sites. If Netanyahu went ahead, the U.S. could be dragged into a war on Israel's terms, long before options to avoid conflict had been exhausted. Under fire from Republicans for being a fair-weather friend to Israel, Obama had scheduled a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and an interview with an American reporter widely read in Israel. The question in the Situation Room that day: What would happen if Obama publicly committed to a war to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Obama had never made such a promise in public, and he thought it would help persuade Netanyahu to step back from the brink. But by speaking out, he would be putting the U.S.'s credibility on the line in the global effort to prevent Tehran from getting a weapon. If he promised to go to war and didn't follow through, other nations in the region, distrusting American assurances of protection, would start their own nuclear programs. Obama said that he was aware of the risk but that he wanted to draw the line in public anyway. On March 4, 2012, Obama told the AIPAC crowd, "I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests." In his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, he said, "As President of the United States, I don't bluff."
One year later, Iran has yet to call it. Even as Obama has committed to using military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he has worked hard to avoid war. Attacking Iran's nuclear sites could cost American military and civilian lives, set off a wave of terrorist attacks, spike oil prices and sour the U.S.'s relations with Muslims worldwide. So Obama has tried to slow or derail the Iranian program through a combination of diplomacy, sanctions and covert action. He has succeeded in pushing the timeline for war back at least 12 months.
But eventually time will run out. As talks among Iran, the U.S. and other international powers ended inconclusively on Feb. 27, even optimists said Obama's promise will be put to the test in his second term. The Pentagon has launched the largest buildup of forces in the Gulf since the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, and Iran has boosted security around its nuclear sites and is reportedly handing out shoulder-launched missiles capable of downing civilian airliners to loosely allied terrorist groups in the region. Senior congressional Republicans say they are expecting to be briefed soon on the options and consequences of a U.S. strike.
In the mythology of the American presidency, a Commander in Chief makes tough decisions once, unreservedly, and then acts. Just as often, though, a President acts to avoid tough decisions and then works behind the scenes to steer events, persuade friends and enemies and avoid no-win choices. As the dangerous, complicated drama involving the U.S., Iran and Israel enters its final chapters, Obama will soon face the hardest decision of his presidency. This is the story of how he got here.
The End of Containment
Secretary of defense Robert Gates had spent the last two years of George W. Bush's presidency cleaning up the mess of a poorly planned war in Iraq; he wasn't going to watch the U.S. stumble into a war in Iran unprepared. So in January 2010, he sent a secret three-page memo to the National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones, that would transform the Obama team's thinking and planning on Iran.
For the previous year, Obama had been delivering on his dovish campaign pledge to reach out to the regime in Tehran. He beamed in a conciliatory greeting to the entire country on the Persian New Year and had offered unconditional talks. In Cairo that June, he offered to let Iran keep a peaceful nuclear program. But Iran's leaders rebuffed Obama's efforts, and in the fall of 2009 the Obama Administration revealed that Iran was building a secret uranium-enrichment plant deep in a hillside outside the holy city of Qum.
Shortly thereafter, Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, threatened to attack Iran. In private to the Pentagon and the White House, Barak argued even more "aggressively that Israel had to strike," says a former senior Administration official. Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had threatened Israel; allowing him to get the means to destroy it was unacceptable, Barak and other Israeli leaders argued. Late in the year, the Obama Administration began increasing threats of military force and economic sanctions. At the same time, mysterious cyberattacks began damaging the Iranian nuclear facilities.
But Gates, who had worked for every President since Jimmy Carter, was nearly as alarmed by Washington's lack of readiness as by the bluster coming from Jerusalem and Tehran. He thought the Obama Administration had not sufficiently planned for a war against Iran and worried that Israel was drawing the U.S. into one unprepared. In his secret memo to Jones, the detailed contents of which have not previously been reported, Gates asked hard questions: Was the U.S. goal to keep Iran from getting a weapon or to prevent it from having the capability to get a weapon? What would an Israeli strike mean for the U.S., and how could the Administration keep Israel from acting? Was the U.S. ready not just to attack but also to defend itself and its allies in case of a war? Most controversial, Gates asked whether the U.S. might be willing to deter and contain Iran if it got a nuke, rather than launch a war to damage its program.
No one at the White House had ready answers to Gates' questions. But the memo quickly became the table of contents for the Administration's Iran strategy. Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon set up working groups to plan for diplomacy, covert action, sanctions and military preparedness. Immediately, Obama's team split over whether a nuclear Iran could be contained or should be attacked.
"There was a debate within the Administration over prevention vs. containment," says Dennis Ross, Obama's top Middle East adviser at the time. Those in favor of planning for containment, led by Gates, argued that another conflict in the region would hurt the U.S., according to senior officials who participated in the discussions. The U.S. had lived with nuclear adversaries before, this side argued, and its vastly superior nuclear force could deter Iran from using its nuclear weapons. Most of all, an attack would set Iran back only a few years, strengthen support for the mullahs' regime at home and fracture international opposition to it abroad.
On the other side, several top Obama aides, including Ross, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CIA chief Leon Panetta, argued that containment wouldn't work. Iran's regional enemies, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, would not accept American assurances of protection against a nuclear-armed Iran and would pursue their own nukes; Saudi Arabia could get them directly from Pakistan, a close ally. The dynamics of Cold War containment, wherein a "balance of terror" kept the peace between the U.S. and Russia, wouldn't apply in the Middle East, the interventionists argued. "You're in a region where conflict is the norm, not the exception, where everybody's going to feel they have to have a finger on the trigger and where no one feels they can afford to strike second," says Ross.
The most compelling argument for Obama, the former law professor, was that a nuclear Iran would spell the end of the international regime limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. Obama had written about the regime in college and had made denuclearization his primary focus in the Senate. He made bolstering the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a top priority in his first two years as President, and in his second term, Obama is planning to dispatch top aides to negotiate a large nuclear-warhead reduction with Russia.
The debates continued in the Oval Office, with only the President, Donilon, Gates and Clinton present. Clinton argued against containment; Gates advised the President to keep containment as an option, a senior official familiar with the discussions says. "Gates did not want Iran to have the Bomb and was in favor of exerting far greater pressure on the Iranians," Ross says. "But he was against the use of force if all other means failed." Clinton and Gates declined to be interviewed for this story. A former Gates adviser who remains close to him says, "In the 4* years he was Secretary of Defense, Gates never advocated containment, nor did he ever advocate taking the military option off the table. Indeed, at his urging and with the President's approval, the Pentagon took a number of steps to be better prepared to implement the military option if required."
Aides now say Obama was always against containment. But Ross says it took much longer for him to decide. "The President took his time making a decision on this, as he should," Ross recalls. Even as Gates continued to press his case, the Administration quietly accelerated its planning for war.
The Covert Campaign
Then Obama caught some breaks. in June 2010, Iran admitted that a cleverly designed computer virus, which came to be known as Stuxnet, had infected the computers controlling its uranium-refining centrifuges. During his presidency, George W. Bush had authorized Operation Olympic Games, a cyberattack designed to cripple Iran's nuclear program. The Stuxnet virus was not only destructive but ingenious. As it commanded the Iranian centrifuges to spin themselves into pieces at high speed, it sent messages to the systems and engineers controlling the machines indicating that they were working properly. The U.S. has not claimed credit, but independent analysts who obtained copies of the virus after it accidentally spread from the Iranian computers to the outside world in 2010 say the virus appears to be the work of an American-Israeli collaboration. Many of the details of Operation Olympic Games were first reported by New York Times reporter David Sanger.
The cyberwar continued. In May 2012, Iran acknowledged that a virus called Flame had infected its computers, turning them into surveillance devices that control microphones and cameras and relay data to the attacker. Another program, called Wiper, erased hard drives at Iran's Oil Ministry last spring. Computer analysts and media reports suggest that the U.S. and Israel are behind the cyberwar.
Iran suffered other setbacks. At least four Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in a string of targeted bombings and shootings since 2010. The U.S. has denied involvement. Israel has not commented.
The other big blow to Iran came from an old-fashioned source: diplomacy. After his failed outreach to Tehran in 2009, Obama managed to rally China and Russia behind tough sanctions at the U.N. in June 2010. Past efforts to apply economic pressure had failed in Iraq, North Korea and elsewhere. This time they really took a bite. From 2010 to 2011, Congress approved measures cutting off much of Iran's banking network from the rest of the world. The bills threatened a boycott of any company or bank that did business with the Islamic Republic's nuclear program or those responsible for it. Most countries, faced with the stark choice of cooperating with either Iran or the U.S., chose the U.S. The business of Iran's blacklisted banks "almost completely dried up," says Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen. Last year sanctions passed by Congress and the European Union helped cut Iran's oil-export market from 20 countries to six and its sales by volume in half. The value of the Iranian currency dropped in half relative to the dollar in 2012. Inflation is at 27.4%.
The Road to War
For all the setbacks, though, Iran has continued to expand its nuclear program. In February it announced it was installing new, high-efficiency centrifuges at one nuclear facility. Ahead of recent talks in Kazakhstan, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, gave a rallying speech to the Iranian Air Force, which would be hard hit in any U.S. attack. "Negotiations with America will not solve any problems," Khamenei declared. At this point, few in the West would disagree with that.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage once defined diplomacy as "saying 'Nice doggy, nice doggy' until you can find a stick." Through luck and hard work, Obama has bought time for a massive buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf. General James Mattis, chief of U.S. Central Command, began accelerating the U.S. military increase in the Gulf a year ago. In April, the Air Force deployed a squadron of F-22 stealth fighters to a base in the United Arab Emirates. The U.S. Navy has doubled the number of its minesweeping ships from four to eight and of its patrol boats from five to 10 in the past two years. It has deployed combat search-and-rescue helicopters, unmanned minesweeping submarines and high-tech surveillance systems. Most threatening, it dispatched to the Persian Gulf a second aircraft-carrier battle group that had been destined for the Pacific.
The U.S. is also building up other forces in the region. In early 2012, it expanded a military base in Kuwait, stationing two Army infantry brigades, or 15,000 troops, there. That is still a token force, but the U.S. is pre-positioning covert and special-operations capabilities and beefing up facility defenses. It has been operating a drone base out of Saudi Arabia. In July 2012, it deployed the U.S.S. Ponce, a converted transport ship that can serve as a floating special-operations base, complete with helicopter pads and several hundred bunk beds. It has delivered long-range X-band missile-defense radars to Israel and Turkey and has reached an agreement with Qatar to deploy a system there too. The U.S. has reportedly asked the U.K. for access to bases on Cyprus, Diego Garcia and Ascension Island for use in an attack on Iran.
Iran, too, has taken preparatory actions, erecting new perimeter fences around its underground enrichment plant at Qum. It recently launched its own cyberattack against the Saudi national oil company, Aramco, and has collaborated with Hizballah in Syria during its unrest. Yemeni officials recently claimed that Iran has been providing non--state actors in Yemen with shoulder-launched missiles capable of taking down commercial airliners. In total, the Gulf has seen in two years the largest military buildup since March 2003.
Netanyahu, who faces new political challenges at home, has rolled Israel's deadline back to late spring or early summer, and recent reports say Israeli intelligence thinks Tehran may be on an even longer fuse. The well-regarded U.S. think tank the Institute for Science and International Security says the earliest Iran could get the Bomb is mid-2014. Experts credit the cyberattacks with significantly setting back Iran's nuclear program. And Iran itself has slowed down its efforts, converting some enriched uranium to a form that can be used only in research, not in weapons, thereby keeping its total enriched uranium under the amount needed to make a nuclear weapon. To make up for the drop in Iranian oil exports and a possible rise in crude prices, Saudi Arabia has stepped up production.
If both sides seem to be wishing for peace even as they threaten war, it's because the costs of conflict would be so high. An overt U.S. attack to set back Iran's nuclear program would likely mean the deaths of American service members--and civilians too, if Iranian-backed terrorist groups downed commercial airliners or launched other attacks against soft targets. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the cost of open war to the world economy could be $1 trillion to $1.7 trillion, when spiking energy prices and trade disruptions are factored in. And war could wipe out the years of post-Iraq diplomatic repair work to the U.S.'s reputation. For Iran, a full-fledged American attack could mean the devastation of its nuclear program and much of its armed forces, plus unimaginable costs to its economy. And still it might not give up its nuclear ambition. Little in the latest round of talks changed that assessment. Secretary of State John Kerry, on his first trip abroad, warned that the failure of diplomacy could have "terrible consequences."
He, like every current and former official interviewed for this story, believes Obama will resort to war if necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But only Obama knows for sure. In his AIPAC speech last year, after ruling out containment, Obama said, "I have sent men and women into harm's way. I've seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who've come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don't make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency." One way or the other, as a former senior official says of the coming year, "we are entering the final stages of this drama."
by seemslikeadream » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:18 am
Senators Push Resolution Committing US to Aid Israel in Attack on Iran
If Israel attacks Iran in 'self-defense,' the resolution declares, the US must provide diplomatic, military, and economic support
by John Glaser, February 28, 2013
Print This | Share This
A bipartisan group of US senators is pushing a resolution declaring that if Israel attacks Iran “in self-defense,” the United States will join in the military assault on Israel’s behalf.
The chief sponsors of the resolution are Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Graham said the resolution will be non-binding and is neither a declaration of war nor an authorization to use military force. Non-binding resolutions are supposed to express the sentiment of Congress, as opposed to actually legislate policy. This one seems tied to placating the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which holds its annual conference in DC this weekend.
Leaving aside the fact that under no reasonable definition of “self-defense” could Israel conceivably justify an attack on Iran, the resolution is both an illustration of Congress’s fealty to Israel, as well as their aggressiveness towards Iran.
The consensus in the US intelligence community, as articulated repeatedly by officials in the highest echelons of the US government for years now, is that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program and has not made the decision to go for nuclear weapons. Iran has done nothing to threaten, rhetorically or militarily, the United States, despite the fact that Washington has had Iran militarily surrounded for the past decade.
If Iran had passed a resolution or ruling anywhere close to how threatening the Menendez-Graham measure is, there would be hysterical uproar in Washington over how reckless and belligerent the Islamic Republic is.
“This could have several negative implications,” Alireza Nader of the RAND Corporation told Ali Gharib at The Daily Beast. “First, it could be interpreted as endorsing an Israeli preventive strike against Iran, which runs counter to US strategy. The US intelligence community judges that Iran has not made the political decision to create nuclear weapons. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability is not imminent, hence an Israeli military strike against Iran at this moment is not necessary or justified.”
The resolution “could also send the message, not only to Iran, but also the wider international community, including major powers like China and Russia, that the United States is not serious about solving the nuclear issue peacefully,” Nader also told The Daily Beast.
by JackRiddler » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:40 am
by Spiro C. Thiery » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:42 am
Obama sends holiday message to Iran
In a message sent to "the people and leaders of Iran", the president says the US prefers to resolve the current nuclear crisis diplomaticallyPosted by
Saeed Kamali Dehghan
Monday 18 March 2013 23.06 GMT
President Obama has sent a message to "the people and leaders of Iran" for the Persian new year Nowruz, saying the US prefers to resolve the current crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme "peacefully" and "diplomatically" if the Islamic republic shows commitment.
This Thursday, marking the spring equinox, is the start of the 13-day ancient Zoroastrian festival celebrated as the most important holiday of the Iranian calendar.
"I have had no illusions about the difficulty of overcoming decades of mistrust," he said in a statement issued on Monday. "It will take a serious and sustained effort to resolve the many differences between Iran and the United States."
In his message, the American president has touched on the dispute between Iran and the international community over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme, which he said has isolated the country and made people to pay "a high and unnecessary price."
"As I've said all along, the United States prefers to resolve this matter peacefully, diplomatically. Indeed, if – as Iran's leaders say – their nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, then there is a basis for a practical solution," he said. "It's a solution that would give Iran access to peaceful nuclear energy while resolving once and for all the serious questions that the world has about the true nature of the Iranian nuclear programme."
He added: "The United States, alongside the rest of the international community, is ready to reach such a solution. Now is the time for the Iranian government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce tensions and work toward an enduring, long-term settlement of the nuclear issue."
Obama has also resorted to quoting the ancient Persian poet Hafez, whose verse is widely known in modern Iran, to make his message clear: "Plant the tree of friendship that bears the fruit of fulfillment; uproot the sapling of enmity that bears endless suffering."
Millions of Iranians have been preparing for Nowruz celebrations, which traditionally focus on family visits. Carpets must be washed, furniture polished, tables set with goldfish in bowls and painted eggs and pantries filled with rice, cookies and fruit. Children are given a new set of clothes and rewarded with cash.
Here is president Obama's full Nowruz message:
Dorood. As you and your families come together to celebrate Nowruz, I want to extend my best wishes on this new spring and new year. Around the world, and here in the United States, you are gathering at the Nowruz table — to give thanks for loved ones, reflect on your blessings and welcome all the possibilities of a new season.
As I have every year as President, I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to the people and leaders of Iran. Since taking office, I have offered the Iranian government an opportunity — if it meets its international obligations, then there could be a new relationship between our two countries, and Iran could begin to return to its rightful place among the community of nations.
I have had no illusions about the difficulty of overcoming decades of mistrust. It will take a serious and sustained effort to resolve the many differences between Iran and the United States. This includes the world's serious and growing concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, which threatens peace and security in the region and beyond.
Iran's leaders say that their nuclear programme is for medical research and electricity. To date, however, they have been unable to convince the international community that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. That's why the world is united in its resolve to address this issue and why Iran is now so isolated. The people of Iran have paid a high and unnecessary price because of your leaders' unwillingness to address this issue.
As I've said all along, the United States prefers to resolve this matter peacefully, diplomatically. Indeed, if – as Iran's leaders say – their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, then there is a basis for a practical solution. It's a solution that would give Iran access to peaceful nuclear energy while resolving once and for all the serious questions that the world has about the true nature of the Iranian nuclear programme.
The United States, alongside the rest of the international community, is ready to reach such a solution. Now is the time for the Iranian government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce tensions and work toward an enduring, long-term settlement of the nuclear issue.
Finding a solution will be no easy task. But if we can, the Iranian people will begin to see the benefits of greater trade and ties with other nations, including the United States. Whereas if the Iranian government continues down its current path, it will only further isolate Iran. This is the choice now before Iran's leaders.
I hope they choose a better path — for the sake of the Iranian people and for the sake of the world. Because there's no good reason for Iranians to be denied the opportunities enjoyed by people in other countries, just as Iranians deserve the same freedoms and rights as people everywhere.
Iran's isolation isn't good for the world either. Just as your forbears enriched the arts and sciences throughout history, all nations would benefit from the talents and creativity of the Iranian people, especially your young people. Every day that you are cut off from us is a day we're not working together, building together, innovating together — and building a future of peace and prosperity that is at the heart of this holiday.
As you gather with family and friends this Nowruz, many of you will turn to the poet Hafez who wrote: "Plant the tree of friendship that bears the fruit of fulfillment; uproot the sapling of enmity that bears endless suffering."
As a new spring begins, I remain hopeful that our two countries can move beyond tension. And I will continue to work toward a new day between our nations that bears the fruit of friendship and peace.
Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.
by JackRiddler » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:20 pm
If Israel attacks Iran in 'self-defense,' the resolution declares, the US must provide diplomatic, military, and economic support
SNIP
Graham said the resolution will be non-binding and is neither a declaration of war nor an authorization to use military force.
by Aldebaran » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:43 pm
by 8bitagent » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:57 pm
by Rory » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:14 pm
Asked how his envisioned peaceful revolution could play out in Iran, Pahlavi said it would need to begin with labor unions starting a nationwide strike. He said members of the hard-line Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary organization established to protect the clerical system, would be assured they wouldn't be "all hung and shot."
by RocketMan » Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:34 pm
Rory » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:14 pm wrote:http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/1.782409Asked how his envisioned peaceful revolution could play out in Iran, Pahlavi said it would need to begin with labor unions starting a nationwide strike. He said members of the hard-line Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary organization established to protect the clerical system, would be assured they wouldn't be "all hung and shot."
because the workers are going to tear down the socialist theocracy and reinstate an ultra right wing neoliberal monarchy. It's that easy
by JackRiddler » Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:45 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests
