• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

More on the Iranian nuclear program emerges:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Watchdog Finds Evidence That Iran Worked on Nuclear Triggers
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.

The disclosure by the International Atomic Energy Agency was buried inside a nine-page report on the progress of Iran’s nuclear program. The agency did not say where the evidence came from, nor did it provide many details about the allegations.

Statistics in the report also indicated that Iran has begun to recover from the effects of the Stuxnet computer worm, which first struck the country nearly two years ago in an apparent effort to cripple its production of nuclear fuel. Based on recent visits by inspectors, the agency concluded that Iran’s main production site at Natanz is now producing low-enriched uranium at rates slightly exceeding what it produced before being hit by the Stuxnet. The computer worm appears to have been designed in a secret project in which the United States, Israel and some European allies all played a role, The New York Times reported in January.

In a separate report on Syria, the agency also laid out a detailed case, for the first time, that the country was “very likely” building a secret nuclear reactor that should have been reported to the agency. The facility was bombed by Israel in September 2007, and Syria quickly bulldozed the site, eliminating most of the evidence.

Although the C.I.A. released photographs in 2008 of the reactor building, taken before the bombing raid, the agency’s inspectors in Vienna had at first been quite skeptical of any evidence provided by the Bush administration, with which they had clashed over the status of Iraq’s nuclear program. But they have now come to the same conclusion that Washington came to nearly four years ago, and American officials said they plan to use the report to press the agency’s board of governors at its meeting next month to refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

“We fully expect the board of governors to address these issues with the seriousness they deserve,” Glyn T. Davies, the American ambassador to the I.A.E.A., said in a telephone interview from Vienna.

But at a moment when the Syrian government is struggling to stay in power amid uprisings, the shooting of protesters in Syrian towns will almost certainly seem like a more urgent matter for the United Nations to address. The apparent effort by the Assad government to build a nuclear capacity, with help from North Korea, is likely to be viewed as what one American official called “a historical event, not an ongoing threat.” Even if the reactor was solely for energy production, the country would be required to tell the agency and place the facility under its safeguards.

On Tuesday, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at a joint session of Congress, urged the United States not to take the threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities off the table.

“The ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action” after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Netanyahu said. “That same year, Muammar Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation.”

Mr. Netanyahu has been far more assertive than his American counterparts in making public threats about potential military action; the Stuxnet operation, which American and Israeli officials refuse to discuss, appears to have been part of an effort to come up with a covert, nonmilitary solution.

The Stuxnet may have now run its course. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, analyzed the I.A.E.A. report and concluded that the jump in monthly production of enriched uranium was “the highest level that Iran has ever achieved.”

The official American and Israeli estimates suggest Iran is still at least a year, and most likely several years, from being able to produce a bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is meant only to produce energy, but many Western countries believe the country is hiding a weapons program.

The agency gave some details in Tuesday’s report on work that was apparently done on how to trigger a nuclear device, dating back to late 2003.

“The agency has not described these experiments to this detail before,” said Olli Heinonen, the agency’s former chief inspector.

Starting in early 2008, the agency has repeatedly accused Iran of dragging its feet in addressing “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program. Tehran has declared that all of the evidence gathered by the agency — mostly from the intelligence agencies of member countries, and some from its own inspectors — are fabrications.

The I.A.E.A.’s last report, issued in February, listed seven outstanding questions about work Iran apparently conducted on warhead design. The documents in the hands of the agency raise questions about work on how to turn uranium into bomb fuel, how to cast conventional explosives in a shape that can trigger a nuclear blast, how to make detonators, generate neutrons to spur a chain reaction, measure detonation waves and make nose-cones for missiles.

Tuesday’s report gave new details for all seven of the categories of allegations. The disclosure about the atomic trigger centered on a rare material — uranium deuteride, a form of the element made with deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. Nuclear experts say China and Pakistan appear to have used the material as a kind of atomic sparkplug.

The report said it had asked Iran about evidence of “experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons” — the speeding particles that split atoms in two in a surge of nuclear energy. In a bomb, an initial burst of neutrons is needed to help initiate a rapid chain reaction.

Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, said the compression of uranium deuteride suggested work on an atomic trigger.

“I don’t know of any peaceful uses,” he said in an interview.

The agency’s disclosure about Iran’s alleged use of uranium deuteride also suggests another possible connection between Tehran’s program and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani engineer who sold nuclear information.

A famous photograph of Dr. Khan, whom Pakistan has released from house arrest in Islamabad, shows him in front of the schematic diagram of an atom bomb on a blackboard. A pointer to the bomb’s center is labeled uranium deuteride.

Tuesday’s report also gave fresh charges on the design of missile warheads. Documentary evidence, it said, suggested that Iran had conducted “studies involving the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replace it with a spherical nuclear payload.” (Interpolation: A spherical warhead is generally the sign of a Plutonium "implosion" weapon, while U 235 can be easily made into a much simpler cylindrical "gun" bomb. Compare pictures of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" in 1945 to see the difference.

The Shahab-3 is one of Iran’s deadliest weapons, standing 56 feet tall. In parades, Iran has draped them with banners reading, “Wipe Israel off the map.”
 
Iran may have some defensive capability but it lacks proper offense. It will never attack Israel; Iran bluffs a lot and US sells her arm deals to the Gulf states. 
Iran has been under sanctions for many years, do you think a country that imports her defense related hardware from China would stand a chance against US or Israel or for that sake NATO countries. I don't think so.
One thing that people from the inside know is that professionals in Iran never get to do their jobs. Professionals are always traded for people who know a lot about Islamic spirituality but barely any technical knowledge. Capable managers are always kicked aside for such incapable people.

In terms of the nuclear weaponry, these guys may produce a bomb in 30 years, but then it will take another 30 to put it on a missile and 30 more to launch it and 30 more to get it right without missing its target. Why 30 years? Because they still import gasoline, but they are the 4th largest producer of Oil in the world. They lack the most basic technologies then they want to make nuclear weapon???

However, with all that said, we still need to antagonize them since it is in our benefit and Canada's allies benefit to have a presence in the middle east region.
 
I was also managed to find this interesting piece of news; I tried to search for the news on DEBKA and FBIS but they seem to have taken it down or archived it.

The news is old; it is from the November 16 2001 when US forces and Northern Alliance forces were working together to oust the Taliban. However, it is a noteworthy news.

Iranian Special Forces Reportedly Fight Alongside US in Battle for Herat

Publication: Foreign Broadcast Information Service

Date: 11/16/2001

http://www.spongobongo.com/her9940.htm


 
Iran is attempting to create a "closed" internet for internal consumption:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/guest/26692/?nlid=4395

Iran's Answer to Stuxnet

Might a "halal Internet" be in the wings?

Cyrus Farivar 04/25/2011

Despite all of the talk that the Web fueled revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, it remains clear that social media, or even increased Internet access, does not necessarily make revolution more likely. Even so, Iran would seem primed for an upheaval of the Islamic theocracy that has ruled the country since 1979. After all, Iran has one of the youngest, most educated and most wired populations in the Middle East. Some 70 percent of the country is under the age of 30, and the overwhelming majority of Iranians are literate. In fact, within the last several years, women have overtaken men in Iranian universities. Meanwhile, Iran's Internet penetration rate—the percentage of the population that is online—hovers around 35 percent, the highest percentage in the Middle East behind Israel. It made sense that the June 2009 uprising in Iran was thought to have been helped along by postings on Twitter, before it became more apparent that it wasn't significantly so.

The massive street protests in that uprising, which came in the wake of a disputed presidential election, were brought down with swift and brutal violence by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, Iran's vice police force. And besides such aggressive tactics offline, Iran is apursuing more and more sophisticated strategies online as well.

Two weeks ago, Ali Aghamohammadi, the Ahmadinejad Administration's head of economic affairs, was quoted in IRNA, a state-run news agency, that Iran was working on a "halal Internet."

"Iran will soon create an Internet that conforms to Islamic principles, to improve its communication and trade links with the world," he said, explaining that the new network would operate in parallel to the regular Internet and would possibly eventually replace the open Internet in Muslim countries in the region. "We can describe it as a genuinely 'halal' network aimed at Muslims on a ethical and moral level," he added.

It remains unclear exactly what a "halal Internet" would entail. Presumably, by definition, it would exclude the "haram Internet," (the Muslim equivalent of un-kosher)--so no pornography, for example. Likely, it would also feature the writings of revered Iranian Islamic leaders (the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, would be an obvious choice), as well as current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and other clerics who preach the gospel of the velayat-e faqih, the principle of the "rule of the [Islamic] jurisprudent" that has governed Iran for three decades. But beyond religous scholarship, a halal Internet probably would also feature Iran's answer to Al Jazeera and the BBC--Press TV, which already has an English-language website.

It would be unlikely, but not technically impossible, for Iran to step up its censorship and filtering regime to create this "halal Internet." After all, most Cubans, for example, are priced out of the actual Internet and steered towards the Cuban equivalent, which is restricted to an internal e-mail network, and a handful of pro-government sites. In a similar vein, the Chinese Internet is limited largely only to websites that the government doesn't view as threatening.

This isn't the first time that the Islamic Republic has tried to co-opt the Internet for its own purposes. In fact, Iran has a 10-year history of pursuing aggressive tactics online.

As early as 2000, Iran tried to fool Iranians by creating the website Montazery.com, which was an attempt to divert traffic from Montazeri.com, the true website of an Iranian dissident ayatollah under house arrest who had written a scathing memoir against Khomeini and the Islamic Republic.

Over the next several years, Iran pursued a campaign of sophisticated filtering and censorship online, while also aggressively intimidating, arresting, and forcing into exile a number of young bloggers. By mid-decade, Iran was actively encouraging pro-regime bloggers, and said in 2008 that it would unleash an "army" of 10,000 bloggers from its own Revolutionary Guard.

In the months after the so-called "Twitter Revolution," the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei joined the micro-blogging service (@khamenei_ir), sending out 140 characters of propaganda—in English and Persian—at a time.

More recently, in fact, just before the Persian New Year, on March 20, 2011, a pro-regime blogger, Omid Hosseini, was proclaimed to be the winner of a government-sponsored blogging contest--only open to blogs that were not filtered in-country (meaning they are pro-regime), of course.

But there's likely a lot more to come out of the Iranian online world, particularly now that Iran has declared that it believes the United States and Israel were behind the creation of the infamous Stuxnet worm that likely set back Iran's nuclear program. (The New York Times had arrived at a similar conclusion months earlier.)

In an interview published in IRNA on April 16, Gholam Reza Jalali, the commander of the Iranian civil defense organization, was quoted as saying that Iran was creating the "1390 Program"—1390 being the current year in the Persian calendar—which would add six cyberdefense master's degree programs and one doctoral program across various Iranian universities.

"The final solution to problems of [cyberdefense and the] formation of Jihad, is to achieve economic self-sufficiency in the production of basic software such as operating systems and software," he said.

Cyrus Farivar (@cfarivar) is the author of The Internet of Elsewhere (Rutgers University Press, 2011), a book about the history and effects of the Internet in Senegal, South Korea, Estonia, and Iran.
 
Diplomacy aand other soft measures have failed:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/goodspeed-iran-may-be-two-months-from-bomb-two-new-studies-say/

Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say
Comments Twitter LinkedIn Email Peter Goodspeed  Jun 7, 2011 – 7:11 PM ET

Goodspeed Analysis

BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran may be two months away from being able to create a nuclear bomb and there is little the international community can do to stop it, two new studies say.

Using data released last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and the operations of its nuclear program, U.S. weapons expert Gregory Jones calculates it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in just eight weeks.

“It is unclear what actions the U.S. or Israel could take (short of militarily occupying Iran) that could now prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons,” Mr. Jones wrote in a study published last week by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre.

“The reality is that both the U.S. and Israel have failed to prevent Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons whenever Iran wishes to do so. It is time to recognize this policy failure and decide what to do next, based on a realistic assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts,” he said.

Mr. Jones’ calculations come as Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s director, chastised Iran for not co-operating with international nuclear inspectors. He said Monday some aspects of its nuclear activities may be linked to a weapons program.

The IAEA chief has demanded Tehran open a list of sites for inspections, after the agency received information indicating a “possible military dimension” to the nuclear work.

But on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the head of the IAEA of doing the bidding of Washington and said no offer from any world power would stop it from enriching uranium.

“I have said before that Iran’s nuclear train has no brake and no reverse gear … We will continue our path,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding that Iran would continue to co-operate with the IAEA “as long as they move based on justice.”

In a separate study released Tuesday, RAND Corp., a Calfornia-based think-tank with ties to the Pentagon, which also employs Mr. Jones as a part-time researcher, has warned that attempts to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons face major obstacles.

“Iran today has largely acquired the materials, equipment and technology needed to develop a nuclear weapon,” the RAND report says.

“International efforts to control exports and interdict trade can now only hope to slow Iran’s progress and possibly deny it the specific technologies needed, for example, for nuclear warhead miniaturization and for mating a warhead on a missile.”

The goal of U.S. foreign policy should now shift to dissuade Iran from taking the next step of making a weapon, the study says, adding if that fails, Washington should have a back-up strategy to deter a nuclear-armed Iran.

“It is not clear that Iran has made the decision to create actual nuclear weapons,” it goes on. “Three future nuclear postures are possible: (1) Iran could achieve a ‘virtual capability’ by developing the know-how and infrastructure to assemble a nuclear weapon but stopping there, (2) It could develop nuclear weapons but leave this capability ambiguous, or (3) it could acquire nuclear weapons and declare their existence through withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or by conducting a nuclear test.”

It may still be possible for the United States to influence the outcome of Iran’s internal political debate on its nuclear posture, the study says, noting U.S. responses could involve a mix of sanctions and military pressure as well as incentives to lower the perception of a U.S. threat.

“Iran’s national security interests — the survival of the regime, the protection of its homeland and its goal of expanding its regional influence — are unlikely to change,” says Lynn Davis, lead author of the RAND study.

“The challenge for the United States is to influence how the Iranian leadership pursues these interests, for they could provide reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Jones’ study said Iran has the equivalent of 5,184 centrifuges in operation in its nuclear research program and has stockpiled 38.3 kilograms of 19% enriched uranium.

To produce a nuclear bomb, it would need 158.2 kg of 19% enriched uranium — which would take about six weeks to accumulate. This would then have to be further refined into weapons-grade uranium (90% enriched), the study says.

Under existing nuclear safeguards, Iran is allowed to retain stockpiles of 19% enriched uranium.

But if Tehran were to decide to break out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear bomb, it would take only two weeks to refine a 158.2-kg (19% enriched) stockpile into weapons-grade uranium.

Since Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities are not continually monitored, “the process could be well along or even completed before it was discovered,” Mr. Jones said.

National Post, with files from Reuters
pgoodspeed@nationalpost.com
 
More on the accelerated Iranian nuclear program. One thing which has been mentioned before in other news reports it the idea that Iran is working on an "implosion" device. This usually means a weapon using Plutonium rather than Uranium, since enriched Uranium can be assembled int a cylendrical "gun" device while for various technical reasons Plutonium cannot. I'm not sure where this is coming from, the Iranian emphasis has been on centrifuge "farms" to enrich Uranium rather than nuclear reactors to "breed" Plutonium.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iran-to-test-first-nuclear-bomb-by-2012/?print=1

Iran to Test First Nuclear Bomb by 2012?
Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On June 9, 2011 @ 11:00 am In Uncategorized | 44 Comments

According to sources in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered them to proceed immediately with the completion of the Iranian atomic bomb project, including testing and arming of missiles with nuclear payload.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s decision is based on a belief by the Islamic regime’s strategists that both America and Israel lack the courage and the ability to dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian regime believes that America and Israel fear Iran’s retaliation, and that it has had them frozen in place and confused as to what action to take next. They have concluded that this presents a great opportunity for the Iranian regime to become a nuclear-armed state without any interference from the outside.

Khamenei offered the same message on June 1 [1] at the Imam Hussein Military Academy:

The Great Satan, since the early days of the Revolution, has mobilized its military, financial, propaganda, and political empire to defeat the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation, but the political realities in Iran and the region show that the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution.

He further stated that the failure of the U.S. policies in the Middle East and the promising revival of Islam in the region are the realization of the divine promises to the Iranian nation — and that the recent events herald the realization of God’s promise that Islam and the Muslims will ultimately triumph.

The authorization for nuclear weapons by the supreme leader has been followed by the recent announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran [2] (AEOI), Fereidoon Abbasi, that Iran will start the installation of more advanced centrifuges at the previously secret site, the Fordo plant near the city of Qom. He also said that this will triple Iran’s production of 20 percent enriched uranium.

A chilling article titled “The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day [3]” recently appeared on an Iranian website, Gerdab.ir, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. This is the first time that an outlet belonging to the Iranian government openly talked about a nuclear bomb — Iran has insisted repeatedly that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The commentary states that after the Iranian nuclear bomb test, everyone will be able to go about their business as usual. The explosion will not be so strong as to bring destruction to the neighboring areas, though not so weak that the Iranian scientists have difficulties with their test. But it will be a day for Iranians to be filled with pride. The article even predicts playfully how Western media will cover the event.

Most chilling is how the article ends with a quote from the Quran (Al Enfal 60):

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.

Iran, which was for years enriching only to the 3.5 percent level due to fear of retaliation by the international community, started its enrichment to the 20 percent level last year after the Obama administration’s soft approach toward the regime. Twenty percent enrichment is 80 percent of the way to weaponization.

Iran currently has over 3600 kilograms of enriched uranium at 3.5 percent, enough for three nuclear bombs if enriched further. It also has an announced inventory of 40 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium. If true, it will take the Iranians only two months to further enrich that stockpile into 20 kilograms of enriched uranium over 90 percent, sufficient for one nuclear warhead.

The IAEA revealed in a recent report that Iran has sought and experimented with certain technologies that could make a type of atom bomb known as an implosion device, considered more advanced than the bomb America used on Hiroshima.

I revealed on May 31 [4] that the Revolutionary Guards are now in possession of two nuclear capable warheads, with eight more to be delivered within the next ten months. The Guards expect to have at least two fully armed nuclear warheads before the end of the current Iranian calendar year, March 2012.

America and its European allies have continuously tried to change the behavior of the regime with incentives and negotiations. The Iranian leaders refused every time to accept any offer, buying time in order to get to the point of no return. The jihadists in Iran will have their nuclear bomb, and we have only ourselves to blame.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iran-to-test-first-nuclear-bomb-by-2012/

URLs in this post:

[1] same message on June 1: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=241785
[2] announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9003181119
[3] The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day: http://www.gerdab.ir/fa/news/5218
[4] revealed on May 31: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/iran-nuclear-warheads/
 
Iranian rhetoric indicates what they see as Iran's "Grand Strategy". Do they have the tools and economic base to carry out their program, though?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-official-%e2%80%98we-will-use-our-missiles-to-protect-other-muslim-states%e2%80%99/?print=1

Iranian Official: ‘We Will Use Our Missiles To Protect Other Muslim States’

Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On June 14, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 38 Comments

Last Thursday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani — while at the Syarif Hidayatullah [1] State Islamic University in Indonesia — stated that Iran will use its missiles to defend other Muslim nations if threatened.

This is the first time that a high-ranking Iranian official has issued such a warning. In effect, Iran is expanding its defense strategy from protecting their own sovereignty to a “defensive umbrella” over other Islamic nations.

Larijani based his argument on what he called “the school of the late Ayatollah Khomeini,” the founder of the Islamic Republic: Muslims should possess enough defensive strength to use against other countries should one of those countries attack. Larijani further stated:

We do not hide our defensive advancement and (we) have designed advanced missile systems. … Israel and the U.S. should know that if they want to act violently toward Muslims, we will stand in their way.

Commenting on the popular uprisings in Middle Eastern and North African nations, Larijani said the people of these countries can no longer tolerate their dictatorial governments, which are subservient to the West:

The United States and other Western countries cannot manipulate these uprisings … the more they pressure these regional nations, the more determined their people will become.

I revealed recently [2] that the Revolutionary Guards have now expanded the reach of their missiles to 2000 miles, which covers the capitals in Western Europe. These missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Also, through a secret pact with Venezuela which was signed by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on October 19 in Tehran, the Guards are constructing a missile installation [3] to be built inside Venezuela with missiles able to reach U.S. shores. The Guards are also actively arming Hezbollah, which now has over 40,000 rockets, and Hamas with over 10,000 rockets.

The Guards have stockpiled more than 1,000 ballistic missiles while constantly introducing more advanced models: the recently announced Qiyam 1 missile is difficult for air defense systems to detect. The Guards have also stockpiled hundreds of anti-ship missiles capable of disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Most alarming is the Guards’ intent to arm their missiles with nuclear payloads [2], which they expect to accomplish within the next nine months.

This is occurring while the Iranians have expanded their naval presence by sending several submarines into the Red Sea [4] to accompany its Navy’s 14th fleet there. The Iranian Navy has also widened its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

The recent statements by the Iranian officials — such as Iran’s supreme leader’s claim that “the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution [5],” or Ahmadinejad’s claim that “Iran’s nuclear train has no brakes and no reverse gear [6]” — are a continuation of their aggressive foreign policy. They have claimed victory for their nuclear program as the international community has been unable to stop it. They assert that the sanctions are not working as designed because many countries continue to trade with Iran. They also believe that the West lacks the courage to confront them.

Most importantly: Iran’s leaders believe that the time for a worldwide Islamic state is at hand.

Will the West take this threat seriously, or will we allow the jihadists to expand their power? Delusional leaders bring nothing but destruction and pain to the world; it is certain that the Iranian leaders are delusional. They believe the Islamic prophecies, the Hadith, say they can bring about the Islamic conquest of the world by destroying Israel and America. They intend to try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-official-%e2%80%98we-will-use-our-missiles-to-protect-other-muslim-states%e2%80%99/

URLs in this post:

[1] at the Syarif Hidayatullah: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242210

[2] I revealed recently: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/iran-nuclear-warheads/

[3] Guards are constructing a missile installation: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/05/17/iran-building-secret-missile-installation-venezuela/#ixzz1MdBk5HrJ

[4] sending several submarines into the Red Sea: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/iran-sends-military-submarines-to-red-sea-for-collecting-information-report/

[5] the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution: http://shiapost.com/?p=1278

[6] Iran’s nuclear train has no brakes and no reverse gear: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/iran-says-no-offer-can-stop-it-enriching-uranium/
 
From earlier this month:

Iran submarines dispatched to Red Sea: report

By null | AFP – Tue, 7 Jun, 2011

Iran's navy has sent submarines to the Red Sea "to collect data," its first mission in distant waters, the Fars news agency reported Tuesday without giving further details.

"The submarines, dispatched in May, have entered the Red Sea after a mission in the Gulf of Aden to collect data on the sea bed in the high seas and to identify other warships," Fars said quoting an unnamed source.

"They are accompanying an Iranian navy fleet," it added, without mentioning the number of the submarines, their types or the make of the fleet.
Iran has several types of submarines, including the home-produced 500-tonne Nahang which was first introduced to the navy in 2006, as well as three Russian-made submarines of the Kilo class purchased in the 90s.

In August 2010, Iran's army chief Ataollah Salehi announced the inauguration of a new "semi-heavy" submarine, named Qaem, capable of operating in the high seas, such as the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Aden.

Iran's navy operates 11 mini submarines of the domestically built 120-tonne Ghadir class, first launched in 2007, which according to Iranian officials are "stealth" submarines and patrol shallow waters, notably the Gulf.

Last February, two Iranian warships were sent to the Mediterranean Sea for a visit to Syria, crossing the Red Sea and Suez Canal, a move that angered Israel.

The two ships docked in Syria on February 24, marking Iran's first such mission since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Tel Aviv put its navy on alert, following the entry of the Iranian vessels in the Mediterranean, while Israeli President Shimon Peres described the move as a "political provocation."

link
 
Take a look at who participated. What position did they take at the conference as thousands of western soldiers are been killed and maimed in their countries?

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

U.S., Britain, Israel accused of fomenting terrorism

28 Jun 2011 - National Post
   
Participants at the International Conference of the Global Fight Against Terrorism also accused the United States, Britain and Israel of fomenting terrorism.

“If we’re reaching out and trying to make sure that people fight terrorism, we need to go as far as possible to make sure that everyone does it,” said Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the secretary general.

“We don’t have to agree with all the statements.”

He denied Mr. Ban had explicitly endorsed the conference’s outcomes.

U.S. and other Western intelligence services have long said Iran is a state sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, which the United States, Canada and others consider to be terrorist entities.

Citing the “wicked policy” of the United States and Britain, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, opened the conference with an apparent call for terror attacks on those countries as he said in a statement it was “a duty for all Muslims to confront and fight this inauspicious offspring.”

He was followed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, who claimed Washington manufactured the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks as pretexts to put down Muslims and to benefit economically from the resulting panic.

The conference’s website featured cartoons, including one showing a bloody fingerprint depicted as a U.S. flag and the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite.

On Monday, the Canadian-led monitoring group UN Watch spearheaded calls for the UN to officially wash its hands of the Iranian conference.

“If the Chinese Communist Party will now organize an international conference for Internet freedom, and if Syria’s President [Bashar] Assad will hold one for the right to peaceful protest, will the UN also endorse those, on grounds that it is important for all nations to work together in promoting human rights?” asked Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based organization.

UN Watch said it had written to the UN missions of the United States and Britain calling on them to “intervene.”

The letters said both countries should “demand that the UN distance itself from the [Iranian] Orwellian propaganda exercise — an insult to victims worldwide of Iraniansponsored terrorism — and that it refrain from similar acts in the future.”

The UN said it intended Monday to release the “as-delivered” text of Mr. Ban’s remarks, which Iran said had been read on his behalf in Tehran by his envoy, Mohammad Rafi al Din Shah.

Mr. Haq highlighted that the UN General Assembly, where all 192 member states sit, is frequently a platform for what many Western countries would consider outlandish statements.

“Does that mean that the General Assembly should be abolished because people say things that are [deemed] wrong there?” Mr. Haq said.

Among leaders attending the conference were presidents Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Jalal Talabani of Iraq.
 
Saudi will seek nuclear arms if Iran gets them: report

Thu, June 30 2011 07:05 | 171 Views

London (ANTARA News/Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has warned NATO that it would pursue policies that could lead to "untold and possibly dramatic consequences" if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, a British newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The Guardian newspaper quoted Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington and Britain, speaking to senior NATO officials earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at a British air base.

Faisal did not outline what the policies would be, but the Guardian quoted an unnamed Saudi official in Riyadh it said was close to the prince as saying that Iranian nuclear weapons would compel the Gulf state do develop its own nuclear arms.

"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don`t ... If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit," the Guardian quoted the official as saying.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Israel and the West fear the Islamic republic is developing nuclear weapons.

Earlier on Wednesday, Britain accused Iran of carrying out covert tests of a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead, in violation of a U.N. resolution, an accusation which Tehran immediately denied.

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Gulf neighbours view Shi`ite Iran with suspicion, and accuse it of meddling in the region to increase its influence, charges Tehran denies. (*)
Editor: B Kunto Wibisono
COPYRIGHT © 2011


Antara News link
 
Internal stresses keep growing in Iran. It may be a race to see which faction can seize control, or if the crumbling economy takes everyone down. The end state is totally unpredicatable, and may well be worse, rather than better, for us.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/07/07/iran-approaching-fission-i’m-talking-politics-not-nukes…/?print=1

Iran Approaching Fission? I’m Talking Politics, not Nukes…
Posted By Michael Ledeen On July 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 29 Comments

The mullahs have stepped up their tempo of killing, both at home and abroad.  The main difference is that the Iranian citizens who are tortured and executed are slaughtered by fellow-Iranians.  Our guys and our friends and allies are gunned down, or, more often, blown up, by proxies.  As I have said before, the Iranians dread direct confrontation with other countries, both because they have no confidence in the loyalty of their armed forces (including the thoroughly corrupted Revolutionary Guards Corps), and because it’s not their way.  They prefer to kill stealthily, not openly.  You may have noticed that when the Saudis sent troops to help their neighbors in Bahrain put down an Iranian-inspired insurrection, the Tehran regime first thumped its chest  and promised to send the Guards to fight it out.  Then… nothing happened.  They just slinked away, back into their caves.

Call it the mullahs’ way of war.  Let someone else die for you, avoid exposure, and never ever risk your own skin. And  they pay heavily for it. As some Israeli analysts have written [1],

It can be assumed that the Sunni camp, headed by Saudi Arabia, is fully aware of the political and military significance of Iran’s weakness and its unwillingness to initiate face-to-face conflict. This will have ramifications on both the regional and the global levels.

The proxy killings [2] are on the front pages: Iraq and Afghanistan [3], with American forces on the way out, are prime targets for Iran’s clients, as our military commanders—including Robert Gates, now departed from the Pentagon—and yesterday, Ambassador Jeffries in Iraq, have been telling anyone who cares to listen.  If my information is right, we will see lots more of this, as well as similar havoc in Africa, where the Iranians have considerable appetite for terror bases, commercial agreements, and basing rights.

The direct slaughter at home is not so well covered in the popular press, but Iranians see it every day.  Over the weekend, more than fifty executions were publicly announced [4], and poor souls are rounded up for outrageous prison terms.  Crackdowns on “immoral” behavior (the wrong sort of haircut, the wrong sort of head scarf) are intensifying, and women are now forbidden to enter coffee and tea bars where hookahs are in use.

Have a look at this interview [5] with one of the country’s leading human rights lawyers, who was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He told the interviewer he felt fortunate to have escaped with his life.

For those who have chosen to believe that the Tehran regime is stable—and therefore that we should appease it–this is the good news.  It shows that Persia is ruled by mass murderers who are determined to kill anyone they fear.  You’ll recognize the recent application of these methods in Syria, which is because the Iranians are “guiding” Bashar Assad through his time of troubles.  The mullahs know that if Syria falls, Iran is suddenly without its favorite fighters, from Hezbollah to Hamas, from the Brothers to the Islamic Jihad.  As if they weren’t frenetic enough, they are also counseling Qadaffi (so sayeth [6]Le Monde [6] ).

On the other hand, it is hard to imagine any group wrecking a country, and its own ability to rule, more effectively than the tandem of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now the political equivalents of colliding sub-atomic particles.  In recent weeks, several of Ahmadinejad’s appointees have been sacked, and some even arrested.  He was subjected to the startling indignity of being censored [7] by the official state broadcasting network.  He tried to recover by announcing that every Iranian family would receive one thousand square meters of land (think sand, there’s quite a substantial desert in the east), only to have Khamenei himself diss the scheme.  Meanwhile, the Middle East’s evilest empire attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of State, for its generous toleration of human trafficking [8], mostly in women’s bodies.

No surprise, then, that Ahmadinejad lost it.  This regime has been a fascinating example of reciprocal payoffs and blackmail for years, but the facts have usually been hidden from public view.  No more.  Ahmadinejad made an amazing speech, accusing the Revolutionary Guards (hitherto almost universally believed to be the president’s most reliable base of support) of smuggling two billion dollars’ worth of cigarettes into the country via ports and piers outside the purview of Customs.  Such enormous sums, he said “invite all the smugglers of the world, not to mention our own ‘smuggler brethren.’”  The last two words are code for the Guards.

The RG Commander, Mohammad-Ali Jafari, denied it all, but then a news service still friendly to the president published a list of jetties where Customs did not function.  Whereupon a retired Guards officer said that if the Supreme Leader asked the Guards to bring him a hat, they would obey.  This (h/t Ali Alfoneh) is a reference to an old Persian saying, “If the King demands someone’s hat (the president’s in this case), his servants will bring it with the head still inside.”

I have long thought that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad were fused somewhere below the ribs, and would not be foolish enough to engage in public combat.  I may have to reconsider.  As we used to say in the old days, the objective situation is very revolutionary, and the people are openly contemptuous of the regime.  The economy is so bad that the Central Bank has been forbidden to release official data on inflation and other key indicators—a sure sign that the actual numbers are considerably worse than the official ones (knowledgeable sources tell me that real inflation is well over 50%).  And favoritism for the mullahs-and-commanders-of-industry is so blatant that workers are getting the back of the regime’s gnarled hand [9]:

In an interview with the Iranian Labor News Agency, Ali Akbar Eivazi, a board member at the Tehran Islamic Labor Councils Coordination Center, has reported new proposed changes to the Iranian Labor Law…he said: “In the modifications submitted by the Labor Ministry, 28 articles have been changed—in effect, all workers’ benefits have been axed in those 28 items.”

It’s not likely to help anyone.  Iran’s economic performance last year ranked in the bottom ten countries, and there is no sign that it’s getting better.  The owners can clearly oppress the workers all they want (the many strikes and protests over worsening conditions and chronic failure to pay salaries have little effect and are rarely reported outside the blogosphere), but the wreckage of Iran at the hands of the ruling mullahcracy will be hard to reverse.  The palpable inability of the regime to manage the country adds to the people’s contempt, and fuels the frequent nocturnal chants from the rooftops of the major cities, “Death to the Dictator.”

The misery of Iranian workers—in its most dramatic manifestation, the arrest and ongoing torture of Mansour Osanloo, the president of the Tehran Bus Drivers’ Organization—has come to  the attention of Western trade unionists, and the Teamsters recently made Osanloo an honorary member [10], and called for their counterparts around the world to support him and his followers.

If we had a government that took seriously the Iranian war against us, we would be echoing the Teamster’s call for freedom of association in Iran.  Indeed, we’d be busy supporting the people against the regime, both in Iran and in Syria.  But no.  Instead we appease Iranian allies like the Muslim Brotherhood [11], continue to meet with regime officials, and have just acquiesced in the official participation of the Islamic Republic in a NATO conference, which further demonstrates our utter failure to fight back against our known killers.

One might well marvel at the fecklessness of our so-called leaders, but the pattern of their cowardice and their headlong retreat from even minimal support for democratic revolution in enemy lands—while hailing it when it threatens friends, allies, and dubious characters (let’s say) like Qadaffi—is so well established (not even a peep on behalf of American hostages [12], lest we all forget) that most of us have long since stopped being shocked.

That does not mean we should lose our rage at the appeasers.  Military families like ours are certainly entitled to demand that our troops strike back at our enemies, and the so-called “peace movement,” if it understood what peace actually requires, would be campaigning in favor of the Iranian and Syrian revolutions.  They don’t, and we know why:  they want the Syrian and Iranian tyrants to prevail, dominate a new Middle East devoted to the destruction of the West, and create a radical Islamist and radical Leftist caliphate.

That’s a road to war, and the Obama Administration has found a unique way of sprinting along it:  empowering our enemies at home and abroad, encouraging them to believe that we will never fight back.

And our brave domestic opposition?  So far as I know, only Pawlenty—who does not seem to have generated much enthusiasm–has defined the defeat of the Tehran regime as the central goal of a sensible policy.  None of the others has even come close.  So color me unimpressed.

As of now, our best hope lies in the self-destructive activities of the Iranian leaders.  Watch that space.

UPDATE:  Thanks to “Shiraz” in the comments for reminding me that Rep. McCotter has made similar statements.  So that makes two.

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/07/07/iran-approaching-fission-i%e2%80%99m-talking-politics-not-nukes%e2%80%a6/

URLs in this post:

[1] Israeli analysts have written: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5424.htm
[2] proxy killings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/war-zones/weapons-prove-iranian-role-in-iraq-us-says/2011/07/05/gHQAUnkmzH_story.html
[3] Iraq and Afghanistan: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/02/iran-funnels-new-weapons-to-iraq-and-afghanistan/
[4] more than fifty executions were publicly announced: http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article2149 and http://radiozamaneh.com/english/content/secret-hangings-karaj-prison
[5] this interview: http://banooyesabzirani.blogspot.com/2011/07/candid-discussion-with-prominent.html
[6] so sayeth : http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2011/07/05/le-jeu-de-l-iran-dans-les-crises-en-libye-et-en-syrie_1544919_3218
[7] being censored: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/7/1/iran-snapshot-ahmadinejad-is-censoredby-the-state-broadcaste.html
[8] human trafficking: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2011/164232.htm
[9] the back of the regime’s gnarled hand: http://iranlaborreport.com/?p=1546
[10] the Teamsters recently made Osanloo an honorary member: http://news.yahoo.com/teamsters-honor-iranian-labor-hero-28th-international-convention-020011947.html
[11] we appease Iranian allies like the Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58094.html
[12] American hostages: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110701/wl_mideast_afp/iranushikersun
 
link

The Iranian navy plans on deploying warships to the Atlantic Ocean as part of a programme to ply international waters, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari said in statements published Tuesday.

But the commander of the navy, quoted by Kayhan newspaper, said he was waiting for "final approval" before launching the operation.
"In case of final approval (of the project) a fleet of the navy will be sent to the Atlantic (Ocean)," Sayari was quoted as saying without giving details about the fleet or where in the Atlantic Ocean it would be deployed.


"The presence (of ships and submarines) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean and international waters is still on the agenda of the navy," Sayari said.

According to Sayari navy ships assigned to long-distance missions will be equipped with Noor cruise missiles.

"Ships going on missions are equipped with surface-to-surface Noor missiles," which have a range of 200 kilometres (125 miles) he said.

In February Iran moved two warships into the Mediterranean Sea, crossing the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, triggering anger in Israel which branded the move "political provocation" and put its navy on alert.

The two ships docked in Syria on February 24, marking Iran's first such mission since the 1979 Islamic revolution.


Analysts said the Islamic republic was trying to project its clout in the region at a time when anti-government protests sweeping the Arab world from Casablanca to Cairo are shifting the regional balance of power.
In recent years Iranian warships have also patrolled Iranian ships and those of other nations as they made their way across the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden.
Iranian submarines of class "kilo" escorted warships to the Red Sea "to collect data" in June, in their first mission in distant waters.
Iranian maritime forces are composed mainly of small units equipped with missiles and are operating under the control of the Revolutionary Guards in the Gulf.
The ocean-going fleet is also small and under the command of the Iranian navy which comprises a half-dozen small frigates and destroyers from 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes, and three submarines of 3,000 tonnes of class "Kilo" purchased from Russia in the 1990s
 
Qassem Suleimani- the general in charge of the Quds forces seem to be a pretty powerful individual.  This article from the telegraph refers to how he has much influence with the current Iraqi government. The article also refers to how Syria is under his operational jurisdiction. This is interesting since the Huffington post has released an article which states that Iran is currently supporting the Syrian regime financially and has provided people from the Quds force as well other Iranian security services to provide advise on how to deal with the uprising as well as provide weaponry.  Here are the  two articles,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/irans-proxy-war-in-syria_b_911218.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/28/qassem-suleimani-iran-iraq-influence

foreignpolicy.com has listed General Qassem Suleimani as one of the "top 5 spooks most powerful spooks in the middle east".

On Frontline (skip chp.5) The show refers to and interviews Qassem Suleimani. It also refers to how US special forces attempted to arrest him, in Iran. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

Here is his biography, http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/brigadier-general-qassem-suleimani-biography

This man seems to be a very powerful, skillful military leader. Could he be considered as one of the greater military leaders of unconventional warfare of this area? Also how do you think the west should  react to a threat like him, in this current circumstance?
 
A look at the Iranian nuclear program as it might appear from the inside. While strange to our eyes, it has a certain internal logic:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/08/31/who-killed-the-iranian-nuclear-scientists-i-ask-the-dead-spook/?print=1

Who Killed the Iranian Nuclear Scientists? I Ask the Dead Spook…
Posted By Michael Ledeen On August 31, 2011 @ 7:03 pm In Uncategorized | 2 Comments

“So who has been killing all these Iranian nuclear physicists?” I was talking to the spirit of my old friend James Jesus Angleton, the one-time chief of CIA counterintelligence, via my trusted Ouija board. That device had been out of commission for some time, what with all the “natural” disturbances of life in Washington, DC, but it seems to have recovered nicely from the earthquake and the hurricane, and the familiar gravelly voice came through loud and clear.

JJA:  Well, if I had to bet, I would put the family fortune on the regime’s security forces.

ML:  Not on the Israeli Mossad?

JJA:  No, that would be a surprise to me. Those who think that Mossad killed the physicists are simply reasoning from first principles: Israel wants to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, these guys were working on Iranian nuclear weapons, therefore the Israelis did it. But for the Israelis to do it requires an amazing ability to operate inside an enemy country, and if in fact they have that ability, they would want to keep it secret until such a time that they wanted to deliver a really major blow. Perhaps in the fullness of time we’ll see Mossad’s capabilities inside Iran, but I do not believe we have seen them yet.

On the other hand, the regime had the means and the opportunity to kill them, and it is very easy to imagine possible motives.

ML: You say “motives,” plural. More than one?

JJA:  Oh yes! (He starts to laugh but segues into a short coughing fit. Wherever he is, Mayor Bloomberg is clearly not in charge.)

For starters, in a country like Iran where paranoia is the true national religion and conspiracy the most common form of worship, the physicists might have been suspected of treason. Did they attend international meetings? One or two did, I believe, and the victims may have asked for visas for additional foreign trips. That would have aroused dark suspicions in high places. So that’s one possible motive.

The easiest motive is politics. The country is in constant turmoil; maybe these physicists were friends of the Green Movement or some dissident cleric, or were reading the wrong sort of material online. It seems that the regime was very good at monitoring citizens’ Internet activities, after all.

ML:  You’re talking about the so-called “man in the middle” scheme [1] to read e-mails, right?

JJA:  Right.  And you can be sure that the regime is using other methods to hack into the Internet and identify Iranians who are working against Khamenei and his crowd.  After all, they are being trained and assisted by the Chinese, who so far as I can tell from this distance are world champs.

We also know that the regime is capable of targeted assassinations, not just the kind of mass brutality we’ve seen in the broad repression. And once you start down that road, as Don Corleone will tell you, you can’t rest easy unless you can assure the silence of all the assassins.

ML:  Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, right?

JJA:  Well it’s not that bad, whatever Benjamin Franklin thought.  There are secrets.  It’s a question of reliability.  And in Iran, trust is in very short supply, to put it mildly.  Take the case of the guy who just confessed to spying for Israel. You know, the kickboxer. Majid Jamali Fashi.

ML:  I remember, he confessed to spying for Mossad and was sentenced to death recently.  What’s that got to do with the assassination of nuclear scientists?

JJA:  Iranian martial arts athletes were used by the security forces,  to attack demonstrators in the streets, to kill specific people, and to train the regime thugs.  There’s a significant passage [2] in a Wikileaks document from the American Embassy in Baku that gives some “information” on the phenomenon:

The source maintains that one of his acquaintances killed at least six intellectuals and young “pro-democracy activists” before he himself was eliminated.

OK?  So if the source is telling the truth, people like Fashi were first used to kill people, and then killed themselves.  Perhaps to make sure they didn’t talk. Fashi, in any event, was dangerous to the regime because, even though he was a big Ahmadinejad supporter, he traveled a lot outside the country to compete.

ML:  And if the source is truthful, people like Fashi were used to kill “intellectuals” as well as activists.  That fits your theory that the physicists were rubbed out by the regime.

JJA:  Kind of you to notice.

ML:  But isn’t it counterproductive to kill your own nuclear experts?

JJA:  It’s a hell of a lot easier to find another nuclear physicist than to replace a compromised program.  Iran has a well-educated group of scientists and technicians, a large talent pool.  They have also imported lots of foreign nuclear experts, so most likely they don’t worry much about losing one or two of them unless it’s a key figure.

ML:  And if they lost a key figure, we might not know about it, don’t you think?

JJA:  Agreed.  Why would they tell us?  The killings thus far haven’t involved the top level personnel…and they have been widely publicized.  By the regime itself.  Almost as if they were sending a warning to some others…meanwhile, as you say, the top guys are left untouched.

ML:  The very people you’d expect Israel to target.

JJA:  Yes, I would.  It’s the way they have targeted Hamas, for example.

ML:  So what do you think about Stuxnet, the sabotage of the Iranian uranium enrichment program?

JJA:  That looks more Israeli and/or American to me.  And maybe the Germans, too.  It was a German computer that was infected with the virus, or worm, after all.  They knew more than anyone else about its vulnerabilities.

THERE WAS SOME STATIC COMING OUT OF THE OUIJA BOARD, AND A BIT OF SMOKE.

ML:  Do you expect that sort of thing to continue?

JJA:  Of course.  It’s the smart way.  And (LOST SOME WORDS) people on the ground, better to kill the program than the scientists.

And he was gone.


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

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/08/31/who-killed-the-iranian-nuclear-scientists-i-ask-the-dead-spook/

URLs in this post:

[1] “man in the middle” scheme: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/30/faked-web-certificate-iran-dissidents?CMP=twt_gu

[2] significant passage: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/29/wikileaks-iran-flashback-how-a-kickboxing-champion-became-is.html
 
White House, experts dismiss Iran naval threat to U.S. coast.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/world/meast/iran-navy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- The White House on Wednesday dismissed an Iranian threat to deploy warships near the U.S. coast, and military experts said Iran lacks the naval capability to do so.
Overnight Tuesday, Iranian state news quoted a commander as saying his country plans to have a "powerful presence" near the U.S. border.
In response, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that "we don't take these statements seriously, given that they do not reflect at all Iran's naval capabilities."

Quick edit to add: Its hard to demonize Iranian sailors when they are no different than ours. Proof is in the picture on the article.. One of the sailors is fondling the other ;)  :D
 
This article outlines the dangers, but I think that it *may* still be possible to destabilize Iran and bring the regime down with a more targetted use of pressure. After all, the Iranians were calling for the West to help them when they were rising in protest against the rigged elections (the signs were in English, for the Western media to broadcast and to galvanize the then new Obama administration into action). Using drones to strike at economic targets and Iran's decayed infrastructure might also topple the regime without the same dangers that a massive bombing campaign would bring, or if bombing was considered the only choice, then a "head shot" against the Revolutionary Guards, Basij, and government offices might work, and the mass uprising against the regime would do the rest.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/24/bombing-iran-a-bad-idea-probably-but-its-the-only-idea/?print=1

Bombing Iran a ‘Bad Idea’? Probably. But It’s the ONLY Idea
Posted By David P. Goldman On October 24, 2011 @ 1:24 pm In Uncategorized | 95 Comments

Dalia Dassa Kaye at the Foreign Policy website argues that bombing Iran is a “bad idea.” She’s absolutely right. It’s a bad idea, except all the others are worse. As Prof. Kaye observes,

The aftermath of an attack could be devastating militarily and politically. It could unleash a wave of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, allies, and interests. Iran maintains a wide array of levers across the region, including militia groups it has trained and funded, that it could employ to retaliate against U.S. forces or diplomatic personnel, particularly in countries like Iraq. Iranian missiles have ranges that can reach Israel and all its Gulf Arab neighbors, including those hosting U.S. military forces.

There’s nothing new about this danger. The estimable Adm. Mike Mullen made a similar warning in a March 16, 2009, interview with Charlie Rose.  Mullen said: “What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region. It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn’t predict.”

That’s right: our nation-building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan put tens of thousands of American soldiers in places where Iranian-backed terrorists could hurt them. And as Lee Smith wrote last week at the Tablet webzine, Iran has effectively deterred the United States, and America thus has become Iran’s “key ally” in its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons. How about a 9/11 with a nuclear weapon in a major American city? It was misguided to turn American soldiers into potential hostages to Iranian terror. It’s a hundred times MORE misguided now to pull our forces out of Iraq: we need the capacity to deter Iran from swinging its weight in Iraq and turning it into a Persian satrapy. (The Baghdad government might not like this, but if we really want to, we have ways to persuade regimes like this to cooperate.)

Iran has terrorized the United States, and inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons — unless it’s stopped. At that point its terror capacity will multiply a thousand-fold, because its terrorists will operate under a nuclear umbrella. So the argument boils down to this: Iran is a terrorist state ready to murder American citizens and American allies all over the Middle East and around the world. Which means that we had better not stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, because then they might be mad at us, and hurt us. What does that imply about what a nuclear-armed Iran might do?

But let us return to Prof. Kaye’s argument. She continues:

Such an attack could also backfire by fomenting nationalist sentiment within Iran (particularly if large numbers of civilians are killed) and boost support for more hard-line elements within the regime that current policies are attempting to marginalize. It could also increase Iranian incentives to obtain nuclear weapons to avoid such attacks in the future, while undermining painstaking U.S. efforts to bolster international and regional support for economic and diplomatic pressure against Iran. In short, there are serious risks associated with this option with little potential to actually solve the problem, and possibly making it harder to solve in the future.

No-one can make such assertions with assurance. Nothing succeeds like success. If Britain and France had drawn the line at the Sudetenland in 1938, the German generals likely would have overthrown Hitler. But Kaye misses the point. Yes, the nuclear facilities are deeply entrenched. No, a surgical strike is out of the question. To destroy nuclear weapons capability means to decapitate the regime and the military leadership, with a lot of collateral damage. Five years ago we could have done it cleanly, when cancer was easily operable. Now we will have to make a mess.

Kaye’s final objection is trivial if not disingenuous:

A military strike would be particularly damaging in a post Arab spring environment, in which public opinion is already hostile toward U.S. policies. Even if Arab governments may quietly welcome forceful U.S. actions, Arab publics are far more sympathetic to Iran’s anti-Western positions. Despite Iran’s waning regional influence as Arab revolts and Turkish activism have decreased its relevance in the resistance narrative, Arab publics would likely rally behind Iran in the face of an attack. Additionally, they could constrain their governments’ ability to support US-backed efforts to isolate Iran.

She neglects to mention that the Saudis, now by far the most important Arab power, have been screaming at America for years to take action against Iran. The Syrian opposition, whose people are dying in the streets at the hands of Iranian thugs, won’t particularly mind, one would think.

Above all, it’s critical to keep in mind that Iran is a dying nation. As I report in How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), Iran is suffering the fastest fertility decline on record, any time, ever. The average Iranian has six or seven brothers and sisters, but will have one or two children. The population pyramid will invert: within a single generation, it will go from having 7 children to take care of elderly parents, to just 1.5. And in a country where the average person has $4000 to spend per year, that means starvation. The Iranian leadership knows it. They’ve been screaming about it in public for years. Like Hitler, they think they have one last chance at empire before the curtain comes down. If they’re not stopped, millions of Americans might die.



Article printed from Spengler: http://pjmedia.com/spengler

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/24/bombing-iran-a-bad-idea-probably-but-its-the-only-idea/
 
Here is a link to a story in the on line London Daily Mail that claims the US and the UK are working on plans for an attack and/or invasion of Iran. I suspect there is a lot of speculation involved as most of the story discusses the Israeli position and the state of the Iranian nuclear programme. I am not sure I would put too much credence in the story, especially given the US political and military situation and the wretched state of the British forces. One graphic with the story, for example, has the Americans invading from Iraq while the British and the US attack from western Afghanistan and a third force lands in sourthern Iran from the Gulf. Strikes using air and sea power could be a different matter, but the chances of success are problematic, as previous posts in this thread make clear.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056873/Iran-attack-drawn-UK-US-Middle-East-tensions-rise.html
 
From today's National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/04/peter-goodspeed-report-on-tehran’s-nuclear-program-could-push-mideast-to-the-brink-of-crisis/

Peter Goodspeed: Report on Tehran’s nuclear program could push Mideast to the brink of crisis

Ramzi Haidar / Agence France-Presse files
On June 7, 1981, an Israeli air strike, codenamed Operation Opera, destroyed a nuclear reactor about 30 kilometres southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.

Peter Goodspeed  Nov 4, 2011 – 9:45 PM ET

Eight planes dropped 1,000-kilogram bombs every five seconds as F-15A fighter escorts circled high above. In just two minutes, on June 7, 1981, they destroyed a nuclear program Iraq had been developing secretly over seven years.

Operation Opera transformed the Middle East for the next quarter-century.


Now, Israel is rumoured to be contemplating a similar pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The drumbeat of war is growing louder amid signs a decade-long diplomatic confrontation with Iran may turn to conflict.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report, due out Tuesday, is expected to push the Middle East to the brink of crisis, if it raises additional doubts over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Faced with a rapidly advancing Iranian nuclear program and Tehran’s total disregard of UN Security Council ultimatums to freeze nuclear enrichment programs and grant unfettered access to international inspectors, calls are growing for pre-emptive military strikes.

The possibility of an Israeli attack was thrust into the spotlight this week by an unusual public debate in Israel’s news media over the strategic calculations involved in confronting a near-nuclear Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, and his Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, are reportedly pushing cabinet colleagues to approve the strike in the hopes of setting back Tehran’s nuclear program for a few years.

Right now, a nuclear-armed Iran is Israel’s worst nightmare.

The country’s religious hardliners, whose apocalyptic rhetoric threatens to annihilate the Jewish state, could become more assertive and aggressive with a nuclear arsenal.

Given their long history of support for radical groups, they could threaten to pass their nuclear capability on to terrorists.

They could also transform the military balance in the Middle East, threatening the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. They might also try to isolate Israel by pressing Arab states and Turkey to withdraw basing rights granted the U.S. military.

Iran could also seek to control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway at the foot of the Persian Gulf, through which 40% of the world’s oil travels each day.

If Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, it will embolden other would-be nuclear powers, like North Korea, and could set off a regional nuclear arms race, as Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia seek to counter the new threat.

The calculations involved in nuclear war are horrific for Israel.

A single nuclear blast would wipe the country off the map, accomplishing in seconds what Hitler and the Holocaust attempted through the murder of six million Jews.

“The strategic decision regarding Iran is the decision of our generation,” columnist Ari Shavit wrote Friday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

“If Israel acts against Iran prematurely, the implications could be dramatic. An eternal war with Tehran, an immediate war with Hamas and Hezbollah, tens of thousands of missiles on dozens of cities in Israel.

“If Israel is late to act in Iran, the implications could be critical to our survival.”

Any attempt to pre-empt Iran’s nuclear program militarily will inevitably be patterned on the 1981 strike.

Only Iran isn’t Iraq. Its nuclear facilities are scattered around the country. Some are embedded in heavily populated areas, others are buried deep underground or are heavily fortified.

There are at least eight known nuclear sites that would have to be taken out to temporarily destroy Iran’s nuclear program and there could be many more secret installations.

A 2006 study produced by the U. S. War College, Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, doubts all Iran’s nuclear facilities could be destroyed in just one raid.

Tactically, experts said it could take 600 to 1,000 air sorties to make sure underground nuclear sites are eradicated. Even then, the U.S. war planners suggest, they might have to use tactical nuclear weapons to get at some deep tunnels.

That might make it almost impossible for Israel to act alone.

“The Israelis just can’t do Osirak again,” said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

An Israeli attack would likely concentrate on three locations: Isfahan, where Iran produces uranium hexafluoride gas; Natanz, where the gas is enriched in thousands of centrifuges; and Arak, where a heavy-water research reactor is scheduled to come on line in 2012.

“It is conceivable that Israel may attack other sites that it suspects to be part of a nuclear weapons program, if targeting data were available, such as the recently disclosed Qom site,” said Steven Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“But attacks against the sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak alone would likely stretch Israel’s capabilities and planners would probably be reluctant to enlarge the raid further.”

A co-ordinated air attack would be complicated and risky, requiring Israeli warplanes and refuelling tanker aircraft to fly over potentially hostile third countries to reach Iranian targets on the outer range limits of the fighters.

If Syria or Saudi Arabia or Turkey were to detect, challenge or attack a flight of Israeli warplanes on their way to Iran, they could derail the entire operation.

“Israel’s intricate attack plan would have a razor-thin margin for error to begin with,” said Mr. Simon.

“The general assessment among experts is that Israeli talk of a military option is mainly empty words,” said Avner Cohen, a specialist at the Center for Non-proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California.

“Israel does not have the military capability of striking at Iran over a period of weeks, not to say months, on end.”

The regional consequences of an Israeli air strike are also daunting.

If attacked, Iran can be expected to lash out at U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tehran’s Shahab-3 missiles can also reach deep into Israel, and Iran might launch the ballistic missiles against Israeli cities and Israel’s nuclear reactor sites in the Negev desert.

Iran could also seek to shut down oil exports from the Gulf by closing the Strait of Hormuz or it could launch missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oilfields.

It almost certainly would unleash a wave of terrorist violence around the world. Iranian-backed groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as Iran’s own intelligence agents and the Revolutionary Guard — all better organized, trained and equipped than al-Qaeda — could be deployed in retaliatory strikes.

“An attack against Iran means a war the likes of which we have never known, a war in which the home front will become the battlefield and there is no way of knowing how it will end,” said Mr. Cohen.

“It is exceedingly unlikely Israel’s leaders, as hawkish as they may be, would attack Iran without U.S. permission,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli Middle East analyst.

“The Israeli government may feel comfortable challenging the United States over the issue of settlements, but striking Iran is a very different matter.”

The chances of a successful pre-emptive strike would improve dramatically if the United States and Israel cooperate and act in unison.

But Washington has shown no sign of wanting to abandon its strategy of using diplomacy, sanctions, covert action and cyber warfare to slow down Iran’s nuclear program.

If the United States does decide to move militarily against Iran, it might not even attack Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

A 2009 study produced by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy suggests a pre-emptive military strike should target the country’s oil export facilities.

“The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not,” say the report’s authors, Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt.

Oil revenue provides at least 75% of the Iranian government income and 80% of export revenues, while oil pumping stations and tanker ports are vulnerable to attacks from the sea and air, the report said.

Direct strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are the most dramatic form of action possible, although also the hardest and least likely to succeed. A political "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and sever the comand and control nexus may succeed, the destruction of Iranian oil facilities would be a part of the program, but the US and the world would have to live with the destabilizaton of the oil industry and economy for years to come (and new plays like shale oil may not be enough to cushion the shock).

Like so many things, there is a time you have to take the least worst choice.
 
'Attack Iran' and AIPAC's infamous chutzpah 

Lobbying for a US war with Iran, AIPAC is pushing a bill that would prohibit diplomacy between the two nations.

link here http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011114635741836.html

"But preventing diplomacy is precisely what Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that set out this bill, seek. They and others who back the measure want another war and the best way to get it is to ban diplomacy (which exists, of course, to prevent war).

Think back, for example, to the Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the monstrous, nuclear-armed Soviet regime were on the brink of war over Cuba, a war that might have destroyed the planet.

Neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev knew how to end the crisis, especially because both were being pushed by their respective militaries not to back down.

An essential latitude

Then, at the darkest moment of the crisis, when war seemed inevitable, an ABC correspondent named John Scali secretly met with a Soviet official in New York who described a way to end the crisis that would satisfy his bosses. That meeting was followed by another secret meeting between the president's brother, Attorney General Robert F Kennedy, and a Soviet official in Washington. Those meetings led to a plan that ended the crisis and, perhaps, saved the world.

Needless to say, Kennedy did not ask for the permission of the House Foreign Affairs Committee either to conduct secret negotiations or to implement the terms of the deal. In fact, it was decades before the details of the deal were revealed.

It is this latitude to conduct diplomacy that the lobby and its cutouts on Capitol Hill want to take away from the White House. And it's latitude that is especially essential if it is determined that Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear arsenal"




 
Back
Top