Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[Nailer]

with all the conflicting reports an rumors I dont know what to believe anymore




Operation Azadi: Military forms new army, declares war on coup forces

In the name of God the Merciful & Forgiving...
The coordination center for National Iranian Armed Resistance Forces (NIRU) hereby declares its existence & accuses the current government and the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Mr. Sayyed Ali Khamenei of legal transgressions and high treason of nation and homeland.

We, a number of Officers, Soldiers and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.... Our action has no political or revolting aspects. We’d rather see our actions as the carrying out of the moral & national duties of all soldiers & Iranians. Our intention is the defense of the oppressed against oppressors, and avoidance of further crimes committed by the illegitimate Government...
Now, after 6 months of crisis, oppression, crimes, repeated violent transgressions of our nation’s rights, as well as the trampling of Constitutional & moral laws, the Leader and other main agents of the Government have stripped themselves of their qualification and legitimacy....


http://www.iranian.com/main/news/2009/12/26/operation-azadi-military-forms-new-army-declares-war-coup-forces

http://iran.whyweprotest.net/news-current-events/60419-operation-azadi.html




Hardliners chant 'Death to Mousavi' at Iran rallies
Premium Article !

Published Date: 31 December 2009

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

THOUSANDS of hardline government supporters turned out for state-backed rallies yesterday and called for the execution of opposition leaders as Iran's police chief threatened to show "no mercy" in crushing pro-reform protests.

Iran's official IRNA news agency reported the top two opposition leaders had fled the capital, Tehran, but a relative of one of the leaders denied this.

Pro-government rallies were staged in Shiraz, Arak, Qom and Tehran, where demonstrators chanted "Death to Mousavi", in reference to opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Some shouted "Rioter hypocrites must be executed" and held up a banner that read: "We sacrifice our blood for the supreme leader."

The government gave all public employees a day off to attend the rallies and organised buses to transport schoolchildren and supporters from rural areas.

Hardline cleric Ahmad Alamolhoda called opponents of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "supporters of Satan".

"Enemies of the leader, according to the Koran, belong to the party of Satan," Alamolhoda told the Tehran rally, broadcast on state TV. "Our war in the world is war against the opponents of the rule of the supreme leader."

Khamenei yesterday acknowledge the impact of the opposition in taking support from his leadership but said the pro-reform movement had caused Iran's problems.

"The reality in the society is that as some (supporters] dropped out, twice that number joined (us]," he said.

Police chief General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam warned protesters to stay off the streets or face harsh consequences. At least eight people were killed in street violence on Sunday, the worst unrest since the aftermath of the 12 June election.

"There will be no mercy," Moghaddam said. "The era of tolerance is over. Anyone attending such rallies will be crushed."

One of those killed was a nephew of Mousavi. But Iran's deputy police chief said Ali Mousavi was assassinated by unidentified assailants, not security forces.

Ali Mousavi was buried yesterday in a hastily organised ceremony. Authorities had taken his body from hospital earlier in the week in what was seen as an attempt to prevent a funeral turning into a pro-opposition protest.

The opposition claimed Ali Mousavi was shot by security forces, a claim denied by deputy police chief Ahmad Reza Radan. The opposition leader and other family members attended the funeral.

Authorities also faced uncomfortable questioning after video posted online purported to show two white police pickups ploughing into groups of protesters at Sunday's demonstrations.

One truck is first seen driving into the crowd, then reversing away from a body lying face down on the asphalt. The second truck then speeds up and runs over the body as people nearby cry out. The authenticity of the video could not be independently verified.

When asked about the video and whether police trucks intentionally ran over people, Mr Moghaddam raged: "Don't ask lies. There are no pictures showing police cars running over people."

The police chief said more than 500 protesters who took part in Sunday's demos have been arrested but the number may be higher since hardline militia and intelligence agents may have apprehended more.

Hardliners were infuriated some protesters had insulted the supreme leader. The government insisted the protesters were a minority and accused the US and Britain of organising them.

The hardline reaction has become increasingly vocal, with some activists threatening to take the law into their own hands.

The arrests and criticism of the US and Britain added to tensions with the West, which is threatening tough new sanctions over Iran's suspect nuclear programme and the crackdown on protests.

Yesterday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said she was "shocked by the upsurge in deaths, injuries and arrests" and said people have the right to peaceful protest.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Hardliners-chant-39Death--.5947749.jp


Iran mobilises troops ahead of rally
BY ABC | Dec 31, 2009

An opposition website in Iran says the government is moving troops and armoured military vehicles to the capital on the day supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi planned to hold a rally.

"Hundreds of military forces and tens of armoured vehicles ... are moving towards Tehran. Some of the vehicles are used for suppressing street riots," the Jaras website said.

Jaras also said security forces had a heavy presence in various Tehran squares ahead of the planned opposition rally.

Iran's police chief warned supporters of Mr Mousavi on Wednesday of harsh treatment if they joined illegal anti-government rallies.

In Iran's bloodiest unrest since the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election, eight people were killed last Sunday and at least 20 pro-reform figures, including three senior advisers to Mr Mousavi, were arrested.

The government reacted by organising demonstrations, starting on Monday, in which hundreds of thousands of people took part.

Demonstrators called for the execution of the opposition leaders, Mr Mousavi and moderate defeated presidential candidate Mehdi Karoubi.

- Reuters

http://www.mindfood.com/at-2783654-iran-mobilises-troops-ahead-of-rally.seo

[Brocke]

There's another IPCC?!


Desecrations Condemned

Two days after the bloody anti-government protests on Ashura, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated across Iran on Wednesday and condemned what they described as desecration of the religious Moharram ceremonies.

In the Iranian capital and several other cities people took to the streets in a show of strength against anti-government protesters, Presstv reported.

The rallies came after protests were held in central and downtown streets in Tehran on Sunday, hijacking the Ashura ceremonies, during which Shiites commemorate the 7th century death of Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) grandson, Imam Hussein (AS).

The protesters in the weekend chanted slogans against senior government officials. Police used tear gas and batons to disperse the protesters.

Seven people were confirmed dead during the unrest and hundreds were arrested.
"You should repent ... otherwise the system will confront you as a 'Mohareb' (enemy of God)," cleric Ahmad Alamolhoda said at a rally in Tehran addressing himself to pro-reform leaders. Under Iran's Islamic Sharia law those found guilty of being a Mohareb face the death penalty.
In Tehran the crowds burned the US and British flags.

IPCC Statement

In line with Wednesday's demonstrations, the Islamic Propagation Coordination Council issued a statement, condemning the anti-government protests on Ashura.

"A limited number of anti-revolution troublemakers, who are against the nation's security, progress, honor and glory, sought to target the most sacred values of Islam in some streets in Tehran under the tutelage of the foreign media and with the support of hegemonic powers," the statement said.

It criticized the judiciary, the Intelligence Ministry and security officials for showing tolerance toward anti-government protesters, calling on the judiciary to identify those behind the unrest.

"We call on all responsible government organizations to identify those behind the defiling [of religious values] and hand out severe penalties,” the council said.

http://www.iran-daily.com/#

[Nailer]

well when is obammy going to start a War with Iran ?



Dec 31, 2009
Iran jamming satellite signals from U.S. and British broadcasts.

British and U.S. broadcasters say that Iran is jamming signals from a key communications satellite in an effort to keep news of opposition demonstrations from most Iranians.
U.S. and British broadcasters say that Iran is jamming signals from an international satellite that transmits signals into Iran from the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC's) Persian television service and the United States' Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts.
The VOA is reporting that the jamming effort is affecting a satellite system known as "Hot Bird," and is blocking the transmission of broadcasts of the VOA's Persian Network and Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty's Radio Farda and Radio Sawa, an Arabic-language radio broadcast. Technicians believe the VOA broadcasts have been affected since December 27.

The BBC's Persian television service first noticed "persistent interference" on December 20, according to a Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW) report. That was soon after the BBC network began extended coverage of the death of the reformist cleric Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri. The jamming efforts affected other channels on the satellite transponder as well, including R1 and Yes Italia. The jamming resulted in the signal being unwatchable due to "picture break-ups and sound drop-outs," according to RNW.

To combat the jamming interference, RNW says the BBC began using an info card telling viewers to turn to Telstar 12 during the jamming. The BBC reports that now the jamming has appeared to have stopped for their broadcasts but they are looking at other satellites as a way to increase their broadcasts to Farsi-speaking Iranians.
RNW said a statement issued by the U.S. government's Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) criticized the jamming and said,

As Iranian citizens once again demonstrate against the current government, Iran has stepped up its measures to ensure that the Iranian people are deprived of the international reaction, as well as of accurate news about the protests taking place in various cities in Iran.
It is widely accepted that Iran has the technical proficiency to disrupt a wide-range of communication networks, including broadcast, cell phone, satellite and Internet services within Iran.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284756

[bigron]

Central Asia
Jan 8, 2010  
 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LA08Ag01.html
 
Russia, China, Iran redraw energy map


By M K Bhadrakumar

The inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran pipeline on Wednesday connecting Iran's northern Caspian region with Turkmenistan's vast gas field may go unnoticed amid the Western media cacophony that it is "apocalypse now" for the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The event sends strong messages for regional security. Within the space of three weeks, Turkmenistan has committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia and Iran. It has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing. Are we hearing the faint notes of a Russia-China-Iran symphony?

The 182-kilometer Turkmen-Iranian pipeline starts modestly with the pumping of 8 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas. But its annual capacity is 20bcm, and that would meet the energy requirements of Iran's Caspian region and enable Tehran to free its own gas production in the southern fields for export. The mutual interest is perfect: Ashgabat gets an assured market next door; northern Iran can consume without fear of winter shortages; Tehran can generate more surplus for exports; Turkmenistan can seek transportation routes to the world market via Iran; and Iran can aspire to take advantage of its excellent geographical location as a hub for the Turkmen exports.

We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan hold respectively the world's largest, second-largest and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to the US global strategy.



The Turkmen-Iranian pipeline mocks the US's Iran policy. The US is threatening Iran with new sanctions and claims Tehran is "increasingly isolated". But Mahmud Ahmadinejad's presidential jet winds its way through a Central Asian tour and lands in Ashgabat for a red-carpet welcome by his Turkmen counterpart, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, and a new economic axis emerges. Washington's coercive diplomacy hasn't worked. Turkmenistan, with a gross domestic product of US$18.3 billion, defied the sole superpower (GDP of $14.2 trillion) - and, worse still, made it look routine.  

There are subplots, too. Tehran claims to have a deal with Ankara to transport Turkmen gas to Turkey via the existing 2,577km pipeline connecting Tabriz in northwestern Iran with Ankara. Indeed, Turkish diplomacy has an independent foreign-policy orientation. Turkey also aspires to be a hub for Europe's energy supplies. Europe may be losing the battle for establishing direct access to the Caspian.

Second, Russia does not seem perturbed by China tapping into Central Asian energy. Europe's need for Russian energy imports has dropped and Central Asian energy-producing countries are tapping China's market. From the Russian point of view, China's imports should not deprive it of energy (for its domestic consumption or exports). Russia has established deep enough presence in the Central Asian and Caspian energy sector to ensure it faces no energy shortage.

What matters most to Russia is that its dominant role as Europe's No 1 energy provider is not eroded. So long as the Central Asian countries have no pressing need for new US-backed trans-Caspian pipelines, Russia is satisfied.

During his recent visit to Ashgabat, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev normalized Russian-Turkmen energy ties. The restoration of ties with Turkmenistan is a major breakthrough for both countries. One, a frozen relationship is being resumed substantially, whereby Turkmenistan will maintain an annual supply of 30bcm to Russia. Two, to quote Medvedev, "For the first time in the history of Russian-Turkmen relations, gas supplies will be carried out based on a price formula that is absolutely in line with European gas market conditions." Russian commentators say Gazprom will find it unprofitable to buy Turkmen gas and if Moscow has chosen to pay a high price, that is primarily because of its resolve not to leave gas that could be used in alternative pipelines, above all in the US-backed Nabucco project.




Third, contrary to Western propaganda, Ashgabat does not see the Chinese pipeline as a substitute for Gazprom. Russia's pricing policy ensures that Ashgabat views Gazprom as an irreplaceable customer. The export price of the Turkmen gas to be sold to China is still under negotiation and the agreed price simply cannot match the Russian offer.

Fourth, Russia and Turkmenistan reiterated their commitment to the Caspian Coastal Pipeline (which will run along the Caspian's east coast toward Russia) with a capacity of 30bcm. Evidently, Russia hopes to cluster additional Central Asian gas from Turkmenistan (and Kazakhstan).

Fifth, Moscow and Ashgabat agreed to build jointly an east-west pipeline connecting all Turkmen gas fields to a single network so that the pipelines leading toward Russia, Iran and China can draw from any of the fields.

Indeed, against the backdrop of the intensification of the US push toward Central Asia, Medvedev's visit to Ashgabat impacted on regional security. At the joint press conference with Medvedev, Berdymukhammedov said the views of Turkmenistan and Russia on the regional processes, particularly in Central Asia and the Caspian region, were generally the same. He underlined that the two countries were of the view that the security of one cannot be achieved at the expense of the other. Medvedev agreed that there was similarity or unanimity between the two countries on issues related to security and confirmed their readiness to work together.
The United States' pipeline diplomacy in the Caspian, which strove to bypass Russia, elbow out China and isolate Iran, has foundered. Russia is now planning to double its intake of Azerbaijani gas, which further cuts into the Western efforts to engage Baku as a supplier for Nabucco. In tandem with Russia, Iran is also emerging as a consumer of Azerbaijani gas. In December, Azerbaijan inked an agreement to deliver gas to Iran through the 1,400km Kazi-Magomed-Astara pipeline.

The "big picture" is that Russia's South Stream and North Stream, which will supply gas to northern and southern Europe, have gained irreversible momentum. The stumbling blocks for North Stream have been cleared as Denmark (in October), Finland and Sweden (in November) and Germany (in December) approved the project from the environmental angle. The pipeline's construction will commence in the spring.

The $12-billion pipeline built jointly by Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and the Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie bypasses the Soviet-era transit routes via Ukraine, Poland and Belarus and runs from the northwestern Russian port of Vyborg to the German port of Greifswald along a 1,220km route under the Baltic Sea. The first leg of the project with a carrying capacity of 27.5bcm annually will be completed next year and the capacity will double by 2012. North Stream will profoundly affect the geopolitics of Eurasia, trans-Atlantic equations and Russia's ties with Europe.

To be sure, 2009 proved to be a momentous year for the "energy war". The Chinese pipeline inaugurated by President Hu Jintao on December 14; the oil terminal near the port city of Nakhodka in Russia's far east inaugurated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on December 27 (which will be served by the mammoth $22-billion oil pipeline from the new fields in eastern Siberia leading to China and the Asia-Pacific markets); and the Iranian pipeline inaugurated by Ahmadinejad on January 6 - the energy map of Eurasia and the Caspian has been virtually redrawn.

The year 2010 begins on a fascinating new note: will Russia, China and Iran coordinate future moves or at least harmonize their competing interests?

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

 
 
 

[bigron]

The mushroom effect 

15/01/2010 01:30:00 PM GMT
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/The-mushroom-effect.html
 
Although not a single Iranian has been responsible for a terrorist act, Israel must have an enemy at all times and Iran is the ogre du jour.


Murdoch and his media empire will turn Iran into that enemy.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

One could be forgiven for thinking that the neoconservatives who nudge us towards war with Iran are under the effect of the magic mushroom. Obsessed with Iran, their trips take on the shape of a 'mushroom cloud'. Christopher Hitchens is one such example. Writing for The Australian, one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, Hitchens' Mullahs indubitably fancy a mushroom betrays a sly mind that lacks lucidity.

Unable to give strength to his argument, he 'borrows' from Murdoch's other publications such as The Times and repeats the same unfounded allegations that Iran is engaged in non-civilian nuclear activities: "UD3, when used in a neutron initiator, emits a stream of neutrons that ignite the core of a bomb". This 'news' has systematically been debunked by The Guardian. But it would seem that Hitchens is on another cloud.

He would have the reader believe that Hezbollah sports a new poster with a 'mushroom cloud' in front of Iranian embassy officials. Is Hitchens implying that such a parade, 'poster' and all, took place under the watchful eyes of the Lebanese authorities? Surely this would not have been in keeping with what Mr. Obama had in mind when on December 22, 2009 he said Lebanon is a crucial U.S. ally. Curiously, where was Murdoch's Fox News to give this audacious act live coverage?

It is at this juncture in Mr. Hitchens' article that absurdity makes way for manipulation. Having painted a picture of a mushroom cloud with a brush dipped in lies, he shamelessly brings Iran into every family room by connecting this imaginary picture to Flight 253 - the Christmas flight that almost killed 300 passengers. He connects the pretense, the lies, and the fear felt by a real and unrelated event to further demonize Iran.

Although not a single Iranian has been responsible for a terrorist act, Israel must have an enemy at all times and Iran is the ogre du jour. Murdoch and his media empire will turn Iran into that enemy. His support of Israel is so strong--surpassing business interests, that a former London Times correspondent by the name of Sam Kiley stated: "No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper."

Mr. Hitchens closes by saying that our intelligence " coddle and excuse our enemies and treat us like criminals ......" Regrettably, he and his cohorts do not get treated like the criminals that they are. By way of lies, manipulation, and deception, they hypnotize us with fear until they win our consent for yet more killing. They are the culprits that cause our soldiers to die, the treasury be emptied, and our country be hated. They are the ones who are responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people across the globe. Travel? Only on his mushroom-enabled trips. For the rest of us, we can only survive by staying away from pens dipped in toxin.

-- Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master's in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher and writer with regular contributions to various online blogs. She is a member of Stanford's World Association of International Studies (WAIS). Soraya is a public speaker and political commentator.This article appeared in The Huffington Post.




-- Middle East Online

 

[bigron]

Israel to Station German Nuclear Submarine in Persian Gulf


 
Global Research, January 18, 2010
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17048
Press TV 


Ahead of a Israeli-German cabinet meeting in Berlin, median reports indicate that Israel intends to station one of its German-made Dolphin submarines in the waters of the Persian Gulf.

"Israel's use of the dolphin submarine in exercises in the red sea aroused fears that Israel may seek to maintain a continued presence in the Persian Gulf as soon as it receives its submarines form Germany in 2011-2012," the tagesspiegel said on Sunday.

The meeting, delayed in November due to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illness, is expected to focus on Israel's push to buy a sixth Dolphin-class nuclear submarine from the Germans.

During the day-long trip by the centre-right government, Netanyahu seeks to expand Tel Aviv's submarine fleet.

Israel has previously received three submarines as a donation form the government of the then German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

The German newspaper Berliner Zeitung in 2003 revealed that Germany`s leading shipyard company Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft was involved in negotiations with Israel to construct two additional Dolphin submarines.

The company confirmed the reports adding the German government had approved them. Days later the German Focus magazine reported that Tel Aviv will not be receiving the submarines as the German government had decided to halt the delivery of the two submarines to Israel.

The Dolphin submarines are among the most sophisticated and capable submarines in the world, that could be equipped with nuclear missiles. Built in German shipyards for the Israel Navy, the submarine is capable of carrying American-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

This is while political groups opposed to Israel's "occupation, settler and war politics" have announced plans to demonstrate near the Federal Chancellor's Officer.

"Why is a joint cabinet session taking place with a racist, fascist, Zionist ideology?" one of the groups asked in its announcement.

After the United States, Germany is the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel. While restrictive German export regulations bar the sale of weapons to crisis areas, the German government has justified its actions by describing the move as "special responsibility" towards Tel Aviv.
 

[bigron]

Petraeus: Missile-Shooting Ships on Station in the Gulf

By Nathan Hodge  January 22, 2010 
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/petraeus-missile-shooting-ships-on-station-in-the-gulf/





The U.S. military is keeping at least two Navy ships on station in the Persian Gulf, ready to track and possibly intercept missiles, according to the top U.S. general in the region.

Speaking today at the Institute for the Study of War, Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said two cruisers equipped with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System “are in the Gulf at all times now.”

That statement — along with the stationing of other U.S. air defense assets in the region — sends a strong signal to Iran, which has been investing in both ballistic missile technology and a highly suspect nuclear program. Iran’s military ambitions — and its drive to master nuclear enrichment — has unsettled its neighbors, and sparked concerns about a regional arms buildup.

It’s not the first time the U.S. military has deployed Aegis BMD ships to response to missile threats. Last year, the Navy sent two Aegis destroyers in anticipation of a North Korean missile launch. In addition to the Navy ships, Petraeus said the U.S. military now had eight Patriot missile batteries in the region. “[There are] two in each of four countries, U.S. Patriot batteries that weren’t there two years ago,” he said.

In response to a question about creating a formal security alliance in the Gulf region, Petraeus said: “The best recruiting officer in recent times for the CENTCOM security architecture … in our region has been Iranian President Ahmadinejad: His rhetoric, his actions, the continued missile program development, the nuclear program, the employment of proxy elements still in Iraq, who are still active.”

But he dismissed the possibility of a NATO-style alliance in the region, at least for now. “I don’t think the concept of a NATO-like organization is all that realistic in the near term,” he said.

[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]

[lazarus]

... Petraeus said: “The best recruiting officer in recent times for the CENTCOM security architecture … in our region has been Iranian President Ahmadinejad: His rhetoric, his actions, the continued missile program development, the nuclear program, the employment of proxy elements still in Iraq, who are still active.”

Wrong. That would be the second best. After government sponsored terrorism. And the second hinges on the first.

Petraeus. Would you kill Americans in your treason? (a message intended for those who monitor this forum for their masters)

[bigron]

Sunday, January 31, 2010
07:36 Mecca time, 04:36 GMT   
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101313405883442.html
 
News Middle East 
 
US bolsters Gulf missile defences  
 

Patraeus said the accelerated deployment included eight Patriot missile batteries [GALLO/GETTY]
 
The US administration has been speeding up deployment of defences against potential Iranian missile attacks in the Arabian Gulf.

The move, reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times newspapers on Saturday, involves placing specialised ships off the Iranian coast and anti-missile systems in at least four Arab countries.

The countries were not named.

The Washington Post reported quoting Gulf officials that the defensive improvements would be undertaken regardless of US support.

Some officials were quoted as saying that they were encouraged by the supportive signals from the Obama administration, which regional leaders initially feared would be more accommodating of Iran than the Bush White House.

"It's a tough neighbourhood, and we have to make sure we are protected," the Post quoted a senior government official in a US-allied Arab state as saying.

The official called Iran the "number one threat in the region".

US officials were quoted as saying that the willingness of other Arab states to accept the US defences reflects growing unease in the region over Iran's ambitions and capabilities.

"Our first goal is to deter the Iranians," a senior administration official told the Times.

"A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."

New sanctions

The deployments could forestall any Iranian retaliation in response to the sanctions, as well as discourage Israel from launching a military attack against Tehran's nuclear and military facilities.

Washington is seeking to win over its allies to impose a fourth set of UN sanctions on Iran that would target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is believed to control the military aspect of Tehran's nuclear programme.

General David Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command that oversees US military operations stretching from the Gulf to Central Asia, said the accelerated deployment of missile systems included eight Patriot missile batteries, "two in each of four countries".
 
 

[worcesteradam]

In Britain the public are being introduced to the idea that we might pay the Taliban money to go away rather than fight them (something the NWO has always done)
This could be the beginning of a wrapping up exercise.
Which means they might be getting ready for a new war.

[bigron]

Sanctions Only Hurt Ordinary Iranians

by Muhammad Sahimi, January 30, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2010/01/29/sanctions-only-hurt-ordinary-iranians/


On Thursday, January 28, the Senate approved legislation that allows the President to impose sanctions on any entity that exports gasoline to Iran, or help expand its refining capacity by denying them loans from American financial institutions. A largely similar legislation has already been passed by the House of Representatives. The legislation is supposedly intended to pressure the Islamic Republic to give up its uranium enrichment program.

The Senate bill extends sanctions to companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran’s petroleum. It also prohibits the U.S. government from buying goods from foreign companies that work in Iran’s energy sector. So, in effect the Senate bill imposes sanctions on Iran’s entire oil and natural gas industry.

Iran has the world’s third biggest oil reserves, but imports a significant fraction of its gasoline to meet domestic demand, because it lacks enough refining capacity.  Anticipating the gasoline sanctions for at least two years, Iran has been working hard to reduce its dependency on imports of gasoline, reducing it from 40 percent of total consumption to 25-30 percent. In addition, as I described in a previous article, Tehran can take several relatively simple steps to further reduce its dependency on the gasoline imports.

Although in his State of the Union address on Wednesday January 27, President Obama warned Iran that it faces "growing consequences" over its nuclear program, the administration was not overly interested in the legislation. On January 4th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that (emphasis mine):

"Our goal is to pressure the Iranian government, particularly the Revolutionary Guard elements, without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary [Iranians], who deserve better than what they currently are receiving."


This is a position that she reiterated on January 11.

P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman, reiterated the Administration position on January 5th (emphasis mine):

"As the Secretary said, one possibility is to focus more specifically on the Revolutionary Guards, the IRGC. We’re taking a much more prominent role within Iran. We want to do this in a way that can target specific entities within the Iranian Government but not punish the Iranian people, who are clearly looking for a different relationship with their government."

Thus, the Administration is apparently seeking targeted sanctions that hurt only the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite hard-line part of Iran’s military that essentially runs the country. Clearly, gasoline sanctions is not one of them. The U.S. business groups had also warned the administration that the bill would undercut the President’s strategy of working with U.S. allies in finding a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program, because the legislation targets the U.S. allies’ companies that do business with Iran.

But, the Israel lobby and its agents in the Senate, Senator Joseph Lieberman and others, wanted the legislation approved, and so it was. Indeed, the passage of the legislation was praised by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which called for even tougher sanctions.

The legislation is terrible news for ordinary Iranians that have been struggling to make ends meet, amidst the deep crisis that their nation has been facing in the aftermath of the June 12 rigged presidential election. At least a million Iranians work in the transportation sector of Iran’s economy, with millions more depending on transportation for their work and business, not to mention the agriculture sector that also relies heavily on transportation.

In addition, it is well-known in Iran that there is a gasoline “Mafia” that is linked to the IRGC. They sell the gasoline that is subsidized by the government in neighboring countries at a much higher price and make a huge profit. The sanctions, which inevitably would lead to much higher gasoline price in Iran, would only tighten the “Mafia’s” grip on the gasoline market, hence increasing the power that the IRGC already has, completely the opposite of the effect that the legislation is supposedly intended for.

If the purpose of such legislation is to create hardship for Iranians in order to motivate them to put pressure on their government, there is no need for it. A great majority of Iranians are already deeply angered about what has been happening in Iran in the aftermath of the June 12 rigged presidential election. There have been almost constant demonstrations; daily arrests of political figures, journalists, university students, human rights advocates and ordinary people; thousands have been detained; dozens have been murdered; show trials have been held; unjustified sentences have been handed out to the imprisoned people, and several have been hanged.


These developments have given birth to the Green Movement that has been gathering strength over the past several months. The Green Movement’s leaders, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Moussavi, former parliament Speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, and former president Mohammad Khatami, have opposed sanctions, particularly those that hurt only ordinary Iranians. But, while the sponsors of the Congress sanctions bill pay lip service to the bravery of Iranian people and their courage to push the hardliners, they also hurt them by imposing such sanctions, because the goal is not to help the Iranian people, but satisfy Israel and its lobby.


If the purpose of such legislations is to hurt Iran’s economy to the point that it would cripple the hardliners and prevent them from pursuing their nuclear program, there is no need for them. First of all, Iran’s nuclear program has significantly slowed down, due to both the internal crisis and technical difficulty. The Obama administration concedes that, even if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon, it does not have a breakout capability for up to three years, ample time for both diplomacy and to see where Iran’s internal developments take the nation. 


Secondly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s economic policy – if it can be called as such – is already damaging Iran’s economy and people’s economic welfare greatly. Inflation is rampant, to the point that the government is seriously thinking about devaluing Iran’s currency, the rial. Beginning in the upcoming Iranian New Year that will start on March 21, Ahmadinejad will eliminate all the subsidies to basic commodities, food stuff, etc., and will remove all price controls. Iran’s most prominent economists have warned that the action will increase the rate of inflation to 60 percent (from its current official rate of close to 30 percent), further impoverish millions of Iranians, and ruin many businesses.


In addition, Iran has a labor movement that is increasingly stronger and more vocal.

The movement is demanding better pay, more labor-friendly laws, uprooting of corruption, and cutting off the hands of the IRGC from the economy. The labor movement only adds strength to the Green Movement. 


Therefore, Iran’s internal developments and dynamics are doing what even the best-intentioned pieces of legislation by foreign powers cannot achieve, namely, making the Iranian people even more determined to push for a democratic political system, rule of law, and a completely free press that would reveal the depth of corruption and mismanagement by the hardliners that are the root cause of the terrible economic situation in Iran.


Iranian people do not need, nor have they called for, foreign interference in their internal affairs (which the gasoline legislation intends). They can address their problems by themselves. What they need are moral support and strong and meaningful condemnation of the gross violations of human rights that are daily occurrences in Iran. 


If sanctions are to be imposed, they should strip away the power of the hardliners to block the free flow of information by making available to Iranian people the technology to break the hardliners’ grip on the internet, blocking websites, and slowing down the internet traffic, and other means of mass communication. If sanctions are to be imposed, they should isolate the IRGC leaders and their allies in Iran’s conservative camp, not hurting Iranians just when their century old struggle for democracy is beginning to bear fruit.

[bigron]

January 31, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/middleeast/31missile.html?hp

U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait have accepted American Patriot missiles, military officials said.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.

Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.

General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.

The general spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front.”

General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.

He also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.

Iran contends that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that its program is for energy production. The White House declined to comment on the deployments.

But administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the moves have several aims. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than the United States had once thought — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program.

Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities.

Gulf countries are also taking steps of their own to harden their defenses. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have bought more than $15 billion in American arms in the past two years, including missile defense systems. The United States is helping support a plan by Saudi Arabia to triple the size, to 30,000 people, of a Saudi force that protects the kingdom’s ports, oil facilities and water-desalinization plants, a senior military officer said. The Washington Post reported both steps on its Web site on Saturday.

One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.

In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.

[bigron]

U.S. speeds up arms buildup with Gulf allies

Initiatives with Arab nations, military aimed at thwarting Iran attacks

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post
updated 5:37 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2010


DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - The Obama administration is quietly working with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to speed up arms sales and rapidly upgrade defenses for oil terminals and other key infrastructure in a bid to thwart future military attacks by Iran, according to former and current U.S. and Middle Eastern government officials.

The initiatives, including a U.S.-backed plan to triple the size of a 10,000-man protection force in Saudi Arabia, are part of a broader push that includes unprecedented coordination of air defenses and expanded joint exercises between the U.S. and Arab militaries, the officials said. All appear to be aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran.

The efforts build on commitments by the George W. Bush administration to sell warplanes and anti-missile systems to friendly Arab states to counter Iran's growing conventional arsenal. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are leading a region-wide military buildup that has resulted in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms purchases in the past two years alone.

Middle Eastern military and intelligence officials said Gulf states are embracing the expansion as Iran reacts increasingly defiantly to international censure over its nuclear program. Gulf states fear retaliatory strikes by Iran or allied groups such as Hezbollah in the event of a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States or Israel.

For the Obama administration, the cooperation represents tangible progress against Iran at a time when the White House is struggling to build international support for stronger diplomatic measures, including tough new economic sanctions, a senior official said in an interview.

"We're developing a truly regional defensive capability, with missile systems, air defense and a hardening up of critical infrastructure," said the official, who is involved in strategic planning with Gulf states and who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "All of these have progressed significantly over the past year."

U.S. support for the buildup has been kept low-key to avoid fueling concerns in Israel and elsewhere about an accelerating conventional-arms race in the region. Iran, which has made steady advances in developing medium-range missiles, is seeking to acquire modern air-defense systems from Russia while also expanding its navy with new submarines and ships.

Gulf officials say their defensive improvements would be undertaken regardless of U.S. support, but some said they were encouraged by the supportive signals from the Obama administration, which regional leaders initially feared would be more accommodating of Iran than the Bush White House.

"It's a tough neighborhood, and we have to make sure we are protected," said a senior government official in a U.S.-allied Arab state. The official, who also spoke on the condition that his name and country not be revealed, called Iran the "No. 1 threat in the region."

Major arms buildups
The expanded cooperation with the United States includes new agreements with Saudi Arabia to help establish a facilities-protection force under the country's Ministry of Interior to harden defenses for oil facilities, ports and water desalination plants. The new force is expected to grow to 30,000 personnel and will be used to deter attacks by al-Qaeda, as well as possible future strikes by Iran or Iranian-inspired terrorist groups, according to current and former officials familiar with the initiative. Washington is providing access to technology and equipment for the defense upgrade, the officials said.


Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are also undertaking multibillion-dollar purchases of U.S.-made defensive systems. In the past two years, Abu Dhabi has topped the list of foreign customers for U.S. arms, buying $17 billion worth of hardware, including Patriot anti-missile batteries and an advanced anti-missile system known as Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD. Three other Middle Eastern countries are considering buying the same systems.

The UAE, which recently completed a purchase of 80 American-made F-16 fighter jets, last year was invited for the first time to participate in the U.S. Air Force's "Red Flag" exercises at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The small Gulf country is in the process of negotiating a purchase of Rafale fighter jets.


A senior Emirati official familiar with the military exercises said UAE leaders want to enhance "interoperability" with U.S. defensive systems, as well as high-quality weapons.

"We don't measure ourselves by what our neighbors are doing," the official said. "We're interested in sophisticated training and the best and most capable platforms" available.

The country's buildup has impressed U.S. military officials, who say the U.S.-allied Emirates have emerged as a military power in their own right. In a speech in Bahrain last year, U.S. Centcom commander Gen. David A. Petraeus said the UAE air force alone "could take out the entire Iranian air force, I believe."

Although Gulf states are generally loath to publicly antagonize Tehran, the military expansion is occurring against a backdrop of anxiety over the growing dominance of Iran's hard-liners in the wake of last year's disputed presidential election. Like Washington, Arab capitals see Iran's nuclear program as dangerous and destabilizing, even if Iranian leaders stop short of building a nuclear warhead.

In interviews in three Middle East countries, political leaders and analysts said they fear that a nuclear-capable Iran will become the dominant regional power, able to intimidate its neighbors without fear of retaliation. Nearly all the Gulf countries have sizable Shiite Muslim populations with ties to Iran, and some analysts warned that Tehran may try to use these to stir up unrest and possibly even topple pro-Western governments.

"Nuclear weapons are probably most useful to Iran as a deterrent against attack by others, but beyond that, it's all about the swagger and mystique rather than the weapons system," said Nabil Fahmy, former Egyptian ambassador to the United States. "I can't see Iran using such weapons, but they could become much more provocative."

Regional nuclear fears
The concern over Iran has partly eclipsed long-standing concerns about Israel, a military powerhouse with an undeclared nuclear arsenal that includes scores of warheads that can be delivered by aircraft, submarines or long-range ballistic missiles, some regional analysts said.

Iran's apparent progress toward nuclear-weapons capability has also heightened new fears of a regional arms race that will expand to include atomic bombs. Driving the concerns are new initiatives by several oil- and gas-rich Arab states to build nuclear reactors or power plants, ostensibly to augment domestic energy supplies. The UAE, with heavy U.S. support, recently signed deals to build its first nuclear power reactors. Among other countries taking or considering similar steps are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan and Yemen.


Western and Middle Eastern analysts say it is unlikely that any of those countries will openly pursue nuclear weapons, a move that would probably draw international condemnation and prompt a suspension of Western aid. The UAE has taken pains to design a nuclear energy program that it says is proliferation-proof, eliminating parts of the nuclear fuel cycle that could be exploited to obtain material for bombs.

But if Iran were to test a nuclear device, all countries in the region would reconsider their options, government officials and analysts said.

"Every country in the region will open their files and decide again what to do," said a retired Arab general who asked for anonymity so he could speak freely about the subject. "If nuclear weapons appears to be the road to becoming a world power, why shouldn't that be us?"

Warrick, a Washington Post staff writer, reported as part of a fellowship with the International Reporting Project, an independent nonprofit journalism program based in Washington that provides grants to U.S. journalists to report overseas.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35161735/ns/world_news-washington_post/

[sc10000]

I think we all know what is coming; the NWO has decided to continue the endless war & take on a real 'enemy' in Iran. This will serve many purposes - total control over middle east oil, global population reduction & the take down of the US, which will be sent into a far worst depression than ever before. This will be a real war as Russia & China will not sit idly by; also note that we sent massive arms to Taiwain. This is WWIV & you better get prepared for a very long haul brothers & sisters.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein

Does anyone still doubt they are trying to kick us back to the stonge age?

[bigron]

Middle East
Feb 2, 2010 
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LB02Ak03.html 
 
Obama losing control of Iran policy

By Ali Gharib

WASHINGTON - In a surprisingly swift move last Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the United States Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refinery capabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another aspect of the bill, introduced by Senator Chris Dodd, raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran imposed by president Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Dodd bill requires congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Inter Press Service) 
 
 

[bigron]

Secret CIA-Mossad meeting, preparation for new war?


Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:49:11 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117579&sectionid=351020202

 
 
A secret meeting between the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Panetta and Israeli officials has reportedly centered on Iran's nuclear program.

In a secret flying visit to Israel on Thursday, the head of the CIA reportedly discussed Iran's nuclear issue in a sit-down with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Mossad Chief Meir Dagan.

The trip, which was originally scheduled to take place in May, follows a recent wave of developments in the Middle East that are strongly imply preparations for a possible new military conflict in the region.

Israel has allegedly increased the scope of its undercover operations in the region, particularly against Lebanon, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas.

The extent of this could be seen in recent remarks by Israeli cabinet minister Yossi Peled, in which the former army general explicitly said that another confrontation with Lebanon's resistance movement Hezbollah was almost inevitable.

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri responded to the claims on Thursday, saying that Israel's threats against Hezbollah are perceived as threats against Lebanon.

"We consider the Israeli threats on Lebanon to be a threat to the Lebanese government as a whole, rather than to one particular person," said Hariri during a joint news conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, Reuters reported.

Meanwhile, Hamas officials say they have concrete evidence that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, staged the recent assassination of a senior Hamas commander, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in Dubai on January 20.

Their claims have been somewhat supported by Dubai Police Chief Dhahi Khalfan.

"It could be Mossad," AFP quoted police chief Dhahi Khalfan as saying on Sunday.

To add to the controversy, sources in Turkey's ruling party told Russia's Mignews on Saturday that Israeli spy agents ran an advanced electronic monitoring station from the Ankara military headquarters to keep tabs on communication networks in Iran and Syria.

According to the sources who were speaking on condition of anonymity, the Signals Intelligence station was solely managed by Israeli intelligence personnel and had become off-limits for members of the Turkish government.

For years Israeli politicians have masterminded a wave of undercover operations and terror plots in numerous countries, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Switzerland, and the US.

However, much of Israel's espionage operations have lately been focused on the Tehran government, largely because of Iran's uranium enrichment activities, which Tel Aviv has been seeking to portray as a mortal threat.

Tel Aviv, which is reported to have an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads itself, accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons and routinely threatens to reduce the country's enrichment sites to rubble.

This is while Iran, unlike Israel, is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has opened its enrichment facilities to UN inspection.

On Saturday, US presidential aid James Jones rejected prospects of an Israeli attack against Iran.

Although US officials normally deny having any plans to stage new war in the region, there have recently been strong hints to the contrary.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Washington will further increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf — allegedly to soup up its defense against possible Iranian missile attacks.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama has approved the deployment of new combat equipments, including advanced missile systems and special warships, to the region.

SBB/DT

[bigron]

Manufacturing Consent For Attack On Iran:

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

Circumstances are propitious, and the American people would support it.

By Daniel Pipes

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24574.htm

February 02, 2010 "National Review" -- I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies.

If Obama’s personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.

This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.

Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the one that claimed with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program.” No one other than the Iranian rulers and their agents denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.

Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.

Third, polling shows longstanding American support for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure:

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, January 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor military intervention if Tehran pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Zogby International, October 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29 percent oppose such a step.

McLaughlin & Associates, May 2009: When asked whether they would support “using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon,” 58 percent of 600 likely voters supported the use of force and 30 percent opposed it.

Fox News, September 2009: When asked “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” 61 percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed it.

Pew Research Center, October 2009: When asked which is more important, “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action,” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” 61 percent of 1,500 respondents favored the first reply and 24 percent the second.

Not only does a strong majority — 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent in these five polls — already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally around the flag, sending that number much higher.

Fourth, if the U.S.limited its strike to taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities and did not attempt any regime change, it would require few “boots on the ground” and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack more politically palatable.

Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, and make the netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.

But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is closing. The time to act is now, or, on Obama’s watch, the world will soon become a much more dangerous place.

— Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
 
 

 

 

[bigron]

Strengthening US 'Defense' In Gulf A Step To War

By Stephen Sniegoski

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24563.htm

February 02, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- An article in the New York Times by David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt states: "The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf." It continues that this move "appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran." Since there is about a zero chance that Iran would dare to launch a first strike on the US or its Arab allies, the US would only need to strengthen its missile defenses in order to deal with an Iranian counterattack after the US had first bombed Iran. This is a very dangerous development. It will likely cause Iran, in expectation of a possible attack, to increase its defenses. The US will then claim that Iran is threatening its neighbors and increase its military force even more. The mutual increases in military forces will mean a spiraling arms race.

This is obviously a recipe for war unless one side backs down. Undoubtedly the Iranians are far weaker and the regime would be destroyed if there were war. Probably, Obama hopes that American military pressure will force the Islamic Republic to accede to American demands, which probably include not only requiring the scaling back of Iran's nuclear program but also its abandonment of Hezbollah and Hamas. However, in order to survive it probably is essential for the Islamic regime to stand firm. If it showed weakness, the regime's internal enemies would be even more aggressive.

By showing firmness to a foreign enemy, however, the Islamic regime would likely increase national unity, since all internal opponents could be painted as allies of the US and Israel. Moreover, by standing up to the powerful United States, the Islamic Regime would likely increase its prestige among the anti-American (anti-imperialist) political activists in the Middle East (the Arab Street) and the world. In short, it seems likely that the Islamic regime would gamble that taking a hard-line would provide a better chance for regime survival than caving in to US demands. Their hope would be that the US would not risk the possibility of disrupting the flow of oil, which would cause incalculable difficulties for the world economy which is already in a precarious condition.

The Israel Lobby, media Right, and the Republican hawks would likely pillory Obama for allegedly being weak in the face of aggression. While Obama probably doesn't want war with Iran, he would be affected by political considerations. With the economy in the doldrums and the American people angry, Obama and his political advisers would see significant political benefits in taking a hard-line stance toward Iran. Such a move would enable the president to co-opt the criticism of the rightwing and pro-Israel war hawks and, as a leader against an allegedly dangerous foe, regain the support of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The US would issue ultimatums to Iran to reduce its allegedly aggressive defenses, providing Iran with the choice of surrender or war. Any little incident would spark war and with US land and naval forces almost surrounding Iran, the chances of such an incident would be very high.

See also Transparent Cabal http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24366.htm

Transparent Cabal Website: http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/ 

[sc10000]

There is nothing good to come out of this. Such a crisis will allow marshall law, rationing of all sorts, starvation, rounding up of 'enemy' citizens, & a great loss of liberty. This is the moment the nwo has been waiting for since 1776. Be a part of the solution TODAY.

[mr anderson]

PM Kevin Rudd's secret war on Iran

EXCLUSIVE: Sean Parnell, FOI editor
February 04, 2010

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kevin-rudds-secret-war-on-iran/story-e6frg6nf-1225826537163

THREE Australian shipments to Iran have been secretly blocked by Defence Minister John Faulkner amid fears the cargo was destined for use in a weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

As the international community considers tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, the Australian government has taken extraordinary measures to prevent suspicious exports reaching the Middle East.

In a significant departure from conventional trade laws, Senator Faulkner has used powers afforded to him under the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act to demand local companies tear up their distribution contracts and abandon their foreign customers.

Has your company had exports blocked by the federal government? Call Sean Parnell on 07 3666 7456 or email parnells@theaustralian.com.au

It is understood at least one prohibition notice related to a planned shipment of pumps that could have been used to cool nuclear power plants. The nature of the other shipments remains unclear.

The 15-year-old law had only been used once before - to secretly block another shipment to Iran in 2005 - but has now been used three times in as many months as the diplomatic and trade war with Iran escalates.

Australia has already imposed autonomous trade sanctions against Iran, and is considering a tougher stance, but they are largely enforced under different legislation.

Kevin Rudd has already taken aim at Iran over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on Israel, warning in 2008 Australia could seek to have him prosecuted for inciting genocide.

That was in response to the Iranian political leader's repeated claims that Israel should be wiped off the map. The Prime Minister denounced Mr Ahmadinejad's comments as "dangerous stuff ".

The WMD act is designed specifically to "prohibit the supply or export of goods that will or may be used in . . . the development, production, acquisition or stockpiling of weapons capable of causing mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering such weapons."

Senator Faulkner, acting on intelligence from his and other agencies, has issued prohibition orders to three companies which have sought to export such goods.

The companies were either trying to export directly to Iran or to destinations considered at risk of diversion to Iran.

The Australian understands other companies have been threatened with prohibition orders but voluntarily agreed to avoid any commercial dealings with possible associates of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has declared Iran to be potentially the world's most pressing problem this year. The government is likely to raise the need for tougher sanctions during US President Barack Obama's visit next month.

While Mr Smith refused to comment yesterday, Senator Faulkner confirmed he had intervened to prevent Australia being used to potentially further Iran's WMD program.

"I do not make such decisions lightly," Senator Faulkner told The Australian.

"I am very conscious of commercial effects on any Australian company affected by such decisions."

Senator Faulkner said while those companies were consulted, he had an obligation to act on the available advice.

"There is nothing more that can be said publicly," he said.

Some of Iran's previous pump suppliers have been convicted and fined as part of a worldwide crackdown on the trade in WMD components.

Last month in the US, three men, including an Iranian-born chemical engineer, were charged over allegations that they attempted to ship pumps and other items to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates, and conceal the true value and nature of their shipments.

Senator Faulkner has no evidence that the WMD act has been breached and remains tight-lipped on the advice that led to the prohibition orders. In October 2008, the Rudd government imposed tougher sanctions against Iran but shied away from an election promise to take Mr Ahmadinejad to the world court for inciting genocide and threatening Israel.

More recently, Mr Smith has vowed to consider further sanctions if Iran continues to refuse to abandon its nuclear program.

Even with the trade sanctions, Australian exports to Iran increased significantly last year, surpassing $600 million for the first time in seven years.

[bigron]

Report: Israeli warships on way to Persian Gulf
 
 
07/02/2010 11:04:00 AM GMT   
 
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Report-Israeli-warships-on-way-to-Persian-Gulf.html
 
As Israel keeps threatening the regional countries with war, Egyptian maritime sources say the Israeli navy has deployed two missile ships to the Persian Gulf.

Citing the sources, Yediot Ahronot reported Saturday that two Israeli missile ships passed through the Suez Canal en rout to the Red Sea on Thursday morning.

The sources said the ships are expected to reach the Persian Gulf within the next four days.

According to the report, Cairo adopted tight security measures to ensure the safe passage of the Israeli ships through the canal.

The waterway, which had not previously been used by Israeli vessels for intelligence reasons, was traversed for the first time in June 2009 when a Dolphin-class submarine (a nuclear German-made submarine) reportedly sailed from the Mediterranean to reach military exercises in the Red Sea.
Source: Press TV
 

[bigron]

02/15/2010 12:55 PM

Former IAEA Head Hans Blix

'Iran Won't Simply Sit There and Accept an Attack'

The nuclear power plant in Bushehr: "I don't rule out the possibility that Iran wants nuclear weapons," says former IAEA head Hans Blix.

Former Swedish Foreign Minister Hans Blix was director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997. From 2000 to 2003, he was head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which searched -- unsuccessfully -- for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hans Blix is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and also worked as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He talks to SPIEGEL about whether Iran really has the ability to enrich uranium and if economic sanctions can ever be effective.

SPIEGEL: Tehran has announced that it has enriched a "first batch" of uranium from 3.5 to 20 percent. Does this mean that we now face a new stage in the escalation of the conflict with Iran?

Hans Blix: The government in Tehran originally declared that it only intended to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent, to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. But now it needs uranium enriched to about 20 percent for its research reactor, in order to produce isotopes for medical use. Tehran had the same problem once before, in the early 1980s. The United States had built a research reactor for Tehran, Iran had ordered nuclear fuel and had even paid for it, but then came the mullahs' revolution, and America refused to deliver the fuel. The West has faced a dilemma since then: If we don't supply them with the fuel, Iran has a reason to produce it itself. That's what led to the compromise proposal of enriching Iranian fuel abroad.

SPIEGEL: The West has been engaged in negotiations for years. How else can it accommodate Iran?

Blix: Probably the best subject of negotiations is the location for exchanging low-enriched and highly enriched uranium, and there is an evident choice for that: Turkey. Both sides trust Turkey.

SPIEGEL: How long will it take the Iranians to accumulate enough fuel for the research reactor?

Blix: That's completely unclear, and there are many people who even question whether they have the technical capability to enrich the material to 20 percent.

SPIEGEL: So was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just boasting in recent speeches when he talked about Iran's ability to enrich uranium?

Blix: Much of that is bravado and a reaction to perceived humiliation. Anyone can see that he's just trying to show off when he claims that the regime can build 10 enrichment plants. No one in the world has 10 of these plants. The United States and France have one or two, and Argentina and the Netherlands have one each. It's absurd to talk about 10 plants.

SPIEGEL: But if Iran is successful with its enrichment efforts, will that make it a "virtual nuclear power," whereby all it needs to do is press a button and it will quickly have a deployable weapon?

Blix: I don't join those who speak of a "virtual nuclear power," and I told that to my successor Mohamed ElBaradei, who coined the term. Japan, for example, could activate masses of plutonium in an instant, as could, to a lesser extent, Brazil. But even those who have embarked along this road can also go back at any time. Germany, for example, never completed its nuclear reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf. (Editor's note: The planned nuclear reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf, Bavaria, was the focus of violent protests in the 1980s. The project was abandoned in 1989.)

SPIEGEL: But what if Iran doesn't want to step back? What if, in fact, Iran wants the bomb instead?

Blix: I don't rule out the possibility that Iran wants nuclear weapons, but I find the probability higher that the political leadership is divided over the issue. Merely the ability to enrich uranium already serves as a deterrent, and for some in the regime it might even be sufficient. If there is a desire to have the bomb, it certainly goes back to the 1980s and the threat coming from the Iraqi nuclear program at the time. But Iraq collapsed in 1991 and again in 2003, and if there is anything that makes me optimistic today, it is the notion that Iran, following the disarmament of Iraq, no longer has a security-related reason to acquire nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: Doesn't Iran feel surrounded by enemies?

Blix: I don't think the Iranians perceive Israel as a threat. The conflict between the two countries over enrichment is relatively new. Afghanistan? No. Pakistan? No. And not Turkey or Russia, either.

SPIEGEL: And the United States?

Blix: Yes. Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf are a different story. But this is precisely where we see the best options for a solution. In the case of North Korea, the United States offered a non-aggression agreement and the establishment of diplomatic relations. In the case of Iran, both options have not been discussed publicly to date. In other words, no one can claim that all the diplomatic options have already been exhausted.

SPIEGEL: What other possibilities does the West have to stop the Iranian nuclear program? What do you know about covert US operations in Iran?

Blix: I don't have any evidence to support that, but it wouldn't surprise me. The US Congress has approved millions for these purposes -- not a very wise decision, by the way, because it just plays into the hands of the hardliners and harms the opposition.

SPIEGEL: Now new sanctions against Tehran are being discussed. Do you think they make sense?

Blix: Sanctions have certainly been successful before -- just think of Libya. But it took a long time, and they are a blunt weapon. They were devastating in Iraq, where they harmed the people but hardly even affected Saddam. Whether sanctions can be effective against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard remains to be seen. In the case of North Korea, freezing certain bank accounts in Macau was obviously effective. Economic sanctions could certainly be appropriate, but I'm against military sanctions, because the only thing there is to bomb at the moment is intentions.

SPIEGEL: The Israelis have more or less openly threatened to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Blix: Hardliners who analyze the drawbacks of a diplomatic solution today should, with the same scrutiny, analyze the drawbacks of a military solution. It's easy to let the bombs fall, and a military strike could set the nuclear program back by a few years -- something that would be very welcome. But what would the long-term consequences be? Iran won't simply sit there quietly and accept an attack.

SPIEGEL: Can air strikes even successfully destroy Iran's nuclear program? Most of the facilities are buried deep underground.

Blix: Anyone who's worried that al-Qaida might be making dirty nuclear bombs in the caves of the Hindu Kush ought to be much more concerned about the fact that such air strikes can't do much harm. Iran is a big, sophisticated country, and you can't destroy or occupy everything.

SPIEGEL: So you think a military strike would be pointless?

Blix: I believe, at any rate, that it's impossible to eliminate Iran as a potential enemy. Despite Ahmadinejad's inflammatory speeches, Iran hasn't been an aggressive, expansionist country in a long time. Besides, the glow that the mullahs' 1979 revolution kindled throughout the region has disappeared. After the discredited election, and after the corruption they have permitted, the mullahs can no longer spark enthusiasm in anyone -- neither the Iranians themselves nor anyone else in the region.

Interview conducted by Bernhard Zand. Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.



URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,677837,00.html

[bigron]

US media omission:

Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament

By Gavin Dahl
Sunday, February 14th, 2010 -- 2:53 pm
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/media-omission-iran-calls-nuclear-disarmament/

The American public has not been informed by the US news media about highly newsworthy statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday February 12.

He said the era of nuclear weapons is over, suggesting Iran has no plans to build "inhumane" A-bombs. Ahmadinejad called for a world free of nuclear arms in an interview with Russia's NTV channel.

"We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane," he said.

"Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons," he added. "Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest."

So far, the libertarian-leaning Antiwar.com has been the only American media outlet to cover his statements.

Story continues below...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's calls for sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position that new sanctions should be "crippling," one might think the US media would pay attention to Ahmadinejad's statements.

Instead, the media's Sarah Palin obsession means that more Americans heard repeated calls to start a new war with Iran in the past week.

Iran has continually denied it plans to build nuclear weapons. The country's high-profile stance is that enriched uranium will be used for Tehran's medical reactor.

The interview Friday was given to Russian channel NTV, once critical of all-powerful Vladimir Putin, but now controlled by the state-owned Gazprom conglomerate. CNN published a timeline of the changes to the station nine years ago.

[bigron]

Is Iran Running a Bluff?

by Patrick J. Buchanan, February 16, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2010/02/15/is-iran-running-a-bluff/


Did Robert Gibbs let the cat out of the bag?

Last week, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the world that Iran, unable to get fuel rods from the West for its U.S.-built reactor, which makes medical isotopes, had begun to enrich its own uranium to 20 percent.

From his perch in the West Wing, Gibbs scoffed: “He [Ahmadinejad] says many things, and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.”

But wait a minute. If Iran does not “have the capability” to enrich to 20 percent for fuel rods, how can Iran enrich to 90 percent for a bomb?

What was Gibbs implying?

Is he confirming reports that Iran’s centrifuges are breaking down or have been sabotaged? Is he saying that impurities, such as molybdenum, in the feed stock of Iran’s centrifuges at Natanz are damaging the centrifuges and contaminating the uranium?

What explains Gibbs’ confidence? Perhaps this.

According to a report last week by David Albright and Christina Walrond of the Institute for Science and International Security, “Iran’s problems in its centrifuge program are greater than expected. … Iran is unlikely to deploy enough gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power reactors [Iran's stated nuclear goal] for a long time, if ever, particularly if [UN] sanctions remain in force.”

Thus, ISIS is saying Iran cannot make usable fuel for the nuclear power plant it is building, and Gibbs is saying Iran lacks the capability to make fuel rods for its research reactor.

Which suggests Iran’s vaunted nuclear program is a busted flush.

ISIS insists, however, that Iran may still be able to build a bomb. Yet, to do that, Iran would have to divert nearly all of its low-enriched uranium at Natanz, now under UN watch, to a new cascade of centrifuges, enrich that to 90 percent, then explode a nuclear device.

Should Iran do that, however, it would have burned up all its bomb-grade uranium and lack enough low-enriched uranium for a second test. And Tehran would be facing a stunned and shaken Israel with hundreds of nukes and an America with thousands, without a single nuke of its own.

Is Iran running a bluff? And if Gibbs and Albright are right, how long can Iran keep up this pretense of rapid nuclear progress?

Which brings us to the declaration by Ahmadinejad on the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, which produced this headline in the New York Times: “Iran Boasts of Capacity to Make Bomb Fuel.”

Accurate as far as it went, this headline was so incomplete as to mislead. For here is what Ahmadinejad said in full:

“When we say that we don’t build nuclear bombs, it means that we won’t do so because we don’t believe in having it. … The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to build nuclear bombs, we would announce it publicly without being afraid of you.

“Right now in Natanz we have the capability to enrich to more than 20 percent and to more than 80 percent, but because we don’t need to, we won’t do so.”

On Friday, Ahmadinejad sounded like Ronald Reagan: “We believe that not only the Middle East but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons, because we see such weapons as inhumane.”

Now, if as Albright suggests, Tehran cannot produce fuel for nuclear power plants, and if, as Gibbs suggests, Iran is not capable of enriching to 20 percent for fuel for its research reactor, is Ahmadinejad, in renouncing the bomb, making a virtue of necessity?

After all, if you can’t build them, denounce them as inhumane.

Last December, however, the Times of London reported it had a secret document, which “intelligence agencies” dated to early 2007, proving that Iran was working on the final component of a “neutron initiator,” the trigger for an atom bomb.

If true, this would leave egg all over the faces of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies whose December 2007 consensus was that Iran stopped seeking a bomb in 2003.

The Times credited an “Asian intelligence service” for having ably assisted with its story.

U.S. intelligence, however, has not confirmed the authenticity of the document, and Iran calls it a transparent forgery. When former CIA man Phil Giraldi sounded out ex-colleagues still in the trade, they, too, called the Times‘ document a forgery.

Shades of Saddam seeking yellowcake from Niger.

Are the folks who lied us into war on Iraq, to strip it of weapons it did not have, now trying to lie us into war on Iran, to strip it of weapons it does not have?

Maybe the Senate should find out before voting sanctions that will put us on the road to such a war, which would fill up all the empty beds at Walter Reed.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

[bigron]

The End of Obama’s Vision of a Nuke Free World


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_end_of_obamas_vision_of_a_nuke_free_world_20100216/
Posted on Feb 16, 2010
By Scott Ritter

As any student of foreign and national security policy well knows, the devil is in the details. Back in April 2009, in a speech delivered in Prague, the Czech Republic, President Barack Obama articulated his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Since that time, however, the Obama administration has offered very little of substance to push this vision forward. When one looks past the grand statements of the president for policy implementation that supports the rhetoric, one is left empty-handed. No movement on ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). No extension of a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia (START). No freeze on the development of a new generation of American nuclear weapons. Without progress in these areas, any prospects of a new approach to global nuclear nonproliferation emerging from the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference are virtually zero.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of failed nonproliferation policy on the part of the Obama administration is the fact that there has been no progress on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, and in particular the ongoing controversy surrounding a proposed uranium exchange. The deal would have Iran swap a significant portion of its existing stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium (the level needed to fuel Iran’s planned nuclear power reactors, as opposed to uranium enriched to 90 percent, which is needed for nuclear weapons) in exchange for nuclear fuel rods containing uranium enriched to 19.5 percent (the level needed to operate a U.S.-built research reactor in Tehran that produced nuclear isotopes for medical purposes). Iran is running out of fuel for this reactor, and needs a new source of fuel or else it will be forced to shut it down. As a signatory member of the NPT, Iran should have the right to acquire this fuel on the open market, subject of course to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, but the United States and Europe have held any such sale hostage to Iran’s agreeing to suspend its indigenous uranium enrichment program, which is the source of the 3.5 percent enriched uranium currently in Iran.

The crux of the U.S. and European concerns rests not with Iran’s possession of 3.5 percent enriched uranium, but rather that the enrichment technique employed by Iran to produce this low-enriched uranium could be used, with some significant modifications, to manufacture high-enriched uranium (90 percent) usable in a nuclear weapon. This reality, and the fears of a nuclear-armed Iran it produces, trumps the fact that the IAEA today is in a position to certify that it can account for the totality of Iran’s inventory of nuclear material, and that any diversion of nuclear material would be detected by the IAEA almost immediately. Furthermore, beyond its capacity to enrich uranium, there is no real evidence that Iran has engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

But the fear and hype that emanate from American and European policymakers, strongly influenced by the zero-tolerance policy of Israel when it comes to Iran and anything nuclear, peaceful or otherwise, have created an environment where common sense goes out the window and anything becomes possible. Take, for instance, Iran’s current stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. The IAEA certifies that Iran is in possession of approximately 1,800 kilograms of this material. Policy wonks and those in the intelligence community given to hypotheticals have postulated scenarios that have Iran using this stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium as the feedstock for a breakout enrichment effort that, if left to its own devices, could produce enough high-enriched uranium (90 percent) for a single nuclear bomb. This breakout capability would require Iran to reconfigure thousands of the centrifuges it uses for low-level enrichment for use in the stepped-up process of follow-on enrichment. Ironically, one of the next steps required in such a scenario would be for Iran to reconfigure its centrifuges to enrich uranium up to 20 percent—roughly the level Iran needs for the nuclear fuel required to operate the Tehran research reactor.

Fears about a potential covert Iranian enrichment breakout capability reached feverish proportions when, in September 2009, Iran revealed the existence of (and U.S. intelligence proclaimed the discovery of) a prospective small underground centrifuge enrichment facility near the city of Qom. The fact that this facility was under construction, and consisted as of September 2009 of little more than a reinforced hole in the ground without any equipment installed, did nothing to allay the fears of those who saw an Iranian nuclear bomb behind every bush, or under every rock. Suddenly Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb, and something had to be done to prevent this from happening.

The focus of attention shifted away from Iran’s ongoing enrichment capability, which the U.S. and Europe demanded be permanently suspended, to Iran’s 1,800 kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. This material represented Iran’s theoretical atomic bomb. If the material could be placed under international control, then Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, at least for the immediate future, could be thwarted. Iran was not going to freely hand over this material. However, a deal was negotiated between the U.S. and Iran that would have Iran ship 1,600 kilograms of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium to Russia, which would then further enrich it to 19.5 percent before sending it to France, which would process the uranium into fuel rods unusable for nuclear weapons. This fuel swap appeared to provide an elegant solution to a vexing problem. Indeed, President Obama embraced it as his own initiative when it was announced in October 2009.

For Iran, the swap was always about acquiring the needed nuclear fuel rods, manufactured from 19.5 percent enriched uranium, in order to continue operation of its research reactor in Tehran, which produces much-needed nuclear isotopes for medical purposes. The main attraction for the Iranians for such a deal, beyond acquiring the fuel rods, was that they would not need to produce any 19.5 percent enriched uranium itself, and thus not have to reconfigure their current centrifuge-based enrichment infrastructure to operate beyond its 3.5 percent enrichment threshold. Iran has consistently maintained that it neither requires, nor desires, any capability to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5 percent level needed to manufacture nuclear fuel rods for its own nuclear power reactors. Having its uranium enrichment infrastructure locked in at 3.5 percent simplified not only Iran’s own operations, but also the safeguard monitoring and inspection requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, charged with verifying Iran’s compliance with the terms of the NPT. Iran viewed the fuel swap as a means of facilitating international acceptance of its uranium enrichment program, a point of view that was in fundamental opposition to that of the United States and Europe.

No amount of finessing the specifics of a fuel swap, whether it be done in stages, managed by a neutral third party, or carried out over the course of several months or several years, could reconcile the Iranian position with that of the U.S. and Europe. At the center of this problem is the Iranian uranium enrichment program itself. Any fuel swap deal is little more than window dressing to the larger issue of whether or not Iran will be permitted by the international community to enrich uranium. To the U.S. and Europe, finer points such as whether such enrichment would be capped at 3.5 percent, or diversified to include 19.5 percent, remain irrelevant, since their unified policy approach is to suspend all uranium enrichment activities inside Iran.

The fatal flaw in the Obama fuel swap proposal, when it was broached in October 2009, was that it failed to explicitly state that any fuel swap had to be linked to Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program. While policy wonks in and out of the Obama administration can argue that such a position was more than implied, given the existence of U.N. Security Council resolutions that explicitly call for suspension, any deal that introduces Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium as a legitimate commodity provides de facto legitimization of the processes that produced that commodity. Since Iran has consistently refused to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, it had every reason to treat the proposed fuel swap as a stand-alone deal that focused on a short-term problem, and not as part of the larger U.S.-driven demands for enrichment suspension.

The U.S. policy objective was never to provide Iran with 19.5 percent enriched uranium fuel rods, or to lock Iran in at a 3.5 percent enrichment threshold, but rather to get the majority of Iran’s existing stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium out of the country, thereby eliminating any scenario that had Iran using this low-enriched uranium as feedstock for any breakout nuclear weapons production capability, no matter how farfetched such a scenario might be. This is why the Obama administration never paid much attention to the details of such a swap, since these details simply didn’t matter. The U.S. approach was never about facilitating a swap so much as it was about facilitating a kidnapping. The policy objective was to get the majority of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks under international control. Once Iran no longer had access to 1,600 kilograms of its 1,800-kilogram stockpile of low-enriched uranium, the Obama administration could blunt the fear-driven concerns over the immediacy of any Iranian nuclear capability. It would take Iran several months to reconstitute its low-enriched uranium stocks to the level needed to produce its hypothetical nuclear bomb. During this period, the U.S. would redouble its demands for suspension of uranium enrichment and develop a comprehensive package of stringent economic sanctions that would be imposed on Iran should it fail to cooperate.

The fatal flaw in the U.S. approach was that it failed to recognize that such policy formulations may work on paper but in the real world things are far more complicated. The Obama administration had hoped for immediate Iranian agreement to the fuel swap. Once Iran’s enriched uranium was safely out of Iran, the U.S. would then redouble its diplomatic pressure to suspend enrichment activities while simultaneously pressing for international consensus on sanctions. U.S. policy formulators envisioned a seamless transition between these various stages of policy implementation. But Iran, by agreeing in principle to a fuel swap, but demanding closer scrutiny of the details inherent in any such deal, complicated implementation of the U.S. plan.

By December 2009, a point at which the U.S. had hoped to have the Iranian uranium under its control and a sanctions campaign under way, Iran had yet to agree to the specifics of any fuel swap but at the same time publically remained committed to the concept. That approach paralyzed the U.S.-led effort to rally support behind sanctions since most nations did not want to do anything that would threaten the fuel swap negotiations. As 2010 rolled around, the Iranian delay tactics forced the U.S. to shed all pretenses around the fuel swap. While Iranian negotiators spoke of a potential swap formula that could unfold over the course of several months, the U.S. spoke of a swap timetable stretching out several years, making such a swap useless for the purpose it was ostensibly being instituted for—the Iranian nuclear research reactor and the manufacture of medical isotopes.

With the true U.S. policy objective thus exposed, Iran last week announced that it would carry out its own indigenous enrichment of uranium to the 19.5 percent needed to fuel the research reactor. Whether Iran has the technical or practical capabilities necessary to bring such a plan to fruition is debatable. While reconfiguring its existing centrifuge cascades to produce 19.5 percent enriched uranium is not impossible, Iran has never before attempted to process enriched uranium into nuclear fuel rods. Likewise, there is a question about the viability of Iran’s feedstock of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the gaseous material that is fed into the centrifuges for the purpose of enriching uranium.

Iran’s stores of foreign-procured UF6 are nearly exhausted. So is the stock of UF6 that Iran produced using foreign supplies of natural uranium. What is left for Iran is UF6 produced from indigenous sources of natural uranium. However, these stocks are believed to be contaminated with molybdenum, a metallic substance the presence of which creates destructive mass-distribution problems when Iran’s centrifuges are spun up to the more than 60,000 revolutions per minute needed to extract enriched uranium from the UF6 feedstock. If Iran cannot come up with the means to extract the molybdenum from its indigenous UF6, then short of finding an outside supplier of natural uranium or clean UF6 (activities that would have to be declared to the IAEA), the Iranian enrichment program will halt.

This would not prevent Iran from using its existing stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium as the feedstock for any effort to produce 19.5 percent uranium. Reconfiguration of its centrifuges to conduct this higher level of enrichment is likewise well within the technical capability of Iran. The ultimate testament to the failure of U.S. nonproliferation policy when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program is the reality that, in an effort to retard any Iranian nuclear breakout scenario that saw Iran rapidly converting its low-enriched stocks to high-enriched fissile material, the United States has actually facilitated such a scheme. Had the U.S. sought to lock Iran’s enrichment infrastructure in at a 3.5 percent capacity, any deviation from that level would have been viewed with suspicion. However, by creating the conditions that have Iran now seeking to build enrichment facilities capable of 20 percent enrichment, the Obama administration has significantly reduced the threshold of detection and prevention which was in place when all Iran produced was 3.5 percent enriched uranium.

The number of centrifuges required to step up enrichment of 20 percent uranium to higher levels is significantly smaller than the number needed to step up from 3.5 percent to 20 percent. Furthermore, any Iranian breakout scenario that starts at 20 percent enriched feedstock will reach its end objective of 90 percent enrichment far quicker than a similar program that starts at 3.5 percent. The Obama administration has not only made it easier for Iran to hide a covert nuclear weapons enrichment capability, but also made it far more efficient. That there is no evidence of any such program in existence does not matter in the minds of those who had given Iran such a capability to begin with. When dealing in a universe driven by the theoretical, the U.S. fumbling of the nuclear fuel swap with Iran has simply made the breakout theory more viable. And since U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Iran is more driven by faith-based analysis than it is by fact-based analysis, one can all but guarantee that the U.S. response to this new fiction will be real, and measurable, and have nothing but negative results for the Middle East and the World. 

The unfolding crisis concerning Iran’s nuclear program represents but one of several nonproliferation failures perpetrated by the United States that, in combination, bode poorly for the upcoming NPT Review Conference scheduled for May. In May of 2009, at the conclusion of the preparatory committee for the NPT Review Conference, there were high hopes for the possibility of progress in reaching international consensus on nonproliferation issues, and reshaping the NPT to capture this consensus. Much of these hopes were derived from the statements and rhetoric of the Obama administration about nuclear disarmament and arms control. Unfortunately, rhetoric never caught up with reality.

Not only has U.S. policy toward Iran been exposed as operating in total disregard to the provisions of the NPT (Iran, after all, is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of that treaty), but the cornerstone commitments made by the Obama administration as a prerequisite for a successful NPT Review Conference in May 2010—movement toward ratification of the CTBT, agreement with the Russians to extend the verification mechanisms inherent in START while achieving even deeper cuts in their respective nuclear arsenals—have failed to materialize. There is almost no chance of the CTBT being submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification, let alone being actually ratified. The failure of the administration to extend START past its December 2009 expiration date has not only left the U.S. and Russia with no arms control verification vehicle, but has reignited dormant Cold War-era tendencies in both nations, with the Russians deploying a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missile and the U.S. talking about nuclear warhead modernization.

President Obama had hoped that the 2010 NPT Review Conference would pave the way to a global consensus on multilateral approaches toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Instead, its looming demise only accelerates the existing trend in the United States to reject international agreements and instead embrace a unilateralism sustained by the false premise that security can be achieved through nuclear supremacy. One only needs to examine the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the ongoing fiasco that is America’s global war on terrorism to understand the fallacy of that argument.

The policy of the U.S. toward Iran’s nuclear program is to blame for much, if not all, of this failure. Had the administration used the fuel swap agreement as an opportunity to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community—not by excluding its uranium enrichment efforts, but rather legitimizing them through enhanced IAEA inspections and Iran’s agreement to participate in closely controlled regional fuel bank programs that kept its enriched uranium stocks under stringent international controls—there would not have been the policy floundering which occurred in the fall of 2009.

Fears about a phantom Iranian nuclear weapon would have dissipated, and with it the illogical U.S. insistence on ballistic missile defense initiatives that have fatally undermined the current round of U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations. Had the Obama administration remained consistent with its September 2009 decision to terminate the controversial Bush-era missile defense plan involving the stationing of interceptor missiles and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, there would be a START treaty today. But the sleight-of-hand approach, in which one program was terminated only to be replaced by another, triggered concerns among Russian military leaders about the real policy objectives of the Obama administration.

The administration has demonstrated that, for all the noble intent and objectives in the arena of arms control and nonproliferation exhibited at its inception, it too is susceptible to the addiction to nuclear weapons that has plagued America since 1945. This addiction, which feeds the notion of the United States’ self-appointed status of global savior and policeman, prevents any policy formulation that is perceived to weaken or undermine America’s nuclear supremacy. At a time when the world needed American leadership in the field of disarmament and nonproliferation, it instead got nothing but a replay of past policy, wrapped in the paranoid delusions of a nation that is unable or unwilling to come to grips with reality. Genuine international security is derived not from any nation, even the United States, seeking to impose deterrence-based policies through nuclear supremacy. True security comes from a world free of nuclear weapons.

To secure America, a president must have the courage to dismantle what, in the past, has been proclaimed as the foundation of our survival, but in reality presents us with the seeds of our destruction—nuclear weapons. President Obama had articulated such a vision in his groundbreaking speech in Prague back in April 2009. Since that time the United States has embarked on arms control and nonproliferation policies that have not only failed to move America and the world further down the path of peace and security, but actually made matters worse.

Policies must be judged not by their intent but their results. In this, the Obama administration’s policies represent an abysmal failure. The administration seeks to place the blame for these failures elsewhere, on Iran, China, Russia and North Korea. But the root cause of such failure lies with the utter lack of courage and conviction on the part of Barack Obama. He claimed to possess a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, only to succumb to the same hubris and avarice that afflicted past U.S. presidents when tempted by the world supremacy that nuclear weapons promise.

Scott Ritter was U.S. weapons inspector in the Soviet Union (1988-1990) and chief inspector for the United Nations in Iraq (1991-1998) and is author of “Iraq Confidential” (2006), “Target Iran” (2007) and “Dangerous Ground: The Failure of U.S. Arms Control Policy From FDR to Obama,” to be published by Nation Books this year.

[bigron]

Occupying forces send Afghan crack only to Iran

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:27:26 GMT
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=118740&sectionid=3510212

   
 
Deadly narcotics like compact heroin, crack, is only produced, under the guidance of certain Western countries in Afghanistan, for consumption in Iran, commander of the drug squad says.

"During the latest visit to neighboring countries, we found no signs of crack use. Crack is produced in Afghanistan under the guidance of western countries and sent to Iran," Commander of the drug squad General Hossein-Abadi told IRNA.

Crack is a purified and potent form of cocaine that is smoked rather than snorted. The freebase narcotic is considered a highly addictive drug. But what is known as Crack in Iran is the compact heroine that is often compounded with psychedelic drugs, potent acids, Ammoniac, stimulant drugs (amphetamine) and etc.

Hossein-Abadi said Europe is the main producer of the basic ingredients of crack and other narcotics extracted from heroin.

"Some 13,000 tonnes of acetic anhydride and hydrochloric acid, which are the main ingredients for producing crack, are brought to Afghanistan from Europe. The production of crack will cease if the acids are not provided," he said.

"Heroin appears to constitute 80 percent of the drugs seized by the Iranian police. It seems that western countries have direct influence in drug trafficking," Hossein-Abadi noted.

"All western countries worry about is business. According to UN statistics, one kilogram of heroin that is sold for $2,180 in Afghanistan, costs $80,000 in London," he said.

"Crack has become popular because it has very strong psychological addictive properties. Crack gives an instant high and then the user wants more," the commander of the drug squad said.

"It carries a lot of health risks, particularly with its association to violent crime. To feed their addiction, users spend hundreds of dollars a day and they get that money from burglary, robbery and shoplifting," Hossein-Abadi finalized.

NAT/TG/DT

[Brocke]

3 world powers criticize Iranian enrichment
Feb 16 03:42 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA (AP) - Russia, the U.S. and France have urged Iran to stop enriching uranium to higher levels and suggested the project reinforces suspicions that Tehran is seeking to make nuclear weapons. The joint statement, made public Tuesday, reflects unified Russian and Western opposition to Iran's increased enrichment.

Shrugging off international concerns, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the country was moving ahead to expand its enrichment capacities by installing more advanced machinery at its main enrichment facility.

Ahmadinejad told reporters in Tehran Tuesday the new centrifuges are not yet operational but are five times more efficient than the model now in use at its underground Natanz enrichment plant.

Officials at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said they had no comment. The latest IAEA report on Iran in November said that as of early October no advanced centrifuges had been installed at the plant, although some were being tested in a separate area of the facility.

Because enrichment can produce both nuclear weapons as well as reactor fuel, Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to stop its program. Its determination to expand such activities had been criticized worldwide even before an announcement earlier this month that Tehran would enrich to a higher level.

The confidential letter critical of the higher-enrichment plan was shared Tuesday with The Associated Press. Dated Feb. 12, it was addressed to IAEA chief Yukiya Amano and signed by senior U.S., Russian and French envoys.

Moscow in the past has often put the brakes on Western attempts to penalize Tehran for defying U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze its enrichment program, which can produce both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads. But while Russia has recently signaled more support for new U.N. sanctions, China—a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council that depends on Iran for much of its energy needs—remains opposed.

The letter questioned the rationale of Tehran's assertion that it had started the higher enrichment project to provide fuel to a research reactor providing medical isotopes for cancer patients.

"If Iran goes ahead with this escalation, it would raise fresh concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions, in light of the fact that Iran cannot produced the needed nuclear fuel in time" to refuel the research reactor, said the letter.

Iran's decision to enrich to the 20-percent level is "wholly unjustified, contrary to U.N. Security Council resolutions and represent(s) a further step toward a capability to produce highly enriched uranium," said the letter to IAEA chief Amano.

The 20-percent mark represents the threshold between low-enriched and high-enriched uranium.

Although warhead material must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its present low-enriched stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for Iran's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step—moving from 20 to 90 percent—would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Since its clandestine enrichment program became known eight years ago, Iran has insisted it is meant only to generate nuclear fuel. But its secrecy and refusal to cooperate with an IAEA probe of allegations that it experimented with aspects of a weapons program had increased concerns even before Ahmadinejad's Feb.7 announcement that Iran will raise the enrichment bar.

Announcing the installation of the more advanced centrifuges on Tuesday, he said Iran "will use them in the near future." In December, Iran said the country had plans to put such machines into use by early 2011.

Ahmadinejad shrugged off the possibility of new U.N sanctions. "They know that resolutions are not worth a penny and have no effect," he said.

Iran has already amassed about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium—more than enough for further enrichment into material for one warhead. An IAEA-endorsed plan foresees taking 70 percent of that material to Russia for 20-percent enrichment and then to France for processing into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor.

The proposal was endorsed by world powers because it would ensure a continued supply of medical isotopes from the reactor for Iranian cancer patients while at the same time delaying Iran's ability to further enrich to weapons grade uranium by stripping it of most of its low-enriched stockpile.

But the Islamic Republic rejected the plan and said it would make the reactor fuel on its own—a technical feat that world powers assert Iran is incapable of.

The letter urged Tehran to obtain the medical isotopes on the world market if it remains opposed to the IAEA-endorsed plan, saying higher enrichment will "further undermine the confidence of the international community."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DTFA381&show_article=1

[redeux]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100216/twl-israel-mulling-a-spring-or-summer-wa-3cd7efd.html


Israel mulling a spring or summer war: Ahmadinejad
9 hours 50 mins ago

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that Iran's arch-foe Israel was mulling starting a war "next spring or summer" but has yet to make a final decision. Skip related content


Without specifying whom would be targeted, Ahmadinejad said: "According to information we have they (Israel) are seeking to start a war next spring or summer, although their decision is not final yet."

"But the resistance and regional states will finish them if this fake regime does anything again," the hardliner said at a press conference when asked about ongoing efforts to reconcile ties between Arabs and Israel.

The already deep-seated enmity between Iran and Israel have deteriorated since Ahmadinejad became the president, with the latter not ruling out a military strike against Tehran's nuclear sites in a bid to stop the Islamic republic's galloping atomic programme.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed Ahmadinejad's claim of a war during a visit Tuesday to Russia.

"We are not planning any war," Netanyahu said in Moscow following talks with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

"They are doing different manipulations," Netanyahu said.

"I would not be surprised if these things we are hearing now are... (the) result of the Iranian feelings ahead of the impending United Nations Security Council discussions on sanctions," he added.

[PEOA]

this is going to be a
BIG BIG MISTAKE

[PEOA]

..........you know this not going to be like.........Iraq and Afghanistan.........pick on peasants with small arms........alot of good guy are going to get killed and wounded...............on both sides...........this will be the end...............

[redeux]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1623330220100216

No options ruled out on Iran, White House says
Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:22pm GMT  
WASHINGTON, Feb 16 (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday would not rule out any options, including the military option, for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "I wouldn't rule out anything." He said Iran's rejection of every attempt by the Obama administration for diplomatic engagement is proof that its nuclear program is "not of the means and type that they have tried to convince others that's it's for." (Reporting by Steve Holland and Ross Colvin)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/16/hillary-clinton-iran-bush

Clinton clings to Bush ideals on Iran
The US policy of engagement with Iran never got off the ground – and now Hillary Clinton has resorted to Bush-era sabre-rattling

Hillary Clinton's sudden volley of shots at Iran marks the end of an engagement policy that never really began. She wants to convince the world that the regime in Tehran is opposed to serious talks with the west. That may be true, but we'll probably never know because in fact, no one has offered such talks.

In laying out the American approach to Iran, Clinton showed how little US foreign policy has changed since the last years of the Bush administration. President Bush famously explained that he would not negotiate with unfriendly regimes because he didn't want to "reward bad behaviour". He wanted states like Iran to change of their own accord, not as a result of negotiation but as a pre-condition for being allowed to negotiate.

Clinton embraces this same idea. She rejects the view that as Iran becomes more threatening and approaches nuclear breakout capacity, diplomatic engagement becomes more urgent. Instead she takes the opposite view. "We don't want to be engaging while they are building their bomb," she said this week.

Whether the increasingly splintered regime in Iran would or could respond to a serious offer of negotiations is highly uncertain. What is clear, though, is that the regime has not been offered this option. The Obama administration, like its predecessor, has made clear that it is interested in negotiating only one thing: curbs on Iran's nuclear programme. No country, however, would agree to negotiate only on the question that an adversary singles out, without the chance to bring up others that it considers equally urgent.

A more promising approach would be to tell Iran what President Nixon told China 35 years ago: if you agree to consider all of our complaints, we will consider all of yours. Clinton has made clear that the US will make no such offer. Instead it clings to the decades-old American policy toward Iran: make demands of the regime, threaten it, pressure it, sanction it, seek to isolate it, and hope for some vaguely defined positive result.

Some of America's most seasoned diplomats are eager for the chance to see what kind of a "grand bargain" they could strike with Iran. An ideal one would curb the nuclear programme, guarantee some measure of protection for brave Iranians who are being brutalised for defending democratic ideals, and give Iran security guarantees that might lure it out of its isolation and lay the groundwork for a new security architecture in the Middle East. Instead the US has fallen back on sabre-rattling. This pleases Israel, war hawks in Washington, so-called American allies like Saudi Arabia – and most of all, President Ahmadinejad and his reactionary comrades in Tehran. They thrive on confrontation, and are doing all they can to bait the US into attacking their country. It is a strategy as effective as it is dangerous.


These stupid f**king delusional bilderberg illuminati scum-bags, f**k THEM!!!!!!!! SONS OF BITCHES......

[PEOA]

the lies they will have to tell.........we are talking 100,000 dead americans the first year.......I don't even want to speculate on the Iranains...........but dang ......this is going to be bad...........

[sc10000]

The truth is there are many Muslim reformers who promote Jeffersonian ideals of democracy and freedom; that's not reported on big brothers news; for those people their main criticism is how we have corrupted our god given rights. Interesting dichotomy.

[bigron]

USA's Global Military Dominance

Real Reason for Sanctions Against Iran

By Eric Sommer

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24742.htm

February 17, 2010 "Pravda" -- Feb. 15, 2010 -- The U.S.-sponsored drive to impose new economic sanctions on Iran has nothing to do with the noble cause of limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet. It is directly linked to the U.S. military doctrine of establishing 'full spectrum dominance' - i.e., military dominance on land, sea, air, and outer space over all other countries in the world. The logical extension of this doctrine is that only countries firmly allied to the U.S. government should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or to even develop the capacity to do so.

Israel , for example, is widely-believed to hold secret Nuclear weapons. Yet there is no call for sanctions or investigations of them. The reason is simple: They are a U.S. ally. India and Pakistan have declined to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have developed nuclear weapons. Yet there is no call for sanctions or investigations of them. The reason is simple: They are U.S. allies.

Iran and North Korea are being subjected to economic sanctions, calls for more sanctions, and even threats of military aggression against them The reason is again simple: They are not U.S. allies.

The principal of national sovereignty includes non-interference in a nations internal affairs by outside powers. It is an important cornerstone of real international peace and security, and among other things is related to accepting and respecting the cultural, political, and economic diversity of the world.

A key element of national sovereignty is that wars of aggression against other nations which have not attacked ones' own nation are prohibited under international law. Wars of aggression were declared illegal at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, which established the invasion of other nations by Germany as the type-case.

Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly has enacted resolutions prohibiting military aggression, invasions, and occupations of one country by another - except in self-defence when the target nation had attacked first.

Iran , at this point, is only known to be developing nuclear power plants and materials. And it has never attacked the U.S. Yet Iran is being subjected to sanctions, calls for more sanctions, and threats of possible military aggression against them.

The Truth About the Non-Proliferation Treaty

As a signatory of the U.N. Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Iran must not develop nuclear weapons.

However - and this is a crucial point - the non-proliferation treaty gives every signatory the sovereign right to voluntarily withdraw from the treaty on three months notice. After doing so, that country has the absolute right under international law to develop nuclear weapons on its own territory.

 

North Korea , which originally signed the treaty and later withdrew, has now the legal right to develop nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed the treaty and therefore also have had the legal right to develop nuclear weapons.

 

Instead of acknowledging these realities, western politicians and media have systematically concealed them from the public. In place of the truth they have repeated vague mantras like 'defying the international community' (i.e., not bending to the will of the U.S.).

In a typical example of this deceptive rhetoric, U.S. President Obama said a few days ago: "Despite the posturing that its nuclear power is only for civilian use ... they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization, and that is not acceptable to the international community."

The absence of any legal argument in this statement reflects the fact that there is no legal argument against Iran's nuclear energy program, and that even development of weapons would be legal if Iraq withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Of course, Obama invoking the 'non-acceptance by the 'international community' does not mean the nations of the world; it's code for 'the U.S. and its allies'.

U.S. Sanctions are part of Imperialism

To fully understand U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea, we need to situate it in the wider attempt to extend its military machine across the world, and to remove any obstacles to its dominance.

There are currently 700 U.S. military bases outside the U.S., and it is engaged in a vast project to extend the reach of Nato by incorporating as many as possible of the former East European socialist states and former parts of the Soviet Union.

The U.S. is also seeking to militarily encircle both Russia and China with sea-based missile carrying ships, bases in neighboring states, hi-tech weapons on Taiwan, and the arming of small client anti-Russian states like Georgia. U.S. bases are also being built in the South American country of Columbia, right next door to Venezuela, a country which has sought to develop a socialist alternative to U.S. domination of the region.

U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear program is intended to help ensure that the U.S. - and its nuclear armed major allies such as Britain, France, India, and Pakistan - can continue to dominate the world. It is also intended to weaken the ability of middle eastern countries to resist U.S. domination in their region.

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru»

[bigron]

Chossudovsky: US Will Start WW3 by Attacking Iran

By RussiaToday

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24806.htm

February 19, 2010 "RussiaToday" -- A UN nuclear watchdog report suggests Iran could be developing a nuclear bomb, apparently confirming long-held suspicions in the West. But Tehran denies the claims, again insisting that its atomic intentions are peaceful. Michel Chossudovsky, who's from an independent Canadian policy research group, believes that what Iran says hardly matters, because the U.S. is planning for war.

Posted February 19, 2010

WATCH  :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4p1kD8CZX8&feature=player_embedded

[bigron]

U.S.–Iran power struggle over Iraq

 
21/02/2010 11:31:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/USIran-power-struggle-over-Iraq.html
 
A secure, stable and democratic Iraq will have first to wait for an end to the raging power struggle over Iraq between the U.S. and Iran inside and outside the occupied Arab country.

(unimike.net) Despite the presence of 100,000 U.S. troops, America's influence in Iraq is fading.

By Nicola Nasser

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill’s warning on February 18 that it could take months to form a new government in Baghdad after the Iraqi elections, scheduled for March 7, and that in turn could mean considerable political turmoil in Iraq, and the warnings of observers and experts as well as officials against the looming specter of a renewed sectarian war in the country, indicate that security, stability, let alone democracy, and a successful “victorious” withdrawal of American troops from Iraq have all yet a long way to go.

A secure, stable and democratic Iraq will have first to wait for an end to the raging power struggle over Iraq between the United States and Iran inside and outside the occupied Arab country.

The Associated Press quoted Hill as predicting “some tough days, violent days as well, some intemperate days” ahead of the March 7 vote. The warnings raise serious questions about U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s statement a few days ago calling Iraq the “great achievement” for the Obama Administration. Neither Biden nor President Barak Obama are able yet to declare that the United States has won victory in Iraq.

In 2007, both men advised the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but former President George W. Bush opted instead for the military “surge,” which the Obama Administration is now “responsibly” drawing down. However, neither the surge nor the drawdown have produced their declared aim, a secure democracy; instead a pro-Iran sectarian regime is evolving.

The upcoming Iraqi elections, scheduled for March 7, have already embroiled the two major American and Iranian beneficiaries of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 in an open power struggle that neither party cares any more to contain within the limits of the bilateral tacit understanding on security coordination that was formalized through dozens of public and behind-the-scenes ‘dialogue” meetings in Baghdad between U.S. ambassadors Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad and their Iranian counterparts, until the term of the Bush administration was over. This open power struggle indicates as well that the honey moon of their bilateral security coordination in Iraq is either over, or about to, a very bad omen for the Iraqi people.

Despite trumpeting the drums of war, the Barak Obama administration is still on record committed to what the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, described in the Saudi capital Riyadh on February 15 as the “dual track approach” of simultaneously massing for war and diplomacy given teeth by building an international consensus on anti-Iran sanctions under the umbrella of the United Nations.

Adding to this the fact that Washington is restraining a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran and postponing its positive response to Israeli insistent demand for war as the only option, and the fact that the U.S. military in Iraq are capable of confronting the Iranian militias and intelligence networks inside Iraq, but choosing not to do so yet, are all indicators that Washington is still eyeing a power sharing arrangement with Iran in Iraq.

However, Tehran could not be forthcoming to forgo its anti-U.S. leverage in Iraq as long as Washington continues its current strategy to settle the scores of the U.S.-Iran power struggle inside Iraq by moving the struggle to the Iranian homeland itself. Moreover Tehran is desperately reciprocating this U.S. strategy by trying to disrupt the Arab launching pad of the anti-Iran front, which Clinton said in Riyadh that her administration is “working actively with our regional and international partners” to build, wherever Iran could do so, from the Palestinian Gaza and Lebanon to Yemen. Washington is exploiting “Iran’s increasingly disturbing and destabilizing actions,” according to Clinton on the same occasion, as an additional casus belli for convincing Arab partners to join that front. US and Iran are turning the entire Middle East with its Arab heartland into an arena of a bloody tit-for-tat game, with Iraq as the end game prize.

The wider U.S. – Iranian conflict in the Middle East is one over Iraq, and not over Iran itself. The Israeli and the Palestinian factors are merely a distracting side show and a propaganda ploy for both protagonists in their psychological warfare to win the hearts and minds of the helpless Arabs, Palestinians in particular, who are crushed unmercifully under their war machines, left with the religious heritage as the only outlet to seek refuge and salvage, while the 22 member states of the Arab League are cornered into a choice between the worse and the worst.

Expectantly therefore, Clinton had almost nothing of substance to say about Iraq during her joint press conference with her Saudi counterpart Prince Saud Al Faisal on Monday, who however, for explicit geopolitical reasons, could not ignore the Iraqi issue: “We hope that the forthcoming elections will realize the aspirations of the Iraqi people to achieve security, stability, and territorial integrity and to consolidate its national unity on the basis of equality among all Iraqis irrespective of their beliefs and sectarian differences and to protect their country against any foreign intervention in their affairs,” he told reporters.

But “foreign intervention,” or more to the point foreign U.S. military and Iranian paramilitary occupation, is exactly what would doom the prince’s hopes to wishful thinking.

The editorial of The Washington Post on January 20, headlined “Obama administration must intervene in Iraqi election crisis,” was in fact misleading because the U.S. intervention has never stopped for a moment in “sovereign” Iraq.

Militarily, U.S. Lt. Col. Robert Fruehwald and Iraqi Staff Major General Shakir, for example, have been working together the past nine months to prepare for the upcoming elections in the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad; the same applies to every Iraqi district in every Iraqi governorate. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), American troops are supposed to remain outside urban centres and all military operations are to be conducted with Iraqi government approval.

On the ground, the U.S. military “advisors” are embedded throughout the Iraqi security forces, selecting targets and directing operations that are supported as required by massive air bombing.

Politically, all “secretaries” and senior administration officials that have whatever to do with Iraq are on record as to who and whom the elections “should’ and “must” include or exclude. For example, “No Baathist” should ever stand for elections, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hills had said. Contradicting Hills, Clinton had said “the United States would oppose” any exclusion. On February 10, Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, voiced pride in his record intervention: “I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.” On February 4, The New York Times, in an editorial, said Biden was in Baghdad “to press the government” on who to run in the elections; Iraqi President Jalal Talabani confirmed that Biden had proposed “that the disqualifications (of candidates) be deferred until after the election.”

President Obama, who said recently that “we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people,” should watch out for his credibility against the contradictory and contradicting statements of his aides.

Similarly, Iran has self-imposed itself as the arbiter of Iraqi politics. The official Tehran Times, in an editorial written by a “staff writer,” defended the disqualification of candidates because they are “mostly the remnants of the Baathist regime” who are supported by “certain Arab countries.” Iranian “contested” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution accused the U.S. -- which is still paying “a horrible price,” according to Biden, for uprooting the Baath party from power -- of trying to impose the Baath party back into power. Nejad’s mouthpiece in Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi -- who was the darling of the U.S. neoconservatives of the Bush administration, whose reports were cited by them as the casus belli for the invasion of Iraq, who turned out a double agent for Iran, and who is trying to ban those Iraqi politicians most opposed to Iran's growing influence in Iraq with an eye on the next premiership -- in a press conference on February 14, “condemned the U.S. intervention in Iraqi affairs,” citing Biden and Hills as examples.

The “horrible price” of the Iraqi invasion, which Biden referred to in his NBC's “Meet the Press” on February 15, is yet to come. Chalabi was not a lone pro-Iran voice in Iraq to brave a challenge to U.S. strategy. Prime Minister Noori Al Maliki was on record as saying that, “We will not allow American Ambassador Christopher Hill to go beyond his diplomatic mission;” his aides called for the expulsion of Hill. These are professional politicians. What are their resources to brave challenge the U.S., whose soldiers are protecting them and whose taxpayers’ money has financed them, had not been for their Iranian credentials?

“Despite the presence of more than 100,000 U.S. troops, America's influence in Iraq is fading fast -- and Iran's is growing,” Robert Dreyfuss wrote in a column titled “Bad to Worse in Iraq” in The Nation on February 8, adding: “As soon as George W. Bush made the fateful decision to sweep away the Iraqi government and install pro-Iranian exiles in Baghdad, the die was cast. President Obama has no choice but to pack up and leave.”

Self-proclaimed nationalist seculars, who have been and are still an integral part of the U.S. – engineered so-called Iraqi “political process,” are now losing their battle in this process. De-Baathification, which was originally a U.S. trade mark of Paul Premer, the first civil governor of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, is merely a pretext to disqualify whoever opposes Iran or its sectarian agenda in Iraq. A pro-Iran sectarian regime is evolving to exclude not only secularism and democracy but to cement an Iranian power base in Iraq that will sooner or later spread sectarianism all over the region, instead of turning the country into a launching pad for democracy in the Middle east, as promised by the U.S. neoconservatives to justify their invasion of the country seven years ago.

Thomas Ricks, the Pulitzer Prize-winning military correspondent and former Washington Post Pentagon correspondent, has suggested recently that ““at the end of the surge, the fundamental political problems facing Iraq were the same ones as when it began. The theory of the surge was that improved security would lead to a political breakthrough. It didn't. The improved security opened a window, but didn't lead to a political breakthrough. In that sense, the surge failed.”

Ricks however fails to note that the imminent drawdown of American troops in Iraq is about to take place on the backdrop of that “failure,” and that the drawdown like the surge before it is doomed to failure for the same reason, namely the sectarian regime which both did their best to sustain as their agent in Iraq.

-- Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories.



-- AJP
 

[Brocke]

For f*cks sake! If a 12 year old student can ask the hard questions what's happened to the rest of the world media. I hope they don't torture her family for her putting Hilary on the spot.


Clinton avoided nuke question - student

    * From correspondents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    * From: AFP
    * February 22, 2010 2:17AM

A SAUDI student blasted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for skirting her question on Israel's nuclear arsenal during a "town hall'' meeting at a Jeddah college.

"I did not get a straight answer,'' Mariyam Alavi said in a letter published in Arab News on her question to the top US diplomat last Tuesday.

"My question was simple and direct enough,'' she wrote, but Ms Clinton's response "was very unsatisfying.''

Alavi, a 12th grader at the International Indian School in Jeddah, attended the meeting at the elite Dar al-Hekma College with six classmates.

She had asked Ms Clinton about Washington's stance on the existence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If the Americans "so vehemently oppose Iran's nuclear programme,'' she had asked, "then why isn't the US asking Israel to give up their nuclear weapons?''

Ms Clinton gave a lengthy answer detailing the US case against Iran, but did not mention Israel.

She did, however, say that "we want not only a world free of nuclear weapons, we want a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, including everyone.''

Alavi's Arab News letter assailed US "hypocrisy'' over the issue, reflecting a widely held sentiment in in the region.

"Clinton said that the United States, under the able leadership of President Barack Obama, was trying to repair and strengthen its ties with the Muslim world.

"It is high time she realised it couldn't be done without answering the questions uppermost in the minds of the Middle East people.''

Alavi said she had been nervous about asking such a "politically provocative question'' but was then encouraged by strong applause from the audience when she addressed Ms Clinton.

Ms Clinton had been on a three-day trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia to discuss, among other things, how to confront Iran's alleged programme to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clinton-avoided-nuke-question-student/story-e6frfku0-1225832790510

[eddy64]

Israel unveils new drone fleet that can reach Iran


By TIA GOLDENBERG, Associated Press Writer


TEL NOF AIR FORCE BASE, Israel – Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range.

The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.

At the fleet's inauguration ceremony at a sprawling air base in central Israel, the drone dwarfed an F-15 fighter jet parked beside it. The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000 meters), and remain in the air longer.

"With the inauguration of the Heron TP, we are realizing the air force's dream," said Brig. Gen. Amikam Norkin, head of the base that will operate the drones. "The Heron TP is a technological and operational breakthrough."

Israeli officials refused to say how large the new fleet is or whether the planes were designed for use against Iran, but stressed it was versatile and could adapt to new missions. The plane's maker, state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, has said it is capable of reaching the Persian Gulf, which would put Iran within its range.

"The Heron TP has the potential to be able to conduct new missions down the line as they become relevant," said Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, commander of Israel's air force.

Israel believes Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and has repeatedly hinted it could strike Iran if diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear program fail.

Israeli defense officials said the Heron TP could be a useful tool against Iran, whose leaders have repeatedly called for the Jewish state's destruction. In addition to providing surveillance, the aircraft can jam enemy communications as well as assist in communications between ground control and manned air force planes.

The officials requested anonymity because they were discussing sensitive military technology.

The Heron TP has been in development for about a decade, but the aircraft first saw action during Israel's offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip just over a year ago.

Palestinian witnesses have long claimed that Israeli drones fire missiles in Gaza, both before and during the Israeli offensive. Israel has never confirmed that its unmanned aircraft are capable of firing missiles.

Israel first began using drones in the early 1970s, and its fleet has steadily increased since then. The unmanned planes are now considered an integral part of the military and tend to accompany air and ground forces on various missions.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_drones



perfect weapon for striking iran, no pilot from israel put at risk.

[bigron]

Israeli Drone Capable of Reaching Iran

Enormous 'Super-Drone' Mostly Useful for Surveillance

by Jason Ditz, February 21, 2010
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/21/israeli-drone-capable-of-reaching-iran/



In a move which could impact a potential military strike on Iran, Israel today unveiled the the latest models of its Heron TP drones, including the largest Eitan “super-drone” with the wingspan of a 737 and a payload upwards of 1,000 kg.

The large, unmanned aircraft are mostly built around surveillance purposes, but officials were quick to point out that the drones had a maximum capable range which made them capable of reaching Iran.

Israel used earlier models of the Heron during the Gaza War, and the Israeli Air Force intends to have a squadron of the new drones formed later this year. Its long range appears to be the core of its design.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently told the Russian government that such an attack is not forthcoming. Analysts say that the drones, if used in an attack on Iran, would primarily be used to spot targets, as their combat capabilities are extremely limited.

[bigron]

Israel launches drone fleet able to reach Iran 


24/02/2010 11:30:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Israel-launches-drone-fleet-able-to-reach-Iran.html
 
 Israel's air force has introduced a fleet of large surveillance UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles), claiming they can fly as far as Iran.

(press tv) A Heron TP UAV

Israel's air force has introduced a fleet of large surveillance UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles), claiming they can fly as far as Iran and the Persian Gulf.

The Israeli military says the Heron TP drones, with a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), will primarily be used for surveillance, implying that they also can be used for other applications.

The jet-sized drones, which are said to be built by the Israel Aerospace Industries, were first used by the Israeli military during the 23 days of deadly aerial and ground incursion into Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

At an inauguration ceremony on Sunday, Israeli officials refused to announce the number of aircraft that were included in the fleet.

They also declined to comment on whether the planes were designed for use against Iran. They did, however, say that the planes could reach the Persian Gulf.

This is the second time this month that Israel has unveiled surveillance UAVs.

Last week, the Israeli army said that it has added the world's largest unmanned surveillance plane to its collection of drones. Officials said the aircraft, called Eitan, could reach Iran by flying over 20 hours.

The United States and Israel accuse the Islamic Republic of pursuing military applications under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, a claim that IAEA inspectors stationed in Iranian nuclear facilities have so far been unable to substantiate.

The two have repeatedly threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran.The Islamic Republic has warned the US and Israel of a crushing response if they commit the mistake of attacking the country.

Iran says, like all other signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is entitled to pursue an independent nuclear program for civilian purposes.

Despite the Western accusations, Tehran has always called for a stop to the production and storage of conventional and newly-developed nuclear weapons.

Although Israel does not formally acknowledge or deny possessing such an arsenal, it is widely believed that Tel Aviv possesses over 200 ready-to-launch nuclear warheads. Israel has so far refused to sign the NPT.

Middle Eastern nations view Tel Aviv's nuclear weapons arsenal as a major threat against their national security.



-- Press TV