September 30, 2009

Iran

Iran Says It Will Not Discuss Second Nuclear Plant

Reuters
September 30, 2009

Iran said on Tuesday it would not discuss a previously secret nuclear plant at international talks this week, but Washington vowed to bring it up and demanded Tehran prove it is not developing an atomic weapon.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, asked about Iran's insistence it would not discuss the facility in the Geneva talks, declared: "They may not, but we will."

Iranian officials and representatives of six major powers, including the United States, China and Russia, will hold talks on Tehran's nuclear ambitions in Geneva on Thursday. It is the first such encounter since U.S. President Barack Obama took office early this year promising more active U.S. diplomacy.

Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, made clear that Iran feels the newly disclosed uranium enrichment plant is off-limits for discussion.
"We are not going to discuss anything related to our nuclear rights, but we can discuss about disarmament, we can discuss about non-proliferation and other general issues," Salehi told a news conference.

"The new site is part of our rights and there is no need to discuss it," he said, adding Tehran would not abandon its nuclear activities "even for a second."
The back-and-forth suggested a tense atmosphere and little optimism ahead for the talks, after U.S. President Barack Obama joined with leaders of Britain and France last week to disclose the existence of the Iranian plant and call on Tehran to let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect it.

Iran's IRNA news agency quoted MP Mohammad Karamirad, a conservative and member of parliament's foreign policy and national security commission, as saying Iran could close the door completely to cooperation with world nuclear authorities.
"If the Zionists and America continue their pressure on Iran and if the talks... do not reach a conclusion, then parliament will take a clear and transparent position, such as Iran's withdrawal from the NPT," he said.
Washington has suggested possible new sanctions on banking and the oil and gas industry if Tehran fails to assuage Western fears it seeks nuclear weapons. U.S. officials believe sanctions could now have more effect, playing on leadership divisions evident since a disputed Iranian presidential poll.

Gibbs, at a White House briefing, said the onus was on Iran "to demonstrate visibly for the world that they have a peaceful nuclear program designed for power and energy rather than a secret program to develop a nuclear weapon."

The United States and its Western allies have made clear they will focus on Iran's nuclear program at the Geneva meeting. Iran has offered wide-ranging security talks.
"My expectation, or my hope, is that we will be able to get... the guarantees from Tehran, that the program in which they are engaged in is a peaceful program," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told reporters in Gothenburg, Sweden.

"I don't think it will be easy to ask for, but we will continue to engage."
Statements from Tehran on Tuesday allowed some ambiguity on Iran's readiness to talk.
"The site, we can call it a small Natanz site, is a way to show that Iran ... not even for a second will stop its nuclear activities," Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi said, referring to its existing underground plant near the central city of Natanz.
He described the new facility as a "contingency plant" in case the Natanz site was threatened by military action.

Washington has not ruled out military action if it believed Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapons but says it favors diplomatic action.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States would not make a "snap judgment" after the talks but would take a more measured view of Iran's overall willingness to engage on the nuclear issue. But he added that Iran should take heed of Obama's warning that he wanted progress by the end of the year.

Iranian state Press TV quoted Salehi as saying on Monday Tehran was in contact with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over a date for inspection of the plant.

Iranian missile tests on Sunday and Monday added to tension with Western powers, who fear a hardline leadership in the Islamic Republic could ultimately use a threat of nuclear attack to pursue its political ends in the Middle East and beyond.

Russia, though cautious on sanctions, has expressed concern about Iranian missile launches and about Tehran's nuclear program. President Dmitry Medvedev has said "other means" could be employed if Geneva talks failed.

But Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian diplomat as saying missile tests should not be used as an additional argument for imposing sanctions on Tehran.

The Geneva meeting is the first such encounter since the June re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stirred mass protests in Tehran and signs of division in the leadership over accusations of vote fixing.

September 29, 2009

Iran

Once Again, On the Ex-Left and Iran

By Joe Kishore, World Socialist Web Site
September 29, 2009

The Obama administration, along with the European powers, has initiated a propaganda campaign designed to ratchet up pressure on Iran. The campaign, which recalls that carried out by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, is, in part, calculated to bolster the “green” opposition movement in Iran.

In fact, the sudden escalation of threats against Iran strongly suggests a policy turn that was prepared well in advance, of which the furor over the “stolen election” and the promotion of the movement headed by opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi was a central component. The aim was to destabilize and delegitimize the current Iranian regime in order to strengthen international support for crushing sanctions, leading to regime change either from within or with the aid of external military force.

On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed to “fissures in Iran that we have not seen before, not in the 30 years since the revolution.” He expressed the hope that these divisions, combined with the new allegations over Iran’s nuclear program, would compel Iran “to change their policy in a way that is satisfactory to the great powers.” If not, he threatened severe sanctions and left open the possibility of military action.

The latest orchestrated provocation against Iran has further exposed the social and political character of the Iranian “green” movement, as well as its international supporters. In the wake of the Iranian elections in June, the entire fraternity of middle-class ex-left and “socialist” organizations jumped to support the campaign led by US-backed opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

From the Nation magazine, whose correspondent in Tehran, Robert Dreyfuss, reported breathlessly about lipsticked and high-heeled protesters, to the French Nouveau Partie Anti-Capitaliste, recently formed by the ex-Trotskyist LCR, to the empty-headed blowhard and darling of petty-bourgeois academics Slavoj Zizek—all quickly fell behind what they claimed was a great struggle for freedom and democracy. Zizek went so far as to declare that Mousavi’s name “stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution.”

In a series of articles, the World Socialist Web Site insisted on the politically right-wing character of the “green revolution.” While making clear our opposition to the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we explained that Mousavi represented a faction of the ruling establishment that favored a sharper attack on the working class and a foreign policy more in line with American imperialism. (See, for example, “For a socialist, not a ‘color’ revolution in Iran”).

Developments since the election have entirely confirmed this analysis. Shortly before President Obama, Prime Minister Brown and French President Sarkozy issued new ultimatums and threats against Iran last week, the opposition movement organized demonstrations in Tehran on an openly pro-imperialist basis, with slogans intended to signal support for the US and Israel such as “No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran” and “Death to China! Death to Russia!”

This type of pro-US Iranian nationalism (and anti-communism) has much in common with the ideological orientation of the Shah’s dictatorship, which was overthrown in 1979. Now the opposition in Iran is welcoming the US-backed attacks over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

An article published in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday (“Disclosure of Nuclear Plant Adds to Iran Rift”) noted: “The timing of President Obama’s announcement of Iran’s newest uranium enrichment plant came as supporters of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi have been seeking new momentum in protests against the disputed June reelection of Ahmadinejad.”

While Mousavi has nominally opposed Western sanctions, the green movement has solidarized itself with US actions. The Times quoted a statement from filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, a spokesman for the movement: “The Green Movement in Iran furthermore understands the world’s concerns and in fact has similar concerns itself.”

Meanwhile, the liberal and “left” supporters of Obama have already begun to assume their assigned roles in promoting the latest US maneuver, led once again by Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation.

On Friday, Dreyfuss posted a blog entry prominently displayed on the Nation’s web site (“Iran Bombshell: US Reveals Secret Facility”) that consisted largely of an uncritical repost of the background briefing put out by the Obama administration.

In his own remarks, Dreyfuss accepted entirely the line of the US government, stating, “The existence of the previously unreported facility, combined with Iran’s apparent efforts to conceal it from the IAEA and the world community, will only add heft to charges that Iran is covertly seeking a military nuclear capability.”

On Monday, Dreyfuss followed this up with an even more overtly right-wing column (“Can the US-Iran Talks Succeed?”), in which he expresses the hope that the US will succeed in pushing through regime change in Iran.

Dreyfuss begins by declaring that Obama is carrying out a “startling and important reversal of US policy” by preparing talks with Iran this week in Geneva, while abandoning “the charged rhetoric of the Bush administration.” This characterization is absurd, given the fact that the talks have been preceded by new ultimatums, threats of severe sanctions and hints at future military attack. In fact, Obama’s policy on Iran is entirely in line with that of his predecessor.

Dreyfuss goes on to quote a column by Eliot Cohen published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday (“There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran”). Cohen, a right-wing neoconservative, discusses the possibility of a military attack on Iran, but concludes that the best option is “to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of US power, soft more than hard.”

While offering certain criticisms of Cohen’s rhetoric, Dreyfuss declares that he entirely agrees with the basic premise.
“Cohen blithely ignores the fact that it was precisely President Obama’s policy of offering to talk to Iran that helped to spark the Green Wave opposition movement in Iran,” he writes. “If ‘regime change’ does come to Iran in the next year or two (or longer) it will be [because] that opposition movement—the very reformists and pragmatists who were disparaged and despised by the neocons until June 12!—manages to get the upper hand.”
In other words, Obama, according to Dreyfuss, is more deftly seeking the same end that Cohen seeks.

What are these aims? After carrying out the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan—two of Iran’s neighbors—the American ruling class is seeking to deepen its control over the Middle East and Central Asia by orchestrating a change of government in Iran. This ultimately poses the danger of conflict between the major powers, in which the slogans of “Death to China!” “Death to Russia!” could take on more than a rhetorical significance.

Dreyfuss and other “lefts” are entirely on board with this imperialist agenda. If they were paid agents of the American government, they would write and act no differently. Such a direct connection, however, is superfluous. They perform their services to the American ruling class as a natural extension of their social and political outlook, which is entirely hostile to the interests of the working class—in the United States as well as in Iran.

This author also recommends:
Obama follows Bush’s modus operandi on Iran [28 September 2009]
Once again: Iran, Imperialism and the “left” [15 July 2009]
The Nation’s man in Tehran: Who is Robert Dreyfuss? [22 June 2009]

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israel Dispatches Envoys to Washington

UPI and OfficialWire
September 29, 2009

Israeli officials headed for Washington to meet with U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and bridge the gaps between Israel and Palestinians.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's aide Yitzhak Molcho and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's aide Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog were dispatched to Washington, Haaretz said Tuesday.

Next week, Mitchell is set to visit Israel to continue talks with Netanyahu and Barak in an attempt to resume peace talks with the Palestinians, the newspaper said.

The Palestinian Authority has agreed to drop its demand for a total settlement freeze in the West Bank, as a precondition to resuming talks between the sides, Haaretz said.

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week, Netanyahu said Israel seeks a "genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace."

Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with U.S. President Barrack Obama in an effort to resume peace talks.

After the meeting, Abbas was quoted in the Arab media saying there is "no common ground to resume peace talks with Israel."

Abbas: We Can't Return to Negotiations

Jerusalem Post
September 24, 2009

The Palestinians cannot return to peace talks at this time because of "fundamental disagreements" with Israel on what should be on the agenda, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview published Thursday, rebuffing an appeal by US President Barack Obama that both sides get back to the table promptly.

Abbas said he wants to avoid a crisis with the Obama administration at any cost, but that "there is no common ground for discussion" with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Earlier this week, an increasingly impatient Obama summoned Netanyahu and a reluctant Abbas to a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Obama told the two leaders that too much time had already been wasted and that it was time to resume peace talks. He reiterated his call in a speech to the General Assembly on Wednesday, saying:
"The time has come to relaunch negotiations - without preconditions."
Netanyahu had praised Obama's UN address, which also backed Israel's right to live securely and stressed its legitimacy as a "Jewish state." The speech was "good and positive" for Israel and for moving the peace process forward, the prime minister told The Jerusalem Post.

However, speaking in New York, Abbas said that even at the risk of alienating Obama, he could not return to talks without a clear agenda.
"In all honesty, we want to protect our relations with President Obama under any conditions," he told the London-based Al Hayat newspaper. "We don't want to come out with a crisis with the Americans, or create a crisis. But in the meantime, we can't go on unless there is a clear path. The road must be defined so we can know where we are going."
Abbas called again for a complete settlement freeze.
"We can't accept the status quo because a partial halt means a continuation of settlements," he said. "Even if it is halted by 95 percent, it is still a continuation of settlement activities."
Abbas said that despite "fundamental disagreements" with Netanyahu over the terms of negotiations, he will keep talking to Israel about day-to-day issues that concern the Palestinians, including security and the economy.
"We don't reject the principle of talks and dialogue," he said.
In Jerusalem on Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon suggested the Palestinians were wasting time by insisting on a settlement freeze. He noted that when required to do so in the past - as part of a peace deal with Egypt and the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza - Israel had uprooted settlements.

He disputed the Palestinians' contention that, as opposed to Israel, they have lived up to their peace obligations, such as disarming terror groups.
"We know what needs to be done," Ayalon told The Associated Press, referring to the possible future dismantling of settlements. "So why single out this one issue, leaving aside the other important issues to us, [such as] Palestinian terror."

Russia Restrains U.S.-Led Sanctions for Iran

Moscow Again Cool On Sanctions, Foists Restraint on U.S.-Led Line for Iran

DEBKAfile
September 29, 2009

Two days before the Six-Power bloc-Iranian meeting in Geneva, DEBKAfile's Russian sources report Moscow appears to have taken a step back from the small opening allowed by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev for a fresh round of sanctions against Tehran. Monday night, Sept. 28, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies that although Iranian's missile exercise was worrying, restraint was needed. An official communiqué urged "Western powers to restrain themselves."

This is a setback to the tactic US president Barack Obama employed for bringing Russia aboard for stringent international sanctions when he announced Sept. 19 that he was scrapping the US missile shield planned in East Europe.

It is also one in the eye for the Netanyahu government and its latest policy of cooperation with international steps for bringing Iran to heel on its nuclear activities. Monday night, foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said in a television interview:
"Israel must not attack Iran's nuclear installations. It must be left to world powers."
DEBKAfile's political sources report that Lieberman is increasingly criticized for aligning his policies with those of Moscow.

The Obama administration is working on broadened sanctions in the event that Iran fails to "come clean" on its nuclear activities and deliver on international requirements by the end of the year.

However, two days before Iran's negotiator meets the world powers in Geneva, Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi made it clear in an interview Tuesday that Iran would never give up its uranium enrichment program. He described the second enrichment plant in a mountain near Qom as very small and explained it had been built underground to protect personnel and instruments in a possible attack.
"But this does not mean we believe the worst case will ever come," he said, "because any wrong steps would… start a fire they cannot extinguish."
The sanctions under review in Washington might focus on maritime traffic to and from Iran - including pressure on shipping firms in Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, especially Dubai, to stop doing direct or third-party business with Tehran, and raising insurance premiums. Foreign investments in Iran, its financial and telecommunications sectors and foreign travel might also be targeted for bans.

Earlier plans to ban refined petrol products and gasoline exports to Iran, which could indeed cripple parts of Iran's economic and military capabilities, appear to have been dropped from the Obama administration's review of possible sanctions. The DEBKAfile's Gulf sources report that some of these options were tried unsuccessfully in the past with little impact on Iran's economy - and certainly not on the regime's determined adherence to its nuclear plans, most of all the rapid momentum of uranium enrichment. As in the past, the new steps under review would have to run the gauntlet of international consensus to fully succeed. Some would no doubt fall by the wayside while the bargaining would meanwhile consume time.

Moscow has moved back in position to delay the process.

September 28, 2009

Iran


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nation's General Assembly on September 23, 2009. Delegates from the US, Israel and EU stormed out as he was speaking.

From Power to Chaos -- Tracking Iran's Four-Month Slide

By Robin Wright, Time
September 28, 2009

What a difference a few months can make.

In early June, Iran was at the apex of its power on the world stage. Aid to insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon had helped convert Tehran into a regional superpower rivaled only by Israel. At home, hard-liners led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had consolidated control of parliament, the judiciary and the military and marginalized reform parties.

This week, however, Iran heads into talks in Geneva with the U.S. and five other world powers more vulnerable at home and abroad than at any time since the revolution's chaotic early days. Despite defiant talk and a weekend display of military force, the world's only theocracy begins its most important diplomatic engagement in three decades in real trouble.

Over the past four months, the Islamic Republic has faced two game changers. First, the June 12 presidential election spawned a vibrant new opposition movement, a political schism among the theocrats and popular protests that deeply undermined the hard-line regime's legitimacy among its constituents. Second, the gotcha revelation on Sept. 25 about a secret nuclear plant put Tehran on the defensive with both its enemies and allies — and undermined Ahmadinejad's U.N. media blitz, which had been designed to boost his post-election image.

Now those challenges are converging, tightening the squeeze on the regime. Over the weekend, Iran's new opposition chose sides in the nuclear debate — and sided with the world.
"The Iranian Green Movement does not want a nuclear bomb, but instead desires peace for the world and democracy for Iran," said a statement issued by filmmaker and opposition spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbouf. "The Green Movement in Iran furthermore understands the world's concerns and in fact has similar concerns itself."
That's a first. In the past, Iranians rallied around even unpopular governments when confronted by the outside world. Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran helped a young revolution already running out of steam consolidate its hold on power and survive eight years of the Middle East's deadliest modern conflict. Tehran's quest for nuclear energy, widely embraced as a key to development in the 21st century, has also long been a potent unifier of Iran's disparate political factions. Persian national pride has been a powerful force for millennia.

But the revelation of a hidden nuclear facility near the holy city of Qum that is run by Iran's élite Revolutionary Guards — and the threat of more sanctions if Tehran does not cooperate with the new U.S.-sponsored diplomatic initiative — appear to have deepened the political fissures rather than led Iranians to close ranks.

The critical unknown is whether the escalating pressures will lead the theocracy to compromise or make it even more obstinate once it reaches the negotiating table.

The regime's response on Sunday was to flex its military muscle. To shouts of "Allahu akbar," the Revolutionary Guards test-fired short-range missiles to demonstrate that Iran has the necessary arsenal to defend itself.
"We are going to respond to any military action in a crushing manner, and it doesn't make any difference which country or regime has launched the aggression," said General Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, according to Iran's state media. The tests were successful, with the short-range missiles hitting their targets, he said.
Further tests of longer-range missiles are expected in the days running up to the historic meeting between American, French, British, Russian, Chinese and German diplomats and their Iranian counterparts.

Thumbing its nose at the world may not help, since even the skeptical Russians suggested last week that further sanctions may be in order if Iran does not come clean about the secret facility and other older questions about Tehran's nuclear program.
"The Iranians are in a very bad spot now because of this deception, in terms of all of the great powers," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told ABC News on Sunday.
Just how bad will be determined after talks begin on Oct. 1 in Geneva's historic Hotel de Ville.
"If we don't get the answers that we are expecting and the changes in behavior that we are looking for, then we will work with our partners to move for sanctions," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS on Sunday. "The burden has now shifted ... They have to come to this meeting on Oct. 1 and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program. We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence that it's only for peaceful purposes. But we are going to put them to the test."

September 27, 2009

Iran

Too Late to Stop Tehran, Obama Aims to Stifle an Israeli Attack

DEBKAfile Special Analysis
September 26, 2009

Maestro Barack Obama's histrionics in New York and Pittsburgh Thursday and Friday, Sept. 24-25 - and his threat of "confrontation" for Iran's concealment of its nuclear capabilities - were water off a duck's back for Tehran, whose nuclear weapons program has gone too far to stop by words or even sanctions.

The Islamic regime only responded with more defiance, announcing that its second uranium enrichment plant near Qom would become operational soon.

The US president's tough words and willingness to step out of his axiomatic insistence on dialogue and turn to economic warfare against Iran may be impressive but it is no longer effective. Tehran is too close to its goal of a nuclear weapons capability to be deterred by offers of engagement or economic penalties.

Obama certainly knows this. He also understands that Iran is now unstoppable except by force. His performance was therefore directed at another target: Israel, whom he is determined to dissuade from resorting to military action against Iran's nuclear installations.

Defense secretary Robert Gates hit the nail on the head when he said Friday:
"The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so."
Iran was allowed to reach the point defined by Gates thanks to the permissiveness of two US presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and two Israeli prime ministers, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. They had no illusions about the deterrent value of the three sets of UN Security sanctions imposed to punish Iran, but held back from pre-emptive action on the pretext that there was still plenty of time before Iran was in a position to destroy Israel.

In any case, Israeli leaders argued, Iran's nuclear ambitions were a threat to the whole world and it was therefore incumbent on the "international community" to take care of them.

This of course did not happen. Iran carried on exploiting international inaction, finally capitalizing on Obama's foot-dragging in his first nine months in office.

By now, Iran has used the gift of time to process enough enriched uranium to fuel two nuclear bombs and is able to produce another two per year.

Its advanced medium-range missiles will be ready to deliver nuclear warheads by next year.

Detonators for nuclear bombs are in production at two secret sites.

And finally, a second secret uranium enrichment plant - subject of the stern warning issued collectively in Pittsburgh Friday by Obama, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and British premier Gordon Brown - has come to light, buried under a mountain near Qom. Its discovery doubles - at least - all previous estimates of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Caught red-handed yet again in massive deceit, the Iranian president Mahdmoud Ahmadinejad had only more defiance to offer. America owes his government an apology, he told interviewers in New York Friday, because the new plant would not be operational for 18 months, and Tehran had therefore not violated International Atomic Energy Agency rules requiring notification.

He was soon caught in another lie.

Saturday, the Iranian news agency was informed by an aide of supreme leader Ali Khamenei that "the new plant would become operational soon."

Iran's published concealments and deceptions are disquieting enough. But a whole lot more are undoubtedly buried in fat intelligence dossiers on Iran's nuclear program - plutonium production, for instance. The progress made in its plutonium-based weapons program was never mentioned in the stern condemnations of the last few days, except indirectly in a quiet comment from an anonymous Israeli official Friday night.

He said Iran operates on two hourglasses and both were running out fast. He was referring obliquely to the enriched uranium and the plutonium tracks.

Sarkozy was clearly thinking about those undiscovered Iranian secrets and evasions when he declared in Pittsburgh:
"Everything - everything must be put on the table now" (at the October 1 meeting of the Six Powers with Iranian negotiators). Obama too urged Iran "to come clean."
All the powers concerned - the US, Russia, France, Germany the UK and even China - have the same information as Israel and are fully aware that Iran has already crossed a number of red lines this year and will cross more in 2010. The more time allowed for diplomacy and engagement, the greater Tehran's defiance. Meanwhile, world powers will argue - not over futile sanctions, but on how to stop Israel, so wasting several more months.

DEBKAfile's sources note that the Gates assessment and the cooling note he injected into the US president's oratory came after Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak visited the Pentagon. The visit clearly did not change Gates' view that the Iranian nuclear program was now too advanced to stop, while the use of force would only gain an interval of up to three years, after which Tehran would pick itself up and start again. Therefore, according to Gates, diplomacy remained the only viable option.

The answer to this argument is simple: It is exactly this approach which gave Iran 11 quiet years to develop its weapons capacity. For Israel and Middle East, a three-year setback is a very long time, a security boon worth great risk, because:
a) It would be a happy respite from the dark clouds hanging over the country from Iran and also cut back Hamas and Hizballah terrorist capabilities, and

b) In the volatile Middle East anything can happen in 36 months.
But the US defense secretary believes Israel, like the rest of the world, must accept life under the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran and make the best of it.

This view is shared by the Kremlin. It was advanced by prime minister Vladimir Putin to Binyamin Netanyahu during his secret trip to Moscow on Sept. 7.

According to DEBKAfile's Russian sources, when the Israeli prime minister tried to counter Putin's thesis and explain what restraint meant for Israel, the Russian prime minster became impatient and told his guest to leave.

After that interview, the Israeli government can no longer avoid appreciating that Gates and Putin talk the real talk for Washington and Moscow, while their leaders' moralistic condemnations of Iran are mainly hot air for public consumption and for maneuvering Israel into a position where a military strike would be hard to conceive.

Netanyahu's Sphinx-like silence on the nuclear to-do in the US this week was apt. But it is hard to tell what he is hiding. Will he succumb to the world powers' pressure to sit tight while Iran goes all the way to a military nuclear capability - or face up to it and act?

This is the most important decision of Netanyahu's political life as two-time prime minister of Israel. It will also determine Israel's future.

Iran

Iran Test-Fires Short-Range Missiles

Reuters
September 27, 2009

Iran test-fired missiles on Sunday to show it was prepared to head off any military threat, four days before the Islamic Republic is due to hold rare talks with world powers worried about its nuclear ambitions.

The missile maneuvers coincide with escalating tension in Iran's nuclear row with the West, after last week's disclosure by Tehran that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant.

News of the nuclear facility south of Tehran added a sense of urgency to a crucial meeting in Geneva Thursday between Iranian officials and representatives of six major powers, including the United States.

Iran will be put "to the test" in Geneva and a move to sanctions would follow if the talks failed, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS.

An Iranian official warned "fabricated Western clamor" over the new plant would negatively affect the talks at which the six powers want Iran to agree to open its facilities to inspection to prove its program is for power and not nuclear weapons.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, said, referring to Western condemnation of the plant:
"This ... approach will have a negative impact on Iran's negotiations with the 5+1 countries."
He has said Iran is arranging International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of the plant "in the very near future."

U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday the discovery of the secret nuclear plant in Iran showed a "disturbing pattern" of evasion by Tehran. He warned Iran Friday it would face "sanctions that bite" if it did not come clean.

Earlier this month, Obama dropped a Bush-era plan to deploy missiles in Poland that had been proposed as a shield amid concerns Iran was trying to develop nuclear warheads it could mount on long-range missiles.

Iranian media said Revolutionary Guards launched at least two types of short-range missiles on the exercise's first day on Sunday in central Iran and tested a multiple missile launcher.
"For all those who ... might harbor dreams about undertaking military invasion against our nation and country, a message of this maneuver is firmness, destructiveness, real and endless resistance," Iranian General Hossein Salami, head of the Guards' air force, told state television.
Iranian media said medium-range Shahab 1 and 2 missiles, which officials say have a range of 300 and 500 km respectively, would be test-fired Sunday evening.

State radio said the Guards Monday would test-fire the Shahab 3 missile, which Iranian officials say has a range of around 2,000 km, potentially putting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach. It was last tested in mid-2008.

Iran conducts war games or tests weapons to show its resolve to counter any attack by foes like Israel or the United States.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who says any military action against Iran would only "buy time" and stresses the need for diplomacy, told CNN he hoped the disclosure of the second facility would force Tehran to make concessions.
"The Iranians are in a very bad spot now because of this deception," he said.
State television showed footage of missiles soaring into the sky in desert-like terrain, leaving vapor trails, in the drills held during Iran's Holy Defense Week marking the start of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Andrew Brookes, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank in London, told Reuters by phone he believed the missile tests had long been planned and were not a response to Western condemnation of the second enrichment plant. But he noted the firing of the missiles came before the Geneva talks, adding Tehran was showing "we are a powerful nation, we need respect ... we are coming as equals."

English-language Press TV said the weapons tested Sunday included a ground-to-ground missile and a naval missile, naming them as Fateh (Victorious) and Tondar (Thunder).

The United States, which suspects Iran is seeking to build nuclear bombs, has previously expressed concern about Tehran's missile program. Iran says its nuclear work is solely for peaceful power generation purposes.

Neither the United States nor its ally Israel have ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear row.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

Iran acknowledged the existence of the enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom for the first time Monday to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

U.S. officials said the disclosure was designed to pre-empt an announcement by Western governments, which were aware of the site, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the plant was legal and open for inspection by the IAEA.

A senior U.S. administration official said the six powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany -- were preparing "a set of transparency demands" focused on the uranium enrichment plant near Qom.
"Those demands include unfettered access for the IAEA to the Qom facility, the people working there, and timelines related to its development," the official said.

World War III Escalation Scenarios

Escalation Scenarios: The Third World War and Its Aftermath

By Carol Moore, CarolMoore.net
September 23, 2009

URGENT: Scenario 3 - Israel Bombs Iranian Nuclear Plants
Nuclear power plants are nuclear war targets which will spread massive additional radiation over thousands of square miles.

A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons.

While some speak of “limited nuclear war,” it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the “use them or loose them” strategy: If you don’t use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy’s nuclear weapons.

Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroy nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons.

Below are six scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive. U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations’ weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking. Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.

GENERAL SCENARIOS

Accidental: Since the United States and Russia have “launch on warning” systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning — no matter how false the warning may be.


Aggressive: One or more nations decide to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state, of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even an accidental attack.)

Pre-emptive: One or more nations believe (correctly or incorrectly) or claim to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets, and pre-emptively attacks that nation. May result from political or military “brinkmanship.”

Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack — or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS

There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like those below. My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a “use it or lose it” philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies. This continues until most of the planet’s 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted. In making “limited nuclear war” calculations, all nations should assume “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.” Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.

Related assumptions include:

** Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on “The Dead Hand” strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets. Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.

** Any nuclear attack on U.S. and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive U.S. and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.

** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.

** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China, will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine-carried or based-issiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including chemical or biological weapons) possibly might result in a full scale “Samson Option” attack on European and Russian targets. The latter, of course, would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.

** Any nation’s use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations' alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.

NOTE: COLORS OF LINES AND DESCRIPTIONS ARE COORDINATED

Aggressive Pre-Emptive Retaliatory Accidental

SCENARIO 1.

RUSSIA OR U.S. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS GLITCH DURING TIME OF TENSION AS NUCLEAR ATTACK, LEADING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

During time of minor or major political tension, especially active U.S. bombings of other nations or any use of nuclear weapons, Russian commanders' faulty early-warning-system detects false evidence of a nuclear attack from the United States. Russia launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. The U.S. and Europe retaliate at Russia and the U.S. attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates aggressive attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability. (It is less likely that the U.S. would experience such a glitch; if so, the U.S. would strike Russia and China; they would retaliate against the U.S. and Europe and probably attack other potentially hostile nuclear powers to knock out their capability.)

SCENARIO 2.

U.S. OR RUSSIA THREATEN OR ENGAGE IN MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST SMALLER NATION, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR


Russia and US engage in threats over further U.S. aggression in the Middle East or over Russia's refusal to withdraw troops from the former Soviet Republic Georgia. Russia and/or the U.S. pre-emptively strike the others' nuclear targets, leading to further rounds of retaliatory exchanges. Russia strikes pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. Europe retaliates at Russia, and the U.S. attacks China to destroy any remaining nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability.

SCENARIO 3.

ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND/OR SYRIA AND LEBANON, WHICH RETALIATE WITH MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL OR WMD ROCKET ATTACKS; ISRAEL RETALIATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ESCALATING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR


Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities and/or Syria and Lebanon. These countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs and even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Israel responds with nuclear strikes against these nations and Pakistan. Outraged Pakistan retaliates against Israel and pre-emptively attacks Israel's ally/Pakistan's enemy India, which retaliates. Israel initiates "Samson option" and attacks Arab and Muslim capitols, as well as "antisemitic" Europe and Russia. Russian regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and U.S. European allies and China, to destroy its nuclear capability. The U.S. retaliates against Russia and hits China's nuclear capability. China uses any remaining nuclear weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against China.

The Samson Option

From Wikipedia (for the 1991 book by Seymour Hersh, see The Samson Option.)

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well. Israel refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as “nuclear opacity.” This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.

As early as 1976, the CIA believed that Israel possessed 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. By 2002 it was estimated that the number had increased to between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Kenneth S. Brower has estimated as many as 400 nuclear weapons. These can be launched from land, sea and air. This gives Israel a second strike option even if much of the country is destroyed.

The term “Samson Option” has also been used more generally in reference to Israel’s nuclear program. Commentators have also used the term in reference to situations where non-nuclear actors, such as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat and Hezbollah threatened conventional weapons retaliation, and even to United States President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Read the rest of the scenarios here

Historical Close Calls to World War Three

Before the end of the Second World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed concern that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. In April-May 1945, British Armed Forces developed Operation Unthinkable; its primary goal was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire.” However, the plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.

With the development of the arms race, before the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, an apocalyptic war between the United States and the Soviet Union was considered plausible. The Doomsday Clock has served as a symbol of historic World War III close calls since the Truman Doctrine went into effect in 1947. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 is generally thought to be the historical point at which the risk of World War III was closest. Other potential starts have included the following:

1948

Berlin Blockade. Soviet military forces stopped all commerce into West Berlin which caused a humanitarian and political crisis. In response, Western allies sent in air lifts to supply West Berlin.


August 29, 1949

Soviet Union successfully conducted tests with nation’s first atomic bomb, RDS-1.


1950–1953

Korean War. General MacArthur planned to invade and bomb China to eliminate the threat of communism in eastern Asia.


August 12, 1953

Soviet Union successfully conducts tests of nation’s first hydrogen bomb, Joe-4.


July 26, 1956 – March, 1957

Suez Crisis: The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between France, the United Kingdom and Israel. When the USSR threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt, the Canadian Ambassador to the UN Lester B. Pearson feared a larger war and urged the British and French to withdraw. The Eisenhower administration, also fearing a wider war, applied pressure to the United Kingdom to withdraw, including a threat to create a currency crisis by dumping US holdings of British debt. Lester B. Pearson later received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.


June 4 – November 9, 1961

Berlin Crisis of 1961.


October 15 – October 28, 1962

Cuban Missile Crisis: The conflict pitted the United States against an alliance between the USSR and Cuba. The USSR was attempting to place several launch sites in Cuba in response to the United States installation of missiles in Turkey. The United States response included dispersal of Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers to civilian airfields around the United States and war games in which the United States Marine Corps landed against a dictator named “ORTSAC” (Castro spelt backwards). For a brief while, the U.S. military went to DEFCON 3, while SAC went to DEFCON 2. The crisis peaked on October 27, when a U-2 (piloted by Rudolph Anderson) was shot down over Cuba and another U-2 over the USSR was almost intercepted when it strayed over Siberia, after Curtis LeMay (U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff) had neglected to enforce Presidential orders to suspend all overflights. See also: Vasiliy Arkhipov.


October 24, 1973

Yom Kippur War: As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt’s behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3.


September 26, 1983

False “US First Strike” Alarm: Soviet early warning systems showed that a US ICBM attack had been launched. Colonel Stanislav Petrov, in command of the monitoring facility, correctly interpreted the warnings as a computer error, even though this was against standing orders.


November 1983

Exercise Able Archer: The USSR mistook a test of NATO’s nuclear-release procedures as a fake cover for a NATO attack and subsequently raised its nuclear alert level. It was not until afterwards that the US realized how close it had come to nuclear war. At the time of the exercise the Soviet Politburo was without a healthy functioning head due to the failing health of then leader Yuri Andropov.


January 25, 1995

Norwegian rocket incident: A Norwegian missile launch for scientific research was detected from Andøya Rocket Range and thought to be an attack on Russia, launched from a submarine five minutes away from Moscow. Norway had notified the world that it would be making the launch, but the Russian Defense Ministry had neglected to notify those monitoring Russia’s nuclear defense systems.


June 12 – June 26, 1999

Pristina airport standoff: Russian and NATO forces had a standoff over the Pristina Airport in Kosovo.

Read more on Wikipedia

September 25, 2009

Iran

U.S., France, Britain Condemn Iran's Secret Nuke Site, Demand Compliance

Xinhua
September 25, 2009

Pittsburgh, PA - The leaders of the United States, Britain and France on Friday condemned Iran's alleged secret nuclear site and demanded the country "take concrete steps" to comply with related U.N. resolutions.

U.S. President Barack Obama told a news conference before the plenary session of the Group of 20 Summit that the three countries had presented "detailed evidence" to U.N.'s nuclear watchdog that "Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility."
Iran's newly-unveiled uranium enrichment facility "is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program," Obama said. "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," he added.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy made similar remarks at the news conference.

Brown said that news of Iran's covert nuclear facility should "shock and anger" the world.

The British prime minister said that the international community has no choice but to "draw a line in the sand" by demanding that Iran abide by U.N. resolutions and open the facility to inspections.

Brown said that Iran's actions have "hardened the resolve of nations concerned" about its nuclear plan.

The French president warned that Iran faces possible new international sanctions if it doesn't come clean on its nuclear program by December.

He said that Iran was in clear violation of U.N. resolutions in building a second plant to manufacture nuclear fuel and in trying to hide it from the world for years.

Sarkozy said the new crisis threatens the entire international community.



On September 23, 2009, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down for an exclusive interview with Katie Couric hours before his planned address to the United Nations. Ahmadinejad spoke about his country's nuclear ambitions, Iranian protests, and his comments regarding the Holocaust (see videos in the next post, "Ahmadinejad: The Status Quo Cannot Keep").

On September 25, 2009, in a dramatic joint statement opening the G-20 economic summit, President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain demanded that Iran fully disclose its nuclear ambitions "or be held accountable" to an impatient world community (video above).

Obama Warns Iran: 'Come Clean' on Nukes

Associated Press
September 25, 2009

Pittsburgh, PA – Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse.

Obama joined the leaders of Britain and France in accusing the Islamic republic of clandestinely building an underground plant to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build an atomic bomb. Iranian officials acknowledged the facility but insisted it had been reported to nuclear authorities as required.

"Iran's action raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, Obama told a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 summit whose focus on world economic recovery was overshadowed by disclosure of the Iranian plant.

Obama said a telling moment could come next week when Iran meets with U.S. and other major nations to discuss the nuclear issue.
"Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."
In a dramatic, early morning announcement about the secret Iranian facility, Obama said:
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow. The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program."
Unbowed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had done nothing wrong and Obama would regret his accusations.

At a news conference in New York, Ahmadinejad said the plant wouldn't be operational for 18 months but sidestepped a question about whether Iran had sufficient enriched uranium to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Still, he said such armaments "are against humanity, they are inhumane," and he said anyone who pursues them "is retarded politically."

Later Friday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Ahmadinejad said Iran did inform international authorities about its program and questioned what exactly Obama found fault with.
"We exceeded our commitment to the agency based on the regulations, and so is Mr. Obama really questioning why we informed the agency," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The head of Iran's nuclear program suggested U.N. inspectors would be allowed to visit the site. Ali Akbar Salehi called the facility "a semi-industrial plant for enriching nuclear fuel" that is not yet complete, but he gave no other details, according to the state news agency IRNA.

The plant, near the holy city of Qom southwest of Tehran, would be about the right size to enrich enough uranium to produce one or two bombs a year, but inspectors must get inside to know what is actually going on, one U.S. official said.

At his Pittsburgh news conference, Obama appeared to hold out limited hope for the Oct. 1 meeting, which will be the first of its kind in more than a year. Iran has said its nuclear program should not be on the agenda.
"When we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position to, for example, apply sanctions that have bite," Obama said. "That's not the preferred course of action. I would love nothing more than to see Iran choose the responsible path."
He said he was confident in the reliability of the intelligence information about Iran's secret nuclear facilities.
"This was the work product of three intelligence agencies, not just one," Obama said. "They checked over this work in a painstaking fashion."
Obama said he was especially pleased that Russia and China agreed with him that Iran must live up to its obligations under international rules on nuclear activities. The leaders of Britain and France joined Obama at his morning announcement.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, at his own news conference in Pittsburgh, urged Iran to cooperate and "demonstrate its good intentions" at the Oct. 1 meeting and in allowing inspections.
"We call on Iran to show maximum cooperation with the IAEA on this issue," he said.
Beyond tougher economic sanctions, options for acting against Iran are limited and perilous.

Military action by the United States or an ally such as Israel could set off a dangerous chain of events in the Islamic world. In addition, Iran's facilities are spread around the country and well hidden, making an effective military response difficult.

Asked about the prospect of using military force to stop Iran from getting the bomb, Obama said:
"With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to U.S. security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Friday on CNN's "State of the Union," said it would be a mistake to rule out military action, but he also said there was still room to pursue diplomacy.
"The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," Gates said, adding that the U.S. believes Iran could have a nuclear weapons within one to three years. "And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."
Obama's European partners talked tough, too.
"We will not let this matter rest," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who accused Iran of "serial deception."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iran has until December to comply with demands for a fuller accounting of its program or face tough new sanctions.

On Capitol Hill, three senators — Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — issued a joint statement condemning Iran.
"Given Iran's consistent pattern of deceit, concealment and bad faith, the only way to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions is to make absolutely clear to the regime in Tehran that its current course will carry catastrophic consequences," the senators said. "We must leave no doubt that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout."
Iran had previously acknowledged having only the one uranium enrichment plant, under international monitoring, and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities.

James Acton, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said a consensus has developed that if Iran were to decide to manufacture nuclear weapons the key material probably would be produced in a clandestine facility.
"This should persuade any doubters that Iran's program is not for peaceful purposes," Acton said.

Iran

Ahmadinejad: The Status Quo Cannot Keep

In an Exclusive Interview with Katie Couric, Ahmadinejad Speaks Out on Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

By Katie Couric, CBS
September 23, 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down for an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Katie Couric hours before his planned address to the United Nations Wednesday. Ahmadinejad spoke on a wide range of issues, including his crackdown on election protesters and the future of Iran's nuclear program.



Katie Couric: In early October, high ranking member from the Obama administration, along with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany will meet with members of your government. I understand you're now saying your nuclear program is on the table. What changed your mind?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We have not actually changed our mind. Our nuclear program will be pursued in accordance to international law.

Couric: The International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. President, has complained that they have not been given full access to all your facilities. A recent report leaked from the IAEA says you have quote "sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device." Yet you continue to refute this. Why?

Ahmadinejad: Based on the last official report by the agency, issued in September, it was said that Iran had not deviated from its peaceful nuclear path. There are countries that have 10,000 nuclear warheads. Don't you believe that those are the ones that need to be inspected, instead of the countries that don't have them?

This is the Iranian President's first trip to New York since his controversial victory in last June's elections. Critics claim the election wasn't only fraudulent but voters supporting the opposition candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, were threatened and intimidated.

Couric: During and after the presidential election, Mr. President, thousands of opposition supporters and journalists were arrested, badly beaten and tortured. Arrested, badly beaten and tortured. One woman - 27 year old Neda as you know, was shot to death while protesting. Her death was captured on a cell phone camera. Here is a shot of that cell phone picture which I'm sure you've seen.

Admadinejad: Correct.

Couric: What would you say to her family?

Ahmadinejad: We are - very sorry that one of our fellow citizens has been killed. As a victim of an - agitation of circumstance. An agitation that was carried out with the support of some American politicians, the voice of America, and the BBC.

Couric: Do you really think so little of your citizens that they can be manipulated and brainwashed by Americans and the UK?

Ahmadinejad: No. That is not what I'm saying. But I do say that some agitations from outside were there. I mean, there are plenty of documents pointing to that. Regrettably, one of our citizens lost her life--

The president then produced a photograph of an Egyptian woman - Marwa el-Sherbini - who was brutally murdered inside a German courtroom while taking part in a trial over the right to wear a hijab - or headscarf. He suggested that the western media - who turned Neda into a martyr - ignored Marwa's story.

Ahmadinejad: American politicians do not want American people to see what goes on around the world.



Couric: Mr. President, three months after the protests, hundreds remain jailed and continue to be tortured for their dissenting political views. Doesn't this overt abuse of human rights discredit you within the international community?

Ahmadinejad: There were certain officials that violated the law, and the judiciary is looking into it. And they will be punished. Anyone who violates the law should be punished. It doesn't matter who it is.

Since Ahmadinejad took office four years ago, he has built a reputation as a provocateur - slinging most of his fiery rhetoric at Iran's biggest foe: Israel.

Couric: You have consistently denied the Holocaust happened. You have called it a lie. And I'm just curious, I have some photos - dead bodies from a German concentration camp taken by the associated press. Mr. President is this photo fabricated, is this photo a lie?

Ahmadinejad: There are many historical events, similar historical events. Why is this one in particular so important to you?

Couric: Because you're denying it happened.

Ahmadinejad: But in World War II, 60 million people were killed. Why are we just focusing on this special group alone?

We're sorry for all the 60 million people that lost their lives, equally. All of them were human beings. And it doesn't matter whether they were Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Muslims. They were killed. So, we're sorry for everyone.

Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

NYC Terror Attack Apparently Was Set for Sept. 11

Associated Press
September 25, 2009

DENVER - An Afghan immigrant wanted to carry out a massive New York City terror attack involving hydrogen peroxide bombs on commuter trains to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary before federal authorities foiled the plan, a U.S. prosecutor said Friday.

U.S. prosecutor Tim Neff told a federal judge in Denver that Najibullah Zazi "was intent on being in New York on 9/11" for a possible terror attack.
"The defendant was in the throes of making a bomb and attempting to perfect his formulation," Neff said. He called the evidence a "chilling, disturbing sequence of events."
Neff ordered Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghan-born coffee cart owner in New York and Denver airport shuttle driver, transferred to New York City to face charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t immediately known when the U.S. Marshals Service would fly Zazi to New York.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Najibullah Zazi held without bail pending his transfer to New York, where a federal grand jury indicted him on the terror charges, which carry a possible life sentence upon conviction.

The U.S. indictment says Zazi received explosives training from al-Qaida and bought large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and nail-polish remover at beauty supply stores to make bombs, possibly to detonate on New York City commuter trains.

Zazi has denied any involvement with terror.

Shaffer earlier dismissed a charge accusing Zazi of lying to federal authorities. Zazi was arrested Saturday on that charge — considered a holding charge until the federal indictment was handed down on Thursday.

Prosecutors told the judge Zazi posed a significant risk to the public and had few ties to the Colorado community, making him a flight risk.

Investigators have fanned out across the Denver area and New York City, going to beauty shops, home improvement stores and neighborhoods Zazi frequented looking for possible accomplices, while the government issued national terrorism warnings for sports complexes, hotels and transit systems.

A law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that Zazi had associates in New York who were in on the plot. Court papers say that during the summer, Zazi and three unidentified associates bought "unusually large quantities" of hydrogen peroxide and acetone — a flammable solvent found in nail-polish remover — from beauty supply stores in the Denver area, products with names like Ion Sensitive Scalp Developer and Clairoxide.

Zazi searched a Queens home improvement store Web site for another ingredient needed to make a compound called TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), the explosives used in the London bombings that killed over 50 people, prosecutors said.

Zazi has publicly denied being a terrorist since his arrest. He left a Denver court Thursday without commenting.

The government motion seeking to deny bail laid out a chronology of the alleged scheme, which prosecutors said had been in the works for over a year.

Zazi — a legal U.S. resident who immigrated in 1999 — began plotting as early as August 2008 to "use one or more weapons of mass destruction," when he "and others" traveled from Newark, N.J., to receive explosives training in Pakistan, prosecutors said.

Within days of returning from Pakistan in early 2009, he moved to the Denver suburb of Aurora, where he used a computer to research homemade bomb ingredients and to look up beauty supply stores where he could buy them, according to prosecutors.

A second law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation said associates of Zazi visited Colorado from New York to help him buy the chemicals, using stolen credit cards to make the purchases before returning to New York.

Security video and receipts show that some of the purchases were made near a Colorado hotel, according to court papers. On Sept. 6 and 7, Zazi checked into a suite at the hotel with a kitchen and a stove, the papers say, and tried to contact an unidentified associate "seeking to correct mixtures of ingredients to make explosives."
"Zazi repeatedly emphasized in the communications that he needed the answers right away," the papers said. "Each communication" was "more urgent than the last."
FBI explosives testing later found residue in the vent above the stove, authorities said.

On Sept. 8, court papers say, Zazi searched the Internet for home improvement stores in Queens before driving a rental car for a two-day trip to the city. The visit triggered a series of searches in Denver and New York City over the past two weeks, and netted backpacks, cell phones and a scale at a home where Zazi spent the night.

A law enforcement official said Thursday that authorities had been especially worried about Zazi’s Sept. 10 visit to the city because it coincided with a visit by President Barack Obama, and considered arresting him right away. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation continues.

Beauty supply store employees in New York and the Denver suburbs said authorities had been there recently asking whether anyone had come in buying a lot of hydrogen peroxide or acetone.

At Beauty Supply Warehouse in suburban Denver, Paul Phillips said a co-worker told investigators he had sold chemicals to Zazi. Company president Karan Hoss said the firm turned over security video of a man matching Zazi’s description to the FBI. A check of sales found that someone bought a dozen 32-ounce bottles of a hydrogen peroxide product in July. More was purchased in late August, Hoss said.

Zazi’s father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and a New York City imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, also appeared in court Thursday on charges they lied to investigators. Mohammed Zazi, 53, was ordered freed under court supervision in Denver until an Oct. 9 hearing. Afzali, who was accused of tipping off the Zazis to the federal probe against them in a tapped telephone call, was released in New York on $1.5 million bail.

Afzali’s attorney, Ron Kuby, denied his client knew anything about a plot.
"Obviously, the government would not be consenting to bail if it thought he was involved in a terrorism conspiracy," he said.

September 21, 2009

Russia Resists Increasing Sanctions Against Iran



Putin Commends Obama for Shelving Missile Plan

New York Times
September 20, 2009

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised President Obama Friday for canceling a plan for an anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe that Russia had deemed a threat, suggesting that the move would lead to improved relations between their countries.
“I very much hope that this correct and brave decision will be followed by others,” Putin said.
The Obama decision Thursday replaced the Bush administration anti-missile plan with a reconfigured system focused on short- and medium-range missiles. Putin and other Russian officials who spoke to reporters Friday did not say whether Russia would respond with concessions to the United States, particularly on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and its overall military capabilities.

The Obama administration has indicated that it believes Iran has made significant strides in recent months in developing a nuclear weapon, but Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has resisted increasing sanctions against Iran.

Speaking in Washington Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton kept up the diplomatic pressure, saying that talks next month between Iran and major powers concerned over its nuclear strategy represented a choice for Tehran and that there would be consequences for choices made.
“There will be accompanying costs for Iran’s continued defiance: more isolation and economic pressure, less possibility of progress for the people of Iran,” Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institution.
The Russian officials did indicate that the Kremlin would withdraw its threat to base short-range missiles on Russia’s western border, in Kaliningrad.

Also on Friday, in another sign of warming relations, NATO’s new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, called for new cooperation between the alliance and Moscow, including possible coordination between anti-missile systems.

Back to The Lamb Slain Home Page