Category Archives: nuclear issues

Iran years from fuel for bomb, report says

Iran years from fuel for bomb, report says
By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, August 7, 2009

Despite Iran’s progress since 2007 toward producing enriched uranium, the State Department’s intelligence analysts continue to think that Tehran will not be able to produce weapons-grade material before 2013, according to a newly disclosed congressional document.

The updated assessment, by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, emphasizes that the analysis is based on Iran’s technical capability and is not a judgment about “when Iran might make any political decision” to produce highly enriched uranium.

The intelligence community agrees that a political decision has not yet been made. According to the assessment, State Department analysts think such a decision is unlikely to be made “for at least as long as international scrutiny and pressure persist.” [continued…]

When all you have is a hammer, every Iran problem looks like a nail
By Patrick Disney, niacINisight, August 6, 2009

For most of the month of August, Congress will be on recess. Consider this the calm before the storm.

Most in Washington are aware that September will bring with it the biggest push for Iran sanctions in years. AIPAC has been lobbying for months on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), and on September 10 the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations will kick off a massive nationwide lobbying effort, which they compare to the “Save Darfur” movement. All of this will culminate at the end of the month when, conveniently enough, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York for the UN General Assembly.

Yes, right around the time Ahmadinejad is at the podium in the UN, Congress is expected to impose what it calls “crippling sanctions” on Iran’s economy. The plan is to blockade Iran’s foreign supplies of gasoline, hoping that an increase in the price per gallon at the pump will cause the Iranian people to rise up and demand a halt to Iran’s nuclear program.

But this plan has number of obvious flaws.

First, the Iranian people have already risen up against the government’s hardline leadership. What we have witnessed in Iran for the last two months is unprecedented. To think that marginally higher gas prices will mean anything to a population willing to risk their lives for freedom and democracy is at once naïve and hubristic. According to Juan Cole, imposing broad sanctions on Iran will likely only destroy Iranian civil society and bolster the state’s repressive apparatus–as it did in Iraq. [continued…]

Hiroshima Day: America has been asleep at the wheel for 64 years

Hiroshima Day: America has been asleep at the wheel for 64 years
By Daniel Ellsberg, Truthdig, August 5, 2009

It was a hot August day in Detroit. I was standing on a street corner downtown, looking at the front page of The Detroit News in a news rack. I remember a streetcar rattling by on the tracks as I read the headline: A single American bomb had destroyed a Japanese city. My first thought was that I knew exactly what that bomb was. It was the U-235 bomb we had discussed in school and written papers about, the previous fall.

I thought: “We got it first. And we used it. On a city.”

I had a sense of dread, a feeling that something very ominous for humanity had just happened. A feeling, new to me as an American, at 14, that my country might have made a terrible mistake. I was glad when the war ended nine days later, but it didn’t make me think that my first reaction on Aug. 6 was wrong. [continued…]

Time’s running out for Obama in Iran

Time’s running out for Obama in Iran
By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, August 3, 2009

Barack Obama’s policy of engagement with Iran – the “unclenched fist” of his January inaugural address – has about 60 days left to run. If Tehran does not respond positively and credibly to his offer of dialogue on nuclear and regional issues by the end of September, all bets are off. At that point, US and European officials say, a new international coalition will set to work on possibly the toughest sanctions imposed on a single country since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

The threat of punitive sanctions, with or perhaps without UN security council blessing, is designed to concentrate minds in Tehran distracted by the divisive aftermath of June’s presidential election. But it also serves to discourage the Israelis – at least for now – from taking matters into their own hands by launching a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel’s leaders do not believe dialogue or sanctions will work. But they calculate cynically that they must give Obama’s diplomacy a chance to fail. [continued…]

A weakened Ahmadinejad sworn in for a second term
By Tony Karon, Time, August 5, 2009

The failure of the regime to quiet the streets and to close ranks behind Khamenei in his endorsement of a second Ahmadinejad term is without precedent in the Islamic Republic’s 30-year history. As leading U.S.-based Iran scholar Farideh Farhi told the Council on Foreign Relations, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad had assumed that “if they use a sufficient amount of violence, they can put an end to the popular anger that has been generated. [Instead], they continue to be surprised by the resistance that is being shown — not only by major players in Iranian politics, but the people of Iran as well. This dissatisfaction has been growing since the election.”

Where the battle lines within the regime initially appeared to be relatively clear-cut — Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards on one side, facing off against a coalition of conservative pragmatists and reformists on the other, with each side claiming some support from within the clergy — the picture has grown murkier over the eight weeks of crisis. A number of figures in the conservative clerical and political establishment have begun to question the authorities’ handling of the election’s aftermath, particularly the crackdown on dissent. And there are clear signs from within the conservative clergy that some feared Ahmadinejad and the security establishment were usurping some of the traditional prerogatives of the clerical ruling class. [continued…]

Waiting for Maziar
By Christopher Dickey, Newsweek, August 4, 2009

Paola Gourley, 40, does not want to know whether the baby she’s carrying will be a boy or a girl. At least, not yet. The father, Maziar Bahari, 42, is in prison in Iran, where he has been held without access to a lawyer or any chance to see his family since June 21. Paola, an Italian-English lawyer working in London, has no idea how much longer Maziar will be kept from her, and this is the first child for both of them. So when sonograms show the gender of their baby, she says she will put the results in an envelope and seal it, hoping that Maziar will be freed soon and they can look at the results together. But in the back of Paola’s mind, there is a growing fear that their baby will be born in November and Maziar will still be in prison.

“I try to keep positive, but that’s my biggest fear, that this is going to be a long-term thing,” she told me from London on Tuesday. “I just hope that the people holding Maziar realize just how unfair it is, and that they release him soon. I am petrified that they will use him as a scapegoat and keep him in jail, and that he won’t be with me when the baby is born. It makes me desperately sad.” [continued…]

Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our world

Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in our world
By Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch, August 3, 2009

In Hiroshima, Little Boy’s huge fireball and explosion killed 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. Another 70,000 were seriously injured. As Joseph Siracusa, author of Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction, writes: “In one terrible moment, 60% of Hiroshima… was destroyed. The blast temperature was estimated to reach over a million degrees Celsius, which ignited the surrounding air, forming a fireball some 840 feet in diameter.”

Three days later, Fat Man exploded 1,840 feet above Nagasaki, with the force of 22,000 tons of TNT. According to “Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered,” a web resource on the bombings developed for young people and educators, 286,000 people lived in Nagasaki before the bomb was dropped; 74,000 of them were killed instantly and another 75,000 were seriously injured.

In addition to those who died immediately, or soon after the bombings, tens of thousands more would succumb to radiation sickness and other radiation-induced maladies in the months, and then years, that followed.

In an article written while he was teaching math at Tufts University in 1983, Tadatoshi Akiba calculated that, by 1950, another 200,000 people had died as a result of the Hiroshima bomb, and 140,000 more were dead in Nagasaki. Dr. Akiba was later elected mayor of Hiroshima and became an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. [continued…]

Iran is ready to build an N-bomb – it is just waiting for the Ayatollah’s order

Iran is ready to build an N-bomb – it is just waiting for the Ayatollah’s order
By James Hider, Richard Beeston and Michael Evans, The Times, August 3, 2009

Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.

The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader.

A US National Intelligence Estimate two years ago concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear arms research programme in 2003 because of the threat from the American invasion of Iraq. But intelligence sources have told The Times that Tehran had halted the research because it had achieved its aim — to find a way of detonating a warhead that could be launched on its long-range Shehab-3 missiles.

They said that, should Ayatollah Khamenei approve the building of a nuclear device, it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead. [continued…]

Associating with anyone from the West is dangerous

Associating with anyone from the West is dangerous
By Laleh Azadi, Middle East Online, July 27, 2009

Associating with anyone from the West is dangerous. In these times, those abroad play a delicate but vital role. Their assistance in disseminating information from Iran is crucial but any form of intervention, be it military (the bombing of nuclear facilities) or economic (increased sanctions), is only incredibly destructive. Each threat of military aggression or proposed negotiation deadline makes “green” efforts more difficult. And increased economic sanction deteriorates our lives and safety. Some think the two recent airplane crashes may have been affected by our country’s lack of access to parts and planes.

This is our movement. We appreciate and continue to ask for global solidarity but this struggle is for Iranians. I believe that Nobel Peace Price laureate Shireen Ebadi’s statements echo the wider sentiments of the Iranian people. While speaking in Germany, she stated: “I am against economic sanctions and military interventions… Diplomatic ties must not be severed, instead the embassies could be downgraded to consulates. This would not harm the Iranian people, but it would illustrate the government’s isolation.” Keeping the table open with no conditions and encouraging dialogue with all factions in Iran is vital. However, it must be done extremely carefully so as not to provide any means of leverage for Ahmadinejad. [continued…]

Strong words from Iran’s opposition
By Robert F Worth and Nazila Fathi, New York Times, July 28, 2009

The Iranian opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi spoke out more strongly than ever before on Monday against the arrests and killings of protesters, hours before Iran’s supreme leader ordered the closing of a “nonstandard” prison apparently in an effort to deflect rising criticism over the issue.

“How can it be that the leaders of our country do not cry out and shed tears about these tragedies?” Mr. Moussavi said, in comments to a teachers’ association that were posted on his Web site. “Can they not see it, feel it? These things are blackening our country, blackening all our hearts. If we remain silent, it will destroy us all and take us to hell.”

Mr. Moussavi’s angry tone appeared to reflect the steadily rising toll of those killed — some after being beaten in prison — in the crackdown that followed the disputed June 12 presidential election. A funeral was held in Tehran on Monday for Amir Javadi-Far, a student activist who died in prison after being arrested, and reports emerged of still more deaths. [continued…]

Iran’s protesters: phase 2 of their feisty campaign
By Robin Wright, Time, July 27, 2009

Phase 2 has begun. Six weeks after millions took to the streets to protest Iran’s presidential election, their uprising has morphed into a feistier, more imaginative and potentially enduring campaign.

The second phase plays out in a boycott of goods advertised on state-controlled television. Just try buying a certain brand of dairy product, an Iranian human-rights activist told me, and the person behind you in line is likely to whisper, “Don’t buy that. It’s from an advertiser.” It includes calls to switch on every electric appliance in the house just before the evening TV news to trip up Tehran’s grid. It features quickie “blitz” street demonstrations, lasting just long enough to chant “Death to the dictator!” several times but short enough to evade security forces. It involves identifying paramilitary Basij vigilantes linked to the crackdown and putting marks in green — the opposition color — or pictures of protest victims in front of their homes. It is scribbled antiregime slogans on money. And it is defiant drivers honking horns, flashing headlights and waving V signs at security forces. (See pictures of Iran’s presidential election and its turbulent aftermath.)

The tactics are unorganized, largely leaderless and only just beginning. They spread by e-mail, websites and word of mouth. But their variety and scope indicate that Iran’s uprising is not a passing phenomenon like the student protests of 1999, which were quickly quashed. This time, Iranians are rising above their fears. Although embryonic, today’s public resolve is reminiscent of civil disobedience in colonial India before independence or in the American Deep South in the 1960s. Mohandas Gandhi once mused that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.” That quotation is now popular on Iranian websites. [continued…]

Gates says U.S. overture to Iran is ‘not open-ended’
By Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, July 28, 2009

Strains between the United States and Israel surfaced publicly in Jerusalem on Monday, as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tried to reassure Israelis that American overtures to Iran were not open-ended, and as Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel expressed impatience with the Americans for wanting to engage Iran at all.

“I don’t think that it makes any sense at this stage to talk a lot about it,” Mr. Barak said at a joint news conference with Mr. Gates at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, referring to the American offer to talk to Iran about giving up its nuclear program. Nonetheless, he said Israel was in no position to tell the United States what to do.

But, alluding to a potential Israeli military strike against Iran if it gains nuclear weapons capability, he added: “We clearly believe that no options should be removed from the table. This is our policy, we mean it, we recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate to anyone.”

Later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Mr. Gates, and his office released a statement saying that he had pressed Mr. Gates on the need to use “all means” to keep Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. [continued…]

Russia and Iran join hands
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times, July 30, 2009

The United States may think of Russia as a strategic partner when it comes to Iran. In reality, the geostrategic tensions between Washington and Moscow are still powerful enough to warrant a common approach by Russia and its eastern neighbor Iran with respect to a deterrent strategy towards the intrusive Western superpower.

This week, a small but significant clue is on full display with joint Russia-Iran military exercises in the Caspian Sea involving some 30 vessels. This is partially disguised by a benign environmental cause.

The maneuver, dubbed “Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian”, combines security and maritime objectives in the Caspian Sea, the world’s largest lake and also a main energy hub that is now the scene of competing alternatives for energy transfer. It signals a new trend in Iran-Russia military cooperation that will most likely increase in the near and intermediate future in light of Iran’s observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The continuing standoff over Iran’s nuclear program should affect this warming of relations. [continued…]

Iran ready to strike Israel’s nuclear sites

Iran ready to strike Israel’s nuclear sites
By Paul Woodward, The National, July 26, 2009

Iran issued a blunt warning to Israel on Saturday that it will launch missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in the event that the Islamic republic is attacked by the Jewish state. The threat from the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard came after a test of Israel’s Arrow missile defence system on Wednesday was reported to have been a ‘resounding failure’.

Inside Iran’s political establishment, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after being forced to yield to pressure from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who opposed his choice of Esfandiar Rahim Mashai as first vice president, has instead appointed the controversial candidate as his new adviser and head of the presidential office. [continued…]

Don’t worry so much about Iran’s nukes

Don’t worry so much about Iran’s nukes
By Joe Klein, Time, July 23, 2009

“We all have been harmed. Today more than ever we need unity,” said former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani during Friday prayers at Tehran University on July 17. It was a crucial sermon and, in the manner of many things Persian, purposefully and delicately opaque. Some thought Rafsanjani’s speech was a direct threat to the Ahmadi-Khamenei regime. He demanded the release of political prisoners, an end to violence against protesters, the restoration of Iran’s (intermittently) free press. Others thought Rafsanjani, speaking with the approval of the Supreme Leader, was trying to build a bridge between the opposition and the regime. For me, it brought back memories of a less opaque Friday-prayers sermon I’d actually seen Rafsanjani deliver in December 2001, in which he spoke of the need for an “Islamic bomb.”

The signature foreign policy initiative of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was his desire to begin negotiations with Iran. It was ridiculed by John McCain and by Hillary Clinton, now his Secretary of State. Obama persisted, with reason: it was a good idea. How he proceeds now, after Iran’s brutal electoral debacle, could be the most important foreign policy decision of his presidency. As Clinton made clear in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations two days before Rafsanjani spoke, the Obama Administration has not wavered in its desire for talks. And yet, the body language has changed. [continued…]

U.S. may put up ‘defense umbrella’ over Mideast
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2009

In raising the possibility of a “defense umbrella,” Clinton insisted that she was not abandoning the current U.S. policy toward Iran, which involves a combination of diplomatic outreach and sanctions. Even so, her words suggested that U.S. officials are looking ahead in case the approach, which faces formidable obstacles, proves unsuccessful.

Although President Obama has pushed hard to draw the Islamic Republic to the negotiating table, some U.S. officials and many outside experts have doubts that outreach efforts will succeed. And the likely next step, an effort to organize tougher international economic sanctions, faces strong resistance from Russia, China and India. [continued…]

Ahmadinejad defies ayatollah on vice president

Ahmadinejad defies ayatollah on vice president
By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times, July 22, 2009

Iran’s president, under attack by reformists after his disputed election victory last month, on Tuesday openly defied his most powerful backer, refusing an order by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to dump a newly chosen vice president who is despised by hard-liners for insisting last year that Iranians had no quarrel with the Israeli people.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad finds himself under increasing pressure from Iranian hard-liners who appear eager to reap political rewards after leading a weeks-long crackdown on supporters of opposition figure Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who say vote fraud was responsible for Ahmadinejad’s victory.

The leader of a hard-line scholars group linked to the Basiji militia said his organization would propose its own “desired Cabinet lineup” to the president.

“Our organization intends to become the government’s think tank,” said Lotfali Bakh- tiari, leader of the group, in an interview published by Khabar newspaper. “We want to introduce our elite into the government to serve the country. No obstacle is on our way, even the current climate of mistrust.”

Ahmadinejad surprised many observers by defending the vice president, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, an in-law, in the face of a torrent of criticism from his hard-line allies.

News agencies confirmed Tuesday that Khamenei sent a letter to Ahmadinejad on Monday asking for the removal of Mashaei. [continued…]

Clinton: U.S. will extend ‘defense umbrella’ over Gulf if Iran obtains nuclear weapons
Fox News, July 22, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Iran Wednesday that the United States would extend a “defense umbrella” over its allies in the Persian Gulf if the Islamic Republic obtains a nuclear weapons capability.

Appearing on a Thai TV program, Clinton said the U.S. would also take steps to “upgrade the defense” of America’s Gulf allies in such an event, a reference to stepped-up military aid to those countries.

Clinton’s reference to a U.S. “defense umbrella” over the Persian Gulf represented a potentially significant evolution in America’s global defense posture. Washington already explicitly maintains a “nuclear umbrella” over Asian allies like Japan and South Korea, but seldom, if ever, has any senior U.S. official publicly discussed the concept in relation to the Gulf. [continued…]

EDITORIAL: Corruption: ‘the greatest single existential threat to Israel’

Corruption: ‘the greatest single existential threat to Israel’
By Paul Woodward, War in Context, May 6, 2009

At the web site of the neoconservative magazine, Commentary, Michael B Oren (who is in line to become Israel’s next ambassador to the United States) moves away from the standard position on existential threats to Israel. Seeing an array of existential threats, Oren says that among those, that posed by a nuclear-armed Iran would itself constitute “not one but several existential threats.” Even so, he does not see the risk of Israel being wiped off the map as preeminent among the dangers Israel faces.

This is where Oren locates the greatest threat to Israel’s survival:

Recent years have witnessed the indictment of major Israeli leaders on charges of embezzlement, taking bribes, money laundering, sexual harassment, and even rape. Young Israelis shun politics, which are widely perceived as cutthroat; the Knesset, according to annual surveys, commands the lowest level of respect of any state institution. Charges of corruption have spread to areas of Israeli society, such as the army, once considered inviolate.

The breakdown of public morality, in my view, poses the greatest single existential threat to Israel. It is this threat that undermines Israel’s ability to cope with other threats; that saps the willingness of Israelis to fight, to govern themselves, and even to continue living within a sovereign Jewish state. It emboldens Israel’s enemies and sullies Israel’s international reputation. The fact that Israel is a world leader in drug and human trafficking, in money laundering, and in illicit weapons sales is not only unconscionable for a Jewish state, it also substantively reduces that state’s ability to survive.

When it comes to Oren’s remedy, he sounds less than convincing:

…corruption must be rooted out through a revival of Zionist and Jewish values. These should be inculcated, first, in the schools, then through the media and popular culture. The most pressing need is for leadership.

Perhaps there’s another route — one that’s presumably compatible with Jewish values yet can make no claim to being specifically Judaic: the promotion of public integrity.

Corruption is the most glaring expression of a conflict between words and actions. The gap that separates what Israel’s leaders say from what they do is what renders their utterances worthless. But although such leaders are viewed with cynicism by those who have witnessed how deeply ingrained this lack of integrity has become, that cynicism can easily be washed away if promises are fulfilled through actions.

While Israel’s pathological political culture has been shaped by many powerful internal forces there has also been for many decades an external enabler: the United States.

Having previously given Israel’s leaders a free pass, the US could, if it chose, help break the cycle of corruption.

From an unexpected quarter an opportunity is now emerging through which Israel could reclaim some international faith in the value of its word.

Israel’s US-enabled policy of “nuclear ambiguity” has frayed beyond repair. A policy which was never anything more than a bargain of deceit does nothing more than give Israel an excuse for excluding itself from an international debate within which its unacknowledged nuclear arsenal is a central factor.

Now, the Obama administration’s top arms control negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, has effectively declared that the era of nuclear ambiguity is over and that Israel’s nuclear arsenal cannot forever remain outside the regime of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Gottemoeller said at the UN on Tuesday.

The Jerusalem Post reported:

Former prime minister Ariel Sharon’s chief strategist, Dov Weisglass, said Gottemoeller’s comments were very alarming.

“If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel’s security in many years,” he told Army Radio.

The Washington Times reported:

Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”

“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.

The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.

If soon-to-be ambassador Oren is serious about reversing Israel’s problem with corruption, maybe he needs to put into practice the art of political leadership and press Prime Minister Netanyahu to take a bold political initiative by bringing Israel out of the nuclear closet.

Is this likely to happen? Hardly. Why? Because Israel does not perceive Iran so much as an existential threat as much as a strategic threat to its regional military dominance.

Entering the NPT and eventually disarming would not threaten Israel’s existence but would destroy its privileged status as a rogue nation able to resist international pressure.

If Obama really wants to sharpen his challenge to Netanyahu when they meet later this month, perhaps who can present him with this choice: keep your nuclear arsenal and learn how to live with a nuclear Iran, or, sign up for the creation of a non-nuclear Middle East. Nukes or no nukes. Which do you want?

Israeli war talk

Israel threatens military strike on Iran
By Paul Woodward, The National, April 14, 2009

President Shimon Peres has threatened that Israel will take military action against Iran if talks proposed by the US president Barack Obama fail to halt Iran’s nuclear programme. In an interview on the Israeli Kol Hai radio station on Sunday, Mr Peres warned that if the talks don’t soften the approach of the Iranian president, “we’ll strike him”.

Mr Peres ruled out the possibility of Israel engaging in a unilateral attack, and said: “We certainly cannot go it alone, without the US, and we definitely can’t go against the US. This would be unnecessary.”

The Israeli president’s statement comes just a few days after the US Vice President Joe Biden issued a high-level warning to Israel’s new government that it would be “ill advised” to launch a military strike against Iran.

Mr Peres also suggested that the arrest last week of 49 alleged agents of Hizbollah by Egyptian authorities was a blow to the Iranian president’s ambitions. [continued…]

Editor’s Comment — Israel threatens to attack Iran has become a dog-bites-man story. What’s significant here is that Peres went out of his way to say that Israel will not go it alone. An attack either gets US backing or it’s not going to happen.

The subtext here is that the Israelis are becoming genuinely afraid of a US-Israeli rift. And the driving force behind this rift is one that the Israel lobby is powerless to rein in: Avigdor Lieberman.

The diplomatic sleight of hand that the Israelis love to play is to gloss over disagreements and brush away criticisms by suggesting that the differences only exist in the eye of the beholder — that Israel and the US are of one heart, indivisible. But no one makes this posture more difficult than Lieberman, a man who is now too powerful to dismiss as a somewhat harmless embarrassment.

As Douglas Bloomfield wrote in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, Lieberman “could do what the Arabs and their supporters could only dream of – drive a wedge between Americans and Israel.”

Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran — the bluff that never stops giving?
By Trita Parsi, Huffington Post, April 9, 2009

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years — without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel’s capabilities — and its limits.

Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed — it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

In the Iranian case, Netanyahu’s tough talk undermines the Obama administration’s prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.

Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other’s intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran’s perspective, uncertainty about Washington’s intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran. [continued…]

U.S. may drop key condition for talks with Iran
By David E Sanger, New York Times, April 14, 2009

The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program, according to officials involved in the discussions.

The proposals, exchanged in confidential strategy sessions with European allies, would press Tehran to open up its nuclear program gradually to wide-ranging inspection. But the proposals would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks. That would be a sharp break from the approach taken by the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, at least briefly to initiate negotiations.

The proposals under consideration would go somewhat beyond President Obama’s promise, during the presidential campaign, to open negotiations with Iran “without preconditions.” Officials involved in the discussion said they were being fashioned to draw Iran into nuclear talks that it had so far shunned.

A review of Iran policy that Mr. Obama ordered after taking office is still under way, and aides say it is not clear how long he would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace. But European officials said there was general agreement that Iran would not accept the kind of immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded. [continued…]

Iran says it controls entire nuclear fuel cycle
By Ali Akbar Dareini, AP, April 12, 2009

Iran now controls the entire cycle for producing nuclear fuel with the opening of a new facility to produce uranium fuel pellets, the Iranian president said Saturday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the speech two days after the inauguration of the facility which produces uranium oxide pellets for a planned 40-megawatt heavy-water nuclear reactor near the town of Arak, central Iran.

Production of nuclear fuel pellets is the final step in the long, complicated chain of nuclear fuel cycle. The U.S. and its allies have expressed concern over Iran’s developing nuclear program for fear it masks a nuclear weapons program — a charge Iran denies. [continued…]

Differences with US on Mideast ‘semantic’: Israel
AFP, April 11, 2009

Differences between Israel and the United States over the Middle East conflict are fundamentally semantic and will be harmonised within a few weeks, an Israeli minister said on Saturday.

“There are differences of approach toward the problems in the Middle East between our government and the administration of (US President Barack) Obama, but they point more to wording and semantics than to reality,” Transport Minister Israel Katz told public radio.

Israel’s hawkish new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has already had meetings with American leaders, and our policies will converge,” he added. [continued…]

Israel lobbies Russia on Iranian arms sales
By Dan Williams, Reuters, April 13, 2009

Israel has lobbied Russia to pull away from selling a strategic air-defense system to Iran but has received only vague assurances, Israeli defense sources said on Monday.

Last week Israel agreed to supply surveillance drones worth $50 million to Russia. The Israeli Haaretz newspaper said this followed a pledge by Moscow not to sell Iran the S-300, which could protect Iranian nuclear facilities against air strikes.

An Israeli defense official said he had no knowledge of such an undertaking by Russia in its talks with Israel on the matter. Moscow has given mixed messages on the prospects of Iran buying S-300s, a deal one Russian newspaper valued at $800 million. [continued…]

U.S. troops take part in Israel X-Band radar test
By John Vandiver, Stars and Stripes, April 13, 2009

U.S. troops took part in a missile defense exercise in Israel last week that for the first time incorporated a U.S.-owned radar system deployed to the country in October.

About 100 Europe-based troops continue to operate the X-Band radar, which is intended to give Israel early warning in the event of a missile launch from Iran.

While it’s not a permanent assignment for U.S. troops, as long as the radar is in use, U.S. personnel will be there to operate it, U.S. European Command said. [continued…]

Nuclear disarmament: a dream or an imperative?

Obama outlines disarmament plan
By Jonathan Weisman, Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2009

Under a hazy spring sky, before a swelling Czech crowd, U.S. President Barack Obama called for an international effort to lock down nuclear weapons materials within four years, one of a host of steps he said would move the globe to nuclear disarmament.

Speaking just hours after North Korea launched a controversial multistage rocket, the U.S. president took to the stage in Castle Square here, testifying “clearly and with conviction” to an audience of at least 20,000 of “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

“We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can,'” he said, reprising a battle theme recognizable to a crowd a continent away from his campaign victory. [continued…]

Many obstacles to Obama nuclear dream
By Paul Reynolds, BBC, April 5, 2009

President Obama’s hopes for a world free of nuclear weapons may just be a dream.

Despite his rousing rhetoric in Prague that “we can do it”, huge obstacles are in the way and even he gave himself two escape clauses.

The first was that he did not necessarily expect this to happen in his lifetime. He is 47 years old, so, given that the life expectancy in the US is about 78, that means another thirty years or more in which the goal might not be realised. [continued…]

Editor’s Comment — A goal is just a dream unless there’s a deadline. When JFK announced his plan to send a man to the moon, he didn’t add the caveat, “but it might not happen in my lifetime.”

In a single breath, Obama inflated hopes and then let them drift away. To turn a dream into a reality will require a clearly defined strategy, a set of intermediary goals and deadlines, and genuine political commitment. If Obama becomes really serious, this could actually be the easy route for him to make history.

Gone are the days when nuclear disarmament could be dismissed as a lofty goal only entertained by dreamers. The CND marchers from the 50’s led by the likes of Bertrand Russell have been replaced an unlikely band of elder-statesman realists. Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn made appeals for disarmament in 2007 and 2008 that drew a favorable response by pointing out that the risks in failing to disarm are now far greater than the challenge of taking on this goal.

But how can disarmament be easy? Of course it won’t be — but everything is relative. Placed alongside objectives such as tackling climate change, ending poverty or eradicating terrorism, nuclear disarmament is a much less complex undertaking. Whether Obama is ready to lead the way may come down to whether he has the courage to take on a bold political strategy that ties together nuclear disarmament with Middle East policy.

The effort to press Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program would acquire a moral legitimacy that has so far been lacking if this particular objective was an integral part of a wider campaign for disarmament. At the same time, if Iran is to be persuaded then pressure must simultaneously be placed on Israel to both sign the non-proliferation treaty and commit to its own disarmament.

Benjamin Netanyahu says that stopping Iran becoming a nuclear power is a global imperative. Fair enough — but what is Israel willing to give up to make that happen?

If Obama wants to take a small but highly symbolic step in the right direction, he could tell the Israeli prime minister during his first trip to Washington, that the United States will no longer afford Israel the privelage of colluding in Israel’s policy of “nuclear ambiguity”. Robert Gates already chipped a crack in the foundations of that policy during his confirmation hearings. Now it’s time to drop the pretense altogether.

Challenging Iran’s nuclear aspirations requires acknowledging Israel’s nuclear realities.

US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition
By Daniel Dombey, Financial Times, April 3, 2009

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran’s insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

“There’s a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian demand to continue enrichment,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former state depart- ment expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There’s no obvious compromise between those two positions.” [continued…]

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR – John Robertson: Mr Obama and Israel’s nuclear arsenal

Mr. Obama and Israel’s nuclear arsenal
By John Robertson, War in Context, February 14, 2009

In a recent essay, Grant Smith very appropriately hammered President Barack Obama for an omission — or perhaps, a dodge — when he was asked a question by the venerable Helen Thomas during Monday night’s big press conference. (Obama actually recognized the moment as a big one when he called on her, saying with a smile that this was his “inauguration.” She is the dean of White House correspondents, and is well known for asking tough questions and then doggedly pursuing with follow-ups.) Ms Thomas asked him: “Mr President, do you know of any Middle Eastern country that has nuclear weapons?” (This, by the way, after a longish Obama soliloquy on Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon – a pursuit that the Iranian government denies.)

The obvious answer — the ka-zillion-ton gorilla in the room — was, “Yes, Helen, of course — Israel.” Israel has never admitted it up front, but as Smith notes, Jimmy Carter (who certainly was in a position to know) divulged only a few months ago that the Israelis have an arsenal of at least 150 nuclear weapons (not to mention the most powerful military in the Middle East, largely thanks to US taxpayers). But because Israel has never owned up to it, the US has preferred to ignore it, at least in public discussion. All very silly, really, except for the transparent dishonesty. And as Smith also notes, Obama (as well as a long string of his presidential predecessors) conceivably stands in violation of the 1976 Symington Amendment, which, Smith notes,

prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If U.S. presidents complied with the Symington Amendment, they would not deliver yearly aid packages to Israel totaling billions of dollars. Presidents make-believe that Israeli nuclear weapons don’t exist so Congress can legally continue shoveling the lion’s share of the U.S. foreign aid budget to Israel.

Perhaps the president wasn’t ready for the question. Perhaps he sensed that Thomas meant to corner him with that ka-zillion-ton gorilla — I suspect she did — and he may have refused to respond honestly because he didn’t want to deal with any follow-up — which she tried to do (it was quite audible, even over my muttering disbelief as I watched the scene unfold). Or perhaps Obama doesn’t consider Israel to be a country in the Middle East. Evidently the Pentagon doesn’t. In DoD organizational terms, all of the Middle Eastern countries come under CENTCOM’s scope, except Israel, which is included under the European command. (Edward Said would be smiling).

But the bottom line here is that Israel does indeed have a nuclear arsenal. Add to that the following considerations:

some commentators have advocated the use of “tactical nuclear weapons” to eliminate Iran’s nuclear installations;
Israel has a track record of launching surprise aerial attacks to destroy them in other countries (think of their destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 — which the US applauded — or their destruction last year of a probable nuclear installation that was being built in Syria);
this week’s elections in Israel will most likely bring to power a hard-right government under a prime minister who has railed long and loud against Iran’s alleged intention to inflict a second Holocaust upon the Jewish people, and the need to take steps to prevent it;
Israel (in distinct contrast to Iran) has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
Iran for several years now has found itself bracketed with powerful US forces to its west (in Iraq), and with the US’s most militarily powerful ally (Israel) just over the horizon; to its east (Afghanistan); and to its south (the US bases and naval forces in the Persian Gulf) — and the US military presence in Afghanistan is even now being ramped up to unprecedented levels, and is likely to remain there for many years;
for the past 8 years (at least) the US was intoning a mantra about the need for “regime change” in Iran (where, it was said, “real men” were destined to go after Iraq had been disposed of).

Well, connect the dots. And then maybe we all ought to invite Helen Thomas to confront Mr Obama with another question — in fact, with two of them:

“Mr President, which country or countries have done the most in recent years to destabilize the Middle East?

“Mr President, which country or countries are poised to destabilize the Middle East the most in the next few years?”

I would hope that our president would think long and hard about the correct answer — and this time, not dodge her question.

John Robertson is a professor of Middle East history at Central Michigan University and has his own blog, Chippshots.

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Does Israel want to prevent US diplomacy with Iran?

U.S. rejected aid for Israeli raid on Iranian nuclear site
By David E Sanger, New York Times, January 11, 2009

President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.

White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama. [continued…]

Editor’s Comment — This report raises a host of questions but perhaps the most pressing one is this: Have the New York Times and its reporter, David Sanger, knowingly or unwittingly made themselves instruments in promoting an agenda by the CIA, elements inside the agency, the US government and/or the Israeli government?

To publicize the covert program described in this report would seem to be a way of forcing Obama’s hand as his administration attempts to lay the groundwork for a diplomatic approach to Iran. If George Bush thwarted Israel’s aim of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2008, is Israel now attempting to undermine any diplomatic initiative in 2009?

NEWS, ANALYSIS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: A structure for dealing with Iran

Why John Bolton is right on Iran
By Gary Sick, Rootless Cosmopolitan, July 16, 2008

As usual, John Bolton is absolutely right. His policy prescriptions may be reckless to the point of foolishness (”When in doubt, bomb!”), but his understanding of what is happening in Washington policy (as outlined in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday) is unerringly accurate.

While much of the world was hyper-ventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing the US was preparing to do a deal with Iran. He had noticed that over the past two years the US had completely reversed its position that originally opposed European talks with Iran. [complete article]

A test of US flexibility toward Iran
By Laura Rozen, The Guardian, July 16, 2008

Last week, when a member of the Senate foreign relations committee repeatedly asked US undersecretary of state for political affairs William Burns if Washington was considering sending a representative to international negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme this month, the veteran diplomat and newly anointed number-three US state department official took pains to equivocate in his response and not say anything beyond what his cabinet-level superiors had previously stated publicly.

“My question is, has there been any discussion within the administration about having an American representative at the next meeting?” Senator Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican, asked Burns at the July 9 hearing.

“Senator, as I said, our position remains that secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice herself is prepared to sit down in negotiations along with the [permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany] along the basis of the ‘suspension for suspension’ proposal,” Burns responded, referring to an international proposal under which if Iran would agree to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, the international community would agree to suspend international sanctions against it. [complete article]

US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979
By Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, July 17, 2008

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section – a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country. [complete article]

See also, US will talk to Iran (Paul Woodward, The National).

Editor’s Comment — Back in early May, during his visit to Israel, Bush told the Jerusalem Post that “before leaving office he wants a structure in place for dealing with Iran.” It was one of the clearest indications he had given that in spite of all the pro forma declarations that military action was still on the table, it was not only an option that was firmly bolted down, but Bush had a tangible alternative in mind.

Expressions of his “commitment to a diplomatic solution” have always sounded a bit flimsy — especially coming out of the mouth of a president who seems to find the diplomatic process threatening. But let’s suppose that back in May, Bush had already started toying with an idea that would be as shocking to his critics as it would be to his supporters: that the structure he had in mind to put in place for dealing with Iran was a foundation stone for diplomatic relations.

As Bush contemplated his hopes to salvage some sort of legacy, maybe he took a lesson from Nixon and concluded that his predecessor’s mistake was that he didn’t save his trip to China until close to the end of his presidency. It’s not that I anticipate seeing George Bush shaking Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s hand some time in the next few months, but I do think it’s possible that Bush is angling to pull a non-explosive surprise out of his sleeve before he leaves office.

NEWS & ANALYSIS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Let’s push up the price of oil

Pentagon official warns of Israeli attack on Iran
By Jonathan Karl, ABC News, July 1, 2008

Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.

A senior defense official told ABC News there is an “increasing likelihood” that Israel will carry out such an attack, a move that likely would prompt Iranian retaliation against, not just Israel, but against the United States as well. [complete article]

Israel-Iran: Attack or feint
By Dominic Moran, ISN, June 30, 2008

An Israeli strike is fraught with potential pitfalls and by no means guaranteed of striking a major blow to the Iranian nuclear program, which would likely require multiple raids and risk a major military escalation. (See US, Iran: Empty threats, by Kamal Nazer Yasin for ISN Security Watch.).

Any attack would also impact deleteriously on Israel’s improved position vis-à-vis western nations, the University of Haifa’s Dr Soli Shahvar told ISN Security Watch.

Referring to Iran, Kam said, “They have better air defenses than they had before, though the more sophisticated system [S-300] is probably not operational. […] Russia did supply Iran with a new, much better system [29 Tor M-1 systems].”

Russian officials relate that the S-300 surface-to-air missile is capable of intercepting aircraft at up to 27,000m and at an operating distance of 145km and believe it is superior to the Israeli-deployed US Patriot. Israeli defense analysts have confirmed that Iranian receipt of the system would make it far more difficult for the Israeli air force to attack Iranian targets. Russian supply of the system is far from assured. [complete article]

Tehran puts on a show of strength
By Sami Moubayed , Asia Times, July 2, 2008

Psychological warfare is on the rise. This weekend, a senior Iranian general, Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh, said his country was digging 320,000 graves for American soldiers scheduled to fight in Iran. “In implementation of the Geneva Conventions, the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers. We have plans to dig 15,000 to 20,000 graves for each of the border provinces, or a total of 320,000,” he said, pointing out that some of them would be mass graves, if necessary. This was “to reduce the suffering of the families of the fallen in any attack against, and prevent the repetition of the long and bitter experience of the Vietnam War”.

These may sound like big words – similar to those barked by Saddam Hussein and his information minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf in 2003 – but they carry real impact on the psychology of American troops. Iraq – with its weak army and corrupted regime – was impossible to chew for the Americans. Nobody can imagine how difficult a war would be against 65 million Iranians, with a well-trained, well-armed military indoctrinated with Shi’ite Islam and a strong sense of purpose against the “great Satan”.

In addition to building the graves – which has actually started – the Iranians have several actions they could resort to if war were declared between now and the end of President George W Bush’s tenure at the White House in January.

They can incite the Shi’ites of nations where there are US military bases; Saudi Arabia (33%), Kuwait (36%), Bahrain (80%). They can incite the Kurds of Turkey and create problems with the Shi’ites of Yemen. They can unleash hell in Iraq through proxies like the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council. The Shi’ites of these countries have strong bonds to Iran and would listen and respond, if duty calls, and if the Americans or Israel went to war against Tehran. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment —

The US will not allow Iran to hamper oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, said the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet commander, responding to earlier threats by the leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

“They will not close it. They will not be allowed to close it,” said Vice-Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff of the strait, one of the world’s most vital waterways for the shipping of hydrocarbons.

Vice Admiral Cosgriff said what a naval commander gets paid for saying. But even as he spoke, many in the oil markets, rather than being reassured, must have been remembering “Millennium Challenge 2002.” As that exercise demonstrated, protecting the Strait of Hormuz is easier said than done.

As for red lines, I suspect the one that vexes Israel more than any other, is one that is treated as unspeakable, lest by being spoken the idea acquires wider currency: that the world (including Israel) could learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

If and when the debate turns in that direction, then the game will have been lost and a new balance of power will eventually emerge — one within which Israel will be required to make accommodations rather than continuing to assume the position of being exceptional.

ANALYSIS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Inbedded reporting

Israel is a long way from attacking Iran
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz, June 22, 2008

Israeli leaders and officials have recently intensified their campaign against nuclearIran. The messages from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Ambassador to Washington Salai Meridor and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz is clear: Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Indeed Israel is very concerned by the likelihood that Iran, whose leadership has called for the Jewish state’s destruction, will be able to produce nuclear weapons.

These public statements, as well as closed talks between Israel’s leadership and leaders around the world, can be interpreted as “preparing the ground” for the possibility that Israel will attack Iran. It is also correct that all the bodies dealing with the “Iran case,” including the Mossad, Military Intelligence, Operations Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Israel Air Force and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, are planning for the worst-case scenario. This is their professional duty. But one cannot conclude, as many have following a report in The New York Times (June 19) that an Israeli attack is certainly around the corner. Not only has such a decision not been made in any relevant forum in Israel – the question has not even been discussed. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — When an “inbedded” reporter like Michael Gordon not only performs a service for his government, but is internationally seen to be acting as a stooge, I wonder how he feels?

Last Friday, no-questions-asked, he got the Israeli-attack-on-Iran-rehearsal story out and it provoked lots of reaction. A bump in oil prices (yet another little windfall for Iran), a rebuke from the Iranian government, a threat that Mohamed ElBaradei would resign as director of the IAEA in such an event, and a carefully studied no-comment from the Israeli government. Even if this was an Israeli Air Force exercse, the consensus among Israeli commentators was that the story — courtesy of Pentagon-mouthpiece Michael Gordon — was an expression of American pressure.

The fact is, a military exercise of this nature is not really newsworthy. As Amos Harel noted in Haaretz: “There is little new in the fact that the IAF is preparing for the Iranian challenge. About six months ago, Channel 2 reported a similar exercise covering a radius that an operation against Iran would require. At the time the report received little attention.” Indeed, assuming that the IAF as an active and well-trained air force will periodically engage in major exercises, what would we expect them to be training to do? Attack France?

So why did the Pentagon/New York Times need to get the story out? The Iranians know that the Bush administration is a spent force and the antics of attention-seeking neocons are becoming increasingly easy to ignore, but mad-dog Israel — that’s always the wild card. Less than a year ago it burnished its image of unpredictability by bombing Syria. The idea that Israel is unpredictable is at this point the only thing that has any chance of keeping the Iranians on their toes.

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: New York Times sends signal to Iran

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran
By Michael R Gordon and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, June 20, 2008

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Does the New York Times have a vital role to play in defending Israel from an Iranian nuclear threat? If the answer is ‘yes’, then I can understand why the paper would run a report like this. But if the paper’s primary responsibility is to report, then it has no business turning itself into an adjunct of either the US government or the Israeli government as it is doing so in this case. Performing government service here means disseminating information that no government official is willing to disseminate openly.

A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”

But the NYT isn’t just describing the signaling — it’s part of the signaling loop. It thereby in the most insidious way inserts itself into a political process wherein it serves a role in applying pressure on all the parties involved.

Anonymous sourcing is required in a story like this, not because of — as the NYT puts it — “the political delicacy of the matter.” It’s used because journalists willing to prostitute themselves to their sources give those sources complete freedom to pick and choose which questions they want to answer. Indeed, they hand the reporter the story on a plate and then the newspaper happily gets the message out.

How would this story be approached if it was real journalism? It would dig into some of the key political question here: To what degree are the United States and Israel pursuing a coordinated political and military strategy in confronting Iran? Is the Pentagon — with a nod and a wink — helping relay Israel’s signal to Iran, or is it signaling to all concerned that Israel is a free agent whose actions might conflict with American interests?

These are the kinds of questions that don’t get answered when journalists turn themselves into the mouthpieces of anonymous sources.

How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war
By Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, June 20, 2008

Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes – if the Islamic Republic doesn’t bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight. [complete article]