Israel's trigger finger grows itchy over the nuclear threat from Iran

By David Blair 

(Telegraph)

Operation Opera went like clockwork. It took only 80 seconds for Saddam Hussein’s cherished ambition to build a nuclear weapon, over which his experts had laboured for six years, to be obliterated by Israeli strike aircraft swooping from a blazing summer sky. 

 

The destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor on June 7, 1981 was among the most successful preventive attacks in modern history. Just 16 bombs dropped by eight F-16s derailed Saddam’s nuclear programme, buying enough time for the dictator to seal his own downfall by occupying Kuwait and paving the way for the invasion of 2003. The history of the Middle East changed – and not a single Israeli aircraft was lost.

With Operation Opera seared into their collective memory, is it any wonder that Israeli leaders look at Iran’s nuclear ambitions and contemplate the same solution? If the rhetoric coming from the defence ministry in Tel Aviv is to be believed, the option of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities with a series of air strikes is being considered more seriously than ever before. Indeed some anonymous briefings to the Israeli media come close to suggesting that a decision to launch a new Operation Opera has already been taken, with timing the only remaining issue.

An unnamed “decision-maker” – presumed to be Ehud Barak, the defence minister – told the Haaretz newspaper that Israel could not afford to wait for the US to act. “We need to look at the reality right now with total clarity,” he said. “Israel is strong and Israel is responsible, and Israel will do what it has to do.”

If so, the three months before the US presidential election in November provide the obvious window for an Israeli strike. The impression given is that the world may be a few weeks away from another war. As for the possible consequences, Israel’s outgoing civil defence minister says that any conflict would take place “on a number of fronts”, lasting for 30 days and costing about 500 Israeli lives.

The phrase “a number of fronts” is significant. Unlike Saddam in 1981, Iran has numerous ways of hitting back. The big difference between Operation Opera and a strike on Iran today is the risk of retaliation. To begin with, Iran could respond directly, using its arsenal of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, each capable of striking targets up to 1,200 miles away, with Israel comfortably within range.
Perhaps more dangerously, Iran could act through its armed allies. Over the years, Tehran has supplied Hizbollah, the radical Shia movement in south Lebanon, with up to 40,000 rockets, all of them trained on Israeli targets. The last time Hizbollah fired its weapons was during the war of 2006, when Israel’s northern port town of Haifa was the main civilian target.
Today, Hizbollah’s arsenal in Lebanon is believed to include more advanced rockets with longer ranges and heavier payloads, bringing Tel Aviv itself within reach. More than half of Israel’s population of 7 million would probably be within range of any new bombardment launched by Hizbollah.
Finally, Iran could try to impose some of the pain of an Israeli strike on the rest of the world. Some 35 per cent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz on its southern coast. If Iran tried to block this channel, the oil price would probably rocket, dealing a grave blow to the world economy.
Guaranteeing failure, however, would require the sea power of the US Navy. And there lies the rub. Any war started by Israel would almost certainly drag in America at an early stage. Only an operation by the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, could guarantee free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
The anonymous “decision-maker” who briefed Haaretz shied away from the probability of America becoming an unwilling belligerent, saying: “We will absolutely not deliberately drag the US into war. If we decide to undertake an operation, it must be an independent act that justifies itself without igniting some large chain reaction.”
But Iran gets to decide whether to ignite a “chain reaction” or not. Tehran might react to any Israeli strike by playing the victim, not hitting back, and seeking to rally international sympathy. Western diplomats point to a precedent from 1988, when a US warship shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people, and Tehran refrained from lashing out.
If, however, Iran did opt to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, US involvement would probably be inevitable. The decision on whether to embroil the US will thus be taken in Tehran, not Tel Aviv.
America is well aware of this – and President Obama’s administration is doing its best to restrain its erstwhile ally. There remains a chance that Israel is bluffing. On the face of it, there would be a clear diplomatic rationale for issuing empty threats. In the past, every rattle of an Israeli sabre has led the US and Europe to impose tighter sanctions on Iran.
Mr Obama has responded to Israeli concerns by hardening the US position. In March, he said that “all options” were on the table for dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, pointedly adding: “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Leaving aside Israel’s intentions, its air force may simply lack the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Unlike Saddam’s lone reactor at Osirak, Iran possesses multiple plants, far better protected and located a lot further away.
The striking arm of the Israeli air force consists of 125 F-15I and F-16I jets. A war against Iran would require most – perhaps all - of these aircraft to hit targets between 900 and 1,200 miles from their home base. That hinges on air-to-air refuelling; yet, on paper, Israel has only seven KC-707 tanker planes. Would that slender lifeline be enough to get the aerial armada all the way to Iran and back again? Many experts doubt whether this would be possible. Michael Hayden, a retired US air force general and former CIA director, has stated flatly that Israel could not do the job.
Even if all the nuclear facilities could be hit successfully, Israel’s bombs may not be powerful enough to wreck their targets. The heaviest weapon in the Israeli arsenal is the GBU-28 “bunker buster”. But Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Fordow is dug into a mountainside, protected by about 260 ft of rock and earth. Even this fearsome weapon might not be enough to deal with Fordow.
Work on this installation is believed to be continuing, with the aim of hardening its weak points, notably the entrances and ventilation shafts. If Fordow is already invulnerable to Israeli attack – or soon to become so – Iran would be able to concentrate the materials and expertise for nuclear weapons inside what Ehud Barak has called a “zone of immunity”.
Hence Israel’s pressing sense of urgency. Its decision-makers feel their option for taking action, if it exists, is slipping away. America, however, can still afford to wait. The superpower’s air force could deliver the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the world’s most powerful conventional bomb, which even Fordow might not be able to resist.
How these sombre calculations will work out is impossible to predict. Supposedly critical moments in the confrontation with Iran have come and gone. Unless things change, however, a genuinely perilous juncture will arrive one day – and it could be closer than we care to think.

Iranian hospitals struggle to cope after earthquakes leave 250 dead

(Via The Telegraph)

By Barney Henderson

An injured person is taken to hospital in Ahar. Photo: REUTERS/Kamel Rouhi/Fars

The two strong quakes struck towns and villages in northwest Iran in quick succession on Saturday, killing at least 180 people and injuring more than 1,000, according to a preliminary toll by officials.

Khalil Sa'ie, a provincial official, said 250 people had been killed and some 1,300 injured.
Gholamreza Masoumi, the head of Iran's emergency services, said those hurt were being taken to hospitals in Tabriz and Ardebil, the two biggest nearby major cities, both of which escaped relatively unscathed by the quakes.
The quakes measured 6.2 and 6.0 on the moment magnitude scale, according to Tehran University's Seismological Centre, but the US Geological Survey, which monitors seismic activity worldwide, ranked them as more powerful than that, at 6.4 and 6.3, respectively.
"Sixty villages... have been heavily damaged and are in need of help," said Abbas Fallah, an MP in the hard-hit town of Ahar.

Rescue operations were called off after officials said all survivors had been found following Saturday's 6.4 and 6.3 magnitude earthquakes that flattened villages in the north-west of the country, leaving over 2,000 people injured.
"There are no people left to recover from under the rubble in any village, and all necessary aid is currently being distributed," said Hossein Ghadami, an interior ministry official in charge of disaster management. However, other officials at the ground warned that there were still scores of people buried and the death toll could rise.
Over 100 villages were badly damaged and 12 were completely destroyed, leading to an estimated 16,000 people being made homeless. Thousands of people spent the night sleeping outdoors both on Saturday night and last night, while others huddled in tents and makeshift shelters.
Emergency aid workers were struggling to reach some areas as many of the villages were inaccessible by road and phone lines were down. All the local hospitals were full.
"I saw some people whose entire home was destroyed, and all their livestock killed," Tahir Sadati, a local photographer, said by telephone. "People need help, they need warm clothes, more tents, blankets and bread."

Taking the lead on Syria

By Ali Akbar Salehi

Ali Akbar Salehi is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We humans often make the mistake of not learning from history, even when it is recent. Civil war in the Levant is not a thing of the distant past. With Syria descending into worsening violence, the 15-year Lebanese civil war should provide frightening lessons of what happens when the fabric of a society unravels.

When the Islamic Awakening — also known as the Arab Spring — began in December 2010, we all saw people rising up to claim their rights. We have witnessed the emergence of civic movements demanding freedom, democracy, dignity and self-determination.

We in Tehran have watched these developments with delight. After all, a civic movement demanding the same things that many Arabs want today is what led to the emergence of our Islamic Republic in 1979. During the past three decades, Iran has consistently underlined that it is the duty of all governments to respect their people’s demands. We have maintained this position as the Islamic Awakening has unfolded, without any lopsided shifts depending on the location of these civic movements. We have been in favor of change to meet people’s demands, whether in Syria or Egypt or anywhere else.

But what do some other members of the international community want for Syria? Unfortunately, there have been conflicting responses to the civic movements sweeping the Arab world. A glaring example of these contradictions lies in Bahrain and the way some states have responded to the crackdown on the uprising there.

The European response to the Syrian crisis has been particularly contradictory. Little, if anything, is said about the increasing presence of armed extremists in Syria. Even while preoccupied with the rising extremism in Afghanistan, thousands of miles away, European leaders seem unconcerned that they may soon have an Afghanistan on their doorstep.

To borrow the words of my respected friend Kofi Annan, who recently resigned from his post as special U.N. envoy to the Syrian conflict after seeing his peacemaking efforts continuously undermined, military means alone won’t end the crisis, and a political agenda that is neither inclusive nor comprehensive will also fail.

Iran seeks a solution that is in the interest of everyone. Syrian society is a beautiful mosaic of ethnicities, faiths and cultures, and it will be smashed to pieces should President Bashar al-Assad abruptly fall. The idea that, in that event, there would be an orderly transition of power is an illusion.

Although Annan’s efforts to end the crisis have been terminated, his six-point plan for political change is alive and well. Why should seeds of discord continue to be planted when the situation can be resolved rationally, through wisdom and providence? Those backing violence in Syria fail to see that whatever they seek through their actions won’t materialize.

Abrupt political change without a roadmap for managed political transition will lead only to a precarious situation that would destabilize one of the world’s most sensitive regions. Iran is part of the solution, not the problem. As the world has witnessed during the past decade, we have acted as a stabilizing force in Iraq and Afghanistan, two other Muslim countries thrown into turmoil. The stability of our region is paramount for world peace and tranquillity.

Some world powers and certain states in the region need to stop using Syria as a battleground for settling scores or jostling for influence. The only way out of the stalemate is to offer Syrians a chance to find a way out themselves.

Taking Annan’s six-point plan into consideration, Iran looks forward to bringing like-minded countries together to implement three essential points: Ensure an immediate cease-fire to stop the bloodshed, dispatch humanitarian aid to the Syrian people and prepare the ground for dialogue to solve the crisis.

I hereby announce Iran’s readiness to host a meeting of countries committed to immediately implementing these steps in hopes of ending the violence. As part of our commitment to resolve the crisis, I also reiterate our willingness to facilitate talks between the Syrian government and the opposition and to host such a dialogue.

Moreover, in line with Annan’s six-point plan, I once again declare Iran’s support for political reform in Syria that will allow the Syrian people to decide their destiny. This includes ensuring that they have the right to participate in the upcoming free and fair presidential election under international supervision.

As the holy month of Ramadan nears its end, I pray that Syrians will get to break their fast in peace and stability sooner rather than later — for their own interests and those of the world.

Via the Washington Post

Rumsfeld vs Obama for Israel-Iran

The Rumsfeld' s statment:

"If I were in the Israeli government,  I don't think I would notify the United States government of any attempt to do anything about Iran." 

Via Breitbart

Speaking with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld re-affirmed his strong support for Israel as it seeks to protect itself from Iran's nuclear program. He made it clear that "sanctions have not influenced the Iranian regime" and that Israel would be wise to keep any plans for attacking Iran close to their chest. 

Rumsfeld said that any Israeli prime minister "who gets up every morning and reads in the newspaper that the leadership of Iran says the Israeli state should be annihilated, eradicated, incinerated, has to know that it's that prime minster's duty to see that that doesn't happen." 

But perhaps most importantly, Rumsfeld referenced the many leaks coming out of the Obama White House as justification for Israel to act unilaterally against Iran: "If I were in the Israeli government,  I don't think I would notify the United States government of any attempt to do anything about Iran." 

For Rumsfeld, the current administration's demonstrable inability to protect high-level secrets is reason enough to believe that if plans were communicated to the White House, they could "conceivably" be leaked in an effort to alert Iran.