| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: Rumsfeld says military force option against Iran for Israel |
| Rumsfeld says military force an option against Iran
Mon Feb 6, 8:35 AM ET
AFP
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the United States does not rule out using military force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.
"All options, including the military one, are on the table," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Monday's edition of German financial newspaper Handelsblatt.
"Today, biological, chemical and radiological weapons are available which could kill tens of thousands of people," Rumsfeld said, in comments in German.
"There is a genuine possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of people who behead innocent people and blow up children.
"The people of the free world must realize that they have been warned."
Rumsfeld said Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
"We know that terrorists are desperately seeking ever more deadly weapons.
"Iran is the main sponsor of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," he told Handelsblatt.
The Iranian nuclear crisis escalated on Saturday when the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, voted to report the Islamic republic to the UN Security Council over its atomic programme.
Iran said on Monday that large-scale uranium enrichment work, which is the the focus of fears that it is seeking nuclear weapons, would begin in "due course" in response to the IAEA decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More war for Israel coming with the bombing of Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/01/14/more-war-for-israel-coming-with-bombing-of-iran.php | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: Iran and the jaws of a trap |
| http://www.atimes.com
SPEAKING FREELY
Iran and the jaws of a trap
By Paul Levian
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw.
If the Iranian leaders think they can deter an attack because the
US is bogged down in Iraq they are already between the jaws of a well-set trap. Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia.
The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States. In particular, the widely but wrongly discounted nuclear belligerence of President Jacques Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so.
The Iranian leadership's obvious confidence in its ability to deter the US, Britain and Israel seems to rest on mainly four assumptions. Iran is militarily much stronger than Iraq, much larger, its terrain more difficult, its society more cohesive - thus more difficult to defeat, to occupy and to pacify. In addition, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to take particular comfort from the widely anticipated wave of popular outrage and anti-Western attacks in the wider Middle East if Iran should be attacked.
Moreover, the economic costs of a war against Iran in terms of the price of oil and the interruption of the Iranian supply would propel the world economy into a tailspin. And finally, Iranian leaders seem to accept at face value the US moans over its overstretched military forces and the demoralization of US forces in Iraq.
Certainly, Iranian misconceptions are helped mightily by the defeatism of the Western debate about such a war. "No good options" has become something like the consensus view: an airborne and special forces "surgical strike" (as well as a massive attack) against the Iranian nuclear industry and military targets could at best delay its nuclear program and will be followed by retaliation in Iraq, Lebanon etc; a ground attack is out of the question because most of deployable US ground forces are desperately busy in Iraq.
If such things could be planned, one might be persuaded to consider this debate as an aspect of strategic deception. In fact, the US and British forces in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf as well as the forces in Afghanistan are quite able to redeploy on short notice, for example during the days of an initial air campaign against Iran for large-scale operations against the remaining Iranian forces and can be reinforced during the war. The US military infrastructure at the borders of Iran has a very substantial capability to deal with surge requirements.
The somewhat standard scenario for this war - as indicated by Chinese and Russian war games - has the following features:
An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.
Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.
The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.
Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.
(Copyright 2006 Paul Levian.) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails |
| http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2027979,00.html
The Times February 07, 2006
Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
::nobreak::IT IS the option of last resort with consequences too hideous to contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy nearly exhausted, the use of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively considered by those grappling with one of the world’s most pressing security problems.
For five years the West has used every diplomatic device at its disposal to entice Iran into complying with strict conditions that would prevent its nuclear programme being diverted to produce an atomic bomb.
Those efforts, however, are now faltering. US leaders are openly discussing the looming conflict. A recent poll showed that 57 per cent of Americans favoured military intervention to stop Iran building a bomb.
Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on with its nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked.
The military option may be the only means of halting a regime that has threatened to annihilate Israel from developing a bomb and triggering a regional nuclear arms race.
Experts agree that America has the military capability to destroy Iran’s dozen known atomic sites. US forces virtually surround Iran with military air bases to the west in Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq, Turkey and Qatar and the south in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy also has a carrier group in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland America could also be used.
The air campaign would not be easy. The Iranians have been preparing for an attack. Key sites are ringed with air defences and buried underground. Sensitive parts of the Natanz facility are concealed 18 metres (60ft) underground and protected by reinforced concrete two meters thick. Similar protection has been built around the uranium conversion site at Esfahan.
“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq,” said the Global Security consultantcy.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former US Air Force officer, predicted that knocking out nuclear sites could be over in less than a week. But he gave warning that would only be the beginning.
Iran has threatened to defend itself if attacked. It could use medium-range missiles to hit Israel or US military targets in Iraq and the region. It could also use its missiles and submarines to attack shipping in the Gulf, the main export route for much of the world’s energy needs. “Once you have dealt with the nuclear sites you would have to expand the targets,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Gardiner. “There are another 125 to deal with including chemical plants, missile launchers, airfields and submarines.”
While this huge US offensive is underway Iran would almost certainly deploy its most powerful weapon. It would unleash a counter-attack through proxies in the region. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia, would attack Israel. Moqtadr al-Sadr, the militant Iraqi Shia religious leader, could order his Mahdi Army to rise up against American and British forces in Iraq. Iranian-backed groups could wreak havoc against Western targets across the world.
What began as a military operation to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East, could instead plunge the region into another conflict.
“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike against the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government. Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.
PUBLIC OPTIONS
‘All options — including the military one — are on the table’
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary
‘There is only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear armed Iran’
John McCain, Republican senator for Arizona and US presidential hopeful
‘We are not seeking a military confrontation, but if that happens we will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history’
Abdolrahim Moussavi, head of Iran’s joint chiefs of staff
‘Give another year to make HEU (highly-enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009’
David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, Institute for Science and International Security
‘There isn’t a military option. There certainly isn’t one on the table, let’s be clear about that.’
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary
‘Obviously we don’t rule out any measures at all’
Tony Blair | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: Nuclear Iran? |
| Just saw the following at www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Nuclear%20Iran_.txt
12 January 2006
Nuclear Iran?
By Gwynne Dyer
When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed last
Tuesday that Iran had broken the seals on its nuclear research facility at
Natanz, many people reacted as if the very next step was the testing of an
Iranian nuclear weapon. In the ensuing media panic, we were repeatedly
reminded that Iran's radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared
just months ago that Israel should be "wiped off the map." How could such
a lethally dangerous regime be allowed to proceed with its nuclear plans?
But talk is cheap, and not to be confused with actions or even
intentions. Ahmadinejad was quoting directly from the founder of Iran's
Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, but neither during Khomeini's life
nor in the sixteen years since his death has Iran made any effort to wipe
Israel off the map, because to do so could mean the virtual extermination
of the Iranian people. Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the
Middle East since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born, and now possesses
enough of them to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000
people simultaneously.
Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as
meaningless, as Ronald Reagan's famous remark into a microphone that he
didn't know was open: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today
that I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin
bombing in five minutes." Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil
empire" to be wiped from the face of the earth, but nobody seriously
believed that he intended to attack it. Russia had nuclear weapons too, and
the US would have been destroyed by its retaliation.
Ahmedinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he
was expressing a wish, not an intention, because Iran has been thoroughly
deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds of
Israeli nuclear warheads. And Iran would still be deterred if it had a few
nuclear weapons of its own, just as Mr Reagan was deterred from striking
the Soviet Union even though the United States had thousands of the things.
So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride,
plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours.
Iran's neighbours include almost every nuclear-armed power on the
planet. Right on its borders, or just one or two countries over, are
Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel, plus US forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan, so many Iranians think their country should have nuclear
weapons to protect it from nuclear blackmail. They also want to be taken
seriously as a regional power, and share the widespread belief that nuclear
weapons are a ticket to the top table. Yet despite ample resources and a
large, well-educated scientific elite, the regime has failed to develop
nuclear weapons during 26 years in power.
For Iran, nuclear weapons fall into the class of "nice to have"
rather than life-or-death necessity. Israel cannot invade it, and even the
United States would be reluctant to do so: it is a very big, mountainous
and nationalistic country. In almost any regional conflict, Iranian
nuclear weapons would make it more likely to be a target for nuclear
attacks, not less. So the Iranians have chipped away at the task of
building the scientific and technological basis for a nuclear-weapons
programme in a desultory way for several decades, without ever getting
really serious about it.
That is still the pattern. When the IAEA demanded that Iran explain
certain irregularities in its nuclear power research programme three years
ago, the regime did not respond like North Korea, which immediately
abrogated its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and went
all out to build nuclear weapons as soon as possible. Instead, Iran
voluntarily allowed the IAEA to put seals on its nuclear research
facilities while it investigated the discrepancies in Iran's earlier
reports.
Now it has removed those seals, although the investigation is still
not complete, and plans to resume its research on nuclear power. This will
also enhance its capacity to work on nuclear weapons eventually, but that
can't be helped.
The current US campaign to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran
is doomed to fail, because it is not breaking the law. As a signatory of
the NPT, it is fully entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful
purposes, including the technology for enriching uranium, even though that
also takes it much of the way to a nuclear-weapons capability. In any case,
it is practically unimaginable that all the veto-holding powers on the UN
Security Council would agree to impose sanctions on a major oil-producer on
the mere suspicion that it ultimately intends to break the law.
And there is no need for such a dramatic confrontation. Iran has
never been in a great rush to get nuclear weapons. Even if the CIA is
unduly optimistic in assuming that Tehran is still ten years away from a
bomb (and the spooks usually err in the pessimistic direction), there is
still plenty of time and room for patient negotiation, and no need for the
current histrionics.
_______________________________
To shorten to 725 word, omit paragraph 5. ("Iran's neighbours...power")
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles
are published in 45 countries. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
