Last update - 12:05 22/10/2008
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Israel news, nuclear, Iran
Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.
The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.
Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues. Advertisement
Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.
An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.
Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.
Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.
He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.
Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.
Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.
Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.
Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.
Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Russia threatens sale of offensive weapons to Israel's enemies
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Russia threatens sale of offensive weapons to Israel's enemies
MOSCOW — Russian security officials threatened retaliation against Israel for its weapons exports to Georgia including eight different aerial drones.
Russian Deputy Chief of Staff Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said Israel supplied at least eight different models of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to Georgia. Nogovitsyn said Israel has also sold a range of weapons and sought to export main battle tanks to Georgia.
Russian diplomatic sources said the government of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was furious over Israel's refusal to impose a military embargo on Georgia. The sources said Putin's aides had urged Israel several times to halt weapons exports.
"We asked Israel not to sell offensive weapons to a hostile neighboring state, but they said they're a sovereign state," a diplomatic source said.
"Well, Israel shouldn't be surprised if we sell offensive weapons to Israel's neighbors."
Already, Russia, in wake of its military victory over Georgia, has scheduled a summit with Syria to discuss offensive weapons sales, the sources said. Syrian President Bashar Assad was scheduled to meet Putin in Moscow on Aug. 20.
Tbilisi has asserted that Israel continued to ship weapons and platforms to Georgia throughout the Russian war. But Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili reported delays in the supply of Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles to his country.
"The Israeli weapons have proved very effective," Saakashvili told a news conference on Aug. 13.
So far, the diplomatic sources said, Putin has been careful to limit Russian military sales to Iran and Syria to defensive systems. In 2007, they said, Putin, who remains in charge of defense export policy, vetoed efforts by the Defense Ministry and the state-owned arms agency Rosoboronexport to sell the Iskander-E long-range rocket to Syria.
"Putin will now offer Iskander to Syria," another Russian source said. "Whether this will be a serious offer or something just to scare the Israelis we'll know in another few months."
In December 2007, Israel agreed not to sign new contracts for offensive weapons to Georgia. But the Israeli Defense Ministry, supported by the United States, maintained it would honor existing arms deals with Tbilisi.
"We told the Israelis that this was a very unwise move and that Russians were being killed because of Georgia's policy," the Russian source said. "They didn't take us seriously, probably because they were encouraged by the United States."
"In 2007, Israeli experts trained Georgian commandos in Georgia, and there were plans to supply heavy weaponry, electronic weapons, tanks and other arms at a later date," Nogovitsyn told a news conference on Aug. 19. "But the deal didn't work out."
Officials said Moscow's assertion was based on a review of weapons and military installations captured in Russia's invasion of Georgia. They said Israel also trained Georgia's military, particularly its special forces.
At the news conference, Nogovitsyn did not identify the Israeli UAVs. Israel has acknowledged the sale of UAVs to Tbilisi.
The Russian deputy chief said Israel also exported bombs, mines and mine-clearing systems to Georgia. He said the systems were comprised of munitions that could explode landmines.
In late 2007, Israel agreed to end the sale of offensive military systems to Georgia. The decision by the Israeli Defense Ministry did not affect weapons already ordered by Tbilisi.
On Aug. 20, Russia and Syria were scheduled to begin a two-day summit meant to focus on defense and military cooperation. Syrian President Bashar Assad was scheduled to meet Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in what officials said could result in arms sales to Damascus.
"The significant military aid provided by Israel to Georgia in its war against Russia will affect in the future — probably in the near future — relations between Russia and Israel, as well as Russia's attitude toward Arab states," an unidentified Russian analyst said in an interview to Syrian state television on the eve of Assad's visit. "Russia will reassess its relations with Israel, and it is likely that Moscow will decide to increase its military aid to Arab countries in conflict with Israel, including Syria."
Russia threatens sale of offensive weapons to Israel's enemies
MOSCOW — Russian security officials threatened retaliation against Israel for its weapons exports to Georgia including eight different aerial drones.
Russian Deputy Chief of Staff Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said Israel supplied at least eight different models of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to Georgia. Nogovitsyn said Israel has also sold a range of weapons and sought to export main battle tanks to Georgia.
Russian diplomatic sources said the government of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was furious over Israel's refusal to impose a military embargo on Georgia. The sources said Putin's aides had urged Israel several times to halt weapons exports.
"We asked Israel not to sell offensive weapons to a hostile neighboring state, but they said they're a sovereign state," a diplomatic source said.
"Well, Israel shouldn't be surprised if we sell offensive weapons to Israel's neighbors."
Already, Russia, in wake of its military victory over Georgia, has scheduled a summit with Syria to discuss offensive weapons sales, the sources said. Syrian President Bashar Assad was scheduled to meet Putin in Moscow on Aug. 20.
Tbilisi has asserted that Israel continued to ship weapons and platforms to Georgia throughout the Russian war. But Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili reported delays in the supply of Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles to his country.
"The Israeli weapons have proved very effective," Saakashvili told a news conference on Aug. 13.
So far, the diplomatic sources said, Putin has been careful to limit Russian military sales to Iran and Syria to defensive systems. In 2007, they said, Putin, who remains in charge of defense export policy, vetoed efforts by the Defense Ministry and the state-owned arms agency Rosoboronexport to sell the Iskander-E long-range rocket to Syria.
"Putin will now offer Iskander to Syria," another Russian source said. "Whether this will be a serious offer or something just to scare the Israelis we'll know in another few months."
In December 2007, Israel agreed not to sign new contracts for offensive weapons to Georgia. But the Israeli Defense Ministry, supported by the United States, maintained it would honor existing arms deals with Tbilisi.
"We told the Israelis that this was a very unwise move and that Russians were being killed because of Georgia's policy," the Russian source said. "They didn't take us seriously, probably because they were encouraged by the United States."
"In 2007, Israeli experts trained Georgian commandos in Georgia, and there were plans to supply heavy weaponry, electronic weapons, tanks and other arms at a later date," Nogovitsyn told a news conference on Aug. 19. "But the deal didn't work out."
Officials said Moscow's assertion was based on a review of weapons and military installations captured in Russia's invasion of Georgia. They said Israel also trained Georgia's military, particularly its special forces.
At the news conference, Nogovitsyn did not identify the Israeli UAVs. Israel has acknowledged the sale of UAVs to Tbilisi.
The Russian deputy chief said Israel also exported bombs, mines and mine-clearing systems to Georgia. He said the systems were comprised of munitions that could explode landmines.
In late 2007, Israel agreed to end the sale of offensive military systems to Georgia. The decision by the Israeli Defense Ministry did not affect weapons already ordered by Tbilisi.
On Aug. 20, Russia and Syria were scheduled to begin a two-day summit meant to focus on defense and military cooperation. Syrian President Bashar Assad was scheduled to meet Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in what officials said could result in arms sales to Damascus.
"The significant military aid provided by Israel to Georgia in its war against Russia will affect in the future — probably in the near future — relations between Russia and Israel, as well as Russia's attitude toward Arab states," an unidentified Russian analyst said in an interview to Syrian state television on the eve of Assad's visit. "Russia will reassess its relations with Israel, and it is likely that Moscow will decide to increase its military aid to Arab countries in conflict with Israel, including Syria."
Friday, September 12, 2008
How An Iranian War Might Lead To WW3
How An Iranian War Might
Lead To WW3 - One Analysts Worst Case Scenario
Lead To WW3 - One Analysts Worst Case Scenario
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iran-War--How-It-Will-Unf-by-Lord-Stirling-080905-143.html
I have served as a consultant to three very high tech aerospace
firms. My specialty is conceptualizing advanced warfare especially as
it relates to new cutting edge advanced weapon systems. What I see
unfolding with a war on Iran is the most frightening set of
circumstances I have ever seen; and I have been involved in advanced
theoretical weaponry strategy and design for over 20 years.
Sometime in the weeks to months ahead, there will be a war launched
against Iran. The war may be started by Israel, or by the United
States, or by a NATO/EU/US embargo, or by some 'false flag' attack.
What matters is that it will begin; and where it will take the world.
Regardless if the war begins with a limited number of air strikes
against Iranian military and nuclear targets, or if an all-out several
thousand target attack begins from day one, the probabilities of the
war becoming a major regional war within 48 hours are 90% or higher.
The Iranians will simply not allow Israeli and/or American military
forces to attack its territory without a major response. Any
significant counter-attack on Israel and/or American regional bases
will trigger a much greater counter-response.
The Iranians have equipped, paid for, and trained a massive unguided
rocket and guided missile force in Lebanon (the largest such force in
human history). These missiles are in place as a MAD force (a MAD ~
mutually assured destruction ~ force is one that is a doomsday force;
established to prevent the use of overwhelming military force by
allowing a return "punch" of overwhelming military destructive force
upon one's enemy). The total number of missiles and rockets in Lebanon
are variously estimated at between 40,000 and 110,000. While many are
unguided Katyusha rockets, many are longer ranged guided missiles. All
are operated by Hezbollah Special Forces launch teams.
The Hezbollah Special Forces are in effect a highly trained and
well-equipped Iranian commando force of at least a Brigade in size.
They man and protect a large number of mostly unguided and rather crude
rockets, generally Katyusha 122mm artillery rockets with a 19 mile/30km
range and capable of delivering approximately 66 pounds/30kg of
warheads. Additionally, Hezbollah are known to possess a considerable
number of more advanced and longer range missiles. During the 2006 war
Hezbollah fired approximately 4,000 rockets (95% of which were
Katyushas) all utilizing only "dumb" high explosive warheads. Some
Iranian-built and supplied Fajr-3 and Ra'ad 1 liquid-fueled missiles
were also fired. It is believed that the larger and longer range
missiles are directly under the control of Syrian and Iranian officers.
The combination of short to medium range rockets and guided missiles in
Lebanon, and the longer range guided missiles in Syria, the smaller
number of rockets and missiles in the West Bank and Gaza, and the
longer range guided missiles in Iran present a massive throw weight of
warheads aimed at Israel.
The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War (called the Second Lebanon War in
Israel) was an attempt by Israel at eliminating the MAD counter-force
in Lebanon. It was an attempt that failed. The Syrians had purchased
(and supplied to Hezbollah) a large number of very nasty, relatively
low cost Russian AT-14 Kornet solid fuel anti-tank guided missiles
(ATGM), and the Iranian-trained Hezbollah commandos dug in massive
numbers of concrete bunkers and firing positions. After over 50 Merkava
main battle tanks were hit, and the high tech American-made warplanes
and pinpoint weapons proved ineffective, the handwriting was on the
wall. Either use neutron bombs or lose a large number of Israeli
soldiers to remove the Hezbollah threat; or declare peace and walk away
for the time being ~ the Israelis chose the latter.
It now appears that Israel has given up on the idea of a ground assault
to remove the many rocket and missile launchers in Lebanon. A senior
Israeli general has resigned with the complaint that the Army is not
training sufficiently to fight in Lebanon. The alternative is the use
of FAE (fuel air explosive) technology weapons and neutron bombs (a
type of nuclear weapon that produces a higher short-term radiological
output and less blast output than normal nuclear weapons).
Any use of such WMD by the Israeli Army on the Hezbollah forces in
Lebanon will likely automatically trigger the use of WMD warheads on
whatever rockets/missiles remain operational (if their use has not
already been authorized due to the nature and scope of Israeli and/or
American attacks on Iran).
The bottom line of this is that Israel will face a truly massive number
of rockets and missiles from Lebanon with radiological, chemical,
biological and FAE "weapons of mass destruction" warheads.
Additionally, a sizable number of such weapons/warheads will be fired
from Gaza and the West Bank. The Syrians will be using larger, more
accurate guided missiles to shower WMD upon Israel as will the
Iranians. To counter this, the Israelis will be using their Green Pine
Radar system and a combination of Israeli and American anti-missile
missiles. They will have good success in knocking down many incoming
missiles but the sheer number of incoming weapons will totally overload
all defensive measures.
Large parts of Israel will be contaminated with radiation with
extremely long half-lives (many tens of thousands of years in some
cases), with a mix of chemical, FAE, and biological nightmares thrown
in for good measure. Total deaths will amount to one-third to one-half
of the Israeli population with a large additional number being injured.
The Israeli response will be the nuclear annihilation of Syria, Iran,
and parts of Lebanon with many tens of millions killed. Expect to see
every city of any size destroyed. There will be insufficient people
left in Syria, Iran, and large parts of Lebanon to even bury the dead.
Radiation will spread around the world from the nuclear bombs.
Iranian sleeper teams in North America and western Europe will begin to
"seed" the populations of these areas with a number (perhaps in the
several dozens) of different man made killer viruses. People in movie
theaters, churches, synagogues, shopping malls, subway stations,
airports, etc., will be exposed without anyone knowing it at the time,
to these advanced biowar viruses. About nine to ten days later the
computer reporting systems in the western countries will begin to
report back strange illnesses. That will trigger a host of measures to
contain the advanced biowar viruses but it will simply be too late to
prevent a massive outbreak of horrific illnesses. International travel
and trade will effectively stop. People will be ordered to stay home
from work and school with only critical job holders being allowed on
the streets. Hospitals will be overcome with sick and dying people of
all ages. The medical community will be among the first to die off.
Where temporary hospitals are established in school gyms and other
areas, the cross infection of several different genetically engineered
viruses will ensure 100% mortality of everyone in the temporary
hospitals.
In the event that other nations have sought to expand the Georgia war
by new attacks on Russian forces or by creating some naval incident in
the Black Sea, the probabilities of an quick expansion into a all-out
Third World War involving Russian and NATO nuclear weapons will be at
approximately 50%. Even without a global total war being initiated,
Russia is apt to "sweep" the Black Sea of NATO ships with considerable
loss of life on both sides.
The world will be in the worst economic depression in history as global
trade will be halted for at least several months due to fears of the
spread of the various advanced biowar viruses. If Israel releases the
Arab-specific designer advanced biowar viruses that many claim she has,
the Saudis are apt to fire their Chinese IRBMs (intermediate range
ballistic missiles) and send their very well-equipped air force against
Israel with the small number of nuclear weapons that they possess (they
have funded the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and have several
Pakistani made nuclear devices). Of course, what is left of the Israeli
forces will respond with additional nuclear attacks, this time on Saudi
Arabia and other Arab nations for good measure.
In North America and western Europe the total number of civilians,
after two months of advanced biowar illnesses, is apt to be at least a
third of the population - a total death count of well over 200 million
persons. Despite the best efforts of all nations, the man-engineered
super killer mutant viruses will spread throughout the world causing
total numbers of perhaps a billion or more to die.
The after effect of all of this may well lead to even more war as some
nations will be so incensed at the massive loss of life of their
citizens that total global war may be unstoppable.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.
One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.
“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”
Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”
Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.
The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.
“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”
The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.
If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure, the report warned.
While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.
“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.
As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.
“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Dr. Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”
The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.
The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.
“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.
America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.
In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.
Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Dr. Graham says.
“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”
Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Dr. Graham gave a chilling reply.
“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.
“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.
America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.
The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.
In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”
Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Dr. Graham said.
Several participants in last weekend’s conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP attack when he opined that “a world without America is conceivable.”
In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.
But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.
The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.
While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”
Iran’s first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.
I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the Washington Times in May 1999.
Intelligence reports on the launch were “well known to the White House but have not been disseminated to the appropriate congressional committees,” I wrote. Such a missile “could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.”
Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.
“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said at the time.
Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability.
“An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. “If you’re a terrorist, this is your ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon.”
Noting Iran’s recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded, “They could do it — either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean.”
The only possible deterrent against Iran is the prospect of failure, Dr. Graham and other experts agreed. And the only way the United States could credibly threaten an Iranian missile strike would be to deploy effective national missile defenses.
“It’s well known that people don’t go on a diet until they’ve had a heart attack,” said Claremont Institute president Brian T. Kennedy. “And we as a nation are having a heart attack” when it comes to the threat of an EMP attack from Iran.
“As of today, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack,” he told Newsmax.
Rep. Franks said he remains surprised at how partisan the subject of space-based missile defenses remain. “Nuclear missiles don’t discriminate on party lines when they land,” he said.
Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a long-standing champion of missile defense, told the Claremont conference on Friday that Sen. Obama has opposed missile defense tooth and nail and as president would cut funding for these programs dramatically.
“Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ‘I don’t agree with a missile defense system,’ and that we can cut $10 billion of the research out — never mind, as I say, that the entire budget is $9.6 billion, or $9.3 billion,” Kyl said.
Like Franks, Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors.
The United States “needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it’s not worth coming up against us,” Kyl said.
“That’s one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That’s one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us. “
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.
One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.
“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”
Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”
Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.
The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.
“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”
The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.
If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure, the report warned.
While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.
“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.
As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.
“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Dr. Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”
The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.
The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.
“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.
America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.
In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.
Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Dr. Graham says.
“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”
Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Dr. Graham gave a chilling reply.
“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.
“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.
America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.
The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.
In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”
Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Dr. Graham said.
Several participants in last weekend’s conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP attack when he opined that “a world without America is conceivable.”
In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.
But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.
The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.
While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”
Iran’s first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.
I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the Washington Times in May 1999.
Intelligence reports on the launch were “well known to the White House but have not been disseminated to the appropriate congressional committees,” I wrote. Such a missile “could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.”
Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.
“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said at the time.
Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability.
“An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. “If you’re a terrorist, this is your ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon.”
Noting Iran’s recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded, “They could do it — either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean.”
The only possible deterrent against Iran is the prospect of failure, Dr. Graham and other experts agreed. And the only way the United States could credibly threaten an Iranian missile strike would be to deploy effective national missile defenses.
“It’s well known that people don’t go on a diet until they’ve had a heart attack,” said Claremont Institute president Brian T. Kennedy. “And we as a nation are having a heart attack” when it comes to the threat of an EMP attack from Iran.
“As of today, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack,” he told Newsmax.
Rep. Franks said he remains surprised at how partisan the subject of space-based missile defenses remain. “Nuclear missiles don’t discriminate on party lines when they land,” he said.
Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a long-standing champion of missile defense, told the Claremont conference on Friday that Sen. Obama has opposed missile defense tooth and nail and as president would cut funding for these programs dramatically.
“Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ‘I don’t agree with a missile defense system,’ and that we can cut $10 billion of the research out — never mind, as I say, that the entire budget is $9.6 billion, or $9.3 billion,” Kyl said.
Like Franks, Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors.
The United States “needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it’s not worth coming up against us,” Kyl said.
“That’s one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That’s one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us. “
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 30, 2008
High Noon - Israel vs Iran
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Dividing The Land
'Jewish party sold Jerusalem for $138 million'
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
'Jewish party sold Jerusalem for $138 million'
Rabbi blasts his father for remaining in Israeli leader's coalition
Posted: March 17, 2008
9:52 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – In unprecedented criticism of his father, the son of the spiritual leader of a major coalition partner in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government demanded his father's party immediately bolt the government amid rampant media reports Jerusalem is up for negotiations.
Rabbi Jacob Yosef accused the ultra-Orthodox Shas party of "selling Jerusalem" for 478 million Israeli shekels, or $138 million. Yosef's father, Rabbi Ovadye Yosef, serves as the spiritual leader of Shas, where he is also considered the party's more important and revered figure.
Earlier this month, the Knesset's Finance Committee approved $138 million in government funds to Shas' educational institutions as part of the party's coalition agreement with Olmert.
(Story continues below)
If Shas bolts, Olmert's coalition government could fall apart, precipitating new elections.
"How dare you sell out Jerusalem for 478 million shekels. Jerusalem is worth more than all monies in the world," said Jacob Yosef, rabbi of the Givat Mordechai neighborhood in Jerusalem, addressing his father's party.
Jacob Yosef is also a member of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, a coalition of more than 350 Israeli rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis.
The Israeli Shas party has stated it would bolt the prime minister's coalition if it becomes clear the Israeli government is negotiating to cede of any part of Jerusalem.
Olmert repeatedly has insisted Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are not dealing with the status of Jerusalem, but Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abba, and many Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have said in recent weeks negotiations are covering all core issues, including Jerusalem.
Yosef accused his father's party of staying in the government until a formal announcement regarding dividing Jerusalem is made, by which time, the rabbi said, it will be too late.
"When someone brings a rope to hang your child, will you say 'oh, it's nothing, he only brought a rope?' Or if a killer is only sharpening the knife, will you say, 'it's nothing, he's only sharpening the knife?' You will stop him right at the beginning because by the time the knife is on the throat it will be too late. What is Shas waiting for? It must leave the government right now," Yosef exclaimed.
Shas denies Jerusalem is being discussed during weekly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which commenced after last November's U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit.
"Nobody is talking about Jerusalem. The moment Jerusalem is being discussed, Shas will leave the government – period," Shas Spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch told Israel National News.
A Rabbinical Congress for Peace statement issued earlier this month said: "Every novice journalist and anyone listening to the news in Israel knows that giving up large chunks of Jerusalem has been on the negotiating table for quite some time and is in its advanced stages. Only the representatives of Shas are burying their heads in the ground and pretend they know of nothing."
"They are lying to themselves and deceiving their electorate. The Shas ministers know that Olmert and Abbas have agreed not to make public any agreement on Jerusalem until after the final signature in order to keep Shas in the government," said the RCP statement.
The statement was signed by scores of prominent rabbinic leaders here.
Since the Annapolis summit, which aimed to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year, senior negotiating teams including Livni and chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia have been meeting weekly while Olmert and Abbas meet biweekly.
Unlike previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in which both sides attended with about a dozen advisors each, Livni's and Quereai's teams are small, usually consisting at most of five people each. Media leaks from the current negotiations have been rare. Some momentum is highly expected before a visit Bush has scheduled to Israel in May, his second trip since Annapolis.
Olmert's government has hinted a number of times it will divide Jerusalem and reportedly has halted all Jewish construction permits for eastern sections of the city.
In December, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said the country "must" give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem "to whatever they want."
"We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want," said Ramon during an interview.
Positions held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert's Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.
Olmert himself recently questioned whether it was "really necessary" to retain Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem.
Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
About 231,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, and many reside in illegally constructed complexes. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000.
Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?
Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert's government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.
But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.
The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.
Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the "eternal and undivided capital" of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.
"He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank," said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert. She spoke on condition of anonymity, because she still works for the municipality.
One former municipal worker during Olmert's mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.
Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel's state comptroller for investigation.
King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.
"Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes," said King. "Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes, because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority."
King's report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.
Local media reports investigating King's charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.
The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.
"During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read.
King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.
"We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Antichrist Covenant
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, right shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert after attending a press conference following their meeting in Sharm
el-Sheikh, Egypt Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)
After the 'rapture' when the Christians are called to Heaven by Jesus Christ, the biblical 'Antichrist' will come to power in Europe on a platform of peace and enter into a 'covenant' with 'many' for seven years. The 'covenant' will be broken after 42 months and Russia, Iran and their allies will invade Israel. Russia will be defeated and then the Oriental armies shall march into the Middle East for their turn. This conference is part of the lead-up to all of it. -
Kenneth Montgomery Keillor
Courtesy of ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer - 2007-11-20>
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday it will inaugurate peace
talks between Israel and the Palestinians next week, ending a seven-year lull,
with a conference of leaders and diplomats the U.S. hopes will help shepherd a
final Mideast settlement.
Organizers said the meeting will take place Monday through Wednesday in
Washington and at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., but revealed few
other details, saying it was too soon to know which of the 49 invited nations
and organizations would attend.
The event is meant to commit Israel and the Palestinians to formal peace
talks that carry international backing.
President Bush will deliver a speech at the Naval Academy Tuesday to open a
one-day session there with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas. Bush's role is larger than U.S. officials had earlier
indicated, including meetings at the White House with the Israeli and
Palestinian leaders.
He also will address conference participants at a dinner Monday night at the
State Department. After the session in Annapolis, talks return to Washington on
Wednesday.
"This conference will be a launching point for negotiations leading to the
establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian
peace," White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said
Tuesday night.
Olmert said Tuesday he hopes a peace deal could be completed by the end of
next year.
With less than a week to go, organizers would not definitively promise that
the session will confront the issues that have shipwrecked past peace efforts —
the final borders of a Palestinian state, the fate of disputed Jerusalem, and
the rights of Palestinians and their descendants who left homes in present-day
Israel.
"There is a common understanding that this is the moment in which they can
change the picture and get serious negotiations started," Assistant Secretary of
State David Welch said. New talks to set up an independent Palestinian state
would begin immediately, U.S. diplomats said, but they gave no details. The
Annapolis conference and the new phase of Mideast peace it opens must overcome
obstacles including political division and weakness in Israel and among the
Palestinians.
Welch wouldn't elaborate on invitations to two Arab powerbrokers — Saudi
Arabia and Syria — whose participation is seen as crucial. Neither recognizes
Israel.
The lack of a firm agenda, guest list or even a date had long annoyed some of
the Arab nations that Bush hopes to attract as backbone for Palestinian
negotiators. Key U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt have said the session must
address the hard questions.
"We're hopeful and expectant that Arab countries will participate," Welch
said. "This is a serious effort; it's devoted to a serious purpose."
Welch had little to say about the breadth of issues on the table next week
and about contents of a joint declaration from Israel and the Palestinians that
the sides have had trouble drafting.
"I don't know exactly what they will say," Welch said. "I imagine they will
treat all the issues involved between them and the ones leading up to the
establishment of a Palestinian state."
He and other diplomats said the United States has painstakingly answered Arab
and other concerns about the scope and purpose of the conference Bush announced
in July, but doubts or questions remain.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was cautious Tuesday as he received Olmert
for a meeting ahead of the U.S. conference.
"I hope that there will be success in this negotiation to push forward the
peace process within a year of negotiations," Mubarak said.
"Let's wait for the Annapolis conference and let's not say it is a failure
until then. There are maybe obstacles, but we have to work towards overcoming
them."
Earlier Tuesday, Bush began reaching out to key nations that could be
spoilers for the U.S.-sponsored conference.
Bush discussed the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a
telephone call and called Saudi King Abdullah. It was not disclosed if the
Russian and Saudi leaders said whether their nations would attend.
In Egypt, Olmert appealed to reluctant Arab nations to support the upcoming
conference. He promised that negotiations would address all issues of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and take into account a Saudi-sponsored Arab peace
initiative — two key concerns of Arab states.
Olmert's comments were aimed at assuring Arab nations that even if the
conference glosses over the hardest issues, the ensuing negotiations will not.
It is not clear where or when those later bargaining sessions will occur. A
first step is likely to be a pledging session for the Palestinians scheduled for
Dec. 17 in Paris.
____
Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Laurie Copans in Sharm
el-Sheik, Egypt, contributed to this report.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)