Haaretz: U.S. Attempts to Block Israeli Attack on Iran

Haaretz, a liberal-leaning Israeli newspaper, has an article worth reading by Aluf Benn entitled, “U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities.” The article states that the Bush administration has rejected Israeli requests for offensive military equipment that would improve its ability to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It also states that the Administration has warned Israel against militarily attacking Iran as it would undermine U.S. interests and demanded Israel give prior notice if it indeed decides to attack Iran.

According to the article, senior Israeli officials originally hoped that President George W. Bush would order an U.S. strike against Iran before leaving office because Jerusalem believes that the U.S. is better equipped and Israel could not withstand Iranian retaliation if it strikes alone. The article goes on to state that Israel has recently concluded that President Bush is unlikely to attack Iran and will instead focus on ratcheting up the diplomatic pressure and sanctions against Iran.

The articles states that a series of private messages from senior American officials, including President Bush, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, were accompanied by a series of leaks by the Pentagon regarding Israeli military exercises and intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran.

According to the article Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s recent trip to Washington focused his conversations with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney on Iran. “But the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk. Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.”

The article also stated, “Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.”

According to the article, the U.S. offered to compensate Israel for rejecting all of its proposals by stationing an advanced radar system in Israel, linking Israel directly into the U.S. early warning satellite network, and increasing U.S. funding for the development of the Arrow-3 and Iron Dome missile defense systems.

Ashton Carter: Military action must be viewed as a component of a comprehensive Iran strategy

Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard and Stanford Universities, has a new paper in which he argues: "Military action must be viewed as a component of a comprehensive strategy rather than a stand-alone option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. But it is an element of any true option. A true option is a complete strategy integrating political, economic, and military elements and seeing the matter through to a defined and achievable end. For any military element, the sequel to action must be part of the strategy because the military action by itself will not finish the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all." The paper is part of a series published by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) on alternative strategies for dealing with Iran's nuclear program called "Iran: U.S. Strategic Options." Read the full paper here.

Reliance on Military Force to Prevent Proliferation Is Risky Business

On April 29, President George W. Bush gave a full explanation for why the administration chose to reveal previously classified intelligence on the Syrian nuclear facility the U.S. claims was built by North Korea and destroyed by Israeli airstrikes on September 6, 2007. According to President Bush, the timing for the release of the information was meant to send a warning to Syria, North Korea and Iran to advance “certain policy objectives.”

President Bush said, “One would be to the North Koreans, to make it abundantly clear that we know more about them than they think. Then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran, and the world, for that matter, about just how destabilizing nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East.” He said another objective was to send a message to Syria about “their intransigence in dealing with, you know, helping us in Iraq or destabilizing Lebanon or dealing with Hamas.”

President Bush said the information wasn’t released sooner for fear Syria would retaliate against Israel, but was released instead “at a time when, you know, we felt the risk of retaliation or, you know, confrontation in the Middle East was reduced.” Threatening Syria for not helping in Iraq, Lebanon or Gaza, in particular, is a counterproductive strategy for obtaining cooperation.

CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed on April 28 that the Syrian facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons. According to Hayden, “In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons.”

Even if the facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons, which Syria denies, Israel’s military strikes on the facility, in violation of international law, was extremely risky and have furthered a very dangerous precedent for the preventive military option set by the U.S. invasion of Iraq under spurious claims Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.

A far better approach to dealing with the Syrian facility would have been for Israel and the U.S. to reveal any intelligence on the facility to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The military strikes eliminated the possibility for the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify intelligence and collect any additional intelligence. Through their military demonstration and acting on their own, Israel and the U.S. have undermined established mechanisms for dealing with nuclear proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime in general.

Furthermore, military threats are unlikely to influence the countries whose behavior the U.S. and Israel seek to change. In the case of Iran, repeated threats of military attacks have failed to produce any change in the Iranian government’s behavior. Instead, threats have contributed to strengthening the hand of the hardliners in Iran and made life more difficult for those inside of Iran working for democracy and reform.

Indeed, reliance on military force to prevent proliferation will likely backfire and result in strengthening the resolve of countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons as a means of defense against military strikes. Threats of military attacks against nuclear facilities will only incentivize developing nuclear programs in secret rather than developing them under international safeguards and the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rather than using military force or evening threatening the use of military force as a first resort, the U.S. and Israel should abide by international laws and work within international institutions. Both the U.S. and Israel should recommit to diplomacy as a weapon of first choice, rather than the last choice, for preventing proliferation. Finally, both countries should bolster the nonproliferation regime by establishing a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as a one practical step on the road to verified global nuclear disarmament.

New Regime Change Manual and a Call for Military Action

While questions remain regarding exactly how the $60 million Congress appropriated for the regime change slush fund in 2008 (aka, the so-called "democracy promotion" fund for Iran in the Foreign Operations bill) will be allocated, Freedom House, a known recipient of these funds last year has published a new manual through its Gozaar project. According to Hoder.com, the Non-Violent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points, teaches Iranians how to organize and manage urban riots to destabilize the Iranian government.

Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz, the "father of neoconservatism," has published a new commentary arguing that the case for military action against Iran still stands.

Air Force General Advocates Bombing Iran's Oil Refineries

In a new article for Defense News, Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap writes that the next phase of the counterinsurgency in Iraq should be bombing Iran's oil refineries, in retaliation for Iran's support of Iraqi guerrillas.

(pictured left: Iran's oil refinery at the Gulf Port of Bandar-Abbas.)

According to excerpt of the article published on the Danger Room:

"What does every war-fighting effort require? Fuel. In this instance, Iran has real vulnerabilities that the 'overwhelming application of the air instrument' can exploit.

Specifically, despite huge reserves of crude oil, Iran nevertheless must import about half of its gasoline, largely because of a shortage of domestic refinery capacity. Targeting what refinery capacity Iran possesses could directly and concretely erode its ability to support Iraqi insurgents.

Oil refineries are ideal targets for air and missile attack. They are large, relatively 'soft' facilities that are difficult for even the most modern air defense to protect. At the same time, they represent wholly lawful targets generally subject to attack with a minimal risk of collateral damage.

Besides reducing the fuel available to support insurgent activities in Iraq, the further cutback in refinery capacity could influence Iranian leadership, as the nation has already seen civil disturbances as a result of gasoline rationing.

Another indirect benefit of destroying refining capacity: Billions of dollars otherwise available to support Iraqi insurgents would have to be diverted by the Iranians to import additional gasoline supplies."

The Other Lieberman

Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman said on July 10 that he received the tacit blessing of Europe and the United States for an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to Lieberman: "If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us."

Both European and US officials should be probed about this claim immediately.

Bolton Worries About Israel

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post that sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons.

According to Bolton in the interview with the Jerusalem Post:

"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."

However, he added a caution as to the viability of the first of those remaining options: While "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," he said, such a process "may take more time than we have."

Watch Republicans Go Boom

Here is a new video entitled "Watch Republicans Go Boom" from the Council for a Livable World on Republican Presidential candidates position on dealing with Iran.

President Bush on Iran

Below is an excerpt from a White House Press Conference yesterday with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. President Bush reiterated that all options are on the table in regards to Iran's nuclear program.

Q "Mr. President, question. Regarding the ongoing attempts by Iran to acquire nuclear capability of atom bomb, would you -- are you willing to say at this time that a military action against Iran is no longer an option in light of the situation?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: "I will tell you this, that my position hasn't changed, and that is all options are on the table. I would hope that we could solve this diplomatically. And that's why the United States -- first of all, we take the threat very seriously. And I fully understand the concerns of any Israeli when they hear the voice of the man in Iran saying, on the one hand, we want to acquire the technologies and know-how to build a -- enrich uranium, which could then be converted into a nuclear weapon, and on the other hand, we want to destroy Israel. Look, if I were an Israeli citizen I would view that as a serious threat to my security. And as a strong ally of Israel, I view that as a serious threat to its security -- not only the security of Israel, but the security of the Middle East.

"That's why we are constantly working to remind our European friends, as well as Russia and other members of the U.N., we have an obligation to see if we can't work together to solve this issue diplomatically. That means to provide consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, such as financial sanctions, or economic sanctions. We want there to be a choice. We want people to see there's -- in isolation there's got a consequence to it, that there's a price that's paid for this kind of intransigence and these threatening tones.
And it's difficult work to keep the nations bound together to help deal with this issue diplomatically, but we have done a pretty good job so far. Now, whether or not they abandon their nuclear weapons program, we'll see. But at least we got unanimity so far, speaking -- at the U.N. Security Council -- speaking pretty clearly that there will be consequences. And there are being consequences, economic consequences beginning to affect the economy.

"Look, the Iranian people don't need to live under this kind of conditions. These are proud people with a great tradition. Their government can do better for them. And threatening the world has caused there to be isolation. And these good folks could have leadership that enables them to have a better economy and a better way of life, an economy and a way of life that enriches their families, that gives them a better chance to succeed. But, no, this group of people have made a different alternative, and now our job is to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on."

Update:

Iran appears to have responded to these most recent comments with a threat of its own. According to the Washington Times:

"Iran yesterday refused to rule out using oil supplies as a weapon in the standoff with the United States over its nuclear program, saying Washington never excluded attacks on the Islamic republic.

"'When the Americans say that using the military option against Iran regarding its nuclear issue is not off the table, then Iran can say that it will not put aside the instrument of oil,' Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran's representative to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said in an interview with the Shargh newspaper.

"Asked where Iran's 'red line' on using oil as a weapon lay, he replied: 'The red line lies where the Americans fail to say that using military means against Iran is illegal.'"