Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Crow_Master]

Seems Israel and the Gulf Arab states are unhappy about rapprochement between Iran and the US, what do you think they may try to do to stop it?

 

[a_majoor]

There are many possibilities, since Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and the Saudis and Gulf States see them as both "Persians" and Apostates.

One rather out of left field possibility is the Arab states and Israelis may consider their mutual interests are far greater than their mutual differences, and begin cooperating at a much higher level to contain the threat. This may not be expressed in overt terms like treaties, but rather various schemes where they look the other way or otherwise enable action to be taken against the Iranians. The Israelis have the technological ability to conduct operations throughout the entire spectrum of conflict, although we will mostly become aware of very focused operations like the assasination of nuclear scientists and cyberwar rather than long range air strikes,

One other possibility (and we have seen this at some level in Syria already) is for the Arab states to start encouraging, training and supporting Salafis, members of the Muslim Brotherhoods and other radicals to take up arms against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah or against the Iranians themselves. This also secures the Arab states by exporting potential troublemakers and directing their violent tendencies elsewhere.

What is probably not in question is the Iranians, being very skilled in centuries of court intrigue, will play this Administration like a violin in order to secure their claim to regional hegemony.

 

[Crow_Master]

There are many possibilities, since Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and the Saudis and Gulf States see them as both "Persians" and Apostates.

One rather out of left field possibility is the Arab states and Israelis may consider their mutual interests are far greater than their mutual differences, and begin cooperating at a much higher level to contain the threat. this may not be expressed in overt terms like treaties, but rather various schemes where they look the other way or otherwise enable action to be taken against the Iranians. The Israelis have the technological ability to conduct operations throughout the entire spectrum of conflict, although we will mostly become aware of very focused operations like the assasination of nuclear scientists and cyberwar rather than long range air strikes,

One other possibility (and we have seen this at some level in Syria already) is for the Arab states to start encouraging, training and supporting Salafis, members of the Muslim Brotherhoods and other radicals to take up arms against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah or againstthe Iranians themselves. This also secures the Arab states by exporting potential troublemakers and directing their violent tendencies elsewhere.

What is probably not in question is the Iranians, being very skilled in centuries of court intrigue, will play this Administration like a violin in order to secure their claim to regional hegemony.

How plausible is an Israeli unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

 

[Dissident]

This very long article from the New Yorker is fascinating; it answered a lot of questions I had and shed some light on foreign policy decisions which baffled me.

Shared here with the usual caveat:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

[Article is above the 20000 character limit. Link is free to see for all]

 

[CougarKing]

Having the "know-how' and resources to build carriers are two different things...
  :



Iran Claims It Can Build Aircraft Carriers, Unmanned Subs

Iran’s Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari claimed on Tuesday that Iran has the technological know-how to build aircraft carriers. In an interview with the IRGC-linked, semi-official Fars News Agency, Sayyari said: “Our country enjoys the power and ability to build aircraft carriers.” Sayyari indicated that Iran was not planning on utilizing this capability at present, but it has it if necessary.

During the same interview, Fars News Agency asked Sayyari if Iran was planning on building unmanned submarines and other unmanned undersea capabilities. “This issue is on our agenda like other issues and cases,” Sayyari told FNA.

source: thediplomat.com

 

[GAP]

Isn't that kinda like a drug addict saying "I can quit anytime!!".....

 

[GR66]

I think it would be a great idea for Iran to build an aircraft carrier.  Spends lots of their money and puts their very limited number of effective aircraft all together in one, big target.

 

[GAP]

Report: Commander of Iranian Cyber War Headquarters assassinated
By JPOST.COM STAFF, YAAKOV LAPPIN 10/02/2013
Article Link

The commander of Iran's Cyber War Headquarters has been shot dead in a suspected assassination, British daily The Telegraph reported on Wednesday.

Iran has previously accused Israel of carrying out several assassinations of scientists involved in Tehran's nuclear program as well as the head of the country's ballistic missiles program.

The Telegraph quoted Alborz, a website affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as saying that Mojtaba Ahmadi was last seen leaving his home on Saturday and was later found dead with two bullet wounds to the chest.

"I could see two bullet wounds on his body and the extent of his injuries indicated that he had been assassinated from a close range with a pistol,” the website quoted an eyewitness as saying.

The report quoted local police as saying two motorcycle riders had been involved in the alleged assassination.

The Revolutionary Guard stated that it was investigating Ahmadi's death and cautioned against speculating "prematurely about the identity of those responsible for the killing,” The Telegraph reported.

Since 2007, five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran, as well as the Republican Guards Corps's missile program commander.
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

Saudi Arabia may become an increasingly dangerous player as they decide the American incoherence in the Middle East endangers Saudi interests (and any move to lift sanctions on Iran, or to allow Iran to evade sanctions will be a true "hot button" for the Kingdom). The Saudis already provide a great deal of money to spread Wahabbism, and are also busy funding at least some of the Syrian rebel forces to block the "Persian" claim to regional hegemony. If they decide they need to go into high gear to support their aims, they certainly have the financial resources fund a lot of things regionally and globally for many years, most of which we won't like:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/04/saudis-snub-the-general-assembly/

Saudis Snub the General Assembly

We mentioned before how the blunders of the Obama administration’s Middle East policies would alienate our closest allies in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia. The proof is in the pudding: The NYT reports that the Saudis passed on their turn to speak at the UN General Assembly this week:
They said it was the first time that the Saudis, who are strong American allies, had scrapped that opportunity to state their positions on world affairs, not even submitting a written statement in lieu of a speech.

Diplomatic officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter, said Saudi Arabia opted not to participate partly because it did not want to publicly criticize the Security Council over what the kingdom had judged to be a weak response to the conflict in Syria and the use of chemical weapons there.

It’s not just our Syria non-policy that has the Saudis at arm’s length. The newfound cooperation between President Obama and President Rouhani of Iran has put an added strain on the US-Saudi relationship. The Saudis, like the Israelis, are displeased with the prospect of US-Iranian non-proliferation talks. They see them as an Iranian ploy to ease UN sanctions while continuing to press toward getting the bomb. And while the Saudis are a key American ally, they are adept at securing their interests in the region and are not beholden to Washington. If they continue to be dissatisfied with US policy, they might hinder, or at a minimum do nothing to help, other US interests in the Middle East.

 

[CougarKing]

Israel sending a message to Iran:

National Post

Israeli military sends message to Iran with video of ‘special long-range flight exercise’

JERUSALEM — In an apparent message to Iran, the Israeli military said Thursday it had carried out a “special long-range flight exercise” and posted rare footage of the drill online.

The military said its squadrons practiced refuelling planes in midair this week and tested the air force’s ability. The accompanying footage shows a tanker plane refuelling a fighter jet midair, a key part of any long-range operation.

The release of the video comes just days before Western powers are to open new talks with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

(...)

 

[CougarKing]

Gulf Navies Seek Solutions to Iran Midget Sub Threat


quote:
ABU DHABI — Iranian midget submarines are an imminent threat to maritime security in the Arabian Gulf, and regional naval leaders are looking for immediate options “within reach” to counter the threat.

That means acquiring anti-submarine weaponry in the short term and new submarines in the longer term, said Rear Adm. Ibrahim al Musharrakh, commander of United Arab Emirates (UAE) naval forces.

The Iranian Navy and Revolutionary Guard Command have launched three classes of submarines, two of which are small subs, since 2007. The programs, however, have been very secretive and limited information has been released on them by the Iranian naval command.

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1992 to 1996. They are called Tareq-class subs in Iran.

Iran reportedly paid US $600 million for each boat, and they are all based at Bandar Abbas in the Strait of Hormuz. Two of the Kilo-class submarines are operational at any one time and are occasionally deployed in the eastern mouth of the strait, the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea.

However, the real threat is from the smaller submarines deployed in 2007. According to the NTI, that’s when a wave of deployments began of small Ghadir-class and Nahang-class midget submarines for use in shallow coastal waters.

NTI reports that the number of operating Ghadir-class submarines ranges from 10 to 19.



Defense News

 

[CougarKing]

link

World powers, Iran in new attempt to reach nuclear deal

By Justyna Pawlak and Fredrik Dahl

GENEVA (Reuters) - World powers resumed efforts to clinch a preliminary deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme at talks in Geneva on Wednesday, with Russia and Britain confident that agreement can be reached.

Seeking to end a long standoff and head off the risk of a wider Middle East war, the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany came close to winning concessions from Iran on its nuclear work in return for some sanctions relief at negotiations earlier this month.

Policymakers from the six have since said that an interim accord on confidence-building steps could finally be within reach, despite warnings from diplomats that differences remain and could still prevent an agreement.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the remaining differences are narrow and a historic deal is within reach.

"It is the best chance for a long time to make progress on one of the gravest problems in foreign policy," Hague told a news conference during a visit to Istanbul.

(...)

 

[cupper]

Deal Reached To Limit Iran's Nuclear Program

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/23/246954418/reports-deal-reached-to-limit-iran-s-nuclear-program?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

Updated at 10 p.m. ET

Iran and six world powers have reached an agreement in Geneva on curbing Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief.

Reuters reported: "Iran will get access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange as part of an agreement under which it will curb its nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, a Western diplomat said on Sunday."

The New York Times said the deal would "halt much of Iran's nuclear program and roll some elements of it back."

"The freeze would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran's nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes. ...

"According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.

"All of Iran's stockpile of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent, a short hop to weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes.

"No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer more efficient ones, could be installed. Centrifuges that have been installed but which are not currently operating — Iran has more than 8,000 such centrifuges — could not be started up. No new enrichment facilities could be established.

"The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges."
In addition to Iran, the deal involved the United States, the U.K., Russia, China, France and Germany.

The White House said President Obama would deliver a statement Saturday night on the situation.

We will update this post as details become available.

 

[cupper]

From the NY Times

Deal Reached With Iran Halts Its Nuclear Program

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

GENEVA — The foreign policy chief of the European Union and Iranian officials announced a landmark accord Sunday morning that would temporarily freeze Tehran’s nuclear program and lay the foundation for a more sweeping accord.

The freeze would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes.

"We have reached agreement," Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s chief foreign policy official, posted on Twitter on Sunday morning.

According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.

All of Iran’s stockpile of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent, a short hop to weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes.

No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer more efficient ones, could be installed. Centrifuges that have been installed but which are not currently operating — Iran has more than 8,000 such centrifuges — could not be started up. No new enrichment facilities could be established.

The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.

Iran’s stockpile of such low-enriched uranium would be allowed to temporarily increase to about eight tons from seven tons currently. But Tehran would be required to shrink this stockpile by the end of the six-month agreement back to seven tons. This would be done by installing equipment to covert some of that stockpile to oxide.

To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo on a daily basis to check the film from cameras installed there.

In return for the initial agreement, the United States has agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief, American officials said. This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

With lawmakers in Washington vowing to propose tougher sanctions next month if the Iranian program is not halted, and hard-liners in Tehran insisting that Iran never capitulate on its nuclear “rights,” the negotiators were effectively locked in a race against time.

Expectations were high that a deal was in the offing on Saturday morning, when Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats from five other world powers swept into Geneva to conclude the talks and, they hoped, sign the agreement.

Going into Saturday’s talks, a major sticking point involved the constraints that would be imposed on a project that Iran is pursuing to produce plutonium, which involves the construction of a heavy water reactor near the town of Arak.

Mr. Kerry met with his French and Russian counterparts before joining a three-way session with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, and Ms. Ashton, the first of two such sessions on Saturday. Late on Saturday, a spokeswoman for the Russian delegation said the two sides were "very close."

The wrangling behind closed doors recalled the round in Geneva two weeks earlier, which seemed to be tantalizingly close to a breakthrough only to sputter to an end as France pressed the world powers to toughen their demands, particularly regarding the Arak plant, and Iran balked at the new terms.

There were also other sticky issues, including Iran’s insistence that it had the right to enrich uranium. At the end of that round of negotiations, the world powers presented a unified proposal, and the Iranians said they needed to consult with the authorities in Tehran before proceeding.

As to what Iran considers its “right to enrich,” American officials signaled a possible workaround last week, saying they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree, while Tehran continued to enrich.

The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo.

The deal would also add at least several weeks, and perhaps more than a month, to the time Iran would need to produce weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device, according to estimates by nuclear experts.

American officials argued that it would preclude Iran from shortening the time it would need to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a nuclear device even further, and would provide additional warning if Iran sought to “break out” of its commitment to pursue only a peaceful nuclear program.

A second and even more contentious debate centered on whether an initial deal would, as the Obama administration said, serve as a “first step” toward a comprehensive solution of the nuclear issue, one that would leave Iran with a peaceful nuclear program that could not easily be used for military purposes.

Two former American national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, recently sent a letter to key American lawmakers endorsing the administration’s approach. “The apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities needs to be tested to insure it cannot rapidly build a nuclear weapon,” they wrote.

But some experts, including a former official who has worked on the Iranian issue for the White House, said it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, they said, any initial six-month agreement is more likely to be followed by a series of partial agreements that constrain Iran’s nuclear activities but do not definitively solve the nuclear issues.

“At the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations — ad infinitum,” said Gary Samore, a senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council in President Obama’s first term. Mr. Samore is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit group that advocates tough sanctions against Iran unless it does more to curtail its nuclear program.

 

[CougarKing]

So Riyadh might reach out to Tehran in spite of the recent report that the Saudis might get nukes as a foil to Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Defense News

Experts Predict Saudi Arabia Will Reach Out To Iran Soon
Nov. 27, 2013 - 10:46AM  |  By AWAD MUSTAFA

DUBAI — Saudi Arabia is expected to soon engage in diplomatic overtures with Iran following the nuclear agreement that was struck in Geneva over the weekend, US experts are forecasting.

Speaking on their return to Washington from a visit to Saudi Arabia this week, high ranking members of the Atlantic Council said a new sort of relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is set to emerge.

“There is a new phase on US-Saudi relations,” said Richard LeBaron, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former ambassador to Kuwait. “During our various meetings with officials, business leaders and experts on the Iranian nuclear deal, many have expressed their dismay with the US position and approach to the Middle East.”

LeBaron said that after the breakthrough on Sunday, Saudi Arabia is expected “in the next few months” to begin diplomatic engagements with Iran to “test the waters.”

(...)

 

[tomahawk6]

I really doubt this will happen.SA and Iran represent two opposing camps.

 

[a_majoor]

Well that didn't take long. Iran is playing the Administration like a banjo, but don't worry, the Americans have "Smart Diplomacy":

http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal
Iranian officials say White House fact sheet is ‘invalid’
     
BY: Adam Kredo  
November 26, 2013 4:25 pm

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Iran’s objection to the deal as presented in the fact sheet raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.

The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.

“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”

The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.

As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.

“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”

“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”

The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.

The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”

 

[CougarKing]

Defense News

Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if Strikes Become Necessary

WASHINGTON — A hawkish US House Republican says the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if war with the Islamic republic becomes necessary.

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., threw down that bold gauntlet Wednesday morning during a C-SPAN interview in which he also suggested Middle East “culture” fosters dishonest negotiators.

Asked if war with Iran is inevitable, Hunter replied: “I sure as Hell hope not.”

But if push came to shove and US officials deemed strikes necessary, Hunter turned hawkish.

He said any American strike would be a “massive aerial bombing campaign,” adding that such a mission should not feature any “boots on ground.” Then, Hunter said the US should use its “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian targets.

A Congressional Research Service states the US posses “a wide variety of systems that could carry nuclear warheads,” including “short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs.”

“The United States [has] deployed these weapons with its troops in the field, aboard aircraft, on surface ships, on submarines, and in fixed, land-based launchers,” according to CRS. “The United States articulated a complex strategy, and developed detailed operational plans, that would guide the use of these weapons in the event of a conflict.”

Notably, Shelden Adelson, the top political donor to Republican candidates, also recently called for the US to nuke Iran.

Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation told Defense News that “the preventative, first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have a devastating impact on US national security and dismember US power and standing in the world.”

“That a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is even suggesting such a possible course of action is the height of reckless irresponsibility and so far out of bounds it is astonishing,” Reif said. “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would guarantee a mad Iranian dash to acquire nuclear weapons to deter future such US attacks, likely convince other potential US adversaries in the region and around the world to acquire their own nuclear weapons to ward off a potential future US attack.”

(...)

 

[GR66]

Use nuclear weapons to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Makes sense to me.

:facepalm:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I really doubt this will happen.SA and Iran represent two opposing camps.

All depends on how SA wants to "reach out" with. Only 51% of the population is Persians, you have the Balch to the South and the Kurds in the North. I doubt the Hazara would turn against the regime though. SA has the money to support these groups and make life for the Iranians miserable domestically, forcing them to live through what Iran has done to the rest of the region.