Iran Super Thread- Merged

[OldSolduer]

I have to admit that I'm all rather confused as to *why* Iran is doing all of this.  What level of a Maslowian heirarchy of needs are they trying to fulfil by doing all of this?  Is the Iranian government just seeking to remain in power and is therefore presenting "us" as a legitimate threat?  If they wish to be a regional power, I get that, but if they want to do more than just secure their borders, why would they seek The Bomb?

Personally FWIW, from what I have seen on the media they want The Bomb and a delivery system to obliterate Israel. Just my thoughts and  :2c: before GST and PST.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there is a "nature abhors a vacum" sort of thing at play here.

There is no longer a natural leader in the Middle East nor in the larger North Africa/Middle East/West Asia region. Egypt, with British backing, got close between 1915 and 1975, but that all fell apart. Egypt, Iran and Turkey are all natural candidates for the role ~ but the Saudis and other lesser lights have eyes on the prize, too. The goal might be to reestablish a caliphate or, more likely, just to fill the void.

 

[GR66]

I think that it's perfectly logical for Iran to want to obtain nuclear weapons.  They don't need a large arsenal either...just having the capability may be enough to act as a deterent to Israel.  I personally don't think that (even) Iran would be crazy enough to launch a non-retaliatory attack against Israel because they would virtually guarantee the destruction of their country.

However, Israel is a very small country.  Even the detonation of a single warhead would be a major threat to them.  That risk...even against a small Iranian nuclear arsenal, or even the risk of a warhead being smuggled in and detonated in place may be enough to stop Israel from launching a first strike.  It may also be enough to give the Israelis pause in overtly opposing some of Iran's allies or potential allies in the region. 

This umbrella protection might just be enough to give Iran the freedom to exert more influence in the region without fear of direct confrontation, or at the very least force the Israelis to keep pumping massive amounts of money into defensive measures and tight (oppressive/confrontational?) security measures.  It's easier to paint Israel as the big, bad bogeyman to your own population and your neighbours when you're forcing them to continually build up a more and more advanced (and expensive) military to counter your threat. 

 

[a_majoor]

Other Gulf states embark on a buying spree to counter Iran. There will be a huge conventional arms imbalance, and Iran's presumptive nuclear arsenal is likely to be very small: how many targets can they realistically threaten. As well, Iran is now in the sights of the Turks, the Arab Sunnis, Israel and the West, so may be facing an exponential increase in threats.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gulf-states-on-arms-buying-binge-to-counter-iran-threat/?print=1

Gulf States on Arms Buying Binge to Counter Iran Threat

Posted By Phillip Smyth On January 8, 2012 @ 12:03 am In Iraq,Middle East,Politics,World News | 21 Comments

Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf monarchies are buying huge amounts of advanced arms from the United States and Europe. The weaponry is clearly aimed to counter the growing threat they see coming from Iran.

The United States alone has around $100 billion in potential sales in the pipeline right now. The biggest is a Saudi deal, initiated in 2010 and approved by Congress, totaling around $60 billion [1]. The package includes jets, helicopters, hundreds of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, training, and logistical services. Israel, initially worried about the sale, agreed — after U.S. assurances — to support it in September [2].

In the updated version, the Saudis will  [3]receive [3]84 brand new F-15SAs and have 70 F-15s upgraded. The SA model is based on the F-15SE and incorporates stealth technology, the ability to carry a heavy payload, and a long-range capability.

European countries have also received orders. In 2008 the Saudis purchased 72 multi-role Eurofighter Typhoons. Both Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE.) have approached France [4] to buy 24 and 60 (respectively) advanced Dassault Rafale multirole fighters.

The UAE has embarked on a major military build-up to counter Iran. On December 25, a $3.5 billion weapons deal [5] was signed and included a missile defense system.  In late 2011, the UAE requested that the United States sell them 4,900 kits to transform so-called “dumb bombs” into guided “smart” munitions. The proposal [6] includes the sale of bunker buster bombs. The Department of Defense claimed this purchase would serve “U.S. interests by deterring regional aggression,” a reference to Iran.

In October, 2011, Oman asked for $1.24 billion [7] worth of American anti-aircraft systems.

Gulf states have also begun modernizing and expanding their navies. Last July, the UAE’s naval commander called on [8]the Gulf Cooperation Council to “co-operate to reduce vulnerabilities.”

Iraq has already received six coastal patrol boats [9]. Responding to the threat of Iranian Kilo-class submarines and surface ships, Bahrain requested 6 SH-60 maritime patrol helicopters [10].  In 2006, the UAE purchased two German minesweepers and reported [11]ly also opened a naval base to help attack any Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The Saudis announced a potential $20-$23 billion deal called the “Saudi Naval Expansion Program-II [12].”  As part of the program, Riyadh has expressed interest in buying Aegis radar equipped destroyers. Defense News noted [13], “Aegis BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] would provide the Saudis with a considerable anti-missile capability, possibly in excess of any other gulf-region country, including Israel.”

Gulf states have added other capabilities to their defense structures. In May 2011, the NY Times reported [14] that the UAE had a $529 million project to build an “800-member battalion of foreign troops.”  Emirati leaders viewed their own military as “inadequate” and hoped the “troops could blunt the regional aggression of Iran.”

In Bahrain, the Sunni minority regime that hosts the U.S. naval base in the Gulf seeks to buy up-armored Humvees and TOW missile systems. The Department of Defense felt the deal [15] would “improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”

However, due to outside pressure resulting from the government’s human rights abuses against protesters, Congress has been reluctant to approve [16].  The Bahrainis are trying to convince them that their human rights record has improved.

In a controversial deal, the U.S. is selling Iraq $11 billion in equipment and training [17].  Following the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops, Iraq has big domestic political problems that include an attempt to monopolize power by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Some of the weapons sold to Baghdad are 18 F-16IQ Block-52 fighter [18]s.

While the aircraft are slightly downgraded models from the advanced F-16s the U.S. Air Force fly, Defense Industry Daily noted [19] the sale “seems cleverly calibrated to give Iraq an air defense force that can handle aging threats from Syria or Iran relatively well, and perform strike missions within Iraq, without being a serious threat to more advanced air forces in the region,” presumably Israel.

Iran has taken notice of these massive arms deals [20]. Aside from its nuclear weapons’ program, Iran has tested medium-range “radar-evading” missiles and is engaged in its own military build-up.  Tehran dismisses the Gulf Arab efforts as merely wasting billions of dollars.

Iran might be right in a sense, since the ability of these countries to use advanced arms against Iran is limited. They still depend on an increasingly questionable U.S. protection. Some of the money being spent is to make the Gulf Arab elites feel better. Another aspect is to tie the U.S. and European states closer to themselves.  Increasingly, one can wonder whether all of these weapons will some day be used in a new Gulf war.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/gulf-states-on-arms-buying-binge-to-counter-iran-threat/

URLs in this post:

[1] around $60 billion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16358068

[2] in September: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/14/2740902/israel-reportedly-oks-us-saudi-arms-deal

[3] will : http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/29/4151219/boeing-statement-on-saudi-arabia.html

[4] have approached France: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/uae-sets-requirements-in-deal-for-60-french-fighter-aircraft

[5] a $3.5 billion weapons deal: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/01/01/usa-uae-iran-idINDEE80002R20120101

[6] The proposal: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/UAE_10-56.pdf

[7] Oman asked for $1.24 billion: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Oman_11-38.pdf

[8] called on : http://www.thenational.ae/featured-content/home/middle-headlines/gulf-navies-must-all-work-together-uae-naval-chief

[9] six coastal patrol boats: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/03NOV11-04.aspx

[10] Bahrain requested 6 SH-60 maritime patrol helicopters: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Qatar_11-26.pdf

[11] and reported: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jjyF66HHTC4jM0WdcxUnaUYYY7Yw?docId=CNG.6bae75beb5109d22b4ea0904453bd91c.ab1

[12] Saudi Naval Expansion Program-II: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/9603/Business/Economy/Saudi-eyes-cost-of-naval-expansion.aspx

[13] Defense News noted: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6799195

[14] the NY Times reported: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?pagewanted=all

[15] The Department of Defense felt the deal: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Bahrain_10-71.pdf

[16] Congress has been reluctant to approve: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-arms-deal-to-bahrain-faces-resistance/2011/10/13/gIQA5J1bhL_blog.html

[17] $11 billion in equipment and training: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/12/29/Arms-sale-to-Iraq-on-despite-misgivings/UPI-52961325162525/?spt=hs&or=tn

[18] 18 F-16IQ Block-52 fighter: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Iraq_11-46.pdf

[19] Defense Industry Daily noted: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraq-Seeks-F-16-Fighters-05057/

[20] Iran has taken notice of these massive arms deals: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-claims-nuclear-fuel-advance-test-fires-missile-in-gulf/2012/01/01/gIQAbrXpUP_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Gulf State Arabs can buy as much as they want ... and I hope they buy more and more and more, from us, because our factory workers need the jobs.

But no matter how much kit the Arabs have they will remain militarily useless, completely non-effective, because they rely, about 99.99%, on foreign contractors to maintain the stuff. If you cannot maintain your own kit then your fighting effectiveness is near zero. Look at the coalition's efforts in Gulf War I - the bright, shiny Arab kit hardly moved out of its barracks. How many of the aircraft from Qatar and UAE actually flew combat missions against Libya last year?

If, Big IF, there is an Arab/Persian war, my money is on the Iranians ... ramshackle as they may be.

 

[tomahawk6]

I think that it's perfectly logical for Iran to want to obtain nuclear weapons.  They don't need a large arsenal either...just having the capability may be enough to act as a deterent to Israel.  I personally don't think that (even) Iran would be crazy enough to launch a non-retaliatory attack against Israel because they would virtually guarantee the destruction of their country.

However, Israel is a very small country.  Even the detonation of a single warhead would be a major threat to them.  That risk...even against a small Iranian nuclear arsenal, or even the risk of a warhead being smuggled in and detonated in place may be enough to stop Israel from launching a first strike.  It may also be enough to give the Israelis pause in overtly opposing some of Iran's allies or potential allies in the region. 

This umbrella protection might just be enough to give Iran the freedom to exert more influence in the region without fear of direct confrontation, or at the very least force the Israelis to keep pumping massive amounts of money into defensive measures and tight (oppressive/confrontational?) security measures.  It's easier to paint Israel as the big, bad bogeyman to your own population and your neighbours when you're forcing them to continually build up a more and more advanced (and expensive) military to counter your threat.

Yep thats all we need is more Iranian influence in the region. :

 

[The Bread Guy]

A university lecturer and nuclear scientist has been killed in a car explosion in north Tehran, reports say.

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, an academic who also worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person were killed in the attack.

The blast happened after a motorcyclist stuck an apparent bomb to the car.

Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years, with Iran blaming Israel and the US.

Both countries deny the accusations.

Iran's Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told state television that the attack against Mr Ahmadi-Roshan would not stop "progress" in the country's nuclear programme.

He called the killing "evidence of [foreign] government-sponsored terrorism".

Local sources said Wednesday's blast took place at a faculty of Iran's Allameh Tabatai university.

Two others were reportedly also injured in the blast, which took place near Gol Nabi Street, in the north of the capital.

(....)

Mr Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, was a graduate of Sharif University and supervised a department at Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province, semi-official news agency Fars reported.

"The bomb was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and the work of the Zionists [Israelis]," deputy Tehran governor Safarali Baratloo said.

Witnesses said they had seen two people on the motorbike fix the bomb to the car, reported to be a Peugeot 405. A second person died in the attack though the car itself remained virtually intact ....

BBC online, 11 Jan 12

Dangerous line of work this "nuclear scientist in Iran near motorcycles" thing - from the same BBC article above:

Attacks on Iranian scientists

Jan 2012 - Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a professor at the Technical University of Tehran, died after bomb was placed on his car by a motorcyclist

Nov 2010 - Majid Shahriari, member of nuclear engineering faculty at Shahid Beheshti University, killed in Tehran after bomb attached to his car by motorcyclist in Tehran. Another scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi Davani - future head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran - is hurt in a separate attack

Jan 2010 - Massoud Ali Mohammadi, a physics professor, died when a motorcycle rigged with explosives exploded near his car

More here (via Google News).

 

[aesop081]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/exclusive-u-s-harassed-by-iranian-ships/?hpt=hp_t3

At a time of heightened tensions with Iran, U.S. military officials told CNN Friday that U.S. military and Coast Guard ships had two close encounters earlier this month with high-speed Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf that exhibited provocative behavior.

The incidents occurred January 6, according to a senior U.S. military official.

The USS New Orleans, an amphibious transport ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf last Friday when three Iranian Navy speed boats rapidly approached within 500 yards of the ship, the official said. The Iranians did not respond to whistle signals or voice queries from the New Orleans. The lack of response disregards standard maritime protocols, the official said. The boats eventually broke away.

On the same day, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Adak was also harassed by high-speed Iranian Navy boats while operating 75 miles east of Kuwait City. Iranian personnel in the small boats appeared to be holding AK-47 rifles and at least one video camera, the official said. U.S. personnel on the cutter also reported seeing a forward gun that was manned on one of the Iranian boats, according to the official. Eventually, communications with a larger Iranian vessel in the area were established and the speed boats stopped their harassment.

No shots were fired in either incident, both of which were videotaped. The Pentagon may release that footage later Friday.

While the U.S. Navy has had routine encounters with Iranian naval forces for years, the Navy has reported seeing more aggressive action in recent weeks from Iranian-flagged vessels. Officials believe such aggressive action carries the potential for miscalculation. Typically, Iranian small boats are operated by forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps force and are considered to be more aggressive than regular Iranian forces.

Word of the aggressive encounters by Iran comes as the United States has conducted two recent rescues of Iranian mariners at sea at a time of rising tensions in the region.

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the only outlet from the Persian Gulf, as it faces increased scrutiny over its nuclear program. The critical shipping lane had 17 million barrels of oil per day passing through in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.

Iran threatened to block the strait if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. France, Britain and Germany have proposed sanctions to punish Iran's lack of cooperation on its nuclear program.

 

[sean m]

Hello. Hopefully this is acceptable to post, Iran has one of the largest jewish communities in the world.  On Charlie Rose, which is on PBS, there was an individual who had knowledge of Mossad. He stated that Mossad had assets in Iran. Due to the recent assassination of another Iranian scientist, and increasing tension between the West- Israel and Iran, as posted by the previous individuals. Does anyone believe it could be possible  that the Persian Jews in Iran could be supporting Mossad in Iran>

 

[exabedtech]

Please tell me we aren't going to war with Iran... No, they are not going to rain nuclear warheads on us no matter what some right wing kook tells you.  I'd trust Iran before I trust Pakistan and you don't see them bombing us despite the fact that NATO regularly targets them (accident or not).  Yes, the guy who may or may not be running the place is a nut but I doubt he's suicidal and you can expect that most of the drivel he spouts is intended mainly for domestic consumption.
Yes they have oil, but I guarantee the environmental impact and cost of a couple pipelines out of Alberta would be a far better option on so many levels than another foolish attempt to impart western values on an Islamic population.
About the only thing an attack could gain is a pleasant distraction from the economic disaster south of the border.  You can bet Obama has considered exactly this.
If its security we want, lets face it... we already have it.  If its oil we want, we have that too.  If its saving people from their repressive leaders then maybe someone should explain to me why we aren't in half the African countries.  Just my  :2c: 

 

[a_majoor]

The next cards are put on the table; holding the nuclear facilities at risk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-strike-idUSTRE80B22020120112

Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"

LONDON | Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:52pm EST

(Reuters) - With its nuclear program beset as never before by sanctions, sabotage and assassination, Iran must now make a new addition to its list of concerns: One of the biggest conventional bombs ever built.

Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last resort against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The behemoth, carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosive, was delivered with minimal fanfare to Whiteman U.S. Air Force Base, Missouri in September. It is designed for delivery by B-2 Stealth bombers.

Would that weapon, delivered in a gouging combination with other precision-guided munitions, pulverize enough rock to reach down and destroy the uranium enrichment chamber sunk deep in a mountain at Fordow, Iran's best sheltered nuclear site?

While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters.

A "second best" result might be merely to block the plant's surface entrances, securing its temporary closure, some said.

One U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described an attack on the underground site, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran near the Iranian holy city of Qom, as "hard but not impossible."

The United States is the only country with any chance of damaging the Fordow chamber using just conventional air power, most experts say.

Israel, the nation seen as most likely to attempt a raid, has great experience in long range bombing include its 1981 raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq and a 2007 strike on a presumed nuclear facility in Syria.

But it lacks the air assets to reach Fordow's depths, and has no MOP-sized bunker buster. An Israeli raid would therefore likely require other elements such as sabotage or special forces.

The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.

The same day a State Department spokeswoman declared that if Iran was enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow this would be a "further escalation" of its pattern of violating its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

TURMOIL

Western powers suspect the program is aimed at developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is strictly for civilian uses.

Critics of Iran's nuclear program tend to agree that military action against Iran's nuclear work would be their last and worst option. Not only would this risk civilian casualties, but Iran would seek to retaliate against Western targets in the region, raising the risk of a regional war and risking global economic turmoil.

Once it had recovered it would probably decide unequivocally to pursue a nuclear bomb.

Critics of the military option further point out that non-military pressure is increasing. Apart from tools of statecraft such as sanctions and diplomacy, covert means against Iran's nuclear work probably include sabotage, cyber attacks, measures to supply Iran with faulty parts and interception of nuclear supplies. It may also involve assassinations of nuclear experts such as Wednesday's killing of a scientist in Tehran.

A strike, furthermore, would only delay, not destroy, an Iranian nuclear program whose known sites are widely dispersed and fortified against attack.

But Washington sees the plausibility of a U.S. strike on Iran's main nuclear sites as a vital adjunct to the campaign of pressure. The narrow, technical question of whether such an attack is feasible is therefore central to strategy.

"You don't take any option off the table," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta said on CBS's Face the Nation television program on Jan 8.

Asked on the same program how hard it would be to "take out" Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. chief of staff General Martin Demspey said: "Well, I'd rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that. But I will say that our, my, responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on."

Asked if the United States could act against Iran's nuclear capability using conventional weapons, he replied: "Well, I certainly want them to believe that that's the case."

The credibility of that implicit threat got a freshening-up with the arrival of the big new bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

Military satisfaction was evident.

ENEMIES

As Air Force Brigadier General Scott Vander Hamm explained to Air Force Magazine, the MOP "is specifically designed to go after very dense targets-solid granite, 20,000 (pounds per square inch) concrete, and those hard and deeply buried complexes-where enemies are putting things that the President of the United States wants to hold at risk."

He said MOP "kind of bridges the gap" between conventional munitions and nuclear weapons in terms of the effects that it can create. Whereas in the past, "you'd have to break that nuclear threshold" to attack such HDBT (hard and deeply buried targets), "with the MOP, you don't have to," the magazine reported.

Four months on from the bomb's arrival in the U.S. arsenal, the Fordow announcement has sharpened the Western strategic focus on U.S. military capacity.

Experts differ on the extent of the challenge at Fordow, but all agree it presents greater complexity than Iran's other underground site at Natanz, 230 km (140 miles) south of Tehran where enrichment happens in a chamber estimated to be 20 meters underground, or less than a third of Fordow's presumed depth.

The other likely targets are Iran's uranium ore processing plant at Isfahan, some 400 km (250 miles) south of Tehran and plutonium producing research reactor under construction at Arak 190 km (120 miles) southwest of Tehran. They are both above ground and considered vulnerable to attack.

Austin Long, an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, told Reuters the arrival of the MOP "does not solve the Fordow problem but it does make it easier."

Many experts are skeptical.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Natanz was buried under several layers of dirt and concrete but it was "nevertheless possible to damage it with precision bombing with one sortie to create a crater and second sortie to burst through the bottom of the crater to the facility below."

But the chamber at Fordow might be "impenetrable," he said, due to its presumed depth.

His doubts were echoed by Robert Hewson, Editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, to Reuters, who said it was likely that Fordow had been built to survive a sustained assault.

"We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner," he said.

"Given that it (Fordow) is a relatively recent development, it has probably been designed with a lot of attention to protecting it against conventional strikes. You don't necessarily have to obliterate it, mind. You could block the exits, block access to power, isolate it from life outside, and then you have effectively switched it off.

DESTRUCTION, OR MERELY A SETBACK?

"But for sure it will have been designed with all of that in mind, and the Iranians will have done the best job they can to make it survivable."

Sam Gardiner, a retired USAF colonel who runs wargames for various Washington agencies, told Reuters a major problem was simply a lack of confirmed information about the Fordow plant.

"With the Natanz facility, as it was being constructed, satellites gave us the information on where and how deep enrichment was to take place. Fordow on the other hand is an unknown. Where is the enrichment chamber? How deep? Which direction does the tunnel go?"

"For Israel, or even the United States, destruction would be very difficult. The entrance to the underground tunnel can be shut, but that would only be a temporary set back."

Diplomats point out that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visit Fordow and are familiar with its layout. While their work is confidential, it is widely believed that Western intelligence agencies have some knowledge of the site's interior.

John Cochrane, a defense specialist at the London-based Exclusive Analyst risk consultancy, said he believed the bunker-busting MOP might make a difference. But he suggested Fordow was at the very limit of the bomb's capacities, which he said could reach down to a maximum of 60 meters.

"Repeated strikes by Tomahawk cruise missiles and MOP might be effective in penetrating the site, if it is not as deep as 80m but, even then, we question whether an attack would have the same level of assurance in terms of damage as strikes on other 'softer' sites," he told Reuters.

"We question from what little we have seen of open source imagery whether it is as deep as 80 meters. If it is, we don't know for a fact but we think that is probably too deep for any form of air-delivered munitions, including MOP Cyber attack or physical assault by Special Forces may be the only attack options."

Cochrane noted that the supply of the MOP to Israel, even if the U.S. were prepared to release it, would also require a suitable aircraft to deliver it and Israelis did not have one.

ATTACKING "THE HARD WAY"

In a 2010 study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program," analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the U.S. think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, if all peaceful options had been exhausted, the U.S. was the only country that could launch a successful military strike.

Even that study predicated its finding on a strike merely blocking Fordow's two entrances, not destroying the underground chamber.

But in a November 2011 article in Israel's Tablet magazine, Columbia University's Long concluded that Israel had the ability to attack the Fordow site using 75 bunker busters, each delivering a smaller explosive charge of about 1,000 pounds. However, he said it would require an unprecedented level of precision.

Long's scenario sees Israeli jets having "to do things the hard way," delivering 75 bunker busters on a single point to burrow through the rock.

There were two principal challenges, he said.

First, the weapons themselves, dropped from miles away and thousands of feet in the air, had to arrive at very close to the same angle to create a pathway each subsequent weapon could follow, he wrote. "Otherwise much of the penetrating power of the bombs will be wasted."

The second unknown was the "spoil problem," where the sides of the pathway, destroyed by previous explosions, clog the pathway for subsequent bombs.

Long subsequently told Reuters in emailed remarks the main feedback he had had from military readers was that "the kind of operation I discuss is really, really hard to coordinate."

"I agree, though I don't think that makes it impossible, just very difficult, as I noted." (Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Phil Stewart in Washington and Fredrik Dahl in Vienna)

 

[a_majoor]

Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz will change a lot of calculations in the region, and certainly reduce the amount of pressure the Iranians can place on the world oil markets through threats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/pipeline-avoids-strait-of-hormuz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Pipeline Avoids Strait of Hormuz
By SARA HAMDAN

DUBAI — The United Arab Emirates has nearly completed an oil export pipeline from Abu Dhabi, on the Gulf, to the Gulf of Oman, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, Mohamed bin Dhaen al-Hamli, the U.A.E.’s oil minister, said this week.

His remarks came as tension was rising between Iran and Western governments over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Over the past month, Iran has stepped up threats to block the strait in response to increasingly tough sanctions imposed by the United States and the possibility of an embargo on Iranian oil in the European Union.

Nearly 35 percent of globally traded oil shipments pass daily through the strait, according to IHS Global Insight, a forecasting and market intelligence firm.

Construction of the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline project, or Adcop, previously scheduled for completion in April, has been dogged by repeated delays over the past few years. But now “the pipeline is almost complete, and will hopefully be operational within six months, by May or June,” Mr. Hamli said Monday on the sidelines of an energy forum in Abu Dhabi. “The first tanker loaded will be in about six months’ time, ready for export.”

The $3.29 billion pipeline, with a capacity of about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, will stretch 370 kilometers, or 230 miles, from Habshan in Abu Dhabi — the collection point for Abu Dhabi’s onshore crude oil production — to an offshore oil terminal in the emirate of Fujairah.

The project aims to “offset reliance on Arabian Gulf oil terminals while reducing shipping congestion through the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a statement on the Web site of International Petroleum Investment Co., which oversees it. “To this end, it aims to strengthen the overall export capability on the eastern coast of the U.A.E.”

On average, 14 crude tankers pass through the strait daily, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Data for 2010 showed 17 million barrels of oil transiting the strait daily, mainly from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar and Iran.

“There are political implications for Iran, in the sense that its neighbors are incredibly concerned and want to protect their ability to export oil regardless of a rise in tensions with Iran,” said Gala Riani, IHS Global Insight’s senior analyst covering the Middle East and North Africa, in an e-mail.

An IHS Global Insight research note by Ms. Riani and Catherine Hunter, issued Jan. 3, said that “Iran’s potential ability to close the choke point is a key trump card that could give it the upper hand” in its face-off with the United States and its allies.

Still, though Iran has shown it is able and willing to take drastic action to respond to foreign pressure, it is unlikely that it will close the strait, the research note said.

“Much of Iran’s own oil exports pass through the strait, so there would be limited logic in closing it as it would go against its own economic interests,” Ms. Riani wrote. “Nevertheless, it is not impossible that Iran would attempt to close it, although probably only as a last resort reaction to a foreign move that it would consider tantamount to an act of war — such as Western attempts to block Iranian oil exports.”

Iranian officials have repeated the threat of a blockade in recent weeks as sanctions against Iran by Western states have tightened. The European Union has talked of imposing an oil embargo in the coming months, and on Dec. 31 President Barack Obama signed into law sanctions against foreign institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank. That measure was part of a package to block access to the U.S. financial system for any institution that continues to deal with Iran, IHS Global Insight said. The sanctions will be implemented after a warning period of 120 days to allow firms to adjust and review their dealings with Tehran.

As an alternative to total closure of the strait, Iran could disrupt shipping in the Gulf by carrying out ship searches, adding time and cost to the transit, under the pretense of securing the waterways against potential piracy, said Siamak Namazi, an energy consultant in Dubai.

“The Iranians are unlikely to just stare, nonplussed, if the U.S. succeeds in choking their central bank and oil sales,” Mr. Namazi said. “Then again, we still don’t know the scale of the new American law yet, so it’s difficult to gauge its impact.

“It is, however, safe to say that some of Iran’s traditional buyers will find new sources for their crude oil and that supply risks have changed with the new legislation.”

Major buyers of Iranian oil, including China, Japan and India, are reconsidering their oil imports from Iran. The IHS research note said South Korea, one of the five biggest importers of Iranian crude, had already adopted some trade restrictions while China had begun to turn to alternative suppliers, including Iraq, where production is slowly rising, to displace some of the 500,000 barrels that it imports daily from Iran.

In Europe, Spain and Italy accounted for 13 percent of Iran’s exports in the first half of 2011, according to figures from Platts. Analysts say a potential E.U. ban on Iranian oil would complicate the logistics of doing business there.

Turkey obtains 30 percent of its oil from Iran. According to news reports, its largest refiner, Tupras, is currently seeking a waiver from Washington to exempt it from the new sections on institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank.

Adjustments in oil supply relationships to respond to the new U.S. legislation will be difficult and will have an effect on oil prices — as, too, would any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say. Current-month crude oil futures traded Wednesday at over $101 a barrel in New York.

Because Iran has up to two million barrels a day of crude exports to sell, expected to generate about $110 billion to its budget this year, the smooth, steady export of crude remains integral to the country’s political and economic fortunes, the IHS research note said.

Still, amid the brinkmanship and the uncertainties of the confrontation, analysts say completion of the Abu Dhabi pipeline would be a positive step toward greater supply security.

“The new pipeline that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz is an improvement in energy security since the last threat of blockages,” Ms. Hunter said, referring to the 1980s, when Iran attacked Kuwaiti tankers carrying Iraqi oil during the war between the two countries.

 

[GAP]

Iran cracks down on Barbie peddlers
By Mitra Amir, Reuters
Article Link

TEHRAN - Iran’s morality police are cracking down on the sale of Barbie dolls to protect the public from what they see as pernicious western culture eroding Islamic values, shopkeepers said on Monday.

As the West imposes the toughest ever sanctions on Iran and tensions rise over its nuclear programme, inside the country the Barbie ban is part of what the government calls a “soft war” against decadent cultural influences.

“About three weeks ago they (the morality police) came to our shop, asking us to remove all the Barbies,” said a shopkeeper in a toy shop in northern Tehran.

Iran’s religious rulers first declared Barbie, made by U.S. company Mattel Inc, un-Islamic in 1996, citing its “destructive cultural and social consequences”. Despite the ban, the doll has until recently been openly on sale in Tehran shops.

The new order, issued around three weeks ago, forced shopkeepers to hide the leggy, busty blonde behind other toys as a way of meeting popular demand for the dolls while avoiding being closed down by the police.

A range of officially approved dolls launched in 2002 to counter demand for Barbie have not proven successful, merchants told Reuters.
More on link

 

[Kalatzi]

False FlagA series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012
link here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag


...
"The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts.

"It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought." "

...

The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents.

"The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians
...

"It's easy to understand why Bush was so angry," a former intelligence officer said. "After all, it's hard to engage with a foreign government if they're convinced you're killing their people. Once you start doing that, they feel they can do the same."

Edit - Gee No Kidding

A senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, according to a U.S. intelligence officer. But the United States did nothing -- a result that the officer attributed to "political and bureaucratic inertia."


Ahh yes - Two cheers for the special relationship and our valiant ally

 

[Edward Campbell]

False FlagA series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012
link here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag


...
"The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts.

"It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought." "

...

The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents.

"The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians
...

"It's easy to understand why Bush was so angry," a former intelligence officer said. "After all, it's hard to engage with a foreign government if they're convinced you're killing their people. Once you start doing that, they feel they can do the same."

Edit - Gee No Kidding

A senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, according to a U.S. intelligence officer. But the United States did nothing -- a result that the officer attributed to "political and bureaucratic inertia."


Ahh yes - Two cheers for the special relationship and our valiant ally

I think that anyone who believes that the Israelis will sacrifice one iota of their perceived security interests to make the US happy totally misunderstands the Israeli mindset.

In my admittedly inexpert opinion the Israelis believe the Americans are fair weather friends, trustworthy until really needed but, because of domestic political issues, a fairly reliable sugar-daddy.I also suspect that the Israelis cannot see the strategic logic of the Americans' Middle East policies - I know I cannot.

 

[jollyjacktar]

If you read "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer is a book written by Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy" and accept it as truthful, it claims that Israel trusts no one but themselves and uses everyone to their advantage.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If you read "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer is a book written by Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy" and accept it as truthful, it claims that Israel trusts no one but themselves and uses everyone to their advantage.

Not a bad principle for every country to follow.

 

[57Chevy]

Iran cracks down on Barbie peddlers
By Mitra Amir, Reuters
Article Link

TEHRAN - Iran’s morality police are cracking down on the sale of Barbie dolls to protect the public

especially these ones......
  :nod:

 

[sean m]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/world/europe/turkey-accepts-missile-radar-for-nato-defense-against-iran.html

This article is a bit old yet it correlates with this article,

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/turkey-to-host-nato-strategic-early-warning-radar-system-1.382164

Does it seem that  the United States and the West doing to Iran, what they did to the USSR by positioning missiles in Turkey in order to create more fear for the Iranian government to continue or to launch any nuclear or other extremely powerful rocket?

 

[Kalatzi]

Assassinate Obama if he won’t attack Iran for Israel, Jewish monthly suggests

And if that is'nt enough to make him mend his ways, do it again! Some people are just soooo unreasonable.

Link here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/

And now for a little context. Partial reply to those who suggest that Islam is the main source of fanaticism and general Bat-Sh*t craziness.

The extremist cores of all religons have their kook followings.

In this case its a pretty small circulation paper. What'e more interesting is the reponse from Haaretz

“Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual,” opined Chemi Shalev, a political analyst at the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “They were not taken out of thin air. Rather, they are the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom that some of Obama’s political rivals, Jews and non-Jews alike, have been spewing for the last three years.”

Sheesh