Spanning(en) rond Iran

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Plans to strike Iran 'ready', says US Israel envoy

By Reuters

Published: May 17, 2012

JERUSALEM: US plans for a possible military strike on Iran are ready and the option is "fully available", the US ambassador to Israel said, days before Tehran resumes talks with world powers which suspect it of seeking to develop nuclear arms.         

Like Israel, the United States has said it considers military force a last resort to prevent Iran using its uranium enrichment to make a bomb. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for purely civilian purposes.

"It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically and through the use of pressure than to use military force," Ambassador Dan Shapiro said in remarks about Iran aired by Israel's Army Radio on Thursday.

"But that doesn't mean that option is not fully available – not just available, but it's ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready," said Shapiro, who the radio station said had spoken on Tuesday.

The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany have been using sanctions and negotiations to try to persuade Iran to curb its uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for reactors, medical isotopes, and, at higher levels of purification, fissile material for warheads.

New talks opened in Istanbul last month and resume on May 23 in Baghdad.

Israel, which is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, feels threatened by the prospect of its arch-foe Iran going nuclear and has hinted it could launch preemptive war.

But many analysts believe the United States alone has the military clout to do lasting damage to Iran's nuclear programme.

In January, Shapiro told an Israeli newspaper the United States was "guaranteeing that the military option is ready and available to the president at the moment he decides to use it".

US lawmakers are considering additional legislation that would increase pressure on Iran, with further measures to punish foreign companies for dealing with Iran in any capacity.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/380197/plans-to-strike-iran-ready-says-us-israel-envoy/

[Elzenga]

New US battle strategy against Iran in US movements and Israeli drill

DEBKAfile Special Report May 15, 2012, 11:57 AM (GMT+02:00)

A series of apparently unconnected military movements observed in Middle East seas and skies in the last tendays  have a common factor: introduction of the new US Air Sea Battle (ASB) doctrine, which is designed to make the most of tightly coordinated operations by air, land, sea, undersea, space and cyberspace capabilities for defeating those of the enemy.

Monday, May 14, the day that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Iran not to meddle in the evolving Saudi-Bahraini union, large US Navy and Marine forces put into Jeddah port for first time in 11 years.
Last week, Israel's Navy and Air Force and their special operations units - Shaldag, Shayetet 13 and 960 Task Force - carried out their largest combined exercise ever in the Mediterranean. It ended with Israeli surface ships and submarines arrayed in a dense defensive line against enemy vessels armed with unconventional weapons approaching the Israeli coast.
The Israeli exercise, which ended May 13, practiced the new American ABS doctrine of simultaneously massing large-scale sea and air strength against Iran on two seas, in this case, the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. It also drilled operating in unison with their American counterparts under the same doctrine.
debkafile's military sources report that Washington timed the unveiling of the new battle strategy for May 10, two weeks before the Six Power nuclear talks with Iran resume in Baghdad.

US Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert explained that the ASB concept was developed  "to defeat A2AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) strategies such as the closure of the (Hormuz) strait, cyber attack, mines, cruise and ballistic missiles and air defense systems, threats enhanced by technological advancements."

Our military sources add: The concept is also closely applicable to American tactics for defending the Persian Gulf nations against possible Iranian aggression as the GCC takes its first unification steps to shore up its defenses against that threat.
Adm. Greenert wrote:  "There's been attention recently about closing an international strait using, among other means, mines, fast boats, cruise missiles and mini-subs."
debkafile: Those are precisely the systems Iran's Revolutionary Guards hold ready for a decision to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic.

ABS concepts include "submarines hitting air defense and cruise missiles in support of Air Force bombers: F-22 Air Force stealth fighters taking out enemy cruise missile threats to Navy ships."
Adm. Greenert was the first senior American commander to put on public record the measures for repelling Iranian cruise missile attacks on US aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf. He also spelled out the mission for which a squadron of F-22 jets was stationed at the Al Dhafra air base in late April.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 539 revealed on May 4 that a second squadron was due to land soon in the Gulf region.

On May 16, Adm. Greenert and US Air Force chief Gen. Norton Schwartz are to discuss the ABS in a public event at the Brookings Institute in Washington.
US and Israeli air, sea and special forces have meanwhile begun operating under the new doctrine in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.  Monday, the US Amphibious Ready Group, 24th MEU, led by the USS Iwo Jima put into Jeddah, the Saudi Navy's Red Sea command port, with 2,200 Marines aboard.
It was the first time since the 2001 Gulf War that the Saudis had permitted US naval and air units of this size to anchor in one of their ports and, moreover, allowed American military personnel to show themselves in its streets.
The GCC summit which began in Riyadh on the same day had three key items on its agenda: Iran's military, political and covert threat to the region's stability; the Syrian crisis; and unification steps between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to ward off Iranian interference in the Shiite-led unrest.

http://www.debka.com/article/22003/

[Jah]

Een diepere geopolitieke analyse over de strategie die Iran hanteert:

By George Friedman

For centuries, the dilemma facing Iran (and before it, Persia) has been guaranteeing national survival and autonomy in the face of stronger regional powers like Ottoman Turkey and the Russian Empire. Though always weaker than these larger empires, Iran survived for three reasons: geography, resources and diplomacy. Iran's size and mountainous terrain made military forays into the country difficult and dangerous. Iran also was able to field sufficient force to deter attacks while permitting occasional assertions of power. At the same time, Tehran engaged in clever diplomatic efforts, playing threatening powers off each other.

The intrusion of European imperial powers into the region compounded Iran's difficulties in the 19th century, along with the lodging of British power to Iran's west in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula following the end of World War I. This coincided with a transformation of the global economy to an oil-based system. Then as now, the region was a major source of global oil. Where the British once had interests in the region, the emergence of oil as the foundation of industrial and military power made these interests urgent. Following World War II, the Americans and the Soviets became the outside powers with the ability and desire to influence the region, but Tehran's basic strategic reality persisted. Iran faced both regional and global threats that it had to deflect or align with. And because of oil, the global power could not lose interest while the regional powers did not have the option of losing interest.

Whether ruled by shah or ayatollah, Iran's strategy remained the same: deter by geography, protect with defensive forces, and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers. But underneath this reality, another vision of Iran's role always lurked.

Iran as Regional Power

A vision of Iran -- a country with an essentially defensive posture -- as a regional power remained. The shah competed with Saudi Arabia over Oman and dreamed of nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad duels with Saudi Arabia over Bahrain, and also dreams of nuclear weapons. When we look beyond the rhetoric -- something we always should do when studying foreign policy, since the rhetoric is intended to intimidate, seduce and confuse foreign powers and the public -- we see substantial continuity in Iran's strategy since World War II. Iran dreams of achieving regional dominance by breaking free from its constraints and the threats posed by nearby powers.

Since World War II, Iran has had to deal with regional dangers like Iraq, with which it fought a brutal war lasting nearly a decade and costing Iran about 1 million casualties. It also has had to deal with the United States, whose power ultimately defined patterns in the region. So long as the United States had an overriding interest in the region, Iran had no choice but to define its policies in terms of the United States. For the shah, that meant submitting to the United States while subtly trying to control American actions. For the Islamic republic, it meant opposing the United States while trying to manipulate it into taking actions in the interests of Iran. Both acted within the traditions of Iranian strategic subtlety.

The Islamic republic proved more successful than the shah. It conducted a sophisticated disinformation campaign prior to the 2003 Iraq war to convince the United States that invading Iraq would be militarily easy and that Iraqis would welcome the Americans with open arms. This fed the existing U.S. desire to invade Iraq, becoming one factor among many that made the invasion seem doable. In a second phase, the Iranians helped many factions in Iraq resist the Americans, turning the occupation -- and plans for reconstructing Iraq according to American blueprints -- into a nightmare. In a third and final phase, Iran used its influence in Iraq to divide and paralyze the country after the Americans withdrew.

As a result of this maneuvering, Iran achieved two goals. First, the Americans disposed of Iran's archenemy, Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a strategic cripple. Second, Iran helped force the United States out of Iraq, creating a vacuum in Iraq and undermining U.S. credibility in the region -- and sapping any U.S. appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East. I want to emphasize that all of this was not an Iranian plot: Many other factors contributed to this sequence of events. At the same time, Iranian maneuvering was no minor factor in the process; Iran skillfully exploited events that it helped shape.

There was a defensive point to this. Iran had seen the United States invade the countries surrounding it, Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to its east. It viewed the United States as extremely powerful and unpredictable to the point of irrationality, though also able to be manipulated. Tehran therefore could not dismiss the possibility that the United States would choose war with Iran. Expelling the United States from Iraq, however, limited American military options in the region.

This strategy also had an offensive dimension. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq positioned Iran to fill the vacuum. Critically, the geopolitics of the region had created an opening for Iran probably for the first time in centuries. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union released pressure from the north. Coming on top of the Ottoman collapse after World War I, Iran now no longer faced a regional power that could challenge it. Second, with the drawdown of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, the global power had limited military options and even more limited political options for acting against Iran.

Iran's Opportunity

Iran now had the opportunity to consider emerging as a regional power rather than solely pursuing complex maneuvers to protect Iranian autonomy and the regime. The Iranians understood that the moods of global powers shifted unpredictably, the United States more than most. Therefore it knew that the more aggressive it became, the more the United States may militarily commit itself to containing Iran. At the same time, the United States might do so even without Iranian action. Accordingly, Iran searched for a strategy that might solidify its regional influence while not triggering U.S. retaliation.

Anyone studying the United States understands its concern with nuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War it lived in the shadow of a Soviet first strike. The Bush administration used the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear program to rally domestic support for the invasion. When the Soviets and the Chinese attained nuclear weapons, the American response bordered on panic. The United States simultaneously became more cautious in its approach to those countries.

In looking at North Korea, the Iranians recognized a pattern they could use to their advantage. Regime survival in North Korea, a country of little consequence, was uncertain in the 1990s. When it undertook a nuclear program, however, the United States focused heavily on North Korea, simultaneously becoming more cautious in its approach to the North. Tremendous diplomatic activity and periodic aid was brought to bear to limit North Korea's program. From the North Korean point of view, actually acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons was not the point; North Korea was not a major power like China and Russia, and a miscalculation on Pyongyang's part could lead to more U.S. aggression. Rather, the process of developing nuclear weapons itself inflated North Korea's importance while inducing the United States to offer incentives or impose relatively ineffective economic sanctions (and thereby avoiding more dangerous military action). North Korea became a centerpiece of U.S. concern while the United States avoided actions that might destabilize North Korea and shake loose the weapons the North might have.

The North Koreans knew that having a deliverable weapon would prove dangerous, but that having a weapons program gave them leverage -- a lesson the Iranians learned well. From the Iranians' point of view, a nuclear program causes the United States simultaneously to take them more seriously and to increase its caution while dealing with them. At present, the United States leads a group of countries with varying degrees of enthusiasm for imposing sanctions that might cause some economic pain to Iran, but give the United States a pretext not to undertake the military action Iran really fears and that the United States does not want to take.

Israel, however, must take a different view of Iran's weapons program. While not a threat to the United States, the program may threaten Israel. The Israelis' problem is that they must trust their intelligence on the level of development of Iran's weapons. The United States can afford a miscalculation; Israel might not be able to afford it. This lack of certainty makes Israel unpredictable. From the Iranian point of view, however, an Israeli attack might be welcome.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons and may be following the North Korean strategy of never developing deliverable weapons. If they did, however, and the Israelis attacked and destroyed them, the Iranians would be as they were before acquiring nuclear weapons. But if the Israelis attacked and failed to destroy them, the Iranians would emerge stronger. The Iranians could retaliate by taking action in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, which ultimately is the guarantor of the global maritime flow of oil, might engage Iran militarily. Or it might enter into negotiations with Iran to guarantee the flow. An Israeli attack, whether successful or unsuccessful, would set the stage for Iranian actions that would threaten the global economy, paint Israel as the villain, and result in the United States being forced by European and Asian powers to guarantee the flow of oil with diplomatic concessions rather than military action. An attack by Israel, successful or unsuccessful, would cost Iran little and create substantial opportunities. In my view, the Iranians want a program, not a weapon, but having the Israelis attack the program would suit Iran's interests quite nicely.

The nuclear option falls into the category of Iranian manipulation of regional and global powers, long a historical necessity for the Iranians. But another, and more significant event is under way in Syria.

Syria's Importance to Iran

As we have written, if the Syrian regime survives, this in part would be due to Iranian support. Isolated from the rest of the world, Syria would become dependent on Iran. If that were to happen, an Iranian sphere of influence would stretch from western Afghanistan to Beirut. This in turn would fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East, fulfilling Iran's dream of becoming a dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. This was the shah's and the ayatollah's dream. And this is why the United States is currently obsessing over Syria.

What would such a sphere of influence give the Iranians? Three things. First, it would force the global power, the United States, to abandon ideas of destroying Iran, as the breadth of its influence would produce dangerously unpredictable results. Second, it would legitimize the regime inside Iran and in the region beyond any legitimacy it currently has. Third, with proxies along Saudi Arabia's northern border in Iraq and Shia along the western coast of the Persian Gulf, Iran could force shifts in the financial distribution of revenues from oil. Faced with regime preservation, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would have to be flexible on Iranian demands, to say the least. Diverting that money to Iran would strengthen it greatly.

Iran has applied its strategy under regimes of various ideologies. The shah, whom many considered psychologically unstable and megalomaniacal, pursued this strategy with restraint and care. The current regime, also considered ideologically and psychologically unstable, has been equally restrained in its actions. Rhetoric and ideology can mislead, and usually are intended to do just that.

This long-term strategy, pursued since the 16th century with the resurgence of Persian nationalism in the form of the Safavid Empire, now sees a window of opportunity opening, engineered in some measure by Iran itself. Tehran's goal is to extend the American paralysis while it exploits the opportunities that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has created. Simultaneously, it wants to create a coherent sphere of influence that the United States will have to accommodate itself to in order to satisfy the demand of its coalition for a stable supply of oil and limited conflict in the region.

Iran is pursuing a two-pronged strategy toward this end. The first is to avoid any sudden moves, to allow processes to run their course. The second is to create a diversion through its nuclear program, causing the United States to replicate its North Korea policy in Iran. If its program causes an Israeli airstrike, Iran can turn that to its advantage as well. The Iranians understand that having nuclear weapons is dangerous but that having a weapons program is advantageous. But the key is not the nuclear program. That is merely a tool to divert attention from what is actually happening -- a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/irans-strategy

[Elzenga]

Wie is er nu eigenlijk aan het provoceren? 

Neem posting 363 door waaruitje kan opmaken dat onderhavige F-22's helemaal geen belangrijke rol zouden hebben bij een aanval op het Iraanse atoomprogramma. De Amerikanen zitten sowieso verspreid over de halve wereld, dus om te gaan roepen dat ze provoceren? Dan doen ze dat die redenatie volgend continu en overal.....  :crazy:

feit is wel dat bewuste F-22s in bewuste rol een beschermende paraplu kunnen aanbrengen boven een reeks aanvallende toestellen. Dat kan natuurlijk ook met "gewone" Amerikaanse gevechtsvliegtuigen in de regio...maar de stealth kwaliteiten van de F-22 maken het bijzonder...want zij kunnen die beschermende taak minder zichtbaar dan wel voor de Iraanse luchtverdediging onzichtbaar uitvoeren. In dat kader snap ik de Iraanse reactie wel.

[KapiteinRob]

Wie is er nu eigenlijk aan het provoceren? 

Neem posting 363 door waaruitje kan opmaken dat onderhavige F-22's helemaal geen belangrijke rol zouden hebben bij een aanval op het Iraanse atoomprogramma. De Amerikanen zitten sowieso verspreid over de halve wereld, dus om te gaan roepen dat ze provoceren? Dan doen ze dat die redenatie volgend continu en overal.....  :crazy:

[Marc66]

Wie is er nu eigenlijk aan het provoceren? 

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

'Aanwezigheid VS in VAE schadelijk'

TEHERAN - De stationering van Amerikaanse stealth-gevechtsvliegtuigen in de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten is een bedreiging voor de regionale veiligheid. Dat heeft de Iraanse minister van defensie Ahmad Vahidi maandag gezegd, aldus het Iraanse persbureau ISNA.

Vahidi noemde de stationering van de gevechtsvliegtuigen 'psychologische oorlogvoering'. Hij meent dat de veiligheid in de regio moet worden geregeld door de regio zelf en niet door de VS. Militaire aanwezigheid van een land van buiten de regio 'heeft geen positieve gevolgen, maar zorgt alleen maar voor onveiligheid en complicaties', aldus de minister.

geplaatst:
30-04-2012 - 21.15

http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2012/april/30/-aanwezigheid-vs-in-vae-schadelijk

[Elzenga]

Exclusive: What nobody else will tell you about the U.S. F-22 stealth fighters deployed near Iran April 30, 2012
Posted by David Cenciotti in Military Aviation.

The news that a multiple F-22 stealth fighters were deployed "near Iran" has already been reported by the most important media outlets all around the world.

However, nobody has been able to provide some important details that could be useful to better understand the scope of this overseas deployment: when did the Raptors deploy? How many aircraft were deployed? Where?

And, above all, are those plane capable to perform strike missions in addition to the standard air-to-air sorties?

Thanks to the information provided by several sources, The Aviationist is able to fill the gaps, provide a more accurate view of the deployment and debunk some myths that fueled the media hype.

The six F-22 Raptors currently at Al Dhafra, UAE, belong to the 49th Fighter Wing, based at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. They flew as "Mazda 91″ to Moron, Spain, on Apr. 17 and departed again for their final destination on Apr. 20.

Since they spent some 4 days in Spain, during their stay, the stealthy planes were photographed by several local spotters that were able to provide the exact list of all the examples involved in the deployment:

#04-4078, #04-4081, #05-4093, #05-4094, #05-4098, #05-4099.

If they were not willing to let the world know of such deployment they would not make a stopover in Spain, during daylight.

They are all Block 3.0 (or Block 30) examples meaning that neither of them has received  the latest upgrade (Block 3.1) that has brought the capability to find and engage ground targets using the Synthetic Aperture Radar mapping and eight GBU-39 SDBs (Small Diameter Bombs) to the troubled stealthy fighter.

Therefore they are hardly involved in any build-up process in the region, since their role in case of war on Iran, would be limited to the air-to-air arena: mainly fighter sweep (missions with the aim to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft prior to the arrival of the strike package), HVAA (High Value Air Asset) escort and DCA (Defensive Counter Air).


Image credit: U.S. Air Force

Considered the limited effectiveness of the Iranian Air Force, it is much more likely that the F-22s involved in any kind of attack on Iran would be those of the 3rd Fighter Wing, based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Alaska, that was the first U.S. Air Force unit to receive the Block 3.1 planes and has already started training in the air-to-surface role.

Furthermore, the deployment is among those scheduled several month in advance and this is not the first time the F-22 deploys in the United Arab Emirates. In November 2009, some 1st Fighter Wing's Raptors from Langley AFB, flew to Al Dhafra, to train with the French Air Force Rafales and the RAF Typhoons during exercise ATLC 2009. The episode is quite famous because in late December of the same year the French Ministry of Defense released the captures taken by the Rafale's OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) showing an F-22 killed in aerial combat. In fact, although the U.S. Air Force pilots told that their plane was undefeated during the exercise, the French were able to score one kill in six 1 vs 1 WVR (Within Visual Range) engagements versus the F-22 (the other 5 ended with a "draw").

Here's the famous capture released at the time and published for the first time by Air & Cosmos magazine.


Image credit: French MoD via Air & Cosmos
Related articles

   Bring on some bandits! Combat pilots to fight against computer generated aggressors. During actual training flights. (theaviationist.com)
   B-1s and F-22s involved in a long range strike exercise. Getting ready for North Korea or Iran? (theaviationist.com)

http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/30/iran-f-22/

[dudge]

Misschien kunnen we Kees de Jager sturen in ruil voor onderhandelingen.

Die knopen ze daar gelijk op, dat is wat ze daar doen met Homo's.

Iraniers lopen zo'n 30 jaar achter met hun computer technologie ten op zichte van boeing, lockheed etc.
Alsof ze maar iets kunnen met een stroom gedecodeerde enen en nullen.
80% van de code is bedoeld om het signaal te blokkeren en om te leiden en iedere ontvanger/zender/scanner voor de gek te houden, 10 % voor besturing van dat ding en het overige is niet te filteren.

Ze mogen natuurlijk een feestje bouwen daar en vooruit , dan nog maar eens een keer hun oorlogsbuit tentoonstellen.
Enkel, het is nu wel genoeg en ze moeten niet denken dat ze nu in 1 klap jaren lange achterstand hebben ingehaald.

Maar het kan erg veel helpen. Zeker als deze technologie weer geruild kan worden met China of Rusland in tegen meer bruikbare technologie, bijvoorbeeld S300's....

[Lex]

US deploys F-22s to base near Iran

The U.S. military has deployed several F-22s, the nation's most advanced fighter jets, to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran.

The Air Force strongly denies this deployment is meant as a show of force against Iran or that it is in some way related to a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Rather, it says this is all part of a routine deployment and "security cooperation with regional partners."

The Air Force won't say how many jets were sent or exactly where they are stationed, but privately, U.S. officials have told Fox News the jets are in hangars at the United Arab Emirates' Al Dafra Air Base, a fact first reported by Aviation Week.

The F-22 has not yet seen combat. The jets were not used in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. They are stealth, and they specialize in air-to-air combat, but can also strike air-to-ground if needed. As one Air Force official put it, "this is America's premier fighter jet. It has no rival."

The next round for Iran nuclear negotiations, which many consider to be the country's last diplomatic opportunity, takes place on May 23 in Baghdad.

"The United States Air Force has deployed F-22s to Southwest Asia. Such deployments strengthen military-to-military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations, and enhance interoperability of forces, equipment and procedures," Lt.Col. John Dorrian, Air Force public affairs, said in a written statement. 

Published April 27, 2012

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/27/us-deploys-f-22s-to-base-near-iran/print#ixzz1tKvPgaBR

[Jah]

Jerusalem Post over dit bericht:

Diskin says he has 'no faith' in current leadership

Former Shin Bet chief says leaders are not fit to lead, says they mislead the public about Iran: "Attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb all the faster."

Former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin sharply criticized Israel's top leadership at the Majdi Forum in Kfar Saba Friday night, saying he has no faith in it and its ability to lead Israel, Army Radio reported.

Referring to the leaders as "our two messiahs," a likely reference to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Diskin said "they are not fit to hold the steering-wheel of power. I have no faith in the current leadership in Israel and its ability to conduct a war."

Regarding their handling of the Iranian nuclear issue, Diskin said the leadership "presents a false view to the public on the Iranian bomb, as though acting against Iran would prevent a nuclear bomb. But attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb all the faster."

On Tuesday, Netanyahu told CNN that while sanctions against Iran are visibly impairing its economy, they have not impacted its continuing nuclear activities.

"They're certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy, but so far they haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota," Netanyahu said. "I hope that changes, but so far, I can tell you the centrifuges are spinning."

"If the sanctions are going to work, they better work soon," he emphasized.

Thursday, Barak cast doubt on the success of upcoming nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran.

Despite the strongest-ever sanctions against the Islamic Republic, Barak said in an Independence Day speech, "the chances that, at this pressure level, Iran will respond to international demands to irreversibly stop its program seem low. I would be happy to be proven wrong."

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia (the P5+1) are due to meet Iran for a second round of nuclear negotiations on May 23 in Baghdad.

Diskin also said Friday that political killings like the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin may reappear in Israel. "There are tens of Jewish extremists in the territories and in Israel that are ready to use firearms against Jews," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=267783

[Jah]

Weer een (voormalig) hooggeplaatst figuur van de Israelische veiligheidsdienst die zich afzet tegen het beleid dat door Netanyahu gevoerd wordt:

Israel's former Shin Bet chief: I have no confidence in Netanyahu, Barak

Yuval Diskin says Israel's leaders are misleading the public on Iran, accuses country's leadership of making decisions 'based on messianic feelings.'

Former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin expressed harsh criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Friday in a meeting with residents of the city of Kfar Sava, saying the pair is not worthy of leading the country.

"My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us into an event on the scale of war with Iran or regional war," Diskin told the "Majdi Forum," a group of local residents that meets to discuss political issues.

"I don't believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings," he added.  

Diskin deemed Barak and Netanyahu "two messianics - the one from Akirov or the Assuta project and the other from Gaza Street or Caesarea," he said, referring to the residences of the two politicians.

"Believe me, I have observed them from up close... They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people that I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event," Diskin said.  

"They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb. This is a misrepresentation. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race," concluded the former security chief.  

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-s-former-shin-bet-chief-i-have-no-confidence-in-netanyahu-barak-1.426908

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Legerchef Israël: Iran wil geen bom
Toegevoegd: woensdag 25 apr 2012, 17:50

Door correspondent Monique van Hoogstraten

De Israëlische opperbevelhebber Benny Gantz denkt niet dat Iran een atoombom gaat maken. Dat zegt hij vandaag in een interview in de Israëlische krant Haaretz. Volgens hem is het Iraanse leiderschap "zeer rationeel" en beseft het maar al te goed dat het een "enorme fout" zou zijn een kernwapen te produceren.

Israël dreigt Iran aan te vallen als het een kernwapen ontwikkelt. Premier Netanyahu en zijn minister van Defensie Barak zijn daar heel uitgesproken over. Maar opperbevelhebber Gantz neemt een wat gematigder positie in. Hij wil dat alle andere opties eerst zijn uitgeput, voordat een militaire aanval in zicht komt. Zijn interview in Haaretz gebruikt hij om zijn voorzichtige aanpak nog maar eens duidelijk te maken en de oververhitte oorlogstaal van de politici wat af te koelen.

Het moment is welgekozen, want op dit moment onderhandelen westerse diplomaten met Iran over het atoomprogramma. Die gesprekken lijken anders dan eerder, perspectief te bieden: eind mei wordt er verder gepraat in Bagdad.

Volgens premier Netanyahu is die pauze in de gesprekken alleen maar verlies van kostbare tijd. Iran zal die tijd volgens hem benutten om door te gaan met het verrijken van uranium. Maar de opperbevelhebber denkt dat het diplomatieke offensief en de economische sancties tegen Iran vruchten beginnen af te werpen. Ofwel: dat Iran bereid is te buigen.

Dat neemt niet weg dat Gantz alle voorbereidingen treft voor een militaire actie: "De militaire optie is de laatste om in te zetten, maar de eerste om voor te bereiden, wil je geloofwaardig zijn". Dat betekent een voorbereiding op alle fronten: niet alleen tegen Iran, maar ook tegen het aangrenzende Libanon (Hezbollah) en Gaza (Islamitische Jihad). Volgens Gantz beschikken die over vier tot vijf keer zo veel wapenkracht als een paar jaar geleden.

Hij houdt ook rekening met aanvallen vanuit Syrië. "Ik weet niet wat er in Syrië gaat gebeuren, maar je kunt ervan uitgaan dat de Golanhoogten niet zo rustig zullen zijn als voorheen." De hoogvlakte is Syrisch, maar sinds 1967 bezet door Israel. Er wonen nog steeds veel Syriërs.

Gantz zegt dat 2012 een kritisch jaar wordt, maar niet per se een "go/no-go"-jaar: een jaar waarin het erop aan zal komen of Israël Iran aanvalt. "Maar we zitten wel dichter bij het einde van het hele debat, dan er middenin", zegt hij.

Bron: NOS

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Netanyahu says Iran must stop 'all enrichment'

Wednesday, Apr 25, 2012

WASHINGTON - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Iran should remain under biting sanctions until it halts all uranium enrichment, appearing to exceed UN demands on Tehran.

His remarks appeared aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran as it engages in revived international nuclear negotiations amid increased speculation in recent months that Israel may soon take military action to halt its nuclear drive.

"They have to stop all enrichment," Netanyahu told CNN in an interview in Jerusalem, adding that he would not accept Iran enriching uranium to even three per cent, which is near the level required for peaceful atomic energy.

"After you stop all enrichment... you will get these (fuel) rods from another country that can allow you to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said.

Netanyahu said Iran must also "dismantle the underground bunker," apparently referring to the Fordo site near the holy city of Qom, where UN inspectors say it has begun enriching uranium to 20-per cent purity.

When asked if he worried that his language might commit Israel to launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu replied: "I'm not worried what we look like. I'm worried about stopping this."

Iran has already developed the capacity to enrich uranium to 3.5 per cent, the level required for atomic energy, and to 20 per cent, which is used to create medical isotopes.

It would have to enrich to 90 per cent in order to make nuclear weapons.

Israel has long seen Iran as the greatest threat to its survival, both because of Tehran's nuclear program and because of its leaders' calls for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.

Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and has claimed the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.

An Iranian envoy is scheduled to meet with representatives of the P+5 group, which includes the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany, in Baghdad on May 23 for fresh talks aimed at resolving the nuclear impasse.

US and EU diplomats are reportedly planning to demand that Iran close and dismantle the Fordo site, stop enriching uranium to 20 per cent and ship existing stockpiles out of the country, demands already rejected by Tehran.

Iran and the P5+1 met in Istanbul on April 14 for the first time in 15 months.

The UN Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran over suspicions that its avowed civilian nuclear program is a cover for a secret atomic weapons drive, a charge vigorously denied by Tehran.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20120425-341962.html

[Huzaar1]

whooptiedooo..

Iraniers lopen zo'n 30 jaar achter met hun computer technologie ten op zichte van boeing, lockheed etc.
Alsof ze maar iets kunnen met een stroom gedecodeerde enen en nullen.
80% van de code is bedoeld om het signaal te blokkeren en om te leiden en iedere ontvanger/zender/scanner voor de gek te houden, 10 % voor besturing van dat ding en het overige is niet te filteren.

Ze mogen natuurlijk een feestje bouwen daar en vooruit , dan nog maar eens een keer hun oorlogsbuit tentoonstellen.
Enkel, het is nu wel genoeg en ze moeten niet denken dat ze nu in 1 klap jaren lange achterstand hebben ingehaald. Wanneer de VS dit wil is Iran nog steeds in 1 klap weg en die haatbaarden daar verdienen het bijna om eens goed op hun plaats te worden gezet. Die oorlogszuchtige taal van ze.. enig idee hoe dat de wereld verneukt? Eikels.... ik sta elke keer met een zuurder gezicht bij de Kassa door die haatopruiende shalla's en welke andere mafkees beweert profeet van wie te zijn die alle ongelovige honden wel eens een lesje gaat leren.

Leven die lui nog in de jaren 30 van de vorige eeuw dan? De Iraanse economie is net zo goed als die van elk ander land gekoppeld aan dat van een ander.... Misschien kunnen we Kees de Jager sturen in ruil voor onderhandelingen.