Spanning(en) rond Iran

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Kwestie van kippen en konijnen, maar als ik het goed gehoord heb, zit de RUYT nu in SNMG1 en gaat na aflossing door EVTN met de NH-90 aan de rit. De ZPRV ligt in onderhoud en v.w.b. de TRMP hou ik even mijn mond, maar die heeft schijnbaar ook een leuk klusje toebedeeld gekregen na het zomerverlof. Maar ja, indien nodig kun je van alles omgooien dus een LCF kun je altijd wel ergens vandaan trekken. En de VSPK komt uiteindelijk ook weer uit MJO.

Laat ze in Den Haag eerst maar eens een signaal afgeven (als ze het lef hebben)

Anders is er vast nog wel een onderzeeboot in de regio ondergedoken (ver weg van de publiciteit)

[KapiteinRob]

Hebben we geen LCF beschikbaar?

Kwestie van kippen en konijnen, maar als ik het goed gehoord heb, zit de RUYT nu in SNMG1 en gaat na aflossing door EVTN met de NH-90 aan de rit. De ZPRV ligt in onderhoud en v.w.b. de TRMP hou ik even mijn mond, maar die heeft schijnbaar ook een leuk klusje toebedeeld gekregen na het zomerverlof. Maar ja, indien nodig kun je van alles omgooien dus een LCF kun je altijd wel ergens vandaan trekken. En de VSPK komt uiteindelijk ook weer uit MJO.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

We hebben al jaren geen mijnenvegers meer.... Daarbij, moeten derden onze mijnenjagers dan beschermen?

Hebben we geen LCF beschikbaar?

[KapiteinRob]

Het zou mij niet verbazen als het daar echt los gaat, dat NL toch ook een tweetal mijnenvegers gaat sturen. Die olie aanvoer is ook voor onze economie erg belangrijk, zeker met een Shell...........

We hebben al jaren geen mijnenvegers meer.... Daarbij, moeten derden onze mijnenjagers dan beschermen?

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Het zou mij niet verbazen als het daar echt los gaat, dat NL toch ook een tweetal mijnenvegers gaat sturen. Die olie aanvoer is ook voor onze economie erg belangrijk, zeker met een Shell...........

Zodra het angstvallig stil wordt.. dan is het tijd voor CNN

[Enforcer]

Het zou mij niet verbazen als het daar echt los gaat, dat NL toch ook een tweetal mijnenvegers gaat sturen. Die olie aanvoer is ook voor onze economie erg belangrijk, zeker met een Shell...........

[Lex]

U.S. Doubling Minesweepers in Persian Gulf

Four more minesweepers and four more minesweeping helicopters are to be sent to the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Navy's top officer said March 15, a move which will increase the number of mine countermeasure forces available to keep open the sea lanes around the Strait of Hormuz should Iran choose to mine that critical waterway.

"We are moving four more minesweepers to the region, making .....

Defense News,
Mar. 15, 2012 - 08:12PM   

Vanwege copyright niet geheel geplaatst.

Zie: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120315/DEFREG02/303150007/U-S-Doubling-Minesweepers-Persian-Gulf

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

5 Signs that a War in Iran is Close

The clock is ticking closer to the midnight hour regarding a strike in Iran. Israel might do it alone, but will likely have the backing of the US.

Is a war imminent, or are these moves just meant to scare Iran? Here are 5 signs that have piled up very recently.
1.SWIFT Cuts Iran Off: The international institution responsible for around 80% of the world's financial transactions announced that it will cut off Iranian financial institutions from its system from Saturday. This unprecedented move is a big blow to Iran, and follows up on EU sanctions.

2.Majority in Israeli cabinet for strike: Israeli newspaper Maariv (Hebrew link, quote in English) by Ben Caspit saying that 8 out of 14 Israeli cabinet members now support a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The cabinet can give Prime Minister Netanyahu the green light for a strike, at the time he sees fit.

3.Netanyahu preparing Israeli public: The Israeli Prime Minister continues the tough rhetoric against Iran also after coming back from his long visit in the US. Analysts see this as a preparation of the Israeli public for a war.

4.Using Oil Reserves: There was a report, later denied, that the US and the UK decided on releasing oil from the emergency reserves in order to lower prices. This could be another preparation.

5."Last Chance" Warning: According to Russian sources, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked the Russians to send a message to Iran that the upcoming talks 6 nation talks with Iran are the last chance before military action.

Needless to say, oil prices certainly play a role in the considerations of all sides. Iran is the world's 5th largest producer of oil, and sits on the Straights of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's shipments pass through.

All these moves could mount to a preparation for a US backed Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. It could also just add to pressure against Iran, trying to force it to comply without really engaging in military action.

Read more: http://www.forexcrunch.com/5-signs-that-a-war-in-iran-is-close-34677/#ixzz1pDAuAWEx

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Why Israel Won't Rush to War With Iran

Posted: 03/15/2012 2:03 pm

The prevailing view among experts seems to be that there is a strong likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear installations. This may be the only point on which the opponents and proponents of that move agree. But the consensus is questionable.

True, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he won't wait for definitive proof that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at bomb building before deciding to strike, adding that the American and Israeli clocks are not in sync on this matter. But this rhetorical flourish amounts to an admission that Netanyahu couldn't get Obama's unconditional support during their recent meeting, despite his efforts to influence the President by campaigning for public and Congressional solidarity. Nor was the Prime Minister mollified by the President's statement that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and that military option is not "off the table."

But applying Netanyahu's standard would entail waging preventive war, which is altogether different from a preemptive one. The Israeli government would be claiming the right to attack based not an evident and compelling threat from Iran but on its assessment that Iran might acquire the wherewithal to harm Israel at some undefined juncture. That's an extremely permissive justification, one that few countries, even those well disposed toward Israel, will endorse, not least because Israel itself has nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent. While it's hard to imagine a U.S. president reproaching Israel, Netanyahu shouldn't bet that Obama would order American forces to join in. As for the reaction elsewhere, it will range from tepid support (at best) to condemnation, with the latter being the predominant one.

The Arab Spring has increased Israel's isolation in its neighborhood, and bombing Iran will make matters far worse. It's said that several Sunni Arab states fear the prospect of an Iran wielding nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms are most often mentioned, but so is Egypt. But no matter what the leaders of these countries might think, or communicate subtly to Washington or Tel Aviv, none will stand up and approve an Israeli attack for fear of a backlash from "the street," particularly after the mass protests of the Arab Spring. Nor will Israel find support elsewhere in the Muslim world. Take Turkey, for instance. Ankara believes that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the Middle East an even more dangerous place. The Turks nevertheless insist that the evidence on Tehran's intentions remains inconclusive; that Iran is, in any event, not close to manufacturing a bomb; and that diplomacy, not sanctions, let alone force, is the best solution.

Then there's Israeli public opinion. If you've assumed that Netanyahu's bellicosity has deep support among Israelis, you are not alone. Yet the reality is different. A recent poll shows that only 19 percent of Israelis support an attack without American support and that only 43 percent favor proceeding without it. Only 28 percent expect America to join an Israel strike, 39 percent anticipate only political support, while a third believes that Washington would stay neutral or even punish Israel. The vast majority does not think that an attack would delay an Iranian nuclear weapons program for more than five years, and a third opines that it will either accelerate it or make no difference. Similarly, prominent Israelis (including two former heads of the Mossad, Ephraim Halevy and Meir Dagan, and a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak) have declared that an attack on Iran is unnecessary to safeguard Israel and would indeed be counterproductive. Now, Netanyahu could ignore polls and pundits, but, like all politicians in democracies, he cares for votes and cannot dismiss the electoral consequences of a decision, the ripple effects of which leave Israelis more vulnerable.

The operational obstacles that Israel will confront in executing a successful attack -- whatever that means -- have received much attention: the distance Israeli jets will have to fly (1,861 miles to and fro); the need to refuel them en route, using aerial tankers; the size of the strike force that will be needed to overcome Iran's substantial air defense network; and Iran's dispersal of its nuclear facilities, some of which are deep underground and reinforced so as to protect them against even America's most powerful bunker-busting bomb, the 30,000 lb. GBU-57 A/B "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," which Israel lacks.

While these are important, the bigger problem is strategic rather than operational. An Israeli strike would likely guarantee that Iran makes a determined and explicit bid to build nuclear weapons because its leaders will conclude that Israel would never have struck if Iran had them. That assessment will have wide support in Iran, even among those who dislike the current regime. It would be strategically obtuse to attack Iran knowing this, and there's no reason to assume that Netanyahu doesn't know it.

Moreover, Israel leaders have been sending continual warnings intended to sway Iran's leaders (insisting, nevertheless, that they are irrational and hence immune to nuclear deterrence) -- an odd thing to do if Netanyahu is counting on maximizing surprise and effectiveness.

An Israeli attack on Iran will have consequences that are multiple, prolonged, and pernicious. But it's hardly a foregone conclusion that it will occur; indeed, it's less likely than generally assumed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajan-menon/israel-wont-rush-to-war_b_1346263.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Most of Israel security cabinet backs Iran strike:

report March 15, 2012 02:21 PM

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: A majority of Israel's security cabinet now supports an attack on Iran in a bid to end its nuclear programme, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday, citing political sources it did not identify.

Writing in the Maariv daily, influential columnist Ben Caspit said most of the 14-member security cabinet was now leaning in favour of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, a move which he said was supported by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

"According to the most recent assessments, at this point eight ministers tend to support Netanyahu and Barak's position, while six object to it," Caspit wrote.

"It should be noted that the security cabinet has yet to hold a decisive meeting on the issue and the assessments are based on secret talks being held between the prime minister and his ministers, one at a time."

Caspit noted that Netanyahu has convened neither his security cabinet, nor the more intimate Forum of Eight -- a consultative body of his closest ministers -- since returning from talks about Iran with US President Barack Obama.

"The longer the silence from Netanyahu and Barak's direction continues, the more concerned the opponents of an attack on Iran become," Caspit said.

Ynet news website reported on Thursday that the members of Netanyahu's inner circle had expressed resentment about his lack of consultation with them in recent weeks.

They said they had not been briefed on either Iran or on the recent violence in and around Gaza.

"Some of the ministers feel that they are being used as a rubber stamp," a cabinet member told Ynet.

"We weren't briefed on the situation in Gaza even once. Netanyahu apparently feels confident enough to make all the decisions by himself, or with Barak, without including any of the other ministers."

Sources close to Netanyahu confirmed that neither the security cabinet nor the Forum of Eight had been convened recently, Ynet said, but added that Netanyahu "consults with the relevant people constantly."

In recent months speculation has been rising about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and much of the international community believe masks a weapons drive.

Iran denies the charges, saying the programme is for civil power generation and medical purposes only.

The United States has said it opposes an attack for now, calling for time to allow tough new sanctions against Tehran to bite.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Mar-15/166774-most-of-israel-security-cabinet-backs-iran-strike-report.ashx#ixzz1pBl7ZSGs
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Obama: Window for diplomacy in Iran is 'shrinking'

Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:01 am | Updated: 12:01 pm, Wed Mar 14, 2012.

President Barack Obama is warning Iran that the window for dealing with its nuclear program through diplomatic channels is "shrinking."

Obama says he still prefers to use diplomacy to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But he says diplomacy requires having somebody on the other side of the table who is taking the matter seriously.

The president says he hopes Iran understands that diplomacy is their "best bet" and the Islamic regime needs to seize that opportunity. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and says it is not seeking a bomb.

Obama is speaking at a White House news conference alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron.

© 2012 The Associated Press.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Principes versus portemonnaie.....

C'est la vie!

Daarnaast zit ik niet te wachten op een totalitair regime met dit soort speelgoed, dit geldt natuurlijk voor meerdere landen.

[KapiteinRob]

Principes versus portemonnaie.....

[Ros]

Welke regime/regering er ook aan de macht komt in Iran maakt m.i. niets uit. Ook deze zal het nucliair programma voortzetten danwel nieuw leven inblazen.

Het kernwapen dreigement van Iran legt het af tegen de benzineprijs als ik het goed zie 

[KapiteinRob]

Oh, we gaan er weer eens blind vanuit dat "de oppositie" eerlijk, oprecht en democratisch is? En door wie gelegitimeerd?