Spanning(en) rond Iran

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Eyeballing Iran? US commissions 361 cruise missiles


US Navy to get 361 new Tomahawk cruise missiles, most of which are meant for Fifth Fleet destroyers based in Bahrain. Meanwhile, pressure to mount military strike against Tehran is permeating presidential campaign

Yitzhak Benhorin Published:  06.24.12, 07:43 / Israel News 


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4246311,00.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Standoff with Iran focus of Putin visit to Israel June 25, 2012 09:01 AM

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: The West's standoff with Iran over its nuclear program will be the hot topic when Russian President Vladimir Putin huddles with Israeli leaders during a 24-hour visit here.

Israel wants Russia to pressure Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, which Israeli and world leaders believe is designed to produce bombs, not energy as Iran claims.

Russia has worked with China to water down international sanctions against Iran.

Israel has warned that if the sanctions don't force Tehran to curb its nuclear ambitions, then a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might follow.

Putin is expected to arrive Monday morning and meet with Israel's Russian-speaking foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Tuesday, he heads to the Palestinian Authority and Jordan.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jun-25/178058-standoff-with-iran-focus-of-putin-visit-to-israel.ashx#ixzz1yma6Kp6s
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Senior Commander: Iran Can Hit All Mobile Targets with Ballistic Missiles

TEHRAN (FNA)- Lieutenant Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami underlined that Iran can hit and destroy all mobile targets with its ballistic missiles with 100 percent precision capability.

"I hold doubt if the US and Russia which once pioneered in the missile industry have this capability, but as far as our country is concerned I announce very decisively that we have made this achievement that we can hit all mobile targets with 100 percent success," Gen. Salami told Iran's state-run TV Saturday night.

He further reminded that Iran, for sure, enjoys the same capability with regard to fixed targets, and said, "In regard to other components of defense power, we are capable of attacking enemy's strategy and its vital interests in any place and at the same level that it acts."

"And we can act in a way that we will be in charge of escalation control," he added.

"When designing our strategy, we defined a radius of deterrence which encircles all the strategic interests of the enemy in the region to enable ourselves to manage the battle if a war breaks out," the IRGC lieutenant commander added.

In recent years, Iran has made giant progress in missile production. The Iranian Armed Forces always display the most modern home-made ballistic missiles during military parades in Tehran and other cities.

The most advanced long-range missile developed by Iran is Sejjil which is considered as the third generation of Iran-made long-range missiles.

Iran successfully tested second generation of Sejjil missiles and brought it into mass production in 2010.

The solid-fuel, two-stage Sejjil missile with two engines, is capable of reaching a very high altitude and therefore has a longer range than that of the Shahab 3 model.

The missile has boosted the Islamic republic of Iran's defense capabilities.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9103083366

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Report: Venezuela supplied Iran with F-16 to prepare for possible strike

Timing of the story's publication probably timed to coincide with the current visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Venezuela, which began Friday.

By Barak Ravid | Jun.24, 2012

Venezuela has transferred at least one F-16 fighter to Iran in an attempt to help it calibrate its air defenses, in preparation for a possible Israeli or U.S. strike on its nuclear facilities, reports Spanish newspaper ABC.

ABC, one of the three largest Spanish dailies and aligned with the ruling rightist party, wrote that the transfer, in 2006, was supervised by one of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's closest aides. The paper's Washington correspondent, Emili J. Blasco, said the story was based on both sources in Venezuela's air force and classified documents, following a tip- off by a non-Western intelligence agency.

The timing of the story's publication was probably timed to coincide with the current visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Venezuela, which began Friday. Ahmadinejad told Chavez that Iran will always support Chavez's Venezuela: "We appreciate your opposition to imperialism," he said.

Chavez reportedly told his guest that "we are aware of the threats on Iranian sovereignty and independence. You can count on our support. I will support Ahmadinejad under all circumstances, since our ties with Iran are a holy issue for us."

In 1983, years before Chavez came to power, Venezuela purchased 23 F-16 fighter jets. At least half of these have been transferred in recent years to other states, in breach of the 1983 agreement with the U.S.

At least one F-16 was transferred to Iran in 2006. According to the report, the jet was disassembled and packed in several sealed and unmarked wooden containers. These were loaded on a Boeing 707 Venezuelan air force plane that took off from the El Libertador Air Base, stopping in Brazil and Algeria before landing in Tehran, where it was reassembled. Venezuelan pilots instructed Iranian pilots and technicians as to the jet's capabilities.

According to the news report, the F-16 was given to Iran so it could test its antiaircraft radar systems and become familiar with its capabilities, in preparation for a possible strike.

The trial flights in Iran were used to calibrate the Iranian air defense systems. Iranian officers also studied the speed of the F-16 on the radar screens.

It is as yet unclear how useful the jet fighter is for Iran's preparations, since the model transferred is relatively dated. The Israeli Air Force currently uses more advanced models fitted with Israeli electronic systems.

Apart from the plane supplied in 2006, information exists regarding further jet fighters supplied in 2009, when the director of the Venezuelan military industry paid a visit to Tehran. According to the ABC report, the minutes of the talks in Tehran, signed, among others, by Iran's Deputy Defense Minister, imply that Venezuela promised to speed up the transfer of more jet fighters.

Meanwhile, Iran's deputy chief of staff, Gen. Mostafa Izadi, said yesterday that an Israeli strike agains Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to the "collapse of the Zionist regime."

Izadi said that Israel "cannot harm Iran. If the Zionists attack us, they will be the ones annihilated in the end

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/report-venezuela-supplied-iran-with-f-16-to-prepare-for-possible-strike-1.443406

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran general: Military strike would be end of Israel

By REUTERS

06/23/2012 18:04

If Israel wants to act illogically, "it is they who will be destroyed," Iran's deputy chief of staff says.
Photo: Baz Ratner / Reuters

DUBAI - A high-ranking Iranian general said on Saturday Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear program would lead to the collapse of the Jewish state, Fars news agency reported.

Last week's round of nuclear talks between Iran and world powers in Moscow failed to secure a breakthrough, heightening fears Israel might take unilateral military action to curb Iran's nuclear activities.

The two sides agreed to a follow-up meeting of technical experts on July 3, saving the process from outright failure.

"They cannot do the slightest harm to the (Iranian) revolution and the system," Brigadier-General Mostafa Izadi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, told Fars.

"If the Zionist regime takes any (military) actions against Iran, it would result in the end of its labors," he added.

"If they act logically, such threats amount to a psychological war but if they want to act illogically, it is they who will be destroyed."

Izadi's comments are an apparent response to Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz's calls for tougher sanctions against Tehran and his indication that military action was still an option.

Analysts say Iranian officials use such rhetoric as a way of stoking Western concerns of chaos in the Middle East and the disruption of oil supplies in the event of military action.

During negotiations in Moscow the six powers - the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany - demanded Iran scale back its nuclear work and, in particular, stop enriching uranium to levels that could bring it close to making an atom bomb.

The demands included the shutting down of the Fordow underground uranium enrichment facility and the shipping of any stockpile out of the country.

In return, they offered fuel to keep Iran's medical isotope reactor running, assistance in nuclear safety and an end to a ban on spare parts for Iran's aging civilian aircraft.

Iran denies its work has any military purpose and says the powers should offer it relief from sanctions and acknowledge its right to enrich uranium before it meets their demands.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=274928

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

An impasse with Iran

Published 06/23/2012 12:00 AM

Negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program are close to an impasse - an outcome that should surprise no one. At a meeting in Moscow on Monday and Tuesday, Iranian envoys continued to resist a proposal for an interim deal that would stop the most dangerous parts of the program in exchange for modest economic concessions from a coalition composed of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany. Iran countered with maximalist demands for the lifting of sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium.

"It remains clear that there are significant gaps," said a sober statement by the European Union's Catherine Ashton.

If there is a positive aspect to this outcome, it is that the United States and its partners appear to be sticking to their position on what Iran must do to open the door to a diplomatic solution - and are prepared to let the process lapse. No further negotiations have been scheduled - only an experts' session early next month to go over technical details, followed by contacts between the deputies and chiefs of the delegations.

Western officials say further meetings will depend on whether Iran shows itself ready to carry out the package of steps originally proposed last month, including a freeze of its most advanced form of uranium enrichment, the export of its existing stockpile of that enriched uranium, and the closure of an underground processing facility known as Fordow.

"The choice is Iran's," said Ms. Ashton's statement.

Before Tehran makes that choice, some of the sanctions it has been trying to head off will go into effect, including an EU oil embargo and a block on insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil. Already Iranian oil exports, and the country's economy at large, appear to have been significantly damaged in recent months. Since the collapse of negotiations could also prompt Israel to move toward the military action it has been threatening, it's still conceivable that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei will decide to accept the interim package - which would leave most of Iran's enrichment infrastructure in place - rather than risk economic ruin and war.

The Obama administration must nevertheless be prepared to take an Iranian "no" for an answer. It should resist any effort by Russia or other members of the international coalition to weaken the steps that Iran must take, or to grant Tehran major sanctions relief for partial concessions. It should continue to reject recognition of an Iranian "right" to enrich uranium.

The United States and its allies also should have a strategy for quickly and significantly increasing the pressure on the Khamenei regime if the negotiations break down. Israel may press for military action; if that option is to be resisted, there must be a credible and robust alternative.

http://www.theday.com/article/20120623/OP01/306239977

[dudge]

Dat zie ik er niet in terug...

Ah, ik zat scheef te kijken, was 1 post eerder.

Maar dan nog, het artikel van Hammelburg gaat eigenlijk niet echt over Iran, maar voornamelijk over wat andere landen van Iran denken.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran kan binnen enkele maanden een atoombom bouwen

donderdag 21 juni 2012 om 01u13

"Het is duidelijk dat Iran zeer snel een kernwapen zou kunnen bouwen als het dat zou beslissen", zei Stephen  Rademaker van het Bipartisan Policy Center, een thinktank in Washington, tijdens een hoorzitting in het Amerikaanse Congres.

Volgens de experts bezit Iran voldoende uranium dat tot 3,5 procent verrijkt werd, om twee atoombommen te maken. Om in een atoombom gebruikt te worden, moet uranium verrijkt zijn tot bijna 90 procent.

Splijtbaar materiaal

Teheran heeft al 3.345 kilogram tot 3,5 procent verrijkt uranium geproduceerd, luidde het nog. In de fabrieken van Natanz en Fordo produceren de meer dan 9.000 centrifuges elke maand 158 kilogram van dergelijk uranium.

Met die voorrad kunnen de Iraniëers binnen 25 tot 106 dagen genoeg splijtbaar matriaal maken voor een bom, zei Rademaker. (Belga/TV)

http://www.knack.be/nieuws/buitenland/iran-kan-binnen-enkele-maanden-een-atoombom-bouwen/article-4000119871954.htm

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran nuclear negotiations: The dawn of the zombie talks

After Moscow, there is no discernible life left in this diplomatic process but it has to be kept going in the hope of a miracle and because the alternative is so grim.

The diplomatic process to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis was always a very frail patient, bustled from one clinic to another around the world, from Istanbul in April to Baghdad in May in the hope of imbuing it with vigour. Yesterday in Moscow, by any reasonable assessment, it stopped showing signs of life.

However, because this was a fiercely proud Russian-run hospital, and because the global implications of declaring diplomacy dead are so grave, it is being made to look like it is staggering on. If it is to officially keel over, the Russians made clear, let it be somewhere else, like Istanbul.

So it is that a technical working group is to assemble in the Turkish city on July 3 to pore over the papers presented in Moscow ostensibly lest some detail of nuclear science had been overlooked by the diplomats. This is of course a nonsense. There were plenty of experts on hand in Moscow and these issues have been studied by both sides in depth for years. Everyone involved is well aware of the science. They just don't agree.

But it is a worthwhile nonsense. It is an excuse to keep contacts alive and the door open to a change of mind which could be dressed up as a working group breakthrough. And as long as there is some diplomatic engagement it makes it that small bit harder for Israel to mount military action. As former IDF brigadier general, Michael Herzog, put it, talks represent a "complication" in Israeli decision-making on a strike.

Iran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, hailed the working group wheeze as a diplomatic triumph last night, welcoming "the fact that the other side has come to agree with us although it took them [so] long."

In fact Jalili wanted at least three working groups, with others dealing with politics and legal issues. Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief acting on behalf of the six powers at the talks, argued that the legal issues had been looked at exhaustively, and the political decisions, by their nature, had to be taken at a senior level, which is what Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow were supposed to be about.

There seems little doubt that the Iranian side are enamoured of working groups because they use up time. The hawks in Israel, the US and elsewhere, see this as proof that Tehran is stalling while it makes a bomb, but there is little evidence that a concerted effort to make weapons is underway.

However, as time goes by, Iran's centrifuges are spinning and more fissile facts on the ground are being created in the form of low-enriched and 20%-enriched uranium. Stalling is also useful for a regime that is incapable of making a strategic decision because it is weak and paranoid.

In many ways what went on in Moscow, and in Baghdad last month, was an illusion of negotiations. To give an example, a member of the Iranian delegation came through the lobby of the talks venue, a Moscow hotel, and lightened the tedium of the journalists slumped on the sofas by suggesting that the Russians had brought new ideas to the table which could close the gap between the sides. It turned out the 'ideas' were an article by Vladimir Putin written during the presidential campaign in February in which he suggested Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium. In the negotiating room, the Russians quickly dismissed the article presented by the Iranians, saying that could be the end-point of negotiations not an opening gambit.

In another example, in Jalili's PowerPoint presentation on Monday, he had a slide on confidence-building measures which referred to the international community providing fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor which makes medical isotopes. This was a hopeful sign as the six powers had offered the fuel as part of a deal for suspension of 20% uranium production. However, when the negotiators finally got hold of the paper version of the presentation yesterday, it appeared that Jalili was presenting the international community's opportunity to participate in the reactor's operation as an Iranian concession, for which Tehran wanted payment in sanctions relief.

Much of the rest of the two-day talks were taken up by lengthy screeds on history delivered by Jalili. He had been asked to clarify Iran's negotiating position in Moscow and in a sense he did, going into intricate detail. It was like a history buff who, on being politely told his monograph could be a little sharper, had read out the entire university thesis on which it was based. It did not get any clearer; there was just much more of it.

The interminable lecturing is likely to be symptom of a lack of trust. On one level, the Tehran regime seems to suspect that if it got involved in bargaining any offer it makes would be pocketed by the other side with nothing in return, and to a certain extent the mistrust here is mutual. But there is also deep lack of trust inside Tehran, where no one wants to be seen as giving any part of the great national nuclear achievement away for fear of being knifed in the back for it at some later date. That is what happened to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was pilloried - even by the 'reformists' - for tentatively agreeing to a uranium swap deal in 2009.

The deal on the table in Baghdad and Moscow is considerably more advantageous for Iran. Under the Ahmadinejad version, Iran would give up some of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) stockpile in return for fuel plates for the Tehran reactor. In the new deal, it keeps all its LEU and just gives up its 150 kg or so of 20%-enriched fuel. As well as fuel plates it gets nuclear safety help and much needed spare parts for planes.

That said, the six powers may have missed an opportunity by not offering some sanctions relief as part of the deal. The EU oil embargo, due to take effect on July 1, is being imposed largely in response to an IAEA report last November spelling out evidence of past weapons activity, which all six nations had known about for years anyway. Both the Arms Control Association, and National Iranian American Council in Washington are both arguing today for the sanctions to be be on the table.

The Europeans are now reluctant to make such an offer in part because it would be seen as rewarding intransigence, and because they believe the pressure is working. The head of NIAC, Trita Parsi disagrees. he says:

If a compromise is not vigorously pursued, war will become far more likely. As Western countries escalate economic warfare against Iran, Iran is likely to escalate in kind, exacerbating the already perilous spiral towards conflict. This begs an important question: Are we willing to risk war for the sake of never lifting any sanctions?

The former IAEA chief inspector, Olli Heinonen also thinks the Iranian response will be to up the stakes "to pepper the talks to come":

I bet that it will be more enriched uranium, and perhaps more 20% uranium together with more 'good news on further nuclear achievements. This may come with some harder statements like the Iranian plans of using uranium for nuclear submarines. That sends two messages: uranium enrichment continues, and that future submarines are not only for the Hormuz. You do not need nuclear submarines to defend home waters; they are to be used faraway from home.

Asked if he was frustrated, a senior western diplomat at the Moscow talks said he did not use the word. Sitting though such negotiations is all part of he is paid to do, he said. It is what diplomacy is all about. It often seems absurd, time-consuming and futile, and it costs a lot of time and resources. But to paraphase something often said about education and ignorance, if you think diplomacy is costly, try war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2012/jun/20/iran-nuclear-moscow

[Jah]

Maar dat is toch precies wat er in dat artikel staat?

Dat zie ik er niet in terug...

[dudge]

Iran calculeert haar acties voortdurend en heeft aangetoond nauwe afwegingen te maken wanneer ze zich op het internationale toneel begeven.

Maar dat is toch precies wat er in dat artikel staat?

[Jah]

Iran calculeert haar acties voortdurend en heeft aangetoond nauwe afwegingen te maken wanneer ze zich op het internationale toneel begeven.

[Sandgroper]

Leg uit,  want ik en waarschijnlijk velen op dit forum hebben niet zo'n uitgebreid inzicht in de psyche van de Iraanse regering.

[Jah]

Bernard Hammelburg schijnt niet te (willen) begrijpen dat Iran redelijk rationeel handelt m.b.t. dit soort geo-politieke vraagstukken.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Column Bernard Hammelburg | Heimwee naar de Koude Oorlog

Door Bernard Hammelburg

2012-06-20 06:48:29.0 | bnr.nl

Tijdens de Koude Oorlog stonden de Amerikanen en Russen 46 jaar lang tegenover elkaar met zoveel atoombommen dat ze elkaar twee keer konden vernietigen.

Tijdens de Koude Oorlog stonden de Amerikanen en Russen 46 jaar lang tegenover elkaar met zoveel atoombommen dat ze elkaar twee keer konden vernietigen. Door die enorme slagkracht weerhielden zij elkaar van die ene druk op de knop. In het jargon heette dat 'deterrence' – afschrikking. Het werkte omdat de leiders van beide blokken net iets meer van hun eigen volkeren hielden dan ze elkaar haatten. Wat het conflict met Iran en de burgeroorlog in Syrië zo griezelig maken is dat het daar net andersom is. Daar winnen haat en koppigheid het van elke vorm van logica.

Iran speelt letterlijk met vuur. De kans dat het land echt de atoombom bouwt die Israël, Saoedi-Arabië, de Europese Unie en Amerika zo vrezen is nog altijd klein. Maar het land saboteert consequent alle onderhandelingen, en de handreikingen die het westen biedt. In Israël is de oplopende spanning voelbaar. De militaire inlichtingendiensten twijfelen of de bom er echt komt, maar Israël is als de dood om het risico te nemen en af te wachten. Al drie jaar wordt de aanval op Iran tot in de kleinste details voorbereid, met grootscheepse oefeningen door de luchtmacht en de inrichting van een basis in Azerbeidzjan, vlak bij de grens met Iran. Doodgriezelig dat er een oorlog dreigt om een atoombom die er waarschijnlijk niet is.

Even griezelig zijn de ontwikkelingen in Syrië. Het gaat niet alleen meer om de barbarij van Assad, en de evenredig groeiende wraakacties van de oppositie, maar om wat er in de marge gebeurt. Assad beschikt over grote hoeveelheden biologische en chemische wapens. Westerse inlichtingendiensten zijn als de dood dat die wapens in handen vallen van de grootste oppositiegroep, de Soennieten.  Minstens zo groot is de angst voor de groeiende contacten tussen het Vrije Syrische Leger van de oppositie en Al Qaeda.

Zoals de Israëliërs zich voorbereiden op oorlog met Iran, zo bereiden de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten een aanval voor op Syrië. Het kan gaan om steun aan buurlanden, een no-fly zone, of gerichte aanvallen met onbemande vliegtuigen en Special Forces op specifieke doelen in Syrië.

Het zijn allemaal noodscenario's, en je moet hopen dat het daarbij blijft, net als tijdens die 46-jarige Koude Oorlog. Je krijgt bijna heimwee naar de mannen die elkaar toen voor verdorven communisten en schunnige imperialisten uitmaakten. In elk geval waren ze verstandiger dan de krankzinnige machtswellustelingen die het in Iran en Syrië voor het zeggen hebben.

Bernard Hammelburg