US sends a big fat you to Iran!

[Whottt]

LOL! SO Iran wants to play with Nukes and brag about wiping people off the map eh?

www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=87 09

U.S., Israel turn up the heat on Iran - but there's a downside

By Ed Blanche
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, September 25, 2004



BEIRUT: The Bush administration's decision to sell Israel 500 satellite-guided "bunker-buster" bombs, revealed on Tuesday, did nothing at all to dispel concerns that the United States and Israel are considering preemptive strikes to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program. Despite all the threats flying back and forth between the adversaries, the prospect of conflict still seems remote, if only because the consequences could be disastrous all round. But U.S. or Israeli air strikes, or even possibly a joint assault, remain an option that's on the table. There is intense debate on this in both governments, although the Israelis seem more inclined toward military action.

For the time being, the Bush administration appears to be prepared to negotiate with Iran, but confrontation remains a distinct possibility. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, the hawkish John Bolton, visited Israel for talks on Iran's nuclear program earlier this month and declared: We are determined to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. The U.S. would not hesitate to use force, if necessary."

In May, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 376-3 to allow the government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." If the Senate follows suit, President George W. Bush would have a green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Not a cheerful thought.

Apart from the one-ton BLU-109 Joint Direct Attack Munitions bombs, known as Jdams, capable of penetrating 5 meters of reinforced concrete before exploding, the $319 million U.S. weapons package also includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs.

Israeli and U.S. officials played down the possible use of such weapons against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But it transpires that the bombs can be guided by Israel's own military surveillance satellites which monitor Iran, meaning the Jewish state would not need to rely on U.S. satellites for guiding the bombs in to Iranian targets. That's not a cheerful thought either.

The BLU-109, however, is not the last word in U.S. weapons designed to destroy targets buried deep underground, as much of Iran's nuclear program is believed to be. To really do the job, the Israelis would need the GBU-28 "super bomb" used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israeli commentator Amir Oren wrote in Haaretz in early September that once the U.S. presidential elections were over, presumably with Bush reelected, "the Pentagon might support providing Israel with the huge "bunker-busting" GBU-28 bomb, capable of penetrating deep underground storage spaces for weapons of mass destruction."

The U.S. Air Force is also developing an experimental 13,600-kilogram bomb, the biggest in its inventory, to knock out deeply buried targets beyond the reach of existing bombs. "We think a bomb like this could be important in the future for targets that we can't destroy with what we have now," said Jake Swinson of the Air Armaments Center at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The Pentagon said in June that the bombs package for Israel was designed to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." Although the Defense Department did not elaborate, one could extrapolate that the Americans were giving Israel the wherewithal for a direct assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.

But there is a belief in U.S. military circles - and probably in the Israeli military establishment as well, despite all the bellicose rhetoric - that the Israeli Air Force, the spearhead of Israel's offensive capabilities, is not able, for the time being at least, to effectively take out the Iranian installations in one fell swoop, which is the preferred scenario.

And Israel's defenses against an Iranian missile attack remain unproven. In recent days the Israelis have suffered two critical setbacks in their efforts to develop a multi-layered shield against missiles. On Sept. 6, they failed to put into orbit the Ofeq-6 remote-sensing surveillance satellite, which would monitor Iran for missile launches, Eleven days earlier, an Arrow-2 ballistic missile interceptor missed its target, a simulated Shehab-3, in a joint test with the U.S. off the coast of California.

The timing of the double failure could not have been worse for Israel, given its threats against Iran and the technological superiority over its regional adversaries that it has long flaunted. Analyst Amir Oren, writing in Haaretz, said that the failure to put Ofeq-6 into orbit "could accelerate the escalation in tension between Israel and Iran and bring them closer to a military clash."


The touchstone of all this was Israel's ground-breaking air strike on June 7, 1981, that destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor south of Baghdad. The Iranians learned a lesson from that (as did Saddam) and widely dispersed their nuclear installations, burying them deep underground, making simultaneous attacks difficult. They are also heavily protected by batteries of S-300PMU long-range air-defense missiles bought from Russia over the last decade and highly regarded by Western military experts. Finally, most of the potential targets lie at the outer edge of the combat range of Israel's strike aircraft.

The other possibility, of course, is for the Americans, with their greater military assets, such as aircraft carriers, long-range cruise missiles and the air bases in Iraq and Central Asia acquired since September 2001, to conduct a systematic large-scale assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"A U.S. attack ... using an array of Tomahawk cruise missiles and/or guided munitions from stealth bombers would surely be much more effective than anything Israel could muster," according to an August assessment of a preemptive assault on Iranian nuclear installations by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Ins ute for International Studies in California.

The mechanics of such a difficult operation thus are well within U.S. capabilities. But, as the center notes, the likely consequences of such an attack are sufficiently negative to make it unacceptable for the US, and thus for Israel too. For one thing, just as the Osirak raid made Saddam even more determined to acquire nuclear weapons, so the Iranians, who probably have duplicate installations for more of their facilities, could be expected to redouble their efforts to do the same.

An operation like that would also be widely viewed as an act of aggression by much of the world, which on top of the anger caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq would undermine the diplomatic coalition seeking to negotiate with Tehran to abandon its nuclear quest.

"The most troubling aspect of such a scenario is that, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran is not dependent on foreign imports for nuclear technology and already has available the raw materials, and most of the designs and techniques, required to pursue a nuclear weapons program," the Monterey assessment said."

A U.S. or Israeli attack would in all likelihood trigger a retaliatory Iranian missile attack on Israel with Shehab-3s, developed with Russian, North Korean and Chinese help. The hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is believed to have at least 25, possibly even 100, of these weapons, which are generally seen as Iran's means of delivering nuclear warheads.

Tehran is not expected to have any of those for some years, but the Shehabs, whose accuracy is not clear, can still carry warheads of up to 1,000 kilograms of high explosive that could target Israeli strategic installations, such as the nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev desert. But it is likely that large cities such as Tel Aviv or Haifa (though presumably not Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest site) would be targeted as well.

Iranian retaliation would also probably involve attacks with shorter-range Shehab-1s and 2s, of which Tehran has an estimated 300-450 with ranges up to 500 kilometers, against U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf. The Iranians would also cause chaos in Iraq, using the Shiite majority to move against the U.S.-led occupation, possibly with restive Shiites in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states rising up against these regimes, while Hizbullah unleashes Katyusha barrages against Israel and openly joins the Palestinian intifada. The impact regionally would be catastrophic.

[Whottt]

Iran can't like this...5000 bombs? Given to a nation who will use them with pleasure?

Not only that but Iran's closest neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, have taken on a decidedly un Iranian demeanor if you ask me...

It's time for Iran to play nice.

I vehemently disagree with the idea of declaring war on Iran...number 1 Iran has a huge population compared to the countries we have recently declared war on...they are also much better millitarily, historically, then Arab countries.

And the main reason is that I believe Iran has a very pro west population under the scab of their DemocracyTheocracy crap Govt...

The Islamic govt is not popular there...they were very pro-west priot to being taken hostage by the Ayatollah's...

They already have well established political parties and in nearly every open election the more pro west candidate wins.

I have never met an Iranian that thought the country was better off under Islamic rule than it was under the Shah.

Iranians have no illusions about what life in an Islamic state is like...unlike the Afghanistans and Iraquis...they know better..

So IMO it would be a mistake to invade Iran and also unnecessary...all the elements are in place for Iran to crumble from within...Hopefully they'll get the message and stop preaching that we are the great Satan...otherwise we are going to be just that for them.

[Nbadan]

Both countries need to stop the posturing before things get out of control. There are I.E.A.A. safe guards in place to help insure that the Iranians don't easily convert their spent nuclear rods or fuel, into weapons gradable plutonium..

On 23 December 2002 Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said that Novosibirsk enterprises of the Russia Nuclear Energy Ministry had manufactured 180 fuel rods for the first reactor unit of the nuclear power pant built in Bushehr. He added that the 'fuel rods will stay at the plant until the signing of an addendum to the acting agreement and equipping a storage facility for these elements in Iran by means of physical safeguarding at a level not lower than the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency'. Iran has begun work 'to prepare a room for fuel storage and its equipment by means of physical safeguarding'. The total weight of the irradiated fuel rods for the first loading of the Bushehr reactor is 90 tons. Russia will deliver them to Iran by four flights of transport planes.

Iran initially announced that it will receive its first shipment of 90 tons of enriched uranium from Russia in May 2003. However, on 12 June 2003 Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated that Russia would deliver nuclear fuel for the nuclear power station in Iran only after Tehran signs a memorandum binding it to return spent fuel to Russia. "As for the nuclear plant in Bushehr that is fully controlled by the IAEA, Russian fuel will be delivered there only in case Iran signs a memorandum obliging it to export the spent nuclear fuel back to Russia... We want Iran to observe all understandings with the IAEA. Iran itself should be interested in all programs being transparent and controllable so that there would be no ambiguity or variety of interpretation on the matter," Ivanov said. Russian statements conflicted as to whether the shipment of the fuel would be conditional on Iran signing the Additional Verfication Protocol, which would give IAEA inspectors access to non-declared facilities.

On 13 October 2003 a Russian official said there would be a delay of one year in the completion of the Bushehr nuclear power reactor. "Right now our specialists are drawing up a detailed plan for the plant and the start-up is set for 2005" as opposed to 2004, Nikolai Shingaryev, a senior spokesman for the atomic energy ministry, told AFP by telephone. "The reasons are purely technical, not political," he said. "There is a huge amount of equipment that is needed. Equipment (that we thought) would work is not going to work," he said.

In mid-November 2003 Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said it could be several months more before Moscow and Tehran sign the deal on spent fuel. The signing has been postponed repeatedly since the beginning of this year. The agreement is important because it would clear the way for Moscow to complete construction of Iran's first nuclear power reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf. Rumyantsev said there is no rush to sign the agreement because Russian fuel shipments to Bushehr are not scheduled to start until early next year. Iranian officials, he said, are too busy opening their nuclear program to closer inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to finalize the agreement now. Under US pressure, Russia has agreed not deliver any fuel to the Bushehr power plant until Iran signs the agreement, one of whose provisions requires Iran agree to return all of the reactor's spent fuel back to Russia for disposal.

On 13 February 2004 a Russian Energy Ministry official said that Iran and Russia might sign the protocol on exporting Russian nuclear fuel to Iran`s Bushehr Nuclear Plant and return of the use fuel to Russia within the next two weeks. The official said "The controversial protocol, that would pave the way for making functional Iran`s Bushehr Nuclear Plant, and Russia`s access to the major part of its money for completing the said plant, would be signed very soon, and no later than a fortnight from now." He emphasized, "When that protocol would be signed by the two countries` concerned officials, there would be practically no more obstacles on the way for making operational the Bushehr Nuclear Plant."

Russia withheld fuel for the reactor because of international concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran and Russia will sign a deal in the summer of 2004 on the return of spent nuclear fuel Russia will provide for the Bushehr plant. The deal is intended to prevent the extraction of plutonium from spent fuel and its possible use in nuclear warheads. Russian officials had stated in the past that they will not ship fuel to the plant without an accord on the repatriation of spent fuel. US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton had urged Russia not to supply nuclear fuel for Bushehr reactor until Tehran addressed the full range of concerns about Iran's nuclear-weapons efforts.

On 22 August 2004 the head of Iran`s Atomic Energy Organization Asadollah Sabouri, said Bushehr will become operational in October 2006, a year behind schedule. The contract for the return of the spent fuel, has been finalized, and differences exist over the costs, the official said. According to Sabouri, the two countries have set the deadline for Russia`s delivery of nuclear fuel for the power plant to Iran at the end of 2005.

Global Security

[Nbadan]

Not only that but Iran's closest neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, have taken on a decidedly un Iranian demeanor if you ask me...

I don't think we are much of a threat to Iran with only 15,000 troops in all of Afghanistan, 25,000 less than were guarding the GOP convention in N.Y. city. The 145,000+ troops in Iraq seem to have their hands full at the moment.

[Nbadan]

The Islamic govt is not popular there...they were very pro-west priot to being taken hostage by the Ayatollah's...

The Ayatollahs were quiet popular when they first came into power, but years of unfulfilled promises left younger less-radical Iranians disillusioned with the empty promises of a better Iraq under state controls . Since W. came into office, the Iranians have definitely taken a step back toward radicalism, at least, rhetorically. I don't see them threatening a Pre-emptive strike on Israel though.

[Nbadan]

So IMO it would be a mistake to invade Iran and also unnecessary...all the elements are in place for Iran to crumble from within...Hopefully they'll get the message and stop preaching that we are the great Satan...otherwise we are going to be just that for them.

IMO that your right, but the posturing by the * administration has given the Ayatollahs a rallying point to radicalize the younger generations who don't remember life under Shah. There is growing evidence that many of the insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Iraq are made of the growing number of these newly radicalized Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis.

[Tommy Duncan]

Yes, the Ayatollahs are trying to "radicalize" the young.

How so? Well,

www.middle-east-online.co.../?id=11276

Cinemagoers in the Iranian capital were given their first glimpse of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' this week, but appeared to enjoy more the rare chance to watch an American movie rather than its assault on their regime's arch foe George W. Bush.

Michael Moore's Bush-bashing polemic may have cruised through Iran's unforgiving censors thanks to its indictment of US policy, but the premiere of the film also had the side effect of making some viewers relate the same questioning to their own state of affairs.

"The authorities obviously gave the film the green light for political reasons, in that anything against the United States must be good," quipped one of the hundreds of mainly young people who flocked to Tuesday night's opening screening.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, if they can see something that illustrates freedom of speech in the US so much the better.

Any large scale attack on Iran would make Iraq an even bigger storm.

You don't want this. Seriously

[Tommy Duncan]

Nice spin.

[ChumpDumper]

If you think about it, it's pretty great. It's not like those who hate Bush will do so any more than they already do. But for the sizeable population of those who don't have a clear idea what is possible in a democracy, it's a fine example of free speech in dissent of an existing government.

If they want to get really steamed they could just translate some jingoistic tv or radio commentary. Plenty of that to go around.

[Tommy Duncan]

I think it's far more likely that the average Iranian will see it as an indictment of the US intervention in the Middle East rather than as an example of free speech.

[spurster]

There is no good action here for the US. If Iran is indeed part of the "Axis of Evil", we have no choice but to bomb their facilities. By all accounts, Iran was far more involved in 9/11 than Iraq ever was. But this will send the Shiites in Iraq up in flames.

[ChumpDumper]

I think it's far more likely that the average Iranian will see it as an indictment of the US intervention in the Middle East rather than as an example of free speech.

See previous post.

If you treat the Iranian people as a monolith, your simplistic dismissal of their ability to think is fine.

[Nbadan]

This article asks, If Iran is part of the axis of evil and the U.S. invaded Iraq even though it evidently didn't have credible evidence to prove whether Saddam still had a viable WMD program, Why should Iran be detered from building Nuclear weapons to deter any future U.S. aggression?

The theocratic government of Iran, with its ambitions to spread its peculiar form of overbearing governance throughout the Islamic world and to thumb its nose at the "great Satan" United States, bears primary responsibility, of course. The mullahs who rule the country have been ruthless and ambitious from the start, and they might well have sought nuclear weaponry with or without provocation.


While noting the primary responsibility, however, it is important to note the contribution American policies and actions may have made to this possible nuclear proliferation.

In 2002, President Bush declared the "Axis of Evil" - Iraq, Iran, North Korea - to be a looming threat that must be confronted. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq.

Is it unreasonable for Iran to learn the lesson from this that if it wants to avoid an invasion, it would do well to get a nuclear deterrent? In the future, however, is it too much to expect our leaders to think through the implications before seeking confrontations, even with oppressive regimes?

Link

[KoriEllis]

Just a thought ... The Iranians have so much money in Southern California it's incredible.

Southern California has the highest population of Iranians outside of Tehran in the world. And they are mostly in Beverly Hills and adjacent areas.

[Tommy Duncan]

Iran has pursued nukes prior to the Iraq invasion.

[IcemanCometh]

Americans are good and pure at heart, while the rest of the world is evil and should be destroyed

[E20]

I wonder how much money Israel had to pay for those bombs.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There are I.E.A.A. safe guards in place to help insure that the Iranians don't easily convert their spent nuclear rods or fuel, into weapons gradable plutonium..

The IEAA is about as worthless as Kofi Annan and the UN.

Not surprising a pansy ass liberal would look to them as the bastion of nuclear regulation in the world.