IDF tackling Iran's WMD threat

[sabra]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657427&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

IDF tackling Iran's WMD threat

With Iran racing to obtain nuclear weapons, the IDF Home Front Command (HFC) has shifted its focus since the war in Lebanon and is now investing most of its efforts in confronting the threat of non-conventional weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a high-ranking officer revealed Monday.

The officer said the HFC was in the process of developing new technological means to deal with chemical and biological threats. The Jerusalem Post has learned that the HFC was in the process of developing mobile air-purification containers that could be brought to areas infected by chemical or biological weapons and purify the air.

...

The Egyptian officials told their Israeli counterparts that according to their estimates, Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb within five years and must be stopped. Unlike Egypt, Israel has said that the point of no return regarding Iran's nuclear program was a few months away and at the point when the Islamic Republic would have independent research, development know-how and the ability to continue its program without outside help.

While the Egyptians gave their support to Israeli diplomatic efforts to stop Iran, the officials also called for the denuclearization of the entire Middle East. The assumption within the defense establishment is that an Iranian success at developing nuclear weapons would lead to a race among other countries in the region - including Egypt and possibly Saudi Arabia - to also begin their own independent nuclear programs.

[habitual]

1. the very first line shows the articles bias clearly:

"With Iran racing to obtain nuclear weapons" ...

[Scurrilous]

2. Israel: Few months to avoid nuclear Iran

Foreign Minister Livni tells CNN’s Late Edition ‘the crucial moment is not the day of the bomb, but the day in which Iran will master the enrichment’; adds: I believe that this is time for sanctions

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3305081,00.html

<snip>

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Sunday that the world may have as little as “A few months” to avoid a nuclear Iran and called for sanctions.

“The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment,” she said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Livni, whose country is the only Middle East power possessing nuclear weapons, said she did not want to identify a point of “No return” in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranians, she said, “Are trying to send a message that it’s too late, you can stop your attempts because it’s too late. It’s not too late. They have a few more months,” She said.

“The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran,” Livni said. “I believe that this is time for sanctions.”

[pinerow]

3. I wonder...what is the Foreign Ministers' solution...?

Are they recommending that all Iranian physicists be murdered in the event they "stumble" on the secret of enrichment...?...or should they take out all the Iranian mathematicians...?...the genie is already out of the bottle...the question should be...How do we eliminate the need for nuclear weapons altogether...?...sheesh!!

[ShortnFiery]

4. Israel has ZERO credibility in these days with ANY Arab Nation

Well, unless they are willing to give up their nukes, here and now. :nuke:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[toopers]

8. If they were "itching to fry a few Islamics" . . .

they could have done it already, multiple times.

[0007]

10. Out of the goodness of their heart or the US command?

Israel should listen to Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist.

[sabbat hunter]

18. do you think

do you think that if israel gave up here nuclear weapons, Iran still wouldnt want to build their own and destroy israel. Iran is run by madmen, men who should be in an asylum. they dont think rationally

(even though Iran isnt an arab country)

[leveymg]

6. The "point of no return" for the Bush Adminstration is a few months away

Once the Dems gain control over one or both houses of Congress, this Administration's officials are going to be doing nothing but being sworn-in and looking uncomfortable under the lights of Capitol Hill committee rooms. Then, come the Grand Juries and the daily treks over to the U.S. Courthouse. A lot of what they're going to be testifying about will be joint Likud-GOP efforts to fabricate evidence used to justify the invasion of Iraq and to attack Iran.

This whining about Iran by Israeli officials is so incredibly self-serving.

[acmavm]

7. So tell me, is Israel going to get rid of its nukes or is this just

another of those 'do as I say, not as I do' things?

<snip>

While the Egyptians gave their support to Israeli diplomatic efforts to stop Iran, the officials also called for the denuclearization of the entire Middle East.

<snip>

[truthisfreedom]

9. ugh, what an article. the sad thing is, Iran probably is trying to develop

nuclear weapons.

[LynnTheDem]

11. ROTFL!!! A total LIE in the very first line!

They must be taking lessons from bush-gawd.

:rofl:

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. Fishing for a Pretext for War with Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006



link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.
______________________

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

Iranian showdown – great resource page:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html


http://www.dontattackiran.org


.

[tocqueville]

15. the map is full of inacurracies regarding airbases

the most blatant is the one on Cyprus. There is no US Base on Cyprus, there is a UN/UK base. The base in Tadjikistan is French. The Turkish bases are not available without consent of the Turkish government. I don't think there are US bases left in Saudi-Arabia and Uzbekistan. I doubt there is a US base in Yemen at all.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. thanks for pointing that out

I suppose the author assumes access to many of these bases if a conflict were to occur. The U.S. does (quite unofficially) still have a presence at a number of bases in places like Saudi Arabia although not the kind of presence it once had. The U.S. does have access agreements with a number of bases although the host country has to agree. I would guess the author of this map assumes that sufficient U.S. pressure would open that access.

[Poll_Blind]

13. I wonder, when would Arab countries EVER be allowed nuclear energy?

  The reason why I ask this question is that oil is a finite energy resource and one which nations like Iran can either export for cash or use to provide electricity for their infrastructures, gasoline for their military, etc. The desire to create nuclear reactors to provide energy in any Arab country, no matter what theoretical wealth of oil it may sit above, is an unsurprising one. The ability for a country to harness nuclear energy for the production of electricity is the ability to create extra resources to consume, extra "wealth".

  But the United States and Israel do not see things that way. Regardless of my personal distaste for the politics of the sister empires, they have a point of sorts (it's oblique but well-known): Running commercial nuclear reactors using, say, 5-20% enriched uranium (1) allows them to harvest a byproduct of the fuel's time in the reactor, plutonium 240. Plutonium 240 is a natural byproduct of the uranium's use and, if the uranium is swapped out of the reactor after "short" periods of time, this byproduct can be harvested easily. Plutonium 240 is apparently quite good at making nuclear devices out of and it also requires less plutonium 240, physically, to make a warhead, than even highly-enriched uranium. And that means smaller warheads which can be more easily-fitted onto ballistic missiles.(2)

  Any commercial nuclear power program, anywhere, may be used to somewhat covertly (the P240 still has to be extracted, etc.) to produce weapons-grade material. It means that from now until the day we die, we are likely to hear a great deal about other countries and their quest for nuclear weapons, if our politicians choose choose to distrust the intentions of the other country.

  Keep an eye on Brazil in this respect. As our American Empire fades I suspect our reach for resources will constrict and I would not be surprised to see our creation of bogeymen a little closer to home for convenience's sake.

  But back to the Arab countries. For a country to have a nuclear program US/IS (United States and Israel) have to allow it. If not, we will attack them to deny that capability. I disagree with that, but that's how it is. But Iran's oil is a limited resource.

  So then, under what conditions, given the above information about the dual civilian and military uses for nuclear power plants, would an Arab country ever be allowed to posses commercial nuclear power reactors?

  Because at some point their oil will "run out" or, more accurately, become too expensive to harvest and refine. At that point will US/IS allow them to turn to nuclear power production? What if US/IS never allow for it? Is it likely that Israel, specifically, and the U.S. generally, would ever allow an Arab country to create a commercial nuclear power program?

  I don't think so. And that's going to cause problems. Intentions aside, there are three nuclear reactors planned for construction in Turkey and one has been proposed in Egypt.(3)

  With what eyes will US/IS look on these programs?

  To what lengths are US/IS willing to go to stop them, and for how long and at what consequence?

  These are questions which I believe can be answered by the actions of both The United States and Israel in the past. And they do not portend, regardless of the sincerity of the country hosting the nuclear program, a peaceful future in the region.

PB

1 Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions
2 Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword?
3 World NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 2005-06

[newyorican]

14. not a matter of allowing...

From a purely objective POV, any country that feels threatened by the U.S. (or any surrogates) would be foolish not to obtain a nuclear deterrent. The examples are shown in stark contrast to what happened in Iraq and in North Korea.

Also, Iran is not an Arab country.

[Poll_Blind]

25. It's dangerous either way (to do so or not), based on our conquests...

...in the region. I guess something I was trying to focus on, but maybe didn't get across as well as I would have liked, was the impression that I didn't believe that any Middle Eastern country (thank you for the correction on Iran, btw) would ever be allowed to posses a commercial nuclear program by the United States or Israel, self-appointed Guardians of Democracy in the region.

PB

[Tom Joad]

16. Israel has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons.

[sabbat hunter]

19. massive?

define massive. do you have some proof of how many they have. I believe israel has nuclear weapons but i cannot say for any certainty how many.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. nobody outside of the senior most officials actually know with any

degree of certainty. Just as nobody knows the real number of American warheads or the nuclear stockpile of most countries with nuclear weapons.

Most estimates about the Israeli stockpile range in the vicinity of 200 or so. Some estimate put it as high as 400. It's kind of an academic question once we get over 100 and thus essentially can devastate the whole world.

here is one article below on the issue which makes some educated guesses. Their educated guess is in the vicinity of 200.

Frankly I think a Middle East completely free of ALL nuclear weapons would be a very sane idea. There may be some conceivable dangers in such an agreement. But those dangers pale in comparison to the dangers of the alternative. And Israel is hardly lacking in conventional forces and weaponry.

link:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

"The upper and lower plausible limits on Israel's stockpile may be bounded by considering several variables, several of which are generic to any nuclear weapons program. The reactor may have operated an average of between 200 and 300 days annually, and produced approximately 0.9 to 1.0 grams of plutonium for each thermal megawatt day. Israel may use between 4 and 5 kilograms of plutonium per weapon <5 kilograms is a conservative estimate, and Vanunu reported that Israeli weapons used 4 kg>.

The key variable that is specific to Israel is the power level of the reactor, which is variously reported to be at least 75 MWt and possibly as high as 200 MWt. New high-resolution satellite imagery provides important insight this matter. The imagery of the Dimona nuclear reactor was acquired by the Public Eye Project of the Federation of American Scientists from Space Imaging Corporation's IKONOS satellite. The cooling towers associated with the Dimona reactor are clearly visible and identifiable in satellite imagery. Comparison of recently acquired commercial IKONOS imagery with declassified American CORONA reconnaissance satellite imagery indicates that no new cooling towers were constructed in the years between 1971 and 2000. This strongly suggests that the reactor's power level has not been increased significantly during this period. This would suggest an annual production rate of plutonium of about 20 kilograms.

Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons. "

[The Magistrate]

21. The Word 'Massive', Sir, Is Used Because It Sounds Good

Sound is everything, you know. "Israel certainly has less than half as many war-heads as France" just does not have nearly the same ring to it, you would doubtless agree....

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. "Enough to devastate the entire world" would both sound good and be

absolutely true. Perhaps that would be a better and more accurate phrase.

[The Magistrate]

23. It Would Sound Even Better, Sir, But Be Quite Untrue

Even four hundred small warheads would be inadequate for such a purpose, even if delivery systems existed to project them globally, which in this instance they do not. The likely total being much nearer one hundred, on the evidence you have yourself provided, that characterization of the arsenal rings even more hollow. The nuclear weapons believed to be in Israeli possession are certainly adequate to wreck its enemies in the region, and if employed against oil facilities, to create economic havoc in the world for a time, but that is something far short of devestating the entire world.

The conviction Israel possesses such an arsenal is one of the leading reasons no state in the region any longer makes any serious pretence it will engage Israel in full-bore war, and that the material expression of state hostility is confined to the sponsorship of various irregular bodies. In other words, that arsenal, and the fear of it, is key to what peace and stability exists in the region. Thus, it counts to my view as a good thing rather than a bad one. A good deal of the legitimate worry over Iranian nuclear ambitions is simply concern that this might upset the check the Israeli arsenal unopposed imposes on state to state violence in the region.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. perhaps devastate is too strong of a word

but I think one can say they have enough of an arsenal to really screw up the world.

There are really only too great powers in the Middle East, Israel and of course the United States. I would actually buy that American power is a deterrence against state on state violence in the region. Even though admitting that goes against my ideological preference.

But I really doubt that when one Arab or Muslim state might contemplate military action against another Arab or Muslim state that fear of an Israeli nuclear response is even in the back of their minds. To whatever extent it might be, Israel and American support for Israel fuels the flames of extremism more than enough to off set that advantage. There might be a lot of hypocrisy and demagoguery in this. But the resentment is real on the Arab and Muslim street.

[The Magistrate]

27. My Reference, Sir, Was Only To State Action Against Israel

There is not really much nowadays in the way of killing quarrels among the major Arab states, though there is some cracker-jack potential for revolution in a couple of them....

[newyorican]

24. Estimates of Israeli nuclear arsenal

In addition to the above, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals, and South Africa produced six gun-assembly type weapons in the 1980s, but dismantled them in the early-1990s. Estimates of the composition and evolution of the arsenals of Israel, India and Pakistan are extremely difficult to make. Israel may have a stockpile of some 100-200 nuclear weapons, India 30-35, and Pakistan between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons.

source

Note: The table at the link provided indicates France has 350 weapons

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated.



source