"Nuclear Iran" Scare Buried - To Be Revived When Needed

Israel's Premier Benjamin Netanyahu

This came into us from Alastair Crook's "Conflict Forum" group. It represents an alternative perspective and we thought we might share it:

Moon of Alabama blog, 29 Jan 2013

Intelligence briefings given to McClatchy newspapers over the last two months have confirmed that various officials across Israel’s military and political echelons now think it’s unrealistic that Iran could develop a nuclear weapons arsenal before 2015. Others pushed the date back even further, to the winter of 2016.

An Israeli Intelligence officer is quoted as saying: "We can’t attribute the delays in Iran’s nuclear program to accidents and sabotage alone," he said. "There has not been the run towards a nuclear bomb that some people feared. There is a deliberate slowing on their end."

There is only a "slowing" of Iran's nuclear program if one had assumed that Iran was going for a bomb. It wasn't and isn't.

Moving the date Iran could have a bomb has been done since about 1982. It will continue to be done for years to come. The premise is that while the "nuclear Iran" scare is for now buried it will certainly be revived when there is again need to divert attention from Israel's misdeeds.

Israel: Iran slowing nuclear program, won’t have bomb before 2015


By Sheera Frenkel, McClatchy Newspapers, Jan. 28, 2013
TEL AVIV, Israel Israeli intelligence officials now estimate that Iran won’t be able to build a nuclear weapon before 2015 or 2016, pushing back by several years previous assessments of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Intelligence briefings given to McClatchy over the last two months have confirmed that various officials across Israel’s military and political echelons now think it’s unrealistic that Iran could develop a nuclear weapons arsenal before 2015. Others pushed the date back even further, to the winter of 2016.
"Previous assessments were built on a set of data that has since shifted," said one Israeli intelligence officer, who spoke to McClatchy only on the condition that he not be identified. He said that in addition to a series of "mishaps" that interrupted work at Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iranian officials appeared to have slowed the program on their own.
"We can’t attribute the delays in Iran’s nuclear program to accidents and sabotage alone," he said. "There has not been the run towards a nuclear bomb that some people feared. There is a deliberate slowing on their end."
Reports that Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow had been damaged in a nuclear explosion were still being investigated Monday, Israeli officials said. Satellite imagery shared with McClatchy showed that new fortifications had been built around the perimeter of the facility.
"This is already Iran’s most heavily fortified facility," said another intelligence officer, based in Israel’s central command. "The new construction we are seeing here is meant to prevent access to the facility through land routes."
He speculated that Iran had taken special care to protect its facilities in Fordow because it was a "highly attractive target for an attack."
"Despite repeated efforts by Iran to reinforce and protect their nuclear facilities, there have been accidents that some call sabotage that may have been carried out by a number of interested parties," he said, listing Iranian dissident groups that he said would try to attack Iranian military and nuclear facilities. "One way or another, Iran has been forced to slow down."
Writing in Israel’s Hebrew-language daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot, military correspondent Alex Fishman said, "Officials responsible for assessing the state of the Iranian nuclear program, both in the West and in the International Atomic Energy Agency, believe that while the Iranians have continued to pursue their nuclear program, they have been doing so cautiously and slowly, making sure not to cross the point of no return."
Fishman wrote that Israel’s allies in the West, including Europe and the United States, had been notified of the new calculations that Iran couldn’t possess nuclear weapons before 2015.
That assessment, he said, has been unpopular in Israel’s highest political echelons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly has called 2013 a "decisive year" for Iran’s nuclear program. During his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September, Netanyahu displayed a rudimentary bomb diagram to illustrate Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon.
"By next spring, at most next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and moved on to the final stage,” Netanyahu said, laying out a timeline for the summer of 2013. “From there it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”
Netanyahu, who’s forming his country’s next government despite disappointing results in national elections, has continued to emphasize a sense of urgency on Iran’s nuclear program, citing it first among his new government’s priorities in his election victory speech.
Israeli officials, however, have said there’s a widening gulf between Netanyahu’s remarks and the intelligence reports he receives.
"There is a question we have to ask ourselves, of ‘Did we cry wolf too early?’ ” the intelligence officer said.
An official in Israel’s Foreign Ministry who spoke with McClatchy on the condition of anonymity said that international pressure and sanctions on Iran had made a tremendous difference.
"Iran is progressing carefully, and we think that is because of international pressure led by the U.S.," the official said. He added that Israel was very pleased with the tightening of sanctions, especially the recent move to block money that Iran receives for exporting oil to Asian markets.
Last week, President Barack Obama signed the latest round of restrictions into law, imposing sanctions against international companies that do business with Iranian firms while blocking Iran from obtaining key materials necessary for its automobile industries.
Meanwhile, negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of nations – China, France, Russia, Great Britain, the United States and Germany – are expected to resume this week. Conflicting reports over the stalled talks have suggested that there was disagreement over the location of the talks and their date.
Sheera Frenkel writes for McClatchy Newspapers, the Times of London, and the US National Public Radio Station.  The McClatchy Company is the third-largest newspaper company in the United States and a leading digital publisher dedicated to the values of quality journalism, free expression and community service.

Dialogue with Iran is necessary to solve the region’s problems

As I have argued before in a previous blog, the use of sanctions to isolate Iran is a poor strategy for dealing with the nuclear issue, given that Iranians feel they have long been the victims of Western wrongdoing and thus see sanctions as further evidence of their need to pursue an anti-Western policy. However, my point in this blog is that the continuation of this policy is not only failing to change Iran domestically, but also damaging prospects for peace and stability in the wider region.


Yesterday, President Barack Obama announced a tightening of US sanctions against Iran. The sanctions target foreign banks which help to sell Iranian oil, as the US continues to try and weaken Iran’s vital export market. Both the House and the Senate have also rushed to agree more sanctions, which officials say President Obama was aiming to complement through his own executive announcement. But it is clear to see that election year politics have had a strong effect on foreign policy. With Mr Romney also talking tough on Iran and pledging his unwavering support for the state of Israel, American politics has become a race to see who can be more uncompromising and aggressive, and thus who will gain more support from the American people.

To add to the rhetoric, a federal magistrate recently ruled that Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran are liable for $6 billion dollars of compensation for the 9/11 attacks. This ruling is bizarre. Iran is a staunch enemy of both Al-Qaeda and especially the Taliban, who they almost went to war with in 1998 over the murder of Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif. Indeed, even the 9/11 commission reports that “We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.” It is credible that Iran did not properly check the Saudi passports at the border, thus allowing terrorists to pass through Iran, but this nowhere near enough to justify the waves of American accusations regarding Iranian sponsorship of 9/11. The purpose of all this is to vilify the Iranians and make American politicians look like they are acting tough on national security.

All of this posturing is highly regrettable. In a crucial time for the Middle East, warmer relations with Iran are necessary for the peaceful resolution of conflict in both Syria and Afghanistan. In Syria, Iran’s influence is obvious. The two have been strong allies for decades, supporting each other when few others in the world would. But Iran is now worried, American (they recently permitted the sending of financial aid to the rebels) and Gulf (they pay the salaries of the fighters) support for the Syrian opposition is growing, and a victory for them would almost certainly mean the current Alawite regime would be replaced with a Sunni one (and quite possibly a Sunni one with strong ties to Saudi Arabia and the kind of Islamist groups it exports). As such, the Iranian foreign minister recently announced a change in policy, saying, “The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to sit down with the Syrian opposition and invite them to Iran... we are ready to facilitate and provide the conditions for talks between the opposition and government." This is a clear concession that Iran is worried about what will happen when Assad goes, and sees it as necessary to try and come to a negotiated solution.

If the West does not use the opportunity Iran presents to help broker peace, and instead supports the rebels to a full military victory, it will create serious tensions between Syria and Iran in the future. In the wake of the American invasion of Iraq, Iran supported Shia militias, creating sectarian violence which killed thousands of people. If a Sunni government is installed in Syria, and especially if it uses its power to suppress Alawite and Shia minorities (as gulf states such as Bahrain have done), it will lead to Iran feeling even more cornered and keen to exert influence on its neighbour, as it has successfully done in Iraq. Both Kofi Annan and Russia have expressed support for an Iranian role in negotiating peace in Syria, if the US were to tone down its aggressive rhetoric, this might become a real possibility.

Iran’s role in Afghanistan is also very important. Iran is in many ways a natural ally of the West’s current anti-Taliban interests. During the Afghan civil war, it was the Iranians (and the Russians) who supported (though not all at the same time) the various groups in Afghanistan’s north (Tajiks, Uzbeks and most naturally for the Iranians because they are shias, the Hazaras) whilst the ISI (with the tacit approval of the CIA), funded the various Pashtun groups in the south, with the Taliban emerging as the dominant one (see Ahmed Rashid’s analysis in ‘Taliban’). Indeed as already discussed, Iran and the Taliban have been vicious enemies since 1998. Iran does not want a Pashtun controlled Afghanistan on its doorstep, especially one which would allow for the unchecked spread of Pakistan’s influence in the region. Iran and the Central Asian countries also have an interest in seeing a peaceful Afghanistan to facilitate the trade in natural resources.

If Iran is not brought in to the dialogue on Afghanistan by the West, when the coalition troops leave Iran will take whatever measures it feels necessary to exert its influence and protect its national interests. Indeed, Afghanistan would be a much easier place for it to do so than in Syria. It has an extensive border with Afghanistan which is almost impossible to secure, and much of Western Afghanistan is culturally Persian, especially Herat, whose inhabitants talk in a manner very similar to the dialects of eastern Iran. Afghanistan can only become a prosperous and peaceful country if Iran, and equally importantly Pakistan, agree not to meddle in Afghanistan’s affairs. Leaving Afghanistan with no such an agreement will see it return to the field of the proxy war that has been fought there for decades. The government in Afghanistan has understood this, and is participating in a fourth joint economic commission in October with the Iranians, it is time the Americans realised Iran’s importance in the region and chose cooperation rather than aggression.

Iran-Saudi proxy war gains momentum

As the conflict in Syria continues, so does the Iran-Saudi proxy war in the Middle East. Several developments this week in the region highlighted the growing tactics used by Iran and Saudi Arabia in fear of each other and the Arab Spring.

Both Iran and the Saudis have a huge vested interest in Syria. The Assad regime and its supporters, mainly Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam), have enjoyed continuing support from Tehran. Syria has provided a gateway for Iran into Lebanon and Hezbollah, and as a result an avenue to destabilise Israel. It has also been known to use Syria as a ground for training insurgents to fuel the Sunni-Shia sectarian violence in Iraq. The Israelis are worried that with the collapse of the Syrian regime, the stockpile of arms currently in the country will make their way to Hezbollah and leave the Golan Heights open to al-Qaeda’s influence.

Such is Iran’s influence in Syria that it was able to mediate the release of two Turkish journalists this week that had been captured and held for two months while making a documentary of the uprising in the country. Tehran and Ankara enjoy good trade relations, but Turkey’s economy, especially in towns that border Syria, has been damaged by the uprising. Turkey’s relations with Syria have deteriorated from Prime Minister Erdogan and President Bashar enjoying holidays together to closing of the Turkish embassy in Damascus. Turkey also is currently home to nearly 25,000 Syrians, a figure that is increasing every day, and has frequently voiced the possibility of implementing buffer zones to protect the refugee camps along its borders.

Equally, Saudi Arabia has been reported to be providing arms and financial support to the Sunnis in Syria in their continuing uprising against Bashar. The Sunni Arabs in Syria make up a majority in the country, and such a majority rule would diminish Iran’s support base in the region. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which has close ties with Riyadh and Ankara, would dominate rule post-regime – developments that worry Israel and Iran.

Now, the proxy wars have extended into Yemen and Bahrain. A recent Guardian article noted how the Hirak, a group of Yemeni secular activists, fighting for secession of the south were offered training and arms by Iran. Tehran is looking to get a foothold in the Gulf peninsula; the peninsula would allow important trade channels through the region, and strategically powerful positions to counter the Saudi influence. However, even some of the secular activists within Yemen are resigned to the growing prominence of al-Qaeda in the country. Saudi intelligence is strong in Yemen, and it is worth noting their role in the recent foil of the ‘underwear bomber’ plot.

In Bahrain, with a Shia majority and historical connections with Iran but ruled by a Sunni minority, is another piece in the Iran-Saudi game. The recent social unrest in Bahrain towards the ruling elite has been met with crackdown of civil liberties and State violence. Saudi Arabia has moved to support the ruling al-Khalifa family, militarily intervening last spring in Bahrain to suppress the uprising and forging ahead with a union of Persian Gulf states. The Saudis are worried that the spirit of the uprising could force its way across the border and disrupt their own fragile stability. Iran, meanwhile, condemned the idea of the union and warned of instability if the unity plan was to go ahead.

Across the region, the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia plays out. As with the US and Russia during the Cold War, the two countries will fight their battles through other nations and their peoples, hijacking the Arab Spring for a sectarian tussle and for fear of the spirit of revolution reaching their lands – in the process creating instability and uncertainty in an already troubled region. 

Progress in Iranian nuclear talks?

Istanbul was the setting for the P5+1 talks on the 14^th of April.  Six world powers (the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany) and Iran met to discussed the issues surrounding Iran’s controversial nuclear plans and its uranium enrichment program.  The talks are the first of any kind between Iran and foreign nations for 15 months.

The key focus of the dialog was to establish confidence building measures after months of standoff, with the backdrop of rumours that Iran is weaponizing its nuclear program and that US is backing Israel in primitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

To the extent of rebuilding a degree of trust and openness the talks have been effective; the chief Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, praised the progress of the talks. "We have already said we support and welcome talks," Jalili said. "We had differences of opinion but the points we agreed on are important and tangible."The European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, described the talks as "constructive and useful".  There was also a general belief that Iran had dramatically adjusted its approach from previous talks, where they had refused to compromise, or even discuss its nuclear program at all.

However, despite the perceived progress there is still doubt as to whether an effective comprise can be met.  At every step of the previous negotiations the West has demanded that Iran end its uranium enrichment program for fear that it will perfect the process enabling the production of fissile material, suitable for making a nuclear weapon.   Meanwhile Iran says that its aims are entirely peaceful, and that uranium enrichment is its non-negotiable right.  

Some delegates were more cautious in their review of the talks; British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, welcomed the talks but said there was "a long way to go" to resolve the dispute.  While the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, said Iran needed "to make urgent and concrete gestures to establish confidence" in the next round of talks which will be held in Baghdad in May.

Despite the positive steps made at re-establishing an effective dialog the central issue of a lack of trust between Iran and the West undermines the nuclear dispute.   For decades, Iran and the West have shared an overwhelming lack of faith in each other's intentions.   So is comprise possible?  A situation where Iran can enrich uranium for a peaceful nuclear program without the fear of sanctions, and the West has suitable assurances and access for weapons inspectors so that they can be confided Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons – well this still seems unlikely.

Time will tell whether the talks in Baghdad can produce a positive outcome, but for now the talks in Istanbul have been a tentative first step in the right direction.  

The war’s afoot; to be played out later

 

The drums of war in the Middle East seem to be sounding with more volume. Aside from the Syrian situation, reports of an Israeli attack on Iran are gathering momentum. Recent reports tell of Israel buying airfields in Iran’s northern neighbour, Azerbaijan. A senior US administration official was quoted in a Foreign Policy article as saying, “The Israeli’s have bought an airfield, and the airfield is Azerbaijan.” It purportedly has four unused Soviet airfields which may be of interest to Israel and would provide close proximity to Iranian nuclear bases in Fardow, Arak and Tehran. Launching from the airfields in Azerbaijan would remove the need to gain Saudi or Iraqi air space clearance for attacks.

Israel and Azerbaijan enjoy a discreet and strategic relationship. Israel was one of the first six main countries with which Baku established diplomatic relations; Iran being one of the others. Israel provides assistance to Azerbaijan on trade and security as well as frequent cultural and educational exchanges. Last month, Tel Aviv announced that it had sold drone and anti-aircraft missiles worth $1.6bn to Azerbaijan. The reported acquisition of the Soviet airfields would seem to shore up that sale as another beat in the war drum.

However, the situation may not be that easy to assess. Azerbaijan has good diplomatic relations with Iran. Approximately 30% of Iran’s population is Azeri, including Ayatollah Khamenei. Azeris in Iran are well integrated within Persian society and share a similar standard of living. Furthermore, Azeri Iranians do not see political or socio-economic problems in terms of their ethnicity and the issue of secession in South and West Azerbaijan in northern Iran is not strongly supported. Likewise, Azerbaijan’s border with Iran is not well protected and the possibility of a mass exodus of people or reprisals from Iran would endanger Baku greatly. It is possible that Azerbaijan may be worried by the spread of Shia Islamism; although its main religion is Shia, Azerbaijan’s constitution is secular and Islam is viewed as a cultural identity rather a religious one. However, President Ilham Aliyev is unlikely to support Israel just on this basis given the large Azeri population in Iran.

Azerbaijan also holds very close ties with Turkey; its most important bilateral relationship is with Ankara. As well as sharing cultural connections they have historically been united over their opposition to Armenia, especially since Azerbaijan lost several regions to Armenia in the Nagarno-Karabakh War that lasted from 1988 to 1994. Despite declaring independence under Armenian support, Nagarno-Karabakh is not recognised internationally as an independent state. Relations began to strain between the Azerbaijan and Turkey on gas prices and the improving Turkish relations with Armenia, but diplomatic visits by Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, have subsequently led to Azerbaijan ratifying an agreement in December 2010 with Ankara strengthening bilateral relations on issues such as military, economic, humanitarian and social issues.

Turkey also has good trade relations with Iran. Although Tehran’s reported plans of nuclear proliferation are strongly opposed by both Israel and Turkey, Israeli rhetoric of war on Iran would destabilise these relations for Turkey, much in the same way the current Syrian crisis continues to. With the deteriorating relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv following Erdogan’s increasing standing in the Arab world and the Gaza flotilla attacks, Turkey is more likely than ever to oppose heavy handed threats of war on Iran. The NATO anti-missile shield located in Turkey could come under Iranian attacks should such threats become a reality. If the Foreign Policy sources are true, Turkey may use its considerable influence over Azerbaijan to deter such escalation.

It is important to note that the Foreign Policy source was ostensibly a senior US administration official. Such an admission by the US official could be read as a move by the Obama administration to undermine Israeli drum beats of war. As mentioned in our recent blog on the Middle East peace process, the Obama administration is hugely reluctant to support Israeli strikes on Iran in an election year that will likely focus predominantly on the struggling economy. Mitt Romney will no doubt pressure Obama on Russia and Iran, but the foreign policy issues are likely to play second fiddle to the economy; the American populace is weary of another war abroad while they cannot secure a job at home.

Our Israeli sources were also divided on the inevitability of a war with Iran in the coming months. Netanyahu needs support from the Knesset and substantial American military backing to deliver a knock-out blow to Iran which doesn’t seem likely in the coming months. Until then, the drum beats may just be playing out the possibility of a new Cold War.

Pastor Youcef Nardarkhaul to be executed

Pastor Yousef never practised the Muslim faith although both his parents were practising Muslims but at the age of 19 he became a practising Christian and was ordained in the Christian Church. In Iran unless the accused is prepared to recant his faith he will be executed. He has been taken to court three times and asked to recant his faith but he cannot having found what he calls "the true path which is Jesus". All we can do is pray!

NCF Meeting with the Iranian Kurds

On the evening of the 1st March, the Next Centiry Foundation hosted a working group to discuss the Kurdish issue in Iran and the Middle East.  The head of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Mustafa Hijiri, was the guest speaker, and he raised his concerns about the corruption and illegitimacy of the Iranian regime.  The following were his main points.

Firslty, he explained that the KDPI would not be taking part in today's Parliamentary election.  He reasoned that, by doing so, they would be helping the regime keep up the pretense of legitimacy.  Because the regime controls the candidates and the voting to the extent that their victory is guaranteed, if the opposition parties take part, their participation will be held up by the Iranian government as proof that they won a fair competitive election and are thus legitimate.  Therefore, the KDPI feel that abstaining will have more of an effect than participating.

Secondly, Mr Hijiri contended that Middle Eastern stability was incompatible with the existence of the current regime, that now is the time for regime change.  The main reason for this lies in Iran's progression towards nuclear capability.  It is generally agreed that Iran will soon be numbered amongst those with nuclear weapons, so the international community must try and deal with the regime now while they still have a chance.  The years of diplomacy, negotiations and sanctions have not worked - a different, more interferist approach is required.  This sense of pressing urgency is combined with Mr Hijiri's observation that the Iranian people are now ready to stand against the regime.  For years. the Iranian authorities have mounted major propaganda campaigns to convince the people of the need of nuclear weapons to protect against Iran's enemies, specifically Israel and the West.  however, according to Mr Hijiri, people are beginning to understand that these authorities only want to protect themselves and their own power.  Specifically, the poverty that has wracked Iran has served to make people realise that a regime that lets this happen while they role in wealth does not care about its people.  Thus, the trust that the Iranian populace has for the authorities is on the wane as they realise that it is not the West that is treating them badly, but their own government.

In conclusion, Mr Hijiri called for Western intervention in cooperation with the Iranian population who also feel the need for regime change.

Mr Hijiri's comments were met with serious questions from the audience.  One attendee pointed out that the West was not intervening in Syria where atrocities on a massive scale were occuring.  Why would they intervene in Iran, where though we would all disagree with their mode of governance, the people are not being shelled daily?  Mr Hijiri suggested that Iran was more strategically important to the West, and the prevention of Iran's nuclear arsenal combined with the support of the Iranian people would be enough of a motivator.  However, just a brief look at the recent history of the West (specifically the US and the UK) in the region shows that they do not have a good reputation when it comes to intervention into the region.  They are probably unwilling to do so again.  Lastly, the current deadlock in the UN Supreme Council is likely to continue, further tying the hands of the West.

Hoewever, many would agree with Mr Hijiri's analysis that the West's strategic interests in preventing Iran gaining nuclear capabilities means that the situation is far different to that of Syria, and could therefore result in a far different reaction to the West.  One poignant lesson from recent history is that, when it comes to serious security and strategic interests, some are willing to act without the blessing of the UN.