Jack A. Smith : Will Israel Bomb Iran?

Will Israel strike? Image from Gestetner Updates.
Bombing Iran:
Will they or won't they?

Iran insists it is not producing or about to produce nuclear weapons... Israel is known to possess at least 200 nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

By Jack A. Smith / The Rag Blog / March 1, 2012

What's the Obama Administration's latest position on the possibility of an attack on Iran? It seems to be in flux but the White House is reported to be urging Israel not to start a war before the November elections.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says there is a "strong possibility" that Israel will attack Iran in either April, May, or June. The purpose would be to destroy Iran's alleged building of a nuclear weapon, an assertion Tehran rejects, pointing to strong support for its position from authoritative American sources.

Commenting on Panetta's report, a February 25 Associated Press dispatch declared: "An Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear sites could draw the U.S. into a new Middle East conflict, a prospect dreaded by a war-weary Pentagon wary of new entanglements... with unpredictable outcomes."

Foreign policy theorist Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter with links to the Obama White House, told CNN Feb. 24 that if Israel attacks Iraq, "it will be disastrous for us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the terms of oil, but also in the Middle East more generally."

On February 28, the AP reported that "Israeli officials say they won’t warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

The U.S. is in daily communication with Israel about the matter. President Barack Obama is scheduled to hold discussions with warhawk Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on March 5.

In the midst of this gathering war talk there are indications Washington does not want Israel to start a war at this juncture for several reasons:

• The Obama Administration believes bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will cause far more problems than it solves, and that the more effective policy is composed of sanctions, spying, and subversion, leading to regime change if possible.


• Washington is hesitant to get any deeper into a potential Iran quagmire at a time when Afghanistan is blowing up in its face, and while the U.S. is involved behind the scenes in ousting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.


• The White House does not want a new war on its hands during the last few months of an election campaign. The Wall Steet Journal online pointed out February 28 that "Iran and its nuclear intentions are rapidly emerging as the ultimate wild card in this year's presidential race."

In any event, President Obama and the entire U.S. national security bureaucracy know very well that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times published a relatively sensational front page article February 25 about Iran and the bomb that was based largely on authoritative information clearing Iran of bomb-making charges.

These facts have been publicly available for five years, but because the Bush and Obama Administrations sought to minimize the significance of the bombshell reports most Americans knew little of their importance

The Times' headline read: "U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb." The article disclosed:

American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

The article also reported on some unusually honest statements made in the last few weeks by Obama Administration officials:

In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.

The fact that the Times decided to publish a front page article based on largely dated information undermining the rationale for attacking Iran evidently means the ruling elite is leaning on the White House to avoid one more war that could backfire during the election campaign.

Published in the same issue of the Times was a new statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is producing additional enriched uranium inside a deep underground site -- a report that the right wing Netanyahu regime distorted to signify that Iran is one step closer to creating a weapon with which to threaten the existence of Israel.

There was no proof the uranium in question was intended for any purpose other than Iran's civilian nuclear program. Iran is working with the UN on an agreement to allow inspectors into all sites associated with the program.

Given the immense U.S. and Israeli spying apparatus inside Iran, as well as America's extensive surveillance abilities -- from spy satellites to drone flights and probable access to every telephone call and Internet message in Iran -- it is significant no evidence has been collected to verify the bomb-making accusations. The 16 American intelligence agencies seem to know what they are talking about.

This does not impress war hawks in the U.S. Congress and among anti-Iranian organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who are working to push Washington toward greater confrontations with Tehran. Several right wing senators introduced a bill in mid-February lowering the threshold for a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran from making a bomb to possessing the ability to do so.

Iran insists it is not producing or about to produce nuclear weapons, and maintains that its nuclear power program is essentially in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is known to possess at least 200 nuclear weapons and delivery systems while ignoring the treaty.

Tehran has long called for transforming the Middle East into a nuclear-free zone -- a proposition opposed by both Obama and Netanyahu. Ironically, Washington is on exceptionally close terms with the three countries in possession of large nuclear arsenals that have thumbed their noses at the NonProliferation Treaty -- Israel, Pakistan and India -- even to the point of assisting them to maintain and update their weaponry.

In a statement February 28, Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared that "We do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons; quite the opposite." He then referred to a religious decree issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme authority within the Islamic Republic of Iran, that termed "the production possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin."

United States animosity toward Iran -- which has existed since America's puppet monarch in Tehran was overthrown over 30 years ago -- has nothing to do with Tehran's alleged efforts to construct nuclear weapons. It is instead primarily based on Washington's intention to exercise unimpeded domination of the Persian Gulf region, in which perhaps 30% of the world's petroleum originates and is transported through the Gulf.

America has sought hegemony over the Middle East, and particularly the Persian Gulf, for several decades. This goal was a principle reason President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003 to solidify U.S. control of the Gulf, believing a quick victory would pave the way toward toppling the government in Iran.

The Iraqi fightback and the subsequent stalemate destroyed Bush's plans. Since Baghdad had long been Tehran's main enemy, the only country to benefit from Bush's neoconservative folly in Iraq was Iran.

Iran is now the principal power within the Persian Gulf region. Tehran has had a sharp rhetorical critique of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia for decades but is not using its power to threaten or attack any other country. Tehran's military is not large, and is defensive in structure and intention.

But as long as the Islamic Republic refuses to subordinate itself to imperial Washington it remains an obstacle to America's geopolitical ambitions, which are based on retaining global hegemony.

A main reason for the Obama Administration's cruel and ever-tightening economic sanctions is to bring about regime-change in Iran to situate a client administration in Tehran. If this doesn't work, the threat of military action is obviously implicit in President Obama's mantra about "No option is off the table."

For the immediate future, however, the White House appears to prefer sanctions, spying, and subversion to the potential unintended consequences of a U.S. or Israeli bombing attack on Iran.

[Jack A. Smith was editor of the Guardian -- for decades the nation's preeminent leftist newsweekly -- that closed shop in 1992. Smith now edits the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter, where this article was also posted. Read more articles by Jack A. Smith on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Harvey Wasserman : Stop the Attack on Iran

Bumper sticker on a car in Texas. Photo by Zereshk / Wikimedia Commons.
Our future depends on
stopping an attack on Iran

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / November 21, 2011

The global Occupy Movement has come to life just in time.

War is the health of the corporate state. The 1% needs its endless cash flow to stay in power.

As the slaughters in Iraq and Afghanistan transform into something less visible, the 1% war machine must have a new profit center. The pretext for this latest war is the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran. It's a tawdry rerun of the lies George W. Bush used to sell the 2003 attack on Iraq. It's no surprise those "weapons of mass destruction" were never found -- or that Bush could later joke about it.

The hypocrisy of the 1% railing against bombs allegedly flowing from Iran's "Peaceful Atom" program comes in unholy tandem with the corporate push for a "nuclear renaissance" peddling these same reactors all over the world. (It helps to remember that the nuclear industry once tried to sell 36 "peaceful" reactors to the Shah).

Stopping the attack on Iran is absolutely vital to our hopes for social justice and democracy. The occupy movement holds the key.

The slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan has been horrific, but pales beside the bloodshed that could come next. Iran is a far more advanced country, with 76 million people. It's powerful, diverse, and sophisticated, with significant ties to Russia, China, India, and throughout the mideast. In the 1980s it fought a land war with Iraq that killed a million people. Does the 1% expect us to embrace a rerun?

It's up to our newly energized grassroots movement to stop this madness before it happens.

Remember that peace movements have been critical in shaping the course of history. For example, Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to beat Southeast Asia into submission included the use of nuclear weapons. But he refrained, in part because of his well-justified fear of a national upheaval.

Global demonstrations failed to stop George W. Bush from attacking Iraq. Today the GOP wannabes are again howling for war. There are certainly advisors within the Obama Administration arguing -- as they did for Bush in 2003 -- that an ongoing war might be a ticket to re-election.

We must find nonviolent ways to stop this war in Iran. Old tactics and new -- time-tested strategies and ones not yet imagined -- will surface and resurface in the coming months. The de facto universities, debating societies, strategizing collectives, and action groups that help define the Occupy Movement will give birth to a new generation's means of making social change. If we work hard enough at it, one or more of them will hold the key to our future. Somewhere, somehow, the means for stopping the next war must emerge.

The truly great news is that we all are now party to every organizer's dream: a spontaneous eruption of the global dispossessed. It is a thoughtful, sophisticated, diverse, energized populace, ready to change the world -- and compelled to find the nonviolent means for doing it.

Step one is to cut off the endless military spending that is the lifeblood of the 1%, and to begin starving out the warfare state.

It's the only way to a world built on social justice and ecological survival.

So let's find that fork in the road... and take it. See you in the streets.

[Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.harveywasserman.com. His “Solartopia! Green-Power Hour” is podcast from www.talktainmentradio.com. Read more of Harvey Wasserman's writing on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince : The Looming Specter of a Strike on Iran

U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft in Afghanistan.
Looming specter:
Strike on Iran an increasing possiblity

By Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince / The Rag Blog / August 19, 2010

Reading the signs

Signs -- coming from a number of different sources -- suggest that some kind of major U.S.-Israeli military offensive against Iran could be in the offing between now and the November mid-term elections. Among them:

• A background of one of the largest regional military buildups in modern time, the creation of military and "floating bases," and the intensive arming through arms sales and grants of U.S. regional allies with sophisticated modern weapons and delivery systems. This was perhaps the only "new" element in what former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to as the creation of "a new Middle East."


• New warnings of possible U.S./Israeli military action coming from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Iranian American Council, Time’s columnist Joe Klein ("An Attack On Iran Is Back On The Table" -- July 15) -- among others.


• A bizarre July 31 piece in the Washington Post by Ray Tayeyh and Steven Simon arguing that the United States should only attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and then "signal" the Iranians that the bombing would stop and that the goal was not to overthrow the regime. This is part of a larger and mostly hidden debate within the administration over how extensive the bombing should be.


• Articles by neo-conservative columnists Reuel Marc Gerecht and William Kristol calling for a military strike.


• Admiral Mike Mullen’s August 2 admission that the United States "has plans" to attack Iran to prevent that country from producing nuclear weapons


• An August 4 open letter from former intelligence officers to President Obama warning that Israel could be planning to attack Iran and draw the United States into the conflict


• The Obama Administration’s stalling to issue the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. It will be secret and its conclusions will either be leaked or released in summary. Sources inside the intelligence community insist that it will support the 2007 NIE that concluded that Iran no longer has a weapons program. The White House has delayed the process seeking harder language to justify a range of options against Iran, including a military strike, but the analysts are reported to be resisting.


• Last but not least, the introduction of H.R. 1553 into the House of Representatives which provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of force."

House Resolution 1553:
A green light to attack Iran?

Of these, the introduction of HR 1553, currently making its way through House committees with more than 40 sponsors, expressing full support for an Israeli attack on Iran, has opened the gate to push the U.S. into military action.

It has long been the goal of Netanyahu’s government and the neo-conservative members of the Bush government who are still influential in the Obama Administration to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran. This has been Israel’s Iran strategy. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.

Although this kind of saber-rattling is not new, it has reached a new pitch, suggesting that military action against Iran could be in the works. There is some evidence that the United States drew up plans to attack Iran as early as 1995. In 2007, it appeared that the Bush Administration was close to proceeding with a major attack when the National Intelligence Estimate was made public, contending that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program.

In one of the few times in his presidency, Bush overruled his vice president, Dick Cheney (who favored proceeding with military action all the same) to stop the military plans. Admiral Mullen was sent to Israel to "deliver the message" of no war clearly and unambiguously. The Israelis were reported to have been furious about the change in plans. One of the most disturbing elements of the current escalation of tension is Barack Obama’s failure to do precisely the same thing: reign in Netanyahu.

The Israelis in particular and their more zealous supporters in the USA (AIPAC, neo-cons) have worked for three years, virtually tirelessly, to rebuild support for a military strike. Their efforts appear to have succeeded, at least in part. And other groups, like J-Street, while not supporting a military strike, have supported the sanctions against Iran and generally bought into the myth that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel, rather than the other way round.

American-made Israeli F 15 fighter jets on the ready.

Arguments against a U.S.-Israeli attack

In an email a few days ago, a friend put the case against a U.S.-Israeli attack against Iran succinctly:

I’m sure the U.S. and Israel would love to hit Iran. Even with the saber-rattling, it’s hard to believe they’ll do it because:

1. Iran can hit the U.S. hard in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the U.S. has more than it can handle now; most of the top Pentagon brass knows this and Gates, Admiral Mullen, etc. have said that it would be nuts to hit Iran;
2. It would provoke really harsh opposition by China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey and numerous countries that the U.S. needs for more important things;
3. Iran can probably stop shipping in the Red Sea, etc.

I think that if they could do it, they would have already done it. It would be suicidal but suicide is often a psychotic response and there are definitely psychotics in Israel and DC pushing for it.

All these are reasonable arguments and we hope they carry the day. Perhaps they will. But each of them can be challenged in some ways. the United States these past years -- and certainly Israel for an even longer time -- have a tendency to deal with the crises they have created by escalation. With a few exceptions, Israel has most of its existence "resolved its problems with its neighbors" by the use of force. It is deeply ingrained in the national psyche to resort to military, rather than diplomatic means to implement policy.

And while we agree with Andrew Bacevich’s call for the Obama Administration to end the U.S. policy of permanent war, close the foreign bases, and bring home the troops, it does not appear that we’re anywhere near that. To the contrary.

How has the United States dealt with the crisis in Iraq, which is far from resolved? It invaded, or re-invaded Afghanistan, and might do it again, despite the rational -- and they are rational -- arguments my friend presented. Besides, recall that before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were also many rational voices arguing that that particular invasion would not take place, but it did. The U.S seems intent on maximizing its military position in the region as quickly as possible. That was the essence of the Bush-Cheney policy.

Unfortunately, despite his Nobel Peace Prize -- poorly deserved -- Barack Obama’s Middle East foreign policy is hardly different... despite the softer rhetoric. A fine speech in Cairo does not a foreign policy make.

But to respond directly to our friend: As mentioned above, Admiral Mullen in recent weeks has changed his tune; it is more strident and suggests that military action is possible. On the most recent UN sanctions, the United States was largely able to neutralize both China and Russia, although those nations still managed to somewhat water down the resolution.

Regardless, their opposition to a military strike seems less firm than it has been in the past. And while Turkey has opened up a certain breech with Israel, their military coordination and cooperation through NATO remains quite strong and NATO, it appears, is "on board" for a strike.

Add to that the way that the U.S. seems to consistently underestimate Iran’s ability to strike back militarily. Of course we’re not military analysts, but to compare Iran today with Iraq in 2003, after it had suffered defeat in the first Gulf War and then 12 years of crippling sanctions is way off the mark. Iran is a much stronger country militarily than Iraq was then and while we don’t underestimate the ability of the United States and its allies to wreak horrific damage on Iran, Iran has had a long time to prepare for such eventualities.

In addition the Iranians, through the Revolutionary Guard (which represents about half of its military strength, the other half being the conventional Iranian military), have the most ideologically oriented military in the world. And we would argue that an Iranian response could be devastating where it hurts -- the Saudi oil fields, Persian Gulf oil shipping, and the possibility of considerable destabilization of the U.S. position in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, we assume, it could do harm to Israel.

Finally, keep in mind that the United States and Israel are not the only military powers in the region capable of preemptive military strikes. Who knows, if the Iranians feel completely cornered and have come to conclude that there is no way to avoid an attack, perhaps they will, from a military point of view, take the initiative themselves as their way of dealing with what they perceive as the inevitable battle. We’re not saying this is their policy, just that such a response is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

David Wormser has advocated attack for regime change. Photo from Telegraph, U.K.

New dangerous elements

There are a few other elements that make the current moment especially dangerous:

• For all the talk of U.S.-Israeli strains, the NATO-U.S.-Israel military structure in the Middle East is fully integrated. In Israel the thinking about striking Iran is, "If not now, when?" Momentum is building for a strike.


• There appears to be support for such a strike from key U.S. Arab allies, in particular Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Recently Egypt let 10 U.S. warships and one Israeli warship through the Suez Canal headed towards the Persian Gulf. There have also been reports that the Saudis would permit Israel use of its airspace to attack Iran. The fact that the Saudis have issued public denials does not necessarily mean that it won’t happen. It is also possible that the Kurdish regions of Iraq, Azerbaijan, or Georgia could be used by the Israelis to facilitate an attack.


• The Netanyahu government believes, according to some sources, that with the U.S. midterm elections approaching, the U.S. will not be able to reign in Israeli military actions (wherever they might occur) and that furthermore, at this time, Israel is more likely to drag the United States into fighting -- which they very much want and hope to do.


• Meanwhile public opinion in the United States has shifted from a position against to one in favor of a military strike against Iran. Only a few years ago one third of Americans polled supported military action against Iran, but now that figure is close to 57% -- probably a response to the Iranian crackdown on its democratic movement last summer, as well as AIPAC and the neocon’s unrelenting pressure.


• Before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq there were worldwide demonstrations; today there is hardly a whimper from the peace movement or major public figures either here or abroad. True, in 2003 the plans were for a full scale ground invasion and while now, the discussion -- at least the public discussion -- is limited to air strikes. However, more and more it has been admitted that these airstrikes would not be limited to Iranian nuclear facilities but would probably be aimed at striking a devastating and crippling blow against the whole country, its infrastructure and political command system.

`Getting’ Iran

Although on paper, Israelis and their lobbyists base their argument for war on a fanciful scenario of Iran doling out nuclear weapons to Islamic extremists all over the Middle East, their more likely objective is to destroy Iran’s Islamic regime (regime change) in a paroxysm of U.S. military violence. David Wurmser, formerly a close advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu and Middle East advisor to Dick Cheney, revealed that he had advocated a U.S. war on Iran, not to set back the nuclear program but to achieve regime change.

The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why military leaders have strongly resisted it in both the Bush and Obama Administrations. Even though Israel, not Iran, has increasingly been regarded around the world as a rogue state after the Gaza incursion and the commando killings of unarmed civilians on board the Mavi Marmara, its grip on the U.S. Congress appears as strong as ever.

AIPAC has once again flexed its muscle, making it clear with the introduction of this resolution, that it can push Congress to bend Obama into submission on the Iran issue. It appears that Democrats in Congress, are mentally in a different galaxy than they were under Bush, and are, in large measure, willing to go along, making clear that the U.S. Iran policy has bipartisan support. It is a mistake thus, to place all the blame for this reckless policy on the Republicans.

Attacking Iran should be understood as part of a broader U.S. long term strategy of using its network of military bases worldwide as a way of maintaining its declining hegemony. "Neutralizing" Iran is something of a medium term goal, with the long range goal being the capability of preempting a Chinese challenge, even if it is decades a way.

Netanyahu must be rubbing his hands with glee about the prospects for pressuring Obama to join an Israeli war of aggression against Iran. It was Netanyahu, after all, who declared in 2001, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”

[Ibrahim Kazerooni is an Imam with Colorado's Muslim community. Rob Prince is a full-time lecturer in International Studies at the University of Denver and publisher of the Colorado Progressive Jewish News blog at robertjprince.wordpress.com.]

Thanks to Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Israel Coiled for Potential Iran Strike

'While its preference is to coordinate with the US, defense officials have said Israel is preparing a wide range of options for such an operation.'
By Yaakov Katz / December 4, 2008

The IDF (Israel Defense Forces)is drawing up options for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that do not include coordination with the United States, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

While its preference is to coordinate with the US, defense officials have said Israel is preparing a wide range of options for such an operation

"It is always better to coordinate," one top Defense Ministry official explained last week. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."

Israeli officials have said it would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without receiving codes from the US Air Force, which controls Iraqi airspace. Israel also asked for the codes in 1991 during the First Gulf War, but the US refused.

"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a top Israeli official said.

Several news reports have claimed recently that US President George W. Bush has refused to give Israel a green light for an attack on Iranian facilities. One such report, published in September in Britain's Guardian newspaper, claimed that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert requested a green light to attack Iran in May but was refused by Bush.

In September, a Defense News article on an early warning radar system the US recently sent to Israel quoted a US government source who said the X-band deployment and other bilateral alliance-bolstering activities send parallel messages: "First, we want to put Iran on notice that we're bolstering our capabilities throughout the region, and especially in Israel. But just as important, we're telling the Israelis, 'Calm down, behave. We're doing all we can to stand by your side and strengthen defenses, because at this time, we don't want you rushing into the military option.'"

The "US European Command (EUCOM) has deployed to Israel a high-powered X-band radar and the supporting people and equipment needed for coordinated defense against Iranian missile attack, marking the first permanent US military presence on Israeli soil," Defense News wrote. The radar will shave several precious minutes off Israel's reaction time to an Iranian missile launch.

In a related article at about the same time, TIME magazine raised the possibility that through the deployment of the radar, America wants to keep an eye on Israeli airspace, so that the US is not surprised if and when the IAF is sent to bomb Iran, a scenario Washington wants to avoid.

The US army sent 120 EUCOM personnel to Israel's Nevatim Air Base southeast of Beersheba to man the new radar.

Last week, Iran's nuclear chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh revealed that the country was operating more than 5,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and would continue to install centrifuges and enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel for the country's future nuclear power plants.

"At this point, more than 5,000 centrifuges are operating in Natanz," said Aghazadeh, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. This represents a significant increase from the 4,000 Iran had said were up and running in August at the plant.

The Islamic republic has said it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Israeli officials said last week that the drop in oil prices and the continued sanctions on Iran were having an effect, although they had yet to stop Teheran's nuclear program. The officials said that while Iran was making technological advancements, it would not have the necessary amount of highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb until late 2009.

"There is still time and there is no need to rush into an operation right now," another Israeli official said. "The regime there is already falling apart and will likely no longer be in power 10 years from now."

The IAF was preparing for a wide range of options, OC Air Force Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan recently said, adding that all it would take to launch an operation was a decision by the political echelon.

"The air force is a very robust and flexible force," he told Der Spiegel. "We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."

On Monday, Teheran dismissed the possibility of an Israeli strike, saying it didn't take Israel seriously.

"We think that regional and international developments and the complicated situation faced by Israel itself will not allow it to launch military strikes against other countries," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Teheran, according to the Press TV Web site. "Israel makes threats to promote its psychological and media warfare," he said.

Source / The Jerusalem Post

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...