Israël menace de nouveau d'intervenir en Iran. Le premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, a averti dimanche 14 juillet sur une télévision américaine qu'Israël pourrait intervenir militairement contre le programme nucléaire iranien avant les Etats-Unis, qualifiant le nouveau président Hassan Rohani de "loup déguisé en mouton".
"Nous sommes plus proches [de l'Iran] que les Etats-Unis. Nous sommes plus vulnérables. Et nous devrons donc aborder cette question de comment arrêter l'Iran, peut-être avant les Etats-Unis. Il y a un nouveau président en Iran. Il critique son prédécesseur pour avoir été un loup déguisé en loup. "Ils se rapprochent de la ligne rouge. War with Iran? Revisiting the Potentially Staggering Costs to the Global Economy. The Senate passage of Resolution 65 on May 22, 2013, some argue, draws the United States closer to military action against Iran.
In October 2012, amid concerns that surprisingly little research addressed the potential broad outcomes of possible U.S. -led actions against Iran, researchers at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) assembled nine renowned subject matter experts (SMEs) to investigate one underexplored question that now, eight months later, looms larger than ever: What are the potential effects on the global economy of U.S. actions against Iran?
Collectively representing expertise in national security, economics, energy markets, and finance, the SMEs gathered for a one-day elicitation workshop to consider the global economic impacts of six hypothetical scenarios involving U.S. -led actions. Could Tehran be the next Hiroshima? In those first minutes, they’ll be stunned.
Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings numbed. They’ll just stand there. Soon, you’ll notice that they are holding their arms out at a 45-degree angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and you’ll think you mind is playing tricks. But it won’t be. This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike. Iranian cities — owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities — are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,” published in the journal Conflict & Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard University.
Its scenarios are staggering. Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous. Israel has never confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, but is widely known to have up to several hundred nuclear warheads in its arsenal. IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf. Plutoniumpage : Haven't we been saying "2-4... Report Card. A month ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told Iran that it was time for a sit-down.
It sought a meeting for two reasons. First, talks with Tehran to negotiate a so-called "structured approach" to wind down the IAEA's investigation and determine whether Iran had been working on nuclear weapons -- following evidence raised by Yukiya Amano, the agency's director general, back in November -- had ground to a halt in early June. Israeli Defense Minister Pushes To Keep ‘Military Option’ On The Table Against Iran. By Eli Clifton on June 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm "Israeli Defense Minister Pushes To Keep ‘Military Option’ On The Table Against Iran" Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak pushed back against comments by ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan who had made waves by publicly asserting that, referring to Iran’s nuclear program, “An aerial strike on the reactors is a dumb idea that has no benefit.”
Challenging Dagan, Barak said, “Any ability to disperse the ambiguousness surrounding the issue of Iran” hurts Israel’s ability to defend itself against Iran, adding that the military option must remain on the table if international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program are to be effective. Barak emphasized the importance of ambiguity in deterrence and clarified Israel’s position on a military strike.
How Would America Respond if Israel Attacked Iran? Some extracts from an Atlantic Council seminar, US-Israel and Iran: Looming Military Confrontation?.
The participants are Barbara Slavin, Senior Fellow, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council; Michael Eisenstadt, Director, Military and Security Studies Program, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution. MS. SLAVIN: ...We talked about – talked a little bit about whether Israel would let us know in advance, but I’m going to pose a hypothetical and ask both of you whether you think it’s realistic and what you think would happen in that case.
It’s actually one that you’ve mentioned to me, Bruce. US has plan to attack Iran if needed. China’s Role In A Preventing A Possible Israeli Attack On Iran. If press reports like U.S.
Warns Israel Against Iran Strike-WSJ are to be believed Israel may be on the verge of attacking Iran. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is on a tour of the Middle East and the New York Times reports that ”China’s strategic alliance with Iran is less certain than before.” Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities. During the last several months, the Burke Chair has carried out a detailed examination of Iran’s programs involving missile and weapons of mass destruction.
The key drafts involved are available on the CSIS web site at: A final comprehensive report will be published this summer as CSIS book by the Praeger Press. Abdullah Toucan, a senior Associate of the Burke Chair, has prepared an additional report which provides an independent assessment of Israel’s options for striking at Iran’s facilities, based in part on prior work on Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Israel Bombs Iran, It’ll Jam, Spoof and Hack First. Iran’s nuclear program inspires perennial rumors of an Israeli air raid.
No one really knows if one is coming. But if it does, it won’t be a conventional bombing run. Israel has quietly developed powerful jamming, spoofing and electronic weapons to confuse the mullahs before, during and after an attack. “Engage Iran” — What Does It Mean? During the second half of this week there will be a flurry of meetings in Washington on the subject of negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program.
These will include this one hosted at the Stimson Center and held by the Arms Control Association, and a discussion at the University of Maryland with former Iranian negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian, now a visiting scholar at Princeton. Just before, there were two treatments of the same subject in Brussels: one a panel discussion during the IISS-led EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference, on Saturday, February 4, and thereafter a public discussion on Monday, February 6, featuring three Carnegie Endowment colleagues: James Acton, Shahram Chubin, and Jessica Mathews. I was in Brussels for the EU event this weekend but I won’t be in Washington for the meetings this week. Crisis management or conflict resolution? Best comment I have heard lately on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Planning on attacking Iran?
"Better pack a lunch," advises my friend, retired Lt. Col. Terry Daly, who knows a lot about war. His point was that airstrikes alone against Iranian nuclear facilities wouldn't do much. If you are going to attack Iran, you need to hit its ability to retaliate, and that means that pretty soon you have a big fat war on your hands. With Iran, the courage to do…nothing. Editors Note: Art Keller is a former case officer in the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division.
He currently is a writer on intelligence and national security issues and recently published his first novel, "Hollow Strength. " By Art Keller, special to Security Clearance As a new round of nuclear negotiations with Iran is set to begin this month, it brings up the question: In the not-unlikely event that this round of diplomacy collapses, as all previous rounds have, where would that leave the West?
Is bombingIran's nuclear facilities the unavoidable final recourse? Despite an abundance of saber-rattling, Western leaders have yet to convincingly explain why policy toward Iran should differ from policy toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Israel's top general says Iran unlikely to make bomb. The Loose Talk of War with Iran Returns. In a recent article for The Jewish Chronicle , I explained in detail how talk of military action against Iran’s nuclear program is a counterproductive distraction that undercuts American and Israeli security goals.
Worse, if such talk is converted into action, it may actually create the outcome that both countries are trying to avoid: an Iranian nuclear weapon. But how is this so? War talk shifts the focus from Iran to Israel. Netanyahu and US Ambassador Clash on Policy Toward Iran. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd L) listens to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2nd R) during their meeting in Jerusalem July 16, 2012.
Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak (R) and US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro (L) were also present at the meeting. (photo by REUTERS/Abir Sultan/Pool) Author: Yedioth Ahronoth (Israel) Posted September 1, 2012. Nuclear Mullahs. Reuters : IRAN COULD STRIKE U.S. BASES... U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles. Two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and a B-2 bomber fly in formation. Photo: USAF Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go.
Cable Viewer. Iranian Nuclear Program Would Outlive Attack, Gates Says. PrintShareEmailTwitterFacebookLinkedIn U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday dismissed the likelihood that use of military force could completely undo Iran's contested nuclear activities, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Nov. 16). An attack would provide a "short-term solution" to the matter that would last only two to three years, according to Gates. Meanwhile, Iran's atomic operations "would just go deeper and more covert," the Pentagon chief said during a conference. Blix: Israeli Military Strike on Iran Might be Illegal. Tony Blair: "Personally, I Think Israel Would Not Allow Iran to Get Nuclear Weapons" - Jeffrey Goldberg - International.
Iran Will Acquire Nuclear Weapons Despite Any U.S. Efforts To Stop Them. Iran Will Acquire Nuclear Weapons Despite Any U.S. Efforts To Stop Them. Shaun Jacob Halper: How to Stop Iran: My Interview with Non-Proliferation Expert Mark Fitzpatrick. Global Security Newswire - Officials Play Down Speculation Over Iran Strike. Israeli Officials Expect Strike on Iran by July 2011. Is An Attack On Iran a Good Idea? - International. The Point of No Return - Magazine. Some Straight Talk About Iran. About Iran, the Atlantic, and... China - International. Bombing Iran: What is The Atlantic's Line? - International.
Jeffrey Goldberg's cover story, on Israel's preparations to bomb Iran (and what that means for America), is getting a lot of attention, and deserves to. It is very much worth reading for its thoroughly-reported and authoritative assessment of what the Israeli, U.S., and Iranian governments are likely to do and why. It immediately becomes invaluable primary evidence about the complex pressures within these governments -- at least America's and Israel's. About Iran, who really knows. Two points about the larger argument about Iran and the context of the piece: 1) Is this article warmongering? Jeff Goldberg was a big proponent of invading Iraq, as I was not -- and those who disagreed with him about that war have in many cases taken the leap of assuming he's making the case for another assault.
Why Iran's Clock Keeps Resetting. On Bombing the Bomb.