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. Sa stratégie est d'être un loup déguisé en mouton : de sourire tout en fabriquant la bombe.
" "Ils se rapprochent de la ligne rouge. Selon le premier ministre israélien, l'Iran dispose d'environ 190 kilogrammes d'uranium enrichi à 20 %, sur les 250 kilogrammes nécessaires à la fabrication d'une bombe. M. 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. The results of the elicitation were compiled into the FAS report written by Charles P. Iran’s economy is reeling yet diplomatic agreement remains elusive. 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. Their fingers will start to resemble stalactites, seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won’t be long until the screaming begins. 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. 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. Second, unless Iran made a significant goodwill gesture by the end of August, Amano would have to report to the agency's Board of Governors that, for nine months, Iran had refused to cooperate -- even as Israeli officials were signaling that they might attack Iran's nuclear installations without warning and soon because diplomacy had failed.
Now, Amano has done just that. Iran and the IAEA had a fruitless encounter in Vienna on August 24, and so six days later Amano filed his report to the IAEA governors. 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.
“There is no decision to attack Iran,” he said, adding, “We don’t make decisions beforehand for hypothetical situations. The 2007 NIE said: 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. Suppose the Israelis do not give us a lot of advance notice, but they give us a little bit of advance notice; namely, the call comes from Bibi Netanyahu to Obama sometime this spring or summer: We have launched; you know, they’re going to be over Iraq in 24 hours; are you with us? MR. MS. MR. So the bottom line is I have no idea. MR. MR. MR. MS. US has plan to attack Iran if needed. China’s Role In A Preventing A Possible Israeli Attack On Iran | Sinocism. 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.” We should all hope that China can play a positive role in preventing what would likely be a disastrous adventure for Israel, the United States and the world. Perhaps Iran’s threats to close the Straits of Hormuz have convinced the Chinese that they may want to further hedge their bets and do what they can to keep Iran from torching the global economy, especially during a time of growing economic stress and increasing social instability in China.
I wrote a post 17 months ago about China’s role in possibly preventing an Israeli attack on Iran. August 2010-China, Israel And Attacking Iran But this is a blog about China, so I will get to the point. Please tell me what you think in the comments. 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. This report provides a detailed analysis of Israeli capabilities, possible flight paths, sorties requirements, battle damage capabilities relative to target hardening, and the other details of possible Israeli strikes. The key conclusions of the analysis are: • The more there is an Israeli threat to the survival of the regime in Iran, the more Iran will be determined to acquire nuclear weapons. If Israel Bombs Iran, It’ll Jam, Spoof and Hack First | Danger Room. 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.
A combined squad of Heron drones, manned electronic attack planes from a unit called the Sky Crows and fighter jocks in F-15s and F-16s would execute the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Israeli team will spoof the radars on the Iranian air defense weapons, telling their monitors that either no planes are in the sky or hundreds are. All of this is revealed in a monster piece from Danger Room friend Eli Lake, a Newsweek/Daily Beast reporter.
The basic idea is as follows: blind an adversary, confuse him, bomb him, disrupt his ability to react or mitigate the consequences, fly away. Israel may have already given its joint electronic-air attack a test run. Photo: Wikimedia. “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. I can't believe we are discussing this. I am hearing lots of depressing talk that there is a good chance that Israel will attack Iran sometime this year and that we will get sucked into the ensuing mess. But for all that, I just can't see Obama getting us involved in another Middle Eastern war.
At any rate, an article by my CNAS colleague Colin Kahl that went up last night on the website of Foreign Affairs argues well that the "containment vs. attack" mindset is a false dilemma. WikiMedia. 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.
Did we start bombing the Soviets because they acquired nuclear capability in 1949? Even though the Soviets regularly claimed their objective was the defeat of the West? No. Nuclear capability is no guarantee of intent to use that capability. 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. Instead of maintaining the sole focus on Iran's nuclear program, the war talk creates confusion between Israel and the international community, distracting Israel's allies and turning Iran into Israel's problem alone, rather than a shared challenge to the international community. Now, Israel's allies are spending their precious time prognosticating about Israel's intentions. When it comes to unilateral military strikes against Iran, Israelis are not all on board. It's impossible to know what Israeli leaders will ultimately do. 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 In diplomatic parlance, "an argument" generally means a furious exchange of cables or some other type of reserved disagreement. Notwithstanding, the recent argument between Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro was a far cry from this definition and a decidedly undiplomatic one. Summary⎙ Print During a recent meeting in Israel, the Israeli prime minister lambasted US policymakers for pressuring Israel not to strike Iran's nuclear installations. Author Shimon Shiffer Posted September 1, 2012 Translator(s)Simon Pompan In effect, the ambassador accused Netanyahu of twisting Obama's position. Nuclear Mullahs. Reuters : IRAN COULD STRIKE U.S. BASES... U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles | Danger Room.
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.
And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran. There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. . * “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two. . ” * The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. Cable Viewer. Iranian Nuclear Program Would Outlive Attack, Gates Says. 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. Why Iran's Clock Keeps Resetting. On Bombing the Bomb.