Iran test fires short range nuclear missiles

[Rypro 525]

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer – 7 mins ago
TEHRAN – Iran said it successfully test-fired short-range missiles during military drills Sunday by the elite Revolutionary Guard, a show of force days after the U.S. warned Tehran over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility it was secretly constructing.
Gen. Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, said Iran also tested a multiple missile launcher for the first time. The official English-language Press TV showed pictures of at least two missiles being fired simultaneously and said they were from Sunday's drill in a central Iran desert. In the clip, men could be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" as the missiles were launched.
"The message of the war game for some arrogant countries which intend to intimidate is that we are able to give a proper, strong answer to their hostility quickly," state television quoted Salami as saying. He said the missiles successfully hit their targets.
The powerful Revolutionary Guard controls Iran's missile program.
The tests came two days after the U.S. and its allies disclosed that Iran had been secretly developing a previously unknown underground uranium enrichment facility and warned the country it must open the nuclear site to international inspection or face harsher international sanctions. The drill was planned in advance of that disclosure.
The newly revealed nuclear site in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom is believed to be inside a heavily guarded, underground facility belonging to the Revolutionary Guard, according to a document sent by President Barack Obama's administration to lawmakers.
After the strong condemnations from the U.S. and its allies, Iran said Saturday it will allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine the site.
Nuclear experts said the details that have emerged about the site and the fact it was being developed secretly are strong indications that Iran's nuclear program is not only for peaceful purposes, as the country has long maintained.
By U.S. estimates, Iran is one to five years away from having a nuclear weapons capability, although U.S. intelligence also believes that Iranian leaders have not yet made the decision to build a weapon.
Iran also is developing a long-range ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear warhead, but the administration said last week that it believes that effort has been slowed. That assessment paved the way for Obama's decision to shelve the Bush administration's plan for a missile shield in Europe, which was aimed at defending against Iranian ballistic missiles.
Salami said Iran would test medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles on Sunday night and long-range Shahab-3 missiles on Monday, during the military drill set to last several days.
Salami said Fateh, Tondar and Zelzal missiles were test fired on Sunday, but did not give specifics on range or other details. All are short-range, surface-to-surface missiles.
He told reporters Iran had reduced the missiles and their ranges and enhanced their speed and precision so they could be used in quick, short-range engagements. He also said they are now able to be launched from positions that are not as easy to hit.
He said the current missile tests and military drills are indications of Iran's resolve to defend its national values and part of a strategy of deterrence and containment of missile threats.
Iran has had the solid-fuel Fateh missile, with a range of 120 miles (193 kilometers), for several years. Fateh means conqueror in Farsi and Arabic. It also has the solid-fueled, Chinese-made CSS 8, also called the Tondar 69, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private group that seeks to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Tondar, which means thunder, has a range of about 93 miles (150 kilometers.)
Iran has previously tested the Zelzal missile, versions of which have ranges of 130-185 miles (210-200 kilometers. In July 2006, Israeli military officials said their jets had destroyed a missile in Lebanon named Zelzal, which they said Hezbollah had received from Iran and could reach Tel Aviv. Zelzal means earthquake.
Iran's last known missile tests were in May when it fired its longest-range solid-fuel missile, Sajjil-2. Tehran said the two-stage surface-to-surface missile has a range of about 1,200 miles (1,900 kilometers) — capable of striking Israel, U.S. Mideast bases and Europe.
The revelation of Iran's secret site has given greater urgency to a key meeting on Thursday in Geneva between Iran and six major powers trying to stop its suspected nuclear weapons program.
The U.S. and its partners plan to tell Tehran at the meeting that it must provide "unfettered access" for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, within weeks.
The facility is Iran's second uranium-enrichment site working to produce the fuel that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapon.
A close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday the site will be operational soon and would pose a threat to those who oppose Iran.
"This new facility, God willing, will become operational soon and will blind the eyes of the enemies," Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani told the semi-official Fars news agency.
Evidence of the clandestine facility was presented Friday by Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. On Saturday, Obama offered Iran "a serious, meaningful dialogue" over its disputed nuclear program, while warning Tehran of grave consequences from a united global front.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Saturday the revelation was firm proof Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.
Israel considers Iran a strategic threat with its nuclear program, missile development and repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel's destruction. It has not ruled out a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites.
In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reaction and in 2007, Israel bombed a site in Syria that the U.S. said was a nearly finished nuclear reactor built with North Korean help that was configured to produce plutonium — one of the substances used in nuclear warheads.
Israel's Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment on the missile tests.
Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads Iran's nuclear program, said Saturday that U.N. nuclear inspectors could visit the nuclear site but did not provide a timeframe. On Sunday, he told Press TV Iran and the IAEA would work out the timing of the inspection.
The small-scale site is meant to house no more than 3,000 centrifuges — much less than the 8,000 machines at Natanz, Iran's known industrial-scale enrichment facility, but they could still potentially help create bomb-making material.
Experts have estimated that Iran's current number of centrifuges could enrich enough uranium for a bomb in as little as a year. Washington has been pushing for heavier sanctions if Iran does not agree to end enrichment.Saw this as breaking news on the Today Show, as i'm shocked there isn't a thread yet

[classicman2]

Are you really shocked, or just a little bit surprised? ;)

In reality - it means very little. Now when they test fire short range missiles with a nuclear warhead, that will mean something.

[mhg83]

Bush 2.0 needs to invade Iran before it's too late.

[classicman2]

That's exactly what we don't need.

I hope we learned our lesson in Iraq about intervention.

If you think Iraq was a quagmire - try Iran.

[Dr Mabuse]

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

"He must walk warily and fearlessly, and while he should never brawl if he can avoid it, he must be ready to hit hard if the need arises. Let him remember ... that the unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly." - Theodore Roosevelt

We have forgotten this.

We have tried hitting soft two times recently and have not learned our lesson.

[VinVega]

We have forgotten this.

We have tried hitting soft two times recently and have not learned our lesson.
So the answer is to turn Iran into a sheet of glass?

[classicman2]

There is a question whether we have 40,000 troops to 'spare' in Afghanistan.

How in the hell are we going to come up with 500,000+ in Iran?

[Dr Mabuse]

So the answer is to turn Iran into a sheet of glass?

That would not be necessary.

The US can hit so much harder than... I think many in this country realize, much less the world.

If we decided to hit hard in Afghanistan we could clear that up in rather quick work too.

The consequences of hitting soft are difficult for many people to understand I think. Not you personally maybe, I mean that generally.

[Dr Mabuse]

There is a question whether we have 40,000 troops to 'spare' in Afghanistan.

How in the hell are we going to come up with 500,000+ in Iran?

What will happen with a nuclear attack in the middle east do you think?

Will 500,000 troops even be in the top ten concerns at that point?

The perspective on things like this in the US has become so skewed, ideological, and disconnected from the painfully clear lesson of history that are repeated over and over again for millenia... it's really troubling to see it so soon after WW2, but it's here.

[classicman2]

Do you seriously believe that he leaders in Iran are going to use nuclear weapons?

Again - much of what they say is for home consumption. And, they want to be a nuclear power for the same reason that other countries want to be a nuclear power - become a larger player in the region.

WWII or any previous war is a bad example. Nuclear weapons were in one country's hands - ours. That's not so today.

[Dr Mabuse]

I understand why you didn't want to answer/address the question.

WW2 is directly applicable and comparable. Your choosing to try to artificially narrow down the lesson there doesn't change that.

[General Zod]

There is currently no country brave enough to stop Iran except Israel. And when Israel feels it is time to act - they will.

The UN can write them more strongly worded letters though - I'm sure that will help about as well as it has so far.

As far as the US getting involved. Our current president doesn't have the belly for it IMO.

[classicman2]

You fail to realize it's a different world we live in now than it was in WWII.

Hiroshima changed the world - militarily and politically.

What do you want to do - nuke Iran? Or are you under the illusion that we can accomplish the 'goal' (whatever that is) by using 'surgical air strikes?'

There is considerable unrest and opposition to he government in Iran. A U.S. air strike, or worse, an invasion, would tend to unite the people of Iran. That I don't believe would be the smart thing to do.

I'm afraid we're going to have to accept the reality -the nuclear club is going to grow.

[classicman2]

There is currently no country brave enough to stop Iran except Israel. And when Israel feels it is time to act - they will.

The UN can write them more strongly worded letters though - I'm sure that will help about as well as it has so far.

As far as the US getting involved. Our current president doesn't have the belly for it IMO.

How in the hell is Israel going to stop Iran?

[General Zod]

How in the hell is Israel going to stop Iran?

They can take out Qom like they did Osirak. It was all over in 100 seconds.

[classicman2]

Ah - if it was only that easy.

What we are probably going to have to do is develop a new cold war type strategy. Tell Iran, NK, etc. just how the cow ate the cabbage - as we did with the USSR in the cold war.

[Dr Mabuse]

You fail to realize it's a different world we live in now than it was in WWII.

It's the same world as it was 2000 years ago. Man is the same, and so is war. Thinking it's not? Well that's one of the most common ways 'modern'(from any era) men delude themselves about things.

What do you want to do - nuke Iran? Or are you under the illusion that we can accomplish the 'goal' (whatever that is) by using 'surgical air strikes?'

I see you didn't read my posts above?

Obviously you didn't get my point about not being a pansy and half-assing it when it comes time for war. That or you didn't read that post either.

There is considerable unrest and opposition to he government in Iran. A U.S. air strike, or worse, an invasion, would tend to unite the people of Iran. That I don't believe would be the smart thing to do.

I'm afraid we're going to have to accept the reality -the nuclear club is going to grow.

This is the folly of the 'modern' mind. Forget history and pretend there is something new under the sun.

There isn't.

Sitting back and letting a hostile theocracy(that is actively attacking and killing US troops already and destabilizing the region also) obtain a nuclear weapon is the height of foolishness.

[classicman2]

You didn't answer the question. Do you want to nuke Iran? Or do you want to invade Iran?

We allowed the Soviet Union to obtain a nuclear weapon without nuking or invading.

As I said in #16 we made it quite clear to the soviets what we would do if they did certain things. It worked. We can make it quite clear to Iran & North Korea what we will do if they do certain things.

It's called 'deterrent.'

We don't have the manpower to launch an invasion against Iran. That is the only way to insure that you destroy their nuclear facilities. And, even then, you may not get them all. Should we follow that course - you talk about destabilzation - you'll really distabilize one of the most vital areas in the world with that type of action.

[JasonF]

It's the same world as it was 2000 years ago. Man is the same, and so is war. Thinking it's not? Well that's one of the most common ways 'modern'(from any era) men delude themselves about things.

Human nature is the same. Tactics and strategy are not. If you disagree, try invading Rome by bringing a pack of elephants across the Alps and see how far you get. Hell, try replicating Omaha Beach -- a tactic that worked a mere 65 years ago -- against an opponent with access to satellite imaging technology and see haw far you get.

[X]

We allowed the Soviet Union to obtain a nuclear weapon without nuking or invading.I don't think we were watching them develop them like we are watching Iran.

[Bandoman]

That's exactly what we don't need.

I hope we learned our lesson in Iraq about intervention.

If you think Iraq was a quagmire - try Iran.

Agreed. We should just nuke them instead.

[Dr Mabuse]

You didn't answer the question. Do you want to nuke Iran? Or do you want to invade Iran?

Again, you didn't read my posts above.

[classicman2]

Again - what does 'hitting harder' mean?

Does that mean a nuclear attack?

What?

[dork]

Agreed. We should just nuke them instead.
With their own nuke!

[classicman2]

The last thing we want to do is unite the Iranian people.

What some have proposed would go a long way in doing that.

[Dr Mabuse]

Human nature is the same. Tactics and strategy are not. If you disagree, try invading Rome by bringing a pack of elephants across the Alps and see how far you get. Hell, try replicating Omaha Beach -- a tactic that worked a mere 65 years ago -- against an opponent with access to satellite imaging technology and see haw far you get.

It's the same world as it was 2000 years ago. Man is the same, and so is war. Thinking it's not? Well that's one of the most common ways 'modern'(from any era) men delude themselves about things.

[X]

The last thing we want to do is unite the Iranian people.

What some have proposed would go a long way in doing that.I've been wondering about that for a while. What do we lose if the Iran people are united? It's not like they're going to overthrow the government anytime soon.

[classicman2]

No - war is not the same.

You are deluding yourself if you think it is.

[Dr Mabuse]

I've been wondering about that for a while. What do we lose if the Iran people are united? It's not like they're going to overthrow the government anytime soon.
Precisely.

They couldn't even unite their way to changing the government.

It's funny, before Sherman showed the world what American war actually was, many of these same things were said about invading the south in the north. Hell even attacking the south in the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln had a hell of time finding someone who would.

Funny how lessons of history are so easily forgotten by people who believe we have become so modern and different that history no longer applies. That root has been sticking out on the path of man for thousands of years, and most people still trip over it.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." - George Bernard Shaw

[classicman2]

I've been wondering about that for a while. What do we lose if the Iran people are united? It's not like they're going to overthrow the government anytime soon.

We're not talking about overthrowing the government.
If the pro-western movement (I don't know what else to call it) continues to grows in Iran then the threat of Iran will diminish. If the U.S. is foolish enough to take military action against Iran, then it most likely would unite the people against the 'common enemy - the U.S.'

[classicman2]

They became united enough to overthrow the Shah.

Our association with the Shah soured any relationship between Iran & the U.S. until today.

[Dr Mabuse]

So on one hand you say the threats and military shows of force are for 'home consumption' and are empty gestures to make a show for the people, though history teaches us that an enemy generally says what he means and means what he says.

Now you say if we attack them to prevent a catastrophe we may turn the people of Iran against us?

So which is it?

[X]

We're not talking about overthrowing the government.
If the pro-western movement (I don't know what else to call it) continues to grows in Iran then the threat of Iran will diminish. If the U.S. is foolish enough to take military action against Iran, then it most likely would unite the people against the 'common enemy - the U.S.'As long as the mullahs are running Iran the threat of Iran will stay the same. The citizens aren't going to overthrow the mullahs, the only "threat" after the election was to the figurehead the mullahs put out for election. Even the "moderates" who ran against Ahmadinejad support Iran's nuclear program.

A close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday the site will be operational soon and would pose a threat to those who oppose Iran.

"This new facility, God willing, will become operational soon and will blind the eyes of the enemies," Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani told the semiofficial Fars news agency.What do you think that means?

[classicman2]

So on one hand you say the threats and military shows of force are for 'home consumption' and are empty gestures to make a show for the people, though history teaches us that an enemy generally says what he means and means what he says.

Now you say if we attack them to prevent a catastrophe we may turn the people of Iran against us?

So which is it?

Catastrophe - please!!!! :rolleyes:

Apparently you seriously believe what the leaders of Iran say what they mean and mean what they say. Even our politicians are prone to say things that they really don't mean, and say what they really mean.

Again - much is for home consumption. That goes for Iran (especially) and the U.S.

[Dr Mabuse]

As long as the mullahs are running Iran the threat of Iran will stay the same. The citizens aren't going to overthrow the mullahs, the only "threat" after the election was to the figurehead the mullahs put out for election. Even the "moderates" who ran against Ahmadinejad support Iran's nuclear program.

A close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday the site will be operational soon and would pose a threat to those who oppose Iran.

"This new facility, God willing, will become operational soon and will blind the eyes of the enemies," Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani told the semiofficial Fars news agency.

What do you think that means?

"An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes." - Thomas Jefferson

[classicman2]

Thomas Jefferson loved to hear himself talk.

[parrotheads4]

Yom Kippur begins at sundown. Jews will gather and discuss these events. That is the reason for Iran's timing.

[Dr Mabuse]

Thomas Jefferson loved to hear himself talk.

:lol:

Yes that's it, that must be it.

He's also one of the few American politicians who was wise enough to know how to deal with violent/threatening muslims. You might look into that stuff, he was dealing with it, and began solving the problem permanently for the US, ~two centuries ago. Then, as is also true now, he was one of the very few who as able to understand the matter and knew what to do. Not many seem to be able to do that in any given time period. He was a student of history.

[classicman2]

Yeah - if we just had Thomas Jefferson today. All our problems would be solved.

Thomas Jefferson lived in a much smaller & more secure world - a country separated by oceans from potential enemies.

btw: Jefferson was an egoist.

[Burnt Thru]

i'm still waiting to hear what "hitting harder" means in practical terms. so far it sounds like an easy way for an internet warrior to try and sound superior to our glorious leaders. what specific actions would you mandate?

[dork]

i'm still waiting to hear what "hitting harder" means in practical terms.
"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I want to go there in the middle of the night and I want to piss on his ashes!" - Benjamin Franklin

[Suprmallet]

How long until we consider it acceptable to blast the Middle East back into the Stone Age? Because I think I'm okay with that.

[Pharoh]

"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I want to go there in the middle of the night and I want to piss on his ashes!" - Benjamin Franklin


:hscratch:
It wasn't Gandhi?

[wishbone]

:hscratch:
It wasn't Gandhi?Gandhi did not have Scottish-tinged Irish accent. -ohbfrank-

[arminius]

:lol:

Yes that's it, that must be it.

He's also one of the few American politicians who was wise enough to know how to deal with violent/threatening muslims. You might look into that stuff, he was dealing with it, and began solving the problem permanently for the US, ~two centuries ago. Then, as is also true now, he was one of the very few who as able to understand the matter and knew what to do. Not many seem to be able to do that in any given time period. He was a student of history.
I think you are mistaken in what is important to modern man. If there is ever a nuclear attack against the west, he can sit back in his moral superiority and condemn the attackers as being mean and not very nice at all.
Its funny how the world had to mobilize against hitler for fear he would take over the world. But against fears of a possible real nuclear threat we have to accept that other "countries" will have nuclear capabilty and there is nothing to be done. I think limiting that club is the only rational thing to be done. With proliferation comes increased chances of use. If it is allowed to continue, countries that have no nucs because of policy will feel the need to go atomic. Then its just a matter of time. Perhaps the major nuclear powers, China/England/France/India/Pakistan/Russia/USA, with backing from the reasonable non nuc countries, should effect a block on more nuclear states.
I do not think that any country that wants to can be allowed to build nucs.

[Tracer Bullet]

When is that one-way trip to Mars happening? I want to sign the fuck up.

[arminius]

When is that one-way trip to Mars happening? I want to sign the fuck up.
Save me a seat. At least you get to go into space.

[Burnt Thru]

all countries are equal but some are more equal than others..

these other "rogue nations" have more than likely seen our treatment of iraq and decided to go the north korea route at the earliest opportunity. unless america is willing to go invading all over the world there's no way to put the cork back in the nuclear bottle.
"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I want to go there in the middle of the night and I want to piss on his ashes!" - Benjamin Franklin
lol

[Pharoh]

Can I add that these missile "tests" mean virtually nothing?

[Pharoh]

all countries are equal but some are more equal than others..

these other "rogue nations" have more than likely seen our treatment of iraq and decided to go the north korea route at the earliest opportunity. unless america is willing to go invading all over the world there's no way to put the cork back in the nuclear bottle.

lol

Where does the idea come from that all countries are equal?

[dork]

Where does the idea come from that all countries are equal?
From the unequal countries. :)

[Canadian Bacon]

How long until we consider it acceptable to blast the Middle East back into the Stone Age? Because I think I'm okay with that.

based on their views of woman and anyone not Muslim I think they're already in the Stone Age

[arminius]

From the unequal countries. :)
Unfortunately for them it has never been true, is not true today and will never be true.

[Suprmallet]

based on their views of woman and anyone not Muslim I think they're already in the Stone Age

Unfortunately, they are technologically in the Information Age.

[dork]

Unfortunately, they are technologically in the Information Age.
Yikes, bad news for CB if those guys read what he's saying about them. Although their version of SafeSearch probably filters out his username.

[Burnt Thru]

Unfortunately for them it has never been true, is not true today and will never be true.

we've made good progress towards it, just as we've made progress in individual rights. "it's always been that way" is the laziest excuse for bad behaviour in the book.

[Suprmallet]

Yikes, bad news for CB if those guys read what he's saying about them. Although their version of SafeSearch probably filters out his username.

:lol: That's easily the best post I've read all day.

[crazyronin]

Can I add that these missile "tests" mean virtually nothing?

It does mean that they are getting better at digitally altering images.

HOW LONG UNTIL THEY PHOTOSHOP A NUCLEAR WARHEAD INTO THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF OUR CITIES??? :gah:

[Dr Mabuse]

"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I want to go there in the middle of the night and I want to piss on his ashes!" - Benjamin Franklin

:lol:

Oh man that's the best post I've ever seen you pull off.

Just shy of genius there, on a couple of levels.

[Burnt Thru]

still nothing huh? ok..

[Dr Mabuse]

If you're waiting for me to explain to you what President Roosevelt was talking about it's going to be a long wait. Try reading his book, maybe you'll be able to glean the meaning from it all by yourself.

:lol:

[classicman2]

Can I add that these missile "tests" mean virtually nothing?

I've always said that Pharoh is a most reasonable and intelligent fellow.

[arminius]

we've made good progress towards it, just as we've made progress in individual rights. "it's always been that way" is the laziest excuse for bad behaviour in the book.
You misunderstand me. There are better and worse ways of governing. Countries may have equal opportunity but they will not have equal results.

[eXcentris]

Can I add that threats from nuclear weapons are vastly overrated?

[classicman2]

You may add that if you wish. :)

[wishbone]

"The machine gun is a much overrated weapon."

Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
The Somme on July 1, 1916

[arminius]

"The machine gun is a much overrated weapon."

Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
The Somme on July 1, 1916
Well eventually he was right. The British did end up with more soldiers than the German MGs had bullets.

[Burnt Thru]

If you're waiting for me to explain to you what President Roosevelt was talking about it's going to be a long wait. Try reading his book, maybe you'll be able to glean the meaning from it all by yourself.

:lol:
so no actual ideas of your own then, just more quotes from folks long dead. nice one.

[VinVega]

Stratfor website link (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091005_two_leaks_and_deepening_iran_crisis?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091005&utm_content=readmore)

Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis

By George Friedman

Two major leaks occurred this weekend over the Iran matter.

In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The second leak occurred in the British paper The Sunday Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The second revelation was directly tied to the first. There were many, including STRATFOR, who felt that Iran did not have the non-nuclear disciplines needed for rapid progress toward a nuclear device. Putting the two pieces together, the presence of Russian personnel in Iran would mean that the Iranians had obtained the needed expertise from the Russians. It would also mean that the Russians were not merely a factor in whether there would be effective sanctions but also in whether and when the Iranians would obtain a nuclear weapon.

We would guess that the leak to The New York Times came from U.S. government sources, because that seems to be a prime vector of leaks from the Obama administration and because the article contained information on the NIE review. Given that National Security Adviser James Jones tended to dismiss the report on Sunday television, we would guess the report leaked from elsewhere in the administration. The Sunday Times leak could have come from multiple sources, but we have noted a tendency of the Israelis to leak through the British daily on national security issues. (The article contained substantial details on the visit and appeared written from the Israeli point of view.) Neither leak can be taken at face value, of course. But it is clear that these were deliberate leaks — people rarely risk felony charges leaking such highly classified material — and even if they were not coordinated, they delivered the same message, true or not.
The Iranian Time Frame and the Russian Role

The message was twofold. First, previous assumptions on time frames on Iran are no longer valid, and worst-case assumptions must now be assumed. The Iranians are in fact moving rapidly toward a weapon; have been extremely effective at deceiving U.S. intelligence (read, they deceived the Bush administration, but the Obama administration has figured it out); and therefore, we are moving toward a decisive moment with Iran. Second, this situation is the direct responsibility of Russian nuclear expertise. Whether this expertise came from former employees of the Russian nuclear establishment now looking for work, Russian officials assigned to Iran or unemployed scientists sent to Iran by the Russians is immaterial. The Israelis — and the Obama administration — must hold the Russians responsible for the current state of Iran’s weapons program, and by extension, Moscow bears responsibility for any actions that Israel or the United States might take to solve the problem.

We would suspect that the leaks were coordinated. From the Israeli point of view, having said publicly that they are prepared to follow the American lead and allow this phase of diplomacy to play out, there clearly had to be more going on than just last week’s Geneva talks. From the American point of view, while the Russians have indicated that participating in sanctions on gasoline imports by Iran is not out of the question, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did not clearly state that Russia would cooperate, nor has anything been heard from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the subject. The Russian leadership appears to be playing “good cop, bad cop” on the matter, and the credibility of anything they say on Iran has little weight in Washington.

It would seem to us that the United States and Israel decided to up the ante fairly dramatically in the wake of the Oct. 1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. As IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei visits Iran, massive new urgency has now been added to the issue. But we must remember that Iran knows whether it has had help from Russian scientists; that is something that can’t be bluffed. Given that this specific charge has been made — and as of Monday not challenged by Iran or Russia — indicates to us more is going on than an attempt to bluff the Iranians into concessions. Unless the two leaks together are completely bogus, and we doubt that, the United States and Israel are leaking information already well known to the Iranians. They are telling Tehran that its deception campaign has been penetrated, and by extension are telling it that it faces military action — particularly if massive sanctions are impractical because of more Russian obstruction.

If Netanyahu went to Moscow to deliver this intelligence to the Russians, the only surprise would have been the degree to which the Israelis had penetrated the program, not that the Russians were there. The Russian intelligence services are superbly competent, and keep track of stray nuclear scientists carefully. They would not be surprised by the charge, only by Israel’s knowledge of it.

This, of course leaves open an enormous question. Certainly, the Russians appear to have worked with the Iranians on some security issues and have played with the idea of providing the Iranians more substantial military equipment. But deliberately aiding Iran in building a nuclear device seems beyond Russia’s interests in two ways. First, while Russia wants to goad the United States, it does not itself really want a nuclear Iran. Second, in goading the United States, the Russians know not to go too far; helping Iran build a nuclear weapon would clearly cross a redline, triggering reactions.

A number of possible explanations present themselves. The leak to The Sunday Times might be wrong. But The Sunday Times is not a careless newspaper: It accepts leaks only from certified sources. The Russian scientists might be private citizens accepting Iranian employment. But while this is possible, Moscow is very careful about what Russian nuclear engineers do with their time. Or the Russians might be providing enough help to goad the United States but not enough to ever complete the job. Whatever the explanation, the leaks paint the Russians as more reckless than they have appeared, assuming the leaks are true.

And whatever their veracity, the leaks — the content of which clearly was discussed in detail among the P-5+1 prior to and during the Geneva meetings, regardless of how long they have been known by Western intelligence — were made for two reasons. The first was to tell the Iranians that the nuclear situation is now about to get out of hand, and that attempting to manage the negotiations through endless delays will fail because the United Nations is aware of just how far Tehran has come with its weapons program. The second was to tell Moscow that the issue is no longer whether the Russians will cooperate on sanctions, but the consequence to Russia’s relations with the United States and at least the United Kingdom, France and, most important, possibly Germany. If these leaks are true, they are game changers.

We have focused on the Iranian situation not because it is significant in itself, but because it touches on a great number of other crucial international issues. It is now entangled in the Iraqi, Afghan, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese issues, all of them high-stakes matters. It is entangled in Russian relations with Europe and the United States. It is entangled in U.S.-European relationships and with relationships within Europe. It touches on the U.S.-Chinese relationship. It even touches on U.S. relations with Venezuela and some other Latin American countries. It is becoming the Gordian knot of international relations.

STRATFOR first focused on the Russian connection with Iran in the wake of the Iranian elections and resulting unrest, when a crowd of Rafsanjani supporters began chanting “Death to Russia,” not one of the top-10 chants in Iran. That caused us to focus on the cooperation between Russia and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on security matters. We were aware of some degree of technical cooperation on military hardware, and of course on Russian involvement in Iran’s civilian nuclear program. We were also of the view that the Iranians were unlikely to progress quickly with their nuclear program. We were not aware that Russian scientists were directly involved in Iran’s military nuclear project, which is not surprising, given that such involvement would be Iran’s single-most important state secret — and Russia’s, too.
A Question of Timing

But there is a mystery here as well. To have any impact, the Russian involvement must have been under way for years. The United States has tried to track rogue nuclear scientists and engineers — anyone who could contribute to nuclear proliferation — since the 1990s. The Israelis must have had their own program on this, too. Both countries, as well as European intelligence services, were focused on Iran’s program and the whereabouts of Russian scientists. It is hard to believe that they only just now found out. If we were to guess, we would say Russian involvement has been under way since just after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, when the Russians decided that the United States was a direct threat to its national security.

Therefore, the decision suddenly to confront the Russians, and suddenly to leak U.N. reports — much more valuable than U.S. reports, which are easier for the Europeans to ignore — cannot simply be because the United States and Israel just obtained this information. The IAEA, hostile to the United States since the invasion of Iraq and very much under the influence of the Europeans, must have decided to shift its evaluation of Iran. But far more significant is the willingness of the Israelis first to confront the Russians and then leak about Russian involvement, something that obviously compromises Israeli sources and methods. And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.

Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.

It follows from this that the use of this intelligence in diplomatic confrontations with Russians and in a British newspaper serves a greater purpose than the integrity of the source system. And that means that the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future — the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system.
Possible Outcomes

There are two possible outcomes here. The first is that having revealed the extent of the Iranian program and having revealed the Russian role in a credible British newspaper, the Israelis and the Americans (whose own leak in The New York Times underlined the growing urgency of action) are hoping that the Iranians realize that they are facing war and that the Russians realize that they are facing a massive crisis in their relations with the West. If that happens, then the Russians might pull their scientists and engineers, join in the sanctions and force the Iranians to abandon their program.

The second possibility is that the Russians will continue to play the spoiler on sanctions and will insist that they are not giving support to the Iranians. This leaves the military option, which would mean broad-based action, primarily by the United States, against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Any military operation would involve keeping the Strait of Hormuz clear, meaning naval action, and we now know that there are more nuclear facilities than previously discussed. So while the war for the most part would be confined to the air and sea, it would be extensive nonetheless.

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.

It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama’s hand.
So much going on here. Even if we go to war with Iran, in some way it's all a dance with the Russians. The cold war is back.

[Pharoh]

Stratfor website link (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091005_two_leaks_and_deepening_iran_crisis?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091005&utm_content=readmore)


So much going on here. Even if we go to war with Iran, in some way it's all a dance with the Russians. The cold war is back.

Or as has been pointed out here previously, it never really ended.

I also seem to remember some questioning, even scoffing at, the NIE mentioned above concerning Iran.

[VinVega]

Or as has been pointed out here previously, it never really ended.

I also seem to remember some questioning, even scoffing at, the NIE mentioned above concerning Iran.
The 21st century cold war doesn't have the same feel as the old one did. It still feels like Cold War 2.0 to me. The Russians are definitely a problem though.

[dork]

The Russians are definitely a problem though.
I was told the Russians are gonna be nice to us now because we gave them what they wanted. :sad:

[X]

They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war.Now that just can't be!

That NIE coming out during Bush's term certainly appeared to be a political move the intelligence community geared toward holding Bush back from taking tougher action against Iran. But now that he's gone, and replaced by a community organizer who has absolutely no history of toughness of action or speech (in fact, he has one quite the opposite), the truth about Iran's pursuits and abilities can catch up to where it needs to be.

After all, when Iran has a bomb in a year or so the NIE can't keep saying they gave up their pursuit of it in 2003. That just wouldn't look so good.

[Dr Mabuse]

This is interesting, picked it up off of Politico's Tweet.

Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?
Is the U.S. Stepping Up Preparations for a Possible Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities?
By JONATHAN KARL

Oct. 6, 2009—

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.

Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.

The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb's "development and testing", and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.

'Urgent Operational Need'

The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).

Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?

The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide "Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration" on B-2 aircraft.

This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures


http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/link.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8765343)

The ordinance in question, it's a relatively recent creation and it's awesome:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/06/custom_1244642654333_penetrator.jpg

[BJacks]

Now THAT'S a bomb.

[General Zod]

I believe that's Milton in the back on the left.

[kvrdave]

I don't believe we will bomb anyone without the UN's backing or if they strike us first and it is undeniable. At least for the nest 3.5 years.

[Save Ferris]

the MOAB is bigger. Is this one supposed to be better?

[crazyronin]

The Russians are definitely a problem though.

But I thought that SOS Clinton pressed the overload button.

I mean the reset button :o

[X]

the MOAB is bigger. Is this one supposed to be better?This one is designed to deeply penetrate the earth. The MOAB is just a big-ass conventional bomb.

[Superboy]

i'm still waiting to hear what "hitting harder" means in practical terms. so far it sounds like an easy way for an internet warrior to try and sound superior to our glorious leaders. what specific actions would you mandate?

When you put your hand in a bunch of goo that used to be your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

[Superboy]

Damn, someone beat me to it.

You know this whole jihad business has gone down in history as mostly a failure of US foreign policy. A failure that has better armed our enemies, shrunken our allies, and damned our future.

[wishbone]

the MOAB is bigger. Is this one supposed to be better?This one is designed to deeply penetrate the earth. The MOAB is just a big-ass conventional bomb.excerpt

The non-nuclear weapon will be the biggest conventional bomb the United States has ever deployed. It carries 5,300 pounds of high explosive inside a 25.5-foot bomb casing of hardened steel and would be delivered by the radar-evading Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber. The B-2 can carry two of the bombs.

The GPS-guided MOP is believed to be capable of blasting through 200 feet of reinforced concrete before exploding. It is seen as a potential weapon against nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea.

It has 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, which carries 535 pounds of explosive.

The MOP is about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, known as the "mother of all bombs," that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/08/17/US-fast-tracks-new-bunker-buster-bomb/UPI-64691250523534/

In other words:  bigger, deeper, harder.

[Nazgul]

bigger, deeper, harder.

That's what she said!

[Nazgul]

I thought we had a 'one and only Iran' thread but I'll post this here anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863238/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Iran, shockingly, has been supplying Hezbollah with weapons to help 'liberate' Palestine, but the quote at the very end of the article caught my attention.

Alex Vatanka, IHS Jane's security editor, who also examined the Israeli photographs, said the significance of the Francop capture — if proven Iran was behind it — was its timing, since it comes as Iran faces stepped up pressure over its controversial nuclear program.

"What does that tell us about their threat perception, about their own security priorities?" he said. "It seems to be an indicator of a certain hardline interest in Iran being almost careless about the consequences of their actions."

Isn't that assessment contrary to those defending Iran as their leaders being rational about obtaining nuclear weapons and that Israel and the west have nothing to fear?