A small number of House Republicans are threatening to undermine U.S. strategy in Iran by encouraging military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

On May 23, 2011, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) introduced House Resolution 271, a bill expressing support for “the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty…[and the use] all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”   To date 44 Republicans have co-sponsored the bill.  It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This is not the first time the U.S. House and Senate have expressed such support for Israeli military strikes.   In 2007, the House put forth a similar bill expressing support for Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Syria occurring in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981, but that bill expressed support after Israel’s strikes, not before.  

Rep. Gohmert’s 2011 bill is vague and dangerous.  The bill states that “if no other peaceful solutions can be found within a reasonable time” strikes are acceptable, but “reasonable time” is not defined.  Libya pursued a nuclear weapons program for 25 years before finally abandoning it in 2004.  Since no solution has yet been found to the Iranian nuclear impasse, does that mean military action is viable now?  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Iran Watch, Israel, Congress (all tags)

Russia hopes to start the reactor in just days

Following news that Russia is to start powering up Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility on August 21, John Bolton suggested that Israel subsequently has just days left to attack it.  This is because once Bushehr goes online, any attack would “almost certainly release radiation into the atmosphere,” implying that Israel will “most unlikely … act militarily after fuel rods are loaded.”   Both Bolton and the people at Heritage are worried that Russia’s assistance in bringing the plant online will “represent a major step forward for Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations”, giving the country a “second route to nuclear weapons.”

Bolton concedes that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities remains unlikely, but pointed out that if Israel was “going to do anything, they certainly wouldn't be talking about it” – just like before the bombing of Iraqi and Syrian reactors in 1981 and 2007 respectively.  However, given the resurgence in speculation on the probability of an Israeli attack, the hawkish nature of Netanyahu’s coalition government, and now even Saudi Arabian media outlets advocating military action, might there be a chance that officials in Jerusalem believe attacking Bushehr is essential?

Read more

Iran Watch, iran nuclear, Bushehr, israel (all tags)

After a recent delay, the White House has expressed confidence that the UN Security Council will back Iran sanctions in the next week, despite controversy over Israel's Gaza flotilla raid.

While some have all but condemned UN sanctions to a slow and painful death, Robert Gibbs stated yesterday that, “I think the president and the team here remain confident that ... within the next week, we'll have a number that will pass that resolution.”

If a vote does not take place by June 21, as the White House expects, you can bet that Congress will be waiting in the wings to pass its own set of sanctions.

Just prior to the Memorial Day recess, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Howard Berman announced their intention to hold off on Congressional Iran sanctions until the end of June:

With the progress in negotiations at the Security Council, we believe that our overriding goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is best served by providing a limited amount of time for those efforts – and expected follow-on action by the EU at its mid-June summit – to reach a successful conclusion before we send our bill to the President.

Slowed progress will, no doubt, light a fire under those who disagreed with a delay in the first place.

Read more

Iran Watch, Sanctions, Congress, Flotilla, Israel, China, Russia, UN (all tags)

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference came to a close on Friday, and the long weekend allowed for ample conversation regarding its accomplishments and imperfections. Under particular scrutiny has been a section of the final document which specifically emphasized the goal of the implementation of the 1995 resolution calling for a nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. The review conference endorsed the appointment of a facilitator to work towards this goal, and the convening of a separate conference in 2012 - to be attended by all Middle Eastern states - which would seek “the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction, on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by States in the region.”

Though it expressed full support for the goals of the resolution, the U.S. took exception to what it saw as the singling out of Israel, despite the fact that the final document recalled the reaffirmation by the 2000 RevCon of the need for Israel’s accession to the treaty and the placement of Israeli nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

The U.S. suggested that the goal of a MENWFZ cannot bear fruit until a comprehensive peace in the region is established and diverted attention to Iran by noting that Tehran was the only NPT signatory found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations, and that it had done little to enhance international confidence in its performance. Israel, which did not participate in the RevCon, lambasted the fact that they were singled out instead of Iran, claiming that the treaty "ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.”

Israeli disappointment in the NPT RevCon’s final document—viewed as an act of bullying and infringement on their sovereignty—was reflected in two events in recent days, both of which underline exactly why the goal of a nuclear weapons free Middle East is so important.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Israel, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, NPT (all tags)

As the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (NPT RevCon) comes to a close in New York, the call for a ban on nuclear weapons and other WMD in the Middle East has come back into the fore as a top issue. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs), which exist in Latin America, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central Asia, are zones in which countries commit themselves to not acquire, manufacture, test, or possess nuclear weapons. Article VII of the NPT affirms the rights of countries to establish such zones.  A NWFZ in the Middle East has been on the NPT agenda since the treaty’s entry into force in 1970. Since the 1995 NPT RevCon, the goal has been more adamantly pursued by Egypt, but still to no visible avail.

Nevertheless, the start of this year’s NPT RevCon saw the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China all voice unequivocal support for the initiative— with ample support from states in the region too.  The Arab Group has stated that failing to achieve it would be a failure of the NPT as a whole.  While some view a NWFZ in the Middle East as a lofty, far-off, or even impossible goal, there is no denying the worth it would have.

The implications of the initiative are clear. Israel, not just Iran, would have to foreswear nuclear weapons.

Israel’s program is controversial for numerous reasons.  First, Israel is deliberately ambiguous about its nuclear weapons capability, officially maintaining that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region.  Second, as one of the only countries in the world to have ever carried out preemptive attacks on nascent nuclear programs (for example in Iraq and Syria), Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is often viewed as particularly hypocritical. Finally, in defiance of numerous requests and resolutions issued by the General Assembly of the UN which call on Israel to join the NPT, Israel nevertheless continues to refuse. This places it in the not so select company of Pakistan, North Korea, and India.

Read more

Middle East, NPT, Iran, Israel, RevCon (all tags)

Scud-B & Launcher

Reports last week that Syria had transferred an unspecified number of SCUD missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, whilst vehemently denied by Damascus, are now being ignored, ambiguously, by senior Hezbollah sources.  If indeed the allegations are true, then the transfer would represent the first acquisition of SCUD type missiles by a non-state actor, a violation of UN Resolution 1701 - which called for the disarming of all armed groups in Lebanon.  The missiles would also now be the furthest-range and most precise weapons in Hezbollah’s arsenal, reported in 2009 to contain as many as 80,000 short-range rockets.  

Upon closer inspection, however, it seems that any SCUD missiles would have little utility for Hezbollah’s operations in Southern Lebanon.  Thus, if the story is true, reactions which suggest the possible transfer could or should ignite a war seem highly misplaced...

Read more

Security Matters, SCUDS, Syria, Hezbollah, Israel, Missiles, Terror (all tags)

Last week Israel’s Prime Minister announced his decision to cancel abruptly his appearance at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C.  Israeli officials suggested that Netanyahu scuttled the trip due to fears that a group of Arab states might have used the conference to demand Israel sign up to the Non Proliferation Treaty.  At a time when Israel continues to lobby allies to punish Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, such focus on its own program would have made it a target for criticism.  And in the context of nuclear terrorism, this criticism seems increasingly valid.  

Netanyahu's attendance at the summit would have been unprecedented.  He would have been the first Israeli premier ever to participate in discussions on nuclear issues.  It’s also a subject he is knowledgeable about, having written specifically about it in his book, ‘Fighting Terrorism’.  And it’s a subject that is particularly relevant for Israel, since historically it has been a frequent victim of terrorist attacks.

Read more

Israel, nuclear, nuclear security summity, middle east, WMD (all tags)

The S-300 SAM

Despite signing a contract with Iran for five batteries of the S-300PMU1 missile defense system back in December 2005, Russia continues to put off delivery of the system to Tehran.  The latest news from Moscow alleges that the current delay is due to ‘technical’ problems – a rather bizarre excuse given that the S-300 has been functioning quite well since 1979.  Perhaps this is why Almaz-Antey (the company that builds the S-300) told Interfax news that “there are no technical problems with the S-300 systems. This is a political issue.”  

With Russia contractually obligated to deliver the system (it already received payment from Tehran), it’s interesting to speculate about the reasons for the delay…

Read more

Iran, Missiles, Russia, Israel, S-300 (all tags)