Israel must prepare itself for the worst (with Iran)- Israeli chief of staff

debka ^ | December 4, 2005, 4:12 PM (GMT+02:00)

[strategofr]

Time and again, Iran has ducked diplomatic pressure to halt its nuclear weapons program and Israel must prepare itself for the worst - Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz said Sunday

He did not believe diplomatic efforts would stop Iran’s advance towards nuclear armament, but declined to elaborate on possible “physical measures.”

[strategofr]

Sounds as if the decision to act has been made.

[sgtbono2002]

Its a matter of survival.

The UN is as useles as Teats on a boar hog.
Europe is anti-semite
The US is busy in Iraq . More interested right now in their peace plan that wont work with the Palestinians and supporting the Palestinians with millions in aid.
I believe even the Arabs are silently hoping Israel will stop Iran, since no one else will.

Yes I believe Israel will have to make that call themselves.

[Gritty]

Ominous.

We are very apt to see a nuclear exchange very, very, soon. According to information revealed to Kenneth Timmerman, Iran probably already possesses nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them on Israel. If it doesn't today, it will have in a matter of weeks, at most a very few months. Iran has already declared they are going to annihilate Israel. Not "might" annihilate, "will" annihilate!

I just finished reading this revealing and scary book today, and I've gone to Condition Red. Forget about droning on in coulda, woulda, shoulda about Iraq. The immediate and deadliest threat is coming to a head in Iran and is nearly completely under our public radar.

As usual, the MSM is asleep at the switch, still stuck on Joe Wilson and Murtha.

[backhoe]

A little old, but still informative:

The Samson Option-- what is known about Israel's Nuclear Weapons?

If you'll follow "the links within the links," there is an old report that our Air Force estimated Israeli warheads to number around 400, versus the usually quoted 200 figure.

[stm]

Iran is bringing a knife to a gunfight if they decide to provoke a no-$hit confrontation with Israel. Israel will kick the ever loving dog$hit out of these Iranian diaperheads.

[strategofr]

"If you'll follow "the links within the links," there is an old report that our Air Force estimated Israeli warheads to number around 400, versus the usually quoted 200 figure."

I tend to think that Israel has "enough" nuclear weapons for the current crisis. The problem is combining the nukes with US bunker buster technology (incorporated in the 1000 bunker busters we sold them (conventional)).

How hard this is to do I don't know. Seems like the Israelis only got these bunker busters less than 6 months ago. Not much time to develop a technology.

However, based on discussions I had earlier in the year, I believe the nuclear bunker buster will be quite effective, if the Israelis can pull it off. Clearly, there would be men on the ground too. I wonder if Isreal can even make realistic plans to retrieve these men.

I wish to h--- the US would chip in with a call to rebellion for the Iranian people. Even if the US did nothing but talk it would set up an Israeli attempt to arm the Iranian populace. But I see no real chance of this. Rather, I am concerned with how negative the US gov't reaction might be, though I am hopeful we will at least be neutral.

If only someone could get Bush alone and tell him that this is his Second 911! Just move him into a supportive role! The difference would be huge. The slightest positive statement---early enough---could tip balances in the world, improve the chances. (Perhaps Cheney will talk to him this way.)

One possibility is that Blair may do something, even though it would probably be his last effective political act.

Am hoping the Iranians do not have the nukes yet.

[FreeRep]

Israel survival in the war on terrorism depends on a strong stand against all terrorist acts.

[jabotinsky]

from your keyboard to God's mighty ear and hand.

I have no doubts that the Jihadis would be glowing at the end of the day. But and this is what terrifies me...Israel can not stand even one hit. Sure the other side would be flat as pancake but I dont give a $hit about them...if its Israel you care about, then a nuclear exchange is indeed not a winning equation...a PRE emptive strike/war to stop the very acquistion of nuclear weaponry is preferred if you agree with the above.

AM yisrael chai.

[rfreedom4u]

I have no doubts at all that Israel has nukes. I would have no sympathy should Iran be on the receiving end of one if it attacks Israel. That would also put the other arab countries on notice that Israel will no longer take their bullying. And if I were president I would respond that any sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. The arabs have not been held accountable for a long time. It's time to pay the piper.

[stm]

Israel took out Iraq's first attempts in 1981. I would say a repeat performance with the diaperheads to their east would be in order.

[Calpernia]

December 4, 2005: Iran uses music to play out nuclear case

Source: IRNA

Iran has taken its nuclear energy campaign to the realm of music this time in an effort to strike a chord with the public about the peaceful nature of this "national" achievement.

The Music and Songs Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) has produced two musical pieces "in parallel with supporting the peaceful nuclear technology", the center said in a statement Saturday.

The works named "Indebted to Fire" and "The Burning Lantern" are being produced with a symphonic orchestra trait, it added.

Meanwhile, the press reported Saturday that a plan was being broached for a public offering of Iran's nuclear energy stock.

"According to a plan which has just been forwarded to the Supreme National Security Council and will soon be put on the agenda, the nuclear stock will be offered to the public," the daily Kayhan wrote.

The paper said feasibility studies on the plan would probably commence soon.

"The plan is based on the peacefulness of the nuclear energy according to which, the government can even issue bonds in order to provide finance for building nuclear plants," it added.

Kayhan went on to say that "based on what experts believe, the ceding of nuclear shares to the public beside reasserting the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear technology can strengthen its place as a modern source of energy among the people".

The plan would require the government to find out mechanisms according to which revenues from the sale and exports of nuclear products would be distributed among the shareholders, the paper said.

The government is fresh from its approval of a bill on how to participate foreign companies in Iran's nuclear energy program.

The program is a thorn in Washington's side since the US law bans the country's firms from any engagement in Iran's development projects.

Iran's first nuclear plant is being built by Russia under a one-billion-dollar contract which is scheduled to become operational in mid-2006.

Last week, a key parliament speaker announced that Iran would tender by March 2006 the construction of two more nuclear power plants.

"In the 1384 budget, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization has been given license to set up 20 nuclear plants with a capacity to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said.

US authorities claim that the program might be a front to build an atom bomb, a charge Tehran vigorously denies.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) announced last week that the so-called EU3 had accepted Iran's offer to take up nuclear negotiations from where they were left off in August.

In a letter dated November 6, SNSC Secretary Ali Larijani had invited the Europeans to resume the negotiations.

Negotiations broke down in August after Iran rejected an EU proposal of concessions, which the country described as 'a package of lollipops' and resumed uranium conversion work.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has stressed that the focal point of any future negotiations would have to provide 'concrete guarantees for realizing production of nuclear fuel in Iran'.

---

For more translations and news on terrorism, visit http://www.lauramansfield.com

[steve86]

I don't know exactly when the book was written but did the author say anything about the 12 cruise missiles?

Note: article from Debka but info from Financial Times

The Ukrainian prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piksun created a major international flap Friday, March 18, when he admitted to the Financial Times that 18 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55, had been “exported” - 12 to Iran and 6 to China in 2001. He could not explain how the “significant leak” of technology from the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal occurred, but said the missiles had been sold without nuclear warheads.

The X-55 has a ranged of 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads. Launched from Su-24 long-range strike aircraft in the Iranian air force, it can put Japan, all of Russia and Israel within range. Piksun’s admission is the first official confirmation of the Ukrainian missile sale that was first made public last month by a Ukrainian parliament member.

...

DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources reveal that the Ukrainian shipment to Iran included radioactive materials for making “dirty bombs.” According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the 12 strategic cruise missiles place the strategic ratio between the Islamic Republic and Israel on a completely new level. Iran shares this asset with only two other world powers, the United States and Russia. This weapon is used for destroying known relatively fixed-position targets, such as Israel’s Dimona nuclear center and population centers. Its guidance system combines inertial-Doppler navigation and position correction based on in-flight comparison of terrain in targeted regions with images stored in the memory of its on-board computer. The propulsion system is a dual-flow engine located underneath the missile’s tail.

Possession of the Kh-55 makes Iran’s Shahab-3 or its projected Shahab-4 missile programs irrelevant. Tehran may have given them exposure as a red herring to distract attention from its high-profile missile asset.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1003

[steve86]

Quite a claimed range (Japan).

[Gritty]

Timmerman's book was completed in the Spring of 2005, so it is very current.

18 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55, had been “exported” - 12 to Iran and 6 to China in 2001.

Timmerman says the 12 Kh-55 missiles were sold to Iran between 1999-2001.

...the missiles had been sold without nuclear warheads.

Apparently. But Iran already has the technology and capability to make their own and marry them onto the missile.

The X-55 has a ranged of 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads.

Right. The ones sold to Iran are designed for that range and carry a 500Kg warhead, which could be nuclear, HE, PETN, or biological. Ominously, they can also be fired from ships, land based vehicles, or aircraft. Timmerman's source (a Revolutionary Guards Colonel) says Iran intends to use them in the ground-to-ground mode, not from aircraft.

Timmerman also says it is extremely likely there is an underground missile site 50 Km south of Natanz which houses operational Shahab-3 missiles and has 15 actual nuclear warheads. This is just one of numerous underground facilities Iran has. Timmerman says this one site at Natanz is confirmed by several US intel agencies, one foreign intel agency and his own Iranian sources that deep construction has occured and hidden at this site.

A nuclear war is about to erupt and our public is practically unaware of it.

[steve86]

thanx!

[strategofr]

"A nuclear war is about to erupt and our public is practically unaware of it."

You're right that public on awareness at that point is ridiculous. But I would change your statement to say that a nuclear war may erupt. For one thing, a successful preemptive Israeli strike would not be a "nuclear war" if it did not use nuclear weapons. It is possible that the Israelis could succeed with a non-nuclear strike.

[Gritty]

It is possible that the Israelis could succeed with a non-nuclear strike

I'm not so sure it would be effective enough.

Israel can mount a strong fighter strike against Iran, including aerial tankers. But they would need to cross either Turkey (unlikely), Syria (unlikely), or Jordan and Iraq (most probable). Quite possibly, Jordan would permit it. We need to approve it also as we control Iraqi airspace. However, this would put us in full collusion with an Israeli strike. Now, Israel might be able to mount a multi-aircraft strike, but it would probably of necessity be a onetime event and might cripple, but would certainly not destroy Iran's capability or production. It would also mean full war. A one-mission decapitation would probably be possible only with nuclear weapons. Iran has just too many hardened targets to do it effectively with a single mission package.

The alternative is - as long as we're in for a dime, in for a dollar - we may as well be the ones to do the air strikes, including warship and submarine assets. We can bring much more force to bear and have local assets. Israel should stay out of it for political reasons. A massive first strike and a series of followup strikes are probably the only thing that would do the job. Then, we would have to face the Iranian Army and defeat the entire country because there is no turning back.

Again, this would mean open and preemptive war with Iran, but that would be far preferable to nuclear weapons detonated over our country which is a very possible outcome if nothing is done and done quickly.

However, in today's domestic political climate I am dubious we will do anything in a preemptive way. We are simply too politically unfocused on the threat to be able to meet it head-on with a massive military campaign.