Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.
The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.
They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s presidential election.
But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.
Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
The Guardian has been told that the IAEA’s bulletin could be “a game changer” which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.
One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved “surprisingly resilient” in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.
He said Iran appeared to be “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why”, citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.
In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.
Up to half of Iran’s centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.
Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.
The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding “material and capability” inside the base.
Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain’s military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK’s planning being taken to a new level.
“Beyond [12 months], we couldn’t be sure our missiles could reach them,” the source said. “So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won’t.
“So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
“President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won’t want to do anything just before an election.”
Another source added there was “no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change”. Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.
The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but “a small number of special forces” may be needed on the ground, too.
The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.
An MoD spokesman said: “The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table.”
The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.
One official said: “I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. “It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning.”
Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.
Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran’s nuclear programme. A source said the “Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out”, and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.
It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.
Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.
British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran’s new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.
“There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington,” said one.
Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.
It also said it was “increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.
At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.
According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear?CMP=twt_gu
Is the US heading for war with Iran?
With an election coming and the economy struggling, conflict may not appeal to Obama, but the drumbeat is getting louder
It would be difficult for Barack Obama to sell conflict with Iran to a war-weary US public. Photograph: Win Mcnamee/Getty Images
War with Iran is the last thing Barack Obama needs with the American economy in dire trouble and a tough White House election campaign looming next year, according to officials in Washington as well as political analysts.
But while the Obama administration is desperate to avoid another conflict – it would be America’s fourth in a decade – the drumbeat from Israel has been growing louder.
The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution.
In response, Iran has warned, as it has in the past, that any attack by Israel would result in retaliation against the US. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran’s military chief, as saying: “The Zionist regime’s military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US as well as the Zionist regime.”
The rhetoric from Tel Aviv and Tehran is making some within the Obama administration nervous.
A Washington official familiar with the issue acknowledged the temperature has been rising and that Israel introduced an unpredictable element. He reiterated, however, that the policy of the Obama administration was to pursue all diplomatic channels, backed by tougher sanctions, and avoid military action.
“I do not think the US has the stomach for it,” Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who taught strategy at the National War College and who has specialised in carrying out war games targeting Iran, said. But if Israel went ahead, it would be difficult for the US to stay out. “The US would have to be involved and finish it,” he said.
A congressional hearing on Iran last week was told that the Pentagon has a series of contingency plans for military action, ranging from all-out war to limited operations. Obama had signed off on these, the hearing was told.
Retired general Jack Keane was hawkish, urging escalation. “We’ve got to put our hand around their throat now,” he said. The hearing was told options included increased covert action, more cyberwarfare and sanctions that would target the Iranian central bank, a serious move that Iran might regard as tantamount to a declaration of war.
But Keane and other military colleagues giving evidence on Capitol Hill all stopped short of advocating an air strike against Iran. That has been line for years from the Pentagon, which sees all-out war against Iran as the worst of options.
The issue of a possible military attack on Iran was reignited in Israel by influential columnist Nahum Barnea last Friday. “Rumours are increasing about an Israeli offensive that would change the face of the Middle East and perhaps seal the fate of the Jewish state for the coming generations,” he wrote.
Members of the inner cabinet swiftly tried to put a lid on conjecture. The intelligence affairs minister and deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, said the issue should not be a matter of public debate. “A public debate about this is nothing less than a scandal … The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public’s right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this,” he said.
Israel test-fired a “rocket propulsion system” capable of striking Iran on Wednesday, adding to speculation over its intentions regarding military action. However, defence officials said the exercise had been planned for a long time.
With the next White House election 13 months away, an Israeli attack on Iran is Obama’s nightmare. It would be hard for a president to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
There might be a temporary rallying round the flag but Obama would lose the Democratic left, the base he needs to get out and campaign for him.
That would be problematic for a president facing a tight election. But there is an even bigger problem: the impact of rising oil prices – an almost certain consequence of conflict – on the faltering US recovery.
Karim Sadjadpour, one of the leading analysts in the US on relations with Iran, based at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is sceptical about the chances of war with Iran.
“A US military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama’s presidency. If you’re Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the US footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket.”
Larry Sabato, a widely-respected political analyst and professor of politics at the University of Virginia, shared the scepticism, though he noted that Obama was more bellicose than people had expected. “He has not been hesistant to use force. And that has surprised not just the left but people round the world. I am not sure he would get the Nobel peace prize now. Just as well he got it early,” he said.
If there was to be a conflict, it would be better late next year, close to the election, rather than during the remainder of this year or early next. “We always talk about October surprises and we would have people rallying round the flag if there was sufficient justification. October means the election would be held before the US becomes mired down in conflict or faces a boomerang effect,” Sabato said.
Israel is not alone in talking about military action against Iran. Among the state department documents disclosed by WikiLeaks was one in Saudi Arabia called for action to chop what it called “the head of the snake”.
The attitude of the Obama adminstration towards Iran is well illustrated by the episode in which allegations surfaced of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.
If the US was finally bowing to pressure from not just Israel but Saudi Arabia, the alleged Iranian plot would have been a useful casus belli or at least the start of a softening up process in preparation for war.
Instead, Obama administration staff briefed privately almost immediately that a military response was not being contemplated, not even sending more naval vessels to the Gulf or announcing new military manoeuvres in the region.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama?intcmp=239
Israeli prime minister said to favor Iran attack
By DAN PERRY and JOSEF FEDERMAN – Associated Press | APJERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli official said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program — a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.
It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.
The developments unfolded as the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to focus on the Iranian program at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start cooperating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons program.
Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians.
In a speech to parliament this week, Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a “dire threat” to the world and “a grave, direct threat on us, too.”
His hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was dismissive of the reports but added: “We are keeping all the options on the table.”
The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, told The Associated Press that the option is now being debated at the highest levels.
The official confirmed a report Wednesday in the Haaretz daily that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of Cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel’s top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and Mossad spy agency, oppose military action.
It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a Cabinet decision. Israel’s 1981 destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor was preceded by a Cabinet vote.
Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev refused to comment on the issue but did say there is a “decision-making process which has stood the test of time. … There have been precedents, and the process works.”
With most of its population concentrated in a narrow corridor of land along the Mediterranean, Israel’s homefront could be vulnerable to a counterattack.
Iran’s military chief, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, said his country takes Israeli threats seriously and vowed fierce retaliation.
“We are fully prepared to use our proper equipment to punish any mistake so that it will cause a shock,” he said in comments posted on the website of the Guard, Iran’s most powerful military force.
Reflecting the mood in Israel, military expert Reuven Pedatzur wrote in Haaretz that “if anyone can save Israel from catastrophe, it is the Israeli air force commander,” who might simply tell Netanyahu that an attack on Iran “cannot achieve its goals.”
Several months ago, the newly retired head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, caused a stir by warning publicly against attacking Iran, saying a strike would be “stupid” and would risk unleashing a region-wide war.
Israel considers Iran to be its greatest threat, citing Tehran’s nuclear program, its president’s repeated calls for destroying the Jewish state and Iran’s support for the Hamas and Hezbollah militant groups. For years, Israeli leaders have implored the world community to impose tough economic sanctions to pressure the Iranians to dismantle their nuclear installations.
The key element now is time. Israeli estimates of when Iran might be able to produce a nuclear weapon have been fluid, with Dagan giving a 2015 date when he left office. But some reports have suggested officials consider the coming months critical.
The successful test Wednesday of an advanced long-range Israeli missile, along with word of a recent air force exercise, seemed to fit into that scenario.
Barak hailed the launch as “an impressive technological achievement and an important step in Israel’s rocket and space progress.”
An Israeli defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity under government policy, said the military tested a “rocket propulsion system” in a launch from the Palmachim base near Tel Aviv.
Further information about the test was censored by the military. Foreign reports, however, said the military test-fired a long-range Jericho missile — capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.
Also Wednesday, military officials confirmed that the air force conducted a drill last week with Italian warplanes in Sardinia. Israeli warplanes were joined by supply and logistics aircraft.
There were no details on the purpose of the drill. Israeli TV stations ran an interview with one of the pilots who participated, identified only as Lt. Col. Yiftah, who said it allowed the air force to simulate longer-distance missions.
“The advantage here,” he said, “is that we can fly in a very large area, much larger than we can in Israel.” He said there were “complicated flights with many planes.”
A military strike would hardly be unprecedented. Besides the 1981 strike, Israeli warplanes destroyed a site in Syria in 2007 that the U.N. nuclear watchdog deemed a secretly built nuclear reactor.
But attacking Iran would be a much more difficult task. It is a more distant target, and Israeli warplanes would probably have to go over hostile airspace in Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia to reach it. Turkey could be an alternative — but its relations with Israel are fraught.
Iran’s nuclear facilities also are believed to be spread out across many sites, buried deep underground.
The Iranian military is far more powerful than those of Syria or Iraq, equipped with sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems as well as powerful medium-range missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel.
An Israeli attack would also likely spark retaliation from local Iranian proxies, the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip to Israel’s south and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon along Israel’s northern border. And it would reorder priorities in a region now consumed by the Arab Spring and the Palestinian issue.
Some have speculated that the United States — or even Britain — might be better poised to carry out a strike.
Iran denies it aims to produce a bomb, saying its nuclear program is meant only for energy. It has blamed Israel for disruptions in its nuclear program, including the mysterious deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists and a computer virus that wiped out some of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, a key component in nuclear fuel production.
Western powers, like Israel, do not believe Tehran and already have imposed four rounds of sanctions on the Iranian government in an effort to make it put its program, which can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material, under international supervision.
Israel would like to see the United States and other powers “pressure Iran more seriously … first with more sanctions, and if they don’t work, to go to war with Iran,” said Eldad Pardo, an Iran expert at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
___
Associated Press writers Amy Teibel and Ian Deitch contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-prime-minister-said-favor-iran-attack-214125706.html
![Economic_Intelligence_Unit___Sudan___South_Sudan___Country_Report___Sept_11[1].pdf](https://i0.wp.com/mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/pdf.gif)
PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd - South Sudan 