The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has released a brief report emphasizing that Iran continues to move toward nuclear weapons capability and the international community must halt further progress. ISIS’s latest concern centers around Iranian lawmaker Mansour Haqiqatpour’s October 2 comment that Iran could enrich uranium to 60 percent [...]]]> via Lobe Log

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has released a brief report emphasizing that Iran continues to move toward nuclear weapons capability and the international community must halt further progress. ISIS’s latest concern centers around Iranian lawmaker Mansour Haqiqatpour’s October 2 comment that Iran could enrich uranium to 60 percent if diplomatic talks fail. From Reuters:

“In case our talks with the (six powers) fail to pay off, Iranian youth will master (the technology for) enrichment up to 60 percent to fuel submarines and ocean-going ships,” Haqiqatpour said.

The powers should know that “if these talks continue into next year, Iran cannot guarantee it would keep its enrichment limited to 20 percent. This enrichment is likely to increase to 40 or 50 percent,” he said.

The US and international community should prepare for an official Iranian announcement of such high-grade enrichment, warns ISIS, adding that Iran has “no need to produce highly enriched uranium at all, even if it wanted nuclear fuel for a reactor powering nuclear submarines or other naval vessels, or for a research reactor”. The move would also “significantly shortens Iran’s dash time to reaching weapon grade uranium,” the report said.

ISIS’s conclusion:

Taken in this context, any official Iranian announcement to make highly enriched uranium should be seen as unacceptable. Many will view such a decision as equivalent to initiating a breakout to acquire nuclear  weapons, reducing any chance for negotiations to work and potentially increasing the chances for military  strikes and war. Before Iran announces official plans to make highly enriched uranium, the United States and  the other members of the P5+1 should quietly but clearly state to Iran what it risks by producing highly  enriched uranium under any pretext.

No details are provided as to what exactly needs to be done to make Iran understand that such a move would be “unacceptable”, but we are informed that Iranian enrichment of high-grade uranium would increase the chances for military conflict.

The fact that Iran is still years aways from being able to test a device, and according to US and international official assessments has still not made the decision to do so, is also absent from ISIS’s report. Indeed, according to the bipartisan Iran Project report on the benefits and costs of military action on Iran (emphasis mine):

After deciding to “dash” for a bomb, Iran would need from one to four months to produce enough weapons-grade  uranium for a single nuclear device. Additional time—up to two years, according  to conservative estimates—would be required for Iran to build a nuclear warhead  that would be reliably deliverable by a missile. Given extensive monitoring and  surveillance of Iranian activities, signs of an Iranian decision to build a nuclear  weapon would likely be detected, and the U.S. would have at least a month to  implement a course of action.

The National Review Online has run an advance copy of the foreign policy speech GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will give today in Virginia. In it, the former governor is expected to lay out his “red lines” for Iran that will be closer to Congress and the Israeli government’s position [...]]]> via Lobe Log

The National Review Online has run an advance copy of the foreign policy speech GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will give today in Virginia. In it, the former governor is expected to lay out his “red lines” for Iran that will be closer to Congress and the Israeli government’s position than the Obama Administration’s. Romney has expressed differing red lines on Iran in the past. Romney is also expected to express support for US arming of Syrian rebels:

It is time to change course in the Middle East. . . .

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear-weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft-carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

…. In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s trip to the Middle East last week included reassuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in person, that the U.S. was committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — the U.S.’s “red line” on Iran. Panetta reiterated the U.S.’s position, essentially point by point, at [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s trip to the Middle East last week included reassuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in person, that the U.S. was committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — the U.S.’s “red line” on Iran. Panetta reiterated the U.S.’s position, essentially point by point, at a Pentagon Joint Press Conference with the Japanese Minister of Defense on August 3: “Bottom line is that we have common cause with them with regards to Iran.  Our positions are similar.  We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” he said in response to a question about the likelihood of an Israeli attack against Iran.

When Panetta says that the U.S. and Israeli positions are “similar”, he is acknowledging that they’re not the same, a significant detail considering the growing pressure from Israel and various U.S.-based hawkish Israel advocacy groups and pundits aimed at reforming the U.S.’s policy.

The Israeli “red line” on Iran, at least according to public Israeli statements, is Iran’s acquirement of nuclear weapon building “capability” or Iran crossing into a so-called “zone of immunity” where it can create a nuclear weapon at Fordow, the underground uranium enrichment facility that’s impenetrable by Israeli air strikes. (The Israeli position is confusing according to Colin Kahl and other experts who argue that you can’t bomb knowledge and the Iranians already have nuclear weapon know-how.) Importantly, as the Iranians themselves insist — and U.S. and Israeli defense and intelligence as well as the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reports confirm — the Iranians have not yet made a decision to build a weapon.

Israeli frustration and impatience with the U.S.’s persistent Iran policy may explain why some “Israeli officials” are allowing their press to report statements that hardly seem diplomatic (one might even say appear antagonistic) about their important ally. Just yesterday the English version of Ynetnews reported that

Senior officials on Sunday leveled severe criticism against the US, declaring that the American position on a date for a military strike against Iran was a “wretched red line.”

“The US’ stance is pushing the Iranians to become a country at the brink (of nuclear capability),” explained sources well versed in the nuclear issue. “The Americans are de facto allowing the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium and become a country at the brink. We are not prepared to allow that (to happen).”

Meanwhile, according to an August 3 Haaretz post, Netanyahu is getting very agitated over public scrutiny regarding his plans for Iran — chest-thumping, table-banging mad. But that may be part of a ploy:

Others present at the meeting, however, pointed out that Netanyahu’s comments seemed to be part of the “psychological warfare” campaign that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are conducting, in order to pressure the U.S. into attacking Iran itself.

At one point during the meeting, a participant asked Netanyahu what he thinks could possibly happen the day after an Israeli strike on Iran. According to one of the meeting’s participants, the question angered Netanyahu. “If an investigative committee is formed, I’ll go and say that I, I am responsible,” said Netanyahu, as he pounded the table, and his chest, with his fist.

The fuming Netanyahu didn’t stop there. “I’ve had enough of this atmosphere,” he said. “It’s also felt in other discussions [on Iran], people keep showing me presentations prepared as if for an investigative committee. I’ve told them to stop with these presentations, stop speaking on protocol, and get to the point,” said Netanyahu.

Netanyahu made it clear to those present that he prefers that the U.S. “do the work,” though he admits that the U.S. is not prepared to pursue a military option at this point.

As expected, Iran has been the top issue at this year’s American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. The leading pro-Israel lobby has been pushing for harsher measures against the Islamic Republic for years and have seen the fruits of their efforts most effectively materialize in 2011 and 2012 with the adoption of the harshest [...]]]>

As expected, Iran has been the top issue at this year’s American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. The leading pro-Israel lobby has been pushing for harsher measures against the Islamic Republic for years and have seen the fruits of their efforts most effectively materialize in 2011 and 2012 with the adoption of the harshest sanctions ever by the Obama administration, not to mention an increasingly hawkish trend sweeping through Congress. But after all the pressure from the Israelis and pro-Israel advocates on Obama to move his “red line” from preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon to preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapon capability, did he deliver during his Sunday speech at AIPAC? Listen in for Jim’s analysis.