Category Archives: Iran

Britain, Iran, Israel, Middle East, United Nations, United States

Iran’s nuclear threat will be a concern for Netanyahu

IRAN-ISRAEL

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may feel he faces an impossible dilemma following the successful neutralisation of Iran’s missile and drone onslaught.

President Biden has counselled him to “take the win” and refrain from escalating hostilities. But the hawks in Mr Biden’s war Cabinet and the Israeli public want their PM to press home the advantage and take the battle to Tehran. After all, they say, the mullahs have never been closer to developing a nuclear bomb.

While there is no doubt Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose a grave threat to Israel and the West, as David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s prime minister from 1955 to 1963) once said, the Jewish state cannot afford long wars.

Ben-Gurion was right then, and he’s probably right today. Even with its allies’ help, defending itself against last weekend’s single Iranian attack is estimated to have cost Israel no less than $1billion. The last thing Tel-Aviv needs is a long and protracted internecine conflict with the theocrats of Persia.

But nor can Jerusalem do nothing. It does look evident that Israel will mount surgical strikes against Iran’s missile launch sites and the factories that produces its ordnance. Even if Iran does develop a bomb, without a delivery system it will be unable to use it against its enemies.

The world itself should be in no doubt as to the danger an Iranian bomb would present – and just how terrifying close the regime is to building one.

In a desolate mountainous region 140 miles south of Tehran is a one-square-mile site protected by anti-aircraft batteries, and a detachment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: the Natanz nuclear facility.

Over the years, Natanz has been subjected to a remorseless campaign of sabotage in a bid to prevent it creating the wherewithal for a nuclear warhead.

In 2009, it was hit by a sophisticated cyber-attack using a computer virus called Stuxnet. This is believed to have been created by Israel along with American cooperation.

For months, Iranian scientists scratched their heads in puzzlement as its centrifuges, vital tools in the uranium enrichment process, failed at an unprecedented rate. Israelis also organised the targeted assassinations of key scientists involved in the nuclear programme and destroyed elements of the Natanz facility using bomb-carrying drones.

Now, however, there are signs that great strides have been made in improving security at Natanz, to the point where it has become virtually impregnable.

A recent analysis of satellite images of the site concluded that the Iranians are building an underground facility at Natanz at a dept of between 260ft and 328ft.

As the US’ most advanced bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-57, is designed to plough through just 200ft of earth before detonating, this is bad news for the Israelis and their allies.

Meanwhile, in the five years since President Trump unilaterally withdrew America from a nuclear accord that strictly limited Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67 per cent purity (enough to fuel civilian power stations) and by keeping its stockpile to some 300kg (660lb), it has made good progress towards developing weapons-grade uranium.

Last year, inspectors discovered that it had produced uranium particles that were 83.7 per cent pure, just short of the 90 per cent weapons threshold.

And Natanz and its various sister sites are not the Iranians’ only nuclear option. Just as Britain and Russia developed “civil” nuclear energy, which produces plutonium as a by-product of the electricity-generating process, to give themselves a source of the necessary nuclear warhead material, so Iran has acquired a plutonium-powered plant of its own.

At the port of Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, there is an atomic energy plant controlled by Russian engineers.

Conventional wisdom has it that the plant will not bring Iran any closer to building a nuclear bomb, because Moscow supplies the enriched uranium for the reactor and – under a “peaceful use” clause in the deal – repatriates to Russia spent fuel rods that could be reprocessed and enriched into weapons-grade plutonium.

Yet much has changed in the world of geopolitics since that deal was struck. Russia has turned itself into a pariah following its unprovoked, brutal, and bloody war against Ukraine.

It was also striking quite how pro-Iran Putin’s UN ambassador was at the Security Council meeting immediately following the attacks on Israel. Who’s to say, then, Russia would object to Iran purloining enough plutonium to produce a range of nuclear warheads?

Certainly, using the plutonium produced at Bushehr would be a quicker route to making a bomb than waiting for Natanz to come up with sufficient enriched uranium.

Given that Tehran could, theoretically, have a bomb within a matter of months, the need for Israel to take out Iran’s ability to make delivery systems could not be more urgent. The destruction of manufacturing facilities for rockets, guidance systems, and detonator plants at centres such as Parchin, would mean Iran would not have a deployable nuke even if it had sufficient highly enriched uranium. Precision strikes would also spare civilian Iranians the calamity engulfing Gaza.

Such a move would also send a powerful signal to Iran’s increasingly restive population. A decisive Israeli military strike now could destabilise the Ayatollah’s regime and remove the fear of his Revolutionary Guards enforcers.

Standard
Britain, Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States

Fears grow that Tehran is plotting revenge attacks

IRAN–ISRAEL

BENJAMIN Netanyahu has warned that Israel would “harm whoever harms us” as the country is braced for an armed confrontation with Iran.

Tensions are high after Iran has vowed revenge following the Israeli defence force’s strike on its embassy in Syria which killed a leading general.

American intelligence suggests that the regime in Tehran is planning a “significant attack” against Israel. There are fears that the Middle East crisis could trigger a global conflict.

Perspective

In January 2020, Iran’s military mastermind Qasem Soleimani was assassinated by missiles fired from an American drone as his escort convoy left Baghdad airport.

In response, Tehran made bloodcurdling threats of revenge.

Five days later, that retaliatory attack duly came. But it proved a pitiful embarrassment.

Dozens of missiles rained down on two U.S. airbases in Iraq. Collateral damage amounted to the destruction of only a gymnasium and canteen; no lives were lost. It seems to have been a moment of shame for the mullahs – and one whose pain still stings.

So, following the attack by Israel on an Iranian consulate earlier this month, killing 13 people including senior military officers, Tehran’s theocratic mullahs are once again thirsting for revenge.

President Joe Biden has warned that a significant attack is imminent. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that his country is primed “offensively and defensively” in meeting all of the security needs of the State of Israel.

Tuesday was the last day of Ramadan: one of the most important dates in the Muslim calendar. It is thought that many Iranian generals will be arguing that the time is ripe to strike.

So, what could they do?

There are three main options. Most apocalyptically, Iran could risk all-out war by targeting specific locations in Israel itself.

Or it could launch deniable attacks via its proxy forces in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria and western Iraq (Shi’ite militias), or Yemen (Houthis). Third, it could carry out a tit-for-tat raid on an Israeli consulate.

Each one of these options has its own risks.

An attack on Israel would be a seminal moment in modern military history. For one thing, Iran’s sophisticated arsenal of ballistic missiles bears no resemblance to the primitive home-made delivery systems, fashioned from repurposed water pipes, used by Hamas in Gaza.

Its “Kheibar Shekan” missile alone has a warhead that can be packed with 1,100lb of high explosive. Its range of 900 miles means it could devastate or obliterate targets deep inside Israeli territory.

While Israel’s “Iron Dome” air-defence system has proved effective against Hamas’s periodic onslaughts, it has never faced such formidably fast and manoeuvrable firepower.

But the bigger the action, the bigger the consequences. Tehran is all too aware that Israel boasts equally powerful weapons itself and its own nuclear deterrent (which it has never admitted).

This means the mullahs are far more likely to opt for an attack via one of their proxies.

Hezbollah has traded fire with Israel across the latter’s northern border with Lebanon almost daily since Hamas launched its deadly attacks to the south on October 7. These exchanges have intensified in recent weeks.

With a vast stockpile of rockets and missiles at its disposal, Hezbollah can inflict significant damage at considerable cost. Its threat forces Netanyahu to keep large numbers of young Israelis in uniform – and thus out of work – with sharp consequences for the domestic economy.

Endemic conflict will inevitably play havoc with Tel-Aviv’s lucrative tourism industry. This year, the streets of Jerusalem have been noticeably deserted, even over the Easter holiday, as Christian visitors shunned the Holy Land.

The third retaliation could be simple payback: an attack on one of the Israeli embassies.

They would not be short of targets. Israel has long had consulates in Egypt and Jordan and, following the Abraham Accords in 2020, in Bahrain and the UAE, too.

The danger is that any such attack could carry the risk of a military response from the host country or the US – and from there, matters could swiftly spiral out of control.

While events in Gaza have dominated the headlines in recent months, the risk of a wider conflagration between Israel and Iran would make the conflict with Hamas look like a sideshow. A wider war has the potential to draw in all the Middle East powers.

The United States has promised Israel “ironclad” support in the event of Iranian reprisals, and Britain will stand squarely behind its American ally.

If oil exports are disrupted, with all that means for household energy bills, other Western actors surely will be drawn into the conflict.

The challenge facing our leaders is to avoid an escalation in hostilities which could have devastating consequences for the world.

Sunday, 14 April

It has commenced. Following Israel’s airstrike on key Iranian commanders in the Syrian capital of Damascus, the “phoney war” in which threats and counterthreats were exchanged, have now ended.

Unlike previous skirmishes in which Iran waged war from behind its proxies of Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi rebels of Yemen, events overnight represent a significant escalation.

In a chilling development, the two dominant military powers in the Middle East have begun to trade punches directly, in a heavyweight contest that could wreak dire consequences on each other, but also the world economy.

The arteries of global trade in oil and natural gas run through the region, as do Europe’s imports of goods from China, Japan, and South Korea.

International shipping is imperilled like never before. Events yesterday also saw Iranian special forces seizing an Israeli-owned container ship in the Persian Gulf. This was not an act of piracy committed by Iran’s proxies in the Red Sea – this was Tehran itself, committing an act of bald aggression.

Israel’s next move is critical. If the country’s Iron Dome anti-missile defence system blunts this onslaught by shooting down most of Iran’s drones and missiles, then maybe an opportunity could present itself in which tensions might ease.

But if Israel feels confident that it can go further and neutralise Iranian attacks, it might decide to go on the front foot.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could strike at Iran’s launch sites and nuclear facilities before Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi can retaliate. But it is a big and highly risky job.

Britain and the U.S. have been trying to silence Yemen’s much weaker Houthis for six months now – without success. Can either side back down?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, whose senior commanders were assassinated by Israel on April 1, are Tehran’s enforces – at home as well as abroad.

Amid the pressure that has forced the country’s mullahs to unleash their drones on Israel, they will find it difficult to step back from the brink.

The hardmen who keep them in power will push for the attacks to continue, not just on Israel directly but also on her allies, such as Britain and the U.S. – their shipping and embassies will become prime targets.

Backing off now is not an option for either side, nor for Britain. Rishi Sunak has committed UK support to its ally, and it will be seen whether he will waver now a wider war is inevitable.

Any chink in Western resolve will only encourage hostile states beyond the Middle East, like Russia and China – big power rivals who eagerly await a window of weakness in which to further their own territorial aims.

Standard
Britain, China, Government, History, Iran, Middle East, Military, Politics, Russia, United States, Yemen

Probing for weaknesses in the West’s defences

MIDDLE EAST

Intro: Drone strikes are probing for weaknesses in the West’s defences. Russia and China will be watching on with alacrity

COLONIAL history is no longer taught to young British Army officers at Sandhurst. And most American military planners and strategists might never have heard of the desperate battle to save an outpost called Rorke’s Drift in the Zulu Empire.

That Victorian battle was fought in 1879. But, along with the 1964 movie Zulu that was based on it, both have a crucial lesson for Allied forces now facing Islamist militias in flashpoints across the Middle East.

On screen, the Zulu chief sends a wave of warriors on a suicidal assault on the British outpost at Rorke’s Drift. Men are sent into battle armed with assegais or traditional spears but are met with a fierce resistance and gunned down by volleys of rapid rifle fire.

The African losses were heavy. Yet they weren’t trying to win this first assault: they were probing for weak points in the British defences, scoping out what weapons they had and how they used them.

There are strong parallels today with the situation in the Middle East.

The Iranian-backed drone attack on US army outpost Tower 22 in the Syrian desert – in which three marines were killed and 40 suffered horrific injuries – has echoes of long-forgotten colonial conflicts which helped to lay the gunpowder trail to the First World War, just as we could conceivably face another world war now.

Our enemies, the Houthis in Yemen attacking shipping in the Red Sea and Hezbollah guerrillas backed by Iran, are testing the West’s resolve and how we might fight back.

After several days of dithering, America “hit back” with B1 bombers and cruise missile attacks, blasting dusty and largely empty militia bases in the desert.

Since then, the world has witnessed a joint operation by the United States and the UK, which struck 36 targets across 13 locations in Yemen. They were backed by Australia, Bahrain, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.

The Ministry of Defence was at pains in recent days to emphasise that RAF strikes on Houthi targets were not intended as “an escalation”, rather a mission “to protect innocent lives and preserve freedom of navigation.”

The US Air Force’s high-tech weaponry have killed some 37 militants, but Washington has said they have no intention of striking Iran itself. The Americans have repeatedly stressed they do not want a war with Tehran.

These statements, however, signal to the Yemeni militias and their proxy backers that the West does not have the stomach for war and does not want to risk the lives of our own forces.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office insists, too, that: “We need to send the strongest possible signal to Iran that what they’re doing through their proxies is unacceptable. [They] will ultimately be held accountable for what they do.”

Precision strikes that do nothing but destroy a few temporary bases are not “the strongest possible signal”. Nor is the killing of a handful of Houthi rebels who treat death as martyrdom. Put simply, they are regarded by their puppet-masters in Tehran as expendable.

The Tower 22 bombing was carried out by the terrorist militia group Kataeb Hezbollah. This faction is not actually banned in the UK, and its supporters have been able to march down on Whitehall chanting anti-West slogans. Britain is trying to play an international role, but this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of even policing our own streets.

If the Americans are oblivious to the lessons of Rorke’s Drift, they should at least remember Vietnam. At the height of that gruelling war, US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara gave an interview explaining that his policy was to inflict enough deaths and damage on the North Vietnamese to make their Communist leaders back off from fighting the US Army.

President Ho Chi Minh listened to that in such disbelief that he asked for the tape to be replayed. Afterwards, he laughed. McNamara was revealing, he said, that lives mattered – to the Americans! All that mattered to North Vietnam’s fanatics was victory. No price or sacrifice was too high.

Ho Chi Minh’s strategic assessment was right. Far more of his soldiers and untold numbers of civilians were killed. But it was America that gave up paying the price of war. Today President Joe Biden dares not being drawn into an escalating Middle East conflict, particularly with an election due this year. Democrats won’t stand for it. The British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, faces the same stark truth.

Britain herself is no position to wage war against Iran or anyone else. Our military inadequacy is reflected in the fiasco of our two aircraft carriers: HMS Prince of Wales is being rapidly prepared to be seaworthy after repairs to a crippled propeller shaft. The ship is needed to deputise for its £3.5billion sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth II, which is currently out of commission because of another propeller shaft breakdown.

Russia and China are watching closely as Iran, and her proxies, test the West on their behalf. For Putin and Xi Jinping, this has become a spectator sport, as they look for signs that we have failed these tests. Instead of responding to the Tower 22 attacks with real military might, we have staged pin-prick reprisals, designed to demonstrate Western technological superiority. But our timid hesitancy has done nothing to frighten our global rivals.

The battle of Rorke’s Drift was won because we were prepared to fight with a ferocity that equalled the attacks of our numerous enemies. Now we no longer have the ships, the men, or the resolve to do so. Our foes must be laughing.

Standard