. Space Travel News .




.
NUKEWARS
Outside View: The tragedy of success
by Morgan Strong
Brick, N.J. (UPI) Mar 9, 2012

US military could hit Iran harder than Israel: Panetta
Washington (AFP) March 8, 2012 - A US military attack on Iran would do more damage than a strike carried out by Israeli forces, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday in an interview.

The United States and Israel disagree about the imminence of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, and Panetta's comments underscored the US administration's stance that Israel should hold off on any unilateral action.

"If they (Israelis) decided to do it, there's no question that it would have an impact, but I think it's also clear that if the United States did it, we would have a hell of a bigger impact," Panetta told the National Journal.

President Barack Obama and top officials have repeatedly said they have not ruled out military force if diplomacy and sanctions fail to resolve the crisis over Iran's suspect nuclear program.

But the Obama administration maintains that tough sanctions on Iran and diplomatic efforts need to be given more time before any resort to bombing raids.

Israeli leaders however say time is running out for any pre-emptive strike. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that sanctions against Iran have not worked, and "none of us can afford to wait much longer."

US commanders have said the military has drawn up contingency plans for a potential attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and Panetta confirmed that in the interview.

Asked if the Pentagon was drawing up contingency plans, he said: "Absolutely."

Analysts and former US military officers say Israeli aircraft could do serious damage to Iran's nuclear sites but would face a challenge hitting an underground facility near Qom and that America's vast air force far outstrips Israel's capabilities.

The United States, Israel and much of the international community fear Iran's nuclear program is an attempt to build a weapon -- a charge Tehran denies.


Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited U.S. President Barack Obama Monday. He has tried, and failed, to convince Obama to join Israel in attacking Iran.

Netanyahu says the purpose in attacking Iran is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons that Iran will use against Israel.

That is sheer fantasy. Iran is very far from the development of nuclear weapons. Even if Iran were to succeed in building a primitive nuclear device, they could never match Israel's vast nuclear arsenal.

Netanyahu's true purpose is to compel Obama, by using the immense power and resources of the American Israeli lobby, to commit U.S. military might critical to pursue Israel's broader agenda. Netanyahu will claim that peace and stability can be realized in the Middle East only if Iran is removed as an antagonist.

Israel says military conquest is the solution to its seemingly insoluble dilemma with the Arab states. This principle engaged without exception is; subjugation not negotiation.

The 1975 publication of the book "A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and Other Documents," Israel's first foreign minister, revealed the implementation of that policy in the struggle for Israel's birth.

This remarkable book alters any previously held misconceptions, then or now, of Israel and its leadership. Sharett's first-hand narrative of the brutal tactics used to defeat the Palestinians, to usurp and occupy their land and name it Israel, is unsettling. They were brutal, unconscionable, acts; they brought to the Palestinian's many of the horrors that the Jewish people experienced at the hands the Nazi's.

These methods haven't changed because they were and are diabolically effective. They are most obvious in the present confrontation with Iran. Simply put, Israel will first provoke an enemy to commit an act of aggression, or create the appearance that an enemy poses an immediate and dire threat to Israel's safety. Israel will then reluctantly, but with all apparent justification, respond with uncompromising force.

Inexplicably, despite a history of failures, Israel continues to use this tactic to no certain end. This tactic borrowed by the Bush administration is the fullest explanation of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In March of 1978 Israel invaded Lebanon. The invasion was a response to the infiltration of Israel by Palestine Liberation Organization forces who killed 37 Israelis. This was the first of what was to be a long line of destructive invasions of Lebanon by Israel.

Named "Operation Litani," it was quick and relatively painless for Israel. Israel suffered 20 killed but more than 1,200 Lebanese civilians, PLO and Syrian fighters died. The invasion the deaths and destruction in Lebanon, was a wholly disproportionate response to the provocation but consistent with Israel's enduring policy.

On June 6, 1982, Israel again invaded Lebanon. This invasion was claimed to be in response to the attempted assassination of Israel's ambassador to Great Britain. After protracted negotiations and heavy fighting, the Israelis accomplished their unstated and true purpose of forcing the PLO to leave Lebanon. The PLO decamped for Tunisia, from where it continued to launch terrorist attacks against Israel.

Israel bombarded Beirut relentlessly for four months during this invasion. The force used by Israel against the civilian population of Lebanon was unworthy of a civilized nation. The approximate death toll was 20,000 Lebanese civilians and 8,000 Palestinian and Syrian troops. Israel lost 300 soldiers. Beirut, once known as the Paris of the Middle East, was reduced to rubble.

U.S. relations with Israel worsened considerably during this invasion. President Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most pro-Israel president in the history of the relationship, was reportedly horrified when he watched the brutal Israeli bombardment of Beirut on television. Reagan became so angry that on Aug. 12, 1982, he telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and told him the bombing had gone too far. "You must stop it," Reagan told Begin.

The invasion, and the willful destruction of Beirut, and the effective killing of thousands of innocent civilians in Lebanon, was clearly a disproportionate response to the attempted assassination of a minor Israeli diplomat.

Another product of Israel's invasion was the creation of a new militant group in Lebanon opposed to Israel. The group was drawn from Lebanon's majority but marginalized Shiite population. First called "the Islamic Resistance" it is now known as "Hezbollah."

Begin had promised the nation that the invasion and conquest of Lebanon would bring Israel 40 years of peace. Instead it brought Hezbollah.

The invasion of 1993 followed cross-border attacks into northern Israel by Hezbollah, now in control of all of southern Lebanon. Israel claimed the invasion a success.

"Operation Grapes of Wrath", the invasion of 1996 was to stop rocket attacks into Northern Israel by Hezbollah. Israel claimed the invasion was successful.

Israel invaded Lebanon again in 2006 in response to Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others.

During the invasion Hezbollah fired hundreds of Iranian-supplied, long-range rockets into northern Israel. The heavy rocket attacks forced a sizeable portion of Israel's population to flee.

Israel sent in ground forces after its aircraft were unable to stop the rocket attacks. The Israeli army met with strong resistance and suffered extremely high causalities. Israeli tank divisions were decimated by Hezbollah using Iranian-supplied anti-tank weapons. As one Israeli armored commander said, "Iran supplied the missiles, we supplied the targets."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had promised the invasion would realize significant achievements that would change the face of the Middle East forever.

The invasion of 1996 was the first defeat for the vaunted Israeli military.

Israel invaded Gaza in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2010, to eliminate the military threat of Hamas. Hamas was another enemy raised from the ashes of success.

Hamas's beginning was in the disaffected Palestinian's belief that peace through negotiations with Israel was unobtainable. Force appeared the only alternative.

Israel's separate invasions of Gaza have been marked by an excess of brutality; a barbarity so shocking that Israel was investigated for war crimes by the United Nations following the 2009 invasion.

Israel's belligerence and aggression arguably gained little. The cost of their self-proclaimed victories grows exponentially higher. The only apparent service of the tactic is to secure intransigence and foster an implacable resolve within the enemies of Israel.

We continue to drift ever nearer another conflict with Iran and it is unlikely that it can be avoided. The protocol of war, victory, war, victory, war, a cycle of uninterrupted failure, disguised as victory.

(Morgan Strong, is a former professor of Middle Eastern History, and was an adviser to CBS News "60 Minutes" on the Middle East.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com




.
.
Get Our Free Newsletters Via Email
...
Buy Advertising Editorial Enquiries



And it's 3... 2... 1... blastoff! Discover the thrill of a real-life rocket launch.

IAEA puts Iran on the ropes over Parchin site
Vienna (AFP) March 9, 2012 - The UN atomic agency's dogged focus on the Parchin military site in its probe into Iran's suspected nuclear weapons work is putting Tehran in a tight spot ahead of hugely important talks with world powers.

In two high-level visits to Tehran this year, in January and last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency asked to go to Parchin, where it believes activity relevant to nuclear weapons development took place.

But Iran said no, making instead a last-minute offer to show another site mentioned in a major IAEA report in November -- Merivan near the Iraqi border, hundreds of miles from Tehran -- which the IAEA refused.

Inspectors already visited Parchin near Tehran twice in 2005 and found nothing, Iran points out, but the IAEA says it has since obtained additional information that makes it want to go back for another look.

For Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear nonproliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Iran's rebuttal of the IAEA was an "own goal", particularly as there is likely nothing "incriminating" at Parchin.

The studies that Iran is alleged to have carried out there, although believed to be aimed at developing nuclear weapons, did not use any radioactive material, making detecting something much harder for the IAEA, Fitzpatrick told AFP.

Refusing access "just raises suspicions. Iran would have been much more clever to have brought them to Parchin ... It would have been a PR victory for Iran and they blew their chance," he said.

Iran is hyper-sensitive about allowing access into military sites, particularly since a November blast at an elite Republican Guard base killed 36, including a key figure in Iran's ballistic missile programme.

It has already accused the IAEA of being dangerously prone to leaks and of endangering the lives of its nuclear scientists -- several have been assassinated, the latest in January -- by making their names public.

"Considering the fact that it is a military site, granting access is a time-consuming process and cannot be permitted repeatedly," the Iranian embassy in Vienna, where the IAEA has its headquarters, said in a statement this week.

But the IAEA thinks there is more to the refusal than security concerns, while Iran's stance falls into the hands of those -- not least Israel -- who suspect that Tehran is secretly bent on developing a nuclear arsenal.

Access might be one concession Iran could make in upcoming talks with the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, said Oliver Thraenert from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.

"If the Iranians are clever they would give access to Parchin, but try at the same time to organise it in a way that the inspectors can have general access but not access to every single facility," Thraenert told AFP. "It's a huge place."

But if Tehran does suddenly grant access to Parchin, it may be too late because it will find itself accused of having cleaned up the site beforehand.

The director general of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, strongly hinted as much on Monday, saying that "activities" spotted by satellite "makes us believe that going there sooner is better than later."



.

. Comment on this article via your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail login.

Share this article via these popular social media networks
del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg RedditReddit GoogleGoogle



NUKEWARS
Don't attack Iran, urges Israel's ex-spy chief
Washington (AFP) March 8, 2012
The former chief of Israel's Mossad spy agency has cautioned against an attack on Iran's nuclear sites and put his trust firmly in US President Barack Obama to intervene if and when necessary. In excerpts of an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" program to be aired in full on Sunday, Meir Dagan said he believes the Iranian regime is a "very rational one," including firebrand President Mahmoud ... read more


NUKEWARS
ILS Announces A New Contract For The ILS Proton Launch Of The Mexsat-1 Satellite

Launch Madness at Wallops in March - "Five in Five"

Engineers Tuck NuSTAR in its Nose Cone

Lockheed Martin Selects Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex To Support Future Athena Launches

NUKEWARS
Rep. Schiff Applauds Decision to Reject NASA Request to Divert Mars Funds

Winter Studies of 'Amboy' Rock Continue

NASA Mars Orbiter Catches Twister in Action

Working models for the gravitational field of Phobos

NUKEWARS
Apollo 11: 'A Stark Beauty All Its Own'

Magnetic moon

Twin GRAIL Spacecraft Begin Collecting Lunar Science Data

Apollo 12: Pinpoint Landing on the Ocean of Storms

NUKEWARS
New Horizons on Approach: 22 AU Down, Just 10 to Go

NUKEWARS
Stars with Dusty Disks Should Harbor Earth-like Worlds

Star Comb joins quest for Earth-like planets

Researchers say galaxy may swarm with 'nomad planets'

New model provides different take on planetary accretion

NUKEWARS
What Next for X-37B

XCOR Aerospace Closes $5 Million Round of Investment Capital

XCOR Announces New Lynx Vehicle Payload Integrators

Future of Space Transportation

NUKEWARS
Three for Tiangong

China hopes to send Long March-5 rocket into space in 2014

Upgraded carrier rocket ready for China's first manned space docking

Long March 7 carrier rocket to lift off in five years

NUKEWARS
Dear Ups and Dawns

Asteroid 2011 AG5 - A Reality Check

Scientists say big asteroid bears watching


Memory Foam Mattress Review

Newsletters :: SpaceDaily Express :: SpaceWar Express :: TerraDaily Express :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News

.

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2012 - Space Media Network. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement