The Iranians continue their bold policy of openly pursuing nuclear weapons, partially disclosing what they are doing while denying they are doing it for purposes of attaining nuclear weapons.
Recently, they announced to the world that they are developing the mining site at Saghand where they intend, in two years time, to extract enough ore for all their uranium needs. They intend to use this for their plant at Natanz. They, however, did not reveal to their world their hidden sites, nor did they provide access to the vital uranium hexaflouride production plant in Esfahan, which some experts regard as key to their nuclear efforts.
The Iranians are no doubt heartened by two failures of the enemy they are most obsessed with (at least in their propaganda) - Israel. Israel's Arrow missile failed in a test in California, and Israel's Ofek-6 spy satellite also failed in a launch effort on September 6. This latter satellite would have greatly aided Israel's ability to track what Iran is doing with its nuclear program. As it is, with these two test failings, Israel can feel more vulnerable to the Iranian Shihab-3 missile than it has before.
John Loftus, one of the most important non-official American sources for intelligence on Iran, suggests that the best bet for defeating Iran is "regime change". He does not believe that a preemptive strike can be effective, given the dispersal of Iranian sites and their being hidden underground. He also believes that Iran already has three or four nuclear devices.
He suggests that if there is one way of moving Iran now, it is through an economic boycott, since ninety percent of Iran's economy is dependent on its oil exports. Loftus argues that the great majority of Iranians oppose the regime, and that the young and restless population will push for regime change in the years ahead. He also suggests that the Bush Administration, if reelected, will spearhead action against Iran as early as October of this year.
In another major development, the terrorist murder of Russian schoolchildren in North Ossetia should make Russia think again about supplying the largest state supporter of Islamic terror with a nuclear capacity. It will ideally make them rethink their whole policy toward the reactor in Bushehr. They probably do realize the double game Iran is playing in pretending not to support Chechnyan forces while at the same time fueling Islamic terror throughout the world. Russia is, of course, economically strapped and this also applies to its military industries. But whatever money can be made will be small consolation if there emerges, with the help of Russia, a nuclear Iran that supports terrorists groups - including those who work against Russia.
Iran now is reportedly dialoguing with the European countries and the IAEA over their next report. Iran is insisting that its own nuclear file be closed.
Increasing attention, however, against the Iranians' will, is being given to both Iran's nuclear program and its role in international terror. This is emerging as one of the major issues on the world's agenda. Both American presidential candidates have indicated that the Iran question is near the top of their list should they be elected. But neither has hinted at a concrete plan. It may well be that the Iraqi swamp will mean that an over-committed USA simply will not wish to over-extend itself further through direction action on Iran.
There are some weak signs that the Europeans are more alarmed than before and might cooperate with the US on the question of UN sanctions against Iran. But this is still an open question. What is likely, however, is that in negotiations with Iranians that are going on now, the Europeans will by and large give in, even though a nuclear Iran ultimately endangers them greatly, as well.
Iran is also engaged in a political campaign to cut Israel off from Central Asia, and has been trying to intimidate and induce the leaders of the new nations there to repudiate Israel. Iran is also increasingly involved in the terrorist actions against the US in Iraq. It also is involved through Hizbullah in directing the terror that comes from Gaza.
The Iranian Defense Minister says there soon will be another test of the Shihab-3, which already has the capacity to reach all of Israel and US forces throughout the Middle East. The question of the character of the payload of this weapon is critical to understanding its potential danger to Israel. As a conventional weapon, its potential for doing damage is very limited, especially considering its inaccuracy. But as potential transporter of nuclear weapons, its potential is disastrous for Israel. It may well be, however, that the Haaretz report by Zeev Schiff is correct, and it is chemical weapons that have been fitted already onto the Shihab-3. This is not very good news for Israel, but such weapons are not an existential threat.
Iranian relations with China are, according to Loftus, the key to determining how far Iran will be able to develop in the nuclear realm. Also, the Iranian cooperation with North Korea is a key element about which there appear to be no reliable intelligence reports.
As Iran's ultimate goal is to topple the US and the West and bring about Islamic world domination, it is encouraged by the increasing chaos in Iraq and by the apparently increasing troubles of the US in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It would be helpful to have a clearer and more detailed picture of the Iranian strategy for achieving the defeat of the US. Clearly, however, they are encouraged by recent US difficulties in all these areas. They must also be encouraged by reports that the US has not developed any real plan for stopping Iran.
It must be stressed that however one tries to update and complete information in regard to Iranian nuclear efforts, the real questions remain obscured by lack of information and intelligence. For instance, on the key question of whether it would be more dangerous for Israel to try and preempt Iran (opening Israel to a possible nuclear retaliation of a kind Iran has promised), or more dangerous to desist and allow Iran to perfect its weapons and delivery capacities - only those with real inside information and responsibility can venture a judgment. As it is now, however, it appears (in contradiction to Prime Minister Sharon's claim that there is full strategic coordination with the United States on this problem ) that Israel is alone, both in the degree of immediate threat against it and the responsibility for acting more than just declaratively and demonstratively in the situation.
Recently, they announced to the world that they are developing the mining site at Saghand where they intend, in two years time, to extract enough ore for all their uranium needs. They intend to use this for their plant at Natanz. They, however, did not reveal to their world their hidden sites, nor did they provide access to the vital uranium hexaflouride production plant in Esfahan, which some experts regard as key to their nuclear efforts.
The Iranians are no doubt heartened by two failures of the enemy they are most obsessed with (at least in their propaganda) - Israel. Israel's Arrow missile failed in a test in California, and Israel's Ofek-6 spy satellite also failed in a launch effort on September 6. This latter satellite would have greatly aided Israel's ability to track what Iran is doing with its nuclear program. As it is, with these two test failings, Israel can feel more vulnerable to the Iranian Shihab-3 missile than it has before.
John Loftus, one of the most important non-official American sources for intelligence on Iran, suggests that the best bet for defeating Iran is "regime change". He does not believe that a preemptive strike can be effective, given the dispersal of Iranian sites and their being hidden underground. He also believes that Iran already has three or four nuclear devices.
He suggests that if there is one way of moving Iran now, it is through an economic boycott, since ninety percent of Iran's economy is dependent on its oil exports. Loftus argues that the great majority of Iranians oppose the regime, and that the young and restless population will push for regime change in the years ahead. He also suggests that the Bush Administration, if reelected, will spearhead action against Iran as early as October of this year.
In another major development, the terrorist murder of Russian schoolchildren in North Ossetia should make Russia think again about supplying the largest state supporter of Islamic terror with a nuclear capacity. It will ideally make them rethink their whole policy toward the reactor in Bushehr. They probably do realize the double game Iran is playing in pretending not to support Chechnyan forces while at the same time fueling Islamic terror throughout the world. Russia is, of course, economically strapped and this also applies to its military industries. But whatever money can be made will be small consolation if there emerges, with the help of Russia, a nuclear Iran that supports terrorists groups - including those who work against Russia.
Iran now is reportedly dialoguing with the European countries and the IAEA over their next report. Iran is insisting that its own nuclear file be closed.
Increasing attention, however, against the Iranians' will, is being given to both Iran's nuclear program and its role in international terror. This is emerging as one of the major issues on the world's agenda. Both American presidential candidates have indicated that the Iran question is near the top of their list should they be elected. But neither has hinted at a concrete plan. It may well be that the Iraqi swamp will mean that an over-committed USA simply will not wish to over-extend itself further through direction action on Iran.
There are some weak signs that the Europeans are more alarmed than before and might cooperate with the US on the question of UN sanctions against Iran. But this is still an open question. What is likely, however, is that in negotiations with Iranians that are going on now, the Europeans will by and large give in, even though a nuclear Iran ultimately endangers them greatly, as well.
Iran is also engaged in a political campaign to cut Israel off from Central Asia, and has been trying to intimidate and induce the leaders of the new nations there to repudiate Israel. Iran is also increasingly involved in the terrorist actions against the US in Iraq. It also is involved through Hizbullah in directing the terror that comes from Gaza.
The Iranian Defense Minister says there soon will be another test of the Shihab-3, which already has the capacity to reach all of Israel and US forces throughout the Middle East. The question of the character of the payload of this weapon is critical to understanding its potential danger to Israel. As a conventional weapon, its potential for doing damage is very limited, especially considering its inaccuracy. But as potential transporter of nuclear weapons, its potential is disastrous for Israel. It may well be, however, that the Haaretz report by Zeev Schiff is correct, and it is chemical weapons that have been fitted already onto the Shihab-3. This is not very good news for Israel, but such weapons are not an existential threat.
Iranian relations with China are, according to Loftus, the key to determining how far Iran will be able to develop in the nuclear realm. Also, the Iranian cooperation with North Korea is a key element about which there appear to be no reliable intelligence reports.
As Iran's ultimate goal is to topple the US and the West and bring about Islamic world domination, it is encouraged by the increasing chaos in Iraq and by the apparently increasing troubles of the US in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It would be helpful to have a clearer and more detailed picture of the Iranian strategy for achieving the defeat of the US. Clearly, however, they are encouraged by recent US difficulties in all these areas. They must also be encouraged by reports that the US has not developed any real plan for stopping Iran.
It must be stressed that however one tries to update and complete information in regard to Iranian nuclear efforts, the real questions remain obscured by lack of information and intelligence. For instance, on the key question of whether it would be more dangerous for Israel to try and preempt Iran (opening Israel to a possible nuclear retaliation of a kind Iran has promised), or more dangerous to desist and allow Iran to perfect its weapons and delivery capacities - only those with real inside information and responsibility can venture a judgment. As it is now, however, it appears (in contradiction to Prime Minister Sharon's claim that there is full strategic coordination with the United States on this problem ) that Israel is alone, both in the degree of immediate threat against it and the responsibility for acting more than just declaratively and demonstratively in the situation.