Israel - Iran Tension

[Obsidian 10]

U.S. officials concerned by Israel statements on Iran threat, possible strike

 

Israeli leaders on Thursday delivered one of the bluntest warnings to date of possible airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, adding to the anxiety in Western capitals that a surprise attack by Israel could spark a broader military conflict in the Middle East.

 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by some of Israel’s top intelligence and military leaders, declared that time was running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers.

 

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said. He switched from Hebrew to English for the last phrase: “later is too late.”

 

The language reflected a deepening rift between Israeli and U.S. officials over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts say could soon put nuclear weapons within the reach of Iran’s rulers.

 

Although accepting the gravity of the Iranian threat, U.S. officials fear being blindsided by an Israeli strike that could have widespread economic and security implications and might only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear pursuits.

 

In a series of private meetings with Israeli counterparts in recent weeks, Western officials have counseled patience, saying recent economic sanctions and a new European oil embargo are pummeling Iran’s economy and could soon force the country’s leaders to abandon the nuclear program. Yet Israelis are increasingly signaling that they may act unilaterally if there is no breakthrough in the coming months, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

 

“The Obama administration is concerned that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, having given Washington little or no warning,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who specialized in Iran policy during the Clinton administration and recently returned from meetings with Israeli officials. He said Israel “has refused to assure Washington that prior notice would be provided.”

 

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is one of several administration officials to express concern publicly that Israel is positioning itself for a surprise attack. Last month, the administration dispatched the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, to the Israeli capital for high-level discussions about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike.

 

“Israel has indicated they’re considering this, and we have indicated our concerns,” Panetta told reporters Thursday after a NATO meeting in Brussels. Panetta declined to comment on published reports that he thinks the Israelis could carry out a strike this spring, possibly as early as April.

 

Although the Obama administration has not ruled out U.S. military action against Iran, White House officials are worried that a unilateral strike could shatter the broad international coalition assembled in the past three years to confront Iran over its nuclear program, which Iranian leaders have consistently said is for peaceful purposes.

 

Source: Washington Post

 

 

What do you think, is it possible that Israel strike Iran ? If this happens, how would this affect the markets?

[mohsinqureshii 10]

U.S. officials concerned by Israel statements on Iran threat, possible strike

 

Israeli leaders on Thursday delivered one of the bluntest warnings to date of possible airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, adding to the anxiety in Western capitals that a surprise attack by Israel could spark a broader military conflict in the Middle East.

 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by some of Israel’s top intelligence and military leaders, declared that time was running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers.

 

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said. He switched from Hebrew to English for the last phrase: “later is too late.”

 

The language reflected a deepening rift between Israeli and U.S. officials over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts say could soon put nuclear weapons within the reach of Iran’s rulers.

 

Although accepting the gravity of the Iranian threat, U.S. officials fear being blindsided by an Israeli strike that could have widespread economic and security implications and might only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear pursuits.

 

In a series of private meetings with Israeli counterparts in recent weeks, Western officials have counseled patience, saying recent economic sanctions and a new European oil embargo are pummeling Iran’s economy and could soon force the country’s leaders to abandon the nuclear program. Yet Israelis are increasingly signaling that they may act unilaterally if there is no breakthrough in the coming months, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

 

“The Obama administration is concerned that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, having given Washington little or no warning,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who specialized in Iran policy during the Clinton administration and recently returned from meetings with Israeli officials. He said Israel “has refused to assure Washington that prior notice would be provided.”

 

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is one of several administration officials to express concern publicly that Israel is positioning itself for a surprise attack. Last month, the administration dispatched the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, to the Israeli capital for high-level discussions about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike.

 

“Israel has indicated they’re considering this, and we have indicated our concerns,” Panetta told reporters Thursday after a NATO meeting in Brussels. Panetta declined to comment on published reports that he thinks the Israelis could carry out a strike this spring, possibly as early as April.

 

Although the Obama administration has not ruled out U.S. military action against Iran, White House officials are worried that a unilateral strike could shatter the broad international coalition assembled in the past three years to confront Iran over its nuclear program, which Iranian leaders have consistently said is for peaceful purposes.

 

Source: Washington Post

 

 

What do you think, is it possible that Israel strike Iran ? If this happens, how would this affect the markets?

 

There will be no strike on Iran as it would be effect the Arab World and US it self - US cant afford Crude Oil at 200 $ a barrel and no other country can. So if Iran is attacked - Iran will block "Abzae Huzmat" The pipe line in Arabian see going to US which will effect all over the world. Its only a threatening statement by Leon Pennata to stop iran from making the Nuclear Weapons. In its recent Statement President of Iran Ahmade Nijad has said there will be good news's soon from the Nuclear side , and Iran seems not scared of Leon Pennata's statement.

 

The world will be effected a lot if Iran is being attacked as the crises in Arab World are already getting worst day by day and the Arab Rulers will never want an Attack on Iran because if Iran is being attacked it will hit US Marine in UAE and Qatar which Arab don't want to see.

[Obsidian 10]

Iranian tensions continue oil's rise

 

CRUDE futures shot higher as worries about Iran and gains in the euro, equities and other markets trumped data showing still-slumping US fuel demand.

 

Light, sweet crude oil for April delivery settled $US1.55 higher at $US107.83 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest price since Libya's civil war sent futures soaring early last year. Brent crude on the ICE futures exchange ended up US72c at $US123.62 a barrel.

 

Prices rose along with equities markets and the euro, which recently traded at $US1.3335, near the highest level against the US dollar since early December. Markets cheered data showing that the jobs picture in the US continues to improve, as the four-week average jobless claims fell to the lowest level since 2008.

 

The move in broader markets, coupled with the continued tensions over Iran, sent oil prices up for the sixth-straight session despite weaker data on the US oil market. The US Energy Information Administration said oil inventories rose by 1.6 million barrels last week, topping analysts' expectations calling for a 500,000-barrel increase.

 

The rise in stockpiles, coupled with a 1.5 percentage point increase in refiners' capacity utilisation, signalled that oil is available to meet current demand. But even as usage of fuel products remains "extremely weak," worries about Iran have kept traders from betting on a fall in prices, said Jaya Bajpai, managing director of Trajan Investment Management. "Iran remains a wildcard and the consequences are so extreme that no one wants to be caught short," Mr Bajpai said.

 

Traders worry that a stand-off between Iran and the West ahead of the EU's coming Iranian oil embargo could disrupt some of that country's 3.5 million barrels a day of production from hitting the market. Oil prices have surged over the past month, gaining 9.6 per cent since the beginning of February on improving economic data and growing tensions surrounding Iran.

 

Analysts are keeping close watch on oil-market data for any signals that high prices are cutting into demand or prompting refiners to increase their production of fuel products. Front-month March reformulated gasoline blendstock, or RBOB, settled US2.59c higher at $US3.1136 a gallon. March heating oil settled US2.25c, or 0.7 per cent, higher at $US3.2949 a gallon.

 

----

Would oil prices continue to be so high if we got rid of all the speculators?

[Tams 20]

Interesting that Iran is stationing some of its navy vessels in the med, at Syria.

 

I guess that's a shorter hitting distance to Israel.

[khamore1 10]

There will be no strike on Iran as it would be effect the Arab World and US it self - US cant afford Crude Oil at 200 $ a barrel and no other country can. So if Iran is attacked - Iran will block "Abzae Huzmat" The pipe line in Arabian see going to US which will effect all over the world. Its only a threatening statement by Leon Pennata to stop iran from making the Nuclear Weapons. In its recent Statement President of Iran Ahmade Nijad has said there will be good news's soon from the Nuclear side , and Iran seems not scared of Leon Pennata's statement.

 

The world will be effected a lot if Iran is being attacked as the crises in Arab World are already getting worst day by day and the Arab Rulers will never want an Attack on Iran because if Iran is being attacked it will hit US Marine in UAE and Qatar which Arab don't want to see.

 

Yes it is possible if Israel will strike Iran, a barrel of oil will shoot up to $200 but only for the next 6 months

 

Iran with nuclear weapons…the price will shoot up to $500 forever...

[Obsidian 10]

a long but nice article:

Consequences of Iran-Israel War | Greg Hunter

[TheDude 10]

why does the west let israel have nukes, but not iran? thats the bottom line.

 

you cant say 'because Ahmadinejad is a nutter' because in my view, israel is also, if not more mad. remember that israel has more human rights violations in its name than iran. iran doesnt kill 2 year old children for being of the wrong religion as israel does.

 

ok iran still stones women to death, but the israeli state also purposefully murder women and children too.

 

perhaps we should nuke both iran and israel. then there really would be a glimpse of world peace.

 

:bang head:

[Tams 20]

Israel has no capability to attack Iran

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgiofNVAL-o]'Israel has no capability to attack Iran' - YouTube[/ame]

[Obsidian 10]

why does the west let israel have nukes, but not iran? thats the bottom line.

 

you cant say 'because Ahmadinejad is a nutter' because in my view, israel is also, if not more mad. remember that israel has more human rights violations in its name than iran. iran doesnt kill 2 year old children for being of the wrong religion as israel does.

 

ok iran still stones women to death, but the israeli state also purposefully murder women and children too.

 

perhaps we should nuke both iran and israel. then there really would be a glimpse of world peace.

 

:bang head:

 

unfortunately that is because of politics. countries keep accusing others without looking at the mirror or their past. you know who has the money makes the rules...

 

thanks for that video Tams. I agree that Israel can't attack Iran alone. They need US and/or Europe but they may not be able to afford a war like that.

[Tams 20]

note also that the video is from the Russian Television.

[Tams 20]

there are 2 types of attack that israel can do:

 

1. Hit and Run

 

2. Hit and Total Destroy the Enemy

 

 

in the first case, you know the enemy has no capability to hit back,

so you hit and run, leaving the enemy to pick up the pieces while saying a few choice swear words at you.

you go back to your barracks, have a few beer, and laugh with glee.

the israelis did that to the Iraqis many years ago.

 

 

in the 2nd case, you cannot do a hit and run because you know the enemy has the capability to hit back,

even if they don't win, the consequences can be nasty.

 

You are only left with 2 choices:

 

a) do not hit,

 

or

 

b) Hit with such force that you are going to Totally Destroy the Enemy

 

 

more later...

[Obsidian 10]

I think only US is capable of doing these.

Israel alone can't just hit such a big target.

Besides Israel has border to Iran.

They have to convince EU or US to do their dirty work but I doubt they can even do that. Last time the US had convinced NATO to invade Iraq to execute their old puppet but things didn't go as planned. Declaring war on Iran may not be good for Obama this time

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=4

[Obsidian 10]

The United States has asked Russia to warn Iran it has a last chance in negotiations expected in April to avoid military strikes against its nuclear programme, a report said Wednesday.

 

Russia's Kommersant daily said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the talks between Iran and world powers were a "last chance" to resolve the crisis.

 

"She asked her Russian colleague to make this clear to the Iranian authorities" as Washington has no diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, the newspaper said.

 

Their discussion took place after Monday's UN Security Council meeting on Syria in New York, it added.

 

The newspaper said that a precise date and location for the talks is still being decided. Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said last month he expected the discussions to start in April at the latest.

 

The report gave no further details on the kind of military action Tehran faced but it said Russian diplomats at the United Nations believed it was a "matter of when, not if" Israel would strike against Iran.

 

Israel, as well as its main ally the United States, has repeatedly refused to rule out using force against Iran over its nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at making nuclear weapons, a claim denied by Tehran.

 

Russia has always warned in public that military action against Iran risked having catastrophic consequences and has said that the crisis must be solved diplomatically.

 

But Kommersant said the Russian military was now at a state of "mobilised readiness" to protect the country from the knock-on effects of a possible conflict like an influx of refugees into neighbouring Azerbaijan.

 

Source: AFP

[khamore1 10]

here is smoething funny............

khameini.doc

[Obsidian 10]

someday the wars will end...

[Obsidian 10]

wish governments learned from their mistakes...

[TheDude 10]

wish governments learned from their mistakes...

 

well you see its not the governments who are calling the shots - its the banks who are in turn controlled by central banks (like fed, imf, world bank) who are controlled by....wait for it....the banks. jp morgan, gs, ubs, and of course the rothschilds.

 

just look at gw bush. he never had the brains to run a campaign, fight a war, or even string a meaningful sentence together. how the hell did he get in the whitehouse? you cant tell me there arent people behind the scenes calling the real shots.

 

war is very profitable you see. the banks lend money to governments to buy weapons and pay the troops. so the banks fund both sides. they operate as a cartel. the winning side of any war (if there is such a thing) has to pay off the debts of the loser. so the banks win either way. they get their loans paid back on both sides.

 

so the banks always finance the candidates who they feel will borrow most - and any war needs a lot of borrowing.

[roztom 10]

I do not believe an Isreali/(US Attack) would have any real upside vs. the potential downside.

 

1. Only a moron in Iran would not have anticipated potential attacks against Nucleur development - ie. Libya.

2. Today sites are dispersed among civilian targets.

3. Sites are not only dispersed but hardened.

4. No matter what damage, there is a high probability it would not stop the continued development of Iran's nucleur capability.

5. This would allow Iran to have a open "Get Out of Jail Free Card" to justify retaliation against Isreal for an "unprovoked" attack.

6. Potential disruption to oil flow could cripple our Economy more than any armed attack.

7. An attack would be a P.R. coup for the Jihadist recruiters.. and accellerate retribution. The West would pay for it into the indefinite future.

 

[Obsidian 10]

...war is very profitable you see. the banks lend money to governments to buy weapons and pay the troops. so the banks fund both sides. they operate as a cartel. the winning side of any war (if there is such a thing) has to pay off the debts of the loser. so the banks win either way. they get their loans paid back on both sides....

 

they shouldn't have been too greedy then, now governments are so in debt, they can't afford wars anymore :rofl:

 

another thing to think about..lets imagine they invaded Iran..then what?

[Obsidian 10]

US missile defense plans may signal strike on Iran, Russia warns

 

A unified missile defense system comprising the United States and six Arab states is a signal that a military strike on Iran could be on the horizon, says the Chairman of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee.

 

"The formation of the missile defense system is a new step to signal the possibility of a military strike on Iran, at least in a political context," Alexey Pushkov told a round table conference on Iran at the State Duma.

 

Pushkov was commenting on reports that the Pentagon has agreed to form a single missile defense system with six Arab states – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar.

 

"A missile defense system is only needed in the event that Iran decides to retaliate, since there are no reasons to think that Iran would be the first to launch a strike all of a sudden," Pushkov said.

 

These latest developments come as the sextet of international mediators – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany – are preparing for talks with Iran on April 13-14. The talks will focus on Iran’s nuclear research activities, which some countries, including the United States and Israel, believe are being pursued with the aim of building a nuclear weapon.

 

Tehran vehemently denies the accusations, and says it is developing nuclear energy for the civilian sector.

 

Some experts say that Israel may be more inclined to launch a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons sites at this time, as the United States is occupied with its presidential election season, and President Obama is not in a position to appear weak before the pro-Israeli Republican opposition. Other factors, including Germany’s decision to sell six Dolphin-class submarines to the Israeli Navy, also seem to point to a worst-case scenario brewing.

 

Pushkov believes Tehran may be underestimating the dangers it faces.

 

"Iran is underestimating the seriousness of the military threat, I think," he said. "The surgical operation the public opinion is being prepared for may deteriorate into a vast and full-scale regional war."

 

Pushkov went on to express what could best be described as cautious optimism over the chances of a breakthrough during the upcoming negotiations.

 

"Much will depend on the talks on Iran's problem," Pushkov told the Russian lawmakers. "Everyone hopes that these talks will be effective. But there is skepticism, too, given that the situation is not abating, but deteriorating, despite a flurry of political and diplomatic activity surrounding the Iranian problem.”

 

There are indications that the situation around Iran's nuclear work could develop according to the worst-case scenario, he said.

 

"As you know, we have several scenarios on the table, among them the so-called military scenario of settling the Iranian problem,” Pushkov noted. “Judging by statements made by some countries, this military scenario is becoming increasingly probable." This arouses serious concerns for Russia, he added.

[Tams 20]

[Obsidian 10]

no wonder why u.s. budget has a big hole :rofl:

[wrbtrader 10]

they shouldn't have been too greedy then, now governments are so in debt, they can't afford wars anymore :rofl:

 

another thing to think about..lets imagine they invaded Iran..then what?

 

You know what happens when governments can not afford to go to war with someone...they start allowing them to invest in their country (e.g. real estate, sports team ownerships, corporate investments, private education systems et cetera). :rofl:

[Obsidian 10]

size does matter !?!?

[Obsidian 10]

This may ease concerns till end of May...

 

 

Iran Nuclear Talks Resume May 23 in Baghdad, Ashton Says

 

The first international talks with Iran on its nuclear program in 15 months produced a promise to reconvene in May amid calls for urgent diplomacy to avert military strikes.

 

The so-called P5+1 group of five permanent United Nations Security Council members -- the U.S., Britain, China, France, and Russia -- plus Germany will meet Iranian delegates in Baghdad on May 23 following “constructive” talks yesterday in Istanbul, according to Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief.

 

Tensions over Iran’s nuclear program have escalated since the parties’ last gathering in Turkey in January 2011, with Israel and the U.S. saying they may attack the Islamic republic to prevent it from developing atomic weapons. That prospect and economic sanctions aimed at blocking Iran’s oil exports helped drive Brent crude prices 13 percent higher this year alone.

 

While yesterday’s talks didn’t yield any new promises, the P5+1 group hailed Iran’s willingness to engage in discussions on its nuclear program.

 

“We want now to move to a sustained process of serious dialogue, where we can take urgent practical steps to build confidence and lead on to compliance by Iran with all its international obligations,” Ashton told reporters after the talks. “In our efforts to do so, we will be guided by the principle of the step-by-step approach and reciprocity.”

 

Iran’s nuclear envoy, Saeed Jalili, said “we witnessed progress” in yesterday’s talks. “We said before that pressure doesn’t work, we believe that cooperation is fruitful,” Jalili said. “Today we experienced that.”

Economic Sanctions

 

An EU embargo on Iranian oil is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, following U.S. restrictions already in place.

 

“One of the issues that should be taken into consideration, and is the request of the Iranian people, is the removal of sanctions,” Jalili said, speaking to reporters through a translator.

 

A lifting of sanctions won’t be on the agenda until there are concrete moves to assure the international community about the intent of Iran’s nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said after yesterday’s talks. The meeting wasn’t about what may or may not happen militarily, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

 

Rejecting the contention of the U.S. and its allies that Iran may be developing the capability for nuclear weapons, Jalili spoke under a banner with images of assassinated Iranian atomic scientists that read, “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none.”

Fordo Site

 

Iran is enriching uranium to the 20 percent level at an underground facility at Fordo, near Qom. Civilian nuclear power plants require 5 percent low-enriched uranium. Iran says it is developing nuclear technology solely to generate power and for medical purposes.

 

Further stockpiling of 20 percent enriched uranium “poses a growing threat” that some will be diverted for weapons use, the Institute for Science and International Security, a research group in Washington, said in an April 10 report.

 

President Barack Obama said a month ago that although the window for diplomacy is “shrinking,” there is “still time and space” for diplomacy and sanctions before resorting to military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

Yesterday’s scheduling of a May meeting is “a positive step forward,” Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser at the White House, told reporters in Cartagena, Colombia, where Obama was participating in a summit of Latin American leaders. “Now what we’re doing is building out the agenda going forward.”

Drafting Proposals

 

Iranian and P5+1 deputies will work on drafting a framework for proposals to be taken up at the Baghdad gathering, Ashton said. That will enable the negotiators to take “concrete steps” in resolving concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, she said.

 

Both sides reiterated that while Iran has a right to civilian nuclear technology, it needs to meet its obligations as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The treaty will be a “key basis” of the parties’ engagement going forward, Ashton and Jalili said.

 

“We are seeing a more serious approach now because international pressure on Iran is at an all-time high and both sides are coming to the talks with more pragmatic proposals,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said yesterday in an e-mail. “The further high-level and technical talks announced today are the logical next step to reach agreement on specific, concrete steps that can help prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”