http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/iran-war-plan/all/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/05/us-navy-warned-of-attack-by-israel/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159724#.UEoczM1HA8s
"We now stand, in my opinion, before the 50 most fateful days in Israel's history, since perhaps the Yom Kippur War, in which there were also several dozen fateful days."
So said the former Head of Knesset'sForeign Affairs and Defense Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, at a closed meeting of Likud activists in Yafo. A recording of his speech reached daily newspaper Makon Rishon's reporter, Ze'ev Kam.
"The prime minister will have to make decisions that will bear a price tag. Allowing Iranian nuclear weapons has a price tag. The practical result will be a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East," he explained.
"Today, when we say that we understand the danger of the Iranian threat, and understand that a confrontation bears a price, it is because we want to prevent our sons and grandson from paying unbearable prices," he said.
Hanegbi, who left Likud for Kadima and is now back in Likud, called on the activists to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and to "allow him quiet" and "strengthen his legitimacy" so that he can take the necessary decisions calmly.
Those coordinating councils are already in place, and fall under an arm of DHS that manages critical infrastructure protection. The councils are run and organized by industry members from each sector, such as financial services and electricity.
It would be left up to the companies to decide what steps they want to take to meet the standards, so the government would not dictate what type of technology or strategy they should adopt.
One of the main issues still under discussion involves the kinds of incentives the government will offer critical infrastructure operators to entice them into the program.
The executive branch is limited when it comes to the types of incentives it can offer companies, as much of that authority rests with Congress. For instance, the executive branch is barred from offering companies liability protection if they face lawsuits after a security breach.
"For many of these incentives, you need new legislative authority," said James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has not seen a copy of the draft executive order.
To get industry participation in the program, Lewis argues that it's key for the inter-agency council to include agencies that already regulate critical infrastructure, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Lewis also fears that it would take the government too long to get the voluntary program in the executive order up and running.
"The White House needs to step back and say, 'Does this make a meaningful contribution in the near term?' " Lewis said. Additionally, he cautioned that industry would balk at electing to join a program led by DHS, which is plagued with a spotty track record when it comes to leading national security efforts.
"Find me a company that says 'I'm going to voluntarily agree to be regulated by DHS.' Nobody is going to volunteer to have DHS regulate them," Lewis said.
U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles
- September 7, 2012 |
- 6:30 am |
- Categories: Israel, Rogue States, Tactics, Strategy and Logistics
Two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and a B-2 bomber fly in formation. Photo: USAF
Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.
There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together aremarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:
* “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and a boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.
* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.”
But the first attack might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
At the same time, the U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.
That will be no mean task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and Gulf naval forces.”
Some of this defensive work has already begun. To keep the Strait open, the U.S. has kept up a steady patrol of aircraft carriers and stationed gunboats, minesweepers, and robot subs in nearby Bahrain. To spot Iran’s missiles — many of which can hit their targets in as little as four minutes — the U.S. is building a next-generation X-band radar station in Qatar. To knock those short- and medium-range ballistic missiles out of the sky, America has sold billions of dollars’ worth of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense interceptors to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Those anti-missiles will be augmented by U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic-missile defense systems — one of the most-proven components in the American interceptor stockpile.
But to make sure Tehran’s missiles don’t hit Riyadh or Kuwait City, the U.S. will have to take out Iran’s eight ballistic-missile bases and 15 missile production facilities, and 22 launch facilities if a preemptive strike is ever ordered. America will “need to destroy as many missile launchers as possible … in order to reduce number of incoming warheads,” Cordesman writes. Each target will require two aircraft each — either carrier-launched F/A-18s or F-15Es and F-16Cs flying from nearby air bases — for a total of 90 jets. Auxiliary targets could include Iran’s refineries, its power grid, its military bases, and its roads and bridges.
American jets and fighters will be pretty much free to fire at will — the Iranian air force is a joke, and its air defense systems don’t have the sensors or the networking to seriously threaten U.S. jets. Still, those air defenses and enemy fighters will have to be taken out before they manage to get off a lucky shot.
Drones will be deployed for further intelligence, “deception, jamming, harassment, or destruction of enemy forces and air defense systems.” Special operations forces will conduct “direct action missions, special reconnaissance, and provide terminal guidance for attacks against valuable enemy targets.” Somehow, attacks from Iran’s terrorist allies — including Hamas and Hezbollah — will have to be blunted, as well.
And then, of course, there’s the main attack.
Destroying each of Iran’s five nuclear facilities will require a pair of B-2 bombers flying out of Diego Garcia. Every plane will carry two of the U.S. military next-gen, king-sized bunker-busters, the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The “GPS-guided weapon contain[s] more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a 20.5 foot-long bomb body of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel installations,” writes Cordesman, who believes such bomb can set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions for years.
Israel might — might — be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.
And even if the reactors are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East would look like the day after Israel attempts a nuclear strike on Iran.
Which leaves the American attack option. It may be technically possible. “It’s clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in the spring. Cordesman would rather see negotiations instead: “The brief shows just how dangerous any war in the Gulf could be to the world’s economy.” Some politicians may be calling for a preemptive strike on Iran. There’s a reason military planners are so wary.
and.....
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/05/us-navy-warned-of-attack-by-israel/
The US Navy AEGIS Destroyer, Nicknamed the USS Rachel Corrie, Warned of Attack
US NAVY’S NEWEST ELECTRONIC COMMAND SHIP AFTER ISRAEL ATTACK KILLING AND WOUNDING 196
by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor
It was 1967 when Israeli planes bombed and strafed the USS Liberty for hours, machine-gunning life rafts, peppering the 20 foot “stars and stripes” with machine gun holes, napalming, torpedoes, one of most dastardly sneak attacks on a virtually unarmed ship since Pearl Harbor in 1941.
The US had scheduled a major exercise with multiple AEGIS surface to air “killer ships” many months ago but decided to put off the exercise because of Israeli interference in the US election and the deteriorating relationship with Israel over Iran.
Now we are told only one ship will be used and very few troops. This news came in before the President ordered language removed from the Democratic Party platform supporting Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as a capitol of a Jewish only state.
The fight over this issue has raged on the floor of the Democratic Convention held, this year, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Now, Veterans Today has learned that naval personnel in the upcoming exercise have “shoot to kill” orders if approached by unknown aircraft, even if clearly marked as “Israeli.”
Sources near the president are quoted:
“Netanyahu’s gang bought Romney with 30 pieces of silver, getting him to agree to invade Iran if elected. This, in light of the Israeli court finding of “not guilty” for the murderers of Rachel Corrie, the young American woman mutilated by an IDF driven Caterpillar bulldozer sent us a message. We heard it loud and clear, as loud as the screaming insults Netanyahu tried to leash upon General Martin Dempsey last week until the general made a few issues clear.
Whatever America’s loyalty to Israel may be or may have been, abuse of the highest military officer of the world’s greatest military power by an angry little “pissant potentate” from a “seaside sand heap” nation, the difference between “tail” and “dog,” one forgotten by President Bush is not going to be forgotten by this president.”Naval sources said they were surprised at the order:“We knew the region was ‘hot’ after two Turkish jets were downed by Syria but a warning about an Israeli attack during a joint exercise is almost bizarre if not unreal. There are few if almost none in service who still feel there is a grudge to settle over the USS Liberty incident.The ”Liberty,” of course, was unarmed. An AEGIS could down the entire Israeli air force and would have even less trouble with their missiles or torpedo boats. Few in the military know the history or have much understanding of the current dispute with Israel but anything entering attack range get’s ’splashed.’”There appears to be little risk as American and Israel commanders have a long history of cooperation and many warm personal relations. The issue, however, is that current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, leader of the militant Likudist group advocating war on Iran and a possible attack on American forces in the region, is no longer communicating with his commanders.Are there rogue units, as some fear, willing to fly against a Class A American warship, Israeli planes with Syria or Iranian markings, perhaps even Egyptian?The experience of 1967, one kept alive, not just by Naval historians but a crew properly briefed for a dangerous assignment, may well prevent an impending disaster, a “stew long boiling over” in Netanyahu’s cook pot.
and......
'Next 50 Days Most Fateful Since Yom Kippur War' – Hanegbi
Former Head of Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, hints at timetable for Iran attack.
AAFont Size
By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 9/6/2012, 9:54 PM
Tzachi Hanegbi
Flash 90
"We now stand, in my opinion, before the 50 most fateful days in Israel's history, since perhaps the Yom Kippur War, in which there were also several dozen fateful days."
So said the former Head of Knesset'sForeign Affairs and Defense Committee, Tzachi Hanegbi, at a closed meeting of Likud activists in Yafo. A recording of his speech reached daily newspaper Makon Rishon's reporter, Ze'ev Kam.
"The prime minister will have to make decisions that will bear a price tag. Allowing Iranian nuclear weapons has a price tag. The practical result will be a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East," he explained.
"Today, when we say that we understand the danger of the Iranian threat, and understand that a confrontation bears a price, it is because we want to prevent our sons and grandson from paying unbearable prices," he said.
Hanegbi, who left Likud for Kadima and is now back in Likud, called on the activists to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and to "allow him quiet" and "strengthen his legitimacy" so that he can take the necessary decisions calmly.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/20129715451813503.html
| Canada closes its embassy in Iran |
Relations severed and Iranian diplomats ordered to leave after Tehran is accused of being a threat to world peace.
D. Parvaz Last Modified: 07 Sep 2012 22:14
|
Canadian PM Stephen Harper views Iran as a visceral threat to Israel and, therefore, global security [EPA]
|
| Canada has closed its embassy in Iran and will expel all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada within five days, shutting down Iran's only North American diplomatic outpost. |
Foreign Minister John Baird said in a statement on Friday that the Iranian government was "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today".
He cited the country's nuclear programme and its "increasing military assistance to the Assad regime" in the list of Canadian grievances with Iran.
Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency reported that Canada's decision was "in co-operation with America's hostile policies against Iran".
The first shot across the bow in this recent row might have come when Hamid Mohammadi, Iran's cultural affairs counsellor, encouraged Iranian-Canadians to seek "high-level" positions and to maintain their Iranian identities.
In response, Canada's Foreign Affairs department told a Canadian newspaper in July that, "The Iranian Embassy should not interfere in their choices. Canadian security organizations will act to prevent threats and intimidation of Canadians.”
Al Jazeera called Baird's office to ask about the timing of this emabssy's closure and the weight of Mohammadi's comments. We did not receive a response.
Ramin Mehmanparast, spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, told the Iran's ISNA news agency that “the current Canadian government is extremist and severely under the influence of the Zionist regime”.
He also said the successes of the recent NAM summit proved the West's diplomatic failures and showed that Iranian people have continued to thrive despite the sanctions levelled against the country.
Fallout
Elizabeth Berton-Hunter, spokesperson for Amnesty International in Toronto said that the move to cut diplomatic ties on this level will make appealing to the Canadian government to take action on cases in Iran "difficult to do now".
"It is a great concern - there's no doubt about it," said Berton-Hunter, who pointed to the the right's group's recent report on the quickening pace of Iran's executions as a reason why families of those facing punishment in Iran would be worried.
Unknown is the impact of severed diplomatic ties on the cases of Iranian-Canadians in trouble in Iran, such as blogger Hossein Derakhshan (currently serving a 19-and-a-half year prison sentence on spying charges), Hamid Ghassemi-Shall (who has been sentenced to death on charges of espionage and is awaiting execution) and Saeed Malekpour, a software developer accused of spreading indecent material online, who is also on death row.
Ghassemi-Shall's wife, Antonella Mega, said she was "disappointed" to hear of the decision on behalf of the Canadian government.
"When I received the news this morning I was trying to digest what that meant, and all I can think of is that this means that a potential dialogue has been closed," said Mega, who has not seen her husband since he left for Iran in May of 2008.
"This closing of the relationship between Canada and Iran leaves me doubtful - I just don't know how they're going to help Hamid, of what his plans are."
Mega said that when she has the opportunity to speak to her husband on the phone, she tries to reassure him that Iranian authorities will free him.
"The Iranian government is in charge of Hamid's case, so I do depend on their kindness...but obviously I count on the Canadian government to advocate for him," said Mega.
While many Iranians decried the decision on social media sites, some support it, and, in fact, have been calling for such a move by the Canadian government.
Rights activist Shabnam Assadollahi, who had co-translated the entire text of Mohammadi's interview and posted it on Facebook along with a plea to the Canadian government to shut down the embassy, said that "for 33 years they have had an embassy here and for 33 years we've been trying to have an open dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran - it has gone nowhere".
"In these 33 years, what have we been able to do for our poor people there? Even during the recent earthquake, what could we do?" Assadollahi told Al Jazeera from Ottawa.
"The UK and the US have already shut their embassy. Israel has not had an embassy there since the Islamic Revolution," said Assadollahi, who feels Iran's influence in Canada - especially its education system - is a threat to Canada's national security.
"If three of Canada's allies don't have embassies in Iran, why should Canada?"
A Conservative stance
Al Jazeera's Daniel Lak, reporting from Toronto said that the two countries have not had "anything resembling cordial relations" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
He said that most recently, the chilled relations between the two countries "has to do with (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper's Conservative government just taking a very firm, explicit line on Iran," said Lak.
In January, Harper described Iran as "fanatically religious" and "dangerous" to Canadian broadcaster CBC.
"In my judgement, these are people who have a particular, you know, a fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation about using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes. And … I think that’s what makes this regime in Iran particularly dangerous." he said.
Canada's relations with Iran have been particularly rocky since Iranian-Candian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi died while being detained in Evin prison in 2003, and again, in 2009, when Maziar Bahari, also a dual citizen and a journalist, was detained for over 100 days.
and....
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/248079-white-house-circulating-draft-of-executive-order-on-cybersecurity
White House circulating draft of executive order on cybersecurity
- 09/06/12 07:56 PM ET
The White House is circulating a draft of an executive order aimed at protecting the country from cyberattacks, The Hill has learned.
The draft proposal, which has been sent to relevant federal agencies for feedback, is a clear sign that the administration is resolved to take action on cybersecurity even as Congress remains gridlocked on legislation that would address the threat.
The draft executive order would establish a voluntary program where companies operating critical infrastructure would elect to meet cybersecurity best practices and standards crafted, in part, by the government, according to two people familiar with the document.
The draft executive order would establish a voluntary program where companies operating critical infrastructure would elect to meet cybersecurity best practices and standards crafted, in part, by the government, according to two people familiar with the document.
"An executive order is one of a number of measures we’re considering as we look to implement the president’s direction to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyberthreats," said White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. "We are not going to comment on ongoing internal deliberations.”
Sponsors of Lieberman's bill have urged the White House to issue an executive order to put measures in place that ensure key infrastructure is better protected from cyberattacks. Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Dianne Feinstein(D-Calif.) both sent letters to the White House last month that urged the president to take action.
According to the people familiar with the draft, the executive order would set up an inter-agency council that would be led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Members of the council would include the Department of Defense and the Commerce Department, and discussions are ongoing about including other agencies and officials, such as representatives from the Department of Energy and Treasury Department, as well as the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
DHS would be responsible for the overall management of the program, but the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would work with industry to help craft the framework for it. The agency would work with the private sector to develop cybersecurity guidelines and best practices.
DHS would receive the guidance from NIST and work with so-called sector coordinating councils to identify which industry sectors would be considered critical infrastructure, as well as determine what cybersecurity best practices and standards the industry participants in the voluntary program would follow.
Sponsors of Lieberman's bill have urged the White House to issue an executive order to put measures in place that ensure key infrastructure is better protected from cyberattacks. Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Dianne Feinstein(D-Calif.) both sent letters to the White House last month that urged the president to take action.
According to the people familiar with the draft, the executive order would set up an inter-agency council that would be led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Members of the council would include the Department of Defense and the Commerce Department, and discussions are ongoing about including other agencies and officials, such as representatives from the Department of Energy and Treasury Department, as well as the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
DHS would be responsible for the overall management of the program, but the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would work with industry to help craft the framework for it. The agency would work with the private sector to develop cybersecurity guidelines and best practices.
DHS would receive the guidance from NIST and work with so-called sector coordinating councils to identify which industry sectors would be considered critical infrastructure, as well as determine what cybersecurity best practices and standards the industry participants in the voluntary program would follow.
It would be left up to the companies to decide what steps they want to take to meet the standards, so the government would not dictate what type of technology or strategy they should adopt.
One of the main issues still under discussion involves the kinds of incentives the government will offer critical infrastructure operators to entice them into the program.
The executive branch is limited when it comes to the types of incentives it can offer companies, as much of that authority rests with Congress. For instance, the executive branch is barred from offering companies liability protection if they face lawsuits after a security breach.
"For many of these incentives, you need new legislative authority," said James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has not seen a copy of the draft executive order.
To get industry participation in the program, Lewis argues that it's key for the inter-agency council to include agencies that already regulate critical infrastructure, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Lewis also fears that it would take the government too long to get the voluntary program in the executive order up and running.
"The White House needs to step back and say, 'Does this make a meaningful contribution in the near term?' " Lewis said. Additionally, he cautioned that industry would balk at electing to join a program led by DHS, which is plagued with a spotty track record when it comes to leading national security efforts.
"Find me a company that says 'I'm going to voluntarily agree to be regulated by DHS.' Nobody is going to volunteer to have DHS regulate them," Lewis said.
No comments:
Post a Comment