Iran announces plan to launch two satellites ( EMP ? ) in March - which roughly coincides with the US demand for Iran to cooperate with the IAEA as well as numerous contemplations as to when an attack of Iran could occur....

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/22/279494/iran-to-launch-2-satellites-by-year-end/

( Wonder whether these satellites may be EMP devices ? )

Iran to launch 2 satellites into orbit by mid-March: ISA

Iran launched its first domestically-produced satellite, Omid (Hope), via Safir (Ambassador) carrier (shown) into orbit in 2009.

Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:59AM

The launching of the two satellites, Fajr and Shrif Sat, by the end of the current year is on our agenda.”
Head of Iran's Space Agency Hamid Fazeli

Head of Iran's Space Agency (ISA) Hamid Fazeli says the country plans to launch two indigenous satellites into orbit by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2013).

“The launching of the two satellites, Fajr and Shrif Sat, by the end of the current year is on our agenda,” Fazeli told reporters on Saturday. 

Pointing to the latest developments regarding Iran’s Nahid satellite, Fazeli pointed out that the project is making headway and expressed optimism that the satellite will be unveiled in February.

The ISA chief noted that Nahid satellite was initially scheduled to be launched into orbit by the end of the current Iranian year, but this has been postponed as more work needs to be done on the project.

Iran launched its first indigenous satellite, Omid (Hope), in 2009. The country also sent its first biocapsule of living creatures into space in February 2010, using the indigenous Kavoshgar-3 (Explorer-3) carrier.

Moreover, in June 2011, Iran put the 15.3-kilogram Rasad (Observation) orbiter in space. Rasad's mission was to take images of the Earth and transmit them along with telemetry information to the ground stations.

Iran also launched Navid-e Elm-o Sanat (Harbinger of Science and Industry), another indigenous satellite, into orbit on February 3, 2012.

The country is one of the 24 founding members of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was set up in 1959. 

and......

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/12/05/has-the-us-set-a-march-deadline-for-war-on-iran/

Has the US Set a March Deadline for War on Iran?

John Glaser, December 05, 2012

Print This | Share This | Comment

Last month the US issued an ultimatum to Iran, demanding it fully cooperate with the IAEA by March or else face further action and possible measures at the UN Security Council. Micah Zenko, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, speculates that this “could indicate that the Obama administration is moving toward the zone of immunity logic.”

Zenko is referring to the Israeli standard for deciding to go to war with Iran. Up to now, the Israeli standard to attack Iran is not when it has nuclear weapons or presents an imminent threat to Israel, but rather when Iran’s nuclear program is sufficiently advanced and redundant across the country – although not being weaponized – that Israeli military action would be inadequate to significantly retard it.

The US standard, at least as commonly understood, has been a little stricter. Washington has implied it will resort to war only if Iran is demonstrably weaponizing its nuclear program and on the verge of having a nuclear bomb.

Despite the semantic differences, the two postures are essentially the same. Both the US and Israel have ignored the legal standard for resorting to war – to block an imminent attack, i.e. self-defense – and crafted their own standard, which says they can bomb Iran to smithereens if they judge that at some point in the future Iran might be able to deter US or Israeli aggression. Iran must be kept weak and defenseless, the thinking goes, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to obliterate them at will.

This speaks to Iran’s nuclear posture, which is aimed at what is sometimes called “a breakout capability.” In an environment of constant threats of war, economic sanctions, and being surrounded by the US military, Iran has tried to abstain from developing nuclear weapons while having the know-how needed to get there; this essentially is an attempt to have a deterrent without actually having a deterrent. They don’t get in trouble for having a weapon, but they are able to ward off attack or invasion.

US intelligence corroborates this analysis. As James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, has repeatedly said, “We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”

So if the US’s announcement of a March deadline really does indicate a gradual shift toward the more trigger-happy Israeli standard for preemption, “how would this new intelligence be presented as a justification for war?” Zenko asks. After all, “it is tough to make the case for going to war with Iran because it refused to concentrate its nuclear sites (that are under IAEA safeguards) in above-ground facilities that can be easily bombed.”

Setting a March deadline provides some certainty and perhaps coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. But declaring deadlines also places U.S. “credibility” on the line, generating momentum to use force even if there is no new actionable intelligence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. Based on what we know right now, that would be a strategic miscalculation.

A strategic miscalculation…and a savage war crime. Bombing Iran without the justification of self-defense against an imminent attack would be a war crime, a war of aggression. In the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

And the effects of such a war of choice would certainly be evil. As a recent report by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers concluded “achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran’s nuclear program would require a military operation – including a land occupation – more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.” More taxing, not just in dollar amounts and military resources, but in lives lost.

A recent study from the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics found, an attack that tried to take out more than four of Iran’s main enrichment facilities would cause immediate casualties of an estimated “10,000 people.” And according to a 2009 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies “any strike on the Bushehr nuclear reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.” The fierce insurgency and counter-insurgency efforts that would inevitably take place, including a flood of jihadist fighters from around the world à la Iraq, would mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

More than that, an attack on Iran would motivate them to actually start building nuclear weapons in order to deter further aggression, bringing exactly the result the war-mongers claim they’re trying to prevent.

So why would the Obama administration ratchet up the stakes and impose an arbitrary March deadline? They claim there is a diplomatic window. As Clinton explained, “What was meant about the March reference was either about the IAEA and its continuing work or the fact that we finished our election and now would be a good time to test the proposition that there can be some good-faith serious negotiations before the Iranians get into their elections.” Elections make diplomacy harder, so yes, there is a diplomatic window. But the Obama administration may have locked themselves into a box by implicitly adopting the Israeli standard for preemptive war on Iran.

and.......

Fordo sabotage enabled Netanyahu to move Iran red line to spring 2013

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 29, 2012, 9:24 AM (GMT+02:00)

The sabotage of the Fordo uranium enrichment facility’s power lines on Aug. 17, gave Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the extra leeway to move his original red line for Iran from late September 2012 – now – to the spring or early summer of 2013, DEBKAfilereports.  But Tehran hit back fast with two aggressive actions on Israel’s doorstep: an al Qods military buildup in Syria and Lebanon, and Assad’s withdrawal of chemical weapons from storage and likely transfer to incoming Iranian units.

Fordo sabotage enabled Netanyahu to move Iran red line to spring 2013

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 29, 2012, 9:24 AM (GMT+02:00)

The sabotage of the Fordo uranium enrichment facility’s power lines on Aug. 17, gave Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the extra leeway to move his original red line for Iran from late September 2012 – now – to the spring or early summer of 2013, DEBKAfilereports.  But Tehran hit back fast with two aggressive actions on Israel’s doorstep: an al Qods military buildup in Syria and Lebanon, and Assad’s withdrawal of chemical weapons from storage and likely transfer to incoming Iranian units.

and....

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-iran-2013-israel-361/

'US will strike Iran in early 2013' - former American ambassador to Israel

Get short URL

email story to a friend print version

Published: 17 September, 2012, 22:42
Edited: 23 September, 2012, 23:36

TAGS:
Conflict, Military, Nuclear, Iran, USA,Israel, War

TRENDS:
Iran tension

Martin Indyk (AFP Photo / Karim Jaafar)

The former US Ambassador to Israel predicts that war with Iran is likely to occur in early 2013.

Martin Indyk, the former Ambassador, said there may be about six months left to negotiate a solution that would avoid war – but he thinks this is unlikely. Joining a roundtable of foreign policy experts to discuss the latest Middle East protests and Israel’s concern over Iran, Indyk’s predictions were dire.

“There is still time, perhaps six months, even by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own time table to try to see if a negotiated solution can be worked out,” he said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday. “I’m pessimistic about that. If that doesn’t work out – and we need to make every effort, exhaust every chance that it does work – then I am afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we’re going to have a military confrontation with Iran.”

While Indyk said that Iran does not have nuclear weapons at this point, it is only a matter of time before the US will need to take military action.

Israel continues to put pressure on the US to take greater actions against Iran. This past week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly scolded the Obama administration for their refusal to draw a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program. In his mind, if this red line were to be drawn, Iran would be prohibited from crossing it, or else face a response from the US military. Indyk said Israel’s request for this line is “unreasonable” and something that neither Governor Romney, nor Senator McCain are supporting.

But Indyk said that even though the US would not declare a red line, the US and Israel see eye to eye on most issues regarding Iran.

“While there’s still time, there is not a lot of time, and I don’t think the difference between Netanyahu and Obama on this is that great in terms of the President’s commitment not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said.

During the CBS roundtable discussion, Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said tensions with the Middle East are so high that it takes little to start a conflict. The anti-Muslim film that ignited protests throughout the Arab world was not a major factor, but simply a spark that released already-existing tensions.

“This is the equivalent of a forest fire. Anything could set it off, so the film is the wrong place to focus,” he said.

And while the Arab world continues to display anti-American sentiment and Israel continues to pressure the US to increase tensions with Iran, only time will tell if Indyk’s war prediction will come as soon as early 2013.