Too late? Schumer comes out against Iran deal
In the middle of the Republican debate on Thursday night, @SenatorSchumer announced his
opposition to the sellout to a nuclear Iran (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Ultimately,
in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of
disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this
agreement.
If one thinks
Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in
economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions,
one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less
likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less
likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and
is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not
international adventurism.
But
if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated
but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while
still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase
belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should
conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly,
no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that
Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease
its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home.
But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for
thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and
undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal,
theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this
dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To
me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead,
use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore,
I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a
viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It
is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it
will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while
ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep
U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on
other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more,
difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
Schumer came out against the deal, but the only way he could have made it less noticeable and less effective was to wait until mid-September to do so. I guess he wilted under the pressure to take a position.
The real question now is whether he will be active in trying to persuade others to vote against the deal. It doesn't sound like it.
While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to
President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary
Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing
Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table
without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans,
the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it
was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate
development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military
deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So
whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded
Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in
combatting and containing Iran.
Obama
opposed the sanctions every step of the way. And as to the MOP's, they were developed under Bush and not under Obama, although they were finally
delivered to Israel under Obama. But hey - why let facts get in the way of throwing a little support to an embattled President from one's own party?
Yes, Schumer will vote against the deal to preserve his Senate seat, but I doubt he will lead the opposition to the bill. I also have to wonder whether he acted in concert with New York's junior Senator,
Kirsten Gillibrand, or whether he double crossed her by leaving her as the one to face the wrath of New York's heavily pro-Israel voters.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charles Schumer, George W. Bush, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Massive Ordnance Penetrator
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter agrees with Ehud Barak: 'Of course we can destroy Iran's nuclear capability'
Shavua tov v'kayitz bari - a good week and a healthy summer (although at 45 degrees and rain, it feels more like winter here in Jerusalem).
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told CNN on Friday that the United States has the capability of destroying Iran's nuclear capability -
it just doesn't plan on doing so right now. You might recall former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
saying something similar before the holiday.
Carter said that the current framework for
a deal with Iran does not take the military option off the table but
added that it will currently not be used.
"We
have the capability to shut down, set back and destroy the Iranian
nuclear program and I believe the Iranians know that and understand
that," he said, referencing the military's most powerful
ground-penetrating bomb, the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP).
The
MOP -- which can explode 200 feet underground and is designed to
destroy deeply buried and fortified targets -- is ready for use, Carter
said.
Carter added that the administration's objective is to stop Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon through negotiations, "rather than through
military action because military action is reversible overtime."
Military action is 'reversible over time'? Really? Funny that never happened in Nazi Germany or Japan. And instead you're going to worry that military action is 'reversible' and therefore make an agreement with a sunset clause that all but guarantees a nuclear weapon when the agreement is? I realize that Obama is a total non-believer in the use and usefulness of military force, but isn't Carter someone who spent a lot of time in the US Army? How come he doesn't get it?
Aaron Lerner is furious at the media for
not pushing back at Carter.
Yes, "military action is reversible overtime", if an American operation -
of at most a few days - to "shut down, set back and destroy the Iranian
nuclear program" was followed by benign neglect on America's part.
But that's a profoundly absurd assumption.
So the next time you are being briefed by an American ask them the following
questions:
After the United States exercises its capability to shut down, set back and
destroy the Iranian nuclear program - as well as Iran's mid-range and
long-range missile program:
#1. Would it be possible for the U.S. to detect indications of Iranian
efforts to restore these programs?
#2. Would the United States have "the capability to shut down, set back
and destroy" these efforts to restore the destroyed programs?
#3. Is it reasonable to assume that the cost of this follow up "lawn
mowing" would be magnitudes less than that cost of the initial American
operation to destroy these programs?
I'd add another question: How much higher will the cost of shutting down an Iranian nuclear weapon be when this 'agreement' expires than it is now?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ehud Barak, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Massive Ordnance Penetrator, nuclear weapons, P 5+1
Great idea, too bad Obama would never do it
Michael Makovsky and David Deptula still hold out hope for the Obama administration doing something to stop Iran. They suggest the US
giving Israel the largest and most powerful bunker busters (which Israel does not have), the massive ordinance penetrator (MOP) and lending it the B-52 bombers to deliver the MOP's. It's a great idea, but I see little chance of Obama doing it.
President Obama has already taken one
potential source of leverage off the table by promising to veto
legislation that threatens tighter economic sanctions on Iran. This
leaves military pressure as the only option. But after the Obama
administration's unenforced "red lines" in Syria and Ukraine, Iran is
understandably dismissive of the threat of U.S. military action. That
leaves Israel.
The U.S. has previously
recognized the importance of Israeli military pressure against Iran's
nuclear-weapons program, some of which is fortified and buried
underground. In 2012, President Obama signed the United States-Israel
Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which called for the delivery of
aerial refueling tankers and bunker-buster munitions to Israel.
Israel
has 2,000- and 5,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, some of which were
delivered by the Obama administration. Iranian planners, however, might
hope that these will prove insufficient to do major damage. The U.S.
should remove such doubt by providing Israel with the capability to
reach and destroy Iran's most deeply buried nuclear sites. The U.S.
could do this by providing an appropriate number of GBU-57 30,000-pound
bunker-buster bombs, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP,
and several B-52 bombers.
The Pentagon
has developed the MOP bomb specifically for destroying hardened targets.
It can penetrate as deeply as 200 feet underground before detonating,
more than enough capability to do significant damage to Iran's nuclear
program. There are no legal or policy limitations on selling MOPs to
Israel, and with an operational stockpile at Whiteman Air Force Base in
Missouri, the U.S. has enough in its arsenal to share.
Israel,
however, also lacks the aircraft to carry the MOP. Which means the U.S.
would need to provide planes capable of carrying such a heavy payload.
Only two can do so: the B-52 and the stealth B-2.
The
U.S. has only 20 B-2s and would not share such a core component of
nuclear deterrence. Nor is the Pentagon willing to part with active
B-52s. Of the 744 built since 1955, all but roughly 80 have been
decommissioned, sent to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
in Arizona, and, in compliance with arms-control-treaty obligations,
mostly rendered inoperable. With plans for a new long-range bomber
delayed by defense-spending cuts and sequestration, current plans call
for keeping the active duty B-52s in service for at least another 20
years.
But there are more than a dozen
of the relatively "newest" B-52H bombers—built in the early 1960s—in
storage. Some of these should be delivered to Israel. There's no legal
or policy impediments to their transfer; they would just have to be
refurbished and retrofitted to carry the MOP.
By
transferring to Israel MOPs and B-52Hs the administration would send a
signal that its ally, which already has the will, now has the ability to
prevent a nuclear Iran.
Do any of you see Obama doing this? There's only a slight chance if he decides he wants to influence the outcome of the midterm elections.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, bunker busters, IAF, Iranian nuclear threat, Massive Ordnance Penetrator
President Obama's continued obsession with stopping an Israeli attack on Iran
There are no lengths to which President Hussein Obama will not go to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. In his latest bid to stop Israel, Obama's defense department has
redesigned its bunker busters to be able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. But there are two issues here: Will the redesign be effective and can Obama be trusted to actually use the bunker busters if it becomes necessary? The answer to the first question is maybe (at best) and the answer to the second question is almost certainly no.
U.S. officials see development of the weapon as critical to
convincing Israel that the U.S. has the ability to prevent Iran from
getting a nuclear bomb if diplomacy fails, and also that Israel's
military can't do that on its own.
Several times in recent weeks,
American officials, seeking to demonstrate U.S. capabilities, showed
Israeli military and civilian leaders secret Air Force video of an
earlier version of the bomb hitting its target in high-altitude testing,
and explained what had been done to improve it, according to diplomats
who were present.
In the video, the weapon can be seen penetrating the ground within
inches of its target, followed by a large underground detonation,
according to people who have seen the footage.
The newest version of what is the Pentagon's largest conventional
bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, has adjusted
fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to
improve its precision and high-tech equipment intended to allow it to
evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow
nuclear enrichment complex, which is buried under a mountain near the
Iranian city of Qom. The upgraded MOP designed for Fordow hasn't been
dropped from a plane yet.
The improvements are meant to address U.S. and Israeli concerns that
Fordow couldn't be destroyed from the air. Overcoming that obstacle
could also give the West more leverage in diplomatic efforts to convince
Iran to curtail its nuclear program.
"Hopefully we never have to use it," said a senior U.S. official
familiar with the development of the new version. "But if we had to, it
would work."
A few comments. First, the emphasis here continues to be on stopping Israel when the emphasis needs to be on stopping Iran. Obama still doesn't get that.
Second, who says Fordow is the only underground plant? Given that the US now admits they have no idea where Syria's chemical weapons are, who says that they know where all of Iran's underground nuclear facilities are?
Third, the Obama administration continues to delude itself that Iran can be 'convinced' to 'curtail' its nuclear program when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Iran is even considering doing so, when nothing Iran says can be trusted, and when Iran is ruled by an apocalyptic Ayatollah who is willing to send his country and everyone else around it back to the 8th century.
U.S. officials said they believe the enhanced U.S. bunker-busting
capability decreases the chances that Israel will launch a unilateral
bombing campaign against Iran this year and possibly next year, buying
more time for the Obama administration to pursue diplomacy after Iran
holds elections in June. Israeli officials declined to comment. Israeli
officials maintain they reserve the right to attack Iran.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and
other senior American officials have told their Israeli counterparts in
recent weeks that the Obama administration will look more closely at
military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program after assessing the
impact of those elections on Tehran's intentions.
What do Iran's elections matter? The last time I checked, Ayatollah Ali Khameni isn't running and doesn't have to run. Why does anyone believe Obama and Hagel when they make those kinds of comments?
Israeli officials remain skeptical that the Obama administration is
prepared to strike Fordow and other nuclear sites, according to current
and former U.S. and Israeli officials. That skepticism, officials say,
has fueled calls within Israel's government for a unilateral strike on
Iran, even if Israel is capable of only setting back the nuclear program
by a couple of years.
Israel still thinks its Air Force can
do substantial damage to Fordow, according to Israeli and U.S.
officials. U.S. intelligence agencies concur with that assessment. Mr.
Hagel, during a visit to Israel last week, announced steps to supplement
Israel's military capabilities, though it is unclear how soon the new
weapons systems and aircraft will arrive.
I wonder why Israeli officials are so skeptical. /sarc.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Massive Ordnance Penetrator
Report: US to supply bunker busters and refueling jets to Israel in exchange for holding off Iran strike until after elections
A report in Tuesday's Maariv claims that the United States is going to give Israel bunker busters and refueling aircraft in exchange for Israel
holding off a strike against Iran until after the US Presidential elections (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other Side).
The United States may supply Israel with advanced Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-buster bombs that can penetrate through up to 60 feet (almost 20 meters) of reinforced concrete, reports Maariv Tuesday.
This is part of a deal being worked out between the countries, which also includes the supply of refueling jets.
This equipment will make the job of demolishing Iran's nuclear weapon production array more feasible for Israel, should it decide to do so.
In exchange for the weapons, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will agree to hold off on an independent attack until after the U.S. elections. President Barack Obama fears that a war could negatively affect his chances of being reelected. Israel, on the other hand, fears that Obama's re-election could create diplomatic and military conditions that allow Iran to acquire the weapon it needs for killing millions of Israelis.
Obama may soon publicly describe the "red lines" which, if crossed by Iran, would trigger a U.S. military response. Maariv speculates this could happen when he gives a speech at the UN on Yom Kippur eve, or even in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.
These steps may mollify Netanyahu, and could be the reason for his apparently less forceful statements on Iran in the past two days.
Sorry, but this is a bad deal for the US and a bad deal for Israel. It's a bad deal for Israel because no one knows if the MOP will actually work, and it is likely that by the time the election passes, there will be no other way to hit the Fordow underground plant. Moreover, I don't see any commitment by the Obama administration to provide any sort of military or diplomatic cover if Israel does strike Iran, even if it waits until after the election.
It's also is a bad deal for the US because it says 'supply' rather than 'sell.' Why should the American taxpayer pay what is essentially a bribe to another country to ease Obama's reelection?
Sorry. This smells.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Massive Ordnance Penetrator
US bunker busters can't destroy Iranian nuke plants
The United States has concluded that its existing bunker busters are
not capable of destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities, and it is seeking strong weapons.
But initial tests indicated that the bomb, as currently configured, wouldn't be capable of destroying some of Iran's facilities, either because of their depth or because Tehran has added new fortifications to protect them.
Doubts about the MOP's effectiveness prompted the Pentagon this month to secretly submit a request to Congress for funding to enhance the bomb's ability to penetrate deeper into rock, concrete and steel before exploding, the officials said.
The push to boost the power of the MOP is part of stepped-up contingency planning for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear program, say U.S. officials.
...
Officials said the planned improvements to the MOP were meant to overcome shortcomings that emerged in initial testing. They said the new money was meant to ensure the weapon would be more effective against the deepest bunkers, including Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility, which is buried in a mountain complex surrounded by antiaircraft batteries, making it a particularly difficult target even for the most powerful weapons available to the U.S.
Developing an effective bunker-buster is complicated in part because of the variables, experts say. Penetration varies depending on factors such as soil density and the types of stone and rock shielding the target.
Boeing received a contract in 2009 to fit the weapon on the U.S.'s B-2 Stealth Bomber. The Air Force began receiving the first of the bombs in September, a time of growing tensions with Iran. The Air Force has so far contracted to buy 20 of the bombs, and more deliveries are expected in 2013, after additional tests are made.
Should a decision be made to use the MOP as currently configured, it could cause "a lot of damage" to Iran's underground nuclear facilities but wouldn't necessarily destroy them outright, Mr. Panetta said.
"We're developing it. I think we're pretty close, let's put it that way. But we're still working at it because these things are not easy to be able to make sure that they will do what we want them to."
Mr. Panetta added: "But I'm confident, frankly, that we're going to have that capability and have it soon,"
...
According to Air Force officials, the 20.5 foot-long MOP carries over 5,300 pounds of explosive material. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding. The mountain above the Iranian enrichment site at Fordow is estimated to be at least 200 feet tall.
Israel has large bunker-buster bombs but the U.S. hasn't provided the MOP to any other country.
Hmmm. It seems to me that what you ought to do is to hit Iran now with what you have to delay them and then develop the MOP further to stop them completely.
But Obama won't do that. He'll wait for Iran to attack Israel first (God forbid).
What could go wrong?
Labels: bunker busters, Iranian nuclear threat, Massive Ordnance Penetrator, Qom
Massive Ordnance Penetrator delivered to US Air Force
Bloomberg is reporting that the United States has finally deployed the
oft-delayed 30,000 ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The MOP is a massive bunker buster which is
deployed on a B-2 bomber. It is thought to be especially useful for reaching underground installations in Iran.
The Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the bombs in September, Air Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller said in a short statement to Bloomberg News.
The deliveries “will meet requirements for the current operational need,” he said.
The Air Force in 2009 said Boeing might build as many as 16 of the munitions. Miller yesterday had no details on how many the Air Force plans to buy. Boeing in August received a $32 million contract that included eight of the munitions.
Command head Lieutenant General James Kowalski told the annual Air Force Association conference in September the command “completed integration” of the bunker-buster bomb with the B- 2, “giving the war-fighter increased capability against hardened and deeply buried targets.”
The bomb is the U.S. military’s largest conventional penetrator. It’s six times bigger than the 5,000-pound bunker buster that the Air Force now uses to attack deeply buried nuclear, biological or chemical sites.
The B-2, developed by Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), has a shape and skin capable of evading radar. It’s the only U.S. bomber designed to penetrate air defenses such as those believed in use by North Korea and Iran. It’s also the only aircraft currently capable of carrying the new bomb.
The B-2 has bombed targets in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Three in March flew round-trip, non-stop missions from Missouri to Libya in the opening hours of U.S. air strikes, dropping 45 bombs.
Little authoritative information has been published about the capability of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. A December 2007 story by the Air Force News Service said it has a hardened- steel casing and can reach targets as far down as 200 feet underground before exploding.
The new, 20.5-foot-long bomb carries more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and is guided by Global Positioning System satellites, according to a description on the Web site of the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
The Pentagon in July 2009 formally asked Congress to shift funds in order to accelerate by three years fielding the weapon.
Read the whole thing. I've discussed the MOP many times, albeit not recently. You can find a list of those links
here.
Labels: bunker busters, Iranian nuclear threat, Massive Ordnance Penetrator
