Oh dear. This move comes after oil was starting to retreat a tad and Iranian president Ahmadinejad (a figurehead, but one who gets treated seriously by the Western media) was sounding sensible and willing to negotiate.
From Reuters:
Iran has test fired nine long- and medium-range missiles, including one which it has previously said could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the region, state media reported on Wednesday.
The tests occurred at a time of increased tension between Iran and Israel over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is only for power generation.
State Press TV said the missiles tested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards included a “new” Shahab 3 missile, which officials have said could reach targets 1,250 miles away.
On Tuesday, an aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader was quoted as saying the Islamic Republic would hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in the Gulf and U.S. interests around the world if it was attacked over its nuclear activities.
Bloomberg on the initial market reaction:
The dollar declined against the yen and euro after Iran’s state television network said the nation test-fired a long-range missile capable of reaching Israel.
The yen and the Swiss franc strengthened on speculation the missile test signals international political tensions will keep escalating, spurring investors to buy assets in nations that are perceived as safer. Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said yesterday the Middle Eastern nation would strike Israel and the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf as a response to any American attack on its nuclear program.
Interestingly, oil did not move up much:
Crude oil for August delivery traded at $136.63 a barrel after tumbling 3.8 percent yesterday, extending its decline from a record high of $145.85 on July 3.
The sentence is worded badly. August crude closed in New York at $136.04 yesterday.
19 comments
Comments are closed.
Yves,
This link was over at CR tonight: http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/
Re: Further to my post last week about Adm. Mullen’s press conference, Anthony Cordesman, the Middle East military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has told an Israeli audience that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told his Israeli counterpart during his visit to Israel two weeks ago that the U.S. would not support an Israeli strike on Iran,
I agree, this all was sounding good….now what?
This may just be posturing for a domestic audience. The Israeli wargames were widely believed to be prep for a possible attack; this may be a necessary demonstration of capabilities for the public consumption.
At least that’s what I hope. The rhetoric had seemed to be toning down of late.
Given the array of weaponry available to Israel, and the fact that they have repeatedly shown they will use it, don’t you think it’s in a way “sensible” for Iran to either develop or acquire and then to test its own weapons?
I think what some westerners and those oriented toward the west call “sensible” talk and behavior from non-western nations and their leaders might be seen as servile by others who are not westerners or don’t have western sympathies.
The main problem seems to be that some nations just do not want to accept that under the non-proliferation treaty Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium for use as reactor fuel.
No reasonable person wants to see Iran have the bomb. I personally don’t know if they are striving for that or not. To date I haven’t really seen convincing evidence that they are. But I’m not sure these repeated broad hints about ‘all options being on the table’ are the best way to go about making sure Iran doe not get the bomb.
On the other hand, this missile test could be seen to show what will happen when Iran gets a nuke…i.e., a wild-eyed regime flexing nuke muscles more dangerous than flexing conventional muscles.
Israeli military sight, asdmitedly 50/50 chance of truth, suggest US hads reached an accomidation with Iran on nuke deal which incliudes a 150 cap on oil and accomidations in Leb and Syria. Who knows. The Israelis will do what they belive they have to do regardless of US posturing. The Cheney/Gates (Mullen/NIE) wrestling match contines. Recall the US was ot please with the ISraeli performance in Leb recently.
If Israel attacks Iran, with or without US backing, what possible good could come of it in the long view? Attacking Iran, ‘the Oct surprise’, would leave the US with yet another unresolved conflict in the ME. It might boost the chance of McCain being elected…but it might have just the opposite effect. Do any believe that the US or Israel want to place boots on the ground in Iran for an extended period?
Eh writes:
“The main problem seems to be that some nations just do not want to accept that under the non-proliferation treaty Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium for use as reactor fuel.”
That’s a complete distortion. Nobody denies the right to a peaceful nuclear program. The problem—obviously—stems from the fact that Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is simply for domestic energy production just is not credible.
Iran sits on billions of barrels of oil. Gas prices run 42 cents per gallon. Its “leaders” spew irrational threats. But we should nevertheless take it at face value that Iran needs to enrich uranium for air conditioning and to power toasters? Gimme a break.
And finally….do you really question whether Iran wants a nuclear bomb? Of course it does. A nuclear bomb is a game changer for Iran.
I don’t blame Iran for wanting a bomb. But I sure as hell don’t trust its current leadership, so I hope it doesn’t get one. The idea, however, that Iran doesn’t want a nuclear arsenal and that its program is solely for domestic energy consumption is laughable.
The USA actually has an intelligence system. CIA, NSA, etc. They produce a product called an NIE. It’s supposed to represent the best this multi-billion dollar per year system can come to on the status of some issue the government is concerned with.
A fairly recent NIE on Iran and their nuclear weapon program said that Iran had abandoned it several years ago.
I know that this didn’t square with Cheney’s ideas, but does that mean the rest of us have to go along with his insanity?
Speaking of Ahmadinejad…(a bit of shameless comedy relief)
The NIE report which stated that Iran “halted” its nuclear war program in 2003 simply made the claim that of the four essential components of a nuclear weapon program, the NIE has high confidence only in the belief that nuclear weapon design/component preparation and clandestine, small-scale activities related to production of nuclear explosive material were halted in 2003. Moreover, the NIE qualifies the point by stating that these activities were halted “for at least several years” and that the intelligence community has only “moderate confidence” that the activities were not restarted as of mid-2007; both findings leave open the possibility that the “halt” may have been only a “pause,” and that the activities in question may have restarted.
Iran states that it needs to enrich urnanium for its “peaceful” domestic, nuclear power needs. Do you know how many nuclear power reactors Iran has under contruction?
One. And this reactor is being built by Russia—which is under contract to provide all of the nuclear power for the lifetime of the facility. Since it takes approx 10 years to build these things, the uranium Iran claims that it needs won’t be needed for at least another decade.
No, I’m not advocating preemption. I believe it’s too late as the Genie is out of the nuclear proliferation bottle.
But please…stop pretending Iran’s actions are anything but for a nuclear arsenal. It’s not credible and it ultimately hurts your argument.
If, as you say, Iran is acting peacefully, is a premptive strike acceptable if it should ultimately proven that Iran does, in fact, want a bomb?
I think you can construct a reasonable argument that premption is not reasonable, even if Iran is trying to build a bomb. So quit pretending; you’re putting yourself in the unreasonable and awkward position of actually believing Iran’s ridiculous assertions.
This doesn’t enter very well but you can get the point. Remember how we were told Iraq was a clear and present danger and had WMDs and some kind of delivery system?
——————
chart from the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation comparing American and the greatest threat to its existence, Iran:
UNITED STATES IRAN
Population 303,824,646 65,875,223
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) $13.8 trillion $0.75 trillion
Defense spending fiscal year 2009 $711 billion $7.2 billion
Total troops 2,580,875 895,000
Main battle tanks 8,023 1,613
Reconnaissance vehicles 348 35
Armored infantry fighting vehicles 6,719 610
Armored personnel carriers 21,242 640
Artillery units 8,041 8,196
Helicopters 5,425 311
Submarines 71 6
Principal surface combatants 106 5
Patrol and coastal combatants 157 320
Mine warfare ships 9 5
Amphibious ships 490 21
Fighter aircraft 3,538 286
Long-range bomber aircraft 170 None
Transport aircraft 883 136
Electronic warfare/intelligence aircraft 159 3
Reconnaissance aircraft 134 6
Maritime patrol aircraft 197 8
Anti-submarine warfare aircraft 58 None
Airborne early warning aircraft 53 None
Nuclear warheads ~5,400 None
The Center concludes, “it is time to inject realism into discussions about U.S.-Iranian relations. Hyping the threat about Iran obscures the bottom line: Iran does not currently represent an existential threat to the United States or its allies.” Of course, unlike Michael Ledeen, the Center refuses to include the threat of the 12th Imam in its analysis…
Iran sits on billions of barrels of oil. Gas prices run 42 cents per gallon. Its “leaders” spew irrational threats. But we should nevertheless take it at face value that Iran needs to enrich uranium for air conditioning and to power toasters? Gimme a break.
While I agree that it’s likely that Iran would like to develop nuclear weapons, that does not mean that their current argument for developing nuclear power is invalid. Remember, their main export is their oil. Nuclear power generation would allow them to export even more oil. In a funny way they are stuck in a bizarro version of our energy dependence situation.
Personally I think that Iran wants to get to where Japan currently is. A viable civilian power generation program, with the knowledge and infrastructure to slap together a nuke in a very short time, should it be necessary.
Re: “ran needs to enrich uranium for air conditioning and to power toasters? Gimme a break.”
>> Funny as hell!!! In this day of financial terrorism AKA Wall Street, it does seem utterly stupid to ponder destroying your people, your wealth, all infrastructure and your future — I think these tough guys are just playing games and trying to manipulate commodities and currencies. However, I think all the parties involved need to take a look at Lebanon and the impacts of hardheaded rhetoric and the desire to make a point. Obviously Iran doesn’t need backup energy resources, nor do they need increased military options, but the whole issue comes down to instability and compromise with the highly aggressive threats from the insecure folks over in israel that seem to love war games almost as much as Hitler.
yeah, right. i can see if cuba was working on nuclear weapons and castro, at every press conference, was calling for the “complete annihilation of the eastern seaboard of the united states” — i’m sure you’d all still be engaging in neurotic rationalizations.
well, unlike our pathetic depoliticized societies, israel still has an identity and likes to protect it. and doc, take your sly little equivalence of jews with hitler, stuff it your bonnet, and go repatriate under the iranian theocracy. i’m sure they’ll love to have you.
The idea, however, that Iran doesn’t want a nuclear arsenal and that its program is solely for domestic energy consumption is laughable.
Uh, so as it turns out were ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in Iraq. Somehow I don’t think the families of (what has to be at this point) the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, not to mention the thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers, as well as I hope most Americans by now, are in the mood to be quite so smugly certain as you.
Like I said: No reasonable person — and I’m a reasonable person — wants Iran to have the bomb. But given the overall situation, I don’t see how the current rhetoric is all that helpful.
“calling for the “complete annihilation of the eastern seaboard of the united states””
I guess this is a reference to the “Wiped off the map” comment attributed to Ahmadinejad?
I believe that has been debunked as a mistranslation by Israeli propaganda agency MEMRI:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
oh, right, memri, that’s the outfit that did 9/11.
“oh, right, memri, that’s the outfit that did 9/11.”
*chuckles*
No, that was Al-Qaeda.
MEMRI is a media outlet that propogates stories about the middle east, it has been accused of using questionable translations to spin stories in the most Pro-Israel manner possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
In case anyone has not yet seen…THIS is comedy (however unintentional) via PhotoshopDisasters