Iran closer than ever to nuclear bomb

Will Israel be forced to take unilateral military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? With every passing day, this becomes more likely. The consequences of Israeli action against Iran -- or inaction -- will undoubtedly be global. Count on it. - R.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netanyahu: Iran closer than ever to nuclear bomb

Jerusalem Post - February 22, 2013

IAEA report: 180 centrifuges hooked up at Natanz, Iran's main uranium enrichment plant; PM calls findings "very grave."

Centrifuges unveiled in Natanz. Photo: REUTERS

Iran is closer today than ever before to obtaining the necessary enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday evening.

He was reacting to the publication of details of a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had begun installing advanced centrifuges at its main uranium enrichment plant.

The Prime Minister’s Office said that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be the first issue on the agenda when US President Barack Obama came to visit in less than a month’s time.Netanyahu termed the report “very grave,” and said it proved that Iran was moving swiftly toward the red line he had set out at the United Nations in September. He said during that address that Iran must be stopped before it crossed the line, something he said at the time could happen as early as the spring.

According to the report, 180 so-called IR-2m centrifuges and empty centrifuge casings had been hooked up at the plant near the central town of Natanz. They were not yet operating.

Such machines could enable Iran to significantly speed up its accumulation of material that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

It was not clear how many of the new centrifuges Iran aims to install at Natanz, which is designed for tens of thousands.

An IAEA note informing member states late last month about Iran’s plans implied that it could be up to 3,000 or so.

Iran has for years been trying to develop centrifuges more efficient than the erratic 1970s IR-1 model it now uses, but their introduction for full-scale production has been dogged by delays and technical hurdles, experts and diplomats say.

Iran has also started testing two new centrifuge models, the IR-6 and IR6s, at a research and development facility, the IAEA report said. Centrifuges spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope in uranium.

Iran’s defiance is likely to anger world powers ahead of a resumption of talks with Tehran next week. Six world powers and Iran are due to meet for the first time in eight months in Kazakhstan on Tuesday to try again to break the impasse, but analysts expect no real progress toward defusing suspicions that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in Washington Thursday that Iran's installation of new-generation centrifuges would be "yet another provocative step."

White House spokesman Jay Carney warned Iran that it would face further pressure and isolation if it fails to address international concerns about its nuclear program in the Feb. 26 talks with world powers in the Kazakh city of Almaty.

In a more encouraging sign for the powers, however, the IAEA report said Iran in December resumed converting some of its uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent to powder for the production of reactor fuel.

That helped restrain the growth of Iran’s higher-grade uranium stockpile since the previous report in November, a development that could buy more time for diplomacy and delay possible Israeli military action.

The report said Iran had increased to 167 kg. its stockpile of 20-percent uranium – a level it says it needs to make fuel for a Tehran research reactor but which also takes it much closer to weapons-grade material, which could be obtained if it were processed further.

U.S.-Iran War Deadline: March 2013?

It is often argued that the 2003 War in Iraq was a "war of choice". But in fact it was a war of last resort. As Micah Zenko puts it in the article below, "After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options."

Almost a full decade later, the United States has begun to shift its strategy with respect to Iran. As with Iraq in 2003, the United States and its allies recognize that negotiations with Iran cannot drag on ad infinitum. Zenko explains, "Last week... the United States made a significant shift in its strategy. This move, if it plays out, could finally result in the long-rumored and much-debated military attack on Iran's known nuclear sites. In a prepared statement to the agency's Board of Governors, Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA, said:

Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations by attempting to make negotiation of a structured approach on PMD [possible military dimensions] an endless process. Iran must act now, in substance.... If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA, the United States will work with other Board members to pursue appropriate Board action, and would urge the Board to consider reporting this lack of progress to the UN Security Council."

This is certainly a development to watch in the months ahead. The world cannot allow the fanatical Iranian authoritarian Islamic theocracy, driven by 7th Century eschatology, to obtain nuclear weapons. Zenko's article is below. - R.O.

Headlines to watch:

- Iranian nuclear bomb would trigger arms race: Iran ex-official

- US, allies said to be prepared to ‘rapidly’ intervene if Assad utilizes chemical weapons

- USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier arrives off Syrian shore
- Israeli Intelligence Official: Border With Syria Will Soon be “the Hottest Border in Israel”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Countdown: Did the U.S. just set a March deadline for war with Iran?

By: Micah Zenko - December 4, 2012 - Foreign Policy.com

Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA. Credit: Foreign Policy.com

If you have followed the covert and diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon over the past five years, you know that new or noteworthy movements from Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Washington are few and far between. Iran makes fantastic claims about advances in its civilian nuclear program, many of which are subsequently confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Israel threatens to attack Iran in a thinly veiled effort to impel the P5+1 negotiating group (China, Russia, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) to increase economic and diplomatic sanctions; and American officials repeatedly pledge to prevent a nuclear Iran, while the U.S. military gradually strengthens its capabilities in theater and deepens its cooperation with Gulf states in order to contain Iran.

Underpinning this rhetorical bluster is the recognition that negotiations to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA -- to demonstrate that the Iranian civilian nuclear program does not have possible military dimensions, forbidden by the NPT Safeguards Agreement signed by Iran in 1974 -- are not sustainable. Experts predict that the nuclear dispute between the P5+1 (predominantly the United States) and Iran will ultimately be resolved -- either through negotiations or the use of force.Some (including yours truly) have speculated this resolution will come this year, or the following year, or the year after that. During a press conference on Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged this enduring forecasting problem: "I think that it will happen during 2013, but I thought that it will happen during 2012, and saw what happened -- and 2011."

Last week, however, the United States made a significant shift in its strategy. This move, if it plays out, could finally result in the long-rumored and much-debated military attack on Iran's known nuclear sites. In a prepared statement to the agency's Board of Governors, Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA, said:

Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations by attempting to make negotiation of a structured approach on PMD [possible military dimensions] an endless process. Iran must act now, in substance.... If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA, the United States will work with other Board members to pursue appropriate Board action, and would urge the Board to consider reporting this lack of progress to the UN Security Council.

Later that day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Wood's mention of a March deadline. Her reply contained several interesting points:

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, which are going to heat up probably around the March period, heading toward a June election.

It's a difficult matter to predict, because it really depends upon how serious the Iranians are about making a decision that removes the possibility of their being able to acquire a nuclear weapon or the components of one that can be in effect on a shelf somewhere and still serve as a basis for intimidation...We'll see in the next few months whether there's a chance for any kind of a serious negotiation.

Here, Clinton implies that the reason to "test" Iran now is not because of progress toward alleged weaponization, but because there is a window for negotiations, after the U.S. election and before the Iranian election. It is interesting that the Obama administration deemed it wrong to "test" Iran during the heat of the U.S. presidential elections but thinks it plausible that, during similar electoral uncertainty, Iranian leaders will reach a broad strategic agreement limiting the country's uranium-enrichment program.

Then, Clinton introduces a vague new goal for negotiations. Until now, Obama administration officials have repeated three claims about U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

First, Iran has not decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. In February 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified, "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." But, he added, "We do not know...if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." The following February, Clapper stated, "We don't believe they've actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon."

Second, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will make the final decision. As Clapper phrased it: "The decision would be made by the Supreme Leader himself, and he would base that on a cost-benefit analysis in terms of -- I don't think you want a nuclear weapon at any price."

Third, because Iran's nuclear program is an intelligence collection priority, U.S. officials would know when the Supreme Leader made this decision and what sort of evidence would reveal his intentions. Clapper: "[A] clear indicator would be enrichment of uranium to a 90 percent level." The declared nuclear sites where such enrichment occurs are subject to IAEA physical inventory verifications, which track progress in Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpiles and are published in quarterly reports.

Why did the Obama administration decide to set this new March deadline? Perhaps, like the Bush administration, it has simply become tired of confronting Iran. Here, the Bush administration's approach to Iraq is worth recalling. In a recent Foreign Policy piece reviewing U.S. policy options toward Iran, Steven Hadley, deputy national security adviser during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, wrote:

The U.S. military action [in Iraq] was not, as many suggest, either a war of choice or a war of preemption. It was, rather, a war of last resort. After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options.

It is difficult to understand why the Bush administration decided to abandon a successful containment strategy of Iraq that cost $14.5 billion a year and no loss of life, for another that will ultimately cost over $3 trillion and the lives of 4,422 U.S. troops. Undertaking a war of choice without definitive evidence of an active chemical or biological weapons program -- let alone a nuclear program -- or threats to the U.S. homeland was an enormous strategic miscalculation with dire consequences.

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program dates back to August 2002, when it was first revealed that Iran had begun a covert uranium-enrichment program in the late 1980s. Since then, the IAEA has repeatedly stated what its Director General Yukio Amano declared last week: "Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

At some point in February or early March of 2013, there will be two significant events relating to a potential countdown to an attack on Iran. Clapper will testify before the House and Senate as part of his annual threat briefings, and the IAEA will release its next quarterly report. Unless there is new intelligence, it is likely that Clapper will maintain his assessment that the Supreme Leader has not made the decision to pursue a bomb -- meaning to enrich enough uranium to bomb-grade level that can be formed into sphere that could be compressed into a critical mass. Meanwhile, absent breakthrough in the P5+1 negotiations or a decision by Tehran that unprecedented transparency with the IAEA will make things better, Amano will again report that there is inadequate cooperation.

In that case, the IAEA Board of Governors could refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which might pass a more robust version of Resolution 1929, which imposed sanctions. But then what? If the Supreme Leader does not make a decision to pursue a bomb (which the United States claims it would detect), and if Iran does not produce sufficient highly-enriched uranium for a bomb at a declared site (which the IAEA would detect), then what would trigger an attack by the United States and/or Israel? What would the "redline" be?

The answer depends greatly on whether the timeline to attack Iran is based on Israel's national interest and its military capabilities, or those of the United States. Israeli officials have stated at various times that redlines should be "clear" (without providing clarity) and that they "should be made, but not publicly." One also said, "I don't want to set redlines or deadlines for myself." Since November 2011, Israeli officials have also warned about a "zone of immunity," which Barak has described as "not where the Iranians decide to break out of the non-proliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place where the dispersal, protection and survivability efforts will cross a point that would make a physical strike impractical."

It is unclear how dispersed, protected, or survivable Iran's nuclear program would have to be, but Secretary Clinton's warning of "components...on a shelf somewhere" could indicate that the Obama administration is moving toward the zone of immunity logic. But what are these components, how many would be required to assume "weaponization," and how would this new intelligence be presented as a justification for war? In addition, 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.

Previously, U.S. officials have been less eager than the Israelis to define a specific redline, largely because the two countries have different perceptions of the Iranian threat and vastly different military capabilities. 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.

By: Micah Zenko

Iranian regime slammed by UN Secretary General at Iran's NAM Summit

Kudos to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for speaking harshly against Iran, in Iran, at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit today. Earlier this week Ban faced sharp criticism for even attending the NAM Summit in Iran because his attendance was seen as legitimizing the Iranian government and its many provocative statements. 

However, quite unexpectedly, Ban used the NAM forum to publicly call out the Iranian government by authoritatively stating global objections to Iran's behaviour - objections which the West has been raising for many years. Ban even specifically defended Israel's existence, too, uttering the very name, "Israel", which Iranian government representatives are forbidden from using (preferring instead their pejorative and geographically abstract term "Zionist regime").  

Here are some of Ban's bold, necessary and critical comments against the theocratic Iranian regime. We need more of this from the rest of the world. Iran's nuclear program must be stopped. Faster, please. - R.O.

Tehran, 30 August 2012 - Secretary-General's remarks to the High-Level Segment of the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon

"And from this platform – as I have repeatedly stated around the world -- I strongly reject threats by any member state to destroy another or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts, such as the Holocaust.

Claiming that another UN Member State, Israel, does not have the right to exist, or describing it in racist terms, is not only utterly wrong but undermines the very principles we have all pledged to uphold."

and...

"Assuming the leadership of the NAM provides Iran with the opportunity to demonstrate that it can play a moderate and constructive role internationally. That includes responsible action on the nuclear programme which is among the top concerns of the international community.

This concern has been demonstrated in repeated Security Council resolutions, including under Chapter VII authority, calling for transparency and full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

For the sake of peace and security in this region and globally, I urge the Government of Iran to take the necessary measures to build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

This can be done by fully complying with the relevant Security Council resolutions and thoroughly cooperating with the IAEA.

I urge, also, constructive engagement with the P5+1 to quickly reach a diplomatic solution."

Israel: Diplomacy with Iran has "failed"

This is the first time an Israeli Minister (Danny Ayalon) has gone on the record to say that diplomatic talks with Iran have "failed." Hugely significant statement, one certainly only made with the approval of Prime Minister Netanyahu. While many times in the past Israel has made threats that it was prepared to take "action" against Iran, this is the first time that Israeli leaders have asked the international community to declare that diplomacy has run its course - implicitly stating that the time for military action has in fact finally arrived. If Ayalon's statement were to be accepted, there are of course very few alternatives to stopping Iran short of targeted air strikes in conjunction with massive cyber attacks against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Intriguing and foreboding development... - R.O.
UPDATE (16/08): Now Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., has also gone on the record stating that diplomacy has "failed". This is now officially the Israeli government's public position.


New York Times: Israeli Minister Asks Nations to Say Iran Talks Have Failed
By JODI RUDOREN
Published: August 13, 2012

JERUSALEM - Amid intensifying Israeli news reports saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is close to ordering a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, his deputy foreign minister called Sunday for an international declaration that the diplomatic effort to halt Tehran's enrichment of uranium is dead.

Referring to the Iran negotiations led by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, the minister, Danny Ayalon, told Israel Radio that those nations should "declare today that the talks have failed." After such a declaration, if Iran does not halt its nuclear program, "it will be clear that all options are on the table," Mr. Ayalon said, not only for Israel, but also for the United States and NATO.

Asked how long the Iranians should be given to cease all nuclear activity, Mr. Ayalon said "weeks, and not more than that."

The comments came after a frenzy of newspaper articles and television reports over the weekend here suggesting that Mr. Netanyahu had all but made the decision to attack Iran unilaterally this fall. The reports contained little new information, but the tone was significantly sharper than it had been in recent weeks, with many of Israel's leading columnists predicting a strike despite the opposition of the Obama administration and many military and security professionals within Israel. Articles in Sunday's newspapers also examined home-front preparedness for what experts expect would be an aggressive response not just from Iran but also its allies, the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

"Lord help us, would you just do it already and be done with it?" wrote Ben Caspit, a columnist for the newspaper Maariv, referring to the Israeli leadership. "When one looks around the impression received is that it isn't only in Israel that they aren't being taken seriously any longer, but the world refuses to get worked up over them either."

"Maybe they'll bomb Iran in the end just to prove that they're serious," Mr. Caspit added.

Mr. Netanyahu and his top ministers have been saying for weeks that while the sanctions against Iran have hurt its economy, they have not affected the nuclear program, which Iran's leadership insists is for civilian purposes. On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom called on the United States to enact "even more extensive and even more comprehensive sanctions which could overwhelm the Iranian regime and possibly even topple it, or bring it to make the decision to abandon the nuclear program."

The mixed messages from Mr. Shalom and Mr. Ayalon came two days after Mr. Netanyahu called Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, and urged him not to go to Iran for a meeting scheduled for the end of this month of the so-called nonaligned nations (countries that were not allies of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the cold war).

"Even if it is not your intention, your visit will grant legitimacy to a regime that is the greatest threat to world peace and security," Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Ban, according to a statement released by his office Friday night. "Not only does it threaten countries throughout the Middle East, not only is it the greatest terrorism exporter in the world, but it is impossible to exaggerate the danger it presents to Israel."

"Mr. Secretary General, your place is not in Tehran," Mr. Netanyahu added.

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu seemed to be trying to rebut the Israeli newspaper articles questioning domestic preparedness as he bid farewell to the current home-front defense minister, who is becoming ambassador to China.

"There has been a significant improvement in our home-front defense capabilities," Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a transcript released by his office. "One cannot say that there are no problems in this field because there always are, but all of the threats that are currently being directed against the Israeli home front pale against a particular threat, different in scope, different in substance, and therefore I reiterate that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel

(Does the world need any more reason to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program immediately? The Iranian regime is not only insane; it's demonic. Israel continues to make noise about an impending unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. While the United States has made recent declarations of its willingness to use military force to stop Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamian Netanyahu remains openly and publicly skeptical. Historic precedents suggest overwhelmingly that when the Israelis say they will stop a threat, they mean it. Is the world ready for some fireworks? [For further proof, check out Iran's game of denial and deception.]  - R.O.)

Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel

By JOANNA PARASZCZUK
08/02/2012 15:49

In Ramadan speech to ambassadors from Islamic countries, Iranian president calls Zionism “plight of world history,” says liberating Palestine would solve all the world’s problems.


Photo: REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

In a speech published on his website Thursday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the ultimate goal of world forces must be the annihilation of Israel.

Speaking to ambassadors from Islamic countries ahead of ‘Qods Day’ (‘Jerusalem Day’), an annual Iranian anti-Zionist event established in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and which falls this year on August 17, Ahmadinejad said that a “horrible Zionist current” had been managing world affairs for “about 400 years.”

Repeating traditional antisemitic slurs, the Iranian president accused “Zionists” of controlling the world’s media and financial systems.

It was Zionists, he said, who were “behind the scene of the world’s main powers, media, monetary and banking centers.”

“They are the decision makers, to the extent that the presidential election hopefuls [of the USA] must go and kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their election victory,” he added.

Ahmadinejad added that “liberating Palestine” would solve all the world’s problems, although he did not elaborate on exactly how that might work.

“Qods Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems,” he said.

He added: “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”

The Iranian president said that Israel reinforced “the dominance of arrogant powers in the region and across the globe” and that Arab countries in particular – he cited Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Turkey – were affected by Israel’s “plots.”

Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a myth, has previously called for Israel’s annihilation, in a 2005 speech in which he used a Persian phrase that translates literally as “wiped off the page of time.”

Dangerously Doubting the IAEA Report on Iran

My op-ed published last week in Canada's National Post, was picked up and published today in the Windsor Star. I feel my op-ed is even more prescient now, given that the U.S., UK, and Canada went ahead with unilateral sanctions against Iran's central bank, just as Israel has conspicuously gone silent about the threat posed by Iran. The unwillingness of Russia and China to further sanction Iran, or contemplate additional Security Council resolutions, may ultimately force Israel to act alone. If you haven't read the full version of my article, check it out below here. -R.O.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/death+truth/5776603/story.html

"The Death of Truth"
By: Robert D. Onley
Published in the Windsor Star: November 28, 2011

Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 war in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive skepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran's now exposed nuclear weapons program.

Despite the wide-ranging report, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the U.K., France and U.S. will use sanctions as an "instrument for regime change in Iran." Major news outlets are similarly casting complete doubt on IAEA claims that Iran is actively working on nukes.

While the IAEA report was indeed preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, the supposed "leak" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's readiness to conduct unilateral airstrikes certainly was no accident.

Designed to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the report's release, the leaks underscored Netanyahu's long-standing fears about the truth of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Thus the sabre-rattling should not discredit the catastrophic implications of the report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran's nuke program.

Some skeptics dismissively claim that Iran's research into the design of nuclear weapons is not a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory state and internationally bound not to "manufacture" or otherwise "acquire" nuclear weapons. However, this suggestion completely misses the point, highlighting the dangerous naivety of reactive skepticism.

The indisputable facts about Iran's nuclear weapons research are as follows. Since 2003, Iran has:

. Conducted extensive research into bomb designs and detonators

. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles

. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility - built inside of a mountain, itself inside of a military base.

Iran did so while repeatedly claiming its nuclear program is "peaceful." This blatant stall tactic deliberately impeded progress during years of nuclear negotiations with the West.

Russia and China have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the IAEA head, as a pro-western dupe. Russian FM Sergei Lavrov obliquely warned the West that attacking Iran would be "a very serious mistake."

The tragic casualty in all of this misguided skepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA - the one global institution tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - can so blithely be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community's moral core.

A country - the Islamic Republic of Iran - with a president who openly and callously denies that the Holocaust occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.

In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the world's instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA's years of painstaking intelligence-gathering not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.

Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to greenlight another conflict in the region is wholly understandable and with merit.

However, for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country's obtaining nukes, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world's future to the enemies of peace, destroy the NPT and spark a nuclear arms race.

Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at its gravest geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.

If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the UN Security Council and reveal all of Israel's intelligence on Iranian nukes. Israel must irrefutably prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace of the world under UNSC Article 39.

The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth - about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran's theocratic Shia "Twelver" leadership - is Israel's only ally in the long-standing fight for its very survival as the world's sole, immovable, Jewish state.

Robert D. Onley is vice-chair of YouthCan for International Dialogue and president of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor's Law School.
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

"Israel's only ally is the truth" - Published in the National Post

Today I was published for the first time in a Canadian national newspaper, the National Post. The op-ed, "Israel's only ally is the truth" is a shorter version of my original op-ed "The Death of Truth" which was first published here on my blog. It is an honour to be published on the pages of the National Post. Thanks for reading. - R.O.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/21/robert-d-onley-israels-only-ally-is-the-truth/

Sitting Down to Negotiate – Day 3 of the G8/G20 Youth Summit

My third blog post on the intensity of negotiations in the Ministers of Defence committee, as published by the official University of Toronto Scarborough blog. - R.O.

Sitting Down to Negotiate – Day 3 of the G8/G20 Youth Summit

The Defense Committee (far right: Rob Onley)

The G8/G20 Youth Summit offers an unparalleled opportunity for university students to enter a world known only to the highest ranks of global governments. Canada’s army may be small in direct comparison to our G8 friends, but within the context of the G8, Canada’s voice is equal, unlike the exclusive UN Security Council.

Given this influential role, I took a stance on defense policy that was arguably broader than the Canadian government can actually enact and represent in reality. Nonetheless, the Ministers of Defense bore the heaviest moral and consequential burden at the G8 Youth Summit. As the military leaders of the world’s strongest democracies, we are tasked with addressing issues which threaten the overall peace and stability of the world, while simultaneously possessing the overwhelming military capacity to intervene and defend the lives of innocent human beings, as recently seen in Libya.

Canada is a peaceful nation that is promoting and helping to create stability through a number of military and defense missions abroad. Canada is well-respected internationally with much global goodwill. These missions include the NATO-ISAF operation in Afghanistan, the NATO-led air campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and the rebuilding effort in Haiti.

The Western world is at the most dangerous crossroads of recent history. With revolutions sweeping the Middle East, arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden dead and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the very near future, the Defense Ministers of the G8 are confronting the most uncertain future it has ever faced. The time has come for resolute decision-making. Rather than draft idealistic, unrealistic and far-out solutions that will only ‘kick the can down the road’, I believed in strong policy statements that were actionable, so that these issues are not still issues one day later in my life, should I end up working in a similar role.

When negotiations over strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) began, I opened by arguing that the very existence of the NPT was at stake, and called for policy that “Guaranteed the Survival of the NPT.” In line with the Canadian government, I stated that if Iran develops nuclear weapons in direct defiance of the NPT provisions, then the world faces the grave risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a region that has seen so much instability in so many countries, the last thing the international community needs is the widespread development of the globe’s most deadly weaponry.

While agreeing to this ‘survival’ theme was simple, achieving consensus on how to actually “stop” Iran from developing nuclear weapons presented a massive hurdle for our negotiations. In reality, Iran and the Western powers have attempted several rounds of negotiations, designed to reach an understanding on the nature and extent of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian government has continually denied it is seeking nuclear weapons, while the Western powers, notably the United States, have viewed Iran’s program with deep suspicion, based on a variety of intelligence gathered by the IAEA in its inspections.

Deciding how to proceed with diplomacy was difficult, simply because the negotiation process has dragged on for decades. Some see a negotiated settlement as a dead end. However, on the flip side, no one at the G8 Youth Summit was arguing that the only solution is to use military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Instead, the G8 Youth Ministers of Defense worked exhaustively on developing a “Grand Bargain”, designed to entice the Iranian government to come to the negotiating table with open hands and come clean about its nuclear intentions. In return, the G8 presented Iran with a massive package of economic, social and technological incentives to fully normalize relations with Iran and promote the creation of mutual trust, understanding and peace. This is the only path toward peace.

Through nearly two full days of negotiation, we, the G8 Youth, were finally able to reach consensus on this Grand Bargain. Along the way, nearly every possible realistic method of enticing Iran to negotiate was discussed, analyzed and critiqued. In the end, the G8 concluded that if indeed Iran was only developing peaceful nuclear energy, then they would absolutely have to come to the negotiating table, open up their nuclear program to full inspection, and in doing so, put to rest all fears that they are developing nuclear weapons. Any other response, even non-response, would be deemed conclusive evidence that Iran was in all likelihood covertly developing nuclear weapons.

This was the proposal set out in our final communiqué: whether or not the real G8 nations will present Iran with a similar offer remains to be seen. As the Youth Ministers of Defense, we can only hope that the real G8 is reading our work and taking note. The alternative — the death of the NPT — would represent the beginning of a dark period in world history, as other nations race to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

In my next post, I will assess the impact of the G8/G20 Youth Summit on networking and the influence of youth leaders.