Friday, May 16, 2014

Hagel Says U.S. Will Not Let Iran Build Nuclear Weapon

U.S. Secretary of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Israeli leaders on Friday that the U.S. “will do what we must” to prevent Israel’s greatest fear of a nuclear-armed Iran.

“I want to assure you of the United States’ commitment to ensuring Iran does not get a nuclear weapon - and that America will do what we must to live up to that commitment,” Hagel made the pledge in a statement at talks in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (AP, 16 May)

Hagel was wrapping up a four-day Middle East visit that began Tuesday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he met with defense ministers from Persian Gulf states. He told those U.S. allies that “under no circumstance” will the U.S. sacrifice their interests in order to make a nuclear deal with Iran.

In Israel, Hagel made a brief visit Thursday to an air base where U.S. and Israeli forces were preparing to begin a missile defense exercise, dubbed “Juniper Cobra,” using computer simulation of potential attack scenarios and post-attack disaster responses.

Photo credit: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin, right, with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Jeruslem, Friday, 16 May 2014. (Mandel Ngan/Pool/AP)

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

But Mr. Hagel would certainly be willing to sacrifice his country's interests in order to answer to the Israeli Prime Minister if pressed a bit too hard on the Iranian issue would the latter consider that a hypothetical draft deal remains unacceptable with the P5+1 in the near future, that is for sure.

Anonymous said...

US interests include opposing Iranian regime nukes and Iranian regime expansionism

Brig. Gen. Basrawi (IQAF. ret) said...

I don't think anyone doubts Mr Hagel's deliberate intentions of trying to derail the nuclear talks. Just like a servant he is doing the bidding of Israel. And US influence in Iraq faded when their troops departed. Also, now that there's no nationalistic Arab leader (Saddam) to check the reactionary regime in Iran...enter the GCC states!

Piruz Mollazadeh said...

America and the West have more to lose if a nuclear deal is spoiled than Iran does. The international sanctions regime on Iran will gradually fall apart if the U.S (under Israeli pressure) looks like the party who isn't complying (which isn't unlikely, given the fact that most U.S sanctions are imposed by Congress and the latter is overwhelmingly pro-Israeli).

This, I guess, would be the IRGC's dream come true.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the truth of that contention. Hagel entirely supports the talks and an outcome that avoids the outbreak of hostilities.

Anonymous said...

the sanctions regime isn't going to fall apart before the Iranian economy is crippled. the sanctions are not only hugely popular in the US but in Europe as well.

Anonymous said...

Do the 400 real Israeli nukes count considering they happen to be the ones constantly starting and waging bombing campaigns against almost all of the neighbors whenever they please ? What about US expansionism that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in ONE year through 2003-2004 in an invasion war based on a pack of lies acknowledged by some American officials and notably former Defense Secretary Colin Powell himself who submitted his resignation shortly after the infamous UN "satellite fraud" presented by Mr. Bush, to name only that ? not counting the million indirect victims that ensued during the years that followed the destruction of the Iraqi national fabric of course, we wouldn't want to make it too rude for you defender of Democracy, Export Department. Final question for you : when was the last time that the Islamic Republic (as despicable a regime it may be) actually attacked and invaded a foreign neighbor and utterly destroyed whatever was left of its infrastructure without prior provocation ? if anything, the opportunist regime benefited from the fall of its enemy Saddam entirely, you cannot blame it from playing counter to uncle Sam's geopolitical agenda and just sit idly while the latter attempts to install a puppet regime right at Iranian borders after toppling a dictator they didn't like anymore. They played they lost. Economy crippled, Iraq is still significantly out of the US Sphere or influence for now including for hot issues such as Syria where they side with Iran rather then US allies, so congratulations on them for trying to fix the situation in 2003, I wish them many more victories like that in the future, and they seem to be set to score a few more in the same league in year to come considering how amateurish they appear to be.

Anonymous said...

Yes, repeatedly going to GCC states and Israel spitting out good old anti-Iran rhetoric non-stop while President Rouhani is wresting with hardliners willing to chant anti-US slogans is definitely the way to cool down the atmosphere and help things settle down the diplomatic way. Mr. Hagel surely knows what he is doing.

Anonymous said...

I wonder where you take your figures from. They happen to be less and less popular in the US and in major European countries such as France and Germany whom are increasingly wary of huge missed business and industrial opportunities in a 78 million country, and major official already sent open letters to Congress in that regard since a couple years.

Anonymous said...

if the GCC countries had their way there would not be any talks and Hagel's assurances that the talks will result in an acceptable compromise that leaves Iran incapable of secretly assembling nuclear weaponry is not "anti-Iran rhetoric".

Iran's theocratic government is NOT the same thing as the people of Iran..... and it's not up to the rest of the world to keep quite so as to please the slimy creatures that are the Iranian hard-liners. they are the problem of the Iranian people and the Iranian people are going to have to cut them down to size

Anonymous said...

they are entirely popular in the US and Iran is the nation that Americans least view in a positive light...... France, Germany and the rest of the EU also are determined to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the unsavory and reactionary Iranian theocratic government.

In the US, opposition to the sanctions on Iran come mainly from people who think that the sanctions aren't sufficiently strong action against the Iranian weapons development program and should be augmented by more direct action that involve destroying the development sites.

I wonder what you're reading and being misled by, my friend.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 3:51 PM
And unfortunately for malcontents like yourself the vast majority of iranians support irans islamic democracy and the current government,malcontents like yourself have been spouting the same tired old " its days are numbered" rant since the beginning of the iri

Anonymous said...

The military balance of power does absolutely not permit such unilateral action taken by any GCC member so your assertion is flawed to begin with. Their economy and hence stability is entirely dependent on vital petrochemical Infrastructure which cannot sustain massive damage by Iranian missile strikes nor do their respective armies have the necessary manpower or logistical cababilities to confront Iran and its strategic depht short of direct American involvement. Considering total US control of their most sensitive military assets including operators in-land plus the fact the many Saudi and Qatari armed forces members are not nationals but foreign mercenaries, simply discounting Iran's ability to wage a conventionnal war with thel based on simple mathematical sum of their military inventories is null in validity in that regard. The notion that the GCC is kept at bay by American will and would otherwise go it alone is not even applicable to the Israeli case for renowned reasons acknowledged by several of their top officials and their military machine is eons ahead of the GCC in terms of hardware, training and independance, so let alone the latter... Here I was simply adressing theludicrous assertion stating that Iran's "expansionism"was the problem while it is decently hard to witness none other than the US and its record in the Middle East lecture any other party in that field. Wars of invasion, destruction , occupation and deaths provoked in almost genocidal scales comes to mind right at Iran's doorstep. I am not putting in question the repressive, illegitimate and murderous nature of the regime's theocratic governement. But in terms of instability, the US is technically the biggest perpetrator and bully, like it or hate it.

Anonymous said...

The people is one thing. Governments and associated industrial technocrats is another and are the ones having a potential bearing on strategic issues and deciders on top of the state since their power directly impacts the economy and thus politics on the long run. 90% of the british people were opposed to the war in Iraq. it certainly didn't prevent the elite from pushing the country at war nonetheless following American footsteps to the letter, you should know better.

Anonymous said...

And European countries' and the US blatant double standards in regards to nuclear proliferation in the region cannot be ignored either and does not help moving the whole process forward in general.

Brig. Gen. Basrawi (IQAF. ret) said...

Anon 1:15

It's safe to assume that both Iran and the GCC states will sustain widespread damages in any full-blown war. They are both very capable of laying each others infrastructure in ruins.

Anonymous said...

If we base our assessment solely on GCC military arsenal and inventory, yes. In terms of combat record and self-sufficiency both in command and control and logistical chain bar direct US support, any individual GCC country will have a hard time reciprocating damage sustained by massive ballistic fire solely with their airforce attempting to perform retaliatory strikes on critical targets deep into Iranian territory. Specially Qatar and its few strategic depth sitting right at Iran's SRBM range.

Anonymous said...

what double standards???

the US and Europe don't want any of the backward regimes in the Gulf possessing nuclear weapons.

Brig. Gen. Basrawi (IQAF. ret) said...

Well, i agree with your assesment that no single country on the Arabian peninsula would dare draw up a solo plan for striking Iran, except for Saudi Arabia. The smaller ones would never even dream about doing such a thing. The trouble for Iran is that they would be forced to face the entire GCC as a single entity, because the GCC would conduct a military campaign of aggression as a team. Or if Iran decides to single out just one of the GCC states for a military strike (in response to Israeli or US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities), then the others won't stand by idly, they will get automatically involved. Another aspect that would give the GCC the upper-hand is the advantage of having AWACS, a very powerful piece of technology. AEW&C Aircraft extends their vision to encompass a great deal of Iranian airspace. They can spot an aircraft taking off from a tactical airbase as far away as Isfahan. For example, their own fighter aircraft can get airborne and have their radars turned off nearly the entire length of the mission, recieveing every bit of neccessary information from the AWACS. This makes them very hard to detect and track. Also this allows them to sneak up on the adversary, get in proper position, and switch on the radar for a brief moment to lock-on target. Not to the mention the ECM jammers that makes an incoming missile go off course and the Electronic warfare aircraft which can be used to blind the adversaries radar. In summary, it's no overstatement to say that they have a well-equipped and well-developed airforce that, in my opinion, is able to conduct deep penetration strikes into Iran, as well as embark on the suppression of air defences.

Anonymous said...

Yes while giving them billions of dollar worth of weapons banned by the Geneva Convention such as cluster bombs, thanks I know. But does a tiny occupying country holding the current world record in the number of UN resolutions violations and war crimes since its inception and also the region's top record of unilateral military aggressions on its neighbors, also count in your list of "backwards regimes" considering it happens tp be the one posessing the sole massive, hundreds-strong undeclared nuclear arsenal and all the needed delivery vectors to annhihilate any middle eastern or european capital it wishes while not being party to even one non-proliferation treaty and still refusing any inspections to any of its suspected nuclear weapons site ? Hint : also technically nothing less than an apartheid state.

Anonymous said...

I globally agree with your assessment provided full GCC capabilities are engaged all at once against the common Iranian foe, plus intensive NATO/US supervision and cooperation well beyond GCC frontiers. Assuming such balance of power indeed makes Iran's chances of sustaining greater damage mathematically go higher since forcing them to fight in a de-facto more complex and disadvantageous tactical environment. But your assertion seems (correct me if I am wrong) to be underestimating a bit Iran's own EW and ECCM capabilities demonstrated notably during the RQ-170 incident and other lower profil successful interpection of low-Observable unmanned aircraft. Russians are known for having transferred significantly advanced SIGINT equipment to the country in their common goal of gaining access to such US assets they haven't yet been able to design themselves, drones being one of the few types of military hardware where Russia's military industry falls behind the US. This and also the robustness and extent of Iran's air defense network boosted by HOJ capabilities estimated by many analysts for having crucially grown both in size, coverage and degree of integration. During the past decade Iran was indeed able to go from legacy semi-autonomous, second-hand chinese C2I to full net centric micro-wave and optic-fiber based C3I after putting huge resources in that specific field, having finally secured their R&D infrastructure and know-how linked to their ballistic program and hence became their priority to this day. So I stand by my previous claims that I doubt the GCC , despite their purely technological edge , can pull SEAD missions so efficiently and so deep into Iran as the latter's ballistic strikes on the former,which in addition will potentially cripple their air power's ability to wage war right after the conflict's zero hour. Iran itself is also known for having developed more than credible long range derivatives of the Russian Kh-xx series of HARM missile allowing their Su-24 to cripple GCC's few, large, powerful but thus highly visible and quasi-static ABM radars some located close to the shores from a safe stand-off distance. In the end it all comes down to the respective ability of upgraded Iranian fighters and their pilots support by GCI and SAMs to confront aggressor squadrons of GCC planes and pilots Supported by AEW. But no matter the extra tactical visibility of the GCC over Iran it won't be enough to give them a full picture over so far undetermined and not fully mapped, diverse and custom air defense zones and assets all over egress routes long determined by Iran after 8 years of war with its Iraqi foe.