A predominantly one-topic blog: how is it that the most imminent and lethal implication for humankind - the fact that the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" will not work with Iran - is not being discussed in our media? Until it is recognized that MAD is dead, the Iranian threat will be treated as a threat only to Israel and not as the global threat which it in fact is.
A blog by Mladen Andrijasevic
Channel
13: Alex Younger holds talks with Mossad chief as Iran renews centrifuge
production; Israeli assessment: Regime has not yet made political decision to
break out to bomb
Britain’s MI6 intelligence chief secretly visited Israel this
week for talks with his Israeli counterparts about concerns that Iran may be
considering breaching the 2015 nuclear deal and attempting to break out to a
nuclear weapons capability, Israeli television reported on Friday night.
Channel 13 news said MI6 chief Alex Younger arrived in Israel on
Monday and met with the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Yossi
Cohen, and other Israeli intelligence chiefs.
Israel’s assessment is that Iran is “making
preparations” within the provisions of the 2015 deal, and “getting ready,” but
has not yet made the political decision to break out to the bomb, the TV report
said.
Citing Western intelligence sources, it said
the issue was also discussed by participants at last week’s Munich
international security conference.
Iran, the report noted, has recently renewed its production of
centrifuges, “and is gearing up for the renewal of uranium enrichment” within
the provisions of the deal.
The report described Iran’s current activity as “preparing the
infrastructure… in an accelerated fashion” should the regime take the political
decision to breach the accord.
Hours before the TV report, the UN’s nuclear watchdog in Vienna
said Iran was continuing to comply with the 2015 nuclear deal, despite the
United States withdrawing from the pact and re-imposing sanctions.
In a confidential quarterly report distributed to its member
states, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has been abiding with
key limitations set in the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.
The US pulled out of the deal in May and has been pressuring remaining
signatories to abandon it as well.
In its report, the Vienna-based agency said its inspectors still
have access to all sites and locations in Iran they needed to visit.
“Timely and proactive cooperation by Iran in providing such
access facilitates implementation of the Additional Protocol and enhances
confidence,” the report stated, referring to the procedure detailing safeguards
and tools for verification.
It noted that Iran’s stock of heavy water and low-enriched
uranium continues to be under the limits set under the 2015 pact.
Last June, Iran’s nuclear
chief inaugurated a new nuclear enrichment facility at
Natanz, which Iran said was geared toward producing centrifuges to operate
within the limits of the nuclear deal.
Iranian state television broadcast an interview
with Ali Akbar Salehi showcasing the facility at Natanz’s uranium enrichment
center. In the interview, Salehi said its construction began even before the
2015 deal was signed.
Last month, Salehi
bragged in another interview that Iran quietly purchased replacement parts
for its Arak nuclear reactor while it was conducting negotiations for the deal
under which it knew it would be required to destroy the original components.
Israel’s Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu warns constantly that Iran has never abandoned its ambition
to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. Last year, the Mossad spirited a huge
haul of documents from what it said was Iran’s nuclear weapons archive, which Netanyahu said proved conclusively that Iran has lied to
the world when claiming it has not been seeking to produce nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu said at the UN
General Assembly in September that “The reason Iran didn’t destroy its atomic archive
and its atomic warehouse is because it hasn’t abandoned its goal to develop
nuclear weapons. In fact, it planned to use both of these sites in a few years
when the time would be right to break out to the atom bomb. “That won’t happen,” he vowed. “It won’t happen because what Iran hides, Israel will find.”
***
My comment:
Israel better have someone at the helm who understands the magnitude of the Iranian
threat.
Russia’s ongoing development of hypersonic weapons proves
nuclear weapons are in fact warfighting weapons — contrary to conventional
wisdom in the West.
In December 2018, Moscow successfully tested
the Avangard and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles. The former
travels at speeds up to 20 times the speed of sound and is supposedly
invulnerable to any missile defenses. It can carry a nuclear warhead and
allegedly hit any spot on the globe within 30 minutes of launch. Therefore, it
can be considered a “strategic” nuclear weapon.
The Tsirkon, meanwhile,
can be deployed on submarines, ships and airplanes, including long-range
bombers. It possesses a range of approximately 310 miles and is expected to be
a particularly lethal anti-ship weapon.
Moreover, these represent just some of the new generation of
weapons that Moscow is developing. By 2024, Moscow expects its submarine fleet
to be able to launch hypersonic missiles that are capable of carrying either
conventional or nuclear warheads.
Russia’s larger military modernization effort encompasses its
entire triad of air, sea and land-based nuclear weapons, from short- to
intermediate- to long-range nuclear weapons, along with counter-force and
counter-value weapons. According
to General Paul Selva (USAF), vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Russia is also developing new tactical nuclear weapons to tailor its
forces to virtually any contingency. Thus, Russia is currently working on over
20 nuclear programs, including nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons.
Equally disquieting is the fact that in the recent
Vostok-2018 exercises Russian forces and the Ministry of Energy
conducted large-scale exercises to restore electric grids and power supply
after an attack. In other words, Russia rehearsed an EMP (electromagnetic
pulse) operation, and its aftermath strongly suggesting that it either expects
or intends to launch one. Significantly, Moscow sought to conceal the purpose
of that exercise and divorce it from Vostok-18. Russia has also rehearsed
nuclear operations in the past – such as simulating a nuclear strike against Sweden
back in 2013.
Clearly, Moscow sees nuclear weapons as usable instruments of
war. In this context, hypersonics are valuable for the Kremlin because they are
allegedly invulnerable to U.S. missile defenses. Without any basis in fact or
science, Russia has long contended that American missile defenses in the U.S,
Europe and Asia threaten its nuclear deterrent. Despite innumerable briefings,
scientific facts and the admission of Russian experts that these “threats” are
fantasies, the Kremlin persists in seeing nuclear weapons as warfighting
instruments against American and allied missile defenses.
And whatever Moscow declares in its doctrine or rhetoric, its
procurements and exercises strongly suggest not only that, in the Russian view,
nuclear weapons are warfighting weapons, but also that they will be used in a
first-strike against purely conventional strikes. Accordingly, Russian
officials informed then-Secretary
of Defense James Mattis last year that
defending the Baltics would lead to nuclear war — a clear statement of Russia’s
intent to use nuclear weapons first.
At its core, Russia’s development of hypersonic weapons reflects
its refusal to accept mutual assured deterrence among the superpowers and the
self-generating paranoia of a state bent on rebuilding its empire by inhibiting
NATO from defending its allies and partners. They embody both the Kremlin’s
global ambitions and its own inherent paranoia (including the belief that
nuclear weapons can and will be used against it).
Stephen Blank, Ph.D., is a
senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, focused on the
geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia. He
is a former professor of Russian National Security Studies and National
Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War
College. He is also a former MacArthur fellow at the U.S. Army War
College.
This blog has been trying to bring to attention the danger from
the death of the MAD doctrine in regards to Iran. However, we should also look
at how stable is the MAD doctrine
vis-à-vis Putin’s recent speech last October
and this one two days ago.
The unilateral withdrawal
of the USA from the INF Treaty is the most urgent
and most discussed issue in Russian-American relations. This is why
I am compelled to talk about it in more detail. Indeed, serious
changes have taken place in the world since the Treaty was
signed in 1987. Many countries have developed and continue
to develop these weapons, but not Russia or the USA – we
have limited ourselves in this respect, of our own free will.
Understandably, this state of affairs raises questions. Our American
partners should have just said so honestly rather than make far-fetched
accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from
the Treaty.
It would have been better if they had done
what they did in 2002 when they walked away from the ABM Treaty
and did so openly and honestly. Whether that was good or bad is
another matter. I think it was bad, but they did it and that is that.
They should have done the same thing this time, too. What are they doing
in reality? First, they violate everything, then they look
for excuses and appoint a guilty party. But they are also
mobilising their satellites that are cautious but still make noises
in support of the USA. At first, the Americans began
developing and using medium-range missiles, calling them discretionary
“target missiles” for missile defence. Then they began deploying Mk-41
universal launch systems that can make offensive combat use of Tomahawk
medium-range cruise missiles possible.
I am talking about this and using my time
and yours because we have to respond to the accusations
that are leveled at us. But having done everything I have just
described, the Americans openly and blatantly ignored
the provisions envisaged by articles 4 and 6
of the INF Treaty. According to Item 1, Article VI (I am
quoting): “Each Party shall eliminate all intermediate-range missiles
and the launchers of such missiles… so that… no such missiles,
launchers… shall be possessed by either party.” Paragraph 1 of Article
VI provides that (and I quote) “upon entry into force
of the Treaty and thereafter, neither Party may produce
or flight-test any intermediate-range missile, or produce any stages
or launchers of such missiles.” End of quote.
Using medium-range target missiles
and deploying launchers in Romania and Poland that are fit
for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, the US has openly violated
these clauses of the Treaty. They did this some time ago. These
launchers are already stationed in Romania and nothing happens. It
seems that nothing is happening. This is even strange. This is not at all
strange for us, but people should be able to see and understand
it.
How are we evaluating the situation
in this context? I have already said this and I want
to repeat: Russia does not intend – this is very important, I am
repeating this on purpose – Russia does not intend to deploy
such missiles in Europe first. If they really are built and delivered
to the European continent, and the United States has plans
for this, at least we have not heard otherwise, it will dramatically
exacerbate the international security situation, and create
a serious threat to Russia, because some of these missiles can
reach Moscow in just 10–12 minutes. This is a very serious threat to us.
In this case, we will be forced, I would like to emphasise this,
we will be forced to respond with mirror or asymmetric actions. What
does this mean?
I am saying this directly
and openly now, so that no one can blame us later, so that it will be
clear to everyone in advance what is being said here. Russia will be
forced to create and deploy weapons that can be used not only
in the areas we are directly threatened from, but also in areas
that contain decision-making centres for the missile systems threatening
us.
What is important in this regard? There
is some new information. These weapons will fully correspond
to the threats directed against Russia in their technical
specifications, including flight times to these decision-making centres.
We know how to do this and will
implement these plans immediately, as soon as the threats
to us become real. I do not think we need any further, irresponsible
exacerbation of the current international situation. We do not want
this.
The work on promising prototypes
and weapon systems that I spoke about in my Address last
year continues as scheduled and without disruptions. We have launched
serial production of the Avangard system, which I have already
mentioned today. As planned, this year, the first regiment
of the Strategic Missile Troops will be equipped with Avangard.
The Sarmat super-heavy intercontinental missile of unprecedented
power is undergoing a series of tests. The Peresvet laser weapon
and the aviation systems equipped with Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic
missiles proved their unique characteristics during test and combat alert
missions while the personnel learned how to operate them. Next
December, all the Peresvet missiles supplied to the Armed Forces
will be put on standby alert. We will continue expanding the infrastructure
for the MiG-31 interceptors carrying Kinzhal missiles.
The Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile of unlimited range
and the Poseidon nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicle
of unlimited range are successfully undergoing tests.
In this context, I would like
to make an important statement. We did not announce it before, but
today we can say that as soon as this spring the first
nuclear-powered submarine carrying this unmanned vehicle will be launched.
The work is going as planned.
Today I also think I can officially
inform you about another promising innovation. As you may remember, last
time I said we had more to show but it was a little early
for that. So I will reveal little by little what else we have up
our sleeves. Another promising innovation, which is successfully being
developed according to plan, is Tsirkon, a hypersonic missile that
can reach speeds of approximately Mach 9 and strike a target
more than 1,000 km away both under water and on the ground. It
can be launched from water, from surface vessels and from submarines,
including those that were developed and built for carrying Kalibr
high-precision missiles, which means it comes at no additional cost
for us.
On a related note, I want
to highlight that for the defence of Russia’s national
interests, two or three years ahead of the schedule set
by the state arms programme, the Russian Navy will receive seven
new multipurpose submarines, and construction will begin on five
surface vessels designed for the open ocean. Sixteen more vessels
of this class will enter service in the Russian Navy
by 2027.
To conclude, on the unilateral
withdrawal by the USA from the Treaty
on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range
Missiles, here is what I would like to say. The US policy toward
Russia in recent years can hardly be called friendly. Russia’s legitimate
interests are being ignored, there is constant anti-Russia campaigning,
and more and more sanctions, which are illegal in terms
of international law, are imposed without any reason whatsoever. Let me emphasise
that we did nothing to provoke these sanctions. The international
security architecture that took shape over the past decades is being
completely and unilaterally dismantled, all while referring to Russia
as almost the main threat to the USA.
Let me say outright that this is not true.
Russia wants to have sound, equal and friendly relations with
the USA. Russia is not threatening anyone, and all we do
in terms of security is simply a response, which means that our
actions are defensive. We are not interested in confrontation and we
do not want it, especially with a global power like the United States
of America. However, it seems that our partners fail to notice
the depth and pace of change around the world
and where it is headed. They continue with their destructive
and clearly misguided policy. This hardly meets the interests
of the USA itself. But this is not for us to decide.
We can see that we are dealing with proactive
and talented people, but within the elite, there are also many people
who have excessive faith in their exceptionalism and supremacy over
the rest of the world. Of course, it is their right
to think what they want. But can they count? Probably they can. So let
them calculate the range and speed of our future arms systems.
This is all we are asking: just do the maths first and take decisions
that create additional serious threats to our country afterwards. It goes
without saying that these decisions will prompt Russia to respond
in order to ensure its security in a reliable and unconditional
manner.
I have already said this,
and I will repeat that we are ready to engage
in disarmament talks, but we will not knock on a locked door
anymore. We will wait until our partners are ready and become aware
of the need for dialogue on this matter.
Gabi Askenazi - In
2010 along withDagan he prevented
Netanyahu from attacking Iranian nuclear sites
Yair Lapid- There is no
evidencethat he understands that Iran
cannot be deterred. He would not have supported the Iran Deal if he understood
that the MAD doctrine would not work with Iran
Conclusion : If you want not to be nuked by Iran - Bibi is
a better choice . In life you make choices based on how much each component
weighs - if we are attacked by Iran with nuclear weapons all other choices are
meaningless.
But Bibi
has a problem. The 'anyone but Bibi' mentality has taken its toll . And here is the proof. The reaction of a
colleague upon reading my post -" I get it, but I'll be
damned if I vote for him. I'd rather suffer a nuclear winter. "
However
funny this cartoon is, it still ignores
the fundamental difference between Netanyahu and Gantz: Netanyahu is fully
aware that Iran cannot be deterred from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons
regardless of the consequences, whereas Gantz does not
seem to understand the danger.
In her article Is Gantz falling
from grace?, Ruthie Blum writes: “The good news is that
Gantz has little to no chance of heading the next government. He couldn’t even
sustain positive press coverage for a full week. “
This is debatable. The constant
attacks at Netanyahu through the years have eroded support for him and the “anybody
but Netanyahu” mindset is spreading.
The fact that Bibi is the
only Israeli leader apart from Michael
Oren who has quoted
Bernard Lewis’s warning
about Mutually Assured Destruction not being a deterrent for the Iranian
leaders is irrelevant to the majority of Israelis.First, most Israelis have never heard of
Bernard Lewis. Second, most Israelis know nothing about Twelver Shisim and their
eschatology and hence many believe that Bibi has being crying wolf regarding Iran
for years. Third, they are convinced
that other Israeli leaders could easily take Netanyahu’s place including
handling the Iranian threat although none of them ever mentioned Iran having no
problem with mutual destruction.
The combination of the above
results in that nobody in Israel ever discusses the possibility of an Iranian nuclear
attack on Israel due to the death of the MAD doctrine which managed to prevent
a nuclear exchange during the Cold War.
To put it in Orwellian terms, “a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc —
should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on
words“ The two words together - Iran and
MAD - do not exist in the vocabulary of Newspeak.
Benny Gantz (R) and Moshe Ya'alon (L) at an event in Tel Aviv, January 29th, 2019.
In June 2016, at Ben-Gurion
University, Benny Gantz put the threat from Iran on 5th place in significance of the dangers threatening Israel, so
after the lecture I came up to him and asked him should we not be more
concerned about Iran since according
to Prof. Bernard Lewis “for people with this mindset, Mutually Assured Destruction
M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an
inducement... “ and
therefore Iran cannot be deterred, only preempted.
His answer – Israel
will defend itself if attacked.
I am afraid that would
be too late. It seems Benny Gantz does not take Bernard Lewis seriously
enough, if he understood whom I was quoting in the first place.
