Israel joins US for defence drill

Israel and the US are due to begin a two-week military defence exercise, thought to be the largest of its kind in Israel’s history.

The exercise will focus on providing a joint defence against a simulated co-ordinated missile attack on Israel. Up to 2,000 joint military personnel are believed to be taking part, along with at least 15 American ships. The Israeli army said the exercise was not a “response to any world events” but had been planned for a while. It is thought that a highly sophisticated new American radar, based in the Israeli desert, will be central to the exercise.

Two-fold significance

The simulation will involve elements such as barrage of missiles fired on Israel from all points south, east and north. The BBC’s Middle East correspondent Tim Franks said many observers inside Israel believed the exercise carried a two-fold significance. This included sending a message of deterrence to any would-be attackers of Israel – whether they were in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.

It was also possibly an attempt to reassure Israel’s people that the US took the country’s security seriously – especially at a time when the US has expressed increasing concern about Iran’s nuclear programme, although Tehran insists it is purely peaceful. Analysts say use the manoeuvres could also serve to make Israel feel more secure, and therefore encourage a return to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Last week, Turkey, one of the few Muslim countries with whom Israel has had good contacts, cancelled a joint air force exercise with Israel. Israel, Turkey and the US countries took part in a joint exercise in the Mediterranean Sea, off Haifa last year. Tim Franks said Turkish-Israeli relations have become strained this year, since Turkey heavily criticised Israel’s war in Gaza.

The exercise, which is entitled Juniper Cobra, is due to finish on 5 November.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8317919.stm

Behind Iran’s Diplomatic Snub of France

Authors: Bruce Crumley and Tony Karon

It should come as no surprise that Iran wants to shunt France out of a deal to enrich its nuclear fuel abroad. Dividing its enemies and isolating the more hawkish among them has been a hallmark of Tehran’s diplomacy, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy routinely plays the tough cop with Iran, threatening and goading its leaders and urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take a tougher line. On Tuesday, Iran struck back with a humiliating slap-down, insisting that France butt out of the deal because Tehran could not trust the nation to honor its commitments. Iranian diplomats even delayed the start of the day’s talks in Vienna on the agreement, insisting that it was unnecessary for the French to be in the room. Eventually the talks went ahead with French delegates present, but Iranian officials insisted that they would not accept France as a supplier. The New York Times reported that a face-saving compromise was being developed that would see Iran make a deal with Russia, which could separately subcontract work out to France.

More Related

“We do not need a lot of fuel, and we do not need the presence of many countries,” Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, stressing Tehran’s desire to work on the deal with the U.S. and Russia. “There is no need for France to be present,” he said, adding that Iran believes that France “is not a trustworthy party to provide fuel for Iran.”

Snubbing France while offering an agreement with the U.S. and Russia is vintage Iranian divide-and-conquer diplomacy — although this time there may be incentives for all sides to play the game. The Vienna talks are on the details of an agreement, announced at the Geneva talks on Oct. 1, under which Iran would ship much of its enriched-uranium stockpile abroad for reprocessing to fuel a medical research reactor in Tehran. Together with Iran’s agreement to submit its hitherto secret enrichment site at Qum to inspection, the deal offered an important opportunity to strengthen safeguards against Iran’s turning its growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium into bomb material. Iran also liked the deal, seeing it as tacit recognition of uranium-enrichment in Iran as an intractable fact — Tehran reiterated on Tuesday that it has no intention of halting uranium enrichment, as Western powers continue to demand, in line with U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The Vienna move may be read as Iran flexing its muscle with respect to a deal that the Obama Administration badly needs — international support for harsher sanctions remains limited as long as Iran is ready to offer some form of cooperation. But in doing so while isolating the most hard-line among the Western powers, Tehran may be offering concessions that it’s willing to give, while enjoying a personal poke at Sarkozy.

Since his election in May 2007, the French President has taken positions on Iran worthy of the most hawkish members of the Bush Administration. In July 2007, he warned that the world would have to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, or face a “catastrophic alternative: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” And that was just his warm-up.

Last month, while attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Sarkozy appeared to mock Obama’s more temperate and generalized remarks on nuclear proliferation. Nostrils flaring, Sarkozy responded to the U.S. President’s remarks by calling Iran’s nuclear program the leading threat to international security, which three years of U.N. efforts had not diminished. “What are we going to do about it?” Sarkozy petulantly asked his American counterpart.

And in contrast to Obama’s cautious comments on Iran’s disputed election last June, Sarkozy took a lead in denouncing the regime, declaring that “the people of Iran deserve better than their current leaders.” Little wonder, then, that when the opportunity arose, Iranian officials moved to throw France off the diplomatic bus.

“Dramatically effective though it may seem at times, Sarkozy’s aggressive behavior — indeed, his very personality — ensures certain things will inevitably come back to bite him,” notes John Kent, professor in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics. “He’s a bit like [former British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in the way he’ll stake out strong, antagonistic positions that over time undermine his credibility to calmly seek consensus solutions because the atmospheres he creates are more favorable to histrionics.”

Sarkozy’s trash-talking of Iran has in fact allowed Tehran to use him as a useful whipping boy, projecting toughness and defiance for a domestic audience, while at the same time keep lines of dialogue open with the U.S. And Tuesday’s diplomatic slap was more symbolic than substantial. After all, France remains a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which gives it a seat at the main nuclear talks with Iran. (Those talks began in Geneva on Oct. 1; the Vienna session was a technical meeting on the terms of a processing deal.) Iran isn’t refusing to negotiate with France in the room but simply declining to accept it as a supplier of processed uranium.

“Despite the [Iranian] demands, our experts continue to participate in talks as they always have,” a French diplomat told TIME on Tuesday. “Tomorrow may be another story — or it might not. Who can tell with Iran?”

The Vienna talks ended inconclusively, and a further session is reportedly scheduled. But they served as a reminder that the search for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear standoff will be protracted and perilous, and their outcome will probably be less than what the Western powers had hoped for. Even then, it may be the only game in town.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1931276,00.html

U.S.A., Russia and Iran

To read about progress achieved on agreement between the U.S.A. and Russia regarding tougher sanctions on Iran read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101300221.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

North Korea ‘may return to talks’

The six-party talks, which began in 2003, constitute delegates from North and South Korea, China, the US, Russia and Japan and their objective is to find peaceful resolution to security concerns on the Korean Peninsula. The talks started after North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the country walked-out of these negotiations in 2009 after introduction of the sanctions by the UNO.

To read about the possibility of resuming the talks see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8291882.stm.

New paradigms of deterrence in Asia

Kolkata, India — Asia is witnessing a new game of swords and shields, which is taking players to ocean depths as well as outer space. China and India have taken the lead in this, with Japan seriously contemplating deploying systems it has been developing. The focus is on anti-access strategies and nuclear deterrence.

The proliferation of anti-ballistic missile systems is making Asian countries rethink offensive paradigms. Almost all major regional and offshore players in Asia are now pursuing ballistic missile defense systems.

The United States is of course the leader in this game and has helped its chief allies, Japan and South Korea, mature in this area through technology partnerships. India has an active BMD program in collaboration with Israel and various missiles under this program have undergone successful tests in recent times.

Naturally, the appearance of ballistic missile shields along its periphery is a major cause of concern for China, since it degrades China’s key long-range offensive strike architecture in the form of legacy ballistic missile systems. Moreover, it gives Washington and its partners breathing space to counter Chinese adventurism. It also effectively diminishes the ability of Pakistan and North Korea to blackmail India and Japan respectively.

Understanding the need to rebalance the situation, China has now begun to develop a range of counters under its 863 Program, an advanced state technology development plan that focuses on new-generation land- and submarine-based cruise missiles, faster ballistic missiles with terminal guidance and multiple warheads, and space-based offensive systems.

Targeting is accomplished through the deployment of a homegrown satellite positioning system, synthetic aperture radar, electro-optical satellites and over-the-horizon radars. The systems could come in handy for targeting U.S. carrier groups at sea and defeating BMDs in a nuclear attack.

Pakistan too has developed its Babur cruise missile, which is a medium-range missile similar to China’s long-range CJ-10.

While there has been much commentary on China’s counter-space capabilities, it is likely that China is also looking at space to launch land attacks. It can be argued that its Shenlong Space Plane project may lead to an orbital bomber and its interest in formation-flying satellites and space stations could lead to the pre-positioning of nuclear warheads in space. Indeed, the concept could be similar to the former Soviet Union’s Polyus program of the late 1980s, devised as an asymmetric counter to former U.S. President Ronald Regan’s strategic defense initiative derided as the Star Wars program.

The development of swords and shields however cuts both ways. China is itself engaged in developing an antiballistic missile shield, banking on both Russian and indigenous systems.

It should be noted that China’s test of a direct ascent anti-satellite system in 2007 also indicated the ability to intercept re-entering warheads, since the technology for either effort is related. Obviously, this would be of concern to countries like India and Japan, who want to retain the option of punitive long-range strikes against China in the event of hostilities. India in particular would want to maintain a credible nuclear second-strike capability against China’s cities.

Although India has a no-first-use policy with regard to launching nuclear attacks, for a survivable nuclear deterrent it recently launched its first nuclear submarine, the INS Arihant, which is scheduled to be commissioned in 2012. When deployed, it will carry as its primary armaments 12 nuclear-capable K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with a range of just 700 kilometers.

But purists in India and elsewhere have dismissed the weapon’s load as too short ranged to achieve strategic objectives. However, a 3,500-kilometer SLBM for the Arihant and larger derivatives seems to be on the anvil as well. However, the deterrence value of the submarine with its initial armaments cannot be dismissed outright.

Several critical targets in China and elsewhere are right on the shoreline. Some analysts believe that ballistic missiles with long flight times will increasingly run the risk of detection and may not make it past a multi-layered BMD system.

Instead, relatively short-ranged maneuverable ballistic missiles that can be fired at depressed trajectories and yet fly at hypersonic speeds will prove difficult to intercept and also retain the stealth advantage if the submarine is quiet enough. Missiles of this class – sometimes termed quasi-ballistic, as they do not follow a purely ballistic trajectory, include the Russian Iskander, the U.S. Army’s tactical missile system, of which a naval version is proposed, the Chinese Dong-Feng 15 and India’s K-15 ballistic missiles.

Such weapons make even more sense from a cost benefit point of view when deployed on hybrid air-independent propulsion submarines such as the Russian B-90 Sarov. It remains to be seen whether India will move in this direction.

India also has hypersonic systems in development like the Brahmos 2 cruise missile and the Defense Research and Development Organization’s lead hypersonic technology demonstrator vehicle program. In years to come the former may form the cornerstone of India’s anti-access strategy at sea, and the latter could give it the ability to strike global targets at short notice.

Long-range firepower has emerged as a priority and these are a few relevant technologies being developed for “new deterrence.”

The quiet man of Asia – at least as far as military development is concerned – is also looking seriously at new offensive paradigms to keep China at bay. One would note that Japan has the world’s greatest “breakout” capability, which refers to Japan’s dormant weapon programs that can be activated fairly quickly if required.

Japan’s Technical Research and Development Institute continues active research into stealth technology for both manned and unmanned systems, which is an indication of the direction Japan may be headed.

It is conceivable that in the next decade Japan may begin to deploy extreme stealth and long-range cruise missiles on air-independent propulsion submarines that can strike hardened targets in China and North Korea. Indeed it can even go nuclear since the availability of fissile material is not an issue given its Monju fast breeder reactor.

Also, Japan is a pioneer in space exploration and can match the technological moves of China to possibly “weaponize” space.

The buildup in the areas of BMDs and precision-guided strategic munitions and the modernization of nuclear forces resemble the “new triad” being pursued by the United States.

It could be argued that India and China, Asia’s two largest nations, are developing weapon systems that mirror similar pursuits by the United States. This is not surprising, as their growing economies enable them to become more ambitious in developing their military programs. This suggests it is time now to look beyond the Outer Space Treaty and negotiate a new one, taking into account the reality of the new triad.

By Saurav Jha

From http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/07/new_paradigms_of_deterrence_in_asia/1912/

Iran parades new missile

Iran has displayed its first indigenously produced ballistic missiles in a publicized military parade outside the shrine of Imam Khomeini. The ballistic missile is the Sejil, and while not much is known about the missile it is believed it is a two stage solid fuel missile. It is also reported that they are being mass produced. The show opened Iran’s Week of Holy Defense which commemorates the sacrifices made by Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War.

Secretary Gates and General Cartwright Transcript

Here is the transcript of the last weeks press conference by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright. I’ll post the video when I find it.

Secretary Gates NYT Op-ed

Check out this New York Times Op-ed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Administration’s new plans for missile defense. It’s worth noting that Secretary Gates was the Secretary of Defense who signed off on the original plan to place Ground-Based Interceptors in Poland and sensors in the Czech Republic.

Also, for background on Secretary Gates read his biography here.

Turkey buying long-range missile defense

Turkey has announced it is planning to purchase its first long-range missile defense system. It is planning to spend around $1 billion on the new system. Turkey maintains the system is not aimed defending from any single country but the decision was announced a day after President Obama announced the American withdrawal from the Bush Administration’s plan to put missile interceptors in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said that “Turkey’s purchase of Patriot (missiles) has nothing to do with Iran or directly with any other country” and that “there should absolutely be no connection between Patriots and Iran.” Though, it should be mentioned that although he referred to the Patriot missile defense system the country has yet to formally announce their choice of system.

Putin on Obama’s plan for European missile defense

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin released a statement on the President’s decision to scrap the current agreements to place Ground-Based Interceptors in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. He said:

“I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow, including the complete removal of all restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and activity to widen the membership of the World Trade Organization to (include) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus,”