Speculation is reportedly rife among Washington insiders over why, a couple of weeks ago, the Iranian authorities moved nearly all their stockpile of low-enriched uranium from its previous, deep-underground bunker to a very vulnerable-looking above-ground facility.
But here’s one possible explanation for the move that immediately occurred to me, and which was not among those listed in that article from Washington by the NYT’s David Sanger.
In moving the uranium to its new, very vulnerable position, perhaps the Iranian authorities are not so much “inviting” an Israeli attack, which is one of the possible explanations Sanger mentions (with the cynical goal that the attack might then strengthen the mullahs’ own political position inside Iran)… as calling out the political blackmail the Israelis and their supporters have been using worldwide, around the argument that “if the world’s governments don’t support much tighter sanctions on Iran, then it might be impossible to hold Israel back from attacking Iran’s nuclear stockpile.”
It seems entirely possible to me that, by trundling their stockpile up into its new position– which they did under the ever-present and watchful eyes of the IAEA inspectors who, lest we forget, have been monitoring Iran’s nuclear-tech programs from the get-go, unlike Israel’s– the Iranians may in effect be saying: “Okay, here it is. Go ahead, Israel!”
But with the aim, not as Sanger posits of quite cynically hoping that that attack take place, but of demonstrating to the world that when push comes to shove Israel does not actually dare do it.
Enlisting the aid of the relevant authorities is nearly always the best way to deal with blackmailers, in any realm of human activity. Iran undertook its move to greater physical “vulnerability” under the full protection of international legitimacy.
So does Israel dare attack now?
I very much doubt it.
And now, it can no longer so easily hide its decision not to attack behind “logistical” excuses such as “Well, it’s a very tricky thing to do, but we’re working very hard to find a way…” while its spokesmen and apologists worldwide also continuing saying, “but when we decide the time is right– which will be soon!– you’ll have to hold us back very hard and give us many additional benefits etc, plus step up those sanctions on Iran quite considerably, in order to prevent us from going ahead… ”
If this is indeed the thinking behind the Iranian move, then it looks very smart. It’s an excellent way to deflate all the rhetoric that’s been going around, internationally, to the effect that “If the Security Council members don’t adopt even more draconian sanctions against Iran, then no-one can predict what the Israelis might decide to do!”
… Your move, Israel.
9 thoughts on “Iran “calling” Israel’s nuclear-related blackmail?”
Comments are closed.
Iran also calls the US bluff:
news report, Sep 14, 2008
Despite reservations in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced.
The Pentagon’s announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) – a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground.
The $77 million shipment, which includes launchers and appurtenances, will allow the IAF to hit many more bunkers than currently possible.
news report, Oct 13, 2009
The Pentagon is speeding up the deployment of an enormous bomb designed to destroy hidden weapons bunkers buried deep underground, one that would be the largest non-nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal.
The 13.6-tonne massive ordnance penetrator (MOP) carries about 2,400 kilograms of explosives and is so heavy only one can be carried aboard a B-2 Stealth bomber.
Your move, USA.
It’s also a smart move militarily, I think. Consider that it allows Iran to concentrate its fire defending one specific point. If they can manage to down one or two Israel jets, that alone would punch a big hole in Israel’s image of invulnerability. And too, it’s possible that they have already acquired an s-300 via the backdoor. If so, they’d surely want to concentrate their fire and try to maximize its potential affect.
So not only are they calling Israel’s bluff, but they are also trying to make the most out of the least. Every move they make is designed this way. The Qom site, for example, is clearly about one thing and one thing only – demonstrating resolve. It’s not a functional facility and won’t be for a long time, but it’s a way of saying ‘bomb us if you must, but our program WILL continue’.
In a sense, this move really does put the pressure on Israel. What Israel has to achieve not to appear to have failed is looming larger and larger. As Hamas demonstrated in Gaza, just surviving is winning when your opponent is unimaginably powerful compared to you. All Iran really has to do is survive Israel’s attack. If they can actually count some coup, so to speak, as well, that becomes a big win.
But the bottom line is that no one wins in war, and the fact that the media and political establishment have succeeded in hyping us into war once again is the truly horrifying reality we face.
Well come back Helena, I have missed your blog !
Concerning the Iranian move of concentrating all the uranium in an easy accessed point : may be that they thought that if it was easy to target it would also be much easier to create a wide nuclear catastrophe, which would in itself prevent an attack ? anyone has enough information on how the destruction of their uranium stockpile would look in terms of nuclear catastrophe ?
If the Israelians can’t destroy the Iranian uranium stock without creating a major nuclear catastrophe including for them, then that would be the Iranians’ best defense move. And if the Israelians can/dare destroy it because it won’t do much harm, then they have proved that the Iranians weren’t dangerous at all. A clever move indeed.
Concerning Iran, what we are hearing nowadays is so similar to what we have heard in the year preceeding the Iraq invasion by the US and Britts, that I fear the same scenario has already started. At the time, US and UK had to take in account the clear opposition of both France and Germany, but nowadays with Sarkozy, he is alas the first to follow the US. The situation is not so clear with Angela Merkel, but I fear that she will have to follow suite : for one the US has already managed to enroll them in their first aggression war in Afghanistan since WWII, so the legal aspects preventing them to undertake wars save for the defense of Germany is already cleared and for second, they bear this awfull guilt mark concerning Jewish people. Happily, the EU opinion is clearly against war : it is already against the Afghanistan war and want the troops back, see the recent fall of the rightwing government in Netherland. So the best hope is that the main EU governments will be hold back by their opinion, provided it is not manipulated by lying propaganda campaigns.
I find it properly scandalous that Obama, a democrate choose to continue that aggressive foreign policy option. The US agenda now seems clear : they want to be the master of the world, they can’t support the idea of a multipolarized world; they burn energy like mad and after the conquest of Irak, they are now on to the next move, conquering Iran. The reason is always oil : the Iranians are happy to sell it to the Chinese; preventing the Chinese their access to energy ressouces may slow their emergence as the next big economic power and eliminate the main contester of the US superpower.
Also, where did they put their brains to the Americans and Israelians : what nuclear catastrophe would follow the destruction of uranium ? Tchernobyl brought radioactivity well inside EU, particularly in Italy and South of the Alps, causing an increase in cancer there. Do they think the Israelians would get out immune of a nuclear catastrophe in Iran ? What about the US troops still parked in Iraq ?
The Iranians are mooning the west, for those that may not know, mooning is the expression that describes a person pulling down their pants and exaggeratedly showing their naked behind in provocation. Can be a disgruntled athlete showing displeasure to a crowd, or even a challenging gesture when done in traffic (I have been mooned twice in the US).
As for Helena’s defiant “Israel Next move..”, the smart and mature response to mooning is always to ignore the mooner. So far the West including Israel are ignoring them.
Only Helena gets all excited about the land of the burka suddenly exposing their ugly rear.
Hope she gets the metaphor and doesn’t delete my post or worse yet decide to moon me.
“the land of the burka”
How easily ignorance is exposed – Please see map to see where burkas end and chadors begin.
Burka, Avaya, Chador, same thing.
Since 9/11 we all know more about Islam than we ever wanted or needed to know. And it ain’t pretty. Islam needs a burka to cover itself, head to toe, the Saudi version whatever you call it.
You seem to report with actual joy in the act of Iran baiting Isreal to attack Iran, as you describe it….calling their bluff.
Very irresponsible on your part if this is your intention and you are not alone in letting a possible anti-Isreal position blind you to the dangers…… the problem is that this is a game of blind mans bluff….and the blind do not see
How do we know that there is actual uranium from the above ground facilities in Iran? Did anyone on this forum actually get a sample of uranium from this facility? Likely, the uranium is still hidden, but possibly a large amount of styrofoam pellets are in a warehouse,designed as a PR measure
According to Reuters the reasons are far more prosaic:
Diplomats there discounted the notion of political reasons for Iran having moved much of its LEU stockpile above ground.
“A more likely reason was that Iran needed a large container to provide a steady feed with sufficient pressure for 20 percent enrichment,” said one senior diplomat close to the IAEA.
“In any case, this container can be moved back and forth between the pilot and main Natanz facilities in a half hour.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6203MR20100301