Blog

On the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran announced that it was now a nuclear state, capable of enriching higher levels of uranium. The rogue nation recently announced plans to build two more uranium enrichment sites, although it still claims the nuclear enrichment is for peaceful and scientific purposes.

Despite these developments, Iran stated in a document reportedly seen by news organizations that it’s ready to give up most of its stockpile of enriched uranium in a simultaneous exchange for fuel rods, and the exchange must take place on its territory. The U.N. has rejected this offer. Under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s terms, Iran would hand over the uranium and wait up to a year to receive fuel rods.

China and Russia both refuse to support further sanctions against Iran and claim to seek a diplomatic solution.

Meanwhile, Iran revealed plans to build 10 more nuclear enrichment plans, including the two previously mentioned. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed an energy embargo against Iran, with or without the U.N.’s approval.

How will the U.S. respond?

General David Petraeus said on “Meet the Press” that given our attempts to resolve differences with Iran diplomatically, the U.S. can “now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That’s the course on which we are embarked now.” He added that the administration will “send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have… about Iran’s activities in the nuclear program.”

Talking tough is one thing; following it up with action is another. What will this “pressure track” against Iran entail? The U.S. has already given Iran too wide a berth. While we’re trying to be diplomatic, Iran is enriching more uranium and building more nuclear sites.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano wrote at National Journal Online that we can speed up the process of freedom in Iran and contain nuclear proliferation by adopting “tough unilateral sanctions that hit the regime in the gut.” He added that the president needs to “spare no effort to shame Iran for its horrific human rights record, and…put the ‘third site’—the deployment of missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic–back on the table. Take out every avenue Tehran has to threaten the West.”

(Sources: Reuters and AFP)

 
In September, sources reported that the U.S. was interested in selling $7.8 billion worth of Patriot fire units, missiles, and other weapons to Turkey. The arms would help Turkey, which borders Iran, defend itself against missile threats. Today’s Global Post reports that Russia and China also seek to sell missile defense systems to Turkey.

Defense contractors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin will bid for the contract. If successful, the sale would be the “largest single Turkish purchase of military equipment to date.” However, Turkey’s military said it won’t pay over $1 billion for a missile defense system.

In light of the IAEA’s censure against Iran and Iran’s threat to build 10 more nuclear sites, the arms sale couldn’t be more timely. “It’s clearly not in Turkey’s interest to see a nuclear Iran; they don’t want to see a nuclear-armed competitor on their border,” said Ian Lesser, a senior transatlantic f’llow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “But they do fear that this can happen. And modernizing Turkey’s air defense system looks pretty important from that perspective.”

According to the source, Turkey denies its defense system sale is related to Iran. Why? Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, “We neither have a perception of threat from any of the neighboring countries, nor have any military- or security-related preparation against them.”

Whatever you say, Mr. Davutoglu. After all, Iran has claimed its nuclear ambitions are “peaceful” and “scientific.”

 
Several years ago, Iran admitted having a uranium enrichment plant. The U.S. and other countries suspected this plant wasn’t the only one. After some digging, the U.S. found evidence of construction of a second site.

Today, the United Nations’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) censured Iran for secretly building its second nuclear facility near Qom, an Islamic holy city. (Source) The IAEA monitors the first nuclear site. True to its roguish reputation, Iran said on Sunday it would build 10 more such facilities as a result of the censure. Russia, which refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran, backed the censure.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said his country will “confront the resolution legally.”

Iranian nuclear official Ali Akbar Salehi said, “We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site. But apparently the West doesn’t want to understand Iran’s peaceful message.” (Source) Iran is maintaining the “peaceful” and “scientific purposes” stance, yet the country threatens to build more nuclear facilities.

Although the former Soviet Union backed the censure, presumably out of concern, it will assist Iran in developing its first nuclear power station as planned. Mehmanparast said, “Our plan is still being pursued, we must be on our own and provide our fuel ourselves.”

Back in January, the Heritage Foundation’s Lisa Curtis and James Carafano wrote an article about directed-energy (laser) missile defense and cooperation between the U.S. and India in developing this technology. They noted the versatility of both low- and high-powered lasers, which can neutralize ballistic missile threats from a range of sources. In lieu of a full-scale retaliation, high-powered lasers can limit the scope of reprisals and contain the inevitable damage.

India’s back in the news. Defense News reports that India recently test-fired a nuclear-capable, medium-range missile, a surface-to-surface Agni-II with a warhead range of 1,560 miles. Additionally, India has the Agni-III, which has a range of about 1,864 miles.

India is developing weapons to protect itself from China and Pakistan. See the Office of Naval Intelligence’s report on China’s navy.

As China continues building its intercontinental ballistic missile program, a threat against U.S. surface fleets, and the country’s modernizing efforts have resulted in an “increasingly sophisticated and proficient naval force,” according to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence. Download the 51-page report (PDF), “A Chinese Navy with Modern Characteristics.”

An excerpt:

“In response to expanding national interests and revolutionary changes in warfare brought about by long-range precision weaponry, civilian leadership in Beijing began to view the navy as an increasingly critical component of China’s national security structure. To support Beijing’s objectives regarding Taiwan, to deny an adversary access to the region during times of crisis, and to protect China’s vital sea lines of communication, naval power became the key to China’s security concerns. In the late 1990s, Beijing embarked on a program to build a modern navy in a relatively short time.”

China’s improvements fall in three areas: Anti-Surface Warfare, Naval Air Defense, Force Projection.

Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute and member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about missile defense in Japan.

Kennedy cites what he sees as Japan’s lack of concern about strong missile defense. He quotes politician Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, who said missile defense was “almost totally useless…Only one or two out of 100 are ever effective.”

“Unfortunately,” writes Kennedy, “both the new Japanese and the U.S. administrations appear to share an ideological predisposition against missile defense.”

Kennedy briefly summarizes President Barack Obama’s views on missile defense. The administration has cut funding to missile defense and dropped plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama envisions a world of no nuclear weapons, whereas our enemies are more realistic. Kennedy notes that Japan sits between China and the U.S., and China intends to continue building its ballistic missile program. Does it make sense for Japan to move in the opposite direction?

“Today China possesses an arsenal of medium-, intermediate- and intercontinental ballistic missiles that could inflict destruction on the Japanese homeland,” Kennedy writes. “In addition, China possesses nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and is developing advanced stealth bombers to deliver them. Next year the Pentagon expects that Beijing’s JIN-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet to be operational. The missiles on these submarines could strike at Japan from a significant distance anywhere in the international waters of East Asia. Beijing also seeks space-based capabilities.”

At the present rate, China may one day overpower the entire continent, including Russia. Will the U.S. be able to protect Japan, considering that our president is lukewarm on missile defense? While both the U.S. and Japan cut spending, countries like China, North Korea, and Iran are putting resources into defense technology.

“[T]he Japanese must continue to build robust defenses. Otherwise it will not be possible to build a strategic relationship between the two over the longer term in which Japan is not merely the junior partner but a supplicant to Beijing.”

Read the full article here.

(Image source)

 
The U.S. has confirmed that North Korea “probably” conducted an underground nuclear test last month before it launched short-range missiles. After the U.N. Security Council issued a resolution to impose sanctions, North Korea said it would begin enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

President Barack Obama will order the Navy to inspect North Korean ships that might be carrying weapons. The rogue state has already threatened war if its ships are stopped for inspection.

The New York Times reports that these proposed inspections are “the most confrontational approach taken by the United States in dealing with North Korea in years” and likely would raise tension; however, North Korea is doing that all by itself with defiant nuclear tests and missile launches. The U.S. should focus on stopping North Korea in its tracks and not worry about “escalating tensions.”

The president will spend today with South Korean president Lee Myung-bak to discuss North Korea’s actions. The U.S. will also work with China, Japan, and Russia to keep North Korea in check.

 
The big news this post-Memorial Day weekend is North Korea’s continued defiance in the face of international criticism. On Monday, North Korea reportedly conducted a nuclear test and fired three short-range missiles, which countries like China and Russia condemned. On Tuesday, the rogue state reportedly test-fired two more short-range missiles, and there’s talk of more launches for tomorrow. (Source)

South Korea said it would join the U.S. in intercepting ships from countries like North Korea carrying weapons. The defiant country has already stated it would consider declaring war if its ships were intercepted.

Sanctions against North Korea obliviously are ineffective.

As expected, the U.N. Security Council condemned North Korea’s actions in an emergency meeting on Memorial Day. President Barack Obama said, “By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. North Korea’s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation.”

There’s no doubt the U.S. has the military might to do something about North Korea, but what, and more importantly, when? Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. has 30 ground-based missile interceptors in place to counteract missiles from North Korea. He also said the Obama administration planned to shift funds away from weapons and research for future conflicts and focus on weapons needed for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

>> National Review’s Kathryn Lopez posts on The Corner blog a letter from a group of bipartisan U.S. senators who oppose missile defense cuts. Senators Joe Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Sessions, and Jim Inhofe sent the letter to President Barack Obama. An excerpt:

“We write to urge you not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles.

“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today announced plans to cancel or reduce such major programs as the Airborne Laser, Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the installation of additional Ground-Based Interceptor missiles in Alaska, and cut the MDA’s budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by $1.4 billion. Although we applaud Secretary Gates’ commitment to such capabilities THAAD and SM-3, these proposals would amount to almost a fifteen percent cut in the MDA budget and a major reduction in our missile defense portfolio—actions that we fear could undermine our emerging missile defense capabilities to protect the United States against a growing threat.

“As you know, the threat from ballistic missiles is significant and on the rise.”

Read the rest at NRO.

>> Today Israel successfully test-fired its Arrow II interceptor missile, a system that will help the country defend against attacks from rogue states like Iran and Syria.

An unnamed source said, “The arrow’s interception altitude has been enhanced. Of course, the higher you go, the further out you can reach as well. Our doctrine is to intercept enemy missiles as far away from Israeli skies as possible. That gives you time for another try if you miss.” (Reuters)

>> According to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted before North Korea’s rocket launch, 57 percent of Americans said they support using military force to neutralize North Korea’s capability to launch missiles. Sixty-six percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats said they support military involvement if North Korea moved forward with its military test. (FOXNews.com)

>> Today the U.S. issued sanctions against six Iranian companies and a Chinese man named Li Fangwei, also known as Karl Lee, for allegedly supporting Iran’s rogue ballistic missile and nuclear programs. U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey said, “Today we are acting under our Security Council and other international obligations to prevent these entities from abusing the financial system to pursue centrifuge and missile technology for Iran.” (AFP)

(Photo credit: Boeing)

Heritage Analyst Bruce Klingner talks about how the United Nations should respond to the North Korea Missile Test on MSNBC. Klingner is the Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.

Watch the video here.