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 his recent Washington Examiner column, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano recounts the successful Airborne Laser (ABL) test that occurred earlier this month. Within two minutes of launching, the high-energy laser found its target and destroyed it.

“Not bad for a defensive weapon once ridiculed as science fiction,” Carafano writes. “Skeptics even persuaded the Obama administration to slot the airborne laser for the ninth circle of procurement hell — a pit for dead-end research and development programs. But this month’s dramatic success has put the critics on their heels…The Point Mugu exercise was what engineers call a ‘proof of principle’ test. They tested it. It is proven.”

Despite the ABL’s success, the Obama administration opted not to build a second test aircraft. Why? “It will argue laser missile defense makes no sense because the weapon’s range is limited to a few hundred kilometers. That would put the lumbering aircraft well within the range of air defense systems fielded by the likes of North Korea and Iran.”

But shorter-range Scud missiles, however, are threats that the ABL can counter. The former Soviet Union made these missiles, and today other countries make their own. Carafano notes that Iran’s Shahab-3 is an advanced Scud variant probably capable of traveling 1,000 kilometers and carrying a warhead.

“It couldn’t reach Washington from Tehran, but then, it wouldn’t have to. Iran could easily extend the missile’s reach simply by moving it to a commercial freighter and firing it from nearby using an improvised vertical launch tube disguised as cargo.”

Is this something worth worrying about? Please post a comment at the Washington Examiner.

On National Journal Online’s national security blog, the editor asked several experts what Obama should do next with Iran. On February 11, anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran announced that it was capable of making high-grade nuclear fuel and kept the so-called green movement in check by suppressing Internet services.

Iran’s intentions are clear. “What Should Obama Do Next On Iran?” The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano responds:

“All Obama has to do is-remember Neda. All Neda Agha-Soltan wanted was freedom for everyone. Neda was not alone. It seems like ancient history now, but many joined her in the street protests following the disputed Iranian presidential elections last June. When Neda took to the streets on June 20 she had lots of company. Thousands flooded the streets of Tehran, stranding her cramped Peugeot 206 in a snarl of traffic. Sweltering heat and an inoperative air-conditioner prompted her and two friends to abandon the car. They walked a short way to get a closer look.

“Neda Agha-Soltan was shot square in the chest. She bled out on the street. She did not die in obscurity.

“At least two bystanders captured the shooting on cell phone cameras. The video was uploaded to the Internet–and became the social networking shot heard round the world. Before the end of the day, exchanges on Twitter using the hashmark–#neda–became one of the top trending topics by the end of the day. By June 22, an Associated Press report based exclusively on Internet sources took the story global.

“Tehran in 2009 is not Tiananmen Square in 1989. It is unlikely that the powerful voice of opposition, for which Neda became a universal symbol, will ever be silenced. The Internet will make sure of that.

“The government’s response to the Green movement has only made it turn more oppressive and odious in the eyes of both Iranians and the outside world. Further, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has killed any prospects of accommodation with the West.

“In short, this is a government that cannot stand. While the opposition still lacks the unity to take down Ahmadinejad and company from within, it is only a matter of time. The regime in Iran is primed to be history’s first victim to the Twitter Revolution.

“Obama can help speed the process. First, the United States needs to adopt tough unilateral sanctions that hit the regime in the gut. Second, Obama needs to spare no effort to shame Iran for its horrific human rights record. Third, 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.”

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, will speak at the ICAS Winter Symposium in Washington, D.C., on February 12, 2010.

An expert on defense, intelligence, and homeland security, Carafano will address “Protecting America In The New Missile Age ” at the symposium.

Carafano is a West Point graduate, a 25-year Army veteran, and a national security affairs weekly columnist for the Washington Examiner. He’s also the author of Private Sector/Public Wars: Contracting in Combat-Iraq, Afghanistan and Future Conflicts (Praeger, 2008), a rigorous study of contractors’ role on the battlefield and their impact on military effectiveness and civil society.

The symposium will be held on Capitol Hill in the Rayburn Office Building, Room B-318, from 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes about Iran’s nuclear program in his latest Washington Examiner column. While Iran plans, Washington sleeps.

“Revelations in the last few weeks have been particularly troubling. The Times of London reported it had obtained an Iranian memo describing a four-year research program to produce a nuclear trigger for an atomic bomb. It is not yet clear the document is authentic. If it is, Washington has a big problem.

“It is also not clear when the memo was written. Some news reports peg the technical report at some time around 2007. That same year a National Intelligence Assessment, representing the collective wisdom of all the U.S. government intelligence agencies, declared Iran had stopped work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“If the 2007 date holds up, it would indicate another huge problem: The CIA failed to detect almost five years of Iranian weapons research.”

What accounts for the CIA’s neglect?

Carafano reminds readers that Iran recently test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and parts of Southern Europe. While Iran is testing weapons and openly defying the U.N, President Barack Obama is cutting missile defense and trying to charm rogue states into compliance.

“At this rate,” writes Carafano, “America might celebrate its next Christmas under the shadow of a nuclear Iran.”

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.

 
The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano wrote about Barack Obama’s broken missile defense promises in his recent Washington Examiner column.

By now, most Americans know the president does not support strong and comprehensive missile defense. He sung a different tune during the campaign, of course, but now that he’s in office, he’s revealed his true intentions. From reneging on deals to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic to proposing to cut $1.4 billion from the missile defense budget, it’s clear that he has other interests in mind.

Carafano says this about the proposed budget:

“The Pentagon budget the president sent to the Hill would have slashed production and deployment of U.S.-based missile interceptors by about a third. The cuts would have come from missile defenses that are already tested, proven and, for the most part, paid for. So much for the promise of “pragmatic and cost-effective” defenses.

“Case in point: The Obama budget included absolutely zero funds to replace ‘Missile Field One.’ This Alaskan missile field, now part of the missile defense shield, includes the first silos built to test the long-range interceptors.

“The silos were not built for long-term use. They now need to be replaced. But the Obama budget request zeroed out that funding … even though the budget still retained an already paid-for fleet of interceptors…Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish!”

Carafano says this about missile defense shields in Central Europe:

“The White House also started backpedaling from the previous administration’s commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland that would protect both our allies and our troops in Europe from the growing Iranian missile threat. The administration tried to justify the delay by saying it wanted to look at “pragmatic and cost-effective” alternatives.

“One alternative it says it wants to consider is a mobile, land-based system. Cool, huh? Except that such a system exists nowhere other than on some PowerPoint slides. So much for ‘pragmatic.’”

It seems Obama is trying to undo what George Bush put in place without a clear plan. In other words, he’s being contrary for the sake of being contrary, not practical. Carafano discusses other programs Obama proposes to cut, including the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. Read the full column.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes about electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks in his Washington Examiner column: “An EMP attack: Thinking the unthinkable.”

A nuclear weapon detonated high over the U.S. would produce something called the EMP effect, a blast of electromagnetic waves that would short-circuit electrical components such as power grids and circuits that allow you to start a car. Carafano further describes the effects:

“In addition to thermal, radiation, heat and concussive force, an atomic detonation throws off an incredible amount of electro-magnetic energy…Picture a massive tsunami, but with lightning instead of water. And, like the surge produced by lightning, electrical systems act like antennas sucking down a rush of electrons that fry circuits and burn out micro-chips.”

A nuclear weapon detonated 200 miles above the earth isn’t the scenario most people associate with such weapons. A deliberate EMP attack, says Carafano, would have a devastating impact on its target.

“Just keeping modern-day America fed would be virtually impossible without working transportation or communications systems,” he writes. “Water pumping and sewage treatment plants would be off-line. Modern medical care would be virtually non-existent. Even if the rest of the world mustered the largest humanitarian mission in human history, the suffering would be unprecedented.”

EMP attacks may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but they are not. Carafano warns that our Departments of Defense and Homeland Security must give the possibility of EMP attacks higher priority and plan for such a disaster. The Obama administration has proposed to cut the missile defense budget by 10 percent. This seems to indicates that an EMP disaster is not a high enough priority. History can and will repeat itself.

“The idea that someone would attack the U.S. with jet airliners once seemed unthinkable. An EMP attack may seem today just as remote. But it’s time to play it safe — and start figuring out how to deal with it.”

 
In May, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met to discuss problems in the region. The nuclear ambitious Iran is Israel’s enemy, and an armed Iran poses a serious danger to Israel. Obama told Netanyahu that he wanted to meet with the rogue state by the end of the year to talk about its nuclear program.

Sources are reporting that the president now wants to meet with Iran by September to discuss the matter and will consider tougher sanctions against Iran if it fails to comply. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on a tour of the Middle East this week. (Source)

Gates said, “What is clear is if the engagement process is not successful, the United States is prepared to press for significant additional sanctions that would be non-incremental” and added that “The president is certainly anticipating or hoping for some kind of a response this fall, perhaps by the time of the UN General Assembly (in September).”

From our perspective, Obama seems to be hedging, hoping Iran with comply with a September deadline on its own. Of course, it won’t. Aside from international condemnation, what consequences has Iran faced because of its defiance? Would the rogue state react the same way if George Bush were still in office?

Despite Iran’s nuclear program and the country’s clear intentions to continue developing nuclear capabilities, Obama wants to reduce missile defense spending by $1.4 billion. As the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano notes, ballistic missiles are the best weapons we have to stop enemy attacks that would have devastating consequences. But opponents of strong missile defense can’t see the forest for the trees. Iran and rogue cousin North Korea may not have the capability to cause untold damage now, but they will.

 
Writing at the National Review Institute, Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano sets the record straight on missile defense. Reuters published an anti-missile defense story that Carafano critiques. An excerpt:

“Reuters missile defense reporter Jim Wolf has struck again. This time his June 16 article ‘General ‘90-percent-plus’ sure on U.S. Missile Defense’ selectively quotes some experts and fails to identify others as long time anti-missile defense crusaders.

“Wolf’s article begins by noting that Vice Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright recently told Congress he believed the odds of defeating a long-range North Korean missile attack were ‘ninety percent plus.’ Wolf then immediately quotes Lisbeth Gronlund who he identifies as ‘an expert on missile defense at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.’ Gronlund dismissed Cartwright’s estimate as ‘irresponsible and based on wishful thinking’ not based on facts. What Wolf fails to report is that Gronlund has always been a consistent critic of missile defense and has not published an article on the subject since 2002. The current ground-based mid-course defense system has evolved significantly since then. Although Gronlund frequently participates in groups conducting analysis of missile defense, it is not clear what her current assessment is based on.”

Read the full article here.