An armada of US and British naval power is massing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s covert nuclear weapons programme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9545597/Armada-of-British-naval-power-massing-in-the-Gulf-as-Israel-prepares-an-Iran-strike.html

Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.

In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.

http://debka.com/article/22331/If-Israel-attacks-Iran-US-Mid-East-bases-will-pay-dear-–-Nasrallah



Cutting through the US-Israeli debate over where to put “red lines” for Iran, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that Iran would hit US bases in the Middle East in response to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, even if the Americans were not involved in the attack.

Earlier Monday, the New York Times reported on the debate in the White House over whether US President Barack Obama should declare “red lines” for Iran beyond which the US would act, in response to Israel’s complaint that he has been too vague about how far Iran will be allowed to go.

But even if Obama did set a clear red line now, the NYT admits its credibility would be questionable: “The US and its allies have allowed Iran to cross seven previous red lines in 18 years."
The statement by the top US soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, last Thursday that America did not “want to be complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran was interpreted by the prime movers as meaning that US-Israeli discussions in the last two weeks on where to put the "red lines" were at an impasse.

Defence sources say that although Iran’s capability may not be technologically sophisticated, it could deliver a series of lethal blows against British and US ships using mini-subs, fast attack boats, mines and shore-based anti-ship missile batteries.

Next month, Iran will stage massive military manoeuvres of its own, to show that it is prepared to defend its nuclear installations against the threat of aerial bombardment.

The exercise is being showcased as the biggest air defence war game in the Islamic Republic’s history, and will be its most visible response yet to the prospect of an Israeli military strike.
Using surface-to-air missiles, unmanned drones and state-of-the-art radar, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and air force will combine to test the defences of 3,600 sensitive locations throughout the country, including oil refineries and uranium enrichment facilities.

Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya air defence base, told a conference this month that the manoeuvres would “identify vulnerabilities, try out new tactics and practise old ones”.

Many within the Obama administration believe that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities before the US presidential elections, an act which would signal the failure of one of Washington’s key foreign policy objectives.

Both Downing Street and Washington hope that the show of force will demonstrate to Iran that Nato and the West will not allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, to develop a nuclear armoury or close Hormuz.
Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, reportedly met the Israeli prime minister and Ehud Barak, his defence secretary, two weeks ago in an attempt to avert military action against Iran.

But just last week Mr Netanyahu signalled that time for a negotiated settlement was running out when he said: “The world tells Israel 'Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?’
“Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/marc-faber-fed-policy-will-destroy-the-world.html


Faber on more Federal Reserve stimulus:

“It is difficult to tell what will happen. I happen to believe that eventually we will have a systemic crisis and everything will collapse. But the question is really between here and then. Will everything collapse with Dow Jones 20,000 or 50,000 or 10 million? Mr. Bernanke is a money printer and, believe me, if Mr. Romney wins the election the next Fed chairman will also be a money printer. And so it will go on. The Europeans will print money. The Chinese will print money.

Everybody will print money and the purchasing power of paper money will go down. And I don’t like bonds. I don’t particularly like equities, but I think equities are a better space to be in than bonds.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSBRE88E0EP20120915


(Reuters) - A senior Israeli official signaled on Saturday that there would be no unilateral attack on Iran in the coming weeks, saying that international pressure had kept Tehran's controversial nuclear program in check.

Speculation that Israel might attack Iranian atomic facilities alone, and soon, has soared given an unusually public dispute with the United States about how much time to allow for negotiations and sanctions to run their course before considering military action.

Amos Gilad, top aide to Defence Minister Ehud Barak, was asked in a television interview whether the Jewish high holidays, which begin on Sunday and end on October 9, would be "quiet in terms of any initiative taken by Israel".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19274866


Israel's outgoing home front defence minister says an attack on Iran would likely trigger a month-long conflict that would leave 500 Israelis dead.

Matan Vilnai told the Maariv newspaper that the fighting would be "on several fronts", with hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities.

Israel was prepared, he said, though strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had to be co-ordinated with the US.

Meanwhile, a US blogger has published what he says are Israel's attack plans.

Richard Silverstein told the BBC he had been given an internal briefing memo for Israel's eight-member security cabinet, which outlined what the Israeli military would do to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis


Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
The text of the purported Israeli cabinet memo is just that, text. There is no document as such and thus it is impossible to verify if it is indeed an Israeli cabinet paper of some kind. But its purpose for Richard Silverstein is clear. He believes it was passed by a serving officer to the politician and then leaked by him precisely to alert the outside world to the scale of Israel's military plan to strike at Iran and thus to reduce the chances of it ever happening.

An unprecedented public debate is under way in Israel on the wisdom of launching an attack against Iran. And this leaked document, whatever its source, and whatever its original purpose, has become an element in that debate.

The document itself is striking in both the scale and scope of the military operation that it proposes. It also employs a range of technologies, many of which we have known that the Israelis are developing, but this document suggests that they are battle-ready and fully operational.

'Leaked memo': propaganda or war plan?
Tehran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

'Israel prepared'
The purported leaked Israeli memo suggests that the military operation would begin with a massive cyber-attack against Iran's infrastructure, followed by a barrage of ballistic missiles launched at its nuclear facilities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2012/sep/04/israel-iran-nuclear

Consequently, Mike Rogers, the head of the US House intelligence committee returned from a visit to Israel with the conviction that Israel will not launch an attack before the US vote in November. According to The Hill online, the Republican congressman said the Israeli threat had lifted for now, "because I think they believe that maybe after the election they could talk the United States into cooperating".

Such cooperation would be more likely in the event of a Mitt Romney victory in November, and with the poor state of the US economy, that seems increasingly possible. Netanyahu would look particularly foolish if he led Israel into a conflict on its own, just weeks before a close US ally came to power in Washington. The former CIA chief and current Romney adviser, Michael Hayden, was in Israel yesterday echoing the Obama administration message that military action can wait.

Writing in Haaretz, the columnist Amos Harel, notes that Israel Hayom (£) , owned by the American casino magnate and one of Romney's biggest backers, Sheldon Adelson, and which is widely viewed as a Netanyahu mouthpiece, has considerably toned down its coverage of Iran's nuclear programme in recent days. Harel's reading is that Netanyahu and Barak have overplayed their hand in poker terms, and have realised they have damaged Israel's relationship with the US for little or no strategic gain.

And although IAEA reported that Iran has so far produced near 190 kg of 20%-enriched uranium, (theoretically enough for a warhead if it was further enriched) it has used 71 kg of that total for the production of reactor fuel plates, which are harder to turn into weapons-grade fuel.

This could be great news for Nigeria. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to utilize the oil windfall for constructive purposes, like building our reserves, empowering our banks, and fixing rail and power.

http://www.livemint.com/Money/5fYRuXO2rus6o4hZB7E4nJ/Brent-crude-rises-above-116-on-Fed-stimulus-action.html

BRENT CRUDE IS HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE QE3 done by the FEDERAL RESERVE which is essentially printing money and devaluing the DOLLAR and also supposedly spurring easier access to finance for industry thereby increasing demand for CRUDE.

GEJ IS GOING TO BE SO RICH BEYOND IMAGINATION I GUESS HE MIGHT START PLANNING HIS THIRD TERM, lol!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/benjamin-netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-containment_n_1887155.html

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke out against those who have suggested a policy of containment would work in the case of nuclear Iran.

"Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism," he told NBC's David Gregory, in an interview that will air on Sunday's Meet The Press. "You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?"

He denounced the notion that going to war with Iran would be worse than a nuclear Iran.

I mean I heard some people suggest, David, I actually read this in the American press. They said, "Well, you know, if you take action, that's a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons." Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East, stabilize the Middle East. I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.

I say let them vapourize d iranian nuclear plants if they can. Dat iran presido too get mouth

They are just looking for ways to end this world.. what is wrong with the US, Israel and Iran? are these countries silly or what exactly is wrong with them? 3 countries trying to turn more than 100 countries against each other?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-and-bluff-iran-israel-and-united-states

Using nuclear weapons against Israel would be catastrophic to Iran. The principle of mutual assured destruction, which stabilized the U.S.-Soviet balance in the Cold War, would govern Iran's use of nuclear weapons. If Iran struck Israel, the damage would be massive, forcing the Iranians to assume that the Israelis and their allies (specifically, the United States) would launch a massive counterattack on Iran, annihilating large parts of Iran's population.

It is here that we get to the heart of the issue. While from a rational perspective the Iranians would be fools to launch such an attack, the Israeli position is that the Iranians are not rational actors and that their religious fanaticism makes any attempt to predict their actions pointless. Thus, the Iranians might well accept the annihilation of their country in order to destroy Israel in a sort of megasuicide bombing. The Israelis point to the Iranians' rhetoric as evidence of their fanaticism. Yet, as we know, political rhetoric is not always politically predictive. In addition, rhetoric aside, Iran has pursued a cautious foreign policy, pursuing its ends with covert rather than overt means. It has rarely taken reckless action, engaging instead in reckless rhetoric.

This is just another conspiracy of wall street blood suckers on purpose to rise gas price. Somebody gonna pay $ 10/ gallon at gas stations before January 2013.

BigBenoski: I say let them vapourize d iranian nuclear plants if they can. Dat iran presido too get mouth

Shut up.

Unfortunately, I think the Iranians are successfully baiting the Israelis into committing an act of war which would justify an Iranian counterattack. Fighting Iran will be nothing like fighting the countries Israel fought before so I don't see why Netanyahu is so eager to attack them. I don't know how long he thinks Iran can be stopped from acquiring nuclear capabilities through threats, military force and intimidation, but I do know that force of arms - rather than diplomacy and economic incentives - is definitely not the way to go about this.

This proposed air strike against Iran's nuclear site is not going to happen for a number of reasons:
1)The Iranians have learnt lessons from the 1980s airstrike against Iraq's Orsika nuclear reactor. That's why the current facilities are spread out across Iran and heavily protected.
2)As much as Iran's eastern neighbors are weary of it, I seriously doubt they'll grant Isreal access to their airspace. They do that, and they automatically lose legitimacy in the eyes of their people.
3)The Iranians may not have the capabilities to fully block the narrow strait of Homuz. But they can definitely make it very expensive for the West's economy. All they need to do is mine the strait, and undermine Western interest in both Oil-rich Iraq and Afghanistan.
4)An airstrike will NOT end the program, but delay it abit longer. And there's the strong possibility of it finally pushing the Iranians to acquire nukes and the people to rally behind the current theocratic leadership.

ocelot2006: This proposed air strike against Iran's nuclear site is not going to happen for a number of reasons:
1)The Iranians have learnt lessons from the 1980s airstrike against Iraq's Orsika nuclear reactor. That's why the current facilities are spread out across Iran and heavily protected.
2)As much as Iran's eastern neighbors are weary of it, I seriously doubt they'll grant Isreal access to their airspace. They do that, and they automatically lose legitimacy in the eyes of their people.
3)The Iranians may not have the capabilities to fully block the narrow strait of Homuz. But they can definitely make it very expensive for the West's economy. All they need to do is mine the strait, and undermine Western interest in both Oil-rich Iraq and Afghanistan.
4)An airstrike will NOT end the program, but delay it abit longer. And there's the strong possibility of it finally pushing the Iranians to acquire nukes and the people to rally behind the current theocratic leadership.

Well said.

Netanyahu is just getting fidgety over the shift in the balance of power in the region and he wants to force the U.S. to take action, but there's not really any military offensive that should be taken. The pressure should remain diplomatic and economic.