The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[ngatimozart]

In support of my previous argument that a campaign against Iran, focused on its nuclear program, does not necessarily revolve around the much hyped airstrike.

‘Accident’ hits Iran’s Natanz nuclear site, day after advanced centrifuges start

State TV provides few details about electrical problem; on Saturday, Rouhani inaugurated cascades of IR-6s and IR-5s at same plant, in open breach of nuclear deal

www.timesofisrael.com

I will not comment whether this incident is related to Israel or not, nor do I have any information on the incident. But it does show there are many different vulnerabilities to exploit in the program's complex structure.

Yes it's funny how electrical problems can occur out of the blue. Can't understand why meself.

It actually could be a genuine fault. Those things have been known to happen and people have been known to shift blame elsewhere for different reasons. Then again it may not be that and those nefarious spooks have been playing games. However I think that the simplest answer is usually the best. Is this where Occam's razor is introduced to Schrodinger's cat?

 

[SolarWind]

Yes it's funny how electrical problems can occur out of the blue. Can't understand why meself.

It actually could be a genuine fault. Those things have been known to happen and people have been known to shift blame elsewhere for different reasons. Then again it may not be that and those nefarious spooks have been playing games. However I think that the simplest answer is usually the best. Is this where Occam's razor is introduced to Schrodinger's cat?

It looks like the Schroedinger's cat strikes back against the Occam's razor, that is at least until and if it disappears again.
Israel's Mossad is now credited with the cyber-attack that caused the electrical outage at the nuclear site in Iran, at least according to Israeli KAN radio with references to anonymous sources in Israeli intelligence.

Израиль устроил кибератаку на ядерный объект Ирана

Израиль в лице разведывательной службы «Моссад» устроил кибератаку на ядерный объект Ирана. Об этом рассказали на израильском радио. Речь идет об инциденте на электростанции, обслуживающей ядерный объект в городе Натанз (Иран). В Иране инцидент назвали «актом ядерного терроризма».

lenta.ru

 

[Big_Zucchini]

According to ToI, and I'll always prefer written reports than radio, those are unnamed western sources.

Mossad said behind power cut at Iran nuclear site; Iran calls it ‘terror attack’

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

This incident, and many similar ones before it, address some misconceptions that are all too common:

1. Israel overly relies on the US and doesn't act on its core interests - This very incident, which is deemed extensive in its damage (source in the linked article), is proof of the contrary. The previous attack, which was deemed less harsh than this one by Iran, was said to delay the nuclear program by up to 2 years.
2. Israel's policy counters American policy - The US may distance itself from such incidents during this sensitive time, but the cooperation is extraordinary even in such operations.
3. The Israeli strike is a bluff - Was never the main method of attack of Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

My impression, from ToI's report is that there's an American, or some other whistleblower.
Iran and Israel kept the war on low profile to avoid escalation, but every such revelation embarasses Iran and forces it to retaliate, as was with the ships.
This is a dangerous thing. If whistleblowers keep pushing Iran to a corner like this, the conflict will only become more dangerous and deadlier.
What many forget is that the number one country most endangered by Iran is Israel, so it's the biggest loser in the west in case of a big war with Iran - and it tries to avoid that - by keeping it low profile.

 

[ngatimozart]

According to ToI, and I'll always prefer written reports than radio, those are unnamed western sources.

Mossad said behind power cut at Iran nuclear site; Iran calls it ‘terror attack’

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

This incident, and many similar ones before it, address some misconceptions that are all too common:

1. Israel overly relies on the US and doesn't act on its core interests - This very incident, which is deemed extensive in its damage (source in the linked article), is proof of the contrary. The previous attack, which was deemed less harsh than this one by Iran, was said to delay the nuclear program by up to 2 years.
2. Israel's policy counters American policy - The US may distance itself from such incidents during this sensitive time, but the cooperation is extraordinary even in such operations.
3. The Israeli strike is a bluff - Was never the main method of attack of Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

My impression, from ToI's report is that there's an American, or some other whistleblower.
Iran and Israel kept the war on low profile to avoid escalation, but every such revelation embarasses Iran and forces it to retaliate, as was with the ships.
This is a dangerous thing. If whistleblowers can pushing Iran to a corner like this, the conflict will only become more dangerous and deadlier.
What many forget is that the number one country most endangered by Iran is Israel, so it's the biggest loser in the west in case of a big war with Iran - and it tries to avoid that - by keeping it low profile.

I think that the term whistleblowers is somewhat misleading. Whoever is leaking is a traitor because they are leaking highly classified information and that comes under a multitude of sins. If they are leaking that, what else are they handing over to the highest bidder?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Another report now says the entire electrical grid has been damaged, as well as all the new centrifuges that were simultaneously activated.
Replacement of the grid will set Iranian nuclear production back by a further 9 months.

Natanz incident said to cause huge damage, set back Iran’s program by 9 months

Israeli and US intelligence officials reportedly confirm Mossad involvement in apparent cyberattack on uranium enrichment facility, which Tehran calls an act of 'nuclear terrorism'

www.timesofisrael.com

One thing I forgot to add in my previous comment:
It is known Israel shows opposition to the current talks between Biden and Iran. However it is not the talks per se, but rather the approach Biden took to start the talks, which is believed to be similar to Obama's approach.
The nuclear threat is, after all, a threat. But the conventional threat to Israel is substantial.
Obama sought to alleviate the nuclear threat, temporarily, and give Israel more time to sabotage it, whilst aggravating the conventional threat. And when we're talking about almost 6,000 rockets/missiles per day on Israel for 2 months, and 3,000 dead Israelis on the first day of war, then let's just say we can't really prioritize the nukes over the conventional.

HOWEVER, despite the technological prowess of Israel, not every operation is some mega technological project that is presented on some huge nice looking UI in Mossad HQ, with a big red button on it.
A sizable chunk of operations rely on the adversary to activate the kill switch on their own, and no such switch exists on Israel's side, and of course every such operation takes many years to complete.

Again, I'm personally not familiar with this operation, but the incident occurring exactly when new centrifuges were connected, heavily implies Israel did not have the kill switch, and Iran activated it unknowingly.

This all goes to show that it may be easy to think this operation was in reaction to the US-Iran talks, but there's at least a 99% chance, IMO, that it would have occurred regardless of political developments.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

An Iranian official has said 'thousands of centrifuges were destroyed or damaged', and Israeli Channel 13 specifies a number - 6,000.
Another specified number is 1,000 centrifuges currently exist in Fordo (untouched by this operation), but are of the older generation (IR-1 I think).

Senior Iran official confirms ‘thousands of centrifuges damaged and destroyed’

Admission of scale of damage at Natanz casts doubts on Tehran's ability to ramp up uranium enrichment to 60%, as threatened; Israeli report says whole plant still out of commission

www.timesofisrael.com

Iran has recently unveiled the IR-9 centrifuge, which can enrich uranium 50 times faster than the IR-1. It isn't clear yet if the numerical designation of the centrifuge correlates to its generation or capabilities. IR-8 are still under development, and IR-6 and IR-5 were deployed at the time of announcement.

On its ‘National Nuclear Technology Day,’ Iran starts up advanced centrifuges

In open breach of nuclear deal, Rouhani inaugurates cascades of IR-6s and IR-5s at Natanz uranium enrichment plant, warns the West will be 'big loser' if sanctions aren't lifted

www.timesofisrael.com

There are still conflicting reports about how the attack occurred. Some say it was cyber, some say it was an explosion.
For a fact, physical damage was done to the site, as an Iranian official has fallen into a shaft concealed by metallic rubble.

The key effector was said to be a power outage of both the main systems and backups, so the blackout is to remain for quite some time.
By shutting down power when the centrifuges were spinning at max speed, they have started to gradually slow down on their own, which is destructive for them.
Due to the very high spinning rate of centrifuges (someone gave a 90,000 RPM but forgot for which model), they can go through many resonance bands between that speed and an absolute 0, so their acceleration and de-celeration must be delicately controlled.
By removing control, they would destroy themselves with their aggressive spinning.

Iran also said they'll enrich to 60%, but there is doubt over whether they're actually capable of that, now that Natanz, their enrichment facility, is out of operation until at least early 2022.

 

[ngatimozart]

So what's stopping them completely isolating the Natanz complex from the outside world electronically and electrical energy wise?

 

[2007yellow430]

So what's stopping them completely isolating the Natanz complex from the outside world electronically and electrical energy wise?

My thoughts exactly. What has been done in this act of terrorism has had the effect of isolating Iran from international controls. If so, it’s counter productive to the USA’s goals. If it’s proven Israel did this, there ought to be consequences.

Art

 

[SolarWind]

My thoughts exactly. What has been done in this act of terrorism has had the effect of isolating Iran from international controls. If so, it’s counter productive to the USA’s goals. If it’s proven Israel did this, there ought to be consequences.

Art

If you read up earlier messages in this thread, apparently USA intelligence knew this all along, if that is indeed the case, and the information was leaked on US side. The leaking of this information would have definitely been counterproductive to goals. Now in view of this possibility, what consequences ought there be in your opinion?

 

[2007yellow430]

If you read up earlier messages in this thread, apparently USA intelligence knew this all along, if that is indeed the case, and the information was leaked on US side. The leaking of this information would have definitely been counterproductive to goals. Now in view of this possibility, what consequences ought there be in your opinion?

i leave that up to the current administration. As a citizen who has relatives living in Israel, I think those consequences need to be sufficient to remind them of who’s support they need. We have our agenda. Anyone interfering with that needs to be reminded of our agenda.

Art

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So what's stopping them completely isolating the Natanz complex from the outside world electronically and electrical energy wise?

Who said they haven't already, many years ago?
Iran's nuclear facilities, like every site that is bigger than a few containers, needs to constantly be renewed with new equipment.
Weaknesses are exploited in new equipment, or when construction is made, or with men on the ground.

My thoughts exactly. What has been done in this act of terrorism has had the effect of isolating Iran from international controls. If so, it’s counter productive to the USA’s goals. If it’s proven Israel did this, there ought to be consequences.

Art

You know what they say. One man's surgical and non lethal sabotage of nuclear weapons development for a theocratic regime that has pledged to annihilate entire nations, is another man's terrorism.

The US often does things that counter Israel's goals. What keeps this relationship so strong is that interests converge far more than they diverge, and the divergense is usually in methods rather than goals.

I honestly have no idea why you're so hostile to Israelis to the point of calling them terrorists, which is odd to say the least considering your relatives.
But you do need to understand the BILATERAL nature of the relationship. None's goals and interests are above the other's.
If there should be consequences to Israel going counter to American methods, there should be consequences for the US going counter to Israeli methods.
But it's not an easy case to make that this was against American interests as it is known the Americans were informed of the operation in advance.

And again, America is not the center of the world. None owes it anything.

@Big_Zucchini Calm the farm sunshine. Art did not call you or your nation terrorists. There is no call for such an accusation. You need to chill out and relax instead of being so hypersensitive. Israel has gone against American interests more than once including attacking a US warship killing USN sailors. It's been caught out committing espionage against the US, and it's actively participated in US politics. The US also has its own national policy objectives that it pursues that are different too and maybe opposed to Israels. But that's their right as Israel has the same right.

Just for your info, Israel owes the US a lot, a helluva lot, and it would pay Israel and you to remember that. What happens to Israel if the US withdraws the protection of its veto in the UNSC? You would be facing a lot of sanctions. Then there are the hundreds of billions in military aid that the US has granted you. Would the IDF be in such a strong state today without that aid? I doubt it. So think about it.

Ngatimozart

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Calm the farm sunshine. Art did not call you or your nation terrorists. There is no call for such an accusation.

Then how do I interpret this?

What has been done in this act of terrorism

Act of terrorism.

Israel has gone against American interests more than once including attacking a US warship killing USN sailors.

I know you're morally opposed to Israel, but the Liberty incident is a subject dear to antisemites and conspiracy theorists. I am not accusing you of being such, I am informing you that this subject should be far more carefully approached.

It's been caught out committing espionage against the US, and it's actively participated in US politics

Both are things the US has committed against Israel.
Examples to refer to are the hacking of IAF UAV feeds from a station in Cyprus, and the funding of political campaigns via V15.

Just for your info, Israel owes the US a lot, a helluva lot, and it would pay Israel and you to remember that.

That's superpower vs regional power dynamics for you. On the surface, for the public, it may seem as such, but in the conduct of relations on the daily level, it certainly doesn't seem like a "you owe me" dynamics. How do I know? I heard many accounts from people in the foreign relations office (not the classified stuff of course).

What happens to Israel if the US withdraws the protection of its veto in the UNSC?

A diplomatic fallout, sure. The mighty UN influencing the minds of the socialist youth, would have an impact. But sanctions? Not really.
Israel is already facing sanctions from states with whom relations are hostile, primarily Arab states and some muslim majority ones. But even that is slowly reversing with a wave of normalizations, and of course other than them none has an interest in imposing sanctions on Israel.
Israel has good trade relations with much of the world, and its economy is very diverse - even global powers like Russia and China would not want to impose sanctions on it.
Anyone who does want to impose sanctions, has already done it independently.

Then there are the hundreds of billions in military aid that the US has granted you. Would the IDF be in such a strong state today without that aid? I doubt it. So think about it.

I also doubt it, but then, it probably wouldn't be far from where it is today not in terms of equipment but the relative level versus its enemies.
The aid is not there to make the IDF stronger. It's there to offset other measures the US has taken that have significantly eroded Israel's ability to defend itself - not something allies should do.
Israel has good enough relations with Russia to sell it SOME types of weapons, but it doesn't do it because it prefers to maintain its affiliation with the western nations.

The US granted Egypt, a much larger economy than Israel and rich in natural gas and oil, military aid also in the tens of billions of dollars (including economical aid), and access to modern American weaponry. Other Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Iraq etc, have also been granted access to American weapons. Iraq is still a hostile entity to Israel and some clashes have occurred in recent years, while Jordanian citizens frequently protest and riot against the peace treaty because they don't see how much it gives them.
The whole region is very volatile, and those that were once friends can become enemies. Within Israeli inner circles Egypt is still seen as a threat waiting for an opportunity.

So, again, the aid is an offset to compensate for strengthening Israel's enemies and lowering its relative power.

Israel has been sponsored by the US for a lengthy period of time, but not always. At times it was a nuisance to Israeli security, when Israel was sponsored by the UK or France.
Had Israel lost the US as a sponsor, there would still be other nations willing to take the US's place in return for Israel actively pursuing their interests.

 

[STURM]

So what's stopping them completely isolating the Natanz complex from the outside world electronically and electrical energy wise?

The question I have is what will the response of Israel and countries like Saudi Arabia be an agreement is eventually between the U.S and Iran; a deal which Israel and Saudi will still oppose on the grounds that it doesn’t (supposedly) do away with Iran’s capability to eventually have a bomb?

Nuclear chutzpah in the Middle East

Israel’s temerity, Iran’s bellicosity and America’s ambiguity could plunge the region in turmoil.

www.aljazeera.com

“Already, Iran has bombastically declared its intention to begin enriching uranium up to 60 percent from its current 20 percent level, getting it ever closer to a weapons-grade level. It has argued that it needs such high-grade fuel to power nuclear ships, but it has no such vessels in its navy.”

“This is sure to elicit another Israeli attack. The situation is on the brink of spiralling out of control, leading to serious regional turmoil and leaving American diplomacy in tatters”

“Yes, Israel does have legitimate security concerns, too. But those can only be resolved not by waging more wars, making more enemies, and subjugating more nations to its whims, but by ending its military occupation of Palestine and its illegal expansion into Palestinian and Arab lands.”

“How many wars must America wage in the Middle East for Israel to feel safe? How many wars must Israelis fight for Netanyahu to stay in power? How many Arab states must be destabilised for Iran to regain its pride? How many people must die, before it is enough?”

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The question I have is what will the response of Israel and countries like Saudi Arabia be an agreement is eventually between the U.S and Iran; a deal which Israel and Saudi will still oppose on the grounds that it doesn’t (supposedly) do away with Iran’s capability to eventually have a bomb?

I don't think you understand the opposition of Israel and the gulf states (not only Saudi Arabia) to the nuclear agreements. It's not that it isn't effective against the nuclear program. It's that it involves lifting of sanctions, which in turn significantly boosts Iranian economy, which again in turn allows Iran to also significantly boost its war efforts against Israel and the gulf states.
Basically, they want the deal to happen WITHOUT lifting sanctions, or some form of offset that contributes sufficiently to the fight against Iran's proxies.

The influx of money is also contributing to R&D which shortens the breakout time to the bomb, and also there was the issue of significant breaches of the deal while it was still active.
But the main argument is the deal's contribution to the conventional threat.
The deal, after all, doesn't eliminate the bomb. It delays it.
In the eyes of Israel and gulf states, vastly improving Iran's conventional capabilities and vaguely slowing down its nuclear activities, is just not worth it.

For Israel that's an existential matter, so upsetting the US is a secondary consideration.


I will not answer the rest of the comment because it's quoted from Al Jazeera, which is not an actual news site, rather a mouthpiece of Qatar and its proxies, primarily Hamas.
That would be nearly on the same level as quoting VeteransToday.

 

[ngatimozart]

Then how do I interpret this?


Act of terrorism.



I know you're morally opposed to Israel, but the Liberty incident is a subject dear to antisemites and conspiracy theorists. I am not accusing you of being such, I am informing you that this subject should be far more carefully approached.



Both are things the US has committed against Israel.
Examples to refer to are the hacking of IAF UAV feeds from a station in Cyprus, and the funding of political campaigns via V15.



That's superpower vs regional power dynamics for you. On the surface, for the public, it may seem as such, but in the conduct of relations on the daily level, it certainly doesn't seem like a "you owe me" dynamics. How do I know? I heard many accounts from people in the foreign relations office (not the classified stuff of course).



A diplomatic fallout, sure. The mighty UN influencing the minds of the socialist youth, would have an impact. But sanctions? Not really.
Israel is already facing sanctions from states with whom relations are hostile, primarily Arab states and some muslim majority ones. But even that is slowly reversing with a wave of normalizations, and of course other than them none has an interest in imposing sanctions on Israel.
Israel has good trade relations with much of the world, and its economy is very diverse - even global powers like Russia and China would not want to impose sanctions on it.
Anyone who does want to impose sanctions, has already done it independently.



I also doubt it, but then, it probably wouldn't be far from where it is today not in terms of equipment but the relative level versus its enemies.
The aid is not there to make the IDF stronger. It's there to offset other measures the US has taken that have significantly eroded Israel's ability to defend itself - not something allies should do.
Israel has good enough relations with Russia to sell it SOME types of weapons, but it doesn't do it because it prefers to maintain its affiliation with the western nations.

The US granted Egypt, a much larger economy than Israel and rich in natural gas and oil, military aid also in the tens of billions of dollars (including economical aid), and access to modern American weaponry. Other Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Iraq etc, have also been granted access to American weapons. Iraq is still a hostile entity to Israel and some clashes have occurred in recent years, while Jordanian citizens frequently protest and riot against the peace treaty because they don't see how much it gives them.
The whole region is very volatile, and those that were once friends can become enemies. Within Israeli inner circles Egypt is still seen as a threat waiting for an opportunity.

So, again, the aid is an offset to compensate for strengthening Israel's enemies and lowering its relative power.

Israel has been sponsored by the US for a lengthy period of time, but not always. At times it was a nuisance to Israeli security, when Israel was sponsored by the UK or France.
Had Israel lost the US as a sponsor, there would still be other nations willing to take the US's place in return for Israel actively pursuing their interests.

DON'T PICK A FIGHT WITH A MODERATOR BECAUSE YOU WILL LOOSE. BACK DOWN ON THE ARROGANCE. THAT'S ANNOYING A LOT OF PEOPLE.

FYI.
1. CALM THE FARM MEANS CALM DOWN.
2. I AM NOT MORALLY OPPOSED TO ISRAEL. I JUST DON'T LIKE ITS CURRENT POLICIES
3. DON'T PLAY THE ANTISEMITIC CARD WHEN PEOPLE BRING UP ISRAELI ACTIONS THAT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO OTHERS. THAT IS A BULLSHIT PLOY. YOU KNOW IT AND WE ALL KNOW IT.

 

[OPSSG]

@2007yellow430 and @Big_Zucchini, if this request to change the mode of engagement does not see immediate results, warning points will be issued; and thread closed.

What has been done in this act of terrorism has had the effect of isolating Iran from international controls. If so, it’s counter productive to the USA’s goals. If it’s proven Israel did this, there ought to be consequences.

Both of you, please reconsider your mode of engagement with others in the forum.

One man's surgical and non lethal sabotage of nuclear weapons development for a theocratic regime that has pledged to annihilate entire nations, is another man's terrorism.

While I have sympathy for those that are living in a country that is facing almost constant attacks by terrorist groups on its civilian population, it does not mean the Moderators will allow this sort of political spin on extra—judicial matters, as a relativistic disputed opinion, to continue.

Not a fan of mudslinging. I prefer to learn from others and to share what I have learnt.

While I am aware that lawfare is used to destroy the credibility of certain state institutions, you need to be aware that people in other neutral countries, often have limited sympathy for a belligerent party. They have a right to express their point of view, just as you have a right of reply to explain your point of view. See this example of a disputed interpretation and it’s follow-on reply (on how to handle a difficult topic like terrorism with dignity and mutual respect).

 

[STURM]

I don't think you understand the opposition of Israel and the gulf states (not only Saudi Arabia) to the nuclear agreements..

You’re mistaken .... I do understand that it’s not only Israel (of course) and Saudi but also other Arab states which are united in not wanting to see a nuclear Iran. I merely asked what the response would be in the part of Israel and certain Arab states if the U.S. reached some kind of agreement with Iran - an agreement beneficial of the U.S. and Iran but not to Israel and Gulf Arab states.

I will not answer the rest of the comment because it's quoted from Al Jazeera, which is not an actual news site, rather a mouthpiece of Qatar and its proxies, primarily Hamas That would be nearly on the same level as quoting VeteransToday.

No disrespect but I wasn’t expecting an “answer” from you. I posted the link because it contained various interesting and pertinent points.

You are entitled to your opinions.
My opinion is that the writer was equally critical of all sides and that the article wasn’t a one sided propaganda piece in line with someone’s or a country’s agenda.

 

[OPSSG]

My opinion is that the writer was equally critical of all sides and that the article wasn’t a one sided propaganda piece in line with someone’s or a country’s agenda.

One minor comment, by default, in this forum, it is not proper to assume that Al Jazeera does not have a slant in its reporting and opinion pieces; as it is fairly well known, as attempting to represent Qatar’s world view, in its reporting and views.

Nothing prevents you from sharing the same opinion as the Al Jazeera article linked by you, but, I am not required to share your subjective view. To avoid being contentious, I have chosen not to debunk the opinion at this time.

As you well know, Al Jazeera has lost reporters and anchors in London, Paris, Moscow, Beirut and Cairo. Ali Hashem, the organization's Shia Beirut correspondent, resigned after leaked emails publicized his discontent with Al Jazeera's "unprofessional" and biased coverage. One of the organization's largest resignations was that of 22 members of Al Jazeera's Egyptian bureau. The group announced their resignation on 8 July 2013, citing biased coverage. This is not surprising given that Al Jazeera is a news organization funded by the government of Qatar.

Apologies for going off topic, as this is done in the interest of maintaining minimum standards.

 

[ngatimozart]

One minor comment, by default, in this forum, it is not proper to assume that Al Jazeera does not have a slant in its reporting and opinion pieces; as it is fairly well known as attempting to represent Qatar’s world view, in its reporting and views.

The English language version of Al Jazeera is less biased than the Arabic language versions, but yes it does have a bias.

 

[STURM]

ngatimozart,

Yes. From what I’ve been told by Arabic speakers there can be a gulf of difference between Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English.

I merely posted the link because I felt it was interesting and raised various points which were critical of all the players; at the same time I don’t necessarily agree with everything the writer said; nor did I expect others to.

On being bias; no doubt a certain level of biasness was evident but it’s too be expected given it was the writer’s personal thoughts/opinions on the matter. I’d be hard pressed to find geopolitical/security articles from most news outlets which doesn’t have a certain level of biasness; either due to actual editorial policy or a writer’s opinions.