U.S. Draws Up Contingencies in Case Israel Attacks Iran: Report

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government is concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran over U.S. objections, and has stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region, The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 13.

The newspaper said U.S. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a series of private messages to Israeli leaders, warning about the dire consequences of a strike.

Obama spoke by telephone Jan. 12 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week, the report said.

The report said that the U.S. military was preparing for a number of possible responses to an Israeli strike, including assaults by pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Up to 15,000 U.S. diplomats, federal employees and contractors still remain in Iraq.

To help deter Iran, the United States is maintaining 15,000 troops in Kuwait, and has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf area, the report said.

Would the US be defeated in the Persian Gulf in a War with Iran?

mi

Soldiers attend Iranian massive naval maneuvers dubbed Velayat 90 on the Sea of Oman, Iran, Dec. 28, 2011. The naval drills cover an area of 2,000 km stretching from the east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

(Xinhua/Stringer/Ali Mohammadi)

After years of U.S. threats, Iran has started to take very public steps to demonstrate that it is willing and capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. On December 24, 2011 Iran started its Velayat-90 naval drills in and around the Strait of Hormuz and extending from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Oman Sea) to the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. Since these drills took place there has been a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Pentagon had done or said deterred Tehran from continuing the naval drills.

The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz

Besides the fact that it is a vital transit point for global energy resources and a strategic chokepoint, two additional things should be noted in regards to the Strait of Hormuz’s relationship to Iran. The first point is about the geography of the Strait of Hormuz. The second point is about the role of Iran in co-managing the strategic strait on the basis of international law and its sovereign rights.

Source : http://www.marketoracle.co.uk

The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominately composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to go through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, sails through Iranian territory. No country can enter the Persian Gulf and transit the Strait of Hormuz without sailing through Iranian waters and territory. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters.

Iran allows foreign ships to use its territorial waters in good faith and on the basis of Part III of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea’s maritime transit passage provisions that stipulate that vessels are free to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and similar bodies of water on the basis of speedy and continuous navigation between an open port and the high seas. Although Tehran in custom follows the navigation practices of the Law of the Sea, Tehran is not legally bound by them. Like Washington, Tehran signed this international treaty, but never ratified it.

American-Iranian Tensions in the Persian Gulf

Now the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz. Legislation is being proposed by Iranian parliamentarians to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislating this as an official Iranian posture on the basis of Iranian strategic interests and national security. [1]

On December 30, 2011, the U.S.S. John C. Stennispassed through the area where Iran was conducting its naval drills. The Commander of the Iranian Regular Forces, Major-General Ataollah Salehi, advised the U.S.S.John C. Stennis and other U.S. Navy vessels not to return to the Persian Gulf while Iran was doing its drills, saying that Iran is not in the habit of repeating a warning twice. [2] Shortly after the stern Iranian warning to Washington, the Pentagon’s press secretary responded by making a statement saying: “No one in this government seeks confrontation [with Iran] over the Strait of Hormuz. It’s important to lower the temperature.” [3]

In an actual scenario of military conflict with Iran it is very likely that U.S. aircraft carriers would actually operate from outside of the Persian Gulf and from the southern Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Unless the missile systems that Washington is erecting in the petro-sheikhdoms of the southern Persian Gulf are fully capable and active, the deployment of large U.S. warships may be unlikely in the Persian Gulf. The reasons for this are tied to geographic realities and the defensive capabilities of Iran.

Geography is against the Pentagon: U.S. Naval Strength has limits in the Persian Gulf

U.S. naval strength, which predominately includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, essentially has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled or unmatched by any other naval power. Nevertheless, primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are very vulnerable to Iran.

Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf.

This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of U.S. naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where U.S. vessels are constricted. This is why the U.S. has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the last few years.

Even the small Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf, which appear pitiable and insignificant against a U.S. aircraft carrier or destroyer, threaten U.S. warships. Looks can be deceiving; these Iranian patrol boats can easily launch a barrage of missiles that could significantly damage and effectively sink large U.S. warships. Iranian small patrol boats are also hardly detectable and hard to target.

Iranian forces could also attack U.S. naval capabilities merely by launching missile attacks from the Iranian mainland on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran’s mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. [4] Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare. This mammoth drill was amongst the largest and most expensive war games ever held by the Pentagon. Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium.

After Millennium Challenge 2002 was finished, the war game was presented as a simulation of a war against Iraq under the rule of President Saddam Hussein, but this cannot be true. [5] The U.S. had already made assessments for the upcoming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq had no naval capabilities that would merit such large-scale use of the U.S. Navy.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was conducted to simulate a war with Iran, which was codenamed “Red” and referred to as an unknown Middle Eastern rogue enemy state in the Persian Gulf. Other than Iran, no other country could meet the perimeters and characteristics of “Red” and its military forces, from the patrol boats to the motorcycle units. The war simulation took place because Washington was planning on attacking Iran soon after invading Iraq in 2003.

The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed “Blue,” giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007. The war game’s date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was suppose to expand into a broader war against Syria too. The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster.

In Millennium Challenge 2002’s war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels – an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. It is estimated that if this happened in reality, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been dead after the attack within a single day. [6] Next, Iran would send its small patrol boats – the ones that look insignificant in comparison to theU.S.S. John C. Stennis and other large U.S. warships – to overwhelm the remainder of the Pentagon’s naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which would result in the damaging and sinking of most of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the defeat of the United States. After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but “Red” had to operate under handicapping restraints so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This would hide the reality of the fact that the U.S. would be overwhelmed as an outcome of a conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped by geography coupled with Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting Tehran in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman. Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance. Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf.

Making the Strait of Hormuz Redundant to Weaken Iran?

The entire world knows the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington and its allies are very well aware that the Iranians can militarily close it for a significant period of time. This is why the U.S. has been working with the GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the U.A.E. – to re-route their oil through pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and channelling GCC oil directly to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Washington has also been pushing Iraq to seek alternative routes in talks with Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Both Israel and Turkey have also been very interested in this strategic project. Ankara has had discussions with Qatar about setting up an oil terminal that would reach Turkey via Iraq. The Turkish government has attempted to get Iraq to link its southern oil fields, like Iraq’s northern oil fields, to the transit routes running through Turkey. This is all tied to Turkey’s visions of being an energy corridor and important lynchpin of transit.

The aims of re-routing oil away from the Persian Gulf would remove an important element of strategic leverage Iran has against Washington and its allies. It would effectively reduce the importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It could very well be a prerequisite to war preparations and a war led by the United States against Tehran and its allies.

It is within this framework that the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline or the Hashan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline is being fostered by the United Arab Emirates to bypass the maritime route in the Persian Gulf going through the Strait of Hormuz. The project design was put together in 2006, the contract was issued in 2007, and construction was started in 2008. [8] This pipeline goes straight from Abdu Dhabi to the port of Fujairah on the shore of the Arabian Sea. In other words it will give oil exports from the U.A.E. direct access to the Indian Ocean. It has openly been presented as a means to ensure energy security by bypassing Hormuz and attempting to avoid the Iranian military. Along with the construction of this pipeline, the erection of a strategic oil reservoir at Fujairah was also envisaged to also maintain the flow of oil to the international market should the Persian Gulf be closed off. [9]

Aside from the Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline), Saudi Arabia has also been looking at alternative transit routes and examining the ports of it southern neighbours in the Arabian Peninsula, Oman and Yemen. The Yemenite port of Mukalla on the shores of the Gulf of Aden has been of particular interest to Riyadh. In 2007, Israeli sources reported with some fanfare that a pipeline project was in the works that would connect the Saudi oil fields with Fujairah in the U.A.E., Muscat in Oman, and finally to Mukalla in Yemen. The reopening of the Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA), which was ironically built by Saddam Hussein to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and Iran, has also been a subject of discussion for the Saudis with the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

If Syria and Lebanon were converted into Washington’s clients, then the defunct Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) could also be reactivated, along with other alternative routes going from the Arabian Peninsula to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea via the Levant. Chronologically, this would also fit into Washington’s efforts to overrun Lebanon and Syria in an attempt to isolate Iran before any possible showdown with Tehran.

The Iranian Velayat-90 naval drills, which extended in close proximity to the entrance of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden off the territorial waters of Yemen, also took place in the Gulf of Oman facing the coast of Oman and the eastern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Amongst other things, Velayat-90 should be understood as a signal that Tehran is ready to operate outside of the Persian Gulf and can even strike or block the pipelines trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

The first Trans-Arabia pipeline designed to keep tankers out of Iran’s range.

Geography again is on Iran’s side in this case too. Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz still does not change the fact that most of the oil fields belonging to GCC countries are located in the Persian Gulf or near its shores, which means they are all situated within close proximity to Iran and therefore close Iranian striking distance. Like in the case of the Hashan-Fujairah Pipeline, the Iranians could easily disable the flow of oil from the point of origin. Tehran could launch missile and aerial attacks or deploy its ground, sea, air, and amphibious forces into these areas as well. It does not necessarily need to block the Strait of Hormuz; after all preventing the flow of energy is the main purpose of the Iranian threats.

The American-Iranian Cold War

Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using any means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East. Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10] Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Australia Ranked 1st, N. Korea Last on Nuke Safety

WASHINGTON - Australia has the tightest security controls among nations with nuclear material while North Korea poses the world's greatest risks, a new index by experts said Jan. 11.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative, in a project led by former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and the Economist Intelligence Unit, aims to draw attention to steps that nations can take to ensure the safety of the world's most destructive weapons.

Among 32 nations that possess at least one kilogram of weapons-usable nuclear materials, Australia was ranked as the most secure. It was followed by European nations led by Hungary, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.

On the bottom of the list, North Korea was ranked as the least secure of its nuclear material, edging out Pakistan.

The index, which gave rankings on a scale of 100, also listed Iran, Vietnam and India below the 50-point threshold.

"This is not about congratulating some countries and chastising others. We are highlighting the universal responsibility of states to secure the world's most dangerous materials," said Nunn, who has long been active on nuclear safety.

Nunn, a Democrat who represented Georgia in the Senate from 1972 until early 1997, voiced concern that the world had a "perfect storm" - an ample supply of weapons-usable nuclear materials and terrorists who want them.

"We know that to get the materials they need, terrorists will go where the material is most vulnerable. Global nuclear security is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain," he said.

The index, timed ahead of the March summit on nuclear security in South Korea, called for the world to set benchmarks and to hold nations accountable for nuclear safety. It also urged nations to stop increasing stocks of weapons-usable material and to make public their security regulations.

North Korea has tested two nuclear bombs and in 2009 renounced a U.S.-backed agreement on denuclearization. The world has watched warily since last month as young Kim Jong-Un takes over as leader from his late father Kim Jong-Il.

Pakistan has vigorously defended its right to nuclear weapons. The father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted in 2004 that he ran a nuclear black market selling secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea but later retracted his remarks.

Australia does not have nuclear weapons and supports their abolition. But it has a security alliance with the United States and holds the world's largest reserves of uranium.

Of acknowledged nuclear weapons states, Britain scored best at 10th among the 32 countries. The United States ranked 13th.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative also released a separate index of security conditions in countries without significant nuclear materials, saying they could be used as safe havens or transit points. Somalia, which is partially under the control of the al-Qaida-linked Shebab movement and has effectively lacked a central government for two decades, was ranked last among the 144 countries surveyed.

Other countries that ranked near the bottom included Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Chad.

On the top of the list, Finland was ranked as the most secure nation among those without nuclear material. It was followed by Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia and Romania.

Cyprus Releases Syria-Bound Ammunition Ship

NICOSIA, Cyprus - Cypriot authorities released on Jan. 11 a cargo ship carrying tons of munitions after receiving a pledge the vessel would not proceed to unrest-swept Syria as originally scheduled.

The foreign ministry said the Saint Vincent-flagged cargo ship Chariot was allowed to refuel and set sail from the port of Limassol after its Russian owners agreed to change the destination.

The ship, which set sail from Saint Petersburg on Dec. 9, called into Limassol on Jan. 10 following bad weather, said government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou.

During a check of the ship's documents it was "determined the ship was carrying dangerous cargo destined for Syria and Turkey" and prevented from setting sail, the foreign ministry said.

The ministry said it was unable to physically check the four containers on board due to a lack of space to maneuver, but after consultations with the owners, the vessel was given the green light.

However, the media said the ship carried tons of munitions and explosives and was put under guard.

The Chariot was reportedly carrying between 35 and 60 tons of munitions and explosives bound for the port of Latakia in Syria, where thousands of people have been killed since March in a government crackdown on dissent.

"The rules and decisions of the Council of the European Union governing restrictive measures in relation to the situation in Syria were taken into account. It was ascertained no EU measures were violated," the ministry said.

Stefanou told state radio it was decided the vessel would be released after the ship agreed to change its destination and "not go to Syria," in keeping with "all international regulations."

The new destination was not disclosed.

The incident comes exactly six months after seized Iranian munitions exploded at a Cypriot naval base on July 11, killing six firemen and seven military personnel.

The containers had been at the base since their seizure in 2009 when Cyprus intercepted, under pressure from the United States and other Western nations, a Cypriot-flagged freighter bound from Iran for Syria.

The explosion of the containers, which had been stored in the open air, also knocked out the island's main power plant. Criminal charges against those deemed responsible are expected to be filed next week.

U.S. Ship Rescues Six More Iranians: Pentagon

WASHINGTON - A U.S. ship rescued six Iranian mariners in the Gulf after their boat broke down Jan. 10, the Pentagon said, in the latest such gesture despite soaring tensions between Washington and Tehran.

The Iranian crew used flares to seek help from the passing U.S. ship after flooding in the engine room left their dhow unseaworthy before sunrise some 50 nautical miles southeast of the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, U.S. officials said.

The Coast Guard cutter, the Monomoy, gave the Iranians water, blankets and meals made in accordance with Islamic law and provided medical care for one of the mariners who had suffered non-serious injuries, officials said.

A U.S. military statement said that Hakim Hamid-Awi, the owner of the Iranian dhow named the Ya-Hassan, was thankful.

"Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us," the U.S. statement quoted him as saying.

In the afternoon, U.S. forces transferred the six mariners on inflatable boats to an Iranian Coast Guard vessel, the Naji 7, the statement said. The captain of the Naji 7 also offered his regards to his U.S. counterparts and "thanks us for our cooperation," according to the U.S. statement.

The United States says that its forces routinely rescue sailors in distress regardless of nationality but officials have been eager to highlight efforts to assist Iranians amid Tehran's threats to close the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, the U.S. Navy rescued 13 Iranians held by pirates. Iran welcomed the gesture, even though it earlier had warned the ships to stay away.

That rescue was carried out by one of several warships escorting the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, which the Iranian military had warned to stay out of Gulf waters or face the "full force" or Tehran's navy.

The Coast Guard cutter the Monomoy, which carried out the latest rescue, is in the Gulf to assist maritime security, according to the Pentagon.

Iran's threat - which analysts say it may not be able to carry out - came as the United States expanded sanctions against the Islamic regime and the European Union considers a total ban on oil exports from Tehran.

Western powers have been seeking to increase pressure on Iran due to fears it is developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its uranium enrichment is solely for peaceful purposes.

Keep Investing in Stealthy ISR

A big danger with having sophisticated military systems is that you run the risk of losing them if you use them.

That appears to be the case with the U.S. Air Force RQ-170 Sentinel, the remotely operated reconnaissance aircraft that was recently lost over Iran. The stealthy aircraft, built by Lockheed Martin, entered service about a decade ago and has seen duty over hot spots worldwide since.

The United States has been using manned and unmanned aircraft for this mission for decades; the RQ-170 is only the latest that allows the United States to see into denied airspace.

The loss of any advanced aircraft poses special risks because it exposes its materials and technologies to enemy scientists and engineers. Now that the Iranians have the Sentinel - especially since it appears to have come into their possession largely intact - it's only a matter of time before China, North Korea and others learn about the UAV's stealth coatings, airframe structures and materials, sensors and electronic components, flight controls and more.

The Air Force is trying to learn as much as possible from the loss, such as why the plane lost signal and how it came to be recovered in one piece.

But more important, it must learn how to guard against such a dangerous loss of technology in the future. Such aircraft must be fitted with physical and electronic self-destruct mechanisms that will obliterate anything of interest as soon as it falls into enemy hands.

Last, the inherent value of having the kind of technology that makes an RQ-170 possible is a critical U.S. advantage in warfare. As defense budgets decline, continuing robust investment in advanced stealth, sensor and reconnaissance technologies is crucial to maintaining America's strategic and tactical advantages.

The Missile Defense Answer to Iran

As the past three years have shown, President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, don't often see eye-to-eye on foreign policy. On at least one issue, however, the two appear to be in full agreement. Both have stated clearly and repeatedly that the radical, revolutionary regime that rules Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

And yet, neither the current president nor the previous one made serious headway on this most serious of national security challenges.

The time to do so is running out. As the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report makes painfully clear, Iran is perilously close to crossing the nuclear threshold, and its intentions are anything but peaceful. The U.S. desperately needs a strategy to keep the fingers of Iran's ayatollahs off the nuclear trigger. For a nuclear-armed Iran - oil-rich, bellicose and ambitious - would change the 21st century in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Those who don't believe we can stop Iran from crossing the nuclear Rubicon, as well as those who minimize the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, have taken to talking about "containment." But the clerical regime that rules Tehran will not be as easy to keep in a box as was the Soviet Union.

The leaders of the Soviet empire may have been evil, but they were not irrational. As a result, they chose to abide by the "balance of terror" that emerged over time with the U.S., backing away from thermonuclear confrontation even as they competed with America for primacy in the political theaters of Latin America, Africa and beyond.

Whether Iran will be willing to honor such a bargain is very much an open question. At least one segment of the Iranian leadership ascribes to a radical revisionist (even apocalyptic) world-view, one which requires and embraces confrontation with the West.

And while Iran's clerical army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, casts a growing shadow over politics within the Islamic Republic, recent provocations, such as the botched attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia's envoy to the U.S. in Washington, suggest the Guards themselves are anything but risk averse.

All of this implies that we will be forced to rely on more than deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction to contain Iran. We also will need to make it as difficult as possible for the Iranians to use nuclear weapons, or even to credibly threaten to do so.

This can only be achieved by developing, as an integral component of a containment regime, a comprehensive missile defense system composed of space-based, sea-based and land-based defenses. Such a system would make it doubtful, if not impossible, for Iran to successfully fire a missile against the American homeland, American troops abroad or America's allies and be confident that the weapon would reach its intended victims.

Fortunately, the U.S. has the ability to defend against this threat. Since at least the early 1990s, America has possessed the technological know-how to erect a comprehensive national defense against enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. But for just as long, we have lacked the political will to do so.

Today, the state of affairs is much the same. The four-phase missile defense plan unveiled by the White House in September 2009 has a good deal to commend it, including major investments in sea-based defenses and the protection of allies abroad.

But it also suffers from potentially fatal deficiencies, chief among them the fact that it mortgages defense of the U.S. homeland until 2016 or later, when Obama will no longer be in office, even if he wins re-election next November. By doing so, it leaves the U.S. a provocatively weak and inviting target to adversaries who seek to do us harm, Iran chief among them.

Policymakers in Washington are hotly debating what, exactly, should be done to thwart the Islamic Republic and its stubborn quest for a nuclear capability. As they do, they should focus on missile defense as part of the logical answer. Anyone who seriously favors containment must also seriously favor comprehensive missile defense as a way of ensuring that Tehran's opportunities for aggression are limited. But others should favor this course of action as well.

Of course, it would be best to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons or to see the current regime replaced by one less bellicose. And it would be good to slow Iran's drive to nuclear weapons for as long as possible. But should all else fail, contingency plans must be in place to better protect Americans from the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, which is now on the verge of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons. America has the means to defend itself from Iranian nuclear missiles; it just needs to make such a plan a reality.

Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. Clifford May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Both are members of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.

U.S. Navy Frees Iranian Sailors from Pirates

The fishing dhow Al Molai looks like hundreds of similar craft plying the waters of the Arabian Sea.

A BOARDING TEAM from the destroyer Kidd approaches the dhow Al Molai to free a group of Iranian sailors held hostage by pirates (U.S. Navy)

For about six weeks, the fishing boat moved around attracting little attention, its average appearance masking evil intentions.

The picture of innocence began to change Jan. 5.In reality, the vessel and its crew of Iranian sailors was being held hostage by pirates. The Al Molai became a mother ship for smaller boats apparently carrying Somalis bent on attacking merchant ships.

The end of the Al Molai's pirate career began when the Bahamas-registered cargo ship Sunrise issued a distress call around 8:30 a.m. A group of suspected pirates in a small, 15-foot open skiff was, according to the master of the Sunrise, attacking his ship.

The nearby U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis heard the radio call and dispatched the escorting cruiser Mobile Bay to move in. When an MH-60S helicopter from Helicopter Anti-submarine Squadron 8, Detachment 1 operating from the cruiser approached, the six people aboard the skiff tossed a number of objects in the water.

"We suspected the objects to be RPGs [rocket-propelled grenade launchers] and rifles," Rear Adm. Craig Faller, commander of the John C. Stennis carrier strike group, told reporters during a conference call from his flagship on Jan. 6.

According to Faller, the suspected pirates surrendered to the helicopter. The cruiser moved in and sent over a boarding team, but no direct evidence was found to hold the Somalis. Despite being found about 175 miles at sea, southeast of Muscat, Oman, the skiff's sailors feigned innocence.

"They told us they were operating in the area for fun," Faller said. "We didn't think so."

Released, the suspected pirates set off on a course for an unknown destination. The helicopter followed at a distance. Soon, the small boat approached an Iranian-flagged dhow. The destroyer Kidd, patrolling in the region against pirates since mid-November, was vectored in, and its embarked MH-60R helicopter from Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71, Detachment 3, took over from the Mobile Bay's helo.

Asked by reporters on the conference call if it was clear it a pirate situation was at hand, Cmdr. Jennifer Ellinger, the destroyer's commanding officer, was confident.

"Yes, definitely," she said.

The helicopters "observed there were Middle Eastern as well as Somalis on board the craft," Ellinger said. "But when we talked bridge-to-bridge they indicated they were Iranian and there were no foreigners aboard, which we knew not to be true," she said.

The dhow's master spoke to the Americans over the radio in Urdu, a language widely spoken in Pakistan. The pirates were unable to follow along, but an Urdu-speaker aboard the Kidd had no trouble translating.

"When we talked to the master, it was clear he was under duress," Ellinger said. "He said they were physically abused, they were scared. They invited us to come over. We reassured them that we would be on the way."

According to Ellinger, the master told the pirates the Americans were coming on board and they knew they were there.

"He convinced them to surrender," she said.

The destroyer drew up to the dhow with guns manned and ready. "Basically it was a forceful approach," Ellinger said. "We asked them all to come topside and surrender their weapons."

The pirates put down their weapons but then tried to hide. When the American boarding team arrived, the master helpfully pointed out all the hiding places, and 15 suspected pirates were taken into custody without any shots being fired.

The 13 freed Iranian fishermen were ecstatic.

"We brought food and meals," Ellinger said. "They had no refrigerator, it was broken. They were relying on fishing to get food, although the pirates had some fruit and provisions."

The Iranian sailors "were extremely grateful," Ellinger said. "Their morale continued to increase as we removed the Somali pirates."

The pirates were transferred on Jan. 6 to the Stennis, where they were still being held on Jan. 7.

"The pirates are under our custody and evidence is being gathered," Faller said. "This will be referred to the interagency in the U.S. to determine what will occur."

The pirates would be treated appropriately, Faller told reporters. "As bad as they are, they deserve humane treatment like any person."

Provisioned with food and wearing Kidd ball caps, the Iranians sailed off to return to their home port.

UNAWARE OF CONTROVERSY

Faller said neither the Iranian fishermen nor the pirates seemed to have any awareness of the recent tensions between Iran and the U.S. over transits of the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

Shortly after the Stennis left the Gulf earlier this week, Iran's Army chief threatened the U.S. Navy and declared that the carrier would not be allowed back in. The threat was issued at the conclusion of a major 10-day Iranian naval exercise, and as new economic sanctions were slapped on Iran by the U.S. and other Western nations.

Despite the heated rhetoric from Tehran, the U.S. has sought to downplay the situation. Asked if the U.S. was exploiting the rescue of the Iranian sailors for publicity reasons, Faller was adamant.

"No sir. We didn't have a vision we'd be on a conference call tonight talking about it," he said during the conference call.

"The Navy is just doing its job out here. Conducting combat operations over Afghanistan and maintaining freedom of the sea."

No response to the rescue has been received from Iran, Faller said, although he acknowledged his forces have recently encountered Iranians.

"We have had interactions at sea with Iranian aircraft and surface ships," he said. "Those interactions have all been professional."

He did not provide further details.

Asked if the Stennis might go back through Hormuz, Faller gave the standard response.

"The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait, and by international law is subject to freedom of navigation," he said. "If it means moving back through the strait that's what we'll do. Right now it's business as usual as we focus on operations over Afghanistan."

"The U.S. Navy has been here for over 60 years," Faller added, "and we'll be here as long as we're needed. On call and ready."