Notwithstanding the never-ending stream of all those based-on-reliable-intelligence-sources analyses, it is doubtful whether these same analysts would be willing to bet whatever is left of their 401K retirement accounts on their predictions that Israel will — or will not — attack Iranian nuclear sites this year.

And while research institutions have conducted interesting exercises to try to figure out the military, diplomatic and economic repercussions of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, the dictum that no military plan survives the contact with the enemy applies also here — in addition to the unintended consequences, blowbacks and the proverbial ‘black swans’ that are bound to show up even in the unlikely scenario under which Israel achieves all or most of its military goals.

If I can put my ten cents worth of strategic thinking, it seems to me that the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the American fiasco in Iraq helped tip the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the Levant in the direction of Iran and its allies. And that made it more likely that Israel and other Sunni Arab players that regard the Islamic Republic as a threat to their core national interests would use all their available resources to deprive Iran from having access to a military instrument that would allow it to formalize the new regional balance of power.

In his magisterial study of the 1812-1814 military campaigns in Europe, Russia Against Napoleon, historian Dominic Lieven suggests that while Tsar Alexander recognized that France would never be able to control Europe, he also concluded that the price of adhering to Napoleon’s Continental System would have undermined Russia’s position as a great power and that the Russians had no choice but to use the full power of their military to prevent that from happening.

My guess is that Israel, as well the Saudis and their Arab-Sunni allies, know that it would be possible to contain a nuclear Iran — in the same way that Russia could have embraced a cost-effective strategy to contain Napoleon’s France. But as long as Israeli leaders believe that they have a realistic option of blocking Iran’s nuclear program — and by extension, of setting major constraints on its ability to assert its position as a regional power — they will probably use their military capacity. The Saudis and their Gulf partners would probably cheer them behind close doors while publicly condemning them.

But as quite a few Israeli and American military experts have warned, a military strike on Iranian facilities would not achieve the declared Israeli goal of ending Iran’s alleged nuclear military program and the expected costs in terms of Israeli casualties could be very high.
Moreover, if Iran gives the green light to its Shiite Hezbollah allies in Lebanon to attack Israel and mobilize the Shiites in Iraq and the Persian Gulf to retaliate against American and Saudi targets, Tehran would be in a position to strengthen its regional power. The ayatollahs would also be able to exploit an Israeli attack to ignite Iranian nationalism and win support even from those Iranians who actually oppose the ruling clerics and would like to see them removed from power.

And while the Obama administration insists that it wants to apply peaceful means to get Iran to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, it is not clear that Washington and its Europeans allies would succeed in coming up with a diplomatic formula that would be acceptable to Iran and to Israel (and its supporters in Washington) or that the Americans would be able to prevent Israel from taking military action against Iran. Those of us who believe that an Israeli military attack would not serve American and Israeli interests and may actually help consolidate the power of Iran in the Middle East and that of the clerics in Teheran should also recognize that President Barack Obama — who probably agrees with these assumptions — is not in a position for a diplomatic confrontation with Israel during a presidential election year.

In fact, even in a non-election year, there will be very little incentive for Mr Obama to launch a creative diplomatic opening to Iran at a time when the Iranian leadership does not have the power to make a deal with Washington and is facing strong opposition at home from liberal and conservative forces alike (who, despite their differences, want Iran to acquire nuclear military capacity).

And at a time when the Middle East is going through the political turmoil of the Arab Spring and the US is engaged in a steady drawdown from its military occupation of Iraq, the shaky balance of power in the region would make it difficult for Washington to try to reach a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran. Such a move, coming in the aftermath of the collapse of the pro-American regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, would be perceived by the Saudis and other Arab-Sunni governments as another sign of US weakness.

If Israel decides to attack Iran, expect the Obama administration to provide it with logistical and other support, including by vetoing a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (unlike the Reagan administration which did join the Security Council’s censure of the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in Osirak in 1981).

Leaf from History

Yet, in the same way that the outcome of the 1973 Middle East War provided the then Nixon administration with an opportunity to protect and even strengthen its position in the Middle East, by renewing diplomatic relations with Egypt and working to bring peace between the Egyptians and the Israelis, the Obama administration could find itself in a position to advance its interests in the aftermath of an Israel-Iran military confrontation and an ensuing Middle Eastern war. A potential leading player in such a post-war scenario would be Turkey which until now has played a clever diplomatic game vis-a-vis Iran. In the most significant act of military cooperation between Washington and Ankara since 2003, Turkey agreed last year to station sophisticated American radars, part of a US-led system to defend Europe against a potential Iranian missile attack, and has expressed strong opposition against any move by Iran to acquire nuclear military weapons.

At the same time, the Turks have also been in the forefront of the diplomatic opposition against a military strike against Iran and, working with Brazil, it proposed a diplomatic deal to freeze Iranian uranium enrichment in exchange for ending the US-led sanctions against Iran.
And while Turkey is a member of NATO and remains a close military ally of Washington, its recent diplomatic assertiveness and its tensions with Israel coupled with its strong support for democratic activists in the Arab World, has strengthened its status in the Middle East and could allow it to play the role of grand mediator between the US and Iran in a post-war scenario.

Indeed, working with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, as well with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union, the Obama administration could propose the convening of a Middle East Conference chaired by Turkey that would bring together all the Arab states, Iran and Israel and that would set the stage for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the region (which would apply also to Iran as well as to Israel’s nuclear arsenal) and to a series of diplomatic initiatives to help stabilize Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and revitalize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process along the lines of the old Arab League proposal.

In that context, the US and Iran could also start repairing their diplomatic ties and Teheran would be encouraged to support any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is agreed on both sides. Not for the first time in history, the end of a war could help create the conditions for stability, cooperation and peace. It could be worth the try.

Shimon Peres, an elder statesmen who is a Nobel Peace laureate, appealed to the people of Iran to look beyond the current crisis.

The U.S., Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies that. This week the U.S. cranked up its sanctions on Iran to try to force it to stop its uranium enrichment, but Iran responded with defiance.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the 63rd anniversary of the founding of Israel’s parliament, Peres directed his remarks to the people of Iran.

“We were not born enemies and there is no need to live as enemies. Do not allow the flags of hostility to cast a dark shadow over your historic heritage,” Peres said. “Your people are a sensitive people that aspire for friendship and peace, and not for conflicts and wars.”

Israel and Iran had close relations before the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Peres spokeswoman Ayelet Frisch said he had fond memories of Iran then.

“Peres is one of the few people in Israel who remember the warm ties between the two countries. He visited a few times before the revolution, he walked the streets of Tehran, ate at restaurants there and had many Iranian friends,” she told The Associated Press.

In contrast to his message to the people, Peres denounced the Iranian regime.

“Iran is not only a threat for Israel, it constitutes a real danger to humanity as a whole,” Peres said about the Iranian nuclear program. “The present Iranian regime is Imperialism-hungry, aspiring to be the region’s supreme ruler,” he said.

Peres, 88, fills a mostly ceremonial post as Israel’s president. He spoke after U.S. officials expressed concern that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the spring. Israel’s leaders rank Iran as their greatest threat because of its nuclear and missile development programs, frequent references by its leaders to Israel’s destruction and support for violent anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza.

Earlier Wednesday, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad spy agency said he does not believe Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, a view that contrasts with Israel’s prime minister and other leaders.

Since retiring a year ago, Dagan has become a surprisingly vocal critic, repeatedly and publicly accusing Israel’s top leaders of irresponsibly pushing for an attack on Iran.

At the launch of an electoral reform movement he chairs, he observed, “I don’t think there is an existential threat.” He did not specifically mention Iran, but the use of the phrase “existential threat” in Israel generally refers to Iran.

Although Israel says it hopes deepening economic sanctions will pressure Tehran to curb its nuclear ambitions, Israeli leaders haven’t ruled out military action, routinely observing that “all options are on the table.”

AP/ ABC

Last week, Iran’s supreme clerical leader threatened reprisals for the West’s new ban on Iranian oil exports and the U.S. defense secretary was quoted as saying Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it assembling nuclear weapons.

Although broadened and sharpened financial sanctions have begun to inflict serious economic pain in Iran, its oil minister asserted on Saturday it would make no nuclear retreat even if its crude oil exports ground to a halt.

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes. But its recent shift of uranium enrichment to a mountain bunker possibly impervious to conventional bombing, and refusal to negotiate peaceful guarantees for the program or open up to U.N. nuclear inspectors, have thickened an atmosphere of brewing confrontation, raising fears for Gulf oil supplies.

“Any spot used by the enemy for hostile operations against Iran will be subjected to retaliatory aggression by our armed forces,” Hossein Salami, deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the semi-official Fars news agency on Sunday.

The Guards began two days of military maneuvers in southern Iran on Saturday in another show of force for Iran’s adversaries associated with tensions over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and Israel, Iran’s arch-enemies, have not ruled out a military strike on Tehran if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear stalemate.

Salami did not identify which countries he meant as possible hosts for military action against it.

The six, U.S.-allied Arab states in the Gulf Cooperation Council, situated on the other side of the vital oil exporting waterway from Iran, have said they would not allow their territories to be used for attacks on the Islamic Republic.

But analysts say that if Iran retaliated for an attack launched from outside the region by targeting U.S. facilities in Gulf Arab states, Washington might pressure the host nations to permit those bases to hit back, arguing they should have the right to defend themselves.

The Gulf states that host U.S. military facilities are Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

THREAT TO SHUT VITAL OIL CHANNEL

Iran has warned its response to any such strike will be “painful,” threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world’s seaborne oil traffic.

Betraying nervousness about possible blowback from any military strike on Iran, two of its neighbors – Qatar and Turkey – urged the West on Sunday to make greater efforts to negotiate a solution to the nuclear row.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference attended by top world policymakers, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a “disaster” and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program could be ended very rapidly.

“If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days,” he said. “The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will.”

He added: “A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result.”

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah said an attack “is not a solution, and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse.

“I believe that with our allies and friends in the West we should open a serious dialogue with the Iranians to get out of this dilemma. This is what we feel in our region.”

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, throttling the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

A military strike on Iran and Iran’s response, which might include an attack on the oilfields of No. 1 exporter Saudi Arabia, would send oil prices soaring, which could seriously harm the global economy.

Reuters

And if anything is likely to replace “jobs, jobs, jobs” at the top of the list of campaign issues, it’s the arrival of a nuclear-capable Iran.

The report, the result of research by the Critical Threats Project at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, is careful to underscore that its findings assess “technical feasibility” only and do not delve into the question of Iran’s motivations behind its advancing nuclear program.

The report “does not assess Iran’s intentions to weaponize or to pursue break-out scenarios,” says Maseh Zarif, the Critical Threat Project’s Iran team leader. “It is intended solely to inform the policy community and the American public about the nature and progress of the Iranian nuclear program.”

Iran insists that its uranium enrichment program is aimed at producing fuel and materials for civilian power and medical research purposes. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western powers, including the United States, suspect that Iran’s recent acceleration of uranium enrichment to about 20 percent purity suggests Tehran could be planning to “break out” as a nuclear weapons power.

In his report, Mr. Zarif says Iran would need 85 kilograms of about 20-percent low-enriched uranium to deliver the 15 kilograms of 90-percent high-enriched, or weapons-grade, uranium to build a bomb.

Using information gleaned from IAEA reports and other technical sources, Zarif says Iran could have the needed amount of 20-percent low-enriched uranium, which it is producing at two known facilities, Natanz and Fordow, by June. To convert that into the 15 kg of weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb, would then take about another 10 weeks.

That is, if Iran decided to take such a “break-out” step. So far it is only known to be producing the 20-percent enriched uranium.

The Zarif report differs from the conclusions of other nuclear experts, some of whom have estimated Iran to be at least a year away from amassing enough fuel to provide the basis for an eventual nuclear weapon. Others have put a “break-out’ date even farther off, based on Iran’s known and repeated technical difficulties – not to mention the certain and virulent international reaction that any signs of a shift to producing high-enriched uranium would trigger.

But some researchers estimate that Iran could be even closer to the nuclear threshold than Zarif concludes.

Gregory Jones, in a December report for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that an “all-out effort” by Iran could result in a bomb within two to six months.

Shifting from a technical appraisal to an analysis of “intentions,” Mr. Jones predicted that Iran would avoid that kind of reaction-causing “all-out effort” but would instead “continue on its current course, producing an ever growing stockpile of enriched uranium and carrying out additional research to produce non-nuclear weapons components.”

Jones also concluded that the debate over Iran’s intentions may be moot. “Though it could be many years before Iran becomes an overt nuclear weapon state,” he said, “it is already close enough to obtaining a nuclear weapon to be considered a de facto nuclear country.”

Zarif doesn’t make that kind of judgment in his report. But he does offer one conclusion that could resonate as US policymakers wrestle with the Iran issue over the coming months.

He says that all the measures taken by known and unknown actors against Iran since 2009 – economic sanctions, targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers, and computer viruses that have sent Iran’s uranium-enriching centrifuges spinning out of control – “have not significantly derailed the Iranian enrichment program.”

CSM

In a Tehran supermarket, Ali and his wife, a well-to-do couple in their 40s, were filling cart after cart with bags of groceries, prompting a bottleneck at the counter. When asked by other shoppers why he was buying so much, Ali responded he was stocking up for “when the U.S. will come and bombard” the Islamic Republic.

“I mean it,” said Ali, who like many here would not give his last name. He pointed at other frowning customers. “Look at the faces of people here. They are worried.”

The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists its program is for solely civilian purposes. Earlier this month, Iran announced that it had begun to enrich uranium at a new underground bunker. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the decision, saying it put Iran “a significant step closer” to gaining the ability to produce weapons-grade fuel.

On Jan. 11, an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a Tehran car explosion, an act that Iran’s supreme leader says was orchestrated by U.S. and Israeli spy agencies. The killing came shortly after Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, warned that the Islamic Republic could expect “unnatural events” taking place in 2012.

Iran has threatened to respond by closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil is shipped. The U.S. has said it will act to prevent such a move.

“I am worried about war,” Farkhondeh, 55, said as she shopped for vegetables in a Tehran street stall. “The enmity between Iran and West is far from over, and two sides do not seem to be willing to defuse tensions…. Why should I not be worried?”

Mohammad Davoudnejad, a Tehran butcher shop worker in his 30s, said he was concerned about the threat of military action but complained he couldn’t keep track of all the statements being made by various players because TV signals have been jammed.

“What do you think?” he asked. “I am not able to figure out who is saying what. BBC Persian at our home is jammed. I don’t know for sure whether to be worried or not.”

Sanctions combined with more diplomatic pressure appear to be Washington’s preferred formula for handling its row with Iran. But the U.S. and Israel have not ruled out the option of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomatic efforts fails to settle the dispute.

“No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” President Obama said in December.

But earlier this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an apparent bid to calm speculation about military action, said an Israeli decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities was “very far off.”

Many street vendors, meanwhile, fretted over bad business and an unpredictable future. Iran’s national currency, the rial, has plummeted against the U.S. dollar. The government recently banned black-market currency dealers from doing business.

“I’m increasingly losing my customers,” said a 55-year-old fruit and vegetable seller who gave his name as Akbar. “People are losing their purchasing power. Twenty years ago, after the eight-year-long war [with Iraq], there was a future, at least. We could predict and plan.”

Faribourz Raisdana, a reform-minded economist and analyst, dismissed threats of war and said things won’t go further than blustery language.

“I am not worried about war, as there is no evident tendency to want to wage war among officials from both sides,” he said. “There is a lot of rhetoric, but it’s not serious.”

LAT

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, used for a third of the world’s seaborne oil trade, if pending Western moves to ban Iranian crude exports cripple its lifeblood energy sector, fanning fears of a slide into wider Middle East war.

European Union foreign ministers are expected at a meeting on Monday to agree an oil embargo against Iran and a freeze on the assets of its central bank, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said, confirming diplomatic leaks.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s No. 1 oil exporter, riled Iran earlier this week when it said it could swiftly raise oil output for key customers if needed, a scenario that could transpire if Iranian exports were embargoed.

“We want peace and tranquility in the region. But some of the countries in our region, they want to direct other countries 12,000 miles away from this region,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in English during a visit to Turkey.

The remark was an apparent reference to the alliance of Iran’s Arab neighbors with Washington, which maintains a big naval force in the Gulf and says it will keep the waterway open.

“I am calling to all countries in the region, please don’t let yourselves be dragged into a dangerous position,” Salehi told Turkey’s NTV broadcaster.

He added the United States should make clear that it was open for negotiations with Tehran without conditions. He referred to a letter Iran says it received from U.S. President Barack Obama about the situation in the Straight of Hormuz, the contents of which have not been made public.

“Mr Obama sent a letter to Iranian officials, but America has to make clear that it has good intentions and should express that it’s ready for talks without conditions,” he said.

“Out in the open they show their muscles but behind the curtains they plead to us to sit down and talk. America has to pursue a safe and honest strategy so we can get the notion that America this time is serious and ready.”

The United States, like other Western countries, says it is prepared to talk to Iran but only if Tehran agrees to discuss halting its enrichment of uranium. Western officials say Iran has been asking for talks “without conditions” as a stalling tactic while refusing to put its nuclear program on the table.

IAEA CHIEF SAYS MUST ALERT WORLD ABOUT IRAN

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief said it was his duty to alert the world about possible military aspects to Iran’s nuclear campaign, keeping the heat on Tehran ahead of a rare visit by senior IAEA officials for talks on January 29-31.

“What we know suggests the development of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in the Financial Times Deutschland on Thursday. “We want to check over everything that could have a military dimension.”

An IAEA delegation, to be headed by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information indicating Iran has engaged in research and development applicable to nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies wanting bombs, saying it is refining uranium only for electricity generation and medical applications.

Salehi said on Wednesday that Iran, the world’s fifth biggest oil exporter, was in touch with world powers to reopen talks that he expected to be held soon.

Washington and the EU quickly denied this, saying they are still waiting for Iran to show it wanted serious negotiations addressing fears that it trying to master ways to build atom bombs behind the facade of a civilian nuclear energy program.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said after meeting Salehi that all sides were willing to resume talks but the time and place need to be settled. “I will tell Ms. Ashton about the talks today,” he told reporters, referring to the EU foreign policy chief who represents the powers on Iran.

“We have always said we are ready for dialogue,” France’s Juppe told reporters in Paris. “Ashton has made concrete offers, but sadly until today Iran has not committed transparently or cooperatively to this discussion process.”

He added: “It’s for this reason that to avoid an irreparable military option we have to strengthen sanctions.”

Iran has wanted to discuss only broader international security issues, not its nuclear program, in meetings with the powers held sporadically over the past five years.

“RED LINE”

Iranian politicians said Obama had expressed readiness to negotiate in a letter to Iran’s clerical supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“In this letter it was said that closing the Strait of Hormuz is our (U.S.) ‘red line’ and also asked for direct negotiations,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted lawmaker Ali Mottahari as saying.

Washington declined to comment on whether Obama had written to Khamenei.

The stage was set for international oil sanctions against Iran when Obama signed legislation on December 31 that would freeze out any institution dealing with Iran’s central bank, making it impossible for most countries to buy Iranian crude.

Diplomats said the EU’s 27 member states were still mulling details such as when an embargo would start. They were looking into a grace period that would end in July to help some debt-ridden EU states that rely on Iranian oil to adjust to a ban.

“On the central bank, things have been moving in the right direction…,” an EU diplomat said. “There is now wide agreement on the principle. Discussions continue on the details.”

CHINA DEFENDS OIL TRADE WITH IRAN

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao defended his country’s extensive oil trade with Iran against Western sanctions pressure in comments published on Thursday. Nevertheless, he said, Beijing firmly opposes any Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons.

The last talks between Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – along with Germany stalled in Istanbul a year ago, with the parties unable to agree even on an agenda.

The six have also failed to agree on a common line in their approach to Iran, a lack of unity that led to a watering down of four earlier rounds of U.N. sanctions adopted since 2006.

An IAEA report in November lent weight to concerns that Iran has worked on designing a nuclear weapon, and Tehran is shifting enrichment to an underground bunker in a mountain fortified against air attack.

Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal but sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a mortal threat, and the United States have not ruled out military action as a last resort to prevent an atomic “breakout” by Tehran.

However, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that any decision about an Israeli assault on Iran was “very far off.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the last-ditch military option mooted by U.S. and Israeli leaders would ignite a disastrous, widespread Middle East war. Russia also opposes the new push for oil sanctions, calling it counterproductive.

Reuters

Iran has threatened to close the waterway, the route for about one-sixth of the global oil flow, because of new U.S. sanctions over its nuclear program.

Conservative lawmaker Ali Motahari revealed the content of the letter days after the Obama administration said it was warning Iran through public and private channels against any action that threatens the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

“In the letter, Obama called for direct talks with Iran,” the semiofficial Fars news agency quoted Motahari as saying Wednesday. “The letter also said that closing the Strait of Hormuz is (Washington’s) red line.”

“The first part of the letter contains threats and the second part contains an offer for dialogue,” he added.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast confirmed that Tehran received the letter and was considering a possible response.

The White House would not confirm the letter Wednesday. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor pointed to earlier comments from the Obama administration that noted the U.S. had a number of ways to communicate its views to the Iranian government. He said the U.S. remained committed to engaging with Tehran and finding a diplomatic solution to its larger issues with Iran’s nuclear program.

Spokesmen have been vague on what the United States would do about Iran’s threat to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, but military officials have been clear that the U.S. is readying for a possible naval clash.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, the country’s most powerful military force, says Tehran’s leadership has decided to order the closure of the oil route if Iran’s oil exports are blocked. A senior Guard officer said earlier this month that the decision has been made by Iran’s top authorities.

Iranian politicians have made the threat in the past, but this was the strongest statement yet that a closure of the strait is official policy.

Iran’s regular army recently held naval war games near the vital waterway that were described by hard-liners as part of preparations to close the strait if sanctions are imposed. The Guard is planning major naval military exercises next month in the same region.

The U.S. last month enacted new sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad over Tehran’s nuclear program. The U.S. has delayed implementing the sanctions for at least six months, worried about sending the price of oil higher at a time when the global economy is struggling.

Closing the strait would have immense world economic impact. Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, and oil exports account for 80 percent of Iran’s foreign currency income. To Tehran, an oil embargo would be tantamount to a declaration of war that could provoke the Iranian leadership to block the Hormuz strait.

At issue is Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S., Israel and others charge that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Their case was bolstered by a report from the International Atomic Energy late last year, citing evidence that Iran was employing methods and equipment used in making bombs.

Iran has consistently denied that, saying its nuclear program is peaceful, aimed at producing electric power and isotopes for cancer treatment.

ABC/AP

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.

The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran’s leaders, against provocative actions.

Tehran has warned that it could retaliate to tightened sanctions by blocking oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to punish the perpetrators of the assassination—blamed by Iran on the U.S. and Israel—of an Iranian scientist involved in the nuclear program.

The U.S. denied the charge and condemned the attack. Israel hasn’t commented.

The U.S. and Iran, however, have taken steps in recent days apparently designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month. The U.S., meanwhile, has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region’s seas.

Covert efforts by Israel’s intelligence service to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons have been credited with slowing the program without the high risk of military conflict that could be sparked by an airstrike. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses.

But Israel has declined to rule out a strike, as has the U.S.

“It is the policy of the Israeli government, and the Obama administration, that all options remain on the table. And it is crucial that the ayatollahs in Tehran take this policy seriously,” said Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a recent interview that Iran has begun to “wobble,” a signal some U.S. officials believe suggests he is willing to follow the current U.S. strategy, which seeks to avoid a military confrontation with Iran.

“Recent comments by the Israelis show they understand how tough the sanctions we’ve put in place are and are giving them time to work,” said a senior Obama administration official.

The U.S. military is 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, according to U.S. officials.

The U.S. believes its embassy and other diplomatic outposts in Iraq are more vulnerable following the withdrawal of U.S. forces last month. Up to 15,000 U.S. diplomats, federal employees and contractors are expected to remain in Iraq.

In large measure to deter Iran, the U.S. has 15,000 troops in Kuwait, and has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf area.

It has also been pre-positioning aircraft and other military equipment, officials say. Arms transfers to key allies in the Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, have been fast-tracked as a further deterrent, officials say.

Israeli officials said Mr. Netanyahu’s government continues to closely coordinate with the U.S. in responding to the Iranian threat. “Israel believes that heightened sanctions combined with a credible military threat may dissuade the Iranian regime from developing nuclear capabilities,” Mr. Oren said.

Mr. Panetta and other top officials have privately sought assurances from Israeli leaders in recent weeks that they won’t take military action against Iran. But the Israeli response has been noncommittal, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials briefed on the military’s planning said concern has mounted over the past two years that Israel may strike Iran. But rising tensions with Iran and recent changes at Iranian nuclear sites have ratcheted up the level of U.S. alarm.

“Our concern is heightened,” a senior U.S. military official said of the probability of an Israeli strike over U.S. objections.

Tehran crossed at least one of Israel’s “red lines” earlier this month when it announced it had begun enriching uranium at the Fordow underground nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom.

The planned closing of Israel’s nuclear plant near Dimona this month, which was reported in Israeli media, sounded alarms in Washington, where officials feared it meant Israel was repositioning its own nuclear assets to safeguard them against a potential Iranian counterstrike.

Despite the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, U.S. officials have consistently puzzled over Israeli intentions. “It’s hard to know what’s bluster and what’s not with the Israelis,” said a former U.S. official.

Inside the Israeli security establishment, a sort of good cop, bad cop routine, in which Israeli officials rattle sabers amid a U.S. scramble to restrain them, has assumed its own name: “Hold Me Back.”

Some American intelligence officials complain that Israel represents a blind spot in U.S. intelligence, which devotes little resources to Israel. Some officials have long argued that, given the potential for Israel to drag the U.S. into potentially explosive situations, the U.S. should devote more resources to divining Israel’s true intentions.

WSJ

“I will kill, kill, those who killed my brother,” shouted the demonstrators, most of whom were members of Iran’s paramilitary Basij forces. Some held up posters depicting President Obama with a Star of David on his forehead and “terrorist” written underneath.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, also threatened revenge, in a letter of condolence to the scientist’s family that was made public on Thursday. The 32-year-old chemist was the fourth Iranian scientist killed by bombs in the past two years. He was described by Iranian media as the deputy director of Iran’s largest uranium-enrichment facility, near the town of Natanz.

“We will never disregard punishment for the individuals who committed this crime and the elements behind its scene,” Khamenei wrote.

Khamenei blamed the CIA and the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, for the killing, which has added to growing tension between Tehran and Washington as President Obama leads a global push for oil sanctions against the Islamic republic.

The Obama administration insists that it played absolutely no role in the attack and is distancing itself from the lethal tactics used. “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told soldiers at Fort Bliss in Georgia that the United States has “some ideas as to who might be involved, but we don’t know exactly who was involved.”

“I can tell you one thing: The United States was not involved in that kind of effort. That’s not what the United States does,” Panetta said. “We were not involved in any way, in any way, with regards to the assassination that took place there.”

Israel, in contrast, has refused to comment on the assassination. But Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, Israel’s chief military spokesman, posted a statement on his official Facebook page saying he was not sorry that the scientist was dead.

Ahmadi-Roshan was buried at a Shiite Muslim shrine in North Tehran just after midday prayers.

In the wake of the killing, some Iranian officials are accusing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of leaking the names of nuclear scientists to Israel so that Israel can covertly plan to kill them. The Tehran Emrouz newspaper reported Thursday that Ahmadi-Roshan had met with inspectors of the U.N. watchdog about his research.

“Some of the agency’s inspectors are Israeli spies, and they have given the names of our scientists to terrorist groups,” lawmaker Mohammad Karimi-Rad told the semiofficial Mehr news agency on Friday.

The IAEA said Thursday that it would send a team to Iran at the end of January to discuss the country’s nuclear program, which Iran says is designed only to produce energy but that outside experts believe is aimed at weapons production.

After an assassination and an attempted assassination that occurred nearly simultaneously on Nov. 29, 2010, Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps was tasked with protecting those involved in Iran’s nuclear program. The latest attack prompted questions from some Iranian lawmakers as to why scientists remained vulnerable.

“Ignoring the protection of these valuable assets will lead to damages that cannot be compensated for,” Hossein Sobhani-Nia, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the semiofficial Tabnak Web site.

WP

A motorcyclist placed a magnetic bomb under Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan’s Peugeot 405, the state-run IRNA news agency said. The blast also wounded two others, IRNA said.

State television channel Press TV reported later Wednesday that Roshan’s driver, named as Reza Qashqaei, had died in a hospital from his injuries.

Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani condemned the attack and said it would not undermine Iran’s resolve. “This is not the first time that arrogant powers adopt such futile measures,” he said, according to Press TV.

Roshan, 32, was a deputy director for commercial affairs at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province and a graduate of Iran’s Oil Industry University, according to the semi-official news agency Fars.

Natanz, which is said to have 8,000 centrifuges in operation, is one of two facilities that are enriching uranium in the country. This week, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency identified the second in the mountains of Qom province.

The latest attack comes as Iran is under increasing pressure from the West to halt its enrichment activities.

Officials in the United States and other Western nations have ratcheted up sanctions against Tehran since a November report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Iranian government was developing the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon. Last month, U.S. President Barack Obama announced sanctions against Iran’s central bank.

Tehran maintains its nuclear program for civilian energy purposes, disputing allegations by the United States and other countries that it is trying to develop a weapons program.

But the IAEA has said it cannot verify whether the intent of Tehran’s nuclear program remains peaceful.

At the same time, relations between Iran and the United States have rarely been as strained as at present.

Iran sentenced Iranian-American and former Marine Amir Hekmati to death Tuesday for alleged espionage, prompting strong condemnation from the U.S. State Department.

Iran also has ratcheted up tensions in the past month with its threat to close the strategically important Strait of Hormuz if Western nations carry through with sanctions on its oil industry to punish Tehran’s lack of cooperation on its nuclear program. A spokeswoman for the U.S. 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, responded that any disruption to the strait, which is a major corridor for oil tankers, would not be tolerated.

Responding to Wednesday’s bombing, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said the attacks against scientists would not stop the country from achieving its goals, IRNA reported.

“Iranian scientists become more determined to take steps in line with the aspirations of the Islamic Republic in spite of terrorist operations,” Rahimi told the news agency.

Lawmaker Kazem Jalali blamed the intelligence agencies of the United States and Israel for the attack, saying the IAEA also bore responsibility for passing on information about Iran’s nuclear scientists to other countries, IRNA reports.

The attack followed a similar mode of operation as others that have killed nuclear scientists in the capital city.

Iranian nuclear physicist Daryoush Rezaie, 35, was killed last July in front of his Tehran home by assailants on a motorcycle, Iranian media reported.

And on January 12, 2010, Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi died in a blast when an assailant stuck a bomb under his car. Majid Jamali Fashi, an Iranian, reportedly confessed to the bombing and was sentenced to death in August, IRNA reported at the time.

Prosecutors accused him of working for Israel’s spy agency Mossad and said he was paid $120,000 by Israel to carry out the hit, Fars news agency reported. Israel does not comment on such claims.

In November 2010, nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari was killed in a blast where, again, a bomb was stuck under a car by someone on a motorcycle.

“The bomb used in the (Wednesday) explosion was a magnetic bomb, the same kind that were used in previous assassinations of Iranian scientists. And the fact is that this is the work of the Zionists,” Fars news agency quoted Tehran’s Deputy Gov. Safarali Baratloo as saying.

Iran uses the term “Zionist” to refer to Israel. The nation has been engaged in a war of words with Israel, whom it accuses of trying to destabilize the republic.

Israel has not responded to Tehran’s claims.

However, Mickey Segal, a former director of the Iranian department in the Israel Defense Forces’ Intelligence Branch, told Israel Army Radio that Wednesday’s attack was part of broader pressure being brought to bear on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

“Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period. Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the Iranian regime is facing,” Segal said.

The Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday that the Israeli military chief of staff Benny Gantz, speaking at a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, warned that “2012 will be a critical year in the connection between Iran gaining nuclear power, changes in leadership, continuing pressure from the international community and events that happen unnaturally.”

Ali Ansari, a professor at the Institute for Iranian Studies at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews, said more information is needed about the victims to help determine who’s perpetrating the attacks.

Some have speculated that the victims were members of the opposition movement and could have been targeted by internal forces, Ansari said.

“But if it is true that Israel is behind it, Iran should make a formal complaint to the U.N. so they can get an answer from Israel,” Ansari said. “Because if they really think some other country is killing their nuclear experts, why are they not giving them more protection?”

Attacks on nuclear scientists are not the only obstacle encountered by Iran’s nuclear program.

A computer virus known as Stuxnet effectively set back Iran’s nuclear program in 2009 and 2010 by launching a malware program that went undetected until damage to an Iranian nuclear facility had already been done. Who created Stuxnet remains a mystery, but many experts believe the virus is so sophisticated that it would have needed the resources of a nation state — or a combination of states — to produce it.

Nonetheless, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said in a statement Wednesday that its path was “irreversible and the useless actions of the U.S. and the criminal Israel will not cause the slightest disruption,” according to Fars news agency.

The IAEA reported Monday that Iran was enriching uranium to 20% at the Fordo nuclear enrichment plant in the mountains of Qom province, described by IRNA as “a reinforced facility sunk deep under a mountain” 90 miles southwest of Tehran.

Iran says it has 3,000 centrifuges in operation at the Fordo plant and that its program has a medical purpose.

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel power plants, but in extremely high concentrations it can be used to produce a nuclear bomb. Uranium enriched to between 3% and 5% is necessary to make fuel for reactors. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to about 90%.

CNN