İncirlik Under Pressure Again: Will US Keep its Nukes There?

Yesterday, more than two weeks after Turkey's failed coup, Turkish troops and demonstrators again surrounded the joint NATO base at İncirlik. After the July 15 coup attempt, Turkey had surrounded the base and cut power. After nearly a week since the coup with external power cut off, the US confirmed that power had been restored to the base on July 22. The power had been cut at the time of the coup, after at least one Turkish KC-135 was used to refuel Air Force aircraft used to attack Ankara. The Turkish commander at İncirlik was arrested (photo at left).

As the purges (no other word quite works) have deepened, Turkish rancor towards the United States has deepened, as demands for extradition of Fethullah Gülen and vague accusations of US responsibility for the coup have accelerated, and President Erdoğan has been saying NATO and the US are not Turkey's friends. But İncirlik is a NATO base, and is home to a store of nuclear weapons, the only US nukes permanently deployed in the Middle East. The weapons are part of a nuclear sharing program under which NATO deployed weapons in allied countries, under full US control in peacetime, but which would be available to the allied power in a nuclear war. of some 200 weapons still stored with NATO allies in Europe, the largest number, estimated somewhere between 50 and 90, are at İncirlik.

The weapons are stored in storage bunkers under the control of the US Air Force and are equipped with Permissive Action Links (PALs), which prevent their use without express authorization by US National Command Authority. How secure are the PALs in an age of cyberhacking of secure computer networks? The US Air force assures that they are foolproof, but if a hostile power came into possession of the weapons, some observers are not sure how unbreakable the codes may be?

When the Turkish Army sealed off the base and cut off electrical power, USAF raised the Force Protection Condition to FPCON Delta, the highest possible. But with continuing threatening gestures from Turkey, like yesterday's on the eve of a visit by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, a certain jitters about the security of the nuclear arsenal seems appropriate.

The weapons are B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs with a variable adjustable yield with an upper limit of an estimated 340 kilotons, two to three times the yield of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs, which means they are now classed as tactical rather than strategic weapons, though it has long been assumed that the use of tactical nukes would inevitably escalate to the use of multi-megaton strategic weapons.

The B61s are aging and only tactical, but they could still destroy a city. The number at İncirlik is estimated at 50 to 90, increasingly outdated or even obsolete. That's between 50 and 90 goddamn fucking H-bombs.

If Turkey were to leave NATO the US would presumably withdraw these weapons, but what if the coup had succeeded and a hostile force gained control of the weapons. Or if Erdoğan quit NATO and seized the base? How confident are we the PALs cannot be compromised. Many voices are warning the nukes are in some jeopardy, They are unlikely to be used for their original purpose, to defend Turkey. Is it time to get them out?

Bear in mind where İncirlik is located. It is just outside Adana in southeastern Turkey.

The larger map below emphasizes the importance of this. The base is perhaps 100 miles from the Syrian border, In the map below, Adana is the conurbation in southeastern Turkey at the upper left; the city in the lower right is Aleppo. Of all the places in Turkey to store nuclear weapons, we store ours as close to the ISIS front lines as possible. I suspect the US is having second thoughts about this deployment.

Newly Available Details on JFK and Israel's Nuclear Program

I have periodically cited pieces by Avner Cohen here since Avner is the go-to expert on the Israeli nuclear program, and last year I noted the inauguration of the National Security Archive's collection of documents on the program, which Cohen edits. Their latest release of documents is "Concerned About Nuclear Weapons Potential, John F. Kennedy Pushed for Inspection of Israel Nuclear Facilities." 

Given Israel's well-known cone of silence around its nuclear program, these accounts with their supporting documents from declassified US sources are often the best documentation we have; Haaretz has a report here (paywalled).

First Vanunu, Now This: Revisiting the 1979 Vela "Double Flash"

Perhaps because of the Iranian nuclear agreement, there seems to be increased discussion of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Eyebrows were certainly raised when Mordechai Vanunu, long imprisoned and then forbidden to speak publicly for revealing details of Israel's deterrent, was interviewed on Israeli television on Septmber 4 and allowed to speak freely. That raised the question of whether the Israeli security establishment is prepared to be more open about its capabilities.

Now, Leonard Weiss revisits another old debate in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "Flash from the past: Why an Apparent Israeli Nuclear Test in 1979 Matters Today."

For those who came in late, on September 22, 1979, a US intelligence satellite tasked to look for evidence of atmospheric nuclear testing, Vela 6911, detected a double flash where the Indian Ocean and Atlantic come together off South Africa. The double flash was characteristic of a nuclear explosion. It was speculated that it was either a South African test with Israeli assistance, or an Israeli test from a South African ship. (They were known to be cooperating at the time.) The US National Laboratories and the US Intelligence Community were convinced that it was indeed a nuclear test, but a scientific panel appointed by the government eventually declared the results inconclusive. Those familiar with the intelligence largely remained convinced it was real but the public perception was that it had been inconclusive.

Weiss's article revives the debate and reviews the evidence, allegations, and rumors. It's worth reading whether you're new to the debate or already familiar with it.

Multiple Takes (Mostly Favorable) on the Iran Deal

With opponents of the Iran nuclear agreement being quite vocal right now,  I thought I'd collect some of the more reasonable discussions, especially by Iran experts and Israelis who back the deal.

• The Iran Project, "Statement by National Security Leaders on the Announcement of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."
•  Robin Wright, The New Yorker, "Tehran's Promise: The revolution's midlife crisis and the nuclear deal."
• Shibley Telhami, Reuters, "Netanyahu steered U.S. toward war with Iran – the result is a deal he hates."
•  Americans for Peace Now, "Israeli Nuclear/Security Experts on the Iran Deal." I had already bookmarked many of these individually, such as Avner Cohen and Chuck Freilich, but the APN offers a great selection of quotes and links to Israeli supporters of the deal.
• Anthony H. Cordesman, "The Iran Nuclear Agreement and Conventi0onal Arms Transfers in the Gulf." Cordesman focuses not on the nuclear aspects but on the existing dominance of GCC arms purchases in the conventional sphere.

Finally, if all the heavy reading starts to get to you, Lebanese satirist karl Sharro explains it all at The Atlantic: "The Confused Peron's Guide to the Iran Deal: How the Arab Street Views the Agreement, in One Simple Diagram." [I'll let you click through to see the one "simple" diagram, but the fifth paragraph quoted below summarizes it in one extremely run-on sentence]:

In recent days, some Arab leaders have warned darkly about the consequences of the new nuclear agreement with Iran. But how controversial is the deal in Arab countries, really? How do Arabs feel?

As ever in situations like this, the media has proven indispensable in capturing what the “Arab Street” thinks about the deal. In The Independent, Robert Fisk went a step further and tried to imagine what Arabs think based on his long experience in the region, arguing with typical nuance and subtlety that “the Arabs at least will suspect the truth: that the Americans have taken the Shia Muslim side in the Middle East’s sectarian war.”

To investigate these portrayals of the Arab view of the deal, journalists affiliated with the Institute of Internet Diagrams spent hours in the legendary Arab Street itself. As every foreign reporter in the region knows, the best way to get to the Arab Street is to get in a taxi anywhere in the Arab world and ask to be driven to “the street.” (Don’t say the “Arab Street,” because it’s assumed.) 

The Arab Street is not as grand as you might imagine. It’s quite narrow and crowded, but it’s full of life, and the scent of spices wafts across it at regular intervals to ensure foreign correspondents are in the right frame of mind. Head straight to the busiest café; booking a table in advance will give customers time to put on traditional clothes for a more authentic feel.

Word on the Arab Street is that Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran so that he can extract concessions over Syria in return for Iran being allowed to control Iraq and for which it has to rein in the Houthis in Yemen to pacify the Saudis and simultaneously restrain Kurdish ambitions thus easing Turkey’s anxiety about Kurdish independence as an incentive for it to cooperate regionally allowing both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to come on board with Obama’s plan for Israel/Palestine which will also appease Egypt allowing it to play a bigger role in Libya to control the southern shores of the Mediterranean reducing migrant flows into Europe to ease the pressure on Greece and Italy for which Europe agrees to soften its stance against Russia allowing for a solution in Ukraine that allows NATO to maintain a presence in the East without threatening Russia which will be rewarded by removing the international sanctions against it allowing it to increase its trade with Europe.

Whatever You Think of the Iran Deal, Why are so Few Mentioning that Today was the 70th Anniversary of the Trinity Test?

Seventy years ago today, on the appropriately named Jornada del Muerto of New Mexico, the world's first nuclear explosion, codenamed Trinity, burst, in Robert Oppenheimer;s words, "brighter than a thousand suns." As we still wrestle with putting that genie back into its bottle, it seems worthwhile noting the anniversary.

For Those Who Actually Want to Read the Iran Deal Before Expressing an Opinion . . .

. . . you can find the text here.

Now Comes the Hard Part

So the P5+1 finally got a deal with Iran. But opponents in both the US and Iran are poised to undermine it, as are Israel and Saudi Arabia. I suspect every comma is going to be analyzed thoroughly in the weeks to come. I hope supporters of the deal are ready to defend it, and that the inspection regime is intrusive enough to convince the skeptics.

National Security Archive Launches Collection on Israel's Nuclear Program

The National Security Archive today launched a new online collection of documents related to Israel's nuclear program, which has drawn renewed attention during the debate over the Iranian nuclear program. It's edited by Avner Cohen, author of books on the subject and pretty much the go-to (unclassified) source on the subject: "The US Discovery of Israel's Secret Nuclear project."

The Deal: A Glimmer of Hope?

I'm unsure whether the fiercest opposition to the Lausanne deal is going to come from the Republicans in the US Congress or the hardliners in Tehran, and it's far from set in stone, leaving aside he Israeli and Saudi opposition for now. But with so much going from bad to worse in the region, it's a  glimmer of hope, though one many will be working hard to extinguish.

But I think an important indicator is not how the Iranian government has responded, but how ordinary people in the streets of Tehran responded: with celebration. That puts even more pressure on the hardliners not to backslide, and gives Rouhani and Zarif more leverage to sell the deal at home.

The Israeli DJ Who Gave Us Qadhafi's "Zenga Zenga" in 2011 Gives Us Bibi's "Stand! Down!"

I know absolutely nothing about the Israeli DJ Noy Alooshe, except that back in 2011 when the late but unlamented Col. Qadhafi pledged to track down his opponents "alley by alley," (zanqa zanqa, or in dialect, zenga zenga), he did a remix of the Qadhafi speech (complete with inadequately dressed female dancer) that momentarily owned the Internet:


Well, he's BAACK. and he's done that thing he does with Netanyahu's speech to Congress. (Remember, he's Israeli himself before you yell at me):

The "Saudi-Israeli Alliance" Story is Hardly New and Dubiously Sourced

You may have heard of the UK Sunday Times' story about an alleged Saudi-Israeli alliance to strike Iran. The whole article is behind a paywall, but based on the part showing, the real take-away may be the line "Riyadh is understood already to have given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran." That isn't quite an "alliance," but of course there's no denying that the Saudis and the Israelis share a fear of Iran's nuclear program and worry about the upshot of a Geneva deal. The Saudis have, of course, vehemently denied the story, saying it "has no relations or contacts with Israel of any kind or at any level." While that may ignore unofficial back channels that most of us know have been used in the past, any official cooperation is highly unlikely. (I'll leave out the question of of the route Israel took on the 1981 Osirak raid and certain undisclosed US operations during the 2003 Iraq War: there is some reason to believe that Saudi Air Defenses can be, well, inattentive when they choose to be.)

But I wouldn't sweat the story anyway. Marsha B. Cohen, at LobeLog, takes down the Sunday Times in context, however:

Mahnaimi’s [the source of the story] corpus of “scoops” for the Sunday Times over the past decade include well over a dozen reports that an Israeli military strike on Iran is imminent. Mahnaimi has also provided fanciful depictions of secret high-tech weaponry Israel might deploy in an attack like “the gamma pulse that could send Iran back to the stone age” and a bacteriological ethnic bomb Israel had developed that would only harm Arabs.

Two previous Sunday Times reports have alleged that the Saudis were comfortable and cooperative with the prospect of an attack on Iran through their air space.

On July 5, 2009, in an article titled, “Saudis Give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran,” Mahnaimi quoted a diplomatic source who claimed that “The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israel air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.” According to Mahnaimi, then Mossad chief Meir Dagan had held secret talks earlier that year and had assured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

On Jun. 12, 2010, a very similar report by the Sunday Times‘ Hugh Tomlinson alleged — citing an unidentified US “defense official — that Saudi Arabia had practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems in order to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. He added that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country. Saudi sources denied the report. Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the UK, declared that any such move “would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom,” and that Saudi Arabia would not allow any violation of its territories or airspace.

Mahnaimi reported on May 13 of this year that Israel was preparing to join Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey in establishing “an early warning system to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.” The American-brokered proposal, Mahnaimi wrote, “may eventually lead to technicians from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan working alongside Israelis in joint command-and-control centres.”

Israeli news sources, including Haaretz, the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Israel Today and Y-Net are today uncritically reporting the Sunday Times‘ claim that an Israeli-Saudi attack is in the works, without mentioning the almost identical stories of 2009 and 2010, or the plethora of predictions of an Israeli attack on Iran during the course of the past decade that never happened.

Among Mahnaimi's other headline-makers was a 2010 report, also in the Sunday Times, that all three Israeli Dolphin-class subs were armed with nuclear missiles and all sitting off the Iranian coast. You remember the nuclear holocaust of 2010, don't you? (For the record, the Dolphins do carry ship-to-shore cruise missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, but they don't have the range of SLBMs. Also, all submarines, even Egypt's and ours, must pass the Suez Canal on the surface as it's too shallow to submerge. As far as I am aware, that only happened once, in 2009, with one sub, and it later returned. The subs could go around Africa, though they would need a submarine tender on the surface, and likely a friendly fueling base since they are diesel, not nuclear-powered, though they may have such facilities available in Eritrea or Djibouti. But they sure haven't all three been sitting off Iran with their nukes locked and loaded since 2010, that's for sure.)

Breakthrough with Iran?

There's a lot of positive buzz coming out of Geneva in the past few hours, as both sides seem to be signaling optimism that a first-stage deal could be reached in outline as early as tomorrow Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has been expressing cautious optimism about a deal, and Zarif meets EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton tomorrow morning.

Though the US Congress is moving ahead with more new sanctions, the Administration seems ready for a relaxation of sanctions in return for Iranian concessions, presumably limitations on the enrichment program.  Trita Parsi looks at the elements of such a deal here.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is currently in the Middle East on a 10-day tour of several countries; there's Twitter buzz that he may add a stop in Geneva.

Tomorrow just might prove rather interesting.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gives Interview with Israel Radio; Rare Optimsm in Geneva?

I've  been hanging around the Middle East far too long to indulge in unbridled optimism, or even bridled optimism, but the Rouhani phenomenon continues to surprise: Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi gave an interview with Israel Radio:

“Any agreement reached will open new horizons in [our] relations with all states,” Araqchi told Israel Radio reporter Gideon Kutz. Araqchi also responded with a “Yes” when Kutz asked him whether Israel would be able to live in peace with whatever deal would be reached between Western powers and the Islamic Republic.

Kutz told The Times of Israel by phone from Geneva that he was wearing an Israel Radio press badge when he interviewed the Iranian official, and that “the nature of my questions” made his identity as an Israeli journalist obvious to Araqchi. If so, Araqchi’s readiness to answer questions from an Israeli journalist is highly unusual; Iranian officials routinely avoid all open contact with the Israeli media.

First, Rosh Hashanah greetings, now this. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't around anymore, whatever else you make of this, and we already have heard Netanyahu call Rouhani a wolf in sheep's clothing.

But the news coming out of Geneva is also positive, with both sides expressing optimism that it may be possible to make progress on the nuclear issue, despite many lingering obstacles. Nobody should minimize those obstacles, but it's the first positive news in a long time,

Nuclear Weapons and 1973: Avner Cohen Releases the Longer Version of Azaryahu Interview

Last week I published links to and a three-minute video clip of an interview Avner Cohen released the contents of an interview he had with Arnan Azaryahu about Moshe Dayan's suggestion of using nuclear weapons during the 1973 war. Azaryahu reported that Golda Meir refused the suggestion outright. The Dayan suggestion was made on October 7, 1973, the second day of the war and exactly 40 years ago today.

I briefly had a clip of the full 12 minute interview up, but Avner informed me that it had been posted to YouTube inadvertently, and that only the three minute version was for public release, so that is all that appears now in last week's post.

Fortunately, since the longer version contains more anecdotal context, he has now decided to release the longer account (part of a much longer interview on Azaryahu's career). Also I did not previously link to Avner's detailed notes and analysis of the interview, which I really should have done, and which you may read here. "Sini" is Azaryahu's nickname. Again, the leadership meeting under discussion took place 40 years ago today. (Hebrew but English subtitles.)

Avner Cohen Reveals New Details on the Nuclear Aspect in the 1973 War

Sunday marks the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and thus a lot of people are revisiting that event, and I'll be posting more on the subject tomorrow and next week; The Middle East Journal's Autumn issue will feature a piece by Israeli historian Uri Bar-Joseph on the intelligence surprise. Here, however, is another revelation worthy of note.

From the time of the war itself there have been rumors surrounding the early days of the war and the US global nuclear alert which followed, rumors suggesting that Israel considered using its nuclear arsenal. Avner Cohen, who has written more extensively than anyone about Israel's nuclear program, has donated his research materials to the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, and the collection reveals new details about the nuclear aspect of 1973. Cohen also has details in an op-ed in The New York Times,  "When Israel Stepped Back from the Brink."

As he notes:

In the four decades since the 1973 war, rumors have blossomed that Israel stood at the nuclear brink during that war’s darkest hours. A number of journalists and scholars have asserted that during a dramatic meeting in one of the war’s early days, a panic-stricken Mr. Dayan persuaded the Israeli war cabinet, including the prime minister, Golda Meir, to arm the country’s weapons with warheads for possible use.

Some analysts have even claimed that Israel used this “nuclear alert” to blackmail the Nixon administration into providing Israel with a huge airlift of military supplies. Although these stories were based on anonymous sourcing and circumstantial evidence, they have become a central part of the lore surrounding the Yom Kippur War.

In 2008, Cohen interviewed Arnan Azrayahu, who in 1973 was an advisor to Yisrael Galili, a Minister without Portfolio and close ally of Golda Meir. Cohen did not release the interview until after Azrayahu's death. According to his account:

Then, as the meeting adjourned, Mr. Dayan, casually leaning against the door and talking as if he were raising only a minor point, asked the prime minister to authorize Mr. Freier to initiate the necessary preparations for a “demonstration option” — that is, a demonstration of Israel’s nuclear weapons capability.

According to Mr. Azaryahu’s account, Mr. Dayan gave the impression that he’d already authorized such a demonstration and all that was needed was Ms. Meir’s approval. Mr. Dayan explained that an immediate authorization of preparatory steps for a nuclear blast would save precious time and allow the order to detonate a bomb to be executed rapidly should the need arise. At that point, Mr. Azaryahu told me, Mr. Galili and the deputy prime minister, Yigal Allon, spoke up to oppose Mr. Dayan’s plan, saying it was premature to consider the nuclear option and that Israel would prevail using conventional weapons.

Siding with her two senior ministers, the prime minister told Mr. Dayan to “forget it.” He responded by saying that he remained unconvinced but that he respected the prime minister’s decision. He then left the room.

So apparently Moshe Dayan did urge a nuclear demonstration, but was firmly overridden by Meir and her allies Galili and Allon. Avner Cohen's op-ed in effect confirms the discussion but also indicates the idea was quickly shot down.

Also see this report of the interview in the Times of Israel, and Cohen's introduction to the collection of interviews at the Wilson Center's website.

Here's a three-minute clip of the key part of Azrayahu's interview (Hebrew with English subtitles). (A longer video that appeared here for a while was apparently not intended for public release and has been taken down by request.)

Netanyahu on Iran

Binyamin Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly lacked the wonderful Wile E. Coyote-style cartoon bomb that made last year's speech so memorable, but he left no doubt that he is not convinced by Hassan Rouhani's charm offensive, in fact labeling Iran "a wolf in sheep's clothing."

It was vintage Netanyahu, spelling out the dangers of allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and insisting on a complete dismantling of its nuclear research before any sanctions are eased.

Clearly, Netanyahu is dismayed and displaying considerable anxiety about the US-Iran thaw.

And of course, in keeping with Israel's policy of "ambiguity," there was of course no mention that Israel has a considerable nuclear arsenal.

Today's Kerry-Zarif Meeting Could Be Far More Important Than Any Photo-Op Handshake

The expected meeting today between US Secretary of State John Kery and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is the first such meeting in several years and the first in a much longer period with any chance (however remote) of making any substantive progress. No one can know what its real chances may be at this time. Both sides suspect (and have historical reasons to suspect) the other's motive, sincerity, and intentions. Both sides, if perceived as conceding too much, would face a political firestorm at home, in the Iranian case, one rooted in the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

But what is abundantly clear is that there are opportunities at least hinted at, that we have not seen in many years. And that if a breakthrough is going to take place it will be through the Kerry-Zarif meeting (perhaps the first of a new round of negotiations?) and not through some imagined summit between the two countries' Presidents,

The huge amount of media hype on Tuesday, when Presidents Obama and Rouhani were at the UN at the same time, over whether the two men would meet, or at least shake hands, or occupy the same room together, led to a disappointment, But high-profile handshakes, however great as photo-ops, do not resolve conflicts of longstanding, ridden with suspicion and recrimination. Neither side trusts the other, and each has its reasons. Diplomatic process will depend on confidence-building, tenacity, determination, and minds that are cautiously open but not gullible. And the ability of each to reach a deal they can sell domestically is far from certain. But this will matter far more than an Obama-Rouhani handshake could have.

Interestingly, Zarif has been posting his travel diary to his Facebook page, and the US Institute for Peace is translating the entries into English. That part, at least, is something new and different.

Profile of Saeed Jalili

Laura Rozen at Al-Monitor's The Back Channel has a profile of Saeed Jalili, the Iranian National Security Council chief, nuclear negotiator and now, Presidential candidate. Since many believe that Jalili is the favored candidate of Ayatollah Khamenei, he may prove to be someone we all need to get to know.

On a More Positive Note . . .

My previous post was fairly gloomy in looking at where we stand in the region today. On a more positive note, Marsha B. Cohen reminds us of the "2012 Predictions of War with Iran That Didn't Happen (20th Anniversary Edition)."  Of course Israel is still threatening war with Iran, whose nuclear program is on the brink of success, as it has been since 1992.  Though if Netanyahu wins big in the elections, I'm still going to be a bit nervous . . .

Netanyahu's Bomb Drawing

Twitter is having fun with Netanyahu's bomb drawing at the UN. Here's a collection of comments on Al Jazeera,

His cartoon-style bomb and his literally drawing a red line are being praised by those who support him and lampooned by those who don't; I guess we'll see whether this proves to be an effective piece of pub;ic theater or whether it backfires.

UPDATE: And +972 has a collection of Israeli cartoons lampooning Bibi.

I'm down with a bug today so don't expect much in the way of posting.