An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in Tehran today after a motorcyclist attached a magnetic bomb to his car. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was a chemistry expert and director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran. Varying opinions are quickly emerging over who is to blame for the attack. Iran blames the US and Israel for the attack. "Does anyone doubt that some combination of the two nations completely obsessed with Iran's nuclear program...are responsible?" asks Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations, however, is of a different opinion. He asks, "But is it in US national interest to bomb Iran to defend the principle of full cooperation with the IAEA? I would say no." 

Roshan's death comes amid mounting tension between the US and Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Earlier this week, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had begun enriching uranium at 20 percent at the Fordow plant near the city of Qom. The plant is buried deep underground a military site and is said to be far more resistant to military strikes than existing plants. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responded to the news with a harsh tone."This step once again demonstrates the Iranian regime's blatant disregard for its responsibilities and that the country's growing isolation is self-inflicted," she said in a statement.

Since November 2011, the US and EU have taken significant steps to cut Iran out of the international financial network after IAEA published a report stating that Iran was involved in activities relevant to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran immediately slammed the report as politically motivated and a fabrication by the US. Tehran claims its uranium enrichment program is for nuclear research and peaceful energy purposes. "No one has a full sense of the Iranian production plan there," said one diplomat who has studied the few details released by Iran about the Fordow plant. "And I think that’s the point." Meanwhile, former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolten, says the Iranians are "testing Western powers' resolve to stop their advance towards developing a bomb."

Iran's releationship with the West has steadily declined in recent weeks as the US enacted sanctions on Iran's central bank on January 1, and the EU is expected to impose an embargo on Iranian oil by the end of the month. Western sanctions seek to undercut the Iranian government by halting the country's largest source of revenue: oil sales. The Iranian Economic Minister, Shamseddin Hosseini, likened the sanctions to "an economic war." On December 27, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that if the West followed through with its threats, Tehran would shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a 30-mile strategic waterway through which nearly one fourth of the world's oil passes every day. In the back-and-forth war of words, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta responded to the threat by saying that closing the strategic waterway would be a "red line" for the US.

Meanwhile, while Iran concluded a massive ten-day naval exercise last week stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden, some observers remain skeptical that US-Iran relations will escalate into a full-blown conflict. Iran analyst Michael Connel says the most likely outcome is "more bluster." Afshon Ostovar of Foreign Policy Magazine says that initiating a conflict with the US would be "a last-ditch, kamikaze act by the Iranians." However, he added, "as opportunities for compromise evaporate, and as relations continue to sour, the likelihood of war is steadily increasing."

Will it be a strike against Iran by the U.S. and or Israel? Will there be political upheaval in Egypt after Mubarak's reign? And will Israel invade Lebanon or Gaza? These are some of the questions that can be heard on the streets of Cairo, Amman, and Beirut.

2010 is far from over, yet we have witnessed a series of close encounters in the Middle East that created major tensions and pushed everyone to the edge: a war on the Yemeni Saudi border, rapid deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey over the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, skirmishes between Israel and Lebanon over the cutting of a tree, and the looming prospect of an attack on Iran to mention a few. But what's really troubling is how fast attitudes have changed towards President Obama from a year ago; specifically in the period after newly-elected Barack Obama delivered his "New Beginning" speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds from a podium at the University of Cairo in Egypt.

Just yesterday, on Thursday, August 5, a poll released by the Brookings Institute in conjunction with Zogby International revealed a substantial change in the assessment of President Obama, both as President of the United States and of Obama personally. According to the poll, early in the Obama Administration, in April and May 2009, 51% of the respondents in six Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates) expressed optimism about American policy in the Middle East. In the 2010 poll, only 16% were hopeful, while a majority - 63% - were discouraged.

The poll's results show another dramatic shift in public opinion on Iran's potential nuclear weapons status. While the results vary from country to country, the weighted average across the six countries is telling: in 2009, only 29% of those polled said that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be "positive" for the Middle East; in 2010, 57% of those polled indicate that such an outcome would be "positive" for the Middle East.

So what's wrong with earlier assessments that Arab countries were "freaked out" by a nuclear Iran?

Unfortunately the US government, and to a larger extent western reporters, have been spoon-fed this information by intelligence apparatuses of certain despotic Arab regimes. No one bothered to ask the average person on the street this question.

Although the poll was conducted before Obama's recent confirmation of the end of all combat operations in Iraq by the end of August, Arabs believe that the troubles of Iraq are far from being over. July has been a very deadly month in Iraq.

Recently, Saddam Hussein's former deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz, has accused the US president of "leaving Iraq to the wolves."

Last but not least: "Palestine is still the issue" to borrow from John Pilger's title. The poll leaves little doubt that the major decline in Obama's popularity has a lot to do with the disappointment in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Arabs have lost hope that President Obama will be able to deliver on his promises.

I've been in and out of the Middle East five times this year, and if tension could be described as a cloud, you'd need a knife to cut through the one created by recent political events in the region. Everyone seems edgy and expecting war. President Obama must act fast to bring back some of the magic he had early on in the region with his messages of "hope" and "change". Now he needs to deliver on real promises before it is too late.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

On Thursday President Barack Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed an arms control treaty hailed by the White House as a big step forward "to reset relations with Russia", as well as for the US president's broader nuclear agenda. The treaty, signed at a ceremony in a ballroom in Prague, reduces the number of strategic nuclear warheads each side can deploy to 1,550, along with cuts in launchers and new verification procedures.

"This day demonstrates the determination of the US and Russia - the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons - to pursue responsible global leadership," President Obama said.

But let's not kid ourselves and celebrate, there will be enough nuclear firepower left on each side to devastate the world many times over.

"Nuclear weapons are not simply an issue for the United States and Russia," Mr. Obama continued to say. "A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere, from Moscow to New York, from the cities of Europe to South Asia."

In other words, with the more immediate concern being attempts by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons, the remaining 10 percent of the world's nuclear arsenal becomes a significant concern. Significant in that it is in the hands of countries half of which are not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), such as India, Pakistan North Korea, and Israel.

This upcoming Monday and Tuesday, President Obama will also meet with leaders of more than 40 countries with the expectation of issuing a joint statement on the challenges and importance of nuclear security. He hopes to bring everyone to agree on a common "work plan" for cracking down on the illicit trade of nuclear material. Of course we know that Iran, which will be absent from the summit, will top the agenda.

But it's not only Ahmadinejad who will be missed at the summit on nuclear security; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled his visit to the US.

According to Israeli media sources, PM Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal. "Presumed" that is because Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons.

"The prime minister has decided to cancel his trip to Washington to attend the nuclear conference next week, after learning that some countries including Egypt and Turkey plan to say Israel must sign the NPT", Reuters news agency quoted a senior Israeli official as saying. Israel's Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor will take Netanyahu's place in the nuclear summit.

Mr. Netanyahu's cancelled visit to Washington comes at a time when relations between Israel and the US have hit rock bottom.

One hundred and eighty-nine countries, including all Arab states, are party to the NPT. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not.

In late March, during a closed-door session, the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons. They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

Interestingly enough, the similarities between Iran's and Israel's desire for nuclear dominance can be seen in Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's claim that Iran is developing its nuclear program for "peaceful purposes." That assertion brings to mind David Ben-Gurion's own statement in December of 1960. When U-2 spy planes identified Dimona as an Israeli nuclear site, Ben-Gurion claimed that it was only a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

Article first published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

Iran has agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors to view its recently revealed uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom, and President Obama has called talks between U.S. diplomats and their Iranian counterparts about the country's nuclear program a "constructive beginning."

However, recent events and heated rhetoric concerning Iran's nuclear program are reminiscent of the final days that lead to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations Security Council on February 5th of that year with what he called "solid" evidence that showed Iraq had still not complied with resolutions calling for it to disarm and was maintaining a secret WMD program. It seems that history is repeating itself.

Unlike what happened to Iraq in 2003, an invasion of Iran is not on the horizon; however, the prospect of targeting its nuclear facilities is more real than ever. More so than during the Bush Administration. The reason is simple: no amount of pressure or sanctions will force Iran to ab

andon what it perceives as its "unalienable right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

In an article in June, I outlined the drive behind Iran's nuclear ambition, and this has not changed. But most importantly the Obama Administration, although pursuing diplomatic means, seems to be convinced that the Iranians are conducting a clandestine nuclear program parallel to the public one. The aim of this, though of course not admitted by the Iranians, is clearly the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This position is shared by Israel, which will most likely get the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities by spring of 2010 when all negotiations with Iran will have hit a dead end.

Since April of this year, the Israeli military has been preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States and Israel have recently conducted their most complex military exercise ever, jointly testing three ballistic missile defense systems. Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

The Israeli Air Force has recently been conducting training exercises involving F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refueling tankers flying to distances of more than 870 miles: the distance between Israel and Iran. Among recent preparations by the air force was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan allegedly bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

A recent article in the British Daily Express reported that Israeli fighter jets have been allowed to use Saudi airspace to launch go-it-alone air strikes on Iranian nuclear installations. The issue has been discussed in a closed-door meeting in London, where British Intelligence Chief Sir John Scarlett, his Israeli counterpart Meir Dagan, and a Saudi official were present. According to the report, Scarlett has been told that Saudi airspace would be at Israel's disposal should Tel Aviv decide to move forward with his military plans against Iran. The Saudis have denied such claims; however, for the past few weeks Saudi-sponsored media has been raising concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. No mention of Israel's 200 plus nuclear warheads.

A survey just released by the American Jewish Committee reports that for the first time ever, a majority of American Jews support using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Fifty-six percent of American Jews think U.S. should strike Iran, while sixty-six percent of Israeli Jews back such an attack.

How many Americans support an attack on Iran?

Fifty-seven percent of American voters say Israel would be justified in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel, according to a McLaughlin poll conducted on May 8-9.

I am not being an alarmist, but the writing is on the wall.

Watch video.

Article first published in the Huffington Post.