WarSclerotic

Awareness campaigns necessary to prepare for war | Israel | Jerusalem Post.

Some elements in the military have expressed dissatisfaction with what they see as unnecessary fear-mongering by the IDF’s Home Front Command and its campaigns to prepare the nation for future wars, but a senior IDF Home Front Command official believes the stress caused by the campaigns would pay off in the long run.

Col. Chilik Soffer, head of the Population Department in the IDF Home Front Command.
Photo: IDF Spokesperson

SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region |  World

“Our vision is to see the country ready for emergency situations,” Dr. Col. Chilik Soffer, head of the Population Department at the IDF’s Home Front Command, told The Jerusalem Postrecently.

“In the army, some have asked why these campaigns of awareness are needed. Some don’t like it,” Soffer conceded.

“In the short-term, it does increase stress, but I believe this is a healthy stress, because people will function in a better way during an emergency,” he added.

Unlike recent wars which affected specific regions of the country, future conflicts are likely to see the whole Israeli home front affected, which is why the Home Front Command is seeking to ensure nationwide readiness, Soffer explained.

“We know there are rockets in Gaza with 60 kilometer ranges. We know Hizbullah has 50,000 rockets in Lebanon. We know Iran has missiles that can reach Israel. If these things exist, what are they for? They are not for looking pretty. So we’re better off getting ready,” he added.

The last time Israel faced the threat of a country-wide missile attack was during the 1991 Gulf War, Soffer noted.

“We had six months to prepare beforehand,” he added.

One year after Operation Cast Lead, the Home Front Command is in the midst of a major program designed to get local councils, government ministries, and private corporations ready for potential conflict.

“We have 60,000 soldiers in our reserves,” Soffer said, but added that more were needed.

Soffer is fond of looking to 1940s-era Britain as an example of good civilian organization in the face of enemy fire on the home front.

“During the Blitz, teenagers acted as lookouts on the rooftops, and helped firefighters,” he said. Today, the Home Front Command is implementing a program to turn tens of thousands of high school pupils into local volunteers who can help local councils.

Charity organizations that carry out vital services, like Ezer Mizion and Yad Sarah, are being connected to local councils too, he said.

And regional councils are being instructed to set up headquarters in every area, in buildings such as high schools, that can help deliver essential services, information, food and clothing during times of emergency.

“We have declared 2010 to be the year of readiness for regional councils, out of an understanding that the councils are a foundation for the home front,” Soffer said.

By March, all of Israel’s regional councils will have taken part in in-depth emergency training exercises. The councils are visited by Home Front Command officials and graded on their performance, Soffer said.

As part of the preparations, local radio networks are being set up that will keep all emergency services and regional council staff in touch and broadcasting on the same wavelength.

Local Communications Units (LCU), made up of high-ranking reserve army officers who are assigned by the Home Front Command to city councils, are now able to broadcast a live Internet feed to the Home Front Command and update their superiors on events on the ground.

“We saw how vital the LCUs were during Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War,” Soffer said. “They are force multiplier for mayors during wartime.”

Within the private sector, the Home Front Command was working with many corporations, from supermarkets to electricity providers, to ensure they continue to function during an emergency. A select number of companies have been identified by the Home Front Command as being vital to sustaining the national economy, and must thus remain operational at all times.

“After coming to power, Winston Churchill gave his ‘blood, toil, tears, and sweat’ speech,” Soffer said. “He told the truth to the nation.

“Telling the truth is worthwhile,” he added.

Israel to outfit all residents with gas masks.

Barcelona News.Net
Saturday 26th December, 2009

Israel is to outfit its entire population with gas masks.

The distribution will commence in two months.

No reason has been given by the Israeli government for providing its residents with gas masks.

There has been no indication from any country that it is planning to attack Israel, nor is any country in the Middle East likely to engage Israel in chemical warfare.

The move has heightened expectations that Israel may launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities which could spark an unconventional response. It is not known however whether Iran has any chemical or biological weapons capability.

Rumors have been circulating in the Middle East that Israel is preparing for another war on Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah. That organization however is not known to harbor chemical or biological weapons.

The only country in the region suspected of having a major chemical and biological weapons program is Israel itself, however it is very unlikely Israel would launch such an unconventional attack.

Nonetheless in February Israel will roll out gas masks to every resident in the country.

The distribution will be managed by the Israel Defense Forces which have engaged the Israel Postal Company. In past distributions the Home Front Command has engineered the delivery, so the change to Israel Post comes as a surpsie.

Israeli residents will be able to collect the new gas masks in one of two ways. The first option will be to go to a branch of the Israel Postal Company, and to receive the new gas mask for free.

The second option will be to pay 25 shekels per family and have a representative from the Israel Postal Company call to residents’ homes. The representative will try the gas masks on each family member, and will provide appropriately fitting gas masks for each person who lives in the household.

Col. Yosi Sagiv, head of the Gas Mask Administration of the Home Front Command, says when a civilian receives a gas mask delivered to his house, “it is not a package that is simply delivered.” The Israeli Postal Company representative will make sure the gas mask fits properly, he said.

Children up to 8 years of age will be receiving a new gas mask, dubbed the Mamtek (Hebrew for “Candy”), which is being distributed for the first time.

“We are the only country in the world that produces gas masks for children, and the children’s gas mask we produce is the only one in the world that supplies prime defense for this age group,” Col. Sagiv said. “All that is left is to hope that it will not be necessary to experience first hand how well these gas masks work,” he said.

A BBC documentary made 3 years ago, but even more relevant today.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Op-Ed Contributor – There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran – NYTimes.com.

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran

PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal, which was ill conceived from the start. Under the deal, which was formally offered through the United Nations, Iran was to surrender some 2,600 pounds of lightly enriched uranium (some three-quarters of its known stockpile) to Russia, and the next year get back a supply of uranium fuel sufficient to run its Tehran research reactor for three decades. The proposal did not require Iran to halt its enrichment program, despite several United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding such a moratorium.

Iran was thus to be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal.

Moreover, by providing reactor fuel, the plan would have fostered proliferation in two ways. First, Iran could have continued operating its research reactor, which has helped train Iranian scientists in weapons techniques like plutonium separation. (Yes, as Iran likes to point out, the reactor also produces medical isotopes. But those can be purchased commercially from abroad, as most countries do, including the United States.) Absent the deal, Iran’s reactor will likely run out of fuel within two years, and only a half-dozen countries are able to supply fresh fuel for it. This creates significant international leverage over Iran, which should be used to compel it to halt its enrichment program.

In addition, the vast surplus of higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted some to be diverted to its bomb program. Indeed, many experts believe that the uranium in foreign-provided fuel would be easier to enrich to weapons grade because Iran’s uranium contains impurities. Obama administration officials had claimed that delivering uranium in the form of fabricated fuel would prevent further enrichment for weapons, but this is false. Separating uranium from fuel elements so that it can be enriched further is a straightforward engineering task requiring at most a few weeks.

Thus, had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90 percent-enriched uranium (meaning that 90 percent of its makeup is the fissile isotope U-235) by starting with purified 20 percent-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff.

This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb.

But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in “salami slicing” — a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. For example, while Iran permits international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near Qom.

In sum, the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because that risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run — a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.

Tehran’s rejection of the deal was likewise propelled by domestic politics — including last June’s fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western manipulation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initially embraced the deal because he realized it aided Iran’s bomb program. But his domestic political opponents, whom he has tried to label as foreign agents, turned the tables by accusing him of surrendering Iran’s patrimony to the West.

Under such domestic pressure, Mr. Ahmadinejad reneged. But Iran still wants reactor fuel, so he threatened to enrich uranium domestically to the 20 percent level. This is a bluff, because even if Iran could further enrich its impure uranium, it lacks the capacity to fabricate that uranium into fuel elements. His real aim is to compel the international community into providing the fuel without requiring Iran to surrender most of the enriched uranium it has on hand.

Indeed, Iran’s foreign minister has now proposed just that: offering to exchange a mere quarter of Iran’s enriched uranium for an immediate 10-year supply of fuel for the research reactor. This would let Iran run the reactor, retain the bulk of its enriched uranium and continue to enrich more — a bargain unacceptable even to the Obama administration.

Tehran’s rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The risks of acquiescence are obvious. Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of international embargoes. Even President Ahmadinejad’s domestic opponents support this weapons traffic. If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb.

As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.

But history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel’s 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq’s rapid acquisition of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual, uranium-based bomb program. A decade later, the Persian Gulf war uncovered and enabled the destruction of that uranium initiative, which finally deterred Saddam Hussein from further pursuit of nuclear weapons (a fact that eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion). Analogously, Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

As for the risk of military strikes undermining Iran’s opposition, history suggests that the effect would be temporary. For example, NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia briefly bolstered support for President Slobodan Milosevic, but a democratic opposition ousted him the next year.

Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway. Iran’s leaders are discouraged from taking more aggressive action against United States forces — and should continue to be — by the fear of provoking a stronger American counter-escalation. If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.

Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.

The final question is, who should launch the air strikes? Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.

But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

DEBKAfile – Mubarak flies to Gulf to urgently discuss Iran’s reconciliation move.

Mubarak flies to Gulf to urgently discuss Iran’s reconciliation move

DEBKAfile Special Report

December 22, 2009, 7:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iranian Speaker in Cairo

While Israel was wholly caught up in the next stage of a deal with Hamas for trading its soldier Gilead Shalit for several hundred jailed Palestinians, the Iran-Syrian axis pounced with swift moves to mend its fences with moderate Arab rulers. Sunday, Dec. 20, the powerful Iranian speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, arrived in Cairo and was received at once by Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak for a conversation lasting two hours.

DEBKAfile‘s Iranian sources report that the Iranian visitor carried with him a wide-ranging proposal to ease the strained relations between Tehran and the moderate Arab governments.

Without wasting a moment, the next day, the Egyptian president flew to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Arab emirates to discuss the momentous turn of events.

The octogenarian Mubarak travels very infrequently these days because of his failing health except in extraordinary circumstances. He was galvanized this time by the message Larijani brought from Tehran containing the offer of “a new Iranian approach to resolving outstanding issues.” Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already offered to open an embassy in Cairo for the first time since ties were broken off after Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

Aware that any breakthrough with the Arab governments was contingent on allaying their fears of its nuclear drive, Iran’s offer of a new beginning is reported by our sources as including a form of Iranian-Arab nuclear cooperation. Its immediate objective is to close ranks with the Arab nations in order to outmaneuver the US-Israeli campaign against its nuclear drive, thereby derailing the US president Barack Obama’s plans for drawing Europe, Russian and China into approving another round of harsh sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

The expeditiousness of Mubarak response to Tehran’s overture and the promptness of his Gulf consultations indicated that the bloc of Arab nations, which he and Saudi king Abdullah lead, has given up on effective action by America or Israel, including force, for throwing Iran off its current nuclear course.

Within the region today, coexistence with Iran looks like a safer bet.

If this burgeoning realignment of Middle East partnerships goes forward, the region’s strategic balance will be pulled out of shape, Washington’s influence heavily downgraded and Israel isolated.

Iran and Syria are acting on more than one front. When Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri visited Damascus over the weekend, he was handed an invitation to visit Tehran soon by Syrian president Bashir Assad.

Furthermore, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in Damascus with 10 of his ministers to sign new accords for closer relations. The new Turkish-Syrian pact brings Ankara into Iran’s circle of influence.

In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs warned that December is a very real deadline ahead of possible new sanctions on Iran and its nuclear program.

The US year-end deadline for accepting a UN-brokered compromise for its nuclear program was quickly brushed off by Ahmadinejad. “They say we have given Iran until the end of the Christian year. Who are they anyway? It is we who have given them an opportunity,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the city of Shiraz carried live on state television Monday, Dec. 22.

DEBKAfile – Top US soldier: We must be ready for force option against Iran.

DEBKAfile Special Report

December 21, 2009, 7:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

Adm. Mike Mullen

In the plainest authoritative US statement yet about military force against Iran, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said: “My belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security and that military force will have limited results. However, should the president call for military options, we must have them ready. He said this on Monday, Dec. 21in his annual assessment of the nation’s risks and priorities for 2010.

Tehran shows no signs of backing down in the standoff over what is widely believed to be its drive for a nuclear bomb, said the US armed forces chief.

Adm. Mullen added: “Most critically Iran’s internal unrest, unpredictable leadership and sponsorship of terrorism make it a regional and global concern, heightened by its determined pursuit of nuclear weapons.

DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources note that this is the first time any high-ranking American has put the military option squarely on the table. He has done so at the very moment that President Barack Obama’s first deadline for Iran to level on its nuclear operations is running out.

Mullen said nothing about what kind of military force he wants at hand, but any attack would presumably be conducted by air.

Sunday, Adm. Mullen said he was worried about Iran’s intentions and said the clock is running on Obama’s offer of engagement.

Also Monday, the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies ran an assessment by the commentator Anthony H. Cordesman on America’s options against Iran as “a nuclear weapons power.” He wrote: Iran’s steadily advancing capabilities for asymmetric (DEBKA: WMD including chemical and biological weapons) and proxy warfare still leave it vulnerable to US conventional forces and devastating precision attacks on its military and economic assets.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says secret nuclear document is a US forgery – Times Online.

Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent

Israel, Arab countries plan for war with Iran.

Secret talks held to discuss how to respond to retaliatory attacks

Posted: December 21, 2009
9:49 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tehran

TEL AVIV – Intelligence officials from Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the U.S. held a meeting last week to discuss specific responses to Iranian retaliatory attacks during a potential war with Tehran, WND has learned.

A senior Egyptian intelligence official told WND the main talks, which took place in Amman, revolved around the possibility of Iranian-directed Palestinian and Islamic attacks against Israel, Egypt and Jordan during a possible future war with Iran.

The official said scenarios discussed revolved only around Iranian retaliatory attacks and did not take into account how any future war with Iran would be initiated or the timing of such a war.

The official said the concern was that Iran would use proxies such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip to attack both Egypt and Israel, while Hezbollah in Lebanon would launch missiles at Israeli population centers, including Tel Aviv.

Also, there is fear militants inside Jordan allied with the Muslim Brotherhood could attack Jordanian interests.

Hamas in Gaza is said to have rockets capable of reaching just outside Tel Aviv, while Hezbollah possesses Iranian-supplied missiles and rockets that can reach most Israeli population centers.

Egypt granted Israel permission several months ago to conduct naval exercises off Egyptian coastal waters. The military drills clearly were aimed at Iran.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are influenced by Sunni Islam. The Arab countries are threatened by the growing influence of Iran, dominated by Shiite Islam.

In September, Saudi Arabia denied it offered the Israel Air Force permission to fly over its territory to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Arab country was responding to a report in London’s Sunday Express claiming the Saudis had agreed to turn a blind eye and not interfere should Israel and the U.S. attack Iranian nuclear facilities through Saudi air space. The Saudi government called the Express report baseless.

Just before the Express report, WND quoted an Egyptian intelligence official stating Saudi Arabia is cooperating with Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue.

The official said Saudi Arabia is passing intelligence information to Israel related to Iran. He affirmed a report from the Arab media, strongly denied by the Israeli government, that Saudi Arabia has granted Israel overflight permission during any attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The official previously told WND that Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, has been involved in an intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying effort urging the U.S. and other Western countries to do everything necessary to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Such weapons would threaten Saudi Arabia’s position of influence in the Middle East.

The Egyptian official said his country believes it is not likely Obama will grant Israel permission to attack Iran.

He previously spoke about the efforts of other Arab countries to oppose an Iranian nuclear umbrella but did not comment on Egypt’s own position on the matter.

David Harris: Iran: The Truth Hurts.

David Harris

Executive Director, AJC, and Senior Associate, St. Antony’s College, Oxford University

Posted: December 20, 2009 07:00 PM

It’s as predictable as day follows night.

Raise the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, as I have more than once, and all Tehran’s flacks and flunkies, including Israel-bashers galore, come out of the woodwork.

They rush to Iran’s defense, portraying it as a peace-loving, law-abiding, misunderstood nation.

There is no evidence whatsoever, they allege, that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

Oh, and by the way, on the off chance it is, they add, it’s strictly for defensive purposes. Iran has never hurt a soul in its history, so why the concern?

They accuse all kinds of alleged miscreants – warmongers, neoconservatives, Zionists, you name it – of besmirching Iran’s good name in pursuit of nefarious aims. The label is meant to say it all.

If heaven forbid, you’re a Zionist, as I am, then it’s abundantly clear what you must be up to. Nothing more need be said. Were it not for you, Iran would enjoy the reputation for democracy and decency it so richly deserves.

And they seek to divert the discussion to Israel’s nuclear program and a whole host of other misdeeds, falling just short of holding Jerusalem responsible for the melting of the ice caps.

You see, they contend, the problem in the Middle East is Israel, not Iran. Anything that focuses on Iran is off-limits, as it’s only a ploy to divert the world’s attention from the root cause of all evil and instability, Israel, in an otherwise serene and sedate region.

Gee, if only Israel would go away – hmm, come to think of it, that Iranian nuclear bomb just might help – the region would overnight resemble Europe or North America in its commitment to peace, development, and human rights.

All these spin doctors, whether they comment in the Huffington Post or Bahrain’s Gulf Daily News, offer a variant of these themes.

Frankly, they do themselves a disservice. Strip away the huffing and puffing and their arguments don’t amount to a hill of beans.

Iran’s stock has been dropping like a rock, and the responsibility lies solely and exclusively with Iran. Trying to blame this state of affairs on others may play to the bleachers, but won’t wash on the street.

First, consider what’s been going on.

The UN Security Council has adopted three sanctions resolutions against Iran because of its nuclear program, each with the support of the five permanent members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. And a fourth resolution appears to be just around the corner.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has censured Iran as recently as last month for developing in secret a uranium enrichment site near Qom. The vote was 25 to 3. Those voting against were Cuba, Malaysia, and Venezuela. Right afterwards, Malaysia indicated that its vote was in error, leaving just Cuba and Venezuela, quite a support group for Iran. As the saying goes, “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.”

Interpol has issued “red notices” for five Iranians, including Iran’s current defense minister. These red notices indicate that Argentina seeks the arrest and extradition of the five in connection with a terror attack against the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

In February, Bahrain suspended talks with Iran on a gas deal after Iranian officials referred to the country as “the 14th province of Iran,” evoking memories of Saddam Hussein’s claim that Kuwait was an integral part of Iraq – and all that followed.

In March, Morocco broke diplomatic ties with Iran. Rabat accused Tehran of “intolerable interference in the internal affairs of the kingdom.”

In April, Egypt lodged an official protest with Iran over Tehran’s “blatant interference in internal Egyptian affairs.”

In June, President Barack Obama visited Saudi Arabia. The Saudi king pressed for tougher U.S. action against Iran, fearing the geostrategic implications for his country and all the Arab Gulf states of a nuclear Iran.

That’s just a small taste of Iran’s dealings with the larger world. What about inside the country?

Each day brings new reports about human rights abuses, as the current regime, besieged since the rigged June elections, tightens the noose – literally and figuratively.

Literally, as public hangings have been among the favored methods of capital punishment practiced by the Iranian government. Figuratively, as nervous leaders attempt to quash the demonstrations that keep popping up, despite efforts to intimidate and cow the protesters.

Will the whitewashers of the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime defend the government’s repressive practices against students, reform politicians, independent journalists, women activists, gays, or religious minorities?

And then there’s the Israel argument. But that doesn’t hold any more water than the others.

If Israel has a nuclear arsenal, it is for one purpose – and one purpose only. It serves as the ultimate guarantor of the security of a state that has been the target of its enemies since its very establishment in 1948.

Last time I checked, Israel, unlike Iran, had never called for the destruction of any country in the region. Israel has never questioned Iran’s right to exist. It is Iran that questions Israel’s right to exist.

And last time I checked, Israel had never resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, though faced with devastating wars since the 1950s, when reports suggest it first developed those weapons. If that doesn’t indicate rational, responsible behavior, what does?

I understand that being Iran’s lawyers in the court of public opinion these days can be rather tough. It’s not easy to find salient arguments to make. Iran has become its own worst enemy – practicing deceit and deception abroad, repression and brute force at home.

Sorry, but no smokescreens, straw men, name-calling, or truth-twisting can deny the stark, unassailable facts about Iran today.

Americans support action on Iran, if necessary | Iranian – Iran News | Jerusalem Post.

Just over half of Americans support a military attack on Iran by the United States and its allies if Teheran doesn’t halt its nuclear program, according to a new poll by The Israel Project.

Iran fires a missile from a submarine during an exercise in the Persian Gulf in 2008 [file].
Photo: AP [file]

SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region |  World

In such a scenario, 51% of Americans would support targeted military strikes and 44% would oppose them.

Fewer of those polled, however, would support Israel taking such action on its own, by a split of 42% to 49%.

However, should Israel go ahead and attack Iran anyway, and then came under retaliatory attack from Iran, a strong majority said the US should lend military defense. In that case 61% said the US should help Israel in that event (with 32% opposed). The number jumped to 68% (with 29% opposed) if Israel comes under attack from Iranian proxies Hizbullah and Hamas.

“That’s a very big number at a time when America’s involved in two wars that are fairly unpopular with the American people,” said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, referring to American backing for entering a potential conflict with Iran on behalf of Israel.

Those surveyed were skeptical that engagement and negotiations, or even multilateral sanctions, would halt Iran’s nuclear program. Only 40% said there was some or even a good chance those would work, with 59% giving them little or no chance. The skepticism increased if the US alone imposed sanctions.

Still, that path was still favored over force. Twenty-one percent said increased economic sanctions were the best approach for now, with 19% saying increased diplomatic pressure, 17% giving direct negotiations with Iran and 13% choosing US military action.

“While Americans’ first choice is diplomacy and sanctions, Americans take the Iranian threat seriously and are prepared to back that with difficult choices and real action if needed,” assessed Neil Newhouse, the Republican half of the bipartisan team that conducted the poll.

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, the other half of the polling team, explained, “Americans want intensified sanctions and support for Iran’s domestic opponents, but Iran’s response to the elections and the international community leave them very skeptical about the ability to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Whichever approach is taken, those polled stated emphatically that they want their elected officials focused on the issue. Some 78% agreed with the statement that “even with all the problems that America faces at home now, we must still work hard to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

The surveys were conducted last Monday through Wednesday of 800 registered voters and had a +/- 3.5 percent margin of error.