Archive for December 2009

Israel’s new UAV can reach Iran – UPI.com

December 19, 2009

Israel’s new UAV can reach Iran – UPI.com.

TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 18 (UPI) — Israel’s new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle, unveiled by Elbit Industries this week, adds a new dimension to the military’s capabilities against Iran — not just boosting its surveillance reach but perhaps even attacking air defenses with remote-controlled Hellfire missiles.

Elbit announced on Tuesday that its Hermes 900 had successfully completed its maiden flight and would enter production following additional flight tests.

The UAV is based on Elbit’s highly successful Hermes 450 model, which has accumulated 170,000 flight hours.

The 450 is the primary UAV deployed by the Israeli military, and at least 20 of them were in action daily during the 34-day war with Lebanon’s Hezbollah in July-August 2006.

The 900 model is essentially a stretched and bulked-up 450, a 992-pound craft that was designed to carry two AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, the weapons systems used by U.S. UAVs targeting al-Qaida and Taliban chieftains in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The 900 is similar in appearance to the U.S. MQ-1 Predator, which carries out most of the attacks in the AFPAK theater of operation. Both weigh around 1 ton.

The Hermes 900 is designed primarily for endurance and for the first time gives the Israeli armed forces a long-range drone that can conduct surveillance flights over hostile territory as distant as Iran, some 950 miles.

However, to do that would mean overflying Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and possibly Turkey, and risk political problems with those states.

If such flights were undertaken, the new 900’s primary mission would undoubtedly be spying out air-defense systems around Iran’s nuclear facilities, the primary target for threatened Israeli airstrikes, supplementing intelligence from Israeli spy satellites.

The UAV’s attack potential could also prove useful in the event Israel does launch pre-emptive strikes to knock out Iranian nuclear sites and other strategic targets.

It could hit air-defense systems ahead of attacks by the Israeli air force’s F-16I and F-15I strike jets, reducing the risk of Israeli pilots being shot down over hostile territory. The last time that happened was when an F-4 Phantom went down over south Lebanon on Oct. 16, 1986.

The new Hermes can stay in the air for 36 hours — 16 more than the 450 — with a payload of 650 pounds, enough to give it considerable loiter time over Iran.

It has a cruising speed of around 80 miles an hour, can fly as high as 30,000 feet and has satellite communications capability.

It also uses innovative avionics, operates silently, which allows for missions over urban areas, and carried high-tech systems such as electro-optic imaging, a laser designator that can be used to “paint” ground targets for aircraft, and electronic intelligence sensors.

The Israeli air force, which operates the 450, has not yet acquired any of the new 900s, although it recently bought the Heron UAV manufactured by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries. That can remain airborne for more than 30 hours with a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet.

Meantime, there were reports that Israel’s first unmanned stealth naval craft, designated Protector SV but known as the Death Shark, has been deployed in the Gulf region, able to cruise underwater off Iran for long periods.

Operated from a surface ship or a shore base, the 27-foot craft reportedly carries a Close-In Weapons System for detecting and engaging anti-ship missiles and aircraft, as well as torpedoes and electronic jamming gear.

It also carries four cameras with the resolution of satellite imaging systems as well as sonar and radar systems that can transmit three-dimensional images to its control base.

COHEN: What to expect from a nuclear Iran – Washington Times

December 17, 2009

By William S. Cohen

OPINION/ANALYSIS:

With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement that his country intends to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, it should now be patently clear that the effort to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons has failed.

For Tehran, the negotiations have been nothing more than one long stall — a ruse to buy time, conduct more tests, and hasten the day Iran becomes a nuclear power.

The mullahs — or the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who may be in charge — intend to build the bomb. To date, no inducements from the West — no offers of integration into international community, economic assistance or the lifting of modest sanctions — have been able to deter them from their goal.

This leaves the United States and its international partners with three options:

First, persuade Russia and China to join in the imposition of more extensive, targeted sanctions against key financial and energy-related industries. It may be fanciful to think that the Iranian people, however courageous, could bring down the current regime that sits atop a million-man army and a brutally repressive and theocratic IRGC. But if the sanctions are sharp and biting enough, the possibility exists that Iranian leaders could change their conduct and even consider replacing certain colleagues whose words and deeds have produced such dire economic consequences. Admittedly, such a change of heart would not come easily, but a more moderate group of leaders might seize the opportunity to become a valued member of the international community rather than its pariah.

Second, set back the Iranian nuclear effort by military means – either by giving Israel our blessing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities or by joining Israel in such an attack. A military operation would be extremely high risk, requiring an extraordinary amount of intelligence and operational precision to be successful. The probability that such action would produce a devastating backlash by many Muslims across the ideological spectrum is high, with potential untold consequences to the global economy. A military strike is a dangerous option, but may prove unavoidable if diplomacy and other efforts fail.

Third, we learn to live with an Iranian bomb.

At this moment, we appear headed toward option three. So it is worth reflecting on what living with a nuclear Iran would mean for the United States, the Middle East and the world.

A nuclear Iran would be emboldened in its efforts to destabilize the Middle East and export its revolutionary ideology. Armed with nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders would enjoy a sense of invincibility. This could lead to bolder interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, greater mischief in Lebanon and more aggressive support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Tehran also could incite Shia populations in the Gulf States, thus threatening the survival of moderate Arab governments.

Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would likely start a nuclear cascade across the Middle East, as nations threatened by Iran question U.S. security guarantees and seek their own deterrent capability. Within a decade, we could see the number of nuclear states grow dramatically, as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others seek nuclear weapons to protect against Iranian aggression. This would spell the end of nonproliferation. As more nations develop their own nuclear deterrent, our ability to control nuclear stockpiles and prevent the spread of nuclear materials to dangerous actors could collapse.

A nuclear Iran would itself pose an unprecedented proliferation risk. Tehran already supplies dangerous weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, and might share nuclear materials with radical extremists. The result would be a growing risk that nuclear or radiological weapons will get in the hands of terrorists, who would not hesitate to use them against the U.S., Israel and other allies.

Some insist we could deter Iran much as we deterred the Soviet Union. This is far from clear. The leaders of the USSR dreamed of establishing a global communist empire, but they were also rational pragmatists whose first priority was survival in this world. The hard-line elements in Iran include religious fanatics who speak of ushering in the end of this world by hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam. While few Iranian officials are millenarian radicals, the existence of even one is too many. For such actors, the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” might be taken as a promise, not a threat. We could wind up in a nuclear showdown with Iran, similar to the Cuban missile crisis, without the benign outcome.

These scenarios may seem far-fetched to some, but the terrible lesson of Sept. 11 is that “the future is not what it used to be.” Rather than yield to the notion that the nuclear ambitions of Iran’s current regime are unchangeable, we should redouble our efforts to bring about a change of heart in the regime through sanctions if possible; by other means if necessary.

• William S. Cohen is the chairman of the Cohen Group, an international business consulting firm. He served in the House and Senate from 1973 to 1996 and as secretary of defense from 1997 to 2001.

Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger

December 15, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece

From
December 14, 2009

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”

The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.

In September, Iran was forced to admit that it was constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. President Ahmadinejad then claimed that he wanted to build ten such sites. Over the weekend Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that Iran needed up to 15 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs, despite the country’s huge oil and gas reserves.

Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”

The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.

The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.

A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.

Western intelligence sources say that by 2003 Iran had already assembled the technical know-how it needed to build a bomb, but had yet to complete the necessary testing to be sure such a device would work. Iran also lacked sufficient fissile material to fuel a bomb and still does — although it is technically capable of producing weapons-grade uranium should its leaders take the political decision to do so.

The documents detail a plan for tests to determine whether the device works — without detonating an explosion leaving traces of uranium detectable by the outside world. If such traces were found, they would be taken as irreversible evidence of Iran’s intention to become a nuclear-armed power.

Experts say that, if the 2007 date is correct, the documents are the strongest indicator yet of a continuing nuclear weapons programme in Iran. Iran has long denied a military dimension to its nuclear programme, claiming its nuclear activities are solely focused on the production of energy for civilian use.

Mr Fitzpatrick said: “Is this the smoking gun? That’s the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium.”

Der Spiegel: Siemens supports Iran’s nuke efforts – Israel News, Ynetnews

December 13, 2009

Der Spiegel: Siemens supports Iran’s nuke efforts – Israel News, Ynetnews.

German magazine reports customs officials seize goods meant for Iran’s nuclear program

Sarah Stricker

Published: 12.12.09, 22:37 / Israel News

P{margin:0;} UL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 16; padding-right:0;} OL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 32; padding-right:0;} H3.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;margin-top:0px;} P.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;}// Is Siemens helping Iran? German customs officials intercepted a Siemens shipment of compressors on its way to Iran, Der Spiegel reported Saturday.

According to the German magazine, the compressors sent by Siemens are worth an estimated 16 million Euros and were apparently meant to be used as part of Iran’s nuclear program.

The German government is now weighing its next moves vis-à-vis Siemens, which has apparently violated international commerce regulations. However, a Treasury spokeswoman said she cannot confirm the report at this time.

The compressors, which were sent from Sweden, were nabbed by customs officials in Hamburg en route to Iran, Der Spiegel said. According to the report, the shipment in question was part of a larger transaction between the German giant and Iran, worth roughly 80 million Euros.

//

Siemens officials declined to directly address the report, but denied allegations that the company violated the law in any way. A spokesman on behalf of the corporation said its business activities only serve civilian aims and are undertaken in line with international regulations.

According to reports that surfaced several months ago, Siemens and Finnish company Nokia sold technology for monitoring phone calls and e-mail messages to Tehran, against the backdrop of opposition protests and in the wake of the controversial presidential elections in Iran.

Al Jazeera – US rejects Iran nuclear offer

December 13, 2009

Al Jazeera English – Middle East – US rejects Iran nuclear offer.

Iran’s foreign minister proposed a swap of 880 pounds of low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel [AFP]

The US has dismissed an Iranian offer to exchange nuclear fuel, saying it was inconsistent with a deal that would allow Iran to avoid further sanctions.

“Iran’s proposal does not appear to be consistent with the fair and balanced draft agreement proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the UN nuclear watchdog, a US official said on Saturday.

Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister, proposed that the country swap 880 pounds (400 kilogrammes) of low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel in an exchange on Iran’s island of Kish, in the Persian Gulf, as the first phase of a deal with world powers.

Deal breaker

However, according to the deal, in consultation with the US, Russia and France, the nuclear material was to be exchanged all at once as the IAEA believes that carrying it out in slow stages would leave Iran in control of enough uranium to make a bomb.

The IAEA had also previously ruled out a swap taking place inside Iran.

The US official, who declined to be named, said Iran’s offer contained “nothing new” and urged the country to take up the existing IAEA proposal, which calls on Iran to send 2,645 pounds (1,200 kilogrammes) of its low enriched uranium to Russia “in one batch.”

Under the plan Iran’s uranium would be enriched to higher levels in Russia, turned into fuel rods in France and returned to power a research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes.

The material in the fuel rods cannot be enriched to higher levels, denying Iran the ability to use it to make weapons.

Nuclear concerns

“We remain committed to these terms,” the official said. “Unfortunately, Iran has been unwilling to engage in further talks on its nuclear programme.

“We urge Iran not to squander this opportunity.”

In another change to the plan, Iran wants to receive the fuel rods immediately in simultaneous exchanges for its uranium because it says it is worried that France or Russia could renege on the deal.

Iran’s stockpile of uranium is at the heart of international concerns because it offers Iran a possible pathway to nuclear weapons production if it is enriched to higher levels.

Tehran insists it only wants to use the material to produce fuel for power plants and for other peaceful purposes.

Last month, the 35-nation board of the IAEA endorsed a resolution from the six powers, the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, criticising Iran for defying a UN security council ban on uranium enrichment and continuing to expand its operations.

It also censured Iran for secretly building a second enrichment facility and demanded that it immediately suspend further construction on it.

Iran’s Worst Enemy | Newsweek.com

December 12, 2009

Is the Mossad Too Obsessed With Iran? | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com.

Israel’s top spymaster will stop at nothing to prevent a nuclear Iran. Even at the expense of other threats.

Atta Kenare / AFP-Getty Images
An Iranian woman passes an anti-Israel poster in Tehran featuring Mossad chief Meir Dagan, center.
By Ronen Bergman | NEWSWEEK

Published Dec 12, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Dec 21, 2009

Even among Israel’s tough security chiefs, Meir Dagan has always been known for his raw nerve. As a military trainee he would wander around the base during his off hours flinging a knife at trees and telephone poles like a circus entertainer, one fellow soldier recalls. He earned one of his first decorations as a young commando in Gaza, for snatching a live grenade from the hands of an enemy fighter. Long-haired and confident, Dagan would sometimes bring his pet Doberman, Paco, along on raids. His propensity for solving problems by force continued even after he retired from the military. He was leading a task force on terrorist financing in 2001 when his men told him they had discovered a European bank being used to channel money from Iran to Hamas. “We have the address, no?” Dagan asked his intel officers, according to a participant in the meeting, who asked not to be named for fear of angering Dagan. “Burn it down!” The horrified intelligence officers stalked out of the room in protest. (Dagan declined any comment for this story.)

Soon afterward Dagan was brought in to rejuvenate the Mossad, Israel’s storied foreign intelligence serv-ice. Eight years later, after a string of covert successes attributed to the agency, he has become the country’s longest-serving and most influential spy chief. His men revere him (an affection that does not extend to all their bosses, according to a recent internal survey cited by Mossad sources); even Israel’s civilian leaders heed his strategic advice. But critics say his influence has been achieved at a cost: Dagan, 64, has systematically reoriented the Mossad to focus almost exclusively on what he (and most Israelis) see as the dominant threat to the country—Iran. He views almost all of Israel’s national-security challenges through that prism.

//

The Israeli government’s single-minded focus on Tehran has caused friction with the Obama administration, which is seeking to engage Iran and to promote a deal with the Palestinians. Publicly there is no rift: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he supports efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically, as long as harsh sanctions are imposed if no progress is shown. But the threat of a unilateral Israeli attack remains on the table—and while that threat may give the Americans leverage in talks with Tehran, an actual attack might well invite Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

Dagan is not arguing for a quick strike. In fact, he recently pushed back to 2014 his estimate of the date when the Islamic Republic might have the means to build and launch nuclear weapons. But his uncompromising focus on Iran at the least reinforces Netanyahu’s hawkish bent. One French intelligence officer, who didn’t want to be identified discussing internal Israeli politics, describes Dagan as a “tailwind” carrying Netanyahu toward military action.

As the Iranian threat has grown and Israel’s political leaders have been damaged by scandal and the 2006 war with Hizbullah in Lebanon, Dagan has become one of the most powerful figures in the country. He was appointed by then–prime minister Ariel Sharon after a period of retrenchment for the Mossad, and has done much to restore the agency’s reputation for ruthless efficiency. His men are considered responsible for two of the Jewish state’s highest-profile recent successes: the assassination of the notorious Hizbullah mastermind Imad Mugniyah in Damascus last year, and the discovery of a key piece of intelligence that led to the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor that fall. When news leaked out this September that intel agencies had discovered a previously unknown uranium–enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Qum, Dagan’s men quietly got the credit, although it was the Americans who made the announcement. Netanyahu occasionally travels to Dagan’s office for briefings, rather than the other way around. (A Netanyahu spokesman also declined to comment.)

That kind of favoritism has irked rivals in Israel’s intel establishment. They argue that his focus on Iran has led to a diversion of resources from more immediate threats. “Why is Iran more dangerous than Syria?” asks one Military Intelligence officer, who did not want to be identified criticizing Dagan. “[Syria] has an enormous army on Israel’s border, and chemical weapons that could destroy this country.” Some Israeli strategists argue that Damascus should be more aggressively courted, in an effort to encourage President Bashar al-Assad to sever his ties to Tehran. Dagan, on the other hand, holds that peace talks with Assad’s regime are a waste of time as long as Iran remains Syria’s dominant partner.

Dagan’s powerful persona may be overcompensation for an early life marked by danger and deprivation. He was born in 1945 on the floor of a freezing freight car making its way from Siberia to Poland. His family, whose name was originally Huberman, fled to Israel when he was 5, on a ship that nearly sank in a storm. Meir stood on the deck wearing a life vest and gripping an orange, convinced that he was not long for this world.

Dagan dropped out of high school to try out for the Israeli military’s prestigious commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, but didn’t make the cut. (At Military Intelligence headquarters they complain that Dagan still nurses resentment over the slight.) Dagan eventually enlisted in an armor unit, where his sense of the existential dangers to his country only grew. “We suddenly found ourselves in a constant series of wars,” he recalled to a journalist in 1999.

In 1970 Sharon, then head of the Israeli military’s Southern Command, tapped the 25-year-old Dagan to command a unit of elite special-forces troops operating in the Gaza Strip. On one occasion, according to Israeli press accounts, Dagan and some of his men dressed as Palestinians, entered Gaza on a fishing boat, met with a group of PLO fighters, and killed them all. The unorthodox commando methods of the unit, called Sayeret Rimon, helped reduce terrorist attacks inside Israel significantly, but some of Dagan’s men later recounted tales of atrocities: shooting Palestinians in the back and then claiming that they had tried to escape, according to one allegation. Dagan was never charged, however, and he defended himself to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in 1999, insisting that the Rimon years were not a “Wild West period … We never believed that killing women and children was permissible.” Still, he added, “orders to open fire were different then. There were fewer restrictions.”

At the time, the Mossad was entering its heyday. American spies found the agency’s help indispensable during the Cold War. (CIA operatives were astounded when the Israelis managed to procure a Soviet MiG-21 for inspection in the mid-1960s.) By the early 1970s, when Palestinian terrorist organizations became the Mossad’s biggest challenge, the agency had acquired a reputation for deadly proficiency; its operatives eliminated PLO fighters around the world, including several of those responsible for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

But the agency’s influence declined in the 1980s and 1990s as violence flared inside the occupied territories (which are the responsibility of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic-security service, and the military). When then–Mossad chief Danny Yatom ordered an assassination attempt in 1997—sending operatives to Amman to inject a lethal poison into the ear of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal—the plot went badly awry and the director was forced to resign. Yatom’s successor, Efraim Halevy, tolerated few risks. European and American spies began complaining that the Israelis no longer had much to offer on the international intel exchange. Although the agency’s budget is a state secret, a source in the Finance Ministry says funding in the Halevy years fell by about 25 percent.

Dagan brought his flamethrower approach to the Mossad in 2001, shortly after the second intifada erupted. Dagan had worked on Sharon’s campaign the previous year, but the prime minister wasn’t just showing gratitude: he wanted an antidote to the timid directors of the 1990s. Dagan had plenty of military experience but had never served in the Mossad, making it easier to shake the place up. He quickly upended the organization internally and began tangling with Israel’s other intelligence agencies.

His approach earned him enemies. In the intelligence world the first and toughest fight is always the battle over budgets. Dagan competes for scarce resources and influence with Israel’s Military Intelligence and Shin Bet, among others. In a brazen power grab, the Mossad director began ordering his subordinates to stonewall the other agencies. Dagan appointed an enforcer code-named “Mr. A,” whose job was to frustrate rivals in MI. According to Mossad and MI sources who did not want to be identified discussing interagency frictions, the tension grew so unbearable that MI officers began avoiding Mossad headquarters. They taunted Mr. A by calling him by his real name.

Dagan was also making enemies inside the Mossad. He became known for inspecting field stations without notice and shouting at the agents, “What have you done for me lately?” His tantrums sparked waves of resignations. “Let them go,” the director once scoffed, according to a source who spoke to him. “We can start from the beginning.” Dagan slashed the Mossad’s list of targets, announcing that the agency would dedicate most of its resources to only two threats: Iran and terrorism from abroad—meaning primarily the Iranian-backed groups Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. “The list must be short,” he said. “If we continue pretending we can do everything, in the end we won’t do anything.”

Dagan’s single-minded focus quickly began to show results. American and Israeli agents discovered in late 2002 that Iran had been working with Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan to build an enrichment facility in Natanz. The information was leaked to an Iranian opposition group called the National Council of Resistance, which released it in 2003, causing an international furor. Later, unexplained accidents began plaguing the Iranian nuclear project, delaying the enrichment process. Scientists started disappearing, labs caught on fire, and aircraft connected to the effort mysteriously fell from the sky. Intelligence sources, who declined to be identified discussing covert operations, say Mossad had a hand in several of these incidents. As Dagan’s successes multiplied, so did his budget. Now, “whatever we want, we get,” says one senior Mossad officer who recently retired but prefers not to speak publicly about the agency.

Yet as Dagan’s power base has expanded, some Israelis have begun to worry that the Mossad director has acquired too much political influence. Dagan developed close ties to neoconservative policymakers in the United States during the Bush-Cheney years, and Dagan’s critics charge that the Mossad’s intelligence estimates are being tailored to fit the director’s personal views, just as Bush advisers were accused of “stovepiping” evidence to suit their agenda. In particular, Dagan’s hardline position on Syria echoes the warnings of Bush-era neocons that Assad’s regime is hopelessly devoted to Tehran. A European intelligence officer who was stationed in Israel several years ago recalls the Mossad boss trashing colleagues who argued for engaging Damascus. “I was under the impression that he felt like he reflected White House policy,” the intelligence officer says.

That said, Dagan’s dark view of the Iran threat is widely shared. German, French, and British intelligence agencies all sided with him when he disputed the CIA’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate downplaying Tehran’s nuclear program. And in Israel, where political influence has always been tied up with military valor, it’s not surprising that his voice would be heeded in the circles of power. He was appointed to make the Mossad more aggressive, and has succeeded. What remains to be seen is whether in the long run his aggression will be more dangerous to Israel or to its enemies.

Bergman, senior political and military analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author ofThe Secret War With Iran.

Political Cortex: You Gotta Be Kidding Me…

December 11, 2009

Political Cortex: You Gotta Be Kidding Me….

A HAPPY AND BLESSED HANUKKAH to Israel and all our Jewish friends.
Speaking of Israel, we see that Iran’s Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi is calling for Damascus to join with Iran in striking back at Israel for the attack it feels must be coming within a month or so, according to Iranian Intelligence Services.

The Syrians tepid response to the Iranian call to action may be because they do not wish to attract any more Israeli attention than is absolutely necessary. Though the mental imagery of a military coalition between Syria and Iran is more like the Keystone cops meet Laurel and Hardy. The IDF will no doubt take the situation very seriously. Since the IDF has been probing Syrian air defense measures for some time, the least Syria can expect is the loss of their air force and their command and control centers.

The increasingly feckless Obama administration will make more noise about sanctions against Iran and then do exactly what the United Nations will do, which is nothing. The United States will also make a lot of noise about the detection of highly processed plutonium at Dir a-Zur, where the IAF turned Syria’s secret nuclear facility into so much concrete aggregate. One wonders had the Israeli Air Force not hit these facilities, would the usually inept UN have even known about Syria’s nuclear proliferation with the aid of North Korea and Iran. Traces of the same plutonium were discovered at the nuclear research reactor near the Syrian capital of Damascus.

As we have stated before, the convergence of events has been coming closer in the past few months and Israel must strike before Russia fulfills its contract to deliver the more advanced S-300 anti-aircraft defense system. The US has also been supplying Israel with more advanced fighter aircraft, utilizing special Israeli electronics systems. It is not known whether these are operational as yet.

Given Israel’s proven ability to slip past the best of what both Tehran and Damascus have deployed, and given Iran’s almost comical performance during their much touted defense training, I shouldn’t wonder if there weren’t some uneasy people in the defense commands of both countries.

Bewitched, bothered and bewildered… Am I…

December 9, 2009

Daily Kos: Bewitched, bothered and bewildered… Am I….

Bewitched

By the election of Barak Obama.

Bothered

By the economic policies of his administration.

Bewildered

By the decision to escalate the escalate the Afgan war while doing nothing to prevent Iran’s acquisition of atomic weapons…

____________________________________________

Bewitched:

It was little less than a year ago that I posted a video on Inauguration day from Aquasport in Eilat, Israel… the place I learned to scuba dive some 28 years ago.

Eilat was where my brother and I had opened a diving/deep sea fishing business only to be bankrupted 6 months later due to the impact of the first Lebanon  war on tourism.

In the video you can see just how overwhelmed I was by the euphoric sense of hope that this man represented a real chance for America to regain its sense of pride in its system; and maybe even help unify the world with a new sense of hope for peace even in this horrifically troubled region.

I had been one of those that had worked hard to convince Barack to run for president in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/…

 title=

Bothered

The euphoria was pretty short lived… Though I kept holding on to a belief that Barack had something up his sleeve that he would pull out at the right time.

I couldn’t believe that this man of the people would try to turn the economy around by bailing out unproductive parasitic companies that had caused a great part of our economic disorder in the first place, while allowing productive industries like GM to go bankrupt.

“Too big to fail” sounded like something Bush would have come up with, if he had had the ability to speak English.  It’s out and out “trickle down” Reaganomics.

But at least I KNEW he was serious about finally doing something to save the catastrophic health care system that the country had fallen into over the last 3 decades.

I refused to believe at first that he had made backroom deals with the Pharmaceutical industry, and then later with the Insurance industry.  These are the same industries that through their greed and malfeasance were the primary cause of the problems in our system in the first place.

I then watched in stunned disbelief as Barack stood on the sidelines while the House and the Senate squabbled endlessly.  Providing no leadership to the country or to his party, Obama actually left it up to the weakest sister of them all in the Democratic leadership, Harry Reed of all people to be the one to take a stand in favor of the “Public Option.”

Today, under the headline, “, Breakthrough: Health Care Talks Advance In Senate,” the Huffington Post is reporting that, “The discussion has focused on abandoning or greatly narrowing the public health insurance option.

Apparently the mandate that Obama was given with control of both the House and the Senate is going to result in a “solution” that essentially puts window dressing on our current health care system while ensuring the continued control of it by the same people who destroyed it in the first place.

Sigh…. !

Bewildered

Thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan?  To prop up a corrupt, ineffective government, elected through fraud, and representing only one ethnic group of a country completely divided by multiple tribes who have never actually viewed themselves as constituting a unified people?

That’s the real difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam. Vietnam had a deep historic national identity that could have been unified if the US policy had been focused on that rather than on the misplaced ideology of the Cold War known as the “domino theory.”

There’s no such unity in Afghanistan.  I can see no way that the force of American arms can make any long term difference there.

Obama’s policy is throwing our soldiers lives away in a hopeless attempt to turn Afghanistan into a “real” country; something it will never be until it adopts a pluralistic approach giving power and real autonomy to the various ethnic regions of which it is composed.

The argument that withdrawing would allow Al Queda to reconstitute itself there better than it has already done in Pakistan, Yemen and throughout the Islamic world from the Philippines to Gaza is unconvincing to the point of being laughable.

More laughable still is the notion that Al Queda, in any form it might take in the future represents a greater threat to the US than Iran.

One of the arguments given by Barack in his speech was that we needed to stay in Afghanistan to help prop up Pakistan to prevent their nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Meanwhile, within the next few months, Iran… A nation of 78 million people and with a radical Islamic ideology that differs from Al Queda only in that it seeks world domination of Shia rather than Sunni Islam will have atomic weapons within the next few months.

While one can hardly blame the Revolutionary Guards for wanting to acquire the one thing that they believe will deter the US from ultimately engineering their downfall, the impact of their acquiring nuclear weapons will have a destructive and destabilizing influence on the world that will make even 9/11 look like an episode of Captain Kangaroo.

Iran is already planning to close the straights of Hormuz should their nuclear institutions be attacked by either the US or Israel.  (See: The Naval Arena in the Struggle against Iran | Global Terrorism)

The effects of a radical regime like Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons represents a case of first instance in world history that is hard to predict, other than to know that it will cause instability and horrific consequences to the world economy as well as push the clock at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to one minute to 12.

(See: Lee Smith: How Iranian nukes would reshape the Middle East | News for Dallas, Texas)

(See also: The threat from Iran)

Am I…

While Barack focuses his energies on Afghanistan, Israel continues to prepare to “go it alone” against Iran.  The non-stop nightly air force exercises continue unabated.

Preperation is already being made to handle the missile attacks on Tel Aviv that Israel expects to come in retaliation not only from Iran, but from Hizballa to the north and Hamas to the south, both of which now have hundreds, if not thousands of Iranian supplied missile aimed at and capable of hitting my home town.  (See: Home Front Command readying for Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan missiles)

After the vitriolic onslaught that I endured when I published my last diary here detailing my fears of an oncoming Israel/Iran war whose viciousness actually made headlines in some journals concerning Kos’ anti-Israel bias, I expect to be once again attacked as a “right wing” misguided “warmonger.”

So be it.

Barack Obama has disappointed me as a progressive.  Kos has disappointed me as a Jew.  These disappointments pale in comparison to my trepidation regarding the conflagration that I can see just over the horizon.

May god have mercy on the human race if we can find no way to prevent it from happening.

Fars News Agency :: Syrian DM Stresses Tehran-Damascus Joint Confrontation against Attacks

December 9, 2009

Fars News Agency :: Syrian DM Stresses Tehran-Damascus Joint Confrontation against Attacks.

TEHRAN (FNA)- Syrian Defense Minister Lieutenant General Ali Mohammad Habib Mahmoud on Wednesday underlined Iran and Syria’s joint efforts and cooperation in repelling potential threats and attacks.

“We will jointly confront any attack on Damascus or Tehran,” the Syrian defense minister said in a meeting with his visiting Iranian counterpart Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi in Damascus.

“Tehran and Damascus will stay on each other’s side against any threat,” he reiterated.

Vahidi has arrived in the Syrian capital Damascus at the head of a high-ranking delegation. The Iranian official was formally invited by the Syrian defense minister.

General Ali Mohammad further voiced satisfaction with the results of the meeting between Iran and Syria’s military delegations, and said, “During the talks, we discussed mechanisms for bolstering the capabilities of the two countries’ armed forces in confronting aggressions against the two countries.”

He also lauded Tehran-Damascus close ties, and added, “The relations between the two countries are strong and are not new as they were established years ago. The relations will be further strengthened in a bid to attain the two nations’ interests.”

Iran warns it will hit Israeli nuclear sites if attacked – WashingtonTV

December 9, 2009

Iran warns it will hit Israeli nuclear sites if attacked – WashingtonTV تلویزیون واشنگتن.

Iran warns it will hit Israeli nuclear sites if attacked
Photographer: WashingtonTV

Ahmad Vahidi, Defense Minister

15:45GMT—10:45AM/EST

Washington, 9 December (WashingtonTV)—Iran’s Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Wednesday that Iran would strike Israeli weapons manufacturing sites and nuclear installations if Israel attacked the Islamic Republic.
Vahidi, who is in Damascus on an official visit, said that Israeli officials know that they are unable to carry out any of their threats against Iran.
Israel, believed to be the only nuclear-armed Middle East state, has not ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.
“Iran’s armed forces are fully prepared to defend and Iran’s first response would be to attack this regime’s [Israel] centers that produce chemical, biological and dirty weapons and banned nuclear weapons,” Vahidi told reporters, according to the official IRNA news agency.
The defense minister said that threats by Israeli officials were aimed partly at gaining approval for an increased military budget.
Israeli officials “are well informed of their incapability to carry out any threat against Iran and Iran’s strong response,” said Vahidi.
Iran has repeatedly dismissed Israel’s military threats, and has warned it would retaliate if attacked. Iranian defense officials have said Iranian missiles can reach Israel.
Vahidi, who arrived in Damascus on Tuesday night, is expected to meet Syrian political and military officials during his three-day visit, reports the semi-official ISNA news agency.
He told reporters that the two sides would discuss ways to develop bilateral defense cooperation.