WarSclerotic

Israeli Navy Wants Stealth Corvettes | AVIATION WEEK.

By David Eshel

Israel wants to acquire two corvettes that would permit missions beyond the Mediterranean and extend its fleet air defense capabilities. The navy was planning to purchase a variant of Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), but after an evaluation decided the vessel was too costly. The navy is now interested in the Meko A-100 multimission corvette, built by Blohm and Voss, part of Germany’s Thyssen-Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) Group. For such a vessel to outperform the current Eilat class, Israel will probably opt for the latest stealth version known as the Meko CSL, which can be adapted to meet Israeli requirements for versatility, sensors and deck space. The CSL corvette is a modular vessel that can be rapidly configured for different missions. Israel’s navy has been focused on defending the nation’s coastline and strategic shipping routes in the Mediterranean. Since Iran became the main supplier of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, intercepting arms-smuggling routes has redirected the mission of Israel’s naval forces to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Israel’s reach in these areas was demonstrated by the recent transit of a Dolphin-class submarine and Saar 5 corvettes through the Suez Canal, en route to temporary deployments in the Red Sea. The Meko CSL is 108 meters (354 ft.) long, with a beam of 21 meters and full-load displacement of 2,750 metric tons. Propulsion is by a combined diesel-and-gas/water-jet system that reaches 40 kt. Cruising range at 15 kt. is 3,500 nm., and endurance is 21 days. The vessel can put to sea with a crew of 75. Armed with the Barak 8 extended-range air-defense system from Israel Aerospace Industries, the two CSLs are expected to become the world’s first air-defense corvettes. This will give the Israeli surface fleet independent air cover for the first time, enabling ships to deploy farther from home. With a large deck surface and conformal mast, the new vessel can be equipped with more missiles than the current Saar 5 and, importantly, its superstructure can mount Elta’s MF-Star radar. This 360-deg. phased-array radar supports simultaneous surface search operations and multiple antiaircraft, antimissile and surface-attack weapons. The vessel will also carry antisubmarine weapons and a helicopter. As with all Israeli purchases, an important issue is the integration of locally designed and produced electronic systems. The navy uses the Elbit/Elisra Aqua Marine integrated electronic support measures/electronic countermeasures warfare suite on its Saar 5 corvettes. It is expected that the Meko will include the latest advanced electronic warfare systems. Another advantage of the vessel would be accommodating the navy’s robotic systems. The ship could become a support platform for unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vessels and unmanned underwater vehicles, since it would have adequate deck space and launch and retrieval capabilities. A major advantage of the Meko CSL design is stealth. By employing technologies developed for the latest German warships and Sweden’s Visby-class stealth corvettes, Meko designers reduced the ship’s infrared signature by 75% through elimination of the conventional uptakes. Exhaust gases are ducted through a horizontal system, cooled by sea water and expelled underwater. Smooth hull-plating and concealed deck equipment are other stealth enhancements from the Visby class. Other features include a water-jet propulsion system that reduces the wake, the use of composite (nonmagnetic) structures and advanced sensors. Research on the Visby-class vessels began in the 1990s by Swedish ship designer Kockums, now part of TKMS. Israel regards its German shipbuilders as reliable suppliers. The Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werf of Kiel and Nordseewerke of Emden have delivered three Dolphin-class submarines to the navy, and two more are under construction. Each new sub reportedly includes an additional 10-meter section for installation of an air-independent propulsion system, which enables the vessel to remain submerged for several weeks. Israel’s submarines are believed to be equipped with underwater-launched cruise missiles capable of striking land targets at long range. With such capability, Israel could possess a potential second strike option in a nuclear confrontation with Iran. Should all go according to plan with its modernization program, the navy would become Israel’s second strategic arm after the air force. Credit: Lockheed Martin

Don’t get excited by deal – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Ronen Bergman Photo: Dor Malka

UN to debate new Iran resolution – Israel News, Ynetnews.

UN Security Council to convene at 11 pm to discuss six powers’ new sanctions resolution, despite Iran’s agreement with Brazil, Turkey on fuel-swap deal. Resolution rejects Iranian efforts to forestall penalties, says Clinton

Associated Press

Clinton: Major world powers agree to impose sanctions on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

	World powers, including Russia and China, agree on a draft sanctions resolution against Iran which will be circulated to the full UN Security Council later Tuesday. White House: We’ll apply sanctions pressure on Iran until it lives up to its nuclear obligations. By Reuters and DPA Tags: Israel news Iran nuclear Lebanon Nicolas Sarkozy

Major world powers have agreed on a draft sanctions resolution against Iran and will circulate it to the full UN Security Council on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers.

“We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of Russia and China,” Clinton said of talks among the five permanent Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – as well as Germany.

“We plan to circulate the draft resolution to the entire Security Council today,” Clinton added in a text released by the U.S. State Department of her comments before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

	France President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Madrid, May 18, 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

The agreement appears something of a rebuff to a deal worked out by Brazil and Turkey, under which Iran would send some of its uranium abroad, reviving a fuel swap plan devised last year to try to keep Tehran’s nuclear activities in check.

Following Clinton’s statements on Tuesday, a White House spokesman said that the United States will seek to apply sanctions pressure on Iran until it lives up to its nuclear obligations.

“We’re going to continue to apply pressure in every way we can … We’re going to continue until Iran lives up to its international obligations,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters while traveling with Obama in Ohio.

Earlier on Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the nuclear fuel swap with Iran was a “positive step” and it was waiting for Tehran to provide full written details, as China and Lebanon also voiced their support for the new deal.

“France will examine this with the Group of Six [international powers] and is ready to discuss without preconceptions all its implications for the whole of the Iran dossier,” Sarkozy said in a statement during a visit to Spain.

Iran agreed on Monday to send some of its uranium abroad, reviving a fuel swap plan drafted by the United Nations with the aim of keeping Tehran’s nuclear activities in check.

But Tehran made clear it did not intend to suspend domestic uranium enrichment that Western governments have said appears aimed at giving it the means to make nuclear weapons.

Western powers have said the fuel swap offer promoted by Brazil and Turkey will not be enough to ease their worries about Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened top advisers on Tuesday to assess the deal.

Earlier Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said he was encouraged by the new deal with Iran. His reaction suggested Beijing and Western powers may part ways on how much weight to give Iran’s offer.

“China has noted the relevant reports and expresses its welcome and appreciation for the diplomatic efforts all parties have made to positively seek an appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue,” Yang said, according to the Foreign Ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).

Later on Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said his government hoped the nuclear fuel swap agreement “will benefit the process of peacefully resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations”.

Neither Yang nor Ma said directly whether China believes the Western powers should now rethink their sanctions demands. Both stressed Beijing prefers a negotiated solution to the dispute.

Also Tuesday, Lebanese president Michel Suleiman welcomed a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, describing it as a first step towards resolving the issue diplomatically.

Suleiman, in a statement issued by his press office, said: “Lebanon has always called for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program.”

Suleiman also voiced hope that the international community would approve the deal, which, he added, “would ease regional and international tension.”

But commentators continued to say that U.S. reaction to the deal must be gauged before its usefulness can be judged.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs.

By Richard M Bennett

Tehran’s only genuine first strike or retaliatory capability against Israel in the event of an attack on Iran remains the thousands of medium- and longer-range missiles massed in Lebanon under the control of Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah. These weapons are an immediate and actual threat to most of northern and central Israel.
It would seem inconceivable that any planned Israeli attack on Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure could fail to seriously take into account that such an operation would almost certainly bring an immediate and incessant barrage of Iranian and Syrian-supplied missiles against Haifa, Tel Aviv and even Jerusalem.

The question that is being repeatedly asked by many defense analysts is whether Israel would try to combine a ground offensive launched against Lebanon with air strikes on Iran or whether it would launch a massive pre-emptive strike on Hezbollah before any attack is made on Iran itself, if indeed that is the plan.

The need to eliminate or at the very least temporarily neutralize the threat posed by Hezbollah must be uppermost in the minds of senior Israel Defense Force (IDF) strategists and planners.

Increasing Hezbollah missile threat
It has been widely reported that Hezbollah has been completely re-stocked with both improved and longer-range missiles by Iran and Syria since the inconclusive 2006 conflict with Israel. The recent rumors that Syria may now have delivered Scud B missiles to the Shi’ite militia raise the stakes still further.

The Russian-designed SS1 Scud, based originally on the World War II German V2, has been continually improved over the years, not least by Iran itself. The Scud B has a range in excess of 480 kilometers and would in theory be capable of hitting strategic targets in the Negev.

However, despite this, the Scud remains a crude and a largely ineffective weapon without the addition of a nuclear or chemical warhead. It is a large and complicated system that is difficult to use quickly and hard to hide effectively. Even though based much closer to Israel than those used by Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War in 1991, they simply are not a “war-winning” weapon, while their actual use could prove highly counter-productive.

Israel is certain to react with extreme violence against their users and may also seek to punish the supplier, namely Syria. However, until proof of the transfer of Scuds to Hezbollah is provided, there must remain a deal of doubt over the veracity of these reports.

Despite these doubts, Hezbollah’s arsenal of missiles does indeed pose a massive threat to Israel. The IDF AMAN (Military Intelligence) is aware that increasing numbers of Iranian long-range Zelzal-2 missile systems are being deployed by Hezbollah north of the Litani River and deep within the Bekaa Valley.

The Zelzal-2 has the range to hit most of Israel, though with a relatively small conventional warhead. These weapons are well hidden in prepared bunkers and are defended by increasingly effective surface-to-air missile defenses. Significantly, the Hezbollah base network could also come under the protection of the Syrian Air Defense Missile Command.

Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, the Israeli army’s chief intelligence assessment officer, recently told the Knesset (parliament) Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Syria had also transferred to Hezbollah about 200 M600 rockets that could carry a half-ton warhead and were therefore much more powerful than the Katyushas used in great numbers in the 2006 conflict.

It is widely considered likely that Iran’s response to Israeli or US air strikes on its nuclear facilities would be long-range missile attacks launched from the Bekaa Valley on major Israeli cities and a move by Hezbollah to re-enter the areas south of the Litani in order to bring thousands of their Syrian- and Iranian-supplied Falaq, Uragan and Fajr shorter-range rockets within reach of Haifa and most of northern Israel

It is unlikely that the largely ineffectual Lebanese army and United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) units based in the south would be capable of actually preventing such redeployment by Hezbollah units towards the Israeli border.

The IDF has undoubtedly taken on board both the lessons of the 2006 war and the unwillingness of the international community to confront Hezbollah. Israeli commanders are also believed to now accept that air power alone is incapable of securing victory in the Lebanon.

It is believed that a significant number of senior IDF officers now favor pre-emptive action in Lebanon with an armored “Blitzkreig” penetrating deep into the central and coastal regions north of the Litani and particularly the Bekaa Valley as the only sure means of fatally disrupting Hezbollah’s command and missile infrastructure.
Any such large-scale military invasion would bring Israel into possible conflict with the Lebanese and Syrian armed forces. This, however, may well work to Israel’s strategic advantage as the degrading of Syria’s military capability in particular is likely to be high on Israel’s list of priorities.

It is thought likely in some defense circles that despite Syria’s close military cooperation with Iran and its undoubted links with Hezbollah, Damascus may well still seek to avoid open conflict with Israel. Syria has had many bruising contacts with the IDF in the past and will probably try to avoid giving the Israel military an opportunity to destroy much of its expensively rebuilt defense infrastructure.

However, caught between demands for positive action by both Hezbollah and Tehran and goading by Israel, Damascus may have no alternative but to take the risk and accept the probable dire results for its military.

Israel will face tough opposition
Hezbollah is tough, well-trained, highly motivated and it has proved itself time and again in battle against superior Israeli firepower. The fighters are not an enemy to be taken lightly and IDF military planners have placed great emphasis on devising new and improved tactics.

Hezbollah has dug deep to negate the effectiveness of aerial firepower and a vast network of bunkers and underground tunnels has been constructed in southern Lebanon and in the Bekaa Valley.

In 2006, Hezbollah did suffer the near total devastation of the Dahiya quarter in Beirut, the organization’s military and political nerve center; it lost the use of most of its carefully created bunker network south of the Litani, while its support groups in the south lost both property and personnel.

Significantly, Hezbollah also ended up on the receiving end of severe criticism from Tehran for allowing itself to be dragged into a premature war with Israel that clearly exposed Iran’s covert strategic planning to develop a retaliatory missile capability based in southern Lebanon.

However, its tactics still proved successful. Hezbollah did manage to survive the war severely battered but certainly not totally defeated. Hassan Nasrallah’s organization was ultimately saved by the unwillingness of Israel to commit major ground forces north of the Litani and deep into the Bekaa Valley.

This may well not be the case in any future conflict.

Without doubt Hezbollah, and its Iranian and Syrian allies, have also taken on board the lessons of 2006 and have sought to further develop its tactics and harden its defensive structures.

However, the IDF’s still considerable ability to strike at will at its opponents was highlighted by the failure of the Syrian air defense systems to detect the Israel Air Force non-stealth aircraft that destroyed a North Korean-built research facility in 2007.

According to the US magazine Aviation Week, Israel was able to disrupt Syria’s radar and air defense systems and render them totally ineffective during the IAF strike. The magazine claimed that Iran was especially concerned over the failure of Syria’s Russian-made radar systems. Iran uses much the same equipment to protect its nuclear facilities against air attack

In an attempt to counter this Syrian weakness, Iranian Air Defense Command, Control and Electronic Warfare units have reportedly been deployed to the west and north of Damascus.

This scenario may be far more complicated in that it is not certain when or if Israel will be confident enough to tackle the large number of strategically important targets in Iran without significant US military participation.

A joint strike by the US and Israel would be an entirely different matter. For despite the obvious risk of Iran retaliating by attacking not only Israel, but other targets of grave concern to Washington such as the vast oil fields in the Gulf and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, Tehran would be left in little doubt that to do so would invite the systematic destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Alone Israel cannot offer this threat in the aftermath of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran too would be more willing to retaliate against Israel under these circumstances and it has the means to do so in the form of Hezbollah’s missile arsenal.
Israel may, in the absence of any US decision to use military force, opt for a pre-emptive strike on Hezbollah or a simultaneous air strike on Iran and a major ground invasion of Lebanon.

There is yet another option apart from the obvious one of simply learning to live with Iran’s nuclear program and that is in the aftermath of an attack on Iran it might prove both a political and diplomatic necessity to allow the first barrage of missiles to cause carnage and destruction in northern Israel in order to win widespread international support for a full-scale invasion of Lebanon, the attempt to destroy Hezbollah and the consequent high risk of significant civilian casualties.

Iran on the brink
While few seriously want a third Lebanese war this summer, it cannot be denied that the situation is increasingly unstable and talk of a renewed conflict is common. There are even well-placed sources who claim that senior Israeli military commanders are itching for another chance of destroying Hezbollah.

The comments made by IDF General Yossi Baidatz, when added to those of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that “Hezbollah has more missiles than most governments” and Jordan’s King Abdullah that “A war could break out this summer” help to create the suspicion that Israel may soon feel that it has no other choice but to launch a pre-emptive attack. To many in Israel it’s not the Iranian nuclear program that poses an immediate threat, but rather the multitude of missiles held by Hezbollah.

There remains, however, the slim possibility that the destruction of a significant part of Hezbollah’s missile threat to Israel and the window of opportunity it would provide for a strike against Iran‘s nuclear program may cause Tehran to have second thoughts about the true value of its current policies and its attitude to negotiations with Western powers.

This could provide diplomats with the welcome opportunity for compromise before the specter of another war becomes a reality.

Richard M Bennett is an intelligence analyst with AFI Research, a leading authority on national security, global intelligence, conflicts and defense.

Q+A: Is Iran swap deal a climbdown or master stroke in nuke row? | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Tehran agreed with Brazil and Turkey to send the bulk of its low enriched Uranium to Turkey as part of a nuclear fuel swap deal to avoid fresh U.N. sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.

World |  Brazil |  Turkey

Iran had rejected an original U.N.-backed deal with Russia, the United States and France to ship 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its five percent enriched uranium abroad for transformation into fuel for a medical research reactor.

In a major policy shift after months of deadlock, Iran, under Brazilian and Turkish mediation, accepted to swap the fuel outside its territory.

Following are some questions about Iran’s intentions:

IS THIS A TACTICAL MASTER STROKE?

Iran faces a fourth round of U.N. sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment-related activities. The agreement may split the major powers and allow China and Russia, veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, to argue against sanctions. Their response will be of crucial importance.

By making last-minute concessions since the U.N.-drafted swap deal was put at the table last October, Iran has already bought time in its attempt to enrich uranium.

“Iran has had time to enrich a substantial amount of new LEU in the six to nine months which have passed since the first round of potential LEU-for-20%-enriched-fuel proposal was tabled, making the 1,200 kg of LEU constitute a less comprehensive part of its total LEU stockpile,” said analyst Gala Riani of IHS Global Insight.

“It is perhaps too early to tell whether the deal represents a resounding success for Iran and its partners … For Iran, by engaging Brazil and Turkey, its independence has been marked and Western efforts to reach an agreement rebuffed. Even so, the deal differs little in content from the October agreement reached last year. Iran has unlocked nine months of impasse, although by now the agreement is — from a Western perspective — less relevant and comprehensive than when it first was launched.”

DIPLOMATIC COUP?

The deal, struck with Brazil and Turkey and not with Iran’s Western adversaries, is likely to make it easier for the hardline Iranian leadership and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get domestic support for the agreement.

It enables Iran to meet Western terms without dealing directly with major powers. Erdogan, who took a stand against Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2008, is a much more palatable figure for the establishment to deal with and sell a deal at home.

At home, any breakthrough in the nuclear standoff with the West could boost President Ahmadinejad credentials.

HAS IRAN COMPROMISED ON NUCLEAR FUEL DEAL?

Yes, it has made tactical concessions. Until recently Iranian officials, who say their country’s atomic program is purely for peaceful purposes, insisted that any fuel exchange should take place on Iranian soil simultaneously — conditions that have been rejected by major powers. Under the new swap deal it is obvious that Tehran has changed its official stand.

WHAT MAY HAPPEN AFTER THE SWAP DEAL

Uranium enrichment is at the center of Western suspicions over Tehran’s atomic program, because if highly purified, it can be used to make the fissile material for a bomb. After signing the deal, Iran said it will continue its 20 percent uranium enrichment work, which western powers insist Iran must halt enrichment as a condition for fuel swap.

The deal may fail if Iran’s arch foes, the United States, and its European allies insist on suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities.

For Iran to be seen as averting a new round of sanctions while not compromising on the crucial issue of Iranian enrichment would help the leadership regain its legitimacy at home after months of unrest erupted following the disputed presidential vote in June.

The nuclear dispute has been used by the establishment as a tool to forge domestic unity. Ahmadinejad’s opponents have criticized his policies but they have never questioned Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear technology.

Iran, which wants to be acknowledged as a regional power, has no intention of compromising over its uranium enrichment activities.

Suspension of uranium enrichment activities may guarantee the clerical establishment’s international credibility, but the establishment may face difficulties justifying the move to its core supporters, who have repeatedly rejected any compromise with the West.

Iran says its nuclear work is aimed at generating power and has made it clear that uranium enrichment suspension is a red line for the Islamic state, which the hardline authorities will never accept.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Game change—Iran and Israel.

Events in the Iran – Israel confrontation over Iran’s uranium enrichment program and its potential to develop nuclear weapons have taken several interesting turns in recent days:
• Tehran has agreed to send the bulk of its nuclear material to Turkey, while declaring that it will expand its enrichment programs
• Iran conducted military maneuvers rehearsing possible aggressive actions in the Persian Gulf
• Iran showed off a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles
• The Russians publicly rebuked President Obama on his position on sanctions against Iran
• An Israeli retired General Officer said that Israel has the military capability to attack Iran’s enrichment facilities.
• An Israeli conducted simulation assumed that Iran had acquired nuclear weapons.

“After a final agreement is signed between Iran and the Vienna group, our fuel will be shipped to Turkey under the supervision of Iran and the IAEA,” a press spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry told journalists on the sidelines of a conference of developing nations. “Then we will dispatch 1,200 kilograms [2,640 pounds] of 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey to be exchanged for 120 kilograms [264 pounds] of 20% enriched uranium from the Vienna group.” The deal appears to build upon an IAEA proposal last year that was endorsed by the Obama administration and Western powers.

By the way of background the proposal presented to Iran last year which this announced agreement parallels was to send around 2,640 pounds of its low-enriched uranium to Russia to be further refined and afterward to France to be converted into 20%-enriched fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor. The compromise was to serve as a way of drawing Iran’s supply of nuclear material below the threshold for building a bomb and to create an atmosphere for a broader deal between the West and Iran.

The announced agreement has several pitfalls:
• Only a handful of countries have the capability to create the specialized fuel plates for the Tehran medical reactor, which is what Iran says their enrichment program was for.
• The deal could be threatened by factional battles within Iran’s domestic politics, where any apparent weakness in the face of Western powers is viewed as not representing the greatness that is Iran.
• The Obama administration could reject the proposal, because
• Turkey does not have the capability to enrich the uranium—maybe it will serve as a middleman for France, Russia or Brazil.

In preparation for such an agreement Iran threatened its neighbors in late April when its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) conducted four days of military exercises in the Straits of Hormuz and Persian Gulf. The exercises signaled that Iran is prepared to close the shipping lane form the Persian Gulf if/when confronted by an attack. The exercises also showcased indigenously built materiel and equipment, including an array of missiles and a new fast attack craft. Drills were also run to simulate the firing of anti-ship and surface-to-surface missiles as well as two types of rockets. Four types of seaborne missiles were also tested.

Iran unveiled several new missiles and UAVs at the 2010 Army Day Parade, highlighting long-range ballistic missiles of the both solid and liquid propelled types. Iran also hinted on the existence of a new missile in its arsenal—a Russian S-300 ‘look-alike’. The system is definitely not the Russian S-300, but could be a derivative of the Chinese HQ-9 missile. These new missiles were probably meant to display Iran’s ability to target Israel.
The New York Times reported that the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov criticized President Obama for his position on sanctions for Iran. He warned the United States and other Western nations against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. “Countries facing Security Council sanctions “cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council”, Lavrov was quoted as saying.

Israel is primed to wage war on Iran, a deputy to Prime Minister Netanyahu said in a rare break with the government’s self imposed silence, as foreign governments try to curb Tehran’s nuclear plans. Reportedly by its assaults on guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon and Palestinian territories, the Israeli air force had gained the techniques necessary for any future strikes on Iranian sites. Deputy Prime Minister Yaalon (a former armed forces chief) went on to say that: “There is no doubt that the technological capabilities, which improved in recent years, have improved range and aerial refueling capabilities, and have brought about a massive improvement in the accuracy of ordnance and intelligence. This capability can be used for a war on terror in Gaza, for a war in the face of rockets from Lebanon, for war on the conventional Syrian army, and also for war on a peripheral state like Iran.”

Finally, in a recent simulation in Israel: “Iranian deterrence proved dizzyingly effective,” Eitan Ben-Eliahu, a retired air force commander who played the Israeli defense minister, said in his summary of the 20-team simulation. The wargame saw Iran declaring itself a nuclear power in 2011 and the ensuing confrontations were by proxy, in Lebanon. In one, emboldened Hezbollah guerrillas fired missiles at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. That was followed by U.S. and Israeli intelligence findings that Iran had slipped radioactive materials to its Lebanese cohort, to assemble a crude device. Neither move drew Israeli attacks. Instead, Israel conferred with the United States, which publicly supported its ally’s “right to self-defense” and mobilized military reinforcements for the region while quietly insisting the Israelis stand down to give crisis talks a chance. “As far as the United States was concerned, Israel was trigger-happy. It sought to use the Hezbollah (missile) attack as justification for what the United States was told would be an all-out war.”

These series of distinct events and reports tell stark story. The United States has lost its image as a power broker and protector of Israel. Both Israel and Iran are posturing while sending the same message. The US is not the player that it used to be. Iran is sending this message to show its dominance in the area and for domestic political consumption. Simultaneously, Israel is hinting at the ability to attack Iran while distancing itself from dependence on the US, which the simulation painted as weak and unresponsive.

It can be argued that the Iranian deal with Turkey may lower the temperature of the current debate and will definitely make sanctions impossible. However it contains all of the problems noted, that must still be addressed. Overall the Iranian desire to create what one of its clerics called the Islamic United States continues and needs to be addressed by policy makers in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

What do you think?

IDC Simulation: “Iran: The Day After”.

President Shimon Peres sent a message to Syria, offering to return the Golan Heights in exchange for a promise that Damascus would sever its ties with Iran and various terrorist groups, Syrian President Bashar Assad told the Lebanese As-Safir paper in an interview published Tuesday.