WarSclerotic

Hezbollah Planning Chemical Attack on Israel? Summer 2010 War? – Associated Content – associatedcontent.com.

Will the summer of 2010 bring an attack from Iran and Hezbollah on Israel? Major General Paul E. Vallely (Ret.) has told PJTV that “Iran is planning a preemptive attack against

// <![CDATA[//

Israel through its military proxy Hezbollah. He adds that recently, a submarine in Beirut unloaded suspicious cargo that signaled the potential presence of chemical weapons,” reports Uncoverage.net.

The people who were working on the submarine had on hazmat gear and gas masks; General Vallely notes that “some sort of chemical weapons were being offloaded from the submarine to the control of Hezbollah.”

Could war be imminent? If so what will the United States do to try to quell the unrest and to control Iran?

SCUD Missiles

There have also been many reports that Iran has shipped Russian-created SCUD missiles to Lebanon in recent months. These missiles may have a longer range, of up to 450 km, than missiles used previously; they may have the capability to hit Tel Aviv and Israel.

Hezbollah is also believed to have a supply of M-600 rockets to attack Israel. These rockets are “Iranian-designed and Syrian built,” notes the Christian Science Monitor. These rockets are smaller and more accurate than the Scud and easier to use.

Israel is in the process of giving the people of the country gas masks to wear in case of SCUD chemical missile attacks.

Israel Warns Syria: “We’ll Return Syria to Stone Age”

The London Times reports that Israel has given a private warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel will start an attack against Syria if Hezbollah attacks Israel. “Israel made it clear that it now regards Hezbollah as a division of the Syrian Army and that reprisals against Syria will be fast and devastating.” Israel warns that they will bomb Syria back to the “Stone Age” if the country is attacked by Syria.

Israel does have quite the way with the angry rhetoric. Lately Iran has been using a lot of it too. Israel always seems a bit more logical than the leader of Iran, whose rants have become ever more incoherent in recent years.

US Sanctions on Syria

President Obama recently continued sanctions on Syria due to its “continuing support for terrorist organizations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs,” report the Gateway Pundit.

Hezbollah

// <![CDATA[//

Hezbollah, in Lebanon is believed to be funded by Iran and Syria. The two countries have long tried to claim power in Lebanon. Hezbollah was created in 1982 by Iran. It is now a formal part of the Lebanese government.

Hezbollah has the symbol of an AK-47 on its flag. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is ever eager to make threats to Israel. Let’s hope he does not start a new war. Peace has held since the end of the war between Israel and Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Iran’s funding of Hezbollah is very problematic for peace in the Middle East. Iran seems too often to be in the center of causing unrest in the region.

Peace Talks and Worries of War

Palestine and Israel have just started indirect peace talks via the US, notes al Jazeera.

Soon hopefully the leaders of the two countries will start official peace talks. Hope rises for a peaceful two-state solution to the long-simmering dispute between Israel and Palestine.

And as that hope grows, worries grow too, for more war between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah is a negative force in Lebanon. It is a military endeavor in a country that wants peace. The 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon cost the lives of 1,200 Lebanese and 100 Israelis, per the Daily Star. That is too much loss of life.

Iran and Syria are tying to use Lebanon to instigate trouble with Israel, perhaps to deflect attention from Iran’s flouting of the UN’s mandate to stop tying to obtain nuclear weapons.

The Post and Courier – Iran’s latest nuclear gambit – Charleston SC – postandcourier.com.

American Thinker: The New Middle East Peril.

By James Lewis

‘US must stop Iran’.

Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion who has become one of the most outspoken critics of Vladimir Putin, said Monday that the only way to block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons was to tackle the Russian prime minister’s ongoing dealings with the mullahs’ regime in general and their nuclear program in particular.

And the only way to do that, said Kasparov, was for the Obama administration to make plain to Putin that unless he changed course, there would be “real consequences for his [financial] well-being.”

“Without Russia’s technical assistance, Iran wouldn’t be even close to a nuclear bomb,” said Kasparov, who in late 2007 made a short-lived bid to challenge for the Russian presidency and who has been arrested and briefly jailed in recent years after anti-Putin protests. The way to force Russia to abandon that assistance, he said, “is to make Putin listen… by going after his money.”

Kasparov was interviewed by The Jerusalem Post on his first visit to Israel since 2005; he played Monday in a simultaneous chess match against 30 opponents within the framework of the prestigious Dan David Prize ceremonies at Tel Aviv University.

“Iran will not stop [its pursuit of nuclear weapons] unless Russia is ready to join the sanctions,” said Kasparov, “because apart from the nuclear technology and the anti-missile defense systems, Russia is a main energy supplier.”

That won’t change, he said, unless or until Putin is pressured effectively.

“He’s not going to listen to your requests or your pleading, or [respond] to some kind of sweet deal,” said Kasparov witheringly. “At the end of the day, selling nuclear technology to Iran, selling anti-missile defense systems, brings cash. And if America or Israel, or both, at a certain point attack Iran, the oil price goes up, so for Putin it’s a win-win situation.”

Unfortunately, said Kasparov, “it seems the [US] administration is ready to attack Goldman Sachs, but it is not ready to attack Putin’s financial interests. Which means that Iran feels safe.”

The 47-year-old Kasparov, born Garry Weinstein to an Armenian mother and a Jewish father and widely considered the greatest chess player of all time, urged the West to tackle Putin via a list of oligarchs who he said acted as his “wallet” and against whom, he said, there was no shortage of evidence of financial wrongdoing.

“If you believe that the Iranian nuclear bomb is an imminent threat, not only to Israel but also to the interests of the United States and the Western world, you act,” he said. “If you don’t believe it, you can find thousands of excuses [not to act] – as the Western powers found 75 years ago when not acting against the rise of Nazi Germany.

“Putin’s threat is probably not comparable to the one in the 1930s,” he clarified, “but to a certain degree it will have a very serious impact on the Western system, because the No. 1 Russian export is not oil. It’s corruption. And Putin has found great demand for this product in the West.”

Asked whether issuing such outspoken criticisms placed him at personal risk, Kasparov noted that “I have bodyguards in Moscow.” He added, however: “In Russia, if the state goes after you, nothing helps.”

And questioned as to whether he might try again to seek the Russian presidency, he responded: “In Russia we’re not fighting to win elections, we’re trying to have elections. Our fight is very different… because we do not live in a democratic country. This,” he said, “is something that people in the West and also in Israel don’t want to recognize.”

‘Israel fought its own battles’.

Obama’s Syrian Gamble « Liveshots.

May 10, 2010 – 10:00 AM | by: Ben Evansky

Bret Stephens: What Is Happening to Turkey? – WSJ.com.\

Istanbul

Last week I asked Bernard Lewis where he thought Turkey might be going. The dean of Middle East historians speculated that in a decade the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk might more closely resemble the Islamic Republic of Iran—even as Iran transformed itself into a secular republic.

Reading the news about Turkey from afar, it’s easy to see what Prof. Lewis means. Since coming to power in 2002, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has dramatically recast the traditional contours of Turkish foreign policy. Gone are the days when the country had a strategic partnership with Israel, involving close military ties and shared enemies in Syria and Iran and the sundry terrorist groups they sponsored. Gone are the days, too, when the U.S. could rely on Turkey as a bulwark against common enemies, be they the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Today, Mr. Erdogan has excellent relations with Syrian strongman Bashar Assad, whom the prime minister affectionately calls his “brother.” He has accused Israel of “savagery” in Gaza and opened a diplomatic line to Hamas while maintaining good ties with the genocidal government of Sudan. He was among the first foreign leaders to congratulate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his fraudulent victory in last year’s election. He has resisted intense pressure from the Obama administration to vote for a new round of Security Council sanctions on Iran, with which Turkey has a $10 billion trade relationship. And he has sabotaged efforts by his own foreign ministry to improve ties with neighboring Armenia.

The changes in foreign policy reflect the rolling revolution in Turkey’s domestic political arrangements. The military, long the pillar of Turkish secularism, is under assault by Mr. Erdogan’s Islamist-oriented government, which has recently arrested dozens of officers on suspicion of plotting a coup. Last week the Turkish parliament voted to put a referendum to the public that would, if passed, allow the government to pack the country’s top courts, another secularist pillar, with its own people. Also under assault is the media group Dogan, which last year was slapped with a multibillion dollar tax fine.

Oh, and America’s favorability rating among Turks, at around 14% according to recent polls, is plumbing an all-time low, despite Barack Obama’s presidency and his unprecedented outreach to Muslims in general and Turks in particular. In 2004, the year of Abu Ghraib, it was 30%.

All this would seem to more than justify Prof. Lewis’s alarm. So why do so many Turks, including more than a few secularists and classical liberals, seem mostly at ease with the changes Mr. Erdogan has wrought? A possible answer may be self-delusion: Liberals were also at the forefront of the Iranian revolution before being brutally swept aside by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But that isn’t quite convincing in Turkey’s case.

More plausible is Turkey’s economic transformation under the AKP’s pro-free market stewardship. Inflation, which ran to 99% in 1997, is down to single digits. Goldman Sachs anticipates 7% growth this year, which would make the country Europe’s strongest performer—if only Europe would have it as a member. Turks now look on the EU with diminished envy and growing contempt. One time arch-rival Greece mostly earns their pity.

Chief among the beneficiaries of this transformation has been the AKP’s political base: an Islamic bourgeoisie that was long shut out of the old statist arrangements between the country’s secular political and business elites. Members of this new class want to send their daughters to universities—and insist they be allowed to do so wearing headscarves. They also insist that they be ruled by the government they elected, not by the “deep state” of unelected and often self-dealing officers, judges and bureaucrats who defended the country’s secularism at the expense of its democracy and prosperity.

The paradoxical result is that, as the country has become wealthier and (in some respects) more democratic, it has also shed some of its Western trappings. Mr. Erdogan’s infatuations with his unsavory neighbors undoubtedly stems form his own instincts, ideology and ego. But it also reflects a public sentiment that no longer wants Turkey to be a stranger in its own region, particularly when it so easily can be its leader. Some Turks call this “neo-Ottomanism,” others “Turkish-Gaullism.” Whichever way, it is bound to discomfit the West.

The more serious question is how far it all will go. Some of Mr. Erdogan’s domestic power plays smack of incipient Putinism. The estrangement from Israel is far from complete, but an Israeli attack on Iran might just do the trick. And it’s hard to see why Mr. Erdogan should buck public opinion when it comes to Turkey’s alliance with the U.S. when he’s prepared to follow public opinion in so many other matters.

Most importantly, will the Erdogan brand of Islamism remain relatively modest in its social and political ambitions, or will it become aggressive and radical? It would be wrong to pretend to know the answer. It would be insane not to worry about the possibility.

Inside Hizballah’s Preparations for the Next War – TIME.

Lebanese Hizbollah members

With a startled shout from the outcrop above, the Hizballah fighter bounded down the rocky slope, cocked his AK-47 rifle in a dramatic flourish as he drew near. “What are you doing here?” he demanded, his face a mix of anger and astonishment. “This is a military zone. You should not be here.”

It turned out that the youthful militant had been guarding a small outpost created by the Shi’ite militia on a remote mountain top in south Lebanon. The location was well chosen, offering the Hizballah men commanding views over the hills and valleys of the southern Bekaa Valley, a likely battle front if a widely-anticipated — and feared — war breaks out between the Iran-backed group and Israel. (See rare pictures of Hizballah’s youth movement.)

The question of whether these rugged hills will see yet another war depends less on the likely combatants than it does on the U.S. and Iran. Hizballah is viewed as one component of Iran’s deterrence against a possible attack on its nuclear sites, should diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the standoff with the West over its enrichment of uranium. And recent conversations with Hizballah fighters reveal an organization at the peak of its military powers with an army of well-trained, disciplined, and highly motivated combatants wielding advanced weaponry, cultivating new tactics, and brimming with confidence.

“The next war is coming one hundred percent, but we don’t know when,” says Ali, a thickly-muscled university student. “We have big plans for it. God willing, you will see the end of Israel.” (See pictures of Lebanon in crisis.)

Like all Hizballah fighters interviewed for this article, Ali requested anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to the press. Although Hizballah and Israel both insist they do not want another war, neither side has disguised its preparations for that possibility. Since the end of its last bout with the Israeli military in July-August 2006, Hizballah has built new defensive lines and firing positions, the fighters say, in the hills flanking the Bekaa and along the rugged mountainous spine running up the middle of southern Lebanon.

One such position was this observation post near the town of Jezzine onto which a TIME reporter stumbled. It consisted of a couple of bunkers sunk into the hillside, an open fire place with a soot-blackened cooking pot and bags of onions and potatoes. Local residents say that at night they can hear the sound of explosions and gunfire echoing through the valleys as Hizballah trains. Israel vows that it will use far greater force in the next war and will treat the Lebanese state — in whose government Hizballah has a major role — as the enemy rather than just the Shi’ite militia, a prospect that frightens many Lebanese. But the resolve of the Hizballah combatants remains unshaken by Israeli threats. (Read “A Brief History of Hizballah.”)

“Israel is living a state of confusion because it perceives that any aggression it would launch against Lebanon would be lost,” boasted Hizballah’s deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem this week, adding that he does not believe a new war with Israel is on the horizon. Perhaps not, but the look in the eyes of Hizballah’s combatants suggest that not only are they fully prepared to fight one, they actually look forward to it.

“It doesn’t matter. We can always rebuild. Our dignity is more important than roofs over our heads,” says Haj Rida, a square-jawed unit commander. Such sang froid illustrates the single-minded determination of the Hizballah combatant nurtured by years of relentless religious instruction and military training. Ali, for example, was raised in an environment of Islamic piety and dedication to the cause, joining the party’s youth program at the age of 12. He eschews parties and listening to music, saying he has dedicated his life to “walking the path of the Prophet Mohammed”. (See pictures of the 2006 war in Lebanon.)

“I have my studies at university and my family, but I also have the life of jihad and preparations for the coming war,” he says. “I consider my jihad duties as something joyful. You cannot understand the joy of jihad unless you are in Hizballah.”

Acting on an internal assessment of its military performance in the 2006 war, Hizballah is seeking to improve its capabilities by developing new tactics and acquiring new weapons. They are placing particular emphasis on improved air defense systems to challenge Israel’s aerial superiority.

Reports over the past year suggest that Hizballah has received advanced Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, and some fighters have been trained in Syria on larger truck-mounted missile systems.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources say Hizballah has also augmented its arsenal with larger, longer-range rockets with guidance capabilities. Many analysts believe that in the event of another war, Hizballah plans to strike strategic targets deep inside Israel. In February, the movement’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah hinted that Hizballah now had the ability to strike targets in Tel Aviv.

Although last month’s Israeli claims that Syria had transferred Scud ballistic missiles to Hizballah remain unsubstantiated — and some military analysts are skeptical given the rocket’s size and cumbersome logistical requirements — the group is believed to have acquired Syrian-manufactured M-600 guided rockets. The M-600, a copy of an Iranian rocket, can carry a 1,100 pound warhead for a distance of 155 miles, and its guidance system allows Hizballah to target Israel’s defense ministry in Tel Aviv from hidden bases in the northern Bekaa Valley. (Read “Israel Claims Iran Weapons Intercept.”)

Hizballah’s possession of the M-600 is “just the tip of the iceberg,” Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, Israel’s top military intelligence analyst, told a Knesset committee on Tuesday. “Hizballah currently has an arsenal of thousands of rockets of all kinds and ranges, including solid fuelled rockets, with a longer range and more accurate,” he said.

Besides seeking new weapons systems, the Shi’ite militia is also finding innovative ways to utilize older armaments, such as the guerrilla-standard RPG-7 grenade launcher and the recoilless rifle, a near obsolete anti-tank weapon. “The RPG-7 is old but still a good weapon,” says Ali. “It’s how you use them that counts. We are always studying new combat techniques.”

Israel’s heavily armored tanks are to receive a newly-developed defense system that fires mini interceptors to destroy incoming antitank missiles. Hizballah fighters, without revealing details, say they are training to overcome such sophisticated defenses by “swarming” Israeli tanks with low-tech antitank weapons.

Hizballah’s battle plans may also including infiltrating fighters across the border into Israel to carry out raids and sabotage missions — a move that would be unprecedented in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israeli doctrine is to fight its wars in the territory of its enemies rather than on the home front. Says Ali, “God willing, we will go into Palestine next time.”

Despite the mounting tension, Israel’s pledge — and vast capability — to inflict catastrophic damage on Lebanon and the scale of Hizballah’s arms build-up functions as a kind of mutual deterrence that has brought the usually volatile frontier its longest period of calm in 40 years.

Medvedev, Assad to discuss Mideast peace – Israel News, Ynetnews.

//

// Medvedev. Wants to assist with peace Photo: Reuters

Russian president expected to hand over message from Israel during visit in Damascus

AP and Roee Nahmias

JPost.com | BlogCentral | Rosner’s Domain | “Most Jews wont re-elect Obama”, if you care to believe polls.

The McLaughlin poll everybody’s talking about is all here:

And a couple of notes:

1. When one asks whether Jews will “consider voting” for “someone else” this doesn’t mean that they will consider voting for a Republican. They might not. That’s why I do not buy the “Obama lost half of Jewish support” headlines.

2. Previous studies have indicated that “41% of American Jews have visited Israel at some point during their lives.4 Among those who have been to Israel, a little over half (54%) have visited once, 17% have visited twice, and the remaining 29% have visited three times or more”. But the McLaughlin poll has 51% of visitors to Israel. This might mean that the poll is somewhat biased towards Jews more affiliated with Israel than the average – which means one should treat carefully the “total”.

3. By the way, the fact that there a clear “association between affiliation status and close family or friends who live in Israel” is well established. “Fifty-seven percent of affiliated Jews and half of the moderately affiliated have such a connection to Israel, as opposed to only 36% of those who do not have a Jewish organizational affiliation”.

4. Yet again, in the McLaughlin poll 56% have friends or family living in Israel. But according to NJPS the real number is 46% – a 10% difference that can have impact on the total.

5. On the other hand, this new poll has higher percentage of Democrats than the AJC Jewish opinion survey. Confusing? In some ways it is.

5. The number of Jews disapproving of Obama’s handling relations with Israel is much higher in this poll than in the quite recent AJC survey. On the other hand – differences between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform should not surprise anyone.

6. But in both surveys one can see the strong Jewish attachment to Jerusalem. Of all denominations. And also the deep suspicion that Arabs want to destroy Israel and not to make peace with it.

Update: Laura reminded me that Ron wrote an excellent post about this poll. You should read it (here).