WarSclerotic

Israel to Obama: It Is Not Your Name; It Is What You Do :: Hudson New York.

In mid-July, the President gave his first interview with Israel’s Channel 2 news, and he was asked to explain why he thinks he has only a single digit approval rating in Israel. He suggested that some of the animosity towards him was because his middle name is “Hussein,” inferring some anti-Muslim bigotry on the part of the Israelis. Truth is, he was initially quite popular in Israel prior to his election, as July 2008 polls indicate, so the issue of Israeli religious bias against him is a non-starter. Could it possibly be that the Israelis have serious disagreements with his policies, or are we to believe that they suddenly woke up one morning, discovered his middle name was Hussein, and decided to distrust him? If the man is polling in the single digits in Israel, could it possibly be because other issues might be bothering them?

As candidate Obama, he stated unequivocally that Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state, yet almost from the get-go, he has demanded that East Jerusalem be the capital of a new Palestinian state.

Further, the Israelis perceive that he has a fundamentally different view of the world and world affairs, including the Arab narrative, than previous U.S. presidents, and that he is determined to change U.S. foreign policy in ways detrimental to Israel’s security.

Obama’s first interview as President was with Al-Arabiya TV, and his first phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.

He pledged to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on June 3^rd, 2009, that the United States would force Israel to withdraw from East Jerusalem and the entire West Bank by 2012 in exchange for King Abdullah’s help in arranging for an end to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan –- a pledge undertaking made despite the April 2004 letter of understanding between President Bush and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — and overwhelmingly agreed to by both houses of Congress — stating that the issue of final borders and major Jewish population centers on the West Bank (including Jerusalem) would be the subject of final status talks with the Palestinians — as opposed to being dictated by the U.S. –- all of which implies that concessions made by Israel are to be considered permanent, but concessions made to Israel by the U.S. can be withdrawn at any time.

In Obama’s Cairo speech, delivered the day after he met with King Abdullah, he failed to mention the four-thousand year Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, suggesting instead that Israel was a consolation prize given by the Europeans because of Holocaust guilt (confirming the myth pervasive in the Arab world that Israelis are merely colonial invaders with no history to the Land). Obama instead focused on his plan to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and empathized with Palestinian suffering (which he compared to Jewish suffering under the Nazis) without making one reference to the suffering of the Israelis who have endured years of Palestinian missile attacks, and who have buried more than a thousand men, women and children who died as a result of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Obama then supported the so-called 2002 “Arab Peace Initiative,” which demands that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders, give up half of Jerusalem, and permit Arab refugees and their millions of descendants to move to Israel — effectively making Jews a minority in their own country.

Despite pledges to the contrary, Obama rejected virtually every Israeli request for U.S. weapons platforms; delayed decisions by the former Bush administration to deliver attack helicopters, air transports, and Hellfire air-to-ground missiles; imposed an embargo on equipment needed in Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor, and diverted promised bunker-buster bombs from Israel to a military base in Diego Garcia to insure that Israel would not attack Iran’s nuclear facilities without his blessing –- something not likely to be given.

Obama went on to spend the past year-and-a-half dithering with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, over inspection procedures for its nuclear weapons program (despite covert efforts to delay it through sabotage), meanwhile allowing critical deadlines to pass without any serious consequences –- this, to a regime that threatens to annihilate Israel; establish a Middle East Shiite caliphate; committed absolutely to replacing the U.S. as the new hegemon in the Middle East; and which is on the brink of achieving a nuclear bomb despite recently imposed sanctions.

The Israelis view his overtures to Iran’s messianic, apocalyptic regime as not only naïve, but dangerous: it has created the perception of American weakness among our enemies and our friends. They also view it as a betrayal of the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom.

They further question the wisdom of an administration determined to make terrorism a law enforcement issue, and try enemy combatants like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts as opposed to military tribunals for crimes relating to a jihadist war against the West.

Obama has also been constantly coddling Syria by appointing a new U.S. ambassador to a country that not only arms Hezbollah and trains and exports terrorists to Iraq, but that also allows foreign terrorist organizations to set up shop in Damascus; snuffs out Lebanon’s embryonic democratic revolution; assassinates its pro-democracy leaders, and establishes a military alliance with Iran.

It then took three visits to the White House by Israel’s Prime Minister before he condescended (under pressure from Democratic Congressmen and Senators, who fear being decimated in the upcoming November elections) to “make nice” to Netanyahu after humiliating him on his previous visits.

Moreover, in the immediate aftermath of the flotilla incident, according to the Globes News Service, Netanyahu was instructed by the President’s officials not to come to Washington for his scheduled visit with the President because they did not want Netanyahu to use the White House as a stage upon which to present Israel’s side of the flotilla story lest it interfere with Obama’s engagement efforts with the Muslim world.

The Israelis simply might not trust a man who is so concerned about political correctness that, rather than trying to delegitimize Islamic extremism by empowering moderate Islamic voices and contesting extremist narratives, he hedges or ignores the problem by issuing an internal gag order directing his Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano to refer to it as “man-caused disasters” and directing his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to skirt around the words “radical Islam” or “jihad” at a House Judiciary Committee hearing (when referring to the Fort Hood massacre, and the Christmas Day and Time’s Square bombing attempts) for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. In both in the Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, “terrorism” and “violent extremism” are mentioned, but no mention is made in any context of radical Islam as a motivating factor.

When the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats, the report made not one mention of any form of Muslim extremism, leaving the Israelis to ponder how the U.S. intends to defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

They are further concerned when the President sends U.S. generals to train and build a Palestinian army, which may very well turn their weapons against Israeli soldiers… and civilians.

Moreover, Obama has travelled to Berlin, Toronto, Paris, Ankara, Cairo and other Arab capitals, but has yet to visit Israel as President, and hesitates to do so until after November, although he was invited by Prime Minister Netanyahu on July 6^th.

Obama also ended the U.S. boycott of the U.N. Human Rights Council, that has spent 95% of its time vilifying Israel, perhaps in the naïve belief that he can moderate the Council’s positions -– a pipe dream, given that it is controlled by dictators, despots and tyrants whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the U.S. and the West, as well as Israel.

The President then apparently abandonment of a 40-year understanding between the U.S. and Israel over maintaining Israel’s ambiguity about its reported nuclear arsenal by failing to veto an Egyptian proposal last May during the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York –- a proposal that calls for a General Conference in September on a “nuclear-free Middle East” that is expected to single-out Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that its nuclear facilities can be exposed — regardless of the fact that signatories like Iran, North Korea and Syria have reneged on their own NPT obligations and, in the case of North Korea, proliferated nuclear technology around the Middle East.

Israel might also fear that the President will force Israel into making nuclear concessions as part of any deal the U.S. might strike with Iran on its nuclear program, or worse, will blame Israel for rejecting such a deal when Iran goes nuclear.

When in Saudi Arabia last spring, th president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia –- a greeting viewed in the Arab world as an act of fealty to the king of a nation that treats women like chattel; forbids the public practice of any religion other than Islam; permits flogging, amputations, and executions by beheading and stoning; imposes imprisonment or death on homosexuals, in accordance with strict Islamic law and has spent an estimated $100B in petro-dollars over the past 25 years spreading a radical Islamic doctrine globally–- not to mention having educated 15 of the 19 September 11^th terrorists at Saudi-funded Islamist universities and madrasses in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Obama has been constantly blaming Israel for the lack of progress in bringing peace to the Middle East, despite the fact that the Palestinians have been offered statehood by the last five Israeli Prime Ministers –- and have rejected each offer –- apart from the Palestinians’ not having kept one single promise they made since the Oslo Accords, and having rejected every compromise that would have required them to accept Israel’s right to exist.

Obama’s chief national security advisor for counter-terrorism, John Brennan, is holding not-so-secret meetings with Hamas and Hezbollah to lay the foundations for a new policy the President is expected to initiate after the November elections (unsurprisingly) that would remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list and open the door to an Iranian base of operations, first in Gaza, then on the West Bank.

Obama has also made an endless series of demands for more and more concessions from Israel — demands which carry serious consequences should Israel object — while there are never consequences or penalties for Israel’s enemies when they break their commitments, such as their promises to end the incitement of hatred against Jews and Israel, or to stop promoting terrorism.

Obama even called Mahmoud Abbas on July 9th and thanked him for his “strong support,” and his “commitment to peace,” after Abbas had told an Arab League Summit in Libya in March: “If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor,” and after Abbas stated directly to the President on his June visit to the White House: “I say in front of you, Mr. President, we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we are not doing that.” Not only can ongoing incitement be viewed on www.MEMRI.org and www.pmw.org, but Abbas continues to refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist, supports “armed resistance” against Israel, but he allows his Palestinian Authority (despite signed agreements in the Oslo Accords) to spew anti-Semitic blood-libels; glorify terrorism by honoring murderers as martyrs in Palestinian schools, mosques and public squares; create children’s television programs that praise the religious war against Israel; use Palestinian textbooks to teach Palestinian children that Tel Aviv and Haifa are part of Palestine; have maps designed that do not even show an entity called Israel; and actively promote a boycott of Israeli goods on the West Bank. So far as Israelis are concerned, the key test of the Palestinian commitment to peace is not what Abbas and his colleagues say to Americans in English, but what they say to Palestinians in Arabic — about Israel, about terrorism and about desiring a real peace.

To cap it off, the President made a pledge of $400M in aid, a significant part of which will be used in Hamas-controlled Gaza –- and the effect of which will be to empower Hamas; legitimize its position; assist in its recruitment and fundraising efforts; facilitate its ultimate takeover of the West Bank; and solidify its control over Gaza without regard to the fact that it’s a genocidal Islamist terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction (and, unofficially, to supplanting the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank) and which serves as Iran’s proxy in the Middle East.

The President may think that his single-digit approval ratings in Israel are simply because his middle name is “Hussein,” but he is wrong. The Israelis have plenty of reasons to distrust the man and his promise of an “unbreakable bond” between our two countries because, from their perspective, he has been doing everything possible for the past year and a half to break that bond. His middle name could have been “Smith” and the Israelis would still distrust him because his actions have spoken louder than his words; no charm offensive or eloquence can change that perception. For them, it is the substance and the results of his policies that count, not his name; by that standard, he has come up short on the issue of trust.

Report: Israel convinces Obama to plan for Iran strike.

According to a report in Time magazine Israel has managed to convince Washington to put the option of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities back on the table.

Israel has long argued that all of the international sanctions against Iran are pointless unless Western powers are prepared to back them up with the threat of force.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing that point since US President Barack Obama pushed through a new package of sanctions at the UN Security Council last month.

In the past few weeks, Time reported that US Central Command has been devising a thorough plan of targeted air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The article claimed that Israel has been brought into that planning process.

Israel is also reportedly still revising its own independent plan of attack, should a solo mission against Iran become necessary.

‘Israel convinces US with Credible military plan on Iran’.

Have Israel’s efforts to convince the US to threaten Iran with a credible military option paid off? According to recent media reports, the answer might be yes.

Iran: The Course is Almost Run.

By INSS Sunday, July 18, 2010

By Ephraim Asculai and Emily B. Landau

The pattern of international efforts to confront Iran’s nuclear program has become all too familiar. The West – first the EU-3, and later the US – leads “diplomatic processes” to nowhere; Russia and China go back and forth between Iran and the West, reluctant to take too harsh a stance against Iran’s ongoing defiance, and agreeing only to belated and weak UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions; and the IAEA continues to pose questions to Iran about the military dimensions of its nuclear program that Iran avoids answering, while at the same time it continues to install and run additional uranium enrichment cascades. The Iranians are successfully playing for time, and time is on their side. All sides are hesitant to firmly pronounce the Iranian nuclear program as weapons-oriented, and Iran senses that its target is almost in sight.

But in recent weeks there are indications of a change, as the international community begins to take a more realistic look at the Iranian nuclear program. The facts of Iran’s progress speak for themselves: Iran has mastered the uranium enrichment process and accumulated enough 3.5% enriched uranium towards the potential to produce military-grade uranium (90%) for at least two nuclear explosive devices. In addition, in February it began producing 20% enriched uranium, which is the next step towards the 90%, bringing it very close to this target. Iran has reported that it has accumulated about 20 kg of 20 percent enriched uranium, which while not enough for one bomb demonstrates that it has mastered the process.[1] The reasons cited by Iran for this enrichment are not relevant since the entire enrichment program runs counter to Security Council resolutions.

These Iranian advances are beginning to elicit some stronger international reactions. On June 27 Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta said in Washington, that Iran probably has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons, but that it likely would take two years to build the bombs if it wanted to. Around the same time, US Under-Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns, in a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that US policy on Iran is “straightforward”: “We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must counter its other destabilizing actions in the region and beyond.” This was followed by President Obama’s statement at the signing of the US Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, on July 1: “There should be no doubt – the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” On July 12, in an unusually strong statement, President Medvedev of Russia said that Iran is getting closer to having the potential to build a nuclear weapon. In light of the expressed Russian doubts until very recently about whether Iran did have military intentions – noting that they had seen no evidence of this – the newly expressed Russian concern is particularly noteworthy. Medvedev said that Iran must explain the military components of its nuclear program.

This escalation in the rhetoric comes with a message of stronger than ever support for sanctions from many directions, with some hints even of a possible appetite for military action against Iran. Whereas six months ago the clearly emerging trend in Western media commentary was talk of how a nuclear Iran might be contained, now more and more pundits are focusing on the scenario of possible war. Some are already setting the stage for blaming Israel for pushing the US to take military action. The message that “an Iranian bomb is worse than bombing Iran” is starting to crop up in statements that have been attributed to officials in some of the Arab Gulf states as well. While later denied, recent reports tell of Saudi willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel’s use of their airspace for a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the ambassador of the UAE to the US is quoted as having said they cannot live with an Iranian bomb, and therefore military action to stop this is preferable to Iran gaining a military nuclear capability.

Iran’s reaction to the fourth round of sanctions has been stronger than in the past. On July 7, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi went so far as to say that the new international sanctions “can slow down” but not stop Iran’s nuclear program, . Whether this was a statement of fact or intended as a political move in order to convince the West that the sanctions are finally working, and that no more action is needed, is almost immaterial. In any case, the Iranians have most of the setup needed for going on with their enrichment program, and it’s not clear to what degree the sanctions can cause direct damage in this regard.

The question is whether the new evidence of concern from the international community will lead to further concrete and effective measures. Beyond the rhetoric, much hinges on the action that Obama is willing to take on the basis of his assessment of the situation. At present it looks like his next move will be to continue in September (a date determined by the Iranians, not by him), a P5+1-led attempt to conduct dialogue with Iran. Absent indications of a clever negotiations and bargaining strategy on the part of the US, it is doubtful whether anything useful will be achieved in these talks. As strange as it may seem, in a sense Obama is also playing for time, and although there is increasing evidence of war talk in the media, there are no indications as of yet that Obama himself is any closer to a decision to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile installations.

And what of Iran’s future plans? Although the following is speculation, it gives a sense of Iranian options. If there are no further sanctions resolutions, and the present sanctions do not have a truly crippling effect, Iran will go on enriching uranium in ever-growing quantities, but will not feel the pressure to break-out and enrich uranium to military-grade levels. Iran will continue to play for time, safe in the knowledge that the US president is not seriously contemplating military action. If, however, something happens that causes Iran to feel significantly more heat, it would have several options for moving forward, either separately or in parallel: it could announce that it does not consider itself bound by international obligations; it could make a (facetious) request to change its NPT status to that of a Nuclear Weapons State; it could withdraw from the NPT; it could expel all inspectors on whatever grounds; and it could carry out an underground nuclear test from material produced through clandestine activities.

The prospects for Iranian acquiescence to the international demand that it at least suspend its enrichment activities are very slim. Whether the US is closer to military action is still a matter of speculation. An overall assessment of the situation and its dynamics leads in the direction that the present stage of the game – that has been ongoing since 2002 – is nearing its end.

Is the U.S. making sure Israel doesn’t attack Iran? – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Andrew Shapiro, Hillary’s Clinton’s assistant secretary for political-military affairs at the Department of State, speaks to Haaretz about Mideast policy.

Andrew Shapiro, Hillary’s Clinton’s assistant secretary for political-military affairs at the Department of State, was a guest of the Saban Center in Washington last Friday.

During your speech at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, you mentioned that the Obama administration took military cooperation with Israel to its highest level in history. However, a period of tensions between the governments led to an explanation that all those high-level military officials’ visits to Israel originated in a suspicion that Israel might surprise the U.S. and attack Iran, and these intensified meetings made sure it wouldn’t happen.

“From my perspective, that’s not accurate. From my perspective, that was the priority that the president and the secretary of state had from the beginning of the administration. That was a priority emanating out of President [Barack] Obama’s presidential campaign, and that the secretary mentioned during the recent speech to the American Jewish Committee or Congress. She asked me, her closest aide in the Senate, to make sure Israeli security is protected and its qualitative military edge is maintained. So this has been a core policy goal of the administration since the beginning, to stand by Israel’s security.”

	Andrew Shapiro: Discussions that I participate in are very security-focused. The leak issue has not been my experience. It comes down to the fundamental diplomacy.”
	Photo by: Natasha Mozgovaya

You are probably working during times of unprecedented openness regarding the discussion of possibly striking at another country – Iran – at least at the level of academia and military specialists. Do these “red light-green light” public discussions complicate the U.S. administration’s decision-making process?

“Our policy is focused on the sanctions track right now, that’s what we are talking about. I can’t control what other people talk about. But for us, our policy is very focused on continuing international pressure on Iran, because we think that to sustain international pressure on Iran has the best chance at forcing the Iranian government to change its calculations.

“The administration began with an engagement strategy with Iran – and it was not because we welcomed the Iranian program, but because it was designed actually to probe their intentions and to make progress where we could. But at the same time it enabled us to garner additional international support for tougher action against Iran.

“And indeed that’s the way it played out. We had the UN Security Council resolution with tough sanctions on Iran. The U.S. approved additional sanctions, and so did the EU. So we are ratcheting up the pressure on Iran so they, as Secretary of State Clinton put it, so they make a determination that their security is not better enhanced by developing nuclear weapons and that it’s best served by not developing nuclear weapons.”

In the first months, however, we had some reports suggesting that some voices in this administration might have suggested using military assistance to Israel as a lever to put some pressure on Netanyahu’s government. Did you ever hear anything like that?

“I didn’t hear anything along these lines and this administration intends to honor the commitments of the 20-year memorandum of understanding regarding the assistance to Israel, even in tough budgetary times.”

Three billion dollars annually, more than 50% of the $5 billion the U.S. distributes in military aid to 70 countries – can you explain why it’s a good investment for American taxpayers?

“There are a few different issues. Israel is a country with which we share values. And so there is a natural affinity between the U.S. and Israel. We are both democracies, we both face threats from terrorism. But also it serves our strategic interests. We believe that Israel is an important part of our regional security, and a strong Israel is good for the United States.

“Finally, we think that an Israel that feels secure will be better able to make tough decisions that will be required through the peace process. There are many good reasons why we get good value out of this, and indeed the evidence of this is that Congress overwhelmingly supported the assistance that this administration has asked for – not just what was asked in the 10-year MOU – but additional funding for Iron Dome, which goes above and beyond it.”

At the Saban Center on Friday you presented a long list of examples of military cooperation. In the past, we had some examples where the U.S. gave a very clear “no” when Israel asked for some sensitive weapons. During the Obama administration, did Israel get any ‘no’s?

“This frequency and intimacy of consultations has meant that we are better in touch with Israel’s security needs and they understand our security needs. So it doesn’t turn into ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ but a dialogue to reach common understandings as to what their security needs are and what our security needs are. We come to a common assessment of what their security needs are and how we can best fill them. We talk about the F-35 strike fighter as being important to helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge. And we identify other systems.”

We’ve heard some U.S. officials were not really fond of leaks from the meetings.

“Discussions that I participate in are very security-focused. The leak issue has not been my experience. It comes down to the fundamental diplomacy which is about bridging gaps, finding common ground and reaching common understandings. What we’ve done through this process that the Obama administration set up – we’ve taken it into an intense and intimate level which enables us to reach a greater meeting of the minds.”

With all these assurances and assistance, do you sense that Israeli officials feel more secure?

“The feedback that I’ve got from the Israeli officials about the quality of these discussions – it’s been very positive, they welcome this level of dialogue and find it very valuable in addressing their own security needs. The level of confidence has been improved as the result of these discussions.”

Following your speech at the Saban Center, the leader of the pacifist organization Code Pink told you that you sound “more like an Israeli agent than a U.S. official” and that there are better things to invest in.

“One of the great things in a democracy is that people are allowed to express all sorts of opinions. As I mentioned, we think that this is a relation worth investing in and supporting. We think that there is great value to the relationship. She was welcome to share her opinion, but this administration’s position is that the support of Israel is not only the right thing to do, but that it’s also very valuable to the U.S.

“I would say on the Palestinian side it’s not zero-sum, we explained to everyone in the region that our support of Israel is not zero-sum. And we’ve supported Palestinian security forces and training of the Palestinian forces. We are working with both sides to build security capacity, but the threats that Israel faces are so severe that it requires an intense level of engagement and discussion.”

What about gestures from the Arab countries?

“Certainly our hope and focus is on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, that’s what Senator [George] Mitchell is working on. But not just the Israelis and the Palestinians – we hope for progress on the regional level as well. If we can get the peace process going, hopefully it can lead to positive momentum, and we will be able to get positive gestures from Israel’s Arab neighbors as well, so it can lead to a virtuous cycle in the peace process.”

For how long do you believe it will be possible to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge against so many simultaneous threats, especially if Iran is eager to reach the same capabilities one day?

“As long as it takes. We have a 10-year MOU and then we’ll continue the discussions. But in the U.S. experience, we had a Cold War which lasted for decades, which we had to invest in – we hope it doesn’t take as long to reach peace in the Middle East. That’s why we are actively engaged and doing everything we can to encourage the peace process. If it is successful, it will mean that there will be less of a threat to Israel. And progress on the peace process will enable all the countries in the region to focus on bettering their peoples’ lives rather than potential military conflict. And that’s why Senator Mitchell is in the region hoping to get things going.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

US AN-TPY-2 radar, coordinated US-Israeli early warning nerve center

A ballistic missile fired at Israeli from any spot in the Middle East, be it Iran, Syria or South Lebanon, can now be tracked from launch by top Israeli commanders by means of the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense System (ALTBMD) developed to protect NATO forces against missile threat and provided Israel by the United States.

debkafile‘s military sources report: The system’s interim stage links up radars of early warning sensors, radar, missile interceptors and space-based detectors. This integrated, layered protective network against tactical missile threats will alert Israeli division and brigade commanders in the field and the home front from a combined US-Israel operations center to the launching of a ballistic missile (from up to 3,000 kilometers) against Israel by sea, air or land.
For the first time, Israel’s war commanders will be forewarned in real time of an approaching ballistic missile, its estimated launch point and impact target and be able track the engagement by counter-missiles. The information will give them a sense of whether the incoming missile threatens command bases, military forces or civilian population areas.

Our military sources add that the US Defense Department has decided to arm NATO generals in Afghanistan and Europe with interim ALTBMD capabilities by the end of the year, as part of America’s preparations for war with Iran. It will be delivered by the contractors, ThalesRaytheonSystems.
In the last nine months, the US and Israeli armies have carried out two training exercises in the use of this system – first during the big Juniper Cobra 2010 war game last November just after an intelligence alert that Iran, Syria and Hizballah had doubled their ballistic missile arsenals; again, from June 6-10, when the USS Harry S. Truman Strike Force was anchored 50 miles off Israel’s southern shore. They practiced combined responses to possible Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah attacks on Israel in the event of a war with Iran.

That exercise, dubbed Juniper Stallion 2010, tested command and battle management and combined early warning drills against incoming missiles. The American AN/TPY-2 radar network using X-Band for intercepting ballistic missiles posted on Mt. Keren (in the Israeli Negev opposite the Egyptian border) was linked for the purpose of the exercise to the Europe-based US Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS).
debkafile‘s military sources confirm that henceforth the capability to put a tail on incoming enemy ballistic missiles is integrated into Israel’s missile defense architecture as a valuable protective capability in a war situation.