Archive for July 21, 2010

« WarSclerotic home page

Situation is challenging, but Israel will overcome, military expert says

July 21, 2010

Jewish Tribune – Situation is challenging, but Israel will overcome, military expert says.

Written by Atara Beck
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
TORONTO – Notwithstanding his prediction that war in the Middle East in the near future is a certainty and that Israel is in its most dangerous situation since 1973 – and possibly since 1948 – eminent Haifa-based political and military analyst Elliott Chadoff told a packed auditorium at Beth Tikvah synagogue: “I believe we will win.”

Hosted by Speakers Action Group and the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association, Chadoff attempted to “put the Middle East into a frame that we in the West can understand it.” He began with common terms such as “moderates” and “extremists,” explaining that the players in the region “don’t fit into those boxes.”

For example, the standard belief is that Shiite Moslems are more moderate than Sunnis, he said. In that case, however, “Osama bin Laden would be more moderate.”

Notwithstanding any ideological differences, when Israel killed four terrorists that were travelling together in a car a few years ago, the murder victims came from both Fatah and Hamas. “They’re bitter enemies but they carpool,” he quipped. “There’s something very wrong with this categorization of enemies…. What are the reporters talking about when they say we can trust this one but not that? They paint a precise[ly] incorrect picture.”

According to Chadoff, “the real terrorist threat is that of Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda.”

He outlined the serious danger to the Jewish state – and, he conceded, ultimately to the West – as follows:

First, Israel is facing Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, which “has brought to the world suicide terrorism and hybrid terrorist guerrilla warfare.”

The threat from Lebanon began in earnest after Israel’s retreat in 2000, he said, adding that southern Lebanon is completely controlled by Hezbollah. “When the 2006 war was over, Hezbollah legitimately claimed victory. It was still standing. They won the battle…. Since then, the ‘great myth’ was that they’re smuggling weapons into Lebanon. They’re shipping weapons.”

Hezbollah’s recent hostile interactions with UN forces in southern Lebanon provided an “early indication of what is likely to be a soon-erupting conflict,” he suggested, pointing to the terrorist organization’s huge arsenal of rockets that could reach as far south as the Negev as well as a suspicion, albeit unconfirmed, that it also has a chemical weapons capability.

Second, Hamas – also an Iranian-driven terrorist organization – controls Gaza and about 50 percent of the West Bank. “Every single night Israel goes into the West Bank and grabs terrorists” and “gets bad press for killing terrorists.”

Chadoff acknowledged that it’s “hard for Westerners to understand people who love death more than life.” After the recent Turkish flotilla fiasco, he said, the Western world responded in a way that was antithetical to Western law by condemning Israel before starting an investigation.

Third but not least is the Iranian nuclear threat, and “Israel cannot survive a nuclear strike. They know it, we know it, and they know we know…. A nuclear weapon gets into Israel, and Israel is finished.

“Therefore, deterrence will not work,” he stressed, adding that despite its huge capabilities, the U.S. does not act quickly enough; in fact, a large influx of Hezbollah at the Mexican border has already been verified.

This, coupled with the fact that Israel could not afford to miss its target if it strikes a nuclear adversary, makes an Israeli attack “before Iran can do it” inevitable.

“If and when Israel strikes, regional war is a certainty and will trigger terrorist cells in southern, central and North America,” Chadoff warned.

“I rely on the boys and girls who make up the IAF (Israeli Air Force) to do the planning and the operation. If they say it can be done, it can be done,” Chadoff declared.

“Is the West up to it? I think it is. Is Israel up to it? I’m sure it is.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama’s turnabout

July 21, 2010

Obama’s turnabout – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

President Barack Obama’s campaign of wooing Israel reflects a fundamental about-face in U.S. policy in the Middle East. U.S. priorities have changed: At the top are the intensifying problem of Iran and concerns about the change of leadership in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Under such circumstances, Israel is perceived as a “vital ally,” in the words of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, and not an obstacle to warmer ties between the United States and the Muslim world, as was the view at the start of Obama’s tenure.

The Americans have a supreme interest in the Middle East; it’s an available and inexpensive supply of oil that powers the economies of the United States and its allies. Protecting it depends on preserving “stability,” which relies on totalitarian regimes whose survival depends on the United States. In turn, defending these regimes provides important markets for the U.S. defense industry.

Since taking responsibility for the defense of the Middle East from Britain, and with the announcement of the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957 following the Suez Crisis, the United States has fought off every element that sought to undermine regional order and threatened the oil supply – from Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Soviet patrons to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Israel has played a varying role in American strategy. Sometimes it was seen as an asset, other times as a burden. During the best of times the Americans highlighted the “special relationship” and the “shared values.” In bad times they picked on Israel over its Dimona nuclear reactor, and later over the settlements. This approach is commonplace for them: When the Americans needed China against the Soviet Union, they ignored both Mao’s human rights violations and Taiwan. When China was perceived as an economic threat, the United States announced that it was selling arms to Taiwan, officially hosted the Dalai Lama, and acknowledged that there was censorship in Beijing and opponents of the regime were being persecuted.

In relations with Israel, the settlements play the role that Taiwan and Tibet play in relations with China – a permanent problem that is emphasized or ignored depending on need. Are they angry with the prime minister? They remember Sheikh Jarrah and Yitzhar. Do they need Israel, or do they want to caress it because of yet another bit of pseudo-progress in the peace process? They back off the Judea and Samaria planning committee.

When Obama came into office he assessed that the United States had been weakened in the Middle East and hoped to reach an agreement on sharing influence with the regional power, Iran. So he cooled toward Israel and pulled out of the closet the well-worn club called settlements. But that didn’t work. The Iranians waved off Obama’s goodwill gesture, and the Arab states ignored the Palestinian issue and made it clear that blocking Iran was more important. As the United Arab Emirates ambassador to Washington said at a conference last week: “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”

This is the reason for the turnabout in Obama’s approach. Instead of “beat on Israel and gain the applause of the Muslims,” the stance on Iran is toughening. Sanctions on Tehran have become tougher, and the rhetoric has become more blunt. Israel has moved from being a burden to a welcome partner, perhaps because there is no choice in view of the expected instability in Cairo and Riyadh with the changes at the top.

Cooperation with the Israel Defense Forces has become closer and the Americans have opted to emphasize it, unlike their tendency in the past of playing it down. Israel has become a hit in Washington to the point where Shapiro, who praised the defense relationship, went as far as to mention two presidents, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, for supporting a Jewish homeland decades before Herzl. Zionism was born at the White House, and we had no idea.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has scored a diplomatic achievement. During his first meeting with Obama he tried to convince him that the Iranian threat was paramount, and Obama demanded that he not build in East Jerusalem. Now the president declares that Iran’s nuclear program “has been my number one foreign policy priority over the course of the last 18 months,” and made no mention of the settlements as he sat next to Netanyahu.

This did not happen for nothing: Netanyahu promised in return that within a year he will have a permanent settlement, and is signaling that the weight of the blow on Iran will be reflected in the extent of the concessions Israel makes. And if this belated love also helps Obama and his party in the upcoming congressional elections, the deal will be worthwhile in his view.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Air Defense: Iron Dome Ready For Warehousing

July 21, 2010

Air Defense: Iron Dome Ready For Warehousing.

July 21, 2010: The Israeli Air Force has successfully conducted final acceptance tests of its Iron Dome anti-rocket system, seeing if the system could successfully handle barrages of missiles. Last January, Iron Dome completed its final manufacturers tests. Israeli politicians are demanding that the army deploy Iron Dome batteries immediately along the Gaza border. The air force would prefer to save money and put the batteries in storage, to be deployed only for regular tests (and for training) and for an actual emergency (an expected large scale attack on southern or northern Israel.) Apparently at least one battery will be deployed along the Gaza border, with the others kept in storage (which is a lot cheaper.)Israel has bought seven batteries, to be delivered over the next two years. Each battery has radar and control equipment, and four missile launchers. The first battery has been delivered. Each battery costs about $37 million, which includes over fifty missiles.

During tests, the system detected and shot down BM-21 and Kassam rockets. The manufacturer, Rafael, was offered a large bonus if they got the system working ahead of schedule. When Iron Dome was first proposed four years ago, it was to take five years (until 2012) to get it operational. In addition to the cash incentive, there’s also the rockets still coming out of Gaza, and being stockpiled by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. But the current low rate of rocket attacks are more of a political and psychological danger, than a real one.

Iron Dome uses two radars to quickly calculate the trajectory of the incoming rocket (Palestinian Kassams from Gaza, or Russian and Iranian designs favored by Hezbollah in Lebanon) and do nothing if the rocket trajectory indicates it is going to land in an uninhabited area. But if the computers predict a rocket coming down in an inhabited area, a $40,000 guided missile is fired to intercept the rocket. This makes the system cost-effective. That’s because Hezbollah fired 4,000 rockets in 2006, and Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have fired over six thousand Kassam rockets in the past eight years, and the Israelis know where each of them landed. Over 90 percent of these rockets landed in uninhabited areas. Still, a thousand interceptor missiles would cost $40 million. But that would save over a hundred lives, and hundreds of injuries. A cheap price to pay, especially if you are one of the victims, or potential victims. Israel already has a radar system in place that gives some warning of approaching rockets. Iron Dome will use that system, in addition to another, more specialized radar in southern Israel.

The rocket attacks had been around since 2001, but got much worse once Israel pulled out of Gaza in August of 2005. This was a peace gesture that backfired. From 2001 to 2005, about 700 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. Since the 2005 withdrawal, over 3,200 more rockets were fired into Israel. The rate of firings increased after Hamas took control of Gaza in June, 2007.

Hamas has been bringing in more factory made Iranian and Chinese made BM-21 and BM-12 rockets. Israeli intelligence officials believe Hamas currently has, in Gaza, some factory made BM-21 rockets, each with a range of 20-40 kilometers. They also have some shorter range (six kilometers) B-12 rockets. These are not smuggled in much, because the locally made Kassam II has about the same range. However, the B-12 is more reliable (more reliable trajectory and fuze, so more are likely to land where aimed and explode.)

The B-12 is a 107mm, 19 kg/42 pound, 107mm, 84 cm/33 inch long, Russian designed rocket that is very popular with terrorists. This rocket has a range of about six kilometers and 1.35 kg/three pounds of explosives in its warhead. Normally fired, from a launcher, in salvoes of dozens at a time, when used individually, it is more accurate the closer it is to the target. This 107mm design has been copied by many nations, and is very popular with guerillas and terrorists because of its small size and portability. There is a Chinese BM-12 variant which has a smaller warhead and larger rocket motor. This version is supposed to have a range of about 12 kilometers.

The 122mm BM-21s weigh 68.2 kg/150 pounds and are 2.9 meters/nine feet long. These have 20.5 kg/45 pound warheads, but not much better accuracy than the 107mm model. However, these larger rockets have a maximum range of 20 kilometers. Again, because they are unguided, they are only effective if fired in salvos, or at large targets (like cities, or large military bases or industrial complexes.) There are Egyptian and Chinese variants that have smaller warheads and larger rocket motors, giving them a range of about 40 kilometers.

The rocket attacks from Gaza have been remarkably ineffective, killing only 40 people (half from rockets, the rest by mortars) in eight years. Hamas has had to fire about 270 rockets or mortar shells for each Israel soldier or civilian they have killed. Israeli counterfire killed or wounded a Palestinian for every three Palestinian rockets or mortar shells fired. One Israeli was killed or wounded for every 40 rockets or mortar shells fired. Israeli fire was much more accurate, with most of the Palestinian casualties being terrorists or others involved in building or firing the rockets and mortars. Hamas has tried to get civilians killed, by storing rockets in residential areas, and forming them from those neighborhoods as well. Although Hamas believes in the concept of “involuntary martyrdom” (getting civilians killed for the cause, even if the victims are not willing), many of its chosen candidates are not eager to die. So civilians stay away from areas where the rockets are launched, and try to conceal the fact that rockets are hidden under their homes.

Meanwhile, up north in Lebanon, Hezbollah have stockpiled over 40,000 factory made rockets, mainly BM-21s brought in from Iran via Syria. This is three times as many rockets as they had in the Summer of 2006, when over 4,000 rockets were fired into northern Israel, killing about fifty people, most of them civilians. Over a thousand Lebanese died from Israeli counterattacks. Hezbollah and Hamas plan to launch a joint rocket attack on Israel eventually. The Israelis have been planning more effective countermeasures, which they have not been discussing openly. There is also the option of installing Iron Dome in the north, but that has not been assured yet.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Rising speculation about bombing Iran’s nukes | San Francisco Examiner

July 21, 2010

Rising speculation about bombing Iran’s nukes | San Francisco Examiner.

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
July 21, 2010
(AP)

Many years ago I was privileged to attend a dinner with James Rowe, one of the “passion for anonymity” young aides to Franklin Roosevelt, original author of the winning strategy for Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign and close confidant of then-President Lyndon Johnson.

Rowe described how Johnson tested insider opinion. He would call an ideologically wide range of acquaintances and ask their views on an issue of the day. Most responded as he expected. But when one or two said something he hadn’t expected he would take notice. Maybe things weren’t going as he thought.

That memory returned as I read three recent articles saying there’s an increasing chance that the United States — or Israel — might well bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. One was by Time’s Joe Klein, who has been a harsh critic of George W. Bush’s military policies and a skeptic about action against Iran. The other was by self-described centrist Walter Russell Mead in his ever-fascinating American Interest blog.

Former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Weekly Standard argues cogently that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would not lead to all the negative consequences widely feared and could shatter the mullah regime. This is not out of line with his views over the years.

Gerecht assumes that the United States will not launch an attack. Klein, contrary to his past views, disagrees. He cites American diplomats who feel that Iran’s spurning of a reasonable deal justifies military action and American military officers who say they know more about potential targets than they did two years ago. Also, he says the Gulf Arab states favor a strike, as evidenced by the United Arab Emirates ambassador’s July 6 statement saying that it would be preferable to a nuclear Iran.

Klein thinks President Obama is still dead set against bombing Iran. Mead is not so sure. He thinks Obama is motivated by a Wilsonian desire for “the construction of a liberal and orderly world.” Or “the European Union built up to a global scale.” A successful Iranian nuclear program, in Mead’s view, would be “the complete, utter and historic destruction” of Obama’s long-term goals of a non-nuclear world and a cooperative international order.

This may sound far-fetched. But recall that Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Then in 1917 he went to war and quickly built the most stringent wartime state — with private businesses nationalized and political dissenters jailed — in modern American history. A Wilsonian desire for international order is not inconsistent with aggressive military action. Sometimes the two are compatible.

This may sound far-fetched. But recall that Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Then in 1917 he went to war and quickly built the most stringent wartime state — with private businesses nationalized and political dissenters jailed — in modern American history. A Wilsonian desire for international order is not inconsistent with aggressive military action. Sometimes the two are compatible.

It would be ironic if the professorial Barack Obama launches a military attack when his supposedly cowboy predecessor George W. Bush declined to do so. I remember attending meetings of conservative columnists with Bush in which his words and body language convinced me he would not order the bombing of Iran.

The fact is that Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, when it seized and held our diplomats for 444 days — an act of war under settled principles of international law. Few in the United States then wanted to regard it as such (though Pat Moynihan said we should “bring fire and brimstone to the gates of Tehran”).

Later, the mullah regime sponsored the 1983 attack on our Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon and attacks on our soldiers in Iraq — more acts of war. Six presidents have chosen not to retaliate for reasons of prudence that have much to commend them. War with Iran would be a terrible thing. But one can also believe, as the UAE ambassador incautiously said, a nuclear-armed Iran would be even worse.

Joe Klein may be right that “this low-level saber-rattling” he describes may be “simply a message that the U.S. is trying to send the Iranians: It’s time to deal.” Walter Russell Mead may be right in saying “there’s a possibility that [Obama] will flinch.” But I take it seriously when these two nonhawks say Obama might bomb Iran. LBJ would have taken it seriously, too.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment