WarSclerotic

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 28, 2010, 12:53 PM (GMT+02:00)

Japanese tanker sabotaged in Hormuz in July

On Aug. 6, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DSCA, informed Congress of the sale to Israel of 60 million gallons of unleaded gasoline, 284 million gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel and 100 million gallons of diesel fuel at an estimated cost of two billion dollars. The date is significant, debkafile‘s intelligence sources find.  Ten days earlier, the Japanese tanker M.Star was attacked in Omani waters of the Strait of Hormuz with 200,000 tons of oil.
Although American experts who examined the vessel, they never attributed the damage to sabotage by Iran or al Qaeda, despite the latter’s claim of responsibility on Aug. 4 While Washington did its best to sweep the incident under the rug, Saudi intelligence were worried enough about the threat inching dangerously close to the Gulf’s oil exporting lifeline to launch an independent investigation of the incident.
Their investigators discovered it was staged by a Saudi terrorist who operates out of Iran under the orders of the Revolutionary Guards. To Riyadh, the episode looked like a blunt warning from Tehran to Washington and its allies about the consequences – not just of a direct strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but the possibility of sanctions upsetting the equilibrium of the Islamic regime.

Blockage of the Strait of Hormuz would cut off Israel’s primary source of fuel. Therefore, our sources report, a series of accords, some of them secret, have been transacted to back up America’s standing commitment to keep Israel supplied with its energy needs in the event of armed conflict or crisis on world fuel markets.
In its request to Congress to approve the sale, the DSCA noted:
“The proposed sale of the JP-B aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory. The unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel will be used for ground forces’ vehicles and other equipment used in keeping peace and security in the region. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this additional fuel into its armed forces.”

debkafile adds: Israel is therefore ready and able to absorb this huge injection of military-purpose fuels.
Tehran published its response through an item on the Tabanak Website on Saturday, Aug. 28. It was headlined in large capitals: ISRAEL ORDERS MASSIVE MLITARY FUEL STOCKS FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT REQUIRED FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS. Our Iranian sources report that this site belongs to Mohsen Rezaei, ex-commander of the Revolutionary Guards and much respected in the highest Iranian military and intelligence circles.
The Iranian site goes on to cite bloggers’ comments, the most quoted of which comes from an anonymous ex-US Air Force officer, who wrote on Aug. 27:
“I explained, as I have in the past, how it would be necessary for the US to supply the massive amounts of fuel need for such a [-n Israeli] strike. If Israel were to strike Iran, Israel would only require the massive amounts of jet fuel and over a billion litres of jet fuel would be more that enough to do the job in practical terms.”

According to debkafile‘s military experts, the shelf life of JP-8 jet fuel is not long – no more than six to eight months.
Also Saturday, the Kuwait Al-Rai claimed that Israel is making its last preparations for an attack on the Hizballah missile stores located in Syria close to the Lebanese border, for which an IDF armored division has been called up.

Israel working to thwart Russia arms deal with Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Netanyahu asks Putin to stop deal involving sale of advanced P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles; Israel considers this weaponry dangerous to its navy vessels in Mediterranean Sea.

Israel is trying to prevent an arms deal between Russia and Syria, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to stop the arms sale involving advanced anti-shipping missiles.

The deal involves the sale of advanced P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian military. Israel considers this weaponry capable of posing significant danger to its navy vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.

	The P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missile.

In a conversation with Putin, Netanyahu told the Russian leader that missiles his country had delivered to Syria were then transferred to Hezbollah and used against IDF troops during the Second Lebanon War.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is scheduled to travel to Moscow for what will be the first-ever visit by an Israeli Defense Minister to the Russian capital, where he plans to discuss the matter with his host, Anatoly Serdyukov.

A senior Israeli official who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the issue, said Israel and Russia have been engaged in discreet dialogue over arms deals to the region.

But as these talks have not yielded any results, the decision was made to upgrade the level of discussions with a senior political figure.

“We have been working on such a visit for more than a year and it is very important to us,” the official said.

As the Russian Defense Ministry is considered to be overwhelmingly pro-Arab, the opportunity for an Israeli Defense Minister to make an official visit is considered a historic development.

Netanyahu called Putin on Friday, after a long period of time in which the two had not communicated. The prime minister updated his Russian counterpart on the direct talks with the Palestinians that are expected to begin next week, and some of the conversation centered on the arms deal with Syria.

In addition to Syria’s transfer of advanced Russian anti-tank missiles to Hezbollah, Netanyahu also mentioned the incident in which Syrian-acquired Chinese-made C-802 anti-shipping missiles were used by Hezbollah to target an Israeli destroyer. He expressed Israel’s concern that the new missiles from Russia will also make their way to Hezbollah.

The latest arms deal was first reported in the foreign press in late 2009, and is said to include P-800 missiles which now come in models that can be launched from land.

The highly accurate missiles have a maximum range of 300 kilometers and carry a 200-kilogram warhead. The weapon’s unique feature is its ability to cruise several meters above the surface, making it difficult to identify on radar and therefore intercept.

The C-802 missiles currently in the Syrian arsenal have a range of 120 kilometers, carry a smaller warhead and lack the accuracy of the more advanced missiles.

Israel’s defense analysts are concerned that these missiles in the hands of Hezbollah would pose a serious threat to Israel Navy ships operating out of the Haifa port, and possibly also out of Ashdod.

KAHLILI: Iran goes nuclear – Washington Times.

The West vacillates while Armageddon approaches

Russia turned on the switch to Iran‘s first nuclear power plant on Aug. 21 after repeated delays and more than 15 years of construction. The hard-liners in Iran celebrated it as a victory over “the Great Satan,” repeating the famous phrase by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic revolution. Their message: America can’t do a damned thing.

The Iranians have managed to open a second front for their nuclear bomb project. The Bushehr nuclear power plant is now untouchable because any military action against its reactor containing plutonium would lead to widespread deadly contamination throughout the region.

The reactor, once fully operational, can produce more than 661 pounds of near-weapons-grade plutonium, enough to make 60 nuclear bombs within the first year or two. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be monitoring the operation of the Bushehr nuclear power plant; however, because the IAEA does not have real-time cameras monitoring the plant, the inspectors will review camera tapes at the site every 90 days. This gives the fanatics ruling Iran sufficient time to divert the fuel into making nuclear bombs, using a “quick and dirty” reprocessing approach made public by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers in the 1970s. Experts say the process of separating plutonium from spent fuel employs a simple technology – one that is just a bit more advanced than that of producing dairy products or pouring concrete.

The mullahs ruling Iran can effectively decide to go nuclear and arm the Revolutionary Guards with nuclear bombs before the world has a chance to stop them. Once they announce such an achievement, the choices for the world leaders to respond will be much more limited than before. The result of any military confrontation will be much more horrific – both for the millions of Iranians who have been paying dearly for three decades trying to free themselves from this evil regime and for millions in Israel and the rest of the world who will become hostage to the criminals ruling Iran.

Iran also has achieved another goal in this chess game of pursuing its nuclear-bomb project. It can make it clear to the United States and Israel that should they attack any of its other nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment plant or Isfahan’s nuclear fuel facility, Iran will remove the spent fuel from the Bushehr power plant and proceed with making the nuclear bomb. Iran continues to enrich uranium to the 20 percent level with faster centrifuges at Natanz, and once fully operational, Isfahan’s facility could produce sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year. In either case, the clerical establishment is now one step closer to checkmating the West and reaching its ultimate goal of becoming a nuclear-armed state.

All this while the Revolutionary Guards continue to make significant progress with the country’s missile delivery system. At present, Iran is assessed to have the largest deployed ballistic missiles in the Middle East, with approximately 1,000 missiles covering ranges from 90 to 1,200 miles and capable of reaching all of the Middle East, Israel and parts of Europe. Also, the Guards, with the help of North Korea, are working on intercontinental ballistic missiles to cover the world. They are using their space project to disguise their real intention.

At the same time, the Guards have successfully expanded their terror network by rearming Hezbollah with tens of thousands of rockets, training Hamas fighters in making rockets, and setting up shop in Venezuela. Many of Iran‘s Quds forces, consisting of highly experienced assassins and bomb-making squads, are now in Venezuela. They intend to spread all over Latin America and ultimately enter America. It is only a matter of time before their terror networks are armed with dirty bombs capable of reaching their ultimate goal of bringing about the demise of the West.

The West in return has been vacillating for years, trying its hardest to appease the mullahs. It has turned its back on the Iranian people, who have been subjected to crimes by their rulers, and going against every principle the West claims to stand for. This is while the West’s efforts have resulted in nothing but failure, mainly because it refuses to understand the mullahs’ philosophy, which is deeply rooted in their belief in Allah and literally taken from the Koran: jihad on infidels, killing them until there are no more sinners on Earth and all are believers of Allah: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore, strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. … This is the punishment for nonbelievers.” Koran (8:12-13).

This illusion continues to this day, with the West still thinking it can change the behavior of the radicals ruling Iran with sanctions or by dialogue. Just a few days ago, it was reported in the New York Times that the Obama administration had assured Israel that the threat from Iran was not imminent and therefore there was no need for military action now. Gary Samore, President Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, thinks there is still time and, based on U.S. intelligence, it would take Iran roughly a year to make a nuclear bomb. This assessment is based on intelligence collected over the past year, as well as reports from international inspectors.

There are two problems with the above assessment: One is that we have so far managed to get it wrong most of the time. We did not know of the nuclear-enrichment facility in Natanz until it was revealed by the Iranian opposition in August of 2002, and most recently, we learned from the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate report, claiming Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003, was wrong. Iran never stopped that program and has continued with it ever since.

The other problem with the Obama administration’s assessment on Iran is this: What if there are other secret nuclear sites? After all, Iran has refused to let certain military sites belonging to the Revolutionary Guards be inspected by the IAEA and, at the same time, would not allow interviews with some of their nuclear scientists.

One thing is clear: America and the West have continually backpedaled from their red lines, which has only emboldened the fanatics in Iran to become more aggressive in their policies, both domestically and internationally. They have killed and continue to kill innocent civilians who want nothing more than freedom. They have killed our brave soldiers defending freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while their enrichment program was limited to the 3.5 percent level, at least on the surface, they are openly enriching to the 20 percent level. Experts say the technical requirement to get to 90 percent enrichment from 20 percent is relatively straightforward because it becomes easier at higher levels. Enriching to 20 percent is the same as going to about 80 percent of the way toward military material.

Iran continues to rattle the saber in spite of the sanctions imposed by the United Nations. On Sunday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the country’s first domestically built long-range unmanned bomber aircraft. Calling it an “ambassador of death” to Iran‘s enemy and in an interview with the Qatari daily Al-Sharq, Mr. Ahmadinejad promised global response if his country is attacked. “Our options will have no limits. … They will touch the entire planet,” he said in reply to a question about Tehran’s reaction in the event of such an attack.

Trying to guesstimate the timeline for the mullahs going nuclear and waiting it out will be another failure for the West. But this time, the failure will be of gigantic proportions, with millions of lives lost. The world will see one of the greatest depressions and largest destructions in its history. The radicals in Iran believe that the end time is closer than ever. Mahdi – the Shiites’ 12th imam, the last messiah – will reappear to kill all infidels and conquer the world, thus creating an Islamic empire. They also believe Mr. Ahmadinejad is the leader named in century-old hadiths who confronts the world and relays the words of Allah exactly six years before Mahdi’s reappearance.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has been in office for more than five years. We have their timeline. What is ours?

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. “A Time to Betray,” his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster April 6.

Our strategic failure on Iran requires action – Bakersfield.com.

Iran celebrates as Russia loads nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor, Iran’s first atomic power station. Spent fuel from this reactor can be used for nuclear weapons.

Of course, Iran “agrees” to return all spent fuel back to Russia. Really? Will Iran’s Revolutionary Guard surrender their ballistic missile programs?

Going forward, Iran and Russia will use each other to serve their own strategic interests. With Russia’s newly secured foothold in the Middle East and increased weapons sales to Muslim countries, along with Europe’s dependency on Russian energy exports, Western influence in the region will diminish. A stronger Muslim-Russian balance of power will increase.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration remains either unconvinced that an Islamic Iran wants a nuclear weapon and will try to destroy Israel and other Western nations, or it lives under the false illusion that somehow sanctions will still work.

Sanctions against Iran were unsuccessful during the Bush administration just as sanctions and diplomacy have been an abysmal failure under Obama’s leadership.

Furthermore, Iran will not be coerced into a dialogue with the United States. So be it. Engaging an undefeated foe in negotiations is appeasement and it never works.

The United States cannot hope to redirect the policies and methods of those ideologically driven — to whom jihad is a religious obligation and an acceptable path toward political power and expansion.

Although Obama is viewed by the Islamic world as one of its own due to his own father and stepfather’s Muslim heritage, he also is perceived as weak and ineffective by his Islamic opponents and their allies.

As the Obama administration panders to the Islamic Republic of Iran, consider the escalation in Iranian intransigence:

* Iran launches the “Ambassador of Death” — a new unmanned jet bomber, August 2010.

* Iran test fires a new surface-to-surface guided missile, August 2010.

* Iran takes aggressive military action against American and allied soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* Iran builds and installs 7,200 centrifuges to enrich uranium, stockpiling nuclear fuel.

* Iran disallows international inspectors to verify all of its nuclear facilities.

* Iran supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

* Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” and destroy the United States.

A pre-emptive attack on Iran by the United States or Israel is the only option left for the security of the West.

Denice Gary-Pandol of Bakersfield is a freelance writer who specializes in Middle Eastern affairs. Her website is http://www.Strategic SolutionsForANewMiddleEast.com.

Middle East Views | Washington offers Tehran the “Grand Bargain”… for a while.

Raghida Dergham

New York- There is increasing talk among US circles of the need for political bargains which the US Administration would strike with what has come to be known as the extremist movement, a movement which cannot be dispensed with in making peace in the Middle East.

There has been an increase in articles and seminars that speak of “Remaking the Middle East” – as was the title on the cover of Foreign Affairs, a magazine concerned with foreign affairs and published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. Most of such talk focuses on Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. There are also those who are asking new and different questions – questions such as: is it time for a “US-Iranian-Turkish alliance”? Or: has the time come to grant “legitimacy” to Israel’s nuclear bombs? And then there are other kinds of novelties, such as openly speaking of the necessity for the US Administration to resort to the Security Council to prevent Israel from involving the region and the US in a regional war that would start from Lebanon, as well as the necessity for it to also resort to the Security Council to impose preemptive sanctions against Syria so that it may stop supplying Hezbollah and Palestinian factions with weapons.

All of this intersects with two important developments which have taken place over the past few days, and which will have a tremendous, and perhaps frightening, impact over the coming months, namely: the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Iraq after the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraqi cities, with more than 50 thousand US troops remaining in various military bases in numerous parts of Iraq. Indeed, both developments hold a dimension that falls under US relations with the forces of moderation and the forces of extremism. Iran plays a role in both developments, and in fact both have a direct impact on Iran and on its ambitions in Palestine, in Iraq and in the region as a whole. The Barack Obama Administration listens and sometimes understands, yet from the beginning this Administration set down a strategy that includes enticing the forces of extremism to cooperate and interact, with the aim of separating them from the forces of violent extremism, i.e. what the George W. Bush Administration called “terrorism”. Today, the leaders of the US Administration are undertaking a near systematic review of their accounts on the eve of President Barack Obama’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly in the second half of next month – which is a speech that can be described as “the state of affairs of the United State on the international scene”.

Such a “state of affairs” deserves a great deal of clarification, because Obama has never been “usual”, neither at the US nor at the global level. In fact, celebrating the fact that he was unusual yesterday has today turned into a feast of misunderstanding of his “strangeness” at the US level and of disappointment at his “big promises” at the global level. It is time for him to adopt a “non-arrogant” strategy to clarify what he has done, what he meant, what he has in mind and what his strategy is in case of the success or failure of the policy of embracing and enticing the forces of extremism, or in case of the outbreak of a civil war that would tear apart, fragment or divide Iraq.

As long as the prevailing American mentality is that of rejecting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran for any reason, it seems that Barack Obama is forced to oscillate between popular sympathy and military logic regarding what is in the higher national interest of the United States of America.

Thus the war in Afghanistan is a necessary war for the United States, because withdrawing from Afghanistan now would mean defeat and retreat before the forces of extremism and terrorism. Such retreat would come at a tremendous cost, not just in terms of the US’s geopolitical and material interests in Afghanistan, but also in terms of encouraging the forces of extremism and violence to violate the US homeland once again in the ecstasy of victory.

General David Petraeus, who led the war in Iraq to a new threshold, which contributed to enabling Barack Obama to fulfill his promise – and that of his predecessor – to withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities, is the military commander in Afghanistan who understands the absolute necessity of not retreating or falling back.

Withdrawing combat troops from Iraq may have something to do with reshaping military capabilities in the war in Afghanistan. Yet even in this war, the US Administration, and with it the military institution, seeks to distinguish between political extremism and violent extremism, and in fact seeks if possible to strike bargains.

As for Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops from its cities, it is perhaps in its most fragile phase, due to the reality of its sectarian divisions and to the absence of national leaderships able – or willing – to cling to its independence and to its higher national interest.

Perhaps everyone is waiting for Iraq to be ready at the oil level, around 2014 or 2015, and is making technical preparations on the basis that the matter will not be settled now. Perhaps this popularity Iraq enjoys for businessmen and investments is based on the conviction that Iraq’s wealth remains one that is likely to be made the utmost use of, regardless of whether Iraq is divided or united. Perhaps it would be best for those who are observing what is taking place in Iraq to remember the aspect of US troops remaining present in military bases for many years to come, and not just until 2011 or 2012 as some say, as well as the Iranian aspect.

Indeed, Iraq represents one of the most important locations for understanding or confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The fate of this relationship rests first on the extent to which Washington is willing to offer the regime in Tehran guarantees that it will support it and not support opposition or a coup against it; and second on how the two sides will participate in sharing influence in Iraq or on the perspectives of confrontation through it and in it. Indeed, in the “Grand Bargain”, Iraq holds a prominent position, as it does in the military confrontation, between the United States and Iran so far. And in spite of the pressure being exerted on Iran through the sanctions unanimously ratified by the major powers, including Russia and China, Washington is still offering Tehran the “Grand Bargain”, which includes guarantees for the Iranian regime and an understanding over Iraq – this alongside the nuclear element which is subject to different considerations, as well as the issue of Hezbollah in Lebanon, as it is out of the question for it to remain an Iranian military base at the border with Israel, neither in a bargain nor through a war.

Bringing forward the date of the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq may be part of reassuring Iran. However, it is also possible for this withdrawal to be part of reminding Tehran that an outbreak of chaos, civil war or fragmentation in Iraq would in fact pose a threat to Iran’s interest, because chaos at its border, while it is besieged by foreign sanctions and domestic opposition, would widen the circle of challenges for the regime in Tehran.

The US Administration has reached an understanding with Syria over Iraq, but it seems less comfortable about Syria’s relationship to Iran continuing to take the form of weapons supply – and storage, as is being said – for Hezbollah. Indeed, this, in Washington’s opinion, threatens to undermine a highly sensitive and delicate formula within the broader US strategy.

Thus, while old voices rise, calling for rapprochement with the forces of extremism, because the forces of moderation have so far not succeeded, the US Administration is moving forward in steps that have anticipated and gone beyond such calls. Indeed, this Administration has been a pioneer – rightly or wrongly – in dealing with the forces of extremism, enticing them to cooperate and bringing them out of their isolation, amid doubts over the soundness of its policies and warnings of the consequences of reinforcing extremism at the expense of moderation. Today, it is in a phase of systematically reviewing its accounts, to see whether the policy of enticement will succeed or whether there are other options in case of failure.

With Iran, it is still too early to settle the issue of whether Barack Obama’s policy will succeed or fail. What is clear so far is that the military option is not on the table at the moment, while awaiting what the policy of sanctions and of enticement towards a solution will lead to.

Yet the kind of enticement the Americans have in mind, and in their bargain, no longer hints to the possibility of coexisting with a nuclear Iran, as it had over the past few months. The obscurity surrounding this aspect has not yet completely been lifted, especially as the responses to Iran’s challenges are not characterized by panic and do not suggest military operations. Perhaps military preparedness is in a state of reorganization, knowing that members of the military are talking about a date for preparedness no earlier than the middle of next year, a date which coincides with expectations of Iran reaching advanced stages of nuclear weapons manufacture.

The Obama Administration seems as if having set a timeframe for itself to succeed in its efforts aimed at peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and perhaps between the Syrians and the Israelis as well, within a year – in other words, at a date coinciding with that of military preparedness for all players in the region.

So far, Washington and the other major powers have adopted the policy of restraining Israel militarily while trying to entice Iran to cooperate. Washington’s wager is on Tehran realizing that he bargain holds guarantees for the regime while confrontation holds threats to it.

Regarding Tehran’s allies in Hezbollah or Hamas, Washington’s concern today is not abiding by the calls of those who want it to engage in debates with extremists that only lead to further undermining moderation. Its primary concern is for Israel not to engage in preemptive military operations in Lebanon or in Palestine that would lead to ending the current state of “truce” with the alliance of extremism and set off a large-scale war in the region which Washington wants to avoid at the moment. Similarly regarding Hezbollah and Hamas, Washington fears that they may set off the spark of war, under suggestion from Iran, by getting implicated by Israel, or as a result of making the wrong decisions.

The logic of dialogue is no stranger to Barack Obama’s strategy, and yet the logic of causing the failure of dialogue and truce seems not unlikely for the forces of extremism, which include Israel and Iran.

*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on Aug. 27, 2010.

Our World: Accepting the unacceptable.

Photo by: Associated Press

By CAROLINE B. GLICK
08/27/2010 16:34

From a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.

Last weekend the mullahs took a big step towards becoming a nuclear power as they fueled the Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Israel’s response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move “unacceptable.”

So why did we accept the unacceptable? When one asks senior officials about the Bushehr reactor and about Iran’s nuclear program more generally, their response invariably begins, “Well the Americans…”

Far from accepting that Israel has a problem that it must deal with, Israel’s decision-makers still argue that the US will discover – before it is too late – that it must act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in order to secure its own interests.

As for Bushehr specifically, Israeli officials explain that it isn’t the main problem. The main danger stems from the uranium enrichment sites. And anyway, they explain, given the civilian character of the Bushehr reactor; the fact that it is under a full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime; and the fact that the Russians are supposed to take all the spent fuel rods to Russia and so prevent Iran from using them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel lacked the international legitimacy to strike Bushehr to prevent it from being fueled last weekend.

BEFORE GOING into the question of whether Israel’s decision-makers were correct in opting out of attacking the Bushehr reactor to prevent it from being fueled, it is worth considering where “the Americans” stand on Iran as it declares itself a nuclear power and tests new, advanced weapons systems on a daily basis.

The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, “If Israel Attacks,” Riedel – who reportedly has close ties to the current administration – asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, the US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran.

He writes, “The United States needs to send a clear red light to Israel. There’s no option but to actively discourage an Israeli attack.”

Riedel explains that to induce Israel to accept the unacceptable specter of a nuclear armed mullocracy, the US should pay it off. Riedel recommends plying Israel’s leaders with F-22 Stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, a mutual defense treaty and perhaps even NATO membership.

Riedel’s reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such an operation will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more.

Riedel would have us believe that the Iranian regime will be a rational nuclear actor. That’s the regime that has outlawed music, stones women, and deploys terror proxies throughout the region and the world. That’s the same regime whose “supreme leader” just published a fatwa claiming he has the same religious stature as Muhammad.

Riedel bases this view on the actions Iran took when it was weak.

Since Iran didn’t place its American hostages on trial in 1980, it can be trusted with nuclear weapons in 2010. Since Iran didn’t go to war against the US in 1988 during the Kuwaiti tanker crisis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be trusted with nuclear bombs in 2010. And so on and so forth.

Moreover, Riedel ignores what any casual newspaper reader now recognizes: Iran’s nuclear weapons program has spurred a regional nuclear arms race. Riedel imagines a bipolar nuclear Middle East, with Israel on the one side and Iran on the other. He fails to notice that already today Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Turkey have all initiated nuclear programs.

And if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these countries will beat a path to any number of nuclear bomb stores.

Some argue that a multipolar nuclear Middle East will adhere to the rules of mutual assured destruction. Assuming this is true, the fact remains that the violent Iranian response to an Israeli strike against its nuclear installations will look like a minor skirmish in comparison to the conventional wars that will break out in a Middle East in which everyone has the bomb.

And in truth, there is no reason to believe that a Middle East in which everyone has nuclear weapons is a Middle East that adheres to the rules of MAD. A recent Zogby/University of Maryland poll of Arab public opinion taken for the Brookings Institute in US-allied Arab states Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE shows that the Arab world is populated by jihadists.

As Herb London from the Hudson Institute pointed out in an analysis of the poll, nearly 70 percent of those polled said the leader they most admire is either a jihadist or a supporter of jihad.

The most popular leaders were Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

So if popular revolutions bring down any of the teetering despotic regimes now occupying the seats of power in the Arab world, they will likely be replaced by jihadists. Moreover, since an Iranian nuclear bomb would empower the most radical, destabilizing forces in pan-Arab society, the likelihood that a despot would resort to a nuclear strike on a Western or Israeli target in order to stay in power would similarly rise.

All of this should not be beyond the grasp of an experienced strategic thinker like Riedel. And yet, obviously, it is. Moreover, as an alumnus of the Clinton administration, Riedel’s positions in general are more realistic than those of the Obama administration. As Israeli officials acknowledge, the Obama administration is only now coming to terms with the fact that its engagement policy towards Iran has failed.

Moreover, throughout the US government, the White House is the most stubborn defender of the notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is not as serious a threat as the absence of a Palestinian state. That is, President Barack Obama himself is the most strident advocate of a US Middle East policy that ignores all the dangers the US faces in the region and turns American guns against the only country that doesn’t threaten any US interest.

And now, facing this state of affairs, Israeli leaders today still argue that issuing a Foreign Ministry communiqué declaring the fueling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor “unacceptable,” and beginning worthless negotiations with Fatah leaders is a rational and sufficient Israeli policy.

WHAT LIES behind this governmental fecklessness? There are two possible explanations for the government’s behavior. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may be motivated by operational concerns or he may be motivated by political concerns.

On the operational level, the question guiding Israel’s leaders is when is the optimal time to attack? The fact that government sources say that it would have been diplomatically suicidal to attack before Bushehr became operational last weekend makes it clear that nonmilitary considerations are the determining factor for Israel’s leadership. Yet what Riedel’s article and the clear positions of the Obama administration demonstrate is that there is no chance that nonmilitary conditions will ever be optimal for Israel. Moreover, as Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor shows, Israel can achieve its strategic objectives even without US support for its operations.

From a military perspective, it is clear that it would have been better to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before the Russians fueled Bushehr.

Any attack scenario from now on will have to either accept the prospect of nuclear fallout or accept leaving Bushehr intact. Indeed from a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.

So unless Israel’s leaders are unaware of strategic realities, the only plausible explanation for Netanyahu’s decision to sit by idly as Israel’s military options were drastically diminished over the weekend is that he was moved by domestic political considerations.

And what might those political considerations be? Clearly he wasn’t concerned with a lack of public support. Consistent, multiyear polling data show that the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Then there is the issue of Netanyahu’s coalition.

It cannot be that Netanyahu believes that he can build a broader coalition to support an attack on Iran than he already has by bringing Kadima into his government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is not a great supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. Livni views being liked by Obama as more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

The prospect of a Kadima splinter party led by former defense minister Shaul Mofaz joining the coalition is also raised periodically. Yet experience indicates there is little chance of that happening.

Mofaz apparently dislikes Netanyahu more than he dislikes the notion of facing a nuclear-armed Iran (and a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and Egypt and etc., etc., etc.).

Only one possibility remains: Netanyahu must have opted to sit on his hands as Bushehr was powered up because of opposition he faces from within his government. There is only one person in Netanyahu’s coalition who has both the strategic dementia and the political power to force Netanyahu to accept the unacceptable.

That person is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Barak’s strategic ineptitude is legendary. It was most recently on display in the failed naval commando takeover of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara. It was Barak’s idea to arm naval commandos with paintball guns and so guarantee that they would be attacked and forced to use lethal force to defend themselves.

Barak’s ability to dictate government policy was most recently demonstrated in his obscene abuse of power in the appointment of the IDF’s next chief of staff. Regardless of whether the so-called “Galant Document,” which set out a plan to see Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant appointed to replace outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was forged or authentic, it is clear that its operative clauses were all being implemented by Barak’s own office for the past several months. So, too, despite the fact that the document is still the subject of police investigation, Barak successfully strong-armed Netanyahu into agreeing to his lightning appointment of Galant.

Even if Galant is the best candidate for the position, it is clear that Barak did the general no favors by appointing him in this manner. He certainly humiliated and discredited the General Staff.

Barak is the Obama administration’s favorite Israeli politician. While Netanyahu is shunned, Barak is feted in Washington nearly every month. And this makes sense. As the man directly responsible for Israel’s defense and with his stranglehold on the government, he alone has the wherewithal to enable the entire Middle East to go nuclear.

How’s that for unacceptable?

caroline@carolineglick.com

Report: Israel planning to attack Hezbollah arms depots in Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai reports that Israel is preparing to strike Hezbollah targets within Syria, including long-range rocket depots; Syrian military is reportedly on high alert.

By Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service

Israel is planning to attack Hezbollah arms depots and weapons manufacturing plants in Syria, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai reported on Saturday.

The report is based on Western sources who asserted that Israel has increased its military force level along the northern border in the Golan Heights and Mount Dov areas.

The report cited European sources who claimed that recent Israeli unmanned aerial drone flights over Lebanon and Syria signal Israel’s intentions to carry out operations in the area.

	Israel Air Force F-16 taking off on a mission.
	Photo by: AP

According to the report, Israel plans to attack Hezbollah weapons depots, including ones deep inside Syria that store long-range rockets.

The Al Rai report said that the situation on the Israel-Syria border is tense and that Syria could respond immediately to any Israeli attack and not demonstrate the restraint that it did after the Israeli Air Force bombed a nuclear reactor in Syria in the fall of 2007.

According to the report, Syria’s military is on high alert and is strengthening its anti-aircraft defenses along the border with Israel and at strategic sites within Syria.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

(Is it even conceivable that nuclear weapons held in Iran can be “contained?” – JW)

Tehran’s Mini-City: Scene of spies shootout

On Aug. 23, just two days after Iran celebrated the inauguration of its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, debkafile‘s exclusive Iranian sources report a battle in the streets of Tehran flared between rival intelligence factions of the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) and the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) – as mutual suspicions boiled over.
The IRGC directors of Iran’s nuclear program have long suspected senior politicians of passing nuclear secrets to clandestine agencies in the West, especially American, British and Dutch – often to tip the scales in factional feuds within the regime.

The Ministry of Intelligence, for its part, is incensed over secret reports that members of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s inner circle have been trading disloyal gossip about supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, some even sneering that his end was near. The MOIS is totally loyal to the supreme leader.
The shoot-out between them, revealed for the first time here, has completely blacked out by the regime.
debkafile‘s intelligence sources reveal that it erupted after an Intelligence Ministry team broke into a luxury apartment belonging to an IRGC officer in one of the high-rise buildings of northern Tehran’s exclusive Shaid Babaee – known as Mini-City – opposite IRGC staff offices. It is there that most of the Guards senior officers and officials live.

In the living room, the MOIS searchers discovered two bugs hooked up to eavesdropping devices in other apartments and a mini-camera for spying on the comings and goings to and from the IRGC offices.

They extended their search to other apartments in the building – only to find to their astonishment listening devices in living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms and even bathrooms. More surveillance bugs were also found and video cameras broadcasting to a facility outside the building.
Their search complete, they prepared to depart with their findings. But on their way out, the Ministry agents were jumped on by men in civilian clothes who tried to grab the gadgets they had collected.
The MOIS searchers backed into the building, barricaded themselves there and called for back-up.
The reinforcements summoned were stopped at roadblocks manned by more men in civilian clothes who were armed. The two groups started shooting. The gunfire spread into the apartment building and around the surrounding streets, causing an unknown number of casualties.
When the ministry agents realized that the men in civilian clothes were in fact members of IRGC Special Intelligence units and they too had summoned reinforcements, they threw in the towel and handed over the surveillance equipment they had collected.
Only later, was it discovered that the network of bugs had been planted in the IRGC apartment building by a third undercover agency called Shahid Fahmideh, which is directly answerable to Khameini in person and the IRGC’s Nuclear Administration. It was installed under the supervision of Hossein Taeb, Director of the IRGC Intelligence Branch and a former commander of the Basijj militia, and Mojtaba Khamenei, the supreme leader’s son.
This incident, though kept under tight wraps, brought to the surface the extent to which Iran’s many-faceted clandestine services are riddled with mutual suspicion and how far distrust has burrowed under relations among Khamenei and his party, IRGC factions and the Ahmadinejad clique.
Each faction suspects the other of trafficking in Iran’s nuclear secrets to promote its interests – either selling them to Western intelligence agencies or trading them to buy influence within the regime’s political and military systems.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

WASHINGTON, August 5, 2010 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Israel of unleaded gasoline, JP-8 aviation fuel and diesel fuel for an estimated cost of $2 billion.

The Government of Israel has requested a possible sale of 60,000,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline, 284,000,000 gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel, and 100,000,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

The estimated cost is $2 billion. This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory. The unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel will be used for ground forces’ vehicles and other equipment used in keeping peace and security in the region. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this additional fuel into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of these three types of fuel will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The vendors are unknown at this time due to the competitive bid process for the supply source(s). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Israel. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

(David Hitch adds: Last week I wrote of how it would not be possible for Israel to mount a ‘unilateral’ strike against Iran because Israel would require complete connivance and support for such a strike from the US. I explained, as I have in the past, how it would be necessary for the US to supply the massive amounts of fuel need for such a strike. If Israel were to strike Iran, Israel would only require the massive amounts of jet fuel and over a billion litres of jet fuel would be more that enough to do the job in practical terms.

If Israel were planning to strike Iran then that would explain the requirement for the large amounts of JP-8 fuel. However, it does not explain Israel’s need for such large amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel since an Israeli strike against Iran is unlikely to include any type of ground incursion into Iran for which these fuels would be used. The only conclusion one can draw, if Israel is not planning to actually invade Iran, which, clearly, it could not, is that Israel is planning to use the gasoline and the diesel fuel for some other ground incursion – and that can only mean an invasion of Lebanon and possibly the Gaza and West Bank when an attack against Iran is launched.

This massive order begs the question; is the final confrontation imminent? And, if not, then what is all this fuel for?)

http://endgameww3.blogspot.com/