WarSclerotic

Israel defiant: No apology to Turkey – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Senior official says Israel won’t adhere to Turkish ultimatum despite implications

Attila Somfalvi

Israel has no intention of apologizing to Turkey over the 2010 flotilla raid despite Ankara’s latest ultimatum, a senior official told Ynet Thursday.

While Israel is aware of the implications of its decision to refrain from issuing an apology, “we cannot conduct ourselves based on ultimatums,” the official said.

Another senior official estimated in a talk with Ynet that while the Turkish government may take steps against Israel and not return its ambassador to Tel Aviv, Ankara will not be severing its ties with Jerusalem.

“The severing of ties goes against Turkey’s strategic interests,” he said. “They wish to engage in a policy of mediating between everyone.”

An official familiar with the complexities of Israel-Turkey relations said earlier Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of issuing an apology to Ankara.

“The PM is determined not to issue an apology,” he said, adding that “Jerusalem has conveyed messages to Washington whereby it does not intend to apologize for the incident.”

Israel’s forum of top eight government ministers discussed the Turkish affair in a recent meeting; four of the ministers – Ehud Barak, Dan Meridor, Benny Begin and Yuval Steinitz – were in favor of apologizing to Ankara. However, as noted, PM Netanyahu decided to object to an apology.

“The prime minister knows that the public objects to apologizing to Turkey, and he apparently chose to go with what the public thinks,” an Israeli official familiar with the affair said.

U.N. Report Finds Israeli Blockade Legal but Raid Flawed – NYTimes.com.

UNITED NATIONS — A United Nations review has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal and appropriate but that the way its forces boarded a Turkish-based flotilla trying to break that blockade 15 months ago, killing nine passengers, was excessive and unreasonable.

The report, expected to be released  on Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying the loss of life was unacceptable and the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

The 105-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was completed months ago. But its publication was delayed several times as Turkey and Israel sought to reconcile their deteriorating relationship and perhaps avoid making the report public. In reactions from both governments included in the report, as well as in interviews, each objected to conclusions. Both believe the report, which was intended to help mend relations, will instead make reconciliation harder.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened here. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.

The report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions can not be considered definitive in either fact or law.

The foreign ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman.

Israel considers the report to be a rare vindication for it in the United Nations. A Security Council statement at the time assailed the loss of life and Israel suffered widespread international condemnation. It thought that by offering to negotiate an agreement with Turkey that would stop publication, Ankara might soften its position.

But the two countries’ negotiations, which focused on some kind of apology from Israel and compensation for the victims — eight Turks and an American of Turkish descent — ended in failure. Israel says it is willing to express regret and pay compensation. But the Turks want a full apology. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel believes that apologizing would demoralize his citizens and broadcast a message of weakness. Aides say he might reconsider at a later date if the Turks soften their position.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey says an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return his ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.

The report does recommend that Israel should make “an appropriate statement of regret’ and pay compensation, but the Turks say that formula does not express sufficient remorse.

The United Nations investigation into the events on the Turkish-flagged ship known as the Mavi Marmara, the largest of six vessels that were commandeered by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, was headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand, aided by Álvaro Uribe, former president of Colombia, along with a representative each from Israel and Turkey.

It takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza.

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

The report is hard on the flotilla, asserting that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” It said that while the majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of IHH, the Turkish aid group that primarily organized the flotilla. It said, “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

It also said that the Turkish government tried to persuade the organizers to avoid an encounter with Israeli forces but that “more could have been done.”

Regarding the boarding of the ship, the Palmer committee said Israel should have issued warnings closer to the moment of action and should have first turned to nonviolent options.

The report assailed Israel for the way in which the nine were killed and others injured. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel,” it says. The report does, however, acknowledge that once on board the commandos had to defend themselves against violent attack. The report also criticizes Israel’s subsequent treatment of passengers, saying it “included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.”

Like so many elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the events on the Mavi Marmara produced two fiercely competing narratives, each full of self-justification and contempt for the other.

An official Israeli investigation found not only that its naval blockade was legal but that everything done by Israel, from the actions of its commandos to the treatment of the passengers afterwards, was honorable and appropriate. The flotilla organizers, it said, included 40 members of a “hard-core group” who were not properly checked before boarding in Turkey.

A Turkish investigation came to precisely the opposite conclusion. It asserted that the blockade was illegal in all aspects, amounting to collective punishment of the Palestinians of Gaza. It said all of the people on board were civilians, all had been checked out and were unarmed and therefore subject to protection from any invasion under international humanitarian law.

The Turks also concluded that Israeli commandos used live fire before landing, leading to death and injury; the Israelis said they had not. The Palmer committee said it was unable to determine who was right.

Those critical of Israeli actions toward Gaza have viewed the naval blockade that began officially in January 2009 as part and parcel of a siege imposed by Israel on the coastal strip shortly after Hamas took full control there in 2007. That siege, which has eased considerably in the past year, prevented the movement of most goods and people.

But the Palmer committee said while it had concerns about that policy and urged that it be loosened further, it saw the naval blockade as a purely security-oriented tool that had been imposed to stop weapons arriving to Gaza by sea. It also expressed strong concern for the thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israel from Gaza in recent years. It said that because Gaza’s port cannot handle large ships, a naval blockade has little impact on the supply of civilian goods.

Iran Trying to Shelter Its Nuclear Fuel Program – NYTimes.com.

WASHINGTON — Iran is moving its most sensitive nuclear fuel production to a heavily defended underground military facility outside the holy city of Qum, where it is less vulnerable to attack from the air, and, the Iranians hope, against the kind of cyberattack that crippled its nuclear program, according to intelligence officials.

The head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Feyedoun Abassi, spoke about the transfer in general terms on Monday to an official Iranian news service. He boasted that his country would produce the fuel in much larger quantities than it needs for a small research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes.

The fact that Iran is declaring that its production will exceed its needs has reinforced the suspicions of many American and European intelligence officials that Iran plans to use the fuel to build weapons or to train Iranian scientists in how to produce bomb-grade fuel.

Describing the new facilities in the interview with the Iranian news service, Mr. Abassi, who narrowly survived an assassination attempt last year, said that a 2009 proposal for the West to provide Iran with new fuel for the small research reactor, in return for an end to Iranian production of the fuel, is dead. “We will no longer negotiate a fuel swap and a halt to our production of fuel,” he told the Islamic Republic News Agency on Monday. “The United States is not a safe country with which we can negotiate a fuel swap or any other issue.”

At the White House, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that the Iranian plan “to install and operate centrifuges at Qum,” in a facility whose existence Mr. Obama and Europeans leaders made public two years ago, “is a violation of their United Nations Security obligations and another provocative act.”

Mr. Vietor noted that Iran has said that international inspectors “will continue to have access to these centrifuges as part of its inspection activities in Iran,” which would make it likely that any diversion of the fuel for weapons use could be detected. So far, Iran has allowed periodic visits by inspectors, but refused to provide information they demanded about the facility, or interviews of its personnel. A report updating the agency’s findings in Iran is expected in the next few days.

Both current and former American government officials, in interviews , provided new details of internal debates in recent years over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program. Those discussions weighed the risks of a traditional covert attack against Iran’s facilities versus a cyberattack. They laid the groundwork for what in 2009 and 2010 became the most successful effort thus far to slow Iran’s nuclear ambitions — the computer worm known as Stuxnet, which disabled about a fifth of country’s working centrifuges and temporarily halted Iran’s planned expansion of its capabilities.

The officials involved in the discussions about Iran said that the Bush White House asked the Central Intelligence Agency in the summer of 2008 to assess the feasibility of covert action to blow up or disable crucial elements of Iran’s nuclear facilities. But when the agency delivered the plans, they were quickly rejected, all the officials said, for fear that any kind of obvious attack on the facilities could touch off another conflict in the Middle East just as a new president was assuming office.

The options were developed in part to assess whether a physical attack on the facilities would be significantly more effective than more subtle — and deniable — sabotage of the Iranian facilities, including cyberattacks. That presentation and subsequent discussions led to a detailed exploration of Iran’s vulnerability to a sophisticated cyberattack.

“There were a range of options from the highly kinetic to the other end of the scale,” said one former official involved in the decision-making, using the military’s jargon for the use of physical force against a target. The officials who described the discussions would not discuss the specific operations under consideration, which remain classified, but said the Obama transition team was fully briefed on the possibilities.

The New York Times reported in January that Stuxnet was primarily the work of the American and Israeli governments, and was the most successful example yet of a computer-based attack to destroy another nation’s physical infrastructure. But neither the United States nor Israel has ever publicly discussed how the sophisticated computer worm came into existence, or who was responsible for releasing it.

It is not clear that Stuxnet had been written or tested by the time the Bush administration explored the computer-based options in late 2008. It hit Iran roughly one year into the Obama presidency. Experts disagree on exactly how much it set the Iranian program back; internal American intelligence assessments say it was delayed by one to two years, but some outside experts believe the interruption was briefer.

The account of the Bush administration’s deliberations came in interviews with four top former and current officials, all of whom were involved in the debate over how to stop, or at least slow, Iran’s nuclear progress. None would speak on the record about an issue of such sensitivity, and they declined to discussed classified operations that the Bush or Obama administration approved.

Their revelation that the C.I.A. was asked to provide a range of options so late in Mr. Bush’s presidency is an indication of how worried they were about leaving office with Iran’s program still under way and relatively unimpeded. One senior official said that the C.I.A. “laid out the art of the possible, and what the likely effects would be.” Among those attending the meeting, that official said, were Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser.

Senior officials in the Bush administration said that there was a broad consensus, which included President Bush himself, that hitting Iran’s nuclear facilities was far too risky. Early in 2008, the officials said, the United States denied a request from Israel for equipment that might have helped mount an air attack.

Vice President Dick Cheney was known to be a strong advocate of direct action against the facilities, either through covert means or by helping Israel build up its capability to strike. Mr. Cheney does not discuss the issue in his new memoir, published this week, other than to say that he favored an American military strike against Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007 partly as a warning to Iran.

Iran charm offensive fails to ease nuclear fears | Reuters.

(Reuters) – An Iranian effort to show rare openness about its disputed nuclear programme is doing little to dispel Western suspicions about Tehran’s atomic ambitions, with one Vienna-based envoy dismissing it as just a “charm offensive”.

Diplomats said they believed the U.N. nuclear watchdog would once again highlight concern about possible military aspects to Iran’s nuclear activities in its latest quarterly report, due to be submitted to member states in the next few days.

“I expect it will be a bit tougher than the last one. Still a number of outstanding matters related to PMD (possible military dimensions) that Iran refuses to answer,” a Western envoy told Reuters on Thursday.

Another diplomat painted a similar picture, saying Tehran had failed to address the IAEA’s core concerns.

Western nations suspect Iran is trying to use its nuclear programme to develop atomic weapons. The Islamic Republic has denied the charge, saying it wants to produce nuclear energy.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — tasked with ensuring that nuclear technology is not diverted for military aims — has repeatedly complained about Iran’s lack of cooperation over allegations of military-linked nuclear work.

In previous reports, the IAEA has in vain urged Tehran to provide prompt access to sites, equipment, documents and people relevant for its probe.

In a move that Iran said showed the country’s “100 percent transparency and openness,” it allowed a senior IAEA inspector to tour the Islamic state’s main atomic facilities last month, including one for developing advanced enrichment machines.

The IAEA has been trying since 2008 to gain access to sites linked to the manufacture of centrifuges used to refine uranium — material which can have both civilian and military purposes — but Iran had until now ignored the requests.

Tehran last week also signalled some flexibility in responding to IAEA questions, with state television quoting a top nuclear official as saying the agency should present “their main claims” together with relevant evidence and documents.

But the Western envoy suggested Iran was merely using an old tactic to ward off any harsher international pressure on the country, while pressing ahead with its nuclear work.

“The Iranians’ recent charm offensive has not changed the Agency’s view on what Iran still needs to do,” he said.

URANIUM STOCKPILE

For several years, the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test high explosives and revamp a ballistic missile cone to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

Iran rejects the allegations as forged and baseless.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has taken a more hard-nosed approach than his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, saying in his first report on Iran in 2010 he feared it may be working now to develop a nuclear-armed missile, not just in the past.

Tehran’s refusal to halt enrichment has led to four rounds of U.N. sanctions on the world’s No. 5 oil exporting state, as well as tighter U.S. and European Union restrictions.

Since talks between global powers and Iran foundered in January, Russia has advocated a phased plan in which Tehran would address concerns that it may be seeking nuclear weapons, and be rewarded with an easing of sanctions.

But Iran is showing no sign of heeding U.N. demands to curb its nuclear activities.

In late August, Iran said it had begun moving enrichment centrifuges to an underground bunker near the holy city of Qom as part of a push to triple output capacity of higher-grade enriched uranium, a development Washington called “troubling.”

Iran only disclosed the existence of the subterranean Fordow site to the IAEA in September 2009 after learning that Western intelligence agencies had detected the mountain site.

Transferring enrichment activity to Fordow could offer greater protection against any attacks by Israel or the United States, which have both said they do not rule out pre-emptive strikes to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Western officials and analysts say that by producing 20 percent enriched material Iran has taken a significant step closer to the 90 percent threshold suitable for atom bombs. Iran says it needs the material to fuel a Tehran research reactor.

“Iran has no logical need for large stockpiles of 20 percent enriched uranium,” a U.S.-based think-tank said this week.

“Having such a large stockpile on hand and located within a fortified structure is more suited toward planning for the contingency of a breakout to nuclear weapons,” the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) added.

Israel, Iran deploy warships in Red Sea – UPI.com.

TEL AVIV, Israel, Aug. 31 (UPI) — Israel’s dispatch of two corvettes to bolster its naval forces in the Red Sea and Iran’s deployment of a submarine and a warship in the same waters have heightened the tensions pervading the Middle East amid political upheaval and rivalries.

The Israelis said their warships were ordered south to patrol off Egypt in response to intelligence reports that more terrorist attacks from Egyptian territory were imminent.

Tehran said the deployment by its 15th Fleet was intended as a mission of “peace and friendship” to “display the capabilities of the Islamic republic of Iran.” It would also focus on “fighting piracy.”

All these things may be true. But having Israeli and Iranian warships cruising in the same waters, which just happen to be a conduit for Iranian arms smuggled to Egypt destined for the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, raises the prospect, remote though it might be, of a confrontation at sea between these bitter rivals.

In 2010, the Israeli air force and navy intercepted several Iranian arms shipments destined for Iranian-backed Palestinian fighters in Gaza.

And right now, Gaza and the vast desert expanse of the Sinai Peninsula on its western flank is opening up as a new front for Islamist militants, imported al-Qaida veterans and indigenous Bedouin, to attack Israel.

Earlier this month, eight Israelis, five Egyptian army officers and at least 15 infiltrators, including Egyptians, were killed in fighting along the southern end of Israel’s border with Sinai.

That bloodletting threatens to remilitarize Israel’s southern front, which has been dormant, and unfortified, since the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979.

That was the first such pact between the Jewish state and an Arab adversary and it’s been the bedrock of Israel’s strategic policy ever since. It gained Egypt large-scale U.S. aid, but most Egyptians never embraced the treaty.

The Feb. 11 downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a staunch supporter of the pact, brought with it demands the treaty be scrapped.

Suddenly Sinai, the battleground of four wars between Israel and Egypt between 1948 and 1973, was a hot zone again.

It was made more so because the caretaker Egyptian government lost control over the peninsula.

Under the treaty, Israel returned Sinai, captured in 1967, to Egypt, which agreed to demilitarize the territory. It is allowed to base only a few hundred troops there.

Following the recent clashes, Israel wants the Egyptians to retake control but is loath to allow them to deploy large numbers of troops and armor anywhere near its southern border.

The Israeli military is moving in forces there, security sources say, and tension is high.

In February, after Mubarak was ousted, Cairo allowed two Iranian naval vessels, a frigate and a supply ship, to pass through the Suez Canal into the eastern Mediterranean, where most of Israel’s navy is based.

Apart from fueling fears Egypt would end a 32-year rift with the fundamentalist Islamic Republic, that deployment put Iranian ships in the Med for the first time since the shah, an Israeli ally, was overthrown.

The Iranian ships went to the port of Tartus in Syria, Tehran’s key Arab ally. There were reports in July that Iran plans to establish a naval base there.

These have not been confirmed, but they have fueled concerns in Israel, which views Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

In the meantime, Iran has accelerated its ballistic missile program. It is believed to have some 200 Shehab-3b missiles operational. These can reach Israel.

On July 18, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division, claimed Iran had test-fired two missiles, with a range of 1,180 miles, into the Indian Ocean earlier this year.

In May, Iran is believed to have deployed one of its three Russian-supplied Type-877 Kilo-class diesel submarines in the Red Sea south of Israel.

The Israelis reportedly keep one of their three German-built Dolphin-class submarines, supposedly capable of firing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, off Iran in the Arabian Sea at all times.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab Spring, the Israeli-Iranian confrontation and the battle against al-Qaida are starting to intersect. That’s a potentially explosive combination.

Turkish ultimatum to Israel: Apologize by Friday – Israel News, Ynetnews.

(Apologize before the UN tells US to?  Netanyahu is not Obama. )

Menacing message from Ankara: Ahead of expected publication of UN report Friday on deadly flotilla raid, Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu says Israel must apologize or face ‘Plan B’

Yitzhak Benhorin

Turkey’s foreign minister issued a menacing warning to IsraelThursday, saying the Jewish state must apologize for a deadly 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound vessel by the time the UN report on the incident is published.The UN Palmer Report is expected to be released in the coming days, and likely as early as Friday. Addressing ongoing delays in releasing the UN report on the lethal IDF raid, Ahmet said, “It is not remotely possible for us to agree to a six-month delay,” the Turkish Zaman news website reported. Clinton and Davutoglu (Photo: Reuters) “For us the deadline (for the formal apology from Israeli officials) is the day the UN report gets released, or we resort to Plan B,” Davutoglu said, but did not elaborate on what the alternate Turkish route would be. “We are not in a position to tell the UN to release or delay it,” the Turkish minister added, referring to the upcoming Palmer Report, “but we will do as necessary when the UN finally does release it.” Netanyahu: No apologies Last week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that he was postponing the delivery of a UN panel’s report on Israel’s raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla that killed nine Turkish activists. He said the reason for the delay was to give the two governments more time to reach a “harmonious agreement” on its findings. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel will not apologize to Turkey over the 2010 flotilla incident, despite an earlier demand by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to do so. At the time, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said it would be impossible for Turkish-Israeli ties to improve without an apology. Minister Davutoglu also addressed the issue in an earlier news conference, saying that “if the Palmer Report does not contain an apology, both sides and the United States know what we will do.” “Israel is facing a choice: deeper relations with Turkey or open a gap with the Turkish state that will not be overcome very easily,” he said. ‘Plan B’ scenarios Turkish officials already referred to “Plan B” and possible sanctions against Israel in the past, yet did not detail the measures they may adopt. However, according to information accumulated in Jerusalem, the Turkish plan may include the following steps: Downgrading Turkey’s diplomatic mission in Tel Aviv Rejection of the appointment of a new Israeli ambassador to Turkey An Erdogan visit to the Gaza Strip in September Full Turkish support for the Palestinian UN statehood bid, coupled with an effort to form a lobby and attempts to isolate Israel at all frameworks Granting legal assistance to the families of Turkish fatalities and the filing of lawsuits against Israel, including ones submitted to the International Criminal Court at The Hague Terminating the defense cooperation with Israel, a move that would include the annulment of joint exercises and defense industry projects Imposition of economic sanctions and the cutting back of investments in Israel. While Israeli businesspeople will be allowed to operate in Turkey, Ankara would refrain from taking steps to promote trade. Turkish newspaper Hurriyet recently reported that Ankara may adopt another step: Suspending all political and economic ties between the states. The same threat was voiced last year by Turkey’s ambassador to the United States

Syria reportedly stonewalling IAEA – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Diplomats say Syria reneged on promise to cooperate with UN probe of its secret nuclear activities, claiming Damascus now says it cannot provide more information

Associated Press

Diplomats say Syria has reneged on a promise to quickly cooperate with a United Nations’ probe of its secret nuclear activities.

Damascus promised such cooperation in June. But the diplomats say it now has announced it cannot provide more information to challenge a UN assessment that it tried to build a plutonium producing reactor until late fall.

The diplomats asked for anonymity because their information is confidential. They said Thursday that UN nuclear chief Yukiya Amano will announce next month that he has been stymied in his Syria probe.

The International Atomic Energy Agency referred Syria to the UN Security Council in June for

stonewalling IAEA investigative efforts. The UN nuclear agency says Syria tried to build a reactor meant to produce plutonium, which can be used to arm warheads.

UN expected to release ‘tough re… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    VIENNA – The UN’s nuclear watchdog will once again highlight concern about possible military aspects to Iran’s nuclear activities in its latest quarterly report, due to be submitted to member states in the next few days, diplomats said they believed .

“I expect it will be a bit tougher than the last one. Still a number of outstanding matters related to PMD (possible military dimensions) that Iran refuses to answer,” a Western envoy told Reuters on Thursday.

An Iranian effort to show rare openness about its disputed nuclear program is doing little to dispel Western suspicions about Tehran’s atomic ambitions, with one Vienna-based envoy dismissing it as just a “charm offensive”.

Another diplomat painted a similar picture, saying Tehran had failed to address the IAEA’s core concerns.

Western nations suspect Iran is trying to use its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons. The Islamic Republic has denied the charge, saying it wants to produce nuclear energy.

The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — tasked with ensuring that nuclear technology is not diverted for military aims — has repeatedly complained about Iran’s lack of cooperation over allegations of military-linked nuclear work.

In previous reports, the IAEA has in vain urged Tehran to provide prompt access to sites, equipment, documents and people relevant for its probe.

In a move that Iran said showed the country’s “100 percent transparency and openness,” it allowed a senior IAEA inspector to tour the Islamic state’s main atomic facilities last month, including one for developing advanced enrichment machines.

The IAEA has been trying since 2008 to gain access to sites linked to the manufacture of centrifuges used to refine uranium — material which can have both civilian and military purposes — but Iran had until now ignored the requests.

Tehran last week also signaled some flexibility in responding to IAEA questions, with state television quoting a top nuclear official as saying the agency should present “their main claims” together with relevant evidence and documents.

But the Western envoy suggested Iran was merely using an old tactic to ward off any harsher international pressure on the country, while pressing ahead with its nuclear work.

“The Iranians’ recent charm offensive has not changed the Agency’s view on what Iran still needs to do,” he said.

Armed Conflict Returns To Israel: Israel Update for August 2011.

( Well researched, reasoned and scary as HELL.  A MUST READ!)

Major clashes broke out between Palestinian and Israeli armed forces in mid August, which many analysts say might portend fuller warfare looming on the horizon. Sparked off by the worst Islamic terror attacks against Israeli citizens in several years, the clashes left scores dead and wounded on both sides. The initial Palestinian terrorist assaults were launched from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula by a militant Muslim group closely linked to the radical Hamas movement, which repeated its calls during the month for Israel’s ultimate destruction. An Egyptian government investigation later revealed that three Egyptian Muslim terrorists took part in the Palestinian raids-an ominous development indeed.

The terrorist outrages, which left eight Jews dead and several dozen wounded, were quickly met by Israeli Air Force strikes on Palestinian targets in the Gaza Strip. This in turn led to the heaviest rocket bombardments of nearby Israeli population centres from the Hamas-ruled coastal zone since the IDF’s Cast Lead military operation ended in January 2009. Although the new Israeli Iron Dome anti-rocket system successfully intercepted quite a few of the over 150 rockets fired at Israeli cities and towns in the week after the attacks, many rockets and mortar shells did succeed in reaching their targets, leaving one Jewish civilian dead and several others severely wounded, including an illegal Palestinian worker. Normal life was disrupted in Beersheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon and other areas of the south during the bombardments.

A number of Israeli Middle East analysts expressed serious concern that the Palestinian-Egyptian Islamic terror attacks may have been ordered by the extremist Shiite Muslim Iranian regime in a test run of what to expect from a massive Lebanese Hizbullah rocket blitz upon the whole of Israel. Many said the prospects of such a Hizbullah assault grew significantly in the wake of growing international calls for Syrian strongman Bashar Assad to immediately step down from power as his people’s blood continues to flow in his streets. Experts warned that the rogue Iranian mullahs will not allow their main Arab ally to go down without a major blowback, most likely aimed at Israel. This came as press reports said Iran has begun moving its uranium centrifuge enrichment facilities into underground bunkers in apparent anticipation of Israeli and/or NATO air strikes against the country’s threatening nuclear development programme.

Another attack was launched by a lone terrorist in Tel Aviv on August 29th leaving seven Israelis wounded, several seriously. The Palestinian perpetrator from Nablus north of Jerusalem commandeered a taxi after stabbing the driver and drove it into a nearby policeman manning a roadblock in the south Tel Aviv neighborhood of Jaffa. Shouting out a Muslim slogan, he then jumped out of the taxi and stabbed five other policemen and a security guard. Police said the 20 year old terrorist was stopped by the roadblock while on his way to kill high school students attending a special pre-school-year function at a nearby popular nightclub. The club was filled with over 2,000 teenagers. Authorities issued warnings that additional Palestinian terror attacks are expected in the coming days and weeks.

Israeli officials also kept a close eye on several other regional tremors during the month, especially the war in Libya and growing Islamic agitation in Egypt. Concerns grew that Libyan weapons of mass destruction might make their way east to the Gaza Strip in the wake of the Gaddafi family regime’s blood-soaked collapse.

Meanwhile Israeli street protests against the high cost of housing, food, fuel and other commodities continued to rock the country, with the largest public demonstration in several years held in Tel Aviv. Tent cities expanded throughout the small country while doctors finally ended their months-long work sanctions in demand of higher wages. Some charged that socialist street protest leaders are trying to topple the democratically-elected Netanyahu government in a similar ‘popular’ fashion to the way Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was driven from power last February. Intense government focus on the large protest movement quickly waned in the wake of the renewed security crisis as officials prepared for the planned Palestinian Authority statehood declaration in New York the second half of September and the violence that might spark off.

Terror From Sinai

As previously noted in these monthly reports, Israeli officials had been expressing growing alarm at the escalating breakdown of law and order in the Egyptian-ruled Sinai Peninsula this year, which was handed over to Cairo’s control as part of the American-brokered Camp David peace accords signed in 1978. It seemed to many as if the interim military government that assumed power in the wake of President Mubarak’s forced ouster either could not, or did not want to, enforce basic security in the large desert peninsula. Hamas and Al Qaida-backed terrorists blew up the natural gas pipeline that brings fuel to Israel and Jordan no less than five times over the past few months, causing major flow disruptions which added to ballooning fuel prices in both countries. Armed Bedouin gangs roamed freely in many areas, including near some coastal resort towns popular with European, American and Israeli tourists.

The fear in Israeli governmental circles was that, with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement now openly contending for power in Cairo in the wake of the White House-supported overthrow of America’s closest Arab ally, Islamic militants felt emboldened to act as they wished in the sparsely-populated desert zone. Alarm bells increased early in the summer when intelligence reports revealed the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hamas movement was moving many of its weapons production facilities to the Sinai Peninsula, apparently assuming that IDF jets would not be politically able to attack them there due to the peace treaty and the long-standing alliance between Washington and Cairo.

The ability of Hamas to operate freely in Sinai had been severely restricted by the Mubarak government. However, recognizing that the ‘populist’ movement to oust it was largely comprised of Islamic groups that support Hamas’ extreme anti-Israel stand, the new interim government opened border crossings from the Gaza Strip into Egypt, allowing terrorists to flood into the peninsula. As a result, Israeli officials sternly warned their citizens to stay away from the Egyptian resort zone, fearing more Israelis would be kidnapped by Hamas militants. Meanwhile the desert zone became the preferred route for weapons smuggled to the Gaza Strip from the war-torn Arab country of Libya due west of Egypt. Israeli security officials pointed to substantial evidence that Egyptian security forces were looking the other way, probably greased by large bribes, as the weapons made their way across the north of the troubled country. They noted that eastern Libya, from where the latest ‘Arab Spring’ anti-government rebel force sprouted, is a known Islamic fundamentalist stronghold that has long expressed strong support for the Hamas anti-peace stand.

Growing lawlessness in the Sinai Peninsula caused Israeli leaders to privately demand that Cairo take control of the situation. Egyptian officials then decided to send a squadron of 1,000 soldiers into the area after receiving permission from Israel to do so (as part of the Camp David accords, Egyptian troop movements into the demilitarized zone must be coordinated with Jerusalem). Troops entered the area on August 15, heading mainly to the north where the pipeline attacks have taken place. An existing small border police patrol force was already operating as usual along the 150 mile shared border with Israel, where the Netanyahu government is constructing a security fence (way too slowly, say many critics). The police force had long proved to be ill-equipped to halt a constant flow of illegal infiltration into Israel across the mostly unmarked desert border, with thousands of migrants entering Israeli territory each year, mostly coming from the war-ravaged African country of Sudan, or Somalia.

Dying For Allah

Given this background, it was no surprise to Israeli officials when intelligence agents learned in early August that a major Palestinian terrorist operation was being planned in the Gaza Strip to be launched from Sinai into southern Israel. Arab sources indicated the plan was in its final stages of readiness, and would include a large number of terrorists infiltrating across the international border into the Israeli Negev Desert north of the port city of Eilat. However the sources indicated the goal would be to kidnap more Israeli soldiers in a similar fashion to the cross border Hamas raid that nabbed IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006 (talks to secure his release stalled in Cairo in August). This information led IDF and police officers to assume any infiltration would take place under the cover of darkness, not during the middle of the sun-soaked day.

Whether those reports were wrong or deliberately distorted was not immediately clear to Israeli officials, but in the end, a much more deadly operation was actually being planned. Indeed, the terrorists did hope to kidnap some additional soldiers, but their malevolent goal was to kill as many Jews as possible before undoubtedly being killed themselves. In fact, it was miraculous that dozens did not perish in the combined assaults which rocked Israel on August 18.

The attacks began just before noon after four Palestinian-Egyptian armed squads comprised of 12 men (earlier reports that up to 20 were involved were later downscaled), infiltrated the border right under the noses of an Egyptian army outpost-leading many to immediately suspect collusion. The four terrorist cells then spread out over an eight mile area. One of the squads, wearing brown Egyptian army uniforms, opened fire on a passenger bus traveling from Beersheva to Eilat on Highway 12, the main road to Eilat which runs perilously close to the border. Like most Israeli public buses, the passengers included many civilians, along with male and female soldiers returning home for the weekend. As windows shattered from the impact of the hail of bullets, the driver wisely speeded up after spotting the attacking terrorists. Around a dozen passengers, including some children, were wounded as the bullets flew, mostly when glass shards struck them. Miraculously, no one was killed.

Had the same bus been attacked by another squad, the death toll would have undoubtedly been very high. That terrorist cell managed to position itself right next to the road, springing up as a second bus approached. One of the terrorists then rushed toward the transport vehicle and detonated suicide explosives hidden under his uniform, killing the bus driver along with himself. Unbeknownst to the Islamic terrorists, the public bus was empty of passengers, with the driver on his way to pick some up. He was later buried in Beersheva. Then a third squad opened fire at an Israeli passenger car, killing its female driver. The same attacker then fired a rocket-propelled grenade at an Israeli Air Force helicopter that sped to the area after news of the first attack reached nearby military units that had been reinforced in light of the intelligence reports of an impending attack. The grenade fell short of its target and the terrorist was killed.

The deadliest incident was perpetrated by the fourth squad several minutes later. Another private vehicle carrying two sisters in their fifties and their husbands to a planned vacation in Eilat was ambushed by a hail of bullets, leaving all four civilian passengers instantly dead. With mourning relatives and friends in attendance, the two slain couples were later laid to rest in their hometown not far from Tel Aviv. Like the other assaults, the vicious killings revealed that the terrorists were not just out to capture or kill Israeli soldiers, but to murder civilian women, children and men as well.

Two of the Israeli fatalities were members of the beefed-up security forces stationed in the area to prevent the attacks. One of them, Pascal Avrahami, was a 49 year old member of an elite police anti-terror unit known as YAMAM. He had been sent to the area from his native Jerusalem. He left behind a grieving wife and three children. The other victim, 22 year old Moshe Naftali, was a well-regarded IDF staff sergeant from Ofra, a Jewish community of over 3,000 residents located in the disputed territories north of Jerusalem. Sadly, it later emerged that he had been killed by ‘friendly fire’ in the midst of an intense gun battle with the terrorist squad. Still, both men perished in the line of duty while attempting to halt the spate of unprovoked terrorist attacks upon their civilian countrymen.

Showdown With Egypt

Based on their earlier intelligence reports, Israeli officials quickly announced that the so-called ‘Popular Resistance Committees’ based in the Gaza Strip was the group behind the coordinated terror attacks. It was founded in the early days of the first Palestinian uprising in 1988. The PRC combines Hamas representatives with other terror groups including the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad, several smaller Islamic militant groups with links to Al Qaida, and elements of the PLO.

Within hours of the atrocious armed assaults, IDF jets were pounding known PRC positions in the Gaza Strip, killing the overall head of the group and other operatives, along with some of their non-combatant relatives. Hamas positions were struck later on since the group is involved with the PRC and is anyway in overall control of the Gaza Strip from where the deadly assault emanated. More than that, it was quickly determined that Hamas was allowing Islamic Jihad and other groups to fire powerful Iranian-supplied Grad rockets into Israel, striking the cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beersheva and several other cities and towns and kibbutz communities.

A number of Israelis were injured as the rockets crashed down despite the fact that many were intercepted by the Iron Dome laser system (which costs lots of money to operate due to its high electricity usage). Many buildings and cars were damaged or destroyed and fields and trees were set on fire. A Jewish yeshiva seminary in Ashdod suffered a direct hit with 12 wounded, several seriously. Three illegal Palestinian workers from Samaria were later wounded in the strategic port city, one severely, when more rockets struck two days after the terrorist infiltration. Everyone in the region was ordered to remain close to bomb shelters as sirens were periodically sounded to warn of incoming rockets. An outdoor late August festival held annually on the Ashkelon beach was cancelled.

As the initial Air Force bombing runs were being launched, IDF ground forces were clashing directly with Egyptian soldiers for the first time in many years. According to an Egyptian government report released several days later, the serious clashes began when IDF soldiers pursued some of the terrorist attackers into Egyptian territory. Egyptian border police patrols then opened fire on the Israelis who shot back at them. An IDF helicopter then fired two rockets at the fleeing terrorists, prompting more Egyptian police and army fire at the Israelis. Three Egyptians were killed in the exchange, including Ahmad Jalal, an Egyptian officer. Two other Egyptians who may have been members of the infiltrating terror squads were killed in subsequent clashes.

News that five Egyptians had been shot dead by IDF fire sparked large anti-Israel demonstrations on the streets of Cairo. An Israeli flag flying atop the Israeli embassy was torn down by an intruder who replaced it with an Egyptian flag as hundreds cheered from the street below. The Israeli flag was later burned by the mob. The intruder later received a local government reward for his action. Egged on by the Muslim Brotherhood, anti-Israel demonstrations continued for over one week. All this came despite the fact that the Egyptian government report admitted some Egyptians had participated in the Palestinian terrorist assaults; and that border security personnel had at least looked the other way as the squads illegally crossed the international border into Israel.

Fearing a complete breakdown in relations with Cairo, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a statement of regret that Egyptian soldiers and policemen had been killed in the clashes, while also pointing out the action came after armed Arab infiltrators entered Israel from Egyptian territory. With reported American diplomatic encouragement, the statement seemed to pacify interim government leaders, with Foreign Minister Mohammad Kamel Amr denying Arab press reports that his government was preparing to recall its ambassador to Israel from his posting in Tel Aviv to protest the Egyptian deaths.

Test Run For A Hizbullah Attack?

Regional media reports claimed the Netanyahu government was prepared to launch a major ground operation into the Gaza Strip to clear out rocket launching sites and destroy weapons caches, as occurred in the Cast Lead operation that began in late December 2008. However Egyptian military government leaders allegedly told their Israeli counterparts this would spark off massive anti-Israel riots throughout their tense country, which would only serve to strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood’s already growing chances of taking over the Arab world’s largest country in elections now scheduled for November. Whatever the case, it was clear that the armed Islamic infiltrations and terrorist assaults had brought the region closer to full-scale warfare than at any time since the 2006 Hizbullah missile blitz upon cities and towns in northern Israel.

Many Israeli security commentators wondered aloud if the well planned PRC-led terrorist operation, which left 10 of the 12 Muslim infiltrators dead, two of them by their own homicidal hands, was not a ‘dry run’ test sponsored by Iran. According to this suspicion, the Shiite Islamic regime is nearing the point where it will have to actively intervene if it is to save its main Arab ally, Syria’s brutal dictator Basher Assad, from suffering the same fate as Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi. Analysts warn that the Iranian mullahs simply cannot allow Assad and his Alawite cronies to be driven from power, period. If he were toppled, Hizbullah’s hold over Lebanon would be severely weakened due to its reliance on weapons and other support from the Assad family regime. Understanding this reality, many say Hizbullah leaders are probably more than willing to obey any Iranian order to lash out at Israel with a massive missile barrage targeting Tel Aviv and all other Israeli population centres. While this would obviously provoke a powerful IDF response, it would also divert the world’s attention from the expanding crisis in Syria and unify the Arab street against the common enemy, Israel.

Several analysts opined that if Hizbullah is indeed preparing for such a colossal assault-and various intelligence reports said preparations on the ground seem to confirm this is indeed the case-it would probably be sparked off in a similar fashion to the clashes now rocking southern Israel. As they did in 2006, Hizbullah militiamen would initially cross the border and attack IDF soldiers stationed along the tense border, and/or fire rockets at IDF outposts. When Israel returned the unprovoked fire, as it did along the Egyptian border, Hizbullah would keep ratcheting up the conflict until it was firing thousand of rockets into Israel. As in the south, the Iron Dome anti-rocket system would take out some of the incoming short-range rockets and longer range missiles, but not a majority of them, especially if hundreds of firings were occurring all at once. The key to preventing this scenario from becoming reality is for Israel to either take preemptive action against Hizbullah rocket stores and launching sites, or to do this once the first incidents occurred. However this also would give the radical Islamic group the upper propaganda hand in that it could claim the IDF responded to the small border incident in a hugely disproportionate manner-a contention often heard from the Palestinians.

Nuclear Winter?

Some Israeli commentators say the unprecedented regional events of the past few months indicate that the ‘Arab Spring’ may turn into the ‘Arab winter’ very quickly, possibly even a nuclear winter. Already under attack on the Arab street, the Netanyahu government might well decide it has nothing more to lose by taking out Iran’s burgeoning nuclear programme as any war escalated. The Syrian regime might conclude it could dose the mushrooming anti-government internal revolt by sending Scud missiles against Tel Aviv. In other words, a regional war comparable to the harrowing 1973 Yom Kippur conflict, which nearly led to a US-USSR clash, may be in the offing. Of course, Israeli government and military leaders are well aware of this prospect, and are assiduously preparing for it.

All this come amid the background of the Palestinian Authority’s intention to seek United Nations General Assembly support for its planned late September unilateral declaration of statehood, which a majority of member countries have already announced they will support. While repeating that the PA will never recognize a Jewish state-implying any Palestinian state will be a springboard for further warfare against Israel-PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said on August 28th that he intends to go through with the declaration despite opposition from the United States and several other countries. Although a UN vote would not actually create ‘a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,’ it would give the PA enhanced legal power to take Israeli political and military leaders to UN courts over alleged ‘war crimes’ and other charges. It would also strengthen the PA’s political standing in many countries. Some Israeli analysts maintained it might actually spur on peace negotiations, although only a small minority believes that is likely. Most think the immediate outcome will be more harsh words between Palestinian and Israeli leaders, increased tensions on the streets, and possibly a new round of uprising violence.

All this to say, the coming weeks and months appear likely to be among the most pivotal ones in Israel’s short modern history. With the Middle East trembling and the entire world shaking economically, socially, and in many places like Washington DC, quite literally, the need for sustained intercession before the Lord’s throne appears to be greater than ever before. Cry out to the One who said ‘My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, and My arm will judge the peoples. The coastlands will wait for Me, and for My arm they will wait expectantly’ (Isaiah 51:5). 

Iran’s Ayatollah to Arab world: Don’t let West, Israel ‘confiscate’ Arab Spring – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Iran says a new Middle East is emerging that will doom Israel and break free of U.S. influence.

By The Associated Press

Iran’s top leader warned the Arab world Wednesday not to allow Western powers and Israel to “confiscate” the region’s pro-reform uprisings, in comments that appear to reflect the Islamic republic’s unease about their standing in a profoundly altered Middle East.

Iran has tried to walk two paths since the pro-democracy rebellions began in February – lauding the popular revolts as modern-day heirs to Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, while maintaining relentless pressure on opposition groups at home.

	Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
	Photo by: AP

But Iran is at risk of serious political setbacks. Iran’s main Mideast ally, Syria’s Bashar Assad, is under growing international pressure for his fierce crackdown on anti-government protests.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a speech broadcast on Iran’s state TV to mark the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, reflected the added worries that the West and its allies could gain ground in the Arab Spring.

“Muslim nations in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen or other countries need vigilance today. They should not allow enemies confiscate the victories they’ve achieved,” Khamenei said. “They should not forget that those who have come to the scene in Libya (U.S.and NATO) today and consider themselves owners of the uprising are the same people who used to sit and drink with those who once suppressed the Libyan nation.”

Iran’s supreme leader, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, urged Libyans not to allow the U.S.and its allies to dominate their country.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said his country secretly provided humanitarian supplies to Libya’s rebel National Transitional Council. Salehi said Iran had sent four medicine and food shipments to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

“Today they (U.S.and its allies) seek to take advantage of the situation. Nations must be vigilant and wakeful,” said Khamenei.

But he made no mention of Syria, where Assad’s regime is struggling to contain opposition forces.

In Iran’s view, collapse of pro-U.S.governments in Egypt and Tunisia were strong blows to U.S.influence in the region and a new “Islamic awakening.”

“Who thought American and Zionist agents in the region would fall one after the other?” Khamenei said. “This is the powerful hand of the Islamic nations,”

Iran has supported Arab uprisings, saying change of governments in North Africa shows a new Middle East is emerging that will doom Israel and break free of American interference.

Iran has sought to portray the popular uprisings as a replay of its 1979 Islamic Revolution which toppled the pro-U.S.shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and brought hardline clerics to power.