WarSclerotic

Syrian forces kill 23 in mass anti-Assad protests After Friday prayers.

Al Arabiya

Friday, 02 September 2011

Anti-Assad protesters in the town of al-Hirak northeast of Deraa. (File Photo)

inShare4

Syrian forces kill 22 in mass anti-Assad protests After Friday prayers.

Friday, 02 September 2011

Anti-Assad protesters in the town of al-Hirak northeast of Deraa. (File Photo)

inShare4

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 2, 2011, 3:22 PM (GMT+02:00)

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan on an anti-Israel vendetta

Turkey has run into two obstacles in its two-year campaign to destroy Israel’s good name and squeeze it into a corner: First, the UN report out Friday, Sept. 2 justified Israel’s Gaza blockade and its navy’s interception last year of a Turkish vessel leading a flotilla aiming to breach that blockade, although it was assailed for its “excessive response” to the violence of Turkish extremists.
Ankara tried in vain to squash this report and postpone its publication.
Thursday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu laid down an ultimatum which gave Israel 24 hours to abandon its refusal to apologize for the nine deaths aboard that vessel, Turkish-flagged ship Mavi Marmora , caused by a clash between armed Turkish “peace activists” and Israeli soldiers who boarded it. Davutoglu said Israel must also compensate the bereaved families and end the blockade.
Israel again stood by its refusal to apologize – Turkey’s second contretemps.
The UN report composed by former New Zealand Prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer then recommended that Ankara accept “an appropriate statement of regret” and payment of compensation. This is exactly what Israel has repeatedly offered, only to be slapped down by Ankara.
The Erdogan government’s hate campaign for bringing Israel to its knees has entailed support for the terrorist organizations dedicated to its destruction, including the Palestinian Hamas, Hizballah – up to a point, and Turkey’s very own IHH whose activists set about the Israeli soldiers as they boarded the Mavi Marmora.
The UN report is hard on the flotilla’s “true nature and objectives,” accusing it of acting “recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade” and holding the Turkish government responsible for not doing more to prevent this encounter.
Israel’s naval blockade was ruled legal and justified – “Israel faces a real threat to its security” from Gaza – and the actions of its commandos were deemed “honorable and appropriate,” although the Palmer report assails Israel for its “excessive and unreasonable” response to the violence it encountered on the Marmora.

Having failed to bring Israel low with its two-year long Plan A, Ankara is putting Plan B into action.
The Israeli ambassador (who is on home leave before retiring) was expelled and Turkey’s longstanding military accords with Israel suspended.

The Turkish foreign minister has already threatened to enforce anti-Israel sanctions and ask international tribunals to prosecute Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, ex-Chief of Staff Gabby Ashkenazi, Navy Commander Zvi Merom and a string of naval officers for causing the nine Marmora deaths and requiring them to compensate the victims’ families.
None of these measures were recommended in the Palmer report.

Turkey’s combative intransigence over the flotilla episode and rank hostility toward Israel reflect the Erdogan government’s frustration over the failure of its strategy to carve a role for Turkey as the leading regional power broker, especially in the Arab Revolt.
Syrian President Bashar Assad simply laughed off Erdogan’s “last warning” to him to stop slaughtering civilian demonstrators and return his troops to barracks.

Davutoglu went to Damascus especially on Aug. 9 to deliver the warning by hand. But since then, the Syrian army has killed an estimated 437 people, including nearly 100 Palestinians in the town of Latakia – apart from the scores who are dying from maltreatment in custody. Thousands more are injured daily by military gunfire. Yet Assad not only keeps on sending his troops into Syrian cities but has improved on their tactics: In the last two weeks tanks are smashing their way into one city district after another.
Assad is not alone in showing contempt for Ankara’s attempt to make its mark on the Arab Revolt

In Libya, for instance, Turkey undertook to build security and administrative institutions for the dominant Transitional National Council in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi– only to be cold-shouldered after refusing to take part as a NATO member in the military offensive against Muammar Qaddafi and his army – unlike Qatar and Jordan, which put their backs and special forces into toppling the Libyan regime.

The turmoil in Arab lands has made the alliance Erdogan strove to shape between Ankara, Tehran and Damascus, irrelevant, as well as dashing his vision of Turkey as the great bridge between the West and the Muslim world.
Erdogan is now working on a new alliance with Saudi Arabia at the head of the Gulf emirates, but their differences of approach are formidable. Riyadh is focused on establishing a Sunni Muslim lineup to challenge the Iranian-led Shiite world. Erdogan and Davutoglu are not sure this concept will advance their own vision of Turkey’s role.

All the Turkish leaders’ efforts to make friends and allies have had an important common objective: To isolate Israel and make its military inconsequential as a Middle East force. There is no point therefore in the Netanyahu government acceding to Ankara’s demands. Even if the Gaza blockade were to be lifted, Erdogan would find another pretext for slapping Israel down. And if Plan B goes the way of Plan A, his foreign minister certainly has Plans C and D in his briefcase ready to go.
Some Israeli officials refer to Turkey as an important regional power which should be placated. The facts do not support this description. The rift will be healed only when Turkey’s rulers stop using Israel as whipping boy for their failed agendas, whether in the Sunni or the Shiite arenas, and understand that the Israeli army is not about to play kids’ games with Turkish terrorists.

Israel must understand too that the glory days of close military ties, when Turkish military air crews training in Israel swooped low over the Tel Aviv beachfront are gone for good. Erdogan has forced the generals of those days into retirement or put them in jail.

Only eight months ago, Hakan Fidan, head of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization, MIT and an Erdogan trusty was ready to hand Iran all the classified data on Israel’s weapons systems in Turkey’s possession to help Tehran stand up to a potential Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.
This was only prevented by the outbreak of the popular uprising in Syria and the attendant deterioration of Ankara’s ties with Tehran and Damascus.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been proactive in the Obama administration’s effort to heal the breach between Ankara and Jerusalem. This is a hopeless task because Erdogan and his foreign minister are after big game: They will be satisfied with nothing less that pushing Israel and its army out of the anti-missile setup the US and NATO have deployed for intercepting Iran’s ballistic missiles.

debkafile‘s military and Washington sources report that Ankara accompanied its hostile acts against Israel with swift permission for the deployment of NATO electronic warning stations on Turkish soil.
Turkey’s eyes are fixed on the shared ballistic missile defense facilities the US established with Israel in recent years. Erdogan plans next to warn Washington that it will not allow the data incoming to the Turkey-based stations to be relayed to Israel thereby driving a hole in the missile shield America is building.
Turkey’s aim is to drive a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem, derail their close military and intelligence collaboration and cast Israel out of the collective missile shield.
US withdrawal from this partnership under Turkish pressure would leave Israel wide open to Iran’s ballistic missiles. Whether or not Ankara succeeds in this maneuver depends on how the Obama administration treats what looks in Jerusalem very much like Turkish blackmail.

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.