WarSclerotic

‘Chance for Iran diplomacy fading… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

    President Shimon Peres on Friday said that he believes Israel is closer to utilizing the military option in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program than it is to finding a diplomatic solution to the threat.

In an interview with Channel 2, the president suggested that the media speculation about a potential attack on Iran may have some basis in truth. “Intelligence services in many countries are looking at the clock and warning their leaders that not much time remains. I do not know if these world leaders will act on this advice.”

Peres said that Iran could be as close as six months from becoming nuclear-armed and it is Israel’s role to warn the world of the danger. He suggested that the speculation about an attack on Iran may be a way of reminding the world of the Iranian threat.

Earlier on Friday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel’s position on Iran has not changed, despite recent Israeli media reports of a possible strike on Iran.

Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, is expected to release a report that includes evidence of Iranian nuclear research which makes little sense if not weapons related, Western diplomats said. The report, however, is expected to stop short of declaring outright that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

“I propose we wait and see the IAEA report,” Barak said, adding that he believes that if the UN nuclear watchdog will be “daring enough to say bluntly what they know about [Iran’s] nuclear program,” the world will understand the Iranian threat is international.

Speaking in an interview with Stephen Sakur on the BBC, the defense minister repeated Israel’s position that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons and that no options should be taken off the table to that end.

Meanwhile on Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Iran’s nuclear program and said France would not stand idly by “if Israel’s existence were threatened.” Sarkozy was speaking at a G20 summit of world leaders .

“Iran’s behavior and this obssessional desire to acquire nuclear military (capability) is in violation of all international rules, and France condemns firmly the lack of respect for these rules,” he said in the French Riviera resort of Cannes.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Peres: Military option to Iran threat closer… JPost – Headlines.

(You too, Perez?  WTF !! – JW)

  President Shimon Peres on Friday said that he believes Israel is “closer to utilizing the military option in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program than it is to finding a diplomatic solution to the threat.”

In an interview with Channel 2, the president suggested that the media speculation about a potential attack on Iran may have some basis in truth. “Intelligence services in many countries are looking at the clock and warning their leaders that not much time remains. I do not know if these world leaders will act on this advice. ”

Peres said that Iran could be as close as six months from becoming nuclear-armed and it is Israel’s role to warn the world of the danger. He suggested that the speculation about an attack on Iran may be a way of reminding the world of the Iranian threat.

The world is misreading Obama on Iran – By David Rothkopf | David Rothkopf.

 

The government of Iran, much like many across the Middle East, believes that the Obama administration is so consumed with a desire to undo the wrongs of the Bush era and get out from under the costs of two difficult, hard-to-justify wars in the region that it would never intervene against them militarily. Iranian leaders seem to believe that the United States would not risk another war in the region just to stop their development of nuclear weapons.

The government of Israel, also worried that its number one ally has lost its appetite for complex entanglements in the region, seems to think that by playing the Iran card it can goad the U.S. into action that will restore the bonds between the two nations. Israeli leaders believe that they can translate their perception of Iran as an existential threat against them and a brazen, rising regional hegemon into a new renewed U.S. commitment to the region and closer ties with Israel.

Both are wrong.

According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, which has an extraordinary package of stories on the growing Iran risk and the escalation of that risk associated with an upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that will reveal game-changing progress by Iran in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, even America’s closest allies in Britain believe “President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won’t want to do anything just before an election.” Wrong.

Here in the U.S., analysts believe that Obama would not risk being drawn into a war in the region or the upheaval a series of attacks might cause. Even though tensions are definitely rising and those familiar with the IAEA report that will be circulated next week say, “It is going to be hard for even Moscow or Beijing to downplay its significance,” there is a sense that Obama won’t pull the trigger. Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour was quoted by the Guardian as saying, “A U.S. military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama’s presidency. If you’re Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket.” While an attack is no sure thing yet, the analysis is wrong.

Certainly no one in the Obama Administration is eager to launch an attack on Iran. Taking steps that would risk being drawn into another war or that might damage the global economy further or could distract from the world at home would be vigorously opposed by several of the President’s most senior advisors, and he undoubtedly would be deeply divided on the issue himself.

But in the end, as dangerous as an attack might be militarily and politically, if the President believes there is no other alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will seriously consider military action and it is hardly a certainty he won’t take it. From a domestic political perspective, right now Obama’s strong suit is his national security performance. For the first time in years, he has taken the issue away from the Republicans. Right now they simply cannot attack him as being weak or assert they understand defense better. That is why they are so silent on the issue. Obama has only four real areas of vulnerability on this front. First, if he pushes too hard for defense budget cuts before the election, the Republicans will go after him. He won’t. He will seek cuts but will be comparatively cautious. Next, if there were a terrorist attack of some sort and the administration seemed unprepared or responded weakly, that would create a problem. But that is a perennial wild card. Third, if he distances himself from Israel, the Republicans will seek to capitalize on the sense some supporters of that country have that Obama is not a committed friend. There is already plenty of activity in that area … and the Israelis are eager to take advantage of their perceived election year leverage. And finally, if Iran were to detonate a nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely attacked for a policy of engagement that ultimately proved to be toothless.

As a consequence, the President and his advisors are acutely aware of the Iran issue. But their concerns go much deeper. The President and his national security leadership are deeply worried about the potential consequences associated with an Iranian nuclear breakthrough. It would likely trigger an arms race in the region at a time of considerable instability. It would immediately ratchet up tensions between Iran and Israel … but also between Iran and its historic enemies in the Gulf. It would both raise Iran’s perceived clout and underscore the absence of a counterweight either from the U.S., the West, or the international community at large.

While an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities almost certainly would produce a spike in oil prices, those prices would stabilize if the attacks were successful and did not produce a protracted war. Further, with the world economy in a slump, prices are feeling less upward pressure anyway these days. However, if Iran gained nuclear weapons, it might trigger a kind of uncertainty that would be protracted and would have a longer-term effect on oil prices.

The British assumption that the President would not take this action close to the election is mistaken on two levels. First, from the most cynical perspective possible, a strong action right before the election in response to a genuine threat after an extended effort to pursue more peaceful options to resolving the issue might well work very well for the President politically. The American people’s reaction to an attack at any time is likely to give the President the benefit of the doubt. That said, it would be a mistake to think this President would make such a cynical analysis. Should he act on an issue like this, he will do so without making any political calculus. He’s a politician to be sure. But on national security matters he has grown both increasingly self-confident and proven himself to be exceptionally disciplined. Indeed, the calculus as to what he might do needs to factor in that he has achieved some success taken strong military actions of a focused nature. The “no more Middle East wars” notion went out the window with Libya. The “Obama is timid on these matters” thesis was actually silently put to an early death when the President, just in office, ordered the ultimately successful effort to eliminate Osama bin Laden.

Finally, the Israelis are wrong if they think that U.S. cooperation on this issue will restore the bond between the two nations.  They may work side-by-side on this as they did on the Stuxnet intervention. They share close ties. But so long as Israel pursues settlements and other policies that inflame the Palestinian situation and make a solution less likely, this administration will be more divided internally in its views on Israel than its public statements may suggest. Further, the reality is that history is moving against the Israelis. Not only are America’s strategic priorities shifting — the end of the Cold War and the War on Terror were both blows to the “indispensability” of Israel to the U.S. — but other countries, like China and India, are gaining more influence in the region as they become more important consumers of the region’s oil. And they view the Israeli-Palestinian issue as an irritant, a risk to their interests and a matter that needs to be disposed of, one way or another, whichever serves their ultimate goal of stable, cheap supplies of energy. In fact, paradoxically, it is probably a nuclear Iran that stands the best chance of keeping Israel more relevant to America.

None of this means America will act. But it would be a mistake to bet against it or to consider U.S. threats to be mere posturing.

Israel-Iran: Bombs away? – CBS News.

A spate of rumors has ignited speculation about a coming Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear program (Getty Images)

(The Nation)

In the decade since reports surfaced that Iran was engaged in a program to enrich uranium and possibly to build a nuclear weapon, there have been periodic reports from intelligence agencies, US and Israeli officials, and outside analysts that Tehran would have a bomb in as little as a year or two. Ten years later: no bomb.

By the same token, over that period, there have been incessant reports by many observers—including Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker—that an attack by either Israel, the United States, or both on Iran’s nuclear facilities was imminent. Again, ten years later: no attack—although we know for a fact that in the waning years of the Bush administration Vice President Dick Cheney explicitly argued in favor of bombing Iran’s nuclear plants and research centers.

Iran nuke fears may stir attack plans

In the last weeks, once again, there are live rumors that Israel is readying an attack. Part of the reason why the talk is surfacing now may be that next week the International Atomic Energy Agency is set to release a new report which may report that Iran has made further progress in its nuclear program.

According to Haaretz, the liberal Israeli daily, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently convinced ultra-hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to support a military attack in the near future:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a “small advantage” in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack. Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.”

A later piece in Haaretz reported that the cabinet is divided, with Netanyahu and Barak strongly in favor of doing so and Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon opposed. Reported Haaretz:

A disagreement within the government over whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked a political catfight between two members of the “octet” forum of eight senior ministers: Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.… Yaalon and Barak presented diametrically opposed views: Barak supported an Israeli military strike on Iran and said it should take place as soon as possible, while Yaalon argued that Israel should give international sanctions on Iran more time, and that if military action did become necessary, it would be better for America to do it.

The new talk about an Israeli attack on Iran started with a column at the end of October by Nahum Barnea in the daily Yediot Aharanot, in which he wrote:

Have the prime minister and defense minister settled on a decision, just between the two of them, to launch a military attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran? This question preoccupies many people in the defense establishment and high circles of government. It distresses foreign governments, which find it difficult to understand what is happening here: One the one hand, there are mounting rumors of an Israeli move that will change the face of the Middle East and possibly seal Israel’s fate for generations to come; on the other hand, there is a total absence of any public debate. The issue of whether to attack Iran is at the bottom of the Israeli discourse.

Netanyahu has ordered Israel’s intelligence service to investigate the leaks, which some Israelis believe may have come from current or former members of those very same intelligence service. Earlier this year, retiring Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that Netanyahu and Barak wanted to attack Iran, an action that he said he was unalterably opposed to. Reports Haaretz, citing—of all things, a newspaper in Kuwait:

According to the report, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin are those responsible for leaking information to the media regarding an attack on Iran.

The Jerusalem Post, a right-wing daily, helpfully fills in some details about what a strike might look like, reporting that it would involve “several hundred aircraft” and, possibly, the use of US-supplied bunker-buster bombs.

A picture released by the official website of the Iranian president’s office shows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivering a speech next to a Ghader (Capable) missile, a marine-cruise missile with a 124 mile range, during a ceremony to mark Iran’s annual “Defense Industry Day” in Tehran, Aug. 23, 2011.

(Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Needless to say, an Israeli attack on Iran would unleash catastrophic consequences, completely apart from whether or not Israel could actually do the job effectively.

Whereas Israel’s attack would be limited in scope and duration, an American attack on Iran would probably last four to six weeks, and it would target Iran’s air defense, air and naval units, military and intelligence command-and-control centers, bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and important transportation and communication systems, along with weeks of pounding many of the more than fifty sites inside Iran involved in that country’s nuclear program. In contrast, Israel would likely be able to strike once, targeting only a handful of Iran’s most important sites, in Isfahan and Natanz.

But an Israeli attack would lead to a regional conflagration, in which Iran would use its proxies and allies and, most likely, terrorist units against US and Israeli targets across the region and even worldwide. Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, would strike Israel, leading to what would end up being an Israeli war against both Syria and Lebanon. Iran’s allies in Iraq and Afghanistan could launch attacks against US and NATO forces there, and there’s a strong likelihood that Iran would try to attack the oil facilities of the Arab countries across the Persian Gulf. The ripples would spread from there, including soaring oil prices (in the range of $150 to $200 per barrel). For all these reasons, without definitive proof that Iran has actually acquired a bomb and that Iran is planning to use it, an attack by either the United States or Israel makes no strategic sense, especially since many analysts believe that even a sustained attack might not succeed in doing anything more than delaying Iran’s program while convincing Tehran to accelerate it and to move its facilities underground into hardened sites, as it appears to be doing in its new facility outside Qom.

President Obama, while pushing to isolate Iran and impose even tougher sanctions, isn’t likely to attack Iran. (That’s not true for some of his Republican rivals in 2012.) In addition, since 2007, under both President Bush and President Obama, the Pentagon has delivered strong warnings to Israel not attack Iran under any circumstances, because the consequences would be so severe. No doubt, those warnings stand. Which is why, for my part at least, I don’t believe Israel would risk an attack on Iran by itself.

Bio: Robert Dreyfuss is a Nation contributing editor. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 4, 2011, 1:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Lebanese Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, while inspecting his fighting units in the last two weeks, has briefed commanders on updated operational plans for firing 10,000 rockets at Tel Aviv and  Israel’s air force and reserve mobilization bases in a surprise attack, debkafile‘s military sources report.

“The Zionist enemy cannot stand up to a salvo on that scale,” he told them. “He can’t locate our secret launching bases or put a stop to a missile offensive that is sure to determine the war’s outcome.”

He assured the troops that Hizballah is capable of fighting Israel without Iranian or Syrian help.

In answer to questions, Nasrallah said the militia must be prepared to fight Israel without outside military assistance. “We don’t know in what situation our war may find Iran. We do know Bashar Assad has been fighting a rebellion for the past ten months and is in no condition to come to our aid,” he said.

To boost morale, Nasrallah reported the arrival of advanced weapons, including anti-tank and anti-air missiles from Libya. debkafile‘s sources report they were delivered to Lebanon by sea and air freighters from the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

A Hizballah purchasing mission in Tripoli and Benghazi bought the weapons from military units making up the National Transitional Council ruling Libya as an interim government. Iranian and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood agents were on hand to pay for the merchandise on the spot.
In the briefings to his men, the Hizballah leader also dredged up a two-year old plan to use the projected massive rocket assault as cover for five commando brigades to surge into northern Israel and seize designated sectors of the Galilee up to the outskirts of Carmiel. He assured Hizballah troops that even if Israel Defense Forces units stormed into Lebanon, they were capable of taking the war across the border into enemy terrain.
Nasrallah’s master plan first appeared exclusively inDEBKA-Net-Weekly issue 430 of Jan., 22, 2010, along with the map attached to this article.

In all his meeting with fighting units, the Hizballah chief makes a point of warning them to beware of American and Israeli spies who constantly try to penetrate their rank s. So far, they have not been able to locate the militia’s secret rocket-launching facilities.

debkafile‘s sources comment that, while Israel’s leading politicians and mass media hammer away at the whys and wherefores of a potential strike against Iran’s nuclear sites on the strength of largely fictitious information deliberately disseminated to make a point, Israel faces a real and imminent threat of a cross-border flare-up with Hizballah and Syria.

Syrian President Bashar Assad made it clear in a British press interview Sunday, Oct. 30, that if he has his back to the wall as a result of foreign intervention in the uprising against him, he will “burn the Middle East.” Three weeks ago, on Oct. 4, the Syrian ruler warned that if he faced foreign intervention, he would need “not more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv.”

On Nov. 3, Birgul Ayman Guler , head of the Turkish opposition Republican People’s Party, remarked after a visit to Damascus: “The West has written a plot about democracy and liberty. But this plot… is nothing but the plot for an invasion.”
Our sources note that Ayman’s party is against Prime Minster Tayyip Erdogan’s policy of supporting the Syrian opposition to Assad. He has expanded this support by hosting rebel command posts and training facilities on Turkish soil and providing them with arms. The Turkish prime minister is seen as acting out the policy of intervention not just of his government but of NATO, of which his country is a full member.

‘Israel’s stance unchanged, Iran … JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

    Israel’s position on Iran has not changed, despite recent Israeli media reports of a possible strike on Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Friday.

“I propose we wait and see the IAEA report,” he said, adding that he believes if they will be “daring enough to say bluntly what they know about [Iran’s] nuclear program,” the world will understand the Iranian threat is international.

Speaking in an interview with Stephen Sakur on the BBC, the minister repeated Israel’s position that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons and that no options should be taken off the table to that end.

Barak also addressed the peace process, explaining that Israel must be “proactive” by accepting the Quartet’s proposals and entering into immediate negotiations with the Palestinians.

The minister said that he doesn’t believe Israel’s recent decision to approve housing construction is an obstacle to peace talks. The Palestinians were willing to enter into negotiations with Barak when he was prime minister and with former prime minister Ehud Olmert, he continued, despite accelerated construction during their terms.

The difference, he explained, is that now that the Palestinians believe world opinion favors their cause they have chosen “to move to the General Assembly instead of the negotiating table.”

Referring to Israel’s decision to cut its security funding to the Palestinian Authority, Barak said that he believes the issue will be solved. It is not in Israel’s interest for the PA to collapse, he added.

A dangerous game – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Netanyahu and Barak might just be preparing the public for a possible attack on Iran, but Israel’s behavior has already sent the region into a spin.

By Amos Harel

Three issues lie at the heart of the controversy about whether Israel should attack Iran: necessity, legitimacy and capability. No one disputes that Tehran’s nuclear project is progressing slowly, despite the West’s efforts to curb it altogether. The unknown element is when the Iranians will acquire the capability to arm surface-to-surface missiles with a military warhead. Estimates range from 18 months to three years from when spiritual leader Ali Khamenei decides the country should have the bomb.

The legitimacy question is clearer: The international community is largely opposed, even if some Arab states would be happy to see an Israeli attack, as WikiLeaks revealed. Israel’s leadership is split. Three generations of security and defense branches are vehemently against. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are in favor, though the depth of their commitment and their opinion on the timing are not clear.

	Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak
	Photo by: Emil Salman

The forum of eight is split. Netanyahu will have a hard time mustering a majority in both the cabinet and the security cabinet, the only bodies authorized to make the final decision. As for capability, the Israel Defense Forces is obviously engaged in preparations for the mission.

In the past few years, particularly since Netanyahu returned to the Prime Minister’s Office, there have been occasional reports on leaders’ satisfaction with the air force’s progress. It has even been claimed that the U.S. administration noticed the preparations, and that this is what drew its great concern over a potential Israeli attack.

The danger here is of a self-fulfilling prophecy. An Israeli attack will complicate relations with Egypt, whose transitional government is less hostile to Iran than Mubarak’s regime was, and will also jeopardize the peace with Jordan, whose territory Israeli planes might cross. In response an attack will draw Iranian missiles and massive rocket volleys by Hezbollah and Hamas, and Syrian President Bashar Assad also may choose to join the fray in an attempt to suppress his country’s popular uprising.

Advocates of an attack have to consider whether the Israeli home front is prepared to be hit by thousands of missiles and rockets carrying 300-400 kilogram warheads. Estimates in the foreign media state an Israeli attack will delay the Iranian nuclear project by four years at most. Does that kind of success – in the best case – justify the risk, when it is clear the Iranians will rehabilitate the project, this time openly, as soon as the planes have completed their mission?

Consider a report that appeared in the Guardian this week. British security sources cite the same reasons one hears in Israel about the need to strike Iran’s nuclear project, because time is running out. So if Britain and the United States might take part in an operation, why does Israel have to rush in alone?

The proponents of an attack recall Israel’s bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981. Prime Minister Menachem Begin acted against the advice of many top defense personnel and politicians, and he was proved right. Saddam Hussein’s lack of nuclear weapons facilitated the American campaign in the two Gulf wars. In 1981, Israel did not coordinate the attack with the United States. At that time, however, there was no American military presence along the attack route.

case until the end of December, when U.S. President Barack Obama intends to withdraw most American troops from Iraq, but will also be true afterward, with the Americans deployed in the region, particularly in the Gulf. Wide-ranging, precise coordination seems necessary.

Those in Israel who do not fear a potential crisis with the United States say Obama is leery of clashing with Jerusalem (and losing the Jewish vote ) in an election year. According to this argument, Obama recognizes Israel’s right to defend its sovereignty, and will restrain himself in such a clear-cut case of self-defense. But American elections almost always turn on domestic issues, plus there may be immediate consequences of an Israeli attack for the world oil market. If fuel costs rise sharply, U.S. consumers will be hard hit, adding to Obama’s problems. Israel needs to take this into account, too. Under these circumstances, will U.S. military aid be guaranteed after an attack?

Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency will publish a report expected to be highly critical of Iran’s nuclear activity. An Israeli threat to attack could serve the United States and Britain in their efforts to have the UN Security Council impose crippling new sanctions on Iran.

The Iran hysteria is not only useful to whip up an international campaign against Iran; it is also convenient for Netanyahu, because it diverted media attention from the social protest movement this week. This is a dangerous game. Netanyahu and Barak might be preparing public opinion for an attack, but Israel’s behavior has already sent the region into a spin, not to mention the operational harm to the air force. It is far from clear, however, whether Netanyahu will enjoy sweeping public support if he chooses a preemptive strike, which will be perceived as a war of choice.

Since retiring as head of the Mossad in January, Meir Dagan, for his part, has spoken out publicly several times against Netanyahu and Barak’s policy, and has warned against a “stupid” air attack on Iran. At first, during the current furor, Dagan kept silent. That did not stop Likud ministers and MKs from accusing him of committing “field-security offenses” and blaming him for leaking ostensibly secret information about Israel’s plans.

On Wednesday, in a speech in Tel Aviv, Dagan referred to the Iran issue only in passing, though afterward he responded to the criticism. If he is investigated, he said, “I will divulge things that the finance minister and his friends [said] in regard to field security. I have a good memory.”

If Dagan speaks out more sharply and more urgently against an attack, we can assume it is not due to a momentary caprice. And what if there’s a blunter attempt to shut him up? He likely knows where some political skeletons are hidden.

Gaza will wait

The tension on the Gaza border dissipated by midweek due to a lack of public interest, even though just days earlier there were threatening headlines about a new military operation in the Gaza Strip. Israel and Hamas are treading very warily.

Palestinian groups now have proven able to fire rockets into Metropolitan Tel Aviv, and every military crisis in Gaza may spark a severe crisis in the rickety relations with Egypt. All this means Israel will think twice before venturing on another Cast Lead-type operation. Hamas prefers to preserve its primary achievement: transforming the Strip into a Muslim Brotherhood bastion. It is not anxious to endanger this, even if it has to allow Islamic Jihad (and even its own militants ) to let off steam every once in a while, to prove it has not abandoned the path of resistance.

Even Islamic Jihad knows the rules of the game, notwithstanding Iranian encouragement to the contrary. After 10 of its activists were killed last weekend, the organization gradually resumed its restraint. Because there is no clear and orderly hierarchy, the process took until Tuesday.

The latest round of blows and counter-blows began on October 26, when Islamic Jihad fired a rocket into the Rehovot area. It was apparently not a Grad Katyusha, as was initially reported, but a new rocket with a relatively long range, probably manufactured in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian groups have carried out their own test firings during periods of quiet in the past, in which case they launched the rockets westward, into the Mediterranean. This time it was “live” fire, into Israel.

Last Saturday, Islamic Jihad tried to repeat the exercise. Several bomb-making and launching personnel met next to the ruins of the Israeli settlement of Atzmona, in the southern Gaza Strip. Israel feared that this time the new rocket would be fired eastward, toward Be’er Sheva. Based on information from the Shin Bet security service, the air force struck and killed five Jihadists.

The rest is a scandal. Apparently, despite the expected counter-attack, no one thought to inform the Iron Dome antimissile crews. When Islamic Jihad attacked – and worse, when the organization retaliated by firing rockets at Ashdod and Ashkelon a few hours after the bombing – the Iron Dome batteries had not been deployed. This was followed by a series of technical failures and an operational mistake that prevented proper use of the systems. The battery in Be’er Sheva reacted more rapidly and intercepted a rocket on Saturday evening. The first successful intercept in Ashdod took place only the next morning. The result: a volley of missiles fired at the south, one civilian killed, questions about Iron Dome’s performance and nearly a full-scale confrontation – which did not happen thanks in part to Egypt’s intervention.

When the tension with Hamas abated, Netanyahu deliberately heated up things with the Palestinian Authority. On Tuesday, the forum of eight decided to punish the PA for being accepted as a full UNESCO member by accelerating construction of 2,000 homes in the settlements and halting tax transfers. Thus Netanyahu fell into line with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is constantly eroding the prime minister’s standing on the right, certainly after the Shalit deal. Haaretz recently reported that Netanyahu is looking for ways to legitimize outpost construction.

The prime minister is facing a series of house demolitions in three outposts, whose timing was dictated by the High Court of Justice. This will take place amid intensifying right-wing extremism, which can no longer be ignored. There will almost certainly be violent clashes with the security forces and some “price tag” actions. Even if the deliberations about attacking Iran are postponed for a few months, the winter will not be boring.

Will Israel Pull The Trigger And Send Iran The Ultimate Message? | Fox News.

By Michael Rubin

Articles: U.S. Missile Defense Is Problematic for Israel’s Vulnerable Skies.

By C. Hart

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears.

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran’s capability

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA’s bulletin could be “a game changer” which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved “surprisingly resilient” in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why”, citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran’s centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding “material and capability” inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain’s military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK’s planning being taken to a new level.

“Beyond [12 months], we couldn’t be sure our missiles could reach them,” the source said. “So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won’t.

“So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

“President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won’t want to do anything just before an election.”

Another source added there was “no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change”. Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but “a small number of special forces” may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: “The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table.”

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: “I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. “It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning.”

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran’s nuclear programme. A source said the “Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out”, and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran’s new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

“There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington,” said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was “increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

By Nick Hopkins