WarSclerotic

Syrian opposition calls for international help for civilians in Homs as troops fight defectors.

Al Arabiya

Monday, 07 November 2011

Syria’s opposition on Monday called for “international protection for civilians” in the central city of Homs, besieged by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad and theatre of deadly clashes between soldiers and alleged army deserters.

Declaring Homs a “humanitarian disaster area,” the Syrian National Council urged the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League to act “to stop the massacre committed by the regime.”

In a statement received by AFP in Nicosia, it called on the international community to send “Arab and international observers, instantly, to the city of Homs to oversee the situation on the ground, and prevent the regime from continuing to commit brutal massacres.”

More than 110 people have been reported killed in the past week in Homs, a city of about 800,000 that has turned into one of the main centers of protest and reprisal during the nearly 8-month-old revolt against Assad, according to Ibrahim Hozan, a spokesman for the Local Coordination Committees activist network.

The violence comes despite claims by Syria that it is complying with an Arab League-sponsored plan to end the crackdown.

The United Nations estimates that more than 3,000 people have been killed across Syria in a brutal crackdown by the security forces since anti-regime protests erupted in mid-March.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said heavy artillery clashes erupted overnight between soldiers and presumed army defectors in Homs leaving “dozens of dead and wounded in both camps.”

“Shooting could be heard in Homs where neighborhoods came under heavy machinegun fire at dawn,” said the Observatory in a statement, adding “more than 40 explosions were heard.”

One citizen was killed in the neighborhood of Deir Baalba in Homs after “being shot by Syrian security forces” said the Observatory, which added that soldiers had also entered Baba Amro neighborhood and “started demolishing shops.”

Residents there saw a truck “filled with corpses,” it added.

Much of the violence of the past few days is reported to have involved members of the military who defected to the protesters and were fighting to protect civilians, according to activist groups.

“There is a major campaign of arrests going on in some of the toughest neighborhoods of the district,” an activist in Homs told The Associated Press by telephone. He spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for his personal safety.

In Homs province, meanwhile, an eight-year-old girl was killed and a woman wounded after security forces stationed at a checkpoint in the area of Hula “fired indiscriminately,” it said.

Violent overnight clashes pitting Syrian soldiers and gunmen believed to be dissidents also erupted in Khan Sheikhun in Idlib province, near the border with Turkey, but there was “no information yet on the number casualties,” the Observatory said.

Dozens of soldiers searched cars for people “wanted” by the regime, it said.

In Damascus province, a 63-year-old man succumbed to his wounds after being shot by security forces the previous day, the rights watchdog said.

In the coastal city of Banias, worshippers leaving from Al-Radwan mosque staged a rally calling for the “fall of the regime” and the “execution of the president.”

Security forces responded by raiding the homes surrounding the mosque.

The latest deaths bring to at least 70 the number of people killed since Assad’s government signed on to the Arab League peace plan on November 2.

Violence in Syria has continued unabated, though Damascus agreed to an Arab-brokered peace plan to halt its crackdown on the uprising that the U.N. says has left 3,000 people dead.

The violence prompted Qatar’s prime minister to call for an emergency meeting Saturday to discuss the Syrian government’s failure to abide by its commitments.

Egypt’s official news agency MENA reported Sunday that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani called for the meeting “in light of the continuing acts of violence and the Syrian government’s noncompliance” with the terms of the Arab plan.

Under the Arab League plan, Syria’s government agreed to pull tanks and armored vehicles out of cities, release political prisoners and allow journalists and rights groups into the country.

Arab League deputy secretary general Ahmed bin Heli told reporters Monday that the League had received a message from Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem about “measures adopted by the Syrian government to implement the Arab league plan to solve the Syrian crisis.”

Bin Heli did not elaborate on the measures that the Syrian government said it had taken, nor on the other contents of the message.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 7, 2011, 5:03 PM (GMT+02:00)

Implosion experiments for nuclear bomb detonation

Hardly a day has gone by in the last month without new revelations, mostly from US intelligence sources, confirming that Iran has either reached or is within a hand’s breadth of a nuclear weapon capability. Sunday, Nov. 6, Iran was reported to have carried out implosion experiments in a large steel container built as a testing capsule for this purpose at Parchin. Such experiments would be hard to explain away for any purpose other than the development of nuclear arms.

Monday, Nov. 7, a Russian nuclear expert Vyacheslav Danilenko was named as having taught the Iranians how to build the R265 generator used for the implosion in the Parchin experiment.
Since Danilenko was back home in Russia by 2005, Iran must be considered to have mastered the critical nuclear detonation technology as far back as six years ago.

It is critical because before a nuclear weapon can be used, a sphere of conventional explosives must be detonated to create a blast wave that compresses a central ball of nuclear fuel into an incredibly dense mass, triggering a nuclear chain reaction and explosion.

For six years, therefore, American and Israeli governments have kept their own people and the world ignorant of the true state of Iran’s nuclear program. Indeed in 2007, under President George W. Bush, the American government, military and intelligence agencies published a deliberately misleading National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that in 2003, Tehran had suspended intense work on the design and production of a nuclear weapon.

The Israeli government under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tried protesting that the report was false, but when no one listened, he lined up behind Washington. He and his foreign minister at the time Tzipi Livni brushed off anxious queries by retorting that the Iranian nuclear menace was a matter for the international community to deal with, even though the high-wire diplomacy attempted at the time was getting exactly nowhere.

But both the US and Israeli knew the truth – that Iran was getting dangerously close to a nuclear capacity, had obtained nuclear explosives, detonators and the technology for triggering them, as well as building missiles.

Against this backdrop, the Stuxnet malworm made its first appearance in June 2010. The virus embarked on stealthy depredations of the uranium enrichment facility’s control system in Natanz, in order to stall Iran’s stockpiling of large quantities of weapons-grade fuel.

It worked for a year or two – no more. According to US sources, Iran has since managed to accumulate enough enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs.

That explains the comment appearing in the New York Times of Monday, Nov. 6, from a senior US official. He said the virus had run its course but some recently discovered computer worms suggested a new, improved Stuxnet 2.0 may be in the works. “There were a lot of mistakes made the first time,” he said. “This was a first-generation product. Think of Edison’s initial light bulbs or the Apple II.”

Cyber war therefore briefly stalled Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb but never derailed it.
The covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were similarly only temporary setbacks soon overcome.

The Iran report promised for Tuesday or Wednesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will show plainly that sanctions, the clandestine assassinations of scientists, the Stuxnet virus and a host of covert operations to damage the equipment on its way to Iran, never diverted Tehran long from its ruthless march on a nuclear arsenal.

Two leaders, US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, pledged solemnly when they assumed office never to let Iran achieve a nuclear arms capability.
On their watch, however, Iran has achieved that capability. As things stand today, it is now only a step away from a bomb, separated by little more than a political decision to take it.

Some experts say Iran still needs several months to produce its first weapon and a shorter period to produce each subsequent one.

Does this leave time to intervene?
No one knows what the US or Israeli leaders will decide to do, whether in concert or unilaterally, to rectify their grave lapse. Will they opt for living with a nuclear-armed Iran while downplaying the menace thereof or resort to a military offensive to extinguish it?

The forthcoming IAEA report will probably disperse some of the opaque mists blurring the Iranian nuclear reality and making possible the obfuscations of the past six years. It is expected to focus on Iran’s efforts towards putting radioactive material in a warhead and developing missiles.

Once the facts are laid out on the table for all to see, it will be that much harder for interested parties to continue to spin the facts for political expedience.

Analysis: new UN sanctions on Iran remain unlikely – Telegraph.

There is little chance that the UN Security Council will impose tough new sanctions on Iran anytime soon, despite a new report expected this week to contain evidence suggesting Iran wants atomic weapons.

Satellite photo of what is believed to be an uranium-enrichment facility near Qom Photo: DIGITAL GLOBE

12:20PM GMT 07 Nov 2011

The reason, Western diplomats say, is the reluctance of Tehran’s traditional sympathisers China and Russia, which have the power to veto any council resolution, to sanction Iran’s oil and gas sectors.

As a result, it will be hard to get anything out of the UN that is tougher than the last round of Iran sanctions passed in June 2010.

“The reality is that a new substantive step forward on sanctions will be very difficult,” a senior Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

“The last set of sanctions were very substantive, and essentially the next stage would be to go into the oil and gas sector,” he said. “If you get into the oil and gas sector, then obviously there will be opposition from China in particular, but also from Russia. More so China.”

China depends heavily on oil exports from Iran, the world’s fifth biggest crude exporter, to fuel its growing economy.

The report by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, due out later this week, may strengthen suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop the capability to make atomic bombs but stop short of explicitly saying that it is doing so, diplomats said.

The IAEA report will arrive weeks after the United States accused Tehran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. Although Iran vehemently denied the allegation, the furor revived speculation that a new U.N. sanctions resolution against Tehran might be on the cards.

But US hopes for fifth sanctions resolution by the 15-nation UN Security Council against Iran appear unrealistic, not least because many countries are skeptical about the US plot allegations.

Tehran maintains that its nuclear energy program is simply to provide energy and has ignored UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment, which could produce fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

Four sets of UN sanctions passed since 2006 have hit Iran’s nuclear and missile industries and people linked to them. They have also targeted Iranian banks and other firms while steering clear of Iran’s energy sector.

Although Moscow and Beijing backed all four rounds of UN sanctions they did so reluctantly and only after working hard to dilute the measures.

One diplomat said the combination of US, European Union and UN sanctions and sabotage operations like the Stuxnet computer virus that temporarily hobbled Iran’s enrichment program have succeeded in slowing Tehran’s nuclear progress.

If the UN Security Council does not act, diplomats say, the United States and its European allies will likely pursue unilateral national sanctions outside the United Nations.

It may be possible for the Security Council to add a few more names of Iranian individuals and entities linked to the UN blacklist of those facing travel bans and asset freezes, though Western diplomats say such moves would be symbolic.

“The UN is important because it’s the international community,” a diplomat told Reuters. “But you’re not going to stop Iran’s nuclear program with lowest common denominator sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.”

“The EU, the US and others will have to wield the sledgehammer with national sanctions and drag the UN Security Council after them,” he said.

Russia has pushed for new negotiations with Tehran and is attempting to revive a stalled nuclear-fuel-swap deal that Iran accepted in October 2009 but later backed away from.

Russia and China are also keen to revive negotiations between Iran and the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, even though five years of fitful talks have led nowhere.

Timeline: Iran’s nuclear ambition – Telegraph.

Containing Iran’s nuclear weapons programme has long been one of the West’s most important foreign policy challenges. Here is a timeline of key events.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly defied Western attempts to rein in his country’s nuclear programme Photo: AFP/GETTY

Trend Lines | IAEA Iran Nuclear Report: A Skeptic’s Primer.

By Judah Grunstein | 07 Nov 2011

With Israel, the U.S. and Great Britain ramping up psy-ops against Tehran in the form of leaked strike planning, the IAEA is set to release its latest and most unambiguous report on the Iranian nuclear program to date. According to advanced word, the IAEA report offers new and convincing evidence of Iranian weaponization intentions. It is a mistake to dismiss such intelligence out of hand, as has become the habit in the post-Iraq WMD environment. After all, despite serious doubts at the time, the consensus of serious observers seems to be that the Syrian site attacked by Israel in 2007 was in fact an undeclared nuclear reactor under construction, as U.S. and Israeli intelligence services maintained.

Still, intelligence can be instrumentalized or just plain wrong. What’s more, the disagreements over the Iranian nuclear program are exceptionally complex and opaque, and all the various sides of the policy debate have in the past used exaggerated and hyperbolic arguments to make their case. So in the interests of keeping things anchored to reality, I thought I’d offer the following as a sort of “skeptic’s primer” of the arguments you’re likely to hear from all sides of the debate that will inevitably unfold in the next few weeks:

– An Iranian bomb is imminent. For now, the Iranian nuclear program seems to be following an “inching toward the threshold” model, whereby all the various technical components required for a nuclear weapon are mastered, leaving only a final “breakout” effort to assemble them once the window of opportunity has closed for the international community to prevent it. That has created a widespread but not-uncontested consensus that Iran has at least the intention of being able to assemble a nuclear weapon if it feels the need to, which in itself would effectively offer Tehran a nuclear deterrent even in the absence of an actual bomb. Nevertheless, the Iranian uranium-enrichment effort is uneven and continues to be plagued by technical obstacles. Its delivery systems are far from reliable enough to create a credible deterrent. And the bomb designs that have been identified in previous intelligence reports are crude and unwieldy. It bears noting, too, that the timeline for an “imminent” Iranian nuclear weapon has been locked in at between two to four years for more than a decade, meaning that alarmists have been both consistent and wrong for that time.

– Sanctions don’t work, so the only way to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon is with a military strike. There is increasing evidence that international sanctions, especially the latest rounds of targeted U.N. and U.S. sanctions, are having an increasing impact on Iran’s ability to pursue its uranium enrichment program. That, combined with technical obstacles — including those possibly caused by the Stuxnet cyber attack as well as by an alleged covert assassination campaign targeting Iranian nuclear scientists — means that the international community continues to enjoy a wide range of options for constraining Iran’s efforts to achieve a weapons breakout capability, regardless of Tehran’s current intentions.

– Given the time left before Iran achieves a weapons capability, the window of opportunity for a military strike is not closing. The window of opportunity for a military strike is not determined by the time it will take the Iranians to develop a weapon, but by the time it will take them to harden the various components of their nuclear program to a degree that makes it invulnerable to a military strike. The known Iranian uranium enrichment facilities are already hardened and relatively robust in terms of their ability to withstand an airstrike. What’s more, the Iranians have been working at developing additional enrichment facilities that are even more hardened and that have so far been off-limits to IAEA inspectors, making them even more difficult targets. The timeline for the international community’s ability to intervene militarily — which is to say, Israel and America’s ability to intervene militarily — is not indefinite and is growing shorter.

– A military strike on Iran’s nuclear program would trigger war, accompanied by Iranian retaliations against Israel (via its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies), the U.S. (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and global trade (by targeting traffic in the Persian Gulf). The same predictions could have been made regarding an Israeli strike against Syria prior to the lightning strike against the suspicious Syrian site in 2007. Yet, that attack was met with deafeniing silence, both from Damascus and the international community. That does not mean we should assume a similar outcome in the event of an attack on Iran’s sites, but neither should we uncritically take at face value Iranian threats to escalate such a strike into a full-blown war. To begin with, Tehran might find itself with limited options for such an escalation. Even before the Arab Spring, Iran’s proxies exercised tactical and strategic autonomy from Tehran. They are likely to be even more hesitant to upset the current status quo given the degree to which the past year of regional turmoil has weakened Iran and especially Syria, their two major benefactors. Meanwhile, U.S. vulnerability in Iraq is winding down, and though Iran could damage efforts toward an orderly retreat from Afghanistan, it can only do so at great cost to its own objectives there. As for Iran’s ability to close the Persian Gulf to commercial traffic, it has been exaggerated, as demonstrated by the limited impact of its previous efforts to do so during the Iran-Iraq War.

Finally, it’s important to consider the potential impact of a nuclear-capable Iran, both on U.S. interests and on regional stability. Although it is not true that an Iranian nuclear bomb would represent an existential threat to Israel, it is very likely that Iran would be emboldened by the possession of a nuclear deterrent. That would have implications, not only for Israel, but also for all the Sunni states that have quietly allowed the U.S. and Israel to spearhead what is in fact a regional effort to contain Iran’s ambitions. It is likely that an Iranian bomb would inspire copy-cat efforts by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Egypt once it has emerged from its current instability. What would a multipolar nuclear Middle East look like? We have the model of a stable but volatile arrangement along those lines in South Asia. But even assuming that Iran will continue to be a pragmatic and rational actor in the international arena, there is no guarantee that the Middle East would follow that course.

There is a real and growing possibility that Iran will become a nuclear power. The question that the U.S. and its allies must consider is whether that risk is an acceptable and manageable one or not, and whether the current approach of coercive diplomacy is sufficient to prevent it.

THE DAILY STAR :: News :: Middle East :: Iran accuses US, Israel of gearing for military strike.

The radar for an Iron Dome short-range rocket interceptor is seen near the southern city of Ashkelon in this picture taken September 7, 2011. Menachem Begin did not pull his punches. In 1981, as work neared completion on an Iraqi nuclear reactor that Israel believed would produce plutonium for warheads, the Israeli Prime Minister dispatched eight F-16 bombers to destroy the plant. Begin later said that the raid was proof his country would “under no circumstances allow the enemy to develop weapon

Bracing for the Iran Nuclear Report: Will ‘Military Action’ Rhetoric Develop its Own Momentum? – Global Spin – TIME.com.

INSIGHT-Has Iran ended Israel’s Begin Doctrine? | News by Country | Reuters.

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM Nov 7 (Reuters) – Menachem Begin did not pull his punches. In 1981, as work neared completion on an Iraqi nuclear reactor that Israel believed would produce plutonium for warheads, the Israeli prime minister dispatched eight F-16 bombers to destroy the plant. Begin later said that the raid was proof his country would “under no circumstances allow the enemy to develop weapons of mass-destruction against our people”.

The event defined a strategy that became known as the “Begin Doctrine” and is best summed up by the phrase “the best defence is forceful preemption.”

Israel’s message is now more guarded. In a civil defence drill of unprecedented scale last June, sirens summoned schoolchildren to shelters, radars searched the skies for computer-simulated missile salvoes, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet descended into the Jerusalem foothills to inaugurate a nuclear bunker with a mock war-session.

Why would a country that has long vowed to stop its foes attaining nuclear weapons need a nuclear bunker? The question highlights a new, reluctant restraint that has quietly infused Israeli decision-making in recent years as regional threats have grown more complex and sapped the applicability of classic force of arms. Nowhere is this felt more than in the Netanyahu government’s posture toward Iran.

The spin of the Islamic republic’s uranium centrifuges stirs mortal fear in the Jewish state. In defiance of western pressure to curb the project’s bomb-making potential, Iran has pushed on with its nuclear programme, saying it has no hostile designs. The International Atomic Energy Agency will say this week that Iran now has the ability to build a nuclear weapon, the Washington Post has reported. Israeli officials have long hinted they may launch a preemptive strike.

That threat has taken on fresh intensity in the two years since Netanyahu — a right-wing ideologue like Begin — assumed office. Media speculation that Israel might launch a unilateral strike has surged again in the past two weeks.

In October, the dean of Israeli pundits, Nahum Barnea, suggested on the front page of the best-selling Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the government was hatching an imminent attack. Days later Netanyahu warned of the “direct and heavy threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear programme and then, on Nov. 2, Israel test-fired a missile. The same day the military said it had completed air exercises in Sardinia, “practising operations in (a) vast, foreign land”.

Such talk robs Israel of some of the element of surprise if it really is planning an assault on Iran. Could it instead be a loud reminder to the rest of the world of its problem with Iran in the hope that Washington or another power might intercede?

Interviews in recent months with government and military officials — most speaking on condition of anonymity — and independent experts suggest that Israel prefers caution over a unilateral strike against the Iranians.

The country has been digging in under sophisticated strategic defenses with at least as much energy as it has been preparing offensive options. Netanyahu’s own circumspection is instructive.

As opposition leader in 2005, he told Israel Radio that in dealing with Iran he would “pursue the legacy” of Begin’s “bold and courageous move” against Iraq. But as prime minister he has been less explicit — both in public and, to judge by leaked U.S. diplomatic cables dated as recently as 2010, in closed-door meetings he and aides held with visiting American delegates. Instead, Israel has pushed its demand that world powers stiffen sanctions on Tehran and that the United States provide the vanguard of any last-ditch military move.

“The military option is not an empty threat, but Israel should not leap to lead it. The whole thing should be led by the United States, and as a last resort,” Deputy Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel’s Army Radio.

The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment directly on whether Netanyahu felt bound by the Begin Doctrine regarding Iran.

NO SILVER BULLET

Israelis have known for years that an attack on Iran would be much more difficult than their Iraq strike. Iran is larger, more distant and, perhaps because it learned the lessons of Iraq, has built numerous and well-fortified facilities. Taking these out would require a sustained campaign by the Israeli air force, which is more geared for precision strikes through the use of advanced technology.

“With Iran it’s a different project. There is no one silver bullet (with which) you can hit,” a senior Israeli defence official told Reuters, in a rare admission of his country’s tactical and strategic limitations.

Iran has guerrilla allies across its borders in Lebanon and Gaza, against whom Israel fought costly wars in 2006 and 2009. With the Netanyahu government facing growing isolation — its impasse with the Palestinians is deepening; its alliances with Turkey and Egypt fraying — Israel acknowledges that it is reluctant to go it alone against the Iranians.

“We have to learn that the situation is changing, the region is changing. Not everything that was possible before is possible now and new possibilities open up,” said Dan Meridor, deputy prime minister in charge of Israel’s nuclear and intelligence affairs.

It was Meridor who recommended “defence” as a fourth pillar of Israeli national security in a secret memorandum he authored on behalf of the government in 2006. That report added to the three doctrinal “D’s” set out by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, soon after the country’s founding in a 1948 war with neighbouring Arabs: detect enemies’ threats, deter them with the promise of painful retribution and, if hostilities nonetheless ensue, defeat them quickly on their own turf.

“This was something counter-intuitive for Israel, especially for the military. Israelis like to be on the attack, not on the defensive,” Meridor said.

While he declined to discuss the prospect of military action against Iran, Meridor distanced himself from the idea that the Begin Doctrine commits Israel to such a course.

“I am not sure what people mean when they use this term. In any event, there is no contradiction between any attack doctrine and a defence doctrine. They are complementary. If the attack doesn’t does not solve the problem, then you need to be able to defend yourself.”

LIMITS OF SHIELDS

The most obvious example of Israel’s shifting stance is its pioneering missile shield, which incorporates a network of radar-guided interceptors designed to shoot down everything from the ballistic Shehab and Scud missiles of Iran and Syria to the lower-flying, Katyusha-style rockets of Hezbollah and Palestinian guerrillas.

In artist renditions at Israeli defence conferences, the shield covers Israel in overlapping bubbles, like some huge plexiglass Babushka doll. That sits in contrast to the publicity images of warplanes or tank columns taking the offensive, which used to define Israel’s military self-image.

The shield is a work in progress. Its lowest tier, the short-range Iron Dome interceptor, was deployed this year. The top tier, Arrow, is designed to blow up threats above the atmosphere, high enough to safely vaporise a nuclear warhead. The Arrow III upgrade, due for live trials by early 2012, features a detachable satellite that will collide, kamikaze-like, with incoming missiles in space.

Many Israelis rankle at the idea that the shield, which was conceived following Iraq’s use of conventional Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf war, should be relied on to stave off nuclear catastrophe.

“Hermetic protection will be impossible,” Colonel Zvika Haimovitch of the air defence corps told Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in a Sept. 5 speech. “I assess that, in any conflict, rockets and missiles will fall here.”

But others, including INSS scholar and retired Israeli general Shlomo Brom, argue for Israel’s defensive posture to be expanded, and perhaps even for the secrecy to be eased around the country’s own, reputed atomic arsenal. Aiming to avoid a regional arms race and skirt international anti-proliferation scrutiny, Israel currently neither confirms nor denies having the bomb.

“The answer is mutual deterrence, with the other side knowing the price it would pay for launching a nuclear strike — mutual destruction,” said Brom.

Like Meridor, Brom dismissed the suggestion that the Iraqi reactor strike set a precedent for a potential Israeli strike on Iran. He notes Israel’s decision not to take military action against suspected chemical weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq has already undermined the Begin Doctrine.

SIGNALS FROM SYRIA

Israel did loose its jets on Syria in 2007, to destroy a desert installation that Washington later described as a nascent, North Korean-supplied atomic reactor. Damascus denied having such a facility and Israel has never formally taken responsibility for the raid. In his memoir, former U.S. President George W. Bush said Israel’s prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, preferred the reticence “because he wanted to avoid anything that might back Syria into a corner and force (President Bashar) Assad to retaliate”.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not surprised that Israel went it alone. “I … remembered 1981, when the Israelis had ignored world opinion and launched an air strike to destroy a nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building at Osirak in Iraq,” Cheney wrote in his autobiography. “For the Syrians and the North Koreans … the private message was clear — Israel would not tolerate this threat.”

But some argue the attack on Syria was designed to send a message to Iran.

“We noted a whole lot of Iranian interest in what happened in Syria — trips by consultants, intense communication,” said a one-time adviser to Olmert, breaking Israel’s official silence around the episode.

By tackling Syria, Israel hoped to make the Iranians think twice about pursuing their nuclear programme. To illustrate, the ex-adviser cited “Family Business”, a 1989 crime drama in which a veteran jailbird, played by Sean Connery, counsels his grandson on how to survive prison: “You pick out a tough guy, kick his ass right away … Word gets around, and it makes your time easier.”

Of course, the Americans also took note. Visiting Israel last month, U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta was asked by a reporter about the possibility that the 2007 sortie augured an Israeli attack on Iran. Panetta did not answer directly. He made clear that Washington disapproved of the idea of unilateral action, but said “a number of countries in this region recognise the threat from Iran,” and that concerned countries would “work together to do whatever is necessary to make sure that they do not represent a threat to this region.”

TIME RUNNING OUT

Israelis often question U.S. President Barack Obama’s resolve in the Middle East. But even if he loses power in next year’s presidential election to a more hawkish Republican, it may be too late for Israel, which predicted last January that Iran could have its first nuclear device in two years. That forecast was echoed by Britain.

“If they (Israel) feel they could achieve their objective, or at least initiate the kind of conflict that would meet their objective, through a one-off strike, that would be feasible,” said Richard Kemp, a retired British army colonel who has studied Israeli strategy.

Israel’s military does not comment on prospective operations. But many in Israel’s defence establishment have gone out of their way to downplay the feasibiilty of a unilateral attack. Former Mossad spymaster Meir Dagan has repeatedly ridiculed the idea in briefings to Israeli reporters.

“Attacking the reactors from the air is a stupid idea that would have no advantage,” he said in May. “A regional war would be liable to unfold, during which missiles would come in from Iran and from Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

The Mossad under Dagan, who retired in January, is widely believed to have been behind the Stuxnet software attack on Iran’s nuclear computer systems as well as the assassination of several Iranian scientists. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied those allegations.

And even Netanyahu has shown signs of being gun shy — certainly when compared to his predecessor, the centrist Olmert, who ordered the Israeli wars in Lebanon and Gaza.

The prime minister’s swift deployment of short-range Iron Dome interceptors outside the Hamas-ruled territory of Gaza in April helped scotch Palestinian rocket attacks that might have otherwise drawn an Israeli invasion.

In January 2010, after the United Arab Emirates accused the Mossad of murdering a senior Hamas arms procurer in his Dubai hotel room, Israeli officials whispered that such skulduggery was preferable to the civilian toll of another Gaza war.

Keeping the world guessing as to how — and if — a confrontation might happen is in itself part of Israel’s strategy.

“I hope that the Iranians see an Israeli conspiracy in this,” said Yaalon of the mixed messages emanating from the Netanyahu government and its detractors, like Dagan. “That could help.”

(Edited by Simon Robinson, Crispian Balmer, Chris Kaufman and Sara Ledwith)

BBC News – Russia: Israeli threat of strikes on Iran ‘a mistake’.

Military action against Iran would be a “very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences”, Russia’s foreign minister has warned.

Sergei Lavrov said diplomacy, not missile strikes, was the only way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.

His comments come after Israeli President Shimon Peres said an attack on Iran was becoming more likely.

The UN’s atomic watchdog is expected to say this week that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear arms capability.

Diplomats say the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, due for release on Tuesday or Wednesday, will produce compelling evidence that Iran will find hard to dispute.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is exclusively to generate power for civilian purposes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has said the alleged evidence is a fabrication and part of a multi-pronged US smear campaign against his country.

Time ‘running out’

Mr Lavrov said it was “far from the first time” Israel had threatened strikes against Iran, when asked for his view on Mr Peres’ recent comments.

“Our position on this issue is well-known: this would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,” he told reporters.

Mr Lavrov said “the only path for removing concerns is to create every possible condition” to resume the talks between Iran and six world powers – including Russia – which broke down in December last year.

Shimon Peres said on Sunday: “The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option.”

“I don’t think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons,” he told the Israel Hayom daily.

He made similar comments to Israeli television on Saturday, saying: “I estimate that intelligence services of all these countries are looking at the ticking clock, warning leaders that there was not much time left.

Diplomats, speaking anonymously, have been briefing journalists on the IAEA’s next quarterly report on Iran.

The evidence is said to include intelligence that Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, as well as satellite images of what the IAEA believes is a large steel container used for high-explosives tests related to nuclear arms.

The IAEA has reported for some years that there are unresolved questions about its programme and has sought clarification of Iran’s secretive nuclear activities.

Of this week’s report, one Western diplomat told Reuters news agency: “There are bits of it which clearly can only be for clandestine nuclear purposes. It is a compelling case.”

Hardline Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami warned the IAEA on Monday not to become “an instrument without will in the hands of the United States”.

Syrian forces enter Homs district after bo… JPost – Middle East.

    AMMAN – Troops and militiamen loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad entered a residential district of Homs after six days of tank bombardment that killed scores of people and wounded hundreds in the hotbed of unrest, residents and activists said on Monday.

Army defectors who had taken refuge in Bab Amro and helped defend the neighborhood, which has seen regular street rallies against Assad’s autocratic rule, had withdrawn and loyalist forces moved in overnight, they said.

“They are storming houses now and arresting people, but not many are left in Bab Amro. The shabbiha (pro-Assad militia) have brought pick-up trucks and are looting buildings,” Raed Ahmad, one of the activists, said by phone.

Syrian authorities have banned independent media from Homs, making it impossible to verify events on the ground.

UK Foreign Minister William Hague said his “thoughts are with all those suffering terrible violence in Syria,” in a statement put out via his Twitter account on Monday.

The UK foreign secretary also called on the Arab League “to respond swiftly” to the ongoing violence.