WarSclerotic

‘Iran strike aftermath couldn’t … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

(This is pretty much how every Israeli, including myself feels.)

    The outcome of a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, no matter how destructive, can never be as bad for Israel as an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, former Mossad chief Danny Yatom said on Wednesday at a security conference at Bar-Ilan University.

Yatom took up a position that is diametrically opposed to that of former Mossad head Meir Dagan, who sparked significant controversy by stating earlier this year that an attack on Iran would be a foolish move that would lead to a war with an unknown outcome.

“There is a big argument over whether to attack Iran or not,” Yatom said. “The argument is legitimate. Some say Israel will pay a high price, no matter who does the attacking,” Yatom added.

“As difficult a price it may be, and even if those predicting apocalyptic results are correct – and I don’t think they are – this is still not as bad as the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb,” he argued.

Israel can’t afford to find itself in the position of having “to wake up every morning and ask, will they go crazy and throw a bomb on us or not,” Yatom said, adding, “the damage that an Iranian nuclear bomb can cause is so great.”

It is impossible to stake the nation’s security on predictions by those who claim a nuclear Iran can be deterred, and that the Iranian regime would not launch a nuclear attack, he said. Yatom acknowledged that rocket attacks would likely ensue from Lebanon and Gaza following a strike, but added that Israel’s response would be “so painful and crushing that rockets will come to an end.”

He added, “Civilian facilities and infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza will be hit. Innocent civilians could be hurt. But the barrage of rockets will not longer be falling over our heads.”

The world does not have much time left to act on Iran, the former Mossad head warned, adding that “there is an evaluation that they crossed the red line. They have the knowledge to make the bomb. All that is needed now is the decision to do it…. The world has a year, probably less.” He also doubted that sanctions would be effective.

Addressing the option of targeting Iran with covert operations, Yatom said that whether or not Israel was linked to such acts, they “won’t stop Iran. They either will have the bomb or not. I think force will have to be used. I don’t think Israel should lead. This is a world problem… [But] should the world stand on the sidelines,  Israel will be fully entitled to use its natural right to self defense.”

Israeli security forces: Turkey nearing military intervention in Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Defense officials in Israel say Turkey is likely to set up secure buffer zones in Syria, near the border, to allow armed Syrian opposition groups to battle against the regime.

By Anshel Pfeffer

Israeli security forces officials said Wednesday that they believe Turkey is nearing a military intervention in Syria, in order to create a secure buffer zone for opposition activists.

Thus far, Ankara has given shelter to some 20,000 refugees who escaped the deadly crackdown by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s security forces, and also housed Syrian opposition groups.

	A protester facings riot police at Khalidia, near Homs, Syria, November 4, 2011.
	Photo by: Reuters

In recent days, however, Israeli officials said that according to an updated assessment of the situation, Turkey is expected to set up secure buffer zones on its border with Syria that would allow armed opposition groups to organize against the Syrian regime from bases that would be protected by the Turkish army.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently hardened his stance against Assad and suggested for the first time the possibility of foreign intervention in Syria.

Wide protests against Assad’s regime have been ongoing across Syria, but in recent weeks the focal point of the armed resistance by army defectors was in the three northern cities close to Turkey’s border – Idlib, Homs, and Hama.

According to various reports, there is an area in Idlib where the Syrian army lost control and has the potential to become an independent, rebel-controlled area, such as the city of Benghazi in Libya, which was seized by the rebels at an early stage of the revolution and became the temporary base for the opposition movement.

Israeli security forces: Turkey nearing military intervention in Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Defense officials in Israel say Turkey is likely to set up secure buffer zones in Syria, near the border, to allow armed Syrian opposition groups to battle against the regime.

By Anshel Pfeffer

Israeli security forces officials said Wednesday that they believe Turkey is nearing a military intervention in Syria, in order to create a secure buffer zone for opposition activists.

Thus far, Ankara has given shelter to some 20,000 refugees who escaped the deadly crackdown by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s security forces, and also housed Syrian opposition groups.

	A protester facings riot police at Khalidia, near Homs, Syria, November 4, 2011.
	Photo by: Reuters

In recent days, however, Israeli officials said that according to an updated assessment of the situation, Turkey is expected to set up secure buffer zones on its border with Syria that would allow armed opposition groups to organize against the Syrian regime from bases that would be protected by the Turkish army.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently hardened his stance against Assad and suggested for the first time the possibility of foreign intervention in Syria.

Wide protests against Assad’s regime have been ongoing across Syria, but in recent weeks the focal point of the armed resistance by army defectors was in the three northern cities close to Turkey’s border – Idlib, Homs, and Hama.

According to various reports, there is an area in Idlib where the Syrian army lost control and has the potential to become an independent, rebel-controlled area, such as the city of Benghazi in Libya, which was seized by the rebels at an early stage of the revolution and became the temporary base for the opposition movement.

Is Israel The Only Key To Preventing Iran From Getting A Nuclear Weapon? | Fox News.

While the gravity of Iran’s threat to global security has deepened with the passage of time, world recognition of the dangers that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose, and what should be done to prevent that eventuality, has not kept pace.

The new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, the most comprehensive and penetrating assessment of the Iranian nuclear program, should have been a wake-up call for urgent action. But the response has been uninspiring. While the IAEA board endorsed IAEA Director Amano’s concerns, its resolution adopted last Friday fell short on follow-up by omitting any call for additional UN Security Council action or other punitive measures.

Since prospects for a fifth Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran are unlikely, key Western governments are taking steps to expand and toughen existing economic sanctions. The boldest so far was Britain’s decision Monday to end all dealings with the Iranian Central Bank. That initiative would have greater impact if the United States and other countries invoked similarly strong measures.

So far, however, new American and Canadian sanctions stopped short of a total ban on the central bank. While the European Union is poised to impose another round of sanctions later this week, the refusal of Russia and China to join in these efforts undermines the global campaign to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons. The obstinate posture assumed by these powers may ironically enhance the chance for some kind of military action, precisely the outcome Moscow and Beijing profess to oppose.

Leading American pundits have argued for some time that military action is the only way to end Iran’s nuclear-weapons quest. They do not believe that the economic sanctions imposed by the U.N., U.S., EU and other countries can be effective.

These experts share a view that only one country, Israel, is both able and willing to do the job. Major American media have been obsessed, almost wishfully, for several years now with the prospect of an Israeli military strike, mentioning Israel in almost every news article on Iran’s nuclear program.

President Obama has made clear that all options are still on the table. Several Republican contenders for the presidency have openly stated their support for U.S. military intervention. And, public opinion polls show a majority of Americans would favor an Israeli or American military attack.

In its last poll on Iran, taken in April 2010, Fox News found that 65 percent of Americans support, and 25 percent oppose, the U.S. taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

A CNN poll found 59 percent would support military action if economic and diplomatic efforts fail to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Indeed, 23 percent didn’t want to wait, and would have supported military action when the poll was taken in February 2010.

And, AJC, in its latest annual survey of American Jews, found 56 percent would support, and 38 percent oppose, the U.S. taking military action against Iran. When asked about Israel, 68 percent would support and 26 percent oppose Jerusalem doing the job.

Comments by Israeli officials around the IAEA report release brought to the fore concerns about whether and when an overt attack on Iran might occur. Ultimately, Israel will decide what is necessary to protect its citizens.

But unlike the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, or the nuclear site in Syria in 2007, attacking Iran would not be a total surprise. It is one of the most talked about potential assaults in recent history.

Along with the IAEA report, renewed speculation about Israel or the U.S. exercising the military option should spur a mobilization of international economic and political sanctions. The right mix of non-military measures, particularly focused on Iran’s all-important energy and banking sectors, still might stop the Iranian nuclear threat.

To prevent an attack, though, sanctions must be punishingly effective. The onus is, first and foremost, on those major nations that continue to do business as usual with Iran.

Netanyahu calls for stronger sanctions on Iran than those imposed by U.S. – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

PM says Tehran’s nuclear ambitions must be curbed after IAEA report indicated that Iran had worked on designing a nuclear bomb.

By Reuters

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Wednesday for stronger sanctions on Iran than those imposed this week by the United States, Britain and Canada to try to curb its nuclear ambitions.

“Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If anyone had any doubts, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) report certainly dispelled them,” Netanyahu told parliament, referring to the UN body’s findings on Nov. 8 that suggested Iran had worked on designing a nuclear bomb.

	Netanyahu at a session of the Knesset.
	Photo by: AP

“It is important to impose sanctions, tough sanctions, on this regime – even tougher than those that have been imposed over the past few days,” he said, without elaborating on measures he believes should be taken.

On Monday, the United States, Britain and Canada announced new sanctions on Iran’s energy and financial sectors, steps analysts said may raise pressure on Tehran but were unlikely to halt its nuclear program.

The United States named Iran as an area of “primary money laundering concern”, a step designed to dissuade non-U.S. banks from dealing with it; blacklisted 11 entities suspected of aiding its nuclear programs; and expanded sanctions to target companies that aid its oil and petrochemical industries.

The United States stopped short, however, of targeting Iran’s central bank, a step that could have cut it off from the global financial system, sent oil prices skyrocketing and jeopardized U.S. and European economic recovery.

In a coordinated action, Britain ordered all British financial institutions to stop doing business with their Iranian counterparts, including the Iranian central bank.

Canada said it would ban the export of all goods used in Iran’s petrochemical, oil and gas industry and “block virtually all transactions with Iran”, including with its central bank, with an exception for Iranian-Canadians to send money home.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu on Monday to brief him on the new sanctions. Like the United States, Israel has said all options, including a military one, are on the table in trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear arms.

In a statement issued after his conversation with Clinton, Netanyahu’s office quoted him as saying: “Such sanctions make clear to the Iranians the price (they will pay) will be high if they continue to their nuclear program.”

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and is aimed at generating electricity. Israel has said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a danger to its existence.

Last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called for “lethal sanctions” against Iran, including steps to halt imports of Iranian oil and exports of refined petroleum to the Islamist Republic.

But he said such moves would require the cooperation of the United States, Europe, India, China and Russia, and he did not believe such a coalition could be formed.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 23, 2011, 7:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

After deploying three warships in Syrian waters, Moscow continues to beat war drums against the United States followed closely by Tehran. Wednesday, Nov. 23, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told state television: “I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to ensure if necessary that we can destroy the command and control systems” of the planned US missile-defense system in Europe. These measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.”

Iranian Supreme Leader’s top advisor for military affairs Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi came next. He said: “The Iranian Revolutionary Guards controls the identity and destination of every US warship which intends to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.”

debkafile‘s military sources report that the US missile shield’s command and control systems which the Russian president spoke of destroying are linked directly to Israel’s missile defense network against Iranian, Syria and Hizballah missiles and the X-Band radar station located in the southern Israeli Negev.
Medvedev’s threat to American “command and control systems” was therefore comprehensive. It referred not just to the US anti-missile shield facilities planned for Europe, but also to preparing measures for use (“if necessary”) – in the course of  a possible American or Israeli attack on Iran or Syria – for striking the US missile defense systems in Europe before they can intercept Iranian missiles.
Knocking out the European shield would leave Israel completely exposed to Iranian missile attack.

In a very few terse words, the Russian president has made it clear that the Kremlin will not allow Iran and its Middle East allies be prevented from missile retaliation in the event of war. That threat also explains why at least two of the three Russian naval vessels moved into Syrian territorial waters last week were equipped for surveillance and electronic warfare, exactly what is needed for a Russian operation to destroy US missile shield command and control centers near the Syrian border, such as the one stationed in Turkey.

In another part of his announcement, President Medvedev also threatened to opt out of the new START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks if the US proceeds with the missile shield without meeting Russia’s demand for it to be managed jointly, which NATO has rejected.
The Iranian General Savavi’s assertion of the IRGC’s exclusive control of the Strait of Hormuz was in direct response to the crossing of two US carriers, the USS Stennis and USS Bush, through the strait to take up position opposite the Iranian coast. This was reported exclusively by debkafile Monday, Nov. 21.

Russia joins U.S., Britain in backing Israel’s opposition to nuclear-free Mideast – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is convening now in Vienna for forum on the matter; Israel believes peace must come before nuclear-free zone achieved.

Russia has joined the U.S. and Britain in backing Israel’s view that the Middle East cannot be turned into a zone free of nuclear arms without progress on peace in the region.

The three stations told dozens of representatives from the Middle East and the international community gathered Tuesday at the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s headquarters in Vienna that such zones “do no exist in isolation from other security factors.”

That dovetails with Israel’s view that peace must prevail in the Middle East before it can be made into a nuclear free zone. But it clashes with the Arab position that the two issues are separate. The Arabs say Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal is the biggest threat to Mideast peace.

The statement to the closed meeting was made available to The Associated Press.

The first meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency dealing with a nuclear-free Middle East assembled on Monday, with Israeli representatives describing the Arab nations’ criticism of Israeli nuclear policy as unexpectedly sedate.

As a result of Iran’s boycotting of the meeting, the most critical of the Arab IAEA members was Syria, whose representative depicted Israel’s alleged undeclared nuclear arsenal as a “grave and serious threat.”

But officials reporting on the closed meeting said that except for Syria and Lebanon, its lockstep ally, other Arab nations speaking at the meeting were lower-key than usual in chastising Israel refusing to open its nuclear program to UN perusal.

One Israeli official, who agreed to speak under conditions of anonymity said the atmosphere was “much less confrontational, much less hostile” than at other IAEA gatherings focused on the Middle East, which traditionally see Muslim nations speaking with one strongly critical voice about Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

A spokesperson for Israel Atomic Energy Commission told Haaretz that Israel decided to go ahead with the special meeting after it was decided discussion would.

Israel’s traditional position is that a serious discussion of a nuclear-free Mideast would only take place after certain ground rules were established, such as recognition of Israel by the Arab states, as well as peace agreements that would include security arrangements and an agreement on regional disarmament from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

The session is not expected to reach any decisions, but serves as a precedent by having taken place.

In toning down their comments, most Mideast participants at the 97-nation meeting appeared to be heeding an appeal by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano.
In opening remarks made available to reporters, Amano urged Mideast nations to focus on “fresh thinking,” adding he hoped they would be able to move “beyond simply restating long-established positions.”

Officials and participants warned against high expectations at the gathering, which is hearing presentations on already established nuclear-free zones elsewhere as a way of stimulating discussion on the Middle East and is not meant to reach any decisions.

A decision last year by the 189 members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty to convene a UN-sponsored conference on establishing a Middle East nuclear-free zone in 2012 was an incentive for most of the region’s Muslim nations to meet this year with Israel for the exploratory Vienna talks.

Obama aide: End of Assad regime will serve severe blow to Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon says no option off the table in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, adding that Islamic Republic’s isolation is causing rifts in Tehran regime.

By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Iran threat Iran nuclear

The toppling of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would serve a serious blow to Iran and would serve to further isolate the Islamic Republic, a top U.S. official said on Tuesday, adding that change in Syria was “inevitable.”

President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, speaking a day after the United States announced new measures against Iran over its nuclear program, said that “end of the Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region yet—a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran.”

Referring to the new set of Iran sanctions, which mainly targeted the country’s energy sector, Donilon said that Washington was “certainly not ruling out additional steps against Iran’s banking sector, including the Central Bank. As we do all this, we are not taking any options off the table. No one should doubt that.”

“Even as Tehran continues to engage in dangerous and destabilizing behavior, Iran today is fundamentally weaker, more isolated, more vulnerable and badly discredited than ever,” the top Obama aide said, saying that “tremendous pressure at home” was causing divisions between the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Speaking on the little backing Iran receives in the region, Donilon said that Iran was “basically down to just two principal remaining allies—the Assad clique in Syria and Hezbollah.”

“And, like Iran, they too are fundamentally at odds with the democratic forces now sweeping the region. The Assad regime is thoroughly isolated and universally condemned. The Arab League, appalled by the regime’s brutality, has shown remarkable leadership and taken the extraordinary step of suspending Syria’s membership,” he added.

Donilon also commented on Turkey’s stance against the Assad regime, saying “Erdogan government—which spent a decade deepening ties with Syria—says it will no longer be fooled by Assad’s promises, and today, Prime Minister Erdogan has joined the international chorus calling on Assad to step down.”

Leaders of Iran, concluded Donilon, “have taken a great nation and an ancient civilization and turned it into a pariah that is unable to integrate or engage with the world. That is a tragedy….. Weakened at home, diminished in the region, and isolated in the world—this is the dramatic shift in Iran’s fortunes that has occurred over the past three years. In this sense, we have succeeded in changing the dynamic that was at work when President Obama took office.”

“If Tehran does not change course, the pressure will continue to grow. Working with allies and partners, we will continue to increase sanctions,” the Obama aide said, adding: “With our Gulf Cooperation Council partners, we will continue to build a regional defense architecture that prevents Iran from threatening its neighbors.”

“We will continue to deepen Iran’s isolation, regionally and globally. And, again—even as the door to diplomacy remains open—we will take no option off the table. For our focus and purpose are clear. Pressure is a means not an end, and our policy is firm. We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” he added.

Asked at the end of his speech about the chances of success with regard to Russia and China’s unwillingness to cooperate – Donilon said: “We actually had very good cooperation with Russians and the Chinese as we built this unified effort to force the choice on Iran.”

Poll: Half could support Iran attack – MJ Lee – POLITICO.com.

A majority of American voters believe economic sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons won’t work and half say the United States should take military action if sanctions fail, a new poll shows.

In a Quinnipiac University survey, 60 percent said the sanctions placed against Iran by the U.S. and its allies have not been effective, while 33 percent said they have been effective.

Asked whether the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, 55 percent of voters said it shouldn’t, while 36 percent said it should. However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force.

If Israel were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program, only 6 percent of voters believe the U.S. should oppose Israel’s action. They were almost evenly split between those who said America should support Israel’s attack on Iran, 46 percent, and those who said the U.S. should remain neutral, 44 percent.

In general, the majority of American voters, 66 percent, say they have been following the news about Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons either very closely or somewhat closely. An even bigger majority of them, 88 percent, say Iran’s nuclear weapons development is either a very serious or somewhat serious threat to America’s national security.

Almost one of two voters, 46 percent, approve of the way President Barack Obama has been handling the situation in Iraq, while 38 percent say they disapprove.

Earlier this month, the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency released a report that said Iran is on its way to building nuclear weapons, raising the Obama administration’s concerns about the country’s nuclear ambitions.

Days after the IAEA report was published, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly warned that if the U.S. or Israel considers attacking his country’s nuclear facilities, they should expect a “strong slap and an iron fist.”

On Monday, Obama ordered new sanctions to be imposed on individuals who have contributed to Iran’s development of petroleum resources or production of petrochemicals.

Iran nuclear stand-off: Why the war drumbeat has died down – CSMonitor.com.

Western countries are on alert for any decisive moves from Tehran that hint at an ‘all-out bid’ for an Iranian nuclear weapon. But in the meantime they are sticking to diplomatic measures.

Two weeks after a much-anticipated report on Iran‘s nuclear program was released, Iran and its Western critics are still engaged in diplomatic battles but the beating of war drums has quieted.

Because Iran’s progress has been mostly in the form of research, rather than any actual infrastructure, Western states will likely only take economic and diplomatic measures until Iran makes any decisive moves – such as expelling international monitors – that hint at an “all-out bid” for nuclear weapons, according to Reuters.

Today Iran announced it is preparing to downgrade diplomatic relations with Britain in retaliation for London‘s decision to cut all ties between Iran and the British banking system, which will deprive Iran of access to a critical international financial hub. The British ambassador to Tehran will be expelled if the emergency bill goes through, Agence France-Presse reports.

Since the release of the recent report from the United Nations nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the US and Canada have also ratcheted up their own measures against Iran. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for his part, has called on world leaders to freeze their ties with Iran’s central bank. However, the angry rhetoric from Israel threatening a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program has quieted, and the fight seems like it will remain a diplomatic one for now.

The report, which suggested that Iran could have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, actually revealed little new information about the nuclear program, Reuters reports – although the rhetoric from Western countries is heightened enough to imply otherwise.

But for now at least, experts say there was nothing in the IAEA report that makes military action more likely. If anything, it points to the limits of the effectiveness of a military campaign, which would have to be weighed against the risk of starting a potentially catastrophic regional war.

The report was mainly based on information already known to Western intelligence agencies. It did not reveal the sort of new evidence of immediate danger that would lead Israel or the United States to take a decision now about whether they can live with an Iranian atomic bomb or must take urgent military action to prevent it.

“We know what’s going on in (the monitored sites) now, and what’s going on in them now is not indicative of an Iran that’s racing toward a nuclear weapon,” said [Andrea Berger of Britain’s Royal United Services Institute]. “There might be something that would compel a change in thinking on the military option, but right now it doesn’t have much utility. So other options might be better.”

For now, the US sees its diplomatic measures as having an impact. President Obama‘s national security adviser, Thomas Donilon, said Tuesday that the US pressure campaign has “left Iran’s leaders economically strained, diplomatically isolated, and rent by internal divisions,” The New York Times reports. According to Mr. Donilon, Iran is having trouble obtaining materials for its uranium enrichment program and the economy is suffering from 20 percent inflation, high unemployment, and low growth.

However, according to a CNN analysis of Donilon’s speech, the Obama administration official admitted “the Iranian regime has not fundamentally altered its behavior.” He also praised China and Russia‘s cooperation and coordination with Western countries, saying that they supported previous rounds of sanctions implemented at the United Nations level and enforced them.

This time around, Russia and China – both veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council – have been outspoken critics of countries’ individual decisions to increase pressure on Iran. They say such actions are aggravating the situation. “We believe pressuring and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the Iranian nuclear issue. On the contrary, they will complicate and exacerbate the issue and intensify confrontation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Wednesday, according to Iran’s PressTV.

Reuters reports that there are many possible steps for the US and its allies between their current pressure on Iran and a military option, particularly in the form of “economic weapons” – for example, formally sanctioning Iran’s central bank, which is a clearinghouse for nearly all oil and gas payments. There are also sabotage and cyber warfare, such as the Stuxnet virus that hit Iranian nuclear facilities.