WarSclerotic

Crossing the Rubicon – TheHill.com.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently visited Israel and called for greater engagement between our two countries. Given the fact that it’s difficult to find a closer political bond between two countries anywhere in this galaxy, one would surmise that there’s little distance to travel to cement the relationship between our two democracies. After all, we share similar values, ideals and interests.

There exists, however, a singular and important difference within this triangle of bonded friendship. Israel lives in a neighborhood that is far more unstable than that enjoyed by the United States. The geographic proximity of those whose stated goal is to vanquish the state of Israel — and who could soon have the capacity to do so — causes the Israelis to view threats through a different prism.

Patience and diplomacy might be the virtues of statecraft, but when an avowed enemy is close to placing a nuclear knife on your throat, well, the demands for action are likely to override the pleas for restraint.

Iran has used deceit and obfuscation to paint over the window into their activities. The world is left to speculate whether Iran is a year or more away from putting a nuclear genie into the head of a missile or into the headquarters of a pharmaceutical production facility.

So what is Israel, or the United States, to do? President Obama has intensified former President George W. Bush’s policy of imposing economic sanctions against Iran, and the European Union could cut off future purchases of Iranian oil. Yet many question whether the international community’s imposition of economic hardship on the Iranian oil sector will be sufficient to persuade Iran’s leaders to alter their current uranium-enrichment activities.

In the past, Israelis have not hesitated to attack those whom they believed posed an existential threat to their state. The destruction of Iraqi and Syrian nuclear plants offers proof enough of their determination never to face the threat of a second Holocaust.

Iran, however, presents a far more difficult challenge than those once posed by Saddam Hussein and Bashar al Assad. The elements of Iran’s nuclear program are dispersed over a large geographical area. Many of its research and development facilities are buried underground. Israel might decide to launch an attack against Iran’s facilities, but such an operation would quickly lose the surprise advantage and would likely take many days, not just hours, to complete.

As we assess the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to Israel, it’s important to remember that Iran’s leadership is not entirely irrational. It’s possible, but I believe unlikely, that they would consider conducting a nuclear strike against Israel. The real danger, I think, that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose is that other countries in the region would feel compelled to either develop or purchase nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With more countries joining the nuclear fraternity, the risk that an extremist group would acquire one of these weapons is greatly enhanced. If this were to happen, there is a good chance that Armageddon would play at a theater near you.

Although Israel remains on the front line of nightmare scenarios, it’s important to be mindful that it is not the only nation that would face both the predictable and untoward consequences of a military attack against Iran.

If such a strike were carried out, it would probably succeed in rallying virtually all of the Iranian people to the defense of their country. Any hope that the West might hold for the ripening of Iran’s Green Revolution would quickly dissipate, as Iranian citizens would turn red with hatred for those who supported such an attack. American military and civilian personnel deployed throughout the Gulf region would likely be victims of those who are masters in the dark art of terrorism.

President Obama has asked Israel not to take preemptive, unilateral action. According to news reports, the Israelis have chosen to remain silent. Fair enough — no country is required to disclose to others the place and timing of its military options should a decision be made to exercise them.

Privately, however, the Israelis have an obligation to keep American leadership fully informed of its plans. Israel’s actions have consequences for the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the region. A regional conflict would affect much of the industrialized world.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has offered public assurances that any plans to take military action against Iran are very “far off.” But “far off” is a relative term and can easily become “lift off” if the Israelis decide that diplomacy has failed and they have no other option. But Israel also must understand that if it resorts to military action, it will be taking its friends across the Rubicon with them.

Cohen is a former senator from Maine and secretary of Defense under President Clinton. He is currently the chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group, an international business advisory firm.

Peres salutes Azerbaijan for foil… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics..

Missile Warfare: A Realistid Assessment – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

Recent discussions around a preemptive strike on Iran have included the possible repercussions of such a move, namely missile attacks on Israel. The threat of ballistic missile warfare is perceived as a paradigm shift capable of radically altering modern warfare.

Those who believe that Middle East battlefields of the future will primarily consist of missile attacks upon Israeli cities therefore argue that Israel must prepare itself for such a situation.

Furthermore, since a missile war relegates ground forces to near irrelevance, they claim, geographical and topographical factors will become of lesser importance.

Yet no war in which missiles were employed – from the Iran-Iraq War to the Second Lebanon War – has ever been won without the additional use of maneuvering ground forces. In other words, the use of missiles has never been a deciding factor in any armed conflict.

This is no coincidence, since missiles have limitations that prevent them from becoming a decisive weapon. Their main limitation is inaccuracy, as most are only capable of landing hundreds of meters off-target. This makes the chance of a precise and direct hit very low.

Another significant limitation regards the physics of the explosion itself. The blast caused by the warhead steeply drops as the distance from the blast center increases. Thus, the actual damage indicates a much more limited threat than what superficially seems to be the case. For example, an air-launched bomb weighing one ton will destroy a building if it hits it directly, while at only 45 meters off-target it will cause medium damage and at 60 meters off-target the damage will most likely be very limited.

There are hundreds of missiles in the Middle East. Syria, for example, has a particularly large array of surface-to-surface missiles with ranges of a few hundred kilometers, most of which are low-accuracy. Considering that longer range missiles cost considerably more, the number of 1,500 km-range missiles (capable of covering the distance between Iran and Israel) is likely to be much smaller than the number of 300 km-range missiles. Furthermore, launch and logistics capacities are complicated by the fact that most ballistic missiles used in the Middle East are liquid fueled, which ultimately decreases the launch rate.

Clearly then, the simultaneous launching of hundreds of ballistic missiles is simply unrealistic.

On a countrywide – or even citywide scale – the expected damages and casualties of such missile attacks are low. A bird’s-eye view of any town will show that due to public areas and numerous spaces between buildings, only a fraction of any area is in fact occupied by buildings. It is therefore likely that an attack by dozens of missiles will only cause a small number of direct hits and result in a relatively small number of casualties.

Nonetheless, the psychological impact of such an attack would be quite significant. And of course, a direct hit to a site or facility containing hazardous materials would drastically challenge this calculus. Such a scenario, in which potential damage is extremely high, warrants a separate discussion.

The largest missile battle that has taken place to date was during World War II, specifically from 1944 to 1945, after Germany completed its development of the V-2 ballistic missile, with a warhead of 980 kg and a range of 320 km. Most missiles were fired on Antwerp (approximately 1,660 missiles) and London (approximately 1,400 missiles). Although this huge number of missiles – 3,060 altogether – caused thousands of deaths, it did not prevent the Allies from reaching Berlin.

Considering the current technological capabilities and limitations of the missiles possessed by Israel’s enemies, it seems likely that the current state of missile warfare will remain unchanged for quite some time. Any efforts to alter this will meet constraints, particularly economic considerations, policies pertaining to the sale of missiles, and organizational and logistical hindrances. For example, Syria’s current stockpile mainly consists of the older, liquid fueled Scud-C and D missiles.

Even if Syria is able to acquire more advanced missiles in the future, it would be incapable of replacing its entire missile arsenal in a short time and would still be limited in firepower to a mix of advanced and old technologies.

Next Generation Ballistic Missiles

The Russian SS-26 is an innovative ballistic missile that represents a dramatic change of capacity for such weapons. It is capable of homing and maneuvering even during the final stage of its flight path. While Russia and the US currently possess this type of missile, no Middle East Arab country has yet been able to obtain such a weapon.

Operational since 2006, the SS-26 maintains an almost pinpoint precision of 5-7 meters at its 280 km range. The export version is not equipped with a homing warhead and therefore has a reduced accuracy of 30-70 meters. The arrival of high-accuracy ballistic missiles to the Middle East theater will change the situation, as such missiles pose a threat to military facilities, such as airfields and army depots, as well as to strategic civilian facilities. High-accuracy tactical ballistic missiles can significantly impact the battlefield on the ground by hitting communications nodes, headquarters, bridges, and so on.

The best response to next-generation ballistic missiles will most likely be a combination of deterrence, active defense and passive protection. Deterrence is central to any missile war. Israel must make it perfectly clear that anyone attacking it with ballistic missiles will be exposing its own vital infrastructure to great peril.

One Israeli F-16 aircraft can carry nine tons of highly-accurate bombs (nine times the payload of a Scud missile). This means that the efficiency of one bombardment mission carried out by a single fighter armed precision guided munitions is several times more destructive than in the past.

The defensive means available are missile-to-missile interceptors, systems designed to jam and disrupt attacking missiles’ homing systems, and improved passive protection of critical facilities and domestic residences.

Conclusion

The threat attributed by the general public to missile warfare is somewhat exaggerated. The menace of ballistic missiles should be presented to the public in a realistic manner.

The belief that territory and type of terrain are unimportant in the age of missiles is a dangerous fallacy. We do not know how future war will look.

While missiles fired at Israel’s cities are just one possible scenario, the use of ballistic missiles has never been a deciding factor in any armed conflict.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 161, January 25, 2012
This article is part of a monograph on “The Future Battlefield: Technology’s Impact on Topographical Factors” that will soon be published by the BESA Center.

Brian Stewart: Is there still room for compromise with Iran? – World – CBC News.

Ahmadinejad: Western sanctions c… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his country’s economy would not be damaged by newly imposed Western sanctions, AFP reported. “At one point our trade with Europe was around 90 percent but now it is only approximately 10%, and even this 10% we don’t need… History has shown that the Iranian nation can not be hurt [by Western sanctions],” Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad’s comment came just one day after he agreed to increase bank interest rates on bank deposits up to 21%, hoping to halt a spiraling currency crisis intensified by the new sanctions.

On Monday, the European Union announced new sanctions on Iran which it hopes will deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear program. The sanctions, targeting Iran’s vital oil exports and its central bank, will come into full effect by July 1.

The announcement places the EU and the United States on a unified path aimed at damaging the Iranian economy to force Tehran’s compliance with the international community. Sanctions by the two have already hit the Iranian currency; the rial has been steadily losing value against the dollar, prompting extreme intervention measures by Tehran’s central bank.

Turning to the US, Ahmadinejad said that “for the past 30 years the Americans have not been buying oil from us.” He added that Tehran’s central bank has no relations with the US, according to the AFP report.

British daily The Telegraph quoted him as saying that “they have this excuse that Iran is dodging negotiations while it is not the case… Why should we run away from the negotiations?”

Iran’s terror proxy – JPost – Opinion – Editorials.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 25, 2012, 10:27 PM (GMT+02:00)

Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter-bomber

With its latest acquisitions from Washington and Europe, the Saudi Air Force will have more fighter-bombers of more advanced models that the Israeli Air Force. Deep concern over this was recently relayed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

debkafile‘s Washington and military sources that Israel made its concern known with the utmost discretion so as not to be seen as hampering the expansion of the Saudi Royal Air Force as Riyadh gets set to tackle Tehran should Saudi oil exports be sabotaged by Iranian attacks on its oil production or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, its primary export outlet.
Last month, the US agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 84 advanced F-15SA fighter-bombers worth $29.4 billion. First deliveries are due in 2015. The package included the upgrading of 70 F-15 planes of the Saudi air fleet. Riyadhis also buying 72 advanced Eurofighter Typhoon fighter bombers. All in all, the oil kingdom will have the largest and most sophisticated fighter-bomber fleet in the Middle East.
Israel leaders reminded the Obama administration of its standing pledge to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. The aircraft supplied to the Saudis will place that edge in doubt.
They voiced two additional causes for concern:

1.  One fine day, Saudi Arabia, which has never agreed to peace relations with Israel, may be moved to attack the Jewish state from an air base very close to Israel’s shores. That proximity and the size and quality of its air force will allow dozens of warplanes to penetrate Israel’s air defenses and drop bombs on southern and central Israel.

2.   Israel also fears that four or five Saudi pilots or hired Islamist fliers may one day form an al Qaeda cell inside the Saudi Air Force and conspire to carry out a suicide attack on Israeli cities on the model of al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, most of whose participants were Saudis.

Israeli intelligence officials in close touch with American counterparts asked them if Washington had asked for Saudi assurances about the reliability of the air crews who will man the new F-15SA planes. They were told that no such guarantees had been requested.
For now, Israel has brought its concerns to the notice of the Obama administration without making specific requests to hold up delivery. Israel is conscious that the Gulf region is on tenterhooks over its security and the Saudis are deep in military preparations to beat back potentially aggressive Iranian moves in the wake of the oil embargo approved by the US and the European Union against Tehran’s nuclear program.
Jerusalem also takes into consideration the importance to the flagging American economy of the huge warplane transaction with the Saudis which will support 50,000 jobs in the US air industry and 600 American contractors of aircraft parts.
Obama will certainly not be approachable on this issue while running for re-election.
But none of these considerations allays the deep anxiety prevailing in the top echelons of Israel’s high military and air command over the radical upgrade awarded Saudi air power providing it with the capacity to outclass and outgun Israel.