WarSclerotic

Half of Syria no longer under Assad’s control, opposition says – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Opposition sources also report regime taking away sole responsibility for dealing with uprising from Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Daoud Rajha.

By Zvi Bar’el

Syrian opposition leader Colonel Riyad al-As’ad, commander of the Syria Free Army, said on Wednesday that around half of the country is no longer under the control of President Bashar Assad’s forces.

The Syria Free Army – which has managed to recruit over 25,000 army deserters and citizens so far – has apparently refrained from taking control of more territory out of fear that the regime would respond with more force and yield a significant increasing in the number of casualties.

This is also apparently the reason that the opposition group retreated from the suburbs of the capital Damascus on Sunday, following an attack by regime forces, in which opposition forces were shelled, and fired on by tanks.

	Colonel Riyad al-Assad, commander of the ‘Syria Free Army.’
	Photo by: Reuters

Opposition sources have also reported that President Assad has decided to split the responsibilities of his top military officers, taking away from Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Daoud Rajha the sole mandate for dealing with the crisis that has gripped Syria since March last year.

The mandate has passed partly to former Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani, who will be responsible for military operations, while General Jamil al-Hassan will be tasked with repression and arrest of opposition members organizing demonstration in the streets. Two of President Assad’s nephews, Rami Makhlouf and Hani Makhlouf, will be charged with logistics.

Assad’s brother and brother-in-law will be tasked with imposing a blockade on families of the Syrian political establishment, in order to prevent them from defecting.

If these reports are correct, they point to a very heavy pressure on Assad, and indicate fear bordering on hysteria as to what is happening in Syria.

Today, despite an increase in the number of defectors, the highest ranks of the military are still loyal to the regime. Some of those who have defected indicate that there are splits among the ranks whose origin is battles of ego within the ranks themselves, as opposed to a real opposition to the Assad regime.

It seems that some of the senior officers who recently defected intend to set up their own headquarters for the defector army, and it is not clear whether the commander of the “Syria Free Army” will join them or whether he will manage “his army” separately.

Violence continued on Wednesday as the opposition reported that at least 20 people were killed by Syrian government forces in a restive area on the outskirts of Damascus.

The deaths in the area of Reef Damascus included six army defectors, Syrian activist Ayman Idlibi told DPA.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Arab League and Western powers said at a UN Security Council meeting they were not seeking military action to end the bloodshed in Syria, in an effort to bring Russia and China onboard for a solution.

The high profile council meeting in New York was attended by several government ministers and a high-ranking delegation from the Arab League.

In Israel, A Nonstop Debate On Possible Iran Strike : NPR.

Israeli soldiers take part in an exercise at the Shizafon army base, in the Negev Desert north of the southern city of Eilat, on Tuesday. There are growing signs that Israel may be planning a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

January 31, 2012

In Israel, there is daily speculation over whether Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the near future. The debate is not only over whether Israel should strike Iran, but what the costs and benefits might be from such a strike.

Israel believes that Iran is working to build a nuclear bomb, and dismisses Iran’s assertion that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

In Washington on Tuesday, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asked America’s top intelligence officials the question on everyone’s mind: Is Israel preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities?

While Director of National Intelligence James Clapper declined to make his assessment public, he did say that “Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.”

Enlarge Jack Guez/AFP/Getty ImagesIsraeli army snipers pack their gear after an army exercise at the Shizafon army base, in the Negev Desert north of the southern city of Eilat, on Tuesday.

That echoes an earlier American estimate that Iran could cross the nuclear threshold this year.

The United States and the European Union have agreed on tough new sanctions against Iran’s oil industry and central bank, aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Those moves were welcomed in Israel as a sign that the international community was taking the Iranian nuclear threat seriously.

But still, the general feeling in Israel is that sanctions aren’t enough.

Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, the director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, has been deeply involved in assessing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“The reason I’m skeptical about [sanctions] is that for the Iranians, the idea of getting a nuclear weapon is so important that even if these sanctions are causing them a lot of trouble, they would still be more inclined to continue the project in spite of the sanctions,” says Kuperwasser.

“They are getting closer and closer. They build better and better capability to produce a nuclear weapon. And once they have the capability, it is becoming more difficult to stop them before they turn this capability into a reality and have the weapon,” he says.

Limited Strike, Limited Damage

In recent days, there has been a flurry of high-level meetings between the U.S. and Israel — including a visit to Washington last week by the head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.

Some analysts in Israel believe that Israel that is preparing to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities soon.

Ronen Bergman, one of Israel’s foremost military experts, says there is “a high probability” that Israel might strike Iran in 2012.” His prediction appeared in the Jan. 30 New York Times Magazine.

Others disagree with him and say Israel is using the threat of an attack to push the international community toward tougher sanctions and to galvanize a reluctant America into action.

They also question whether Israel actually has the capability to inflict serious damage. Analysts and military officials say Iran has been moving some of its critical nuclear facilities deep underground. And not only are Iran’s installations protected, they are also scattered around the country.

But Bergman says the objective of an Israeli strike is limited in scope.

“According to the Israeli assessment, a successful strike, a strike that would be conducted according to planning, would be able not to destroy the project — nobody thinks that Israel is able to destroy it, even not the Americans, but to inflict a significant damage that would end with a delay of three to five years,” says Bergman.

Threat Of War As Deterrent

And that has led some to go beyond the questions of “will they or won’t they?” and “can they?” to “should they?”

Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst in Tel Aviv, says that most reports he’s seen say that an attack would only set the Iranian nuclear program back two to three years.

“This is not long enough. This is not long enough in any way, shape or form to justify a military strike against the Iranian nuclear program,” he says.

“A military strike would rally people around the program, reluctantly even, in some cases,” he says. “And it would push the regime to rebuild its nuclear program. It means that Israel may have to keep bombing Iran every three years. Is this the scenario that we want to live?”

Israel has already bombed the nuclear facilities of two countries: Syria and Iraq. Neither government retaliated.

But Bergman says there are several doomsday scenarios if Israel goes to war with Iran.

“A rain of rockets from Hezbollah in the north, Iran and Hamas in the south, that the Israeli population is not really protected against,” he says.

And that, Bergman says, more than anything, may stay Israel’s hand. He says despite all the recent drills preparing the Israeli population for possible attack, the country isn’t psychologically prepared for what a war with Iran could unleash.

“If it wasn’t for this consideration,” Bergman says, “Israel would have attacked long ago.”

Obama’s War of Words With Iranian Leaders Is Unlike Bush’s Iraq Campaign – Bloomberg.

President Barack Obama drew a bipartisan standing ovation from members of Congress last week when he warned Iran that pursuing nuclear weapons is a red line the Islamic Republic shouldn’t cross.

“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” Obama said to sustained applause during his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.

While the Obama administration’s warnings to Iran may sound like an echo of the Bush administration’s drumbeat for war with Iraq a decade ago, they differ in two critical ways, according to current and former officials and analysts.

The Obama administration’s motives, they said, are the opposite of Bush’s, and they are consistent with the U.S. intelligence community’s nearly unanimous analysis of Iran’s nuclear efforts and ties to international terrorism.

The Bush administration was seeking to build support for a war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, while the Obama administration is trying to avert a war by warning Iran of the perils if it proceeds toward producing nuclear weapons, said three administration officials. All three spoke on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to discuss the matter.

Second, the current administration’s allegations about Iran are largely consistent with the consensus in the 16-agency U.S. intelligence community, which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper outlined to the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday.

Nuclear Activities

Iran, he said, “is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities, which can be used for either civil or weapons purposes.” Still, he said: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

The Bush administration’s charges about Iraq’s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and ties to al-Qaeda were based largely on information provided by Iraqi exiles and collected outside of regular intelligence channels by independent cells overseen by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many U.S. and other intelligence professionals distrusted the exiles’ assertions, many of which eventually were found to be false.

The Obama administration “is being more conservative about Iran than the Bush administration was about Iraq,” Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who now heads the Middle East Program at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies policy center, said in an e-mail.

‘Disorienting Period’

“That probably partly has to do with the fact that we’re not in the disorienting period that followed 9/11, and partly that the difficulty of long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has made ground wars a less attractive option than one might have appeared earlier,” he said. “Different presidential temperaments and notions of leadership play a role here, too.”

Obama, who took office in 2009 determined to seek common ground with Iran, has taken a harder line as Iran’s leaders have ignored or rebuffed public and secret U.S. approaches, said one of the administration officials.

As Iran has continued its nuclear program, most recently firing up a new, deeply buried uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom, the president and other officials have stepped up their warnings to Tehran.

Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the CBS News program “60 Minutes” on Jan. 8 that the U.S. is preparing a military option against Iran “in a timely fashion.”

Three Audiences

“The Iranians should never think that there’s a reluctance” to use force to stop them, Dennis Ross, who served two years on Obama’s National Security Council and a year as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special adviser on Iran, said in an interview Jan. 9.

That drumbeat has three audiences, said two of the administration officials — in Iran, at home and in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other officials have repeatedly said all options are on the table in ensuring Iran doesn’t obtain nuclear weapons.

“The administration, even though it does not want a war, is talking tough about Iran not only in the hope of swaying the Iranians but also because of the political need to do so and to try to hold off pressure from warhawks in both the United States and Israel,” said Paul Pillar, a longtime CIA officer who now teaches at Georgetown University, in an e-mail.

Reassuring Israel

In an election year, when the president and his party need support of Democrats who back Israel, Obama needs to hold off Israel from attacking Iran without his being seen as doing so, said a former Bush administration official, who spoke anonymously because he still has a security clearance.

There is no certainty that Obama will succeed in deterring Iran from a decision to produce nuclear weapons or Israel from taking military action to prevent that outcome.

“I believe the President believes that building the pressure offers the best way to change Iran’s behavior through non-military means,” Ross said in an e-mail. “But because I believe he is serious about the objective, he is ready to use force if all else fails.”

As tensions rise, administration officials said they are increasingly concerned that a miscalculation by either side could trigger both a war that sends oil prices skyrocketing and a worldwide terror campaign by Iran and its proxies such as the radical Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah.

Already, Clapper testified, there is evidence that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian officials “have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Iran becoming ‘more willing’ to attack US, spy chief claims | Irish Examiner.

By Dan de Luce

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Iran is prepared to launch attacks inside the US, a top American intelligence official has claimed.

Jim Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said Iran was “more willing to conduct an attack in the US in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime”.

He was speaking before the senate intelligence committee. In his written remarks to senators, Clapper also said an alleged plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US showed Iran might be more willing now to carry out attacks on US soil.

“Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the US or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against [Saudi Arabia’s] ambassador as well as Iranian leaders’ perceptions of US threats against the regime,” he said.

Meanwhile, US intelligence chiefs said sanctions and diplomacy still have a chance to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program as Tehran’s leaders have shown a rational “cost-benefit approach” in their calculations.

The officials suggested to senators military conflict with Iran was not inevitable despite soaring tensions with Tehran and a war of nerves over the Strait of Hormuz. “We judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran,” said Mr Clapper.

“Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran’s security, prestige, and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear programme.”

He said economic sanctions were taking a toll and described a worsening rift between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The overriding goal of Iran’s leaders remained “regime survival” and it was too early to say how economic strains triggered by a wave of tougher sanctions would affect their decisions, CIA director David Petraeus told the same hearing.

With a run on the Iranian currency, inflationary pressures and unemployment, the sanctions were “biting” more now than ever before, said Gen Petraeus.

“I think what we have to see now is how does that play out, what is the level of popular discontent inside Iran, does that influence the strategic decision making of the supreme leader and the regime?” he said.

When asked about the likelihood of pre-emptive military action by Israel, Clapper said he would prefer to answer the question in a closed-door session but said sanctions might force Tehran to change course.

“Our hope is that the sanctions, particularly those which have been recently implemented, will have the effect of inducing a change in Iranian policy toward their apparent pursuit of a nuclear capability,” he said.

“Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue right now.”

The hearing confirmed US intelligence services have not changed their view of Iran’s nuclear program since issuing an assessment last year. The 16 spy agencies believe Iran’s leaders are divided over whether to build nuclear weapons and have yet to take a decision to press ahead.

After a damning report in November by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, the US and the EU have ratcheted up sanctions on Iran. The measures focus on Iran’s vital oil industry and central bank in a bid to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment work, which the West suspects masks a drive to build an atomic bomb. Iran insists its nuclear project is peaceful.

Israel Edges Closer to Iran Attack | US Opinion and Editorial Right Side News.

Israel (and the world) is edging closer, everyday, to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

Completely disgusted with the Obama Regime’s “pretty please” approach to diplomacy with Iran, and frustrated with the US government’s “hovering” and insistence that Israel notify the US before any such attack, Israel is leaning forward and chomping at the bit to make the hit and make it ASAP.

Recent reports tell of an Israeli drone capable of reconnaissance, surveillance,  — and attack – that crashed on a test flight over Israel recently.  News reports of the incident resulted in tensions being raised one more notch.

The Israeli drone – a Heron TP – has a range of well over 4,000 miles.  Iran is roughly 1,000 miles from Israel.

The Heron is a BIG airplane.  It has a wingspan nearly equal to that of a 737 Airliner — approximately 85 feet. It can carry a payload of well over a ton.

According to a report in the Washington Times the Heron TP, which soars as high as 40,000 feet, would likely play a key role in an attack on Iran.  The plane can be utilized for recon and surveillance or “for firing rockets, and can be used in a variety of missions such as aerial refueling, jamming communications and relaying ground control in Israel to manned aircraft over a distant target.” (SOURCE)

The Heron TP is not a new aircraft.  It has been in service for at least two years.

While Israel feels pressure from Iran, it also must keep an eye over it’s should watching the “New” Egyptian government. Egypt’s recently elected parliament has said it has no intention of renewing the its long standing peace treaty with Israel. To Israel’s north, Syria is in flames with Assad’s government slaughtering its citizens in a near Syrian civil war.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that Assad, Syria’s dictator, could stir up trouble with it’s southern neighbor, Israel, to redirect the attention of it’s people and take some of the pressure off Syria’s unpopular government.

Israel is in a world of trouble with threats from all sides — not including the so-called Palestinians, who are, in fact, Arabs. They are pushing the UN to carve a Palestinian state out of Israeli land.

The entire Middle East is in flames with a regional war almost certain in the immediate future.  Any “regional” war in the Middle East, will, of necessity, involve most of the industrialized nations of the west – including the US and the UK.  The Middle East is, of course, the source of much of the world’s oil and that oil must continue to flow even if the price is paid, as it almost certainly will be, in blood.

Here in America, we are confused at our government’s downsizing of the US military.  It makes no sense.  We are on the cusp of a war that has the potential to make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq … and even Libya, look like Sunday School picnics.

I have a theory as to why Obama is pushing this draw down of the US military.  It is far-fetched, I grant you, but the Obama Regime is a past master at utterly stupid decision making, so this theory is as good as anyone else’s – at the moment.

Hypothetically, just suppose, the idea is to allow the Middle East to engage in a war with very little involvement by the US. It would most likely be a protracted war that would reduce the flow of oil to a trickle.  That would send oil prices and fuel prices for transportation, fuel to heat our homes, and the myriad other uses we have for petroleum products astronomically high.

Americans would, of necessity, be forced to cut back on oil consumption.  That would, supposedly, be good for the environment. Of course, our economy would collapse entirely and set the stage for a takeover of the American government by socialists who will provide a way to “restore” America — as a socialist country.

Far-fetched, you say?  Really?  Is it really THAT far-fetched?  Think about it:  These are leftists, Marxists, socialists, communists, democrats, anarchists, and yes, environmentalist.  We have come to believe that environmentalism is nothing more that a religion based on Marxism.

Remember:  Just because it is a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean there isn’t a conspiracy.

The US is about to be drawn into a near world war – and we are cutting back our military?   This entire scenario lends itself to all sorts of conspiracy theories.  I’m sure you have your own.

In the meantime, the Obama Regime is allowing our only friend in the region, Israel, to hang out there, twisting in the wind, feeling for all the world like a sacrificial lamb.

Yes, a war between Israel and Iran is on the agenda.  It could be months away, or it could be before sunrise tomorrow.And it could be a nuclear war.

Group urges credible U.S. military threat to Iran | Reuters.

(Reuters) – The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran’s nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

The report by a Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans and independents is to be formally issued on Wednesday and comes amid speculation about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran.

There is little evidence to suggest that U.S. President Barack Obama has any significant interest in the possibility of a military strike against Iran, though his administration has repeatedly said that all options are on the table.

To a lesser degree there has also been debate about a U.S. attack, an idea advocated by former Pentagon defense planner Matthew Kroenig in his recent Foreign Affairs Magazine article, “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option.”

The BPC report’s central thesis is that to persuade Iran to address questions about its nuclear program via negotiations, economic sanctions must be accompanied by a credible threat of military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel,” said the report, entitled “Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock.”

CREDIBLE THREAT

Tensions between Iran and the West have grown as the United States and its European allies have tightened economic sanctions by targeting the oil exports that drive the Iranian economy.

The United States, and many of its European allies, suspect that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop the atomic bomb. Iran denies this, saying that its program is solely for civilian uses such as power generation.

The BPC is a nonprofit policy group founded by prominent Republicans and Democrats that seeks to promote policy-making that can draw support from both major U.S. political parties.

Among its specific recommendations, the report calls for:

– strengthening the United States “declaratory policy” to make clear its willingness to use force rather than permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons;

– intensifying covert activities by U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program;

– bolstering the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman by deploying an additional carrier battle group and minesweepers off Iran, conducting broad military exercises in the region with allies, and prepositioning supplies for the possibility of military action against Iran;

– strengthening the ability of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, to ship oil out of the region without using the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to close in retaliation for Western sanctions;

– and amplifying U.S. efforts to strengthen the militaries of countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates through arms sales.

Should these steps fail to dissuade Iran from its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons, the report urges the United States to consider a “quarantine” to block refined petroleum imports by Iran, which is heavily dependent on gasoline refined abroad.

As a last resort, the group asserts that the U.S. military has the ability to launch “an effective surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear program.”

DISENTANGLE THE U.S. MILITARY

Obama’s broader foreign policy has sought to disentangle the U.S. military from its commitments in the Muslim world. He decided to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq last year and aims to wind up the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014.

Obama opposed his predecessor George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, a decision the Bush administration chiefly justified by citing intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were subsequently found.

Without explicitly calling for an attack on Iran, the report says such a strike would include an air campaign of several weeks to target key military and nuclear installations, accompanied by the U.S. special forces on the ground.

“A military strike would delay Iran’s acquisition of nuclear capability but not eliminate it,” the report said.

“Still, policymakers need to consider whether delaying Iran’s program in the short term would allow Washington to take advantage of that space to stop Iran’s nuclear program altogether,” it added without explaining how this might happen.

“It is also possible that the delays and increased costs that a devastating strike would impose on Iran’s nuclear program might be followed by a different set of dynamics that would cause or compel the Iranian leadership to change course,” it said.

The report acknowledged a strike would carry many risks, including higher oil prices, possible Iranian retaliation against U.S. military installations, support of “terrorist” operations against U.S. interests and potential attacks on Iraq.

Former U.S. Senator Chuck Robb, a Virginia Democrat, told Reuters the group chose not to explicitly advocate military action in part because it did not want to turn what he described as a “reasoned, thoughtful approach into, ‘This is bombs away.'”

Having repeatedly said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable to the United States, Robb said that to be unwilling to take military action would undercut U.S. credibility.

“Our credibility is very much on the line,” he said. “We believe that we have to be credible with respect to the kinetic option. We need to provide evidence that we are preparing to take that option if necessary.”

Will West help the Jews? – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: As Iran approaches nuclear bomb, will world step up and prevent second Holocaust?

Giulio Meotti

In 2007, French President Jacques Chirac suggested that an Iranian atomic weapon would not be used offensively. Now, many European “pragmatists” and American “rationalists”, sitting at their chancelleries and think-tanks, are trying to convince Israel that Iran would never use the bomb against the Jewish State.

Yet Israel should trust her enemies’ apocalyptic rants more than the futile experts’ opinion.

It’s the unique ideological atmosphere that makes the Iranian nuclear program more dangerous. Iran’s Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust to advance the next one. Ayatollah Khomeini, prior to his death, declared that the Jews deserved “divine retribution” because they are the “embodiment of filth. Making his intentions clear, he stated: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

The “Mutually Assured Destruction” theory, which characterized Cold War deterrence, doesn’t work with a death cult regime. As the Nazis managed to destroy everything Jewish from the Pyrenees to Stalingrad, the Iranians went to Buenos Aires to kill Jews.

Pure hatred

Iranian hatred, like that of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, is pure and ritual. These Holocaust-enabler terrorists preach the god of martyrdom. Former Iranian president and Ayatollah, “the moderate” Hashemi Rafsanjani, rationalized the use of nuclear weapons against the Jews, declaring: “An atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

When Islamic leaders vow to wipe Israel off the map, Israel must believe them. To do otherwise would be a suicidal form of deafness to the lessons of the Holocaust.

Because of the Holocaust, Menachem Begin ordered the destruction of the nuclear bomb plant built by Saddam Hussein on the outskirts of Baghdad. Because of the Holocaust, Golda Meirordered Mossad operatives to kill Palestinian terrorists who slaughtered Jewish athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. Because of the Holocaust, Israel raided Tunisia to kill Abu Jihad, Yasser Arafat’s terrorist chief.

Iran wants to destroy Israel

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, now says: “The Jew” – not the Zionist, note, but the Jew – “is the most obstinate enemy of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . .”

However, despite the evidence of Iranian madness and willingness to destroy Israel, the “experts” repeatedly argue that the Iranians are pragmatists who will never strike the Jews. But aren’t they the same experts who were wrong about Iran’s revolution in 1979, about Saddam Hussein, about the Islamists’ rise in Turkey and most recently about the Egyptian “spring?”

What will be left of Israel in case the Iranian priests launch a nuclear bomb on the coastal plain, where one-third of all world Jews live? Israel’s airports and industries are all there, and from 600 feet in the air you see it all, from Ashkelon to Haifa.

Just as Adolf Hitler sought to “liberate” humanity by gassing the Jews, the Ayatollahs believe they can “liberate” humanity by vaporizing Israel. Iran has the motivation to destroy Israel, and if it is allowed to gain nuclear weapons it will not need an excuse to do so. In that mindset, the “Jew Devils” must all suffer a violent death, down to the last one.

Now, the question is: Will the West help the Jews?

Arab League to UN: Syria stalling peace plan in order to put down uprising – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Qatar tells UN Security Council that Syrian government failed to accept league’s plan of action to end the bloodshed, which resulted in the calls for imposing sanctions against Damascus.

By Shlomo Shamir, Natasha Mozgovaya, The Associated Press and DPA

The Arab League gave the UN Security Council in New York Tuesday a briefing on the deteriorating situation in Syria, where more than 5,400 people have been killed during 11 months of unrest pitting government security forces against civilian opponents.

The league’s Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi and Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani provided the council with a report on its monitoring mission Syria, which it said was welcomed by the Syrian people.

	Nabil Elaraby, Secretary General of the League of Arab States addresses the the United Nations Security Council as it meets at U.N. headquarters in New York January 31, 2012.
	Photo by: Reuters

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Security Council on Tuesday that U.N. action to end the violence in Syria would be different from the NATO-led efforts in Libya that resulted in the ouster of Muammar Gadhafi.

“I know that some members here may be concerned that the Security Council is headed toward another Libya,” she said. “That is a false analogy.”

Russia says it worries that a draft measure aimed at Syria, currently before the council, could lead to military action and regime change – just as an Arab-backed U.N. resolution led to NATO airstrikes in Libya.

“It is time for the international community to put aside our own differences and send a clear message of support to the people of Syria,” Clinton said.

The meeting culminates months of efforts to bring the Syrian conflict before the council, a move that has been resisted by Russia and China.

 

According to diplomatic sources Russia, China, and India are expected to oppose the sanctions on Syria.

These sources say that the upcoming elections in Russia are the reason for the Russian government’s position – Vladimir Putin is interested in presenting himself as independent and strong in foreign policy.

Al-Thani told the council that the Syrian government failed to accept the league’s plan of action to end the bloodshed, which resulted in the league’s calls for imposing sanctions against Damascus.

He accused Damascus of resorting to stalling tactics while trying to put down the popular unrest.

“Unfortunately, the Syrian government did not fully and immediately met its commitments (to the Arab League,” Al-Thani said.

The report provided to the council said Damascus resorted to “excessive use of force” to confront an “armed entity,” which it did not name.

In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the government to respond with further violence,” the report said. “In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.”

The Arab League observer mission was withdrawn after encountering difficulties in carrying out its tasks and also because of the lack of logistics. The league had demanded, but unsuccessfully, that Damascus protect civilian protesters, withdraw its military forces from cities and provide free access to the league’s monitors.

Mossad chief holds secret U.S. meetings on Iran nuclear threat, Senate panel reveals – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

During a broadcasted meeting of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director, panel Chairperson indicate they met Tamir Pardo in Washington this week; U.S. official: Iran willing to attack U.S. targets if threatened.

By Barak Ravid

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo held secret talks with top U.S. officials in recent days, cursory comments made during a public Senate hearing indicated on Tuesday.

	Tamir Pardo
	Photo by: Moti Milrod

The clandestine Washington visit was exposed during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was participated by CIA Director David Petraeus, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate panel.

During the meeting, Feinstein asked Clapper whether or not Israel intended to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, with the top U.S. intelligence official answering that he would rather discuss the issue behind closed doors.

Feinstein then indicated that she had met Mossad chief Pardo earlier in the week in Washington, with Petraeus adding that he too met Pardo and cited what he called Israel’s growing concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

	CIA Director David Petraeus listening at right as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

The CIA chief also said that it was important to note that Israel considered a nuclear Iran as an existential threat.

The entire exchange was broadcasted live on American television.

Referring to the Iran’s nuclear progress, Clapper told the Senate panel that “Iran’s technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.”

“These advancements contribute to our judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, if it so chooses,” Clapper added, saying that the U.S. judged “Iran would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon.”

Clapper also indicated that the 2011 Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi envoy to the U.S. indicated that the Iranian leadership “changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

“We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas. Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against the ambassador as well as Iranian leaders’ perceptions of U.S. threats against the regime,” Clapper added.

News of the Mossad chief’s reported Washington visit came as, also on Tuesday, President Shimon Peres said that Iran’s “evil” leadership mustn’t be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons capability.

Referring to Iran’s contentious nuclear program, the president called the issue “ours and the world’s central problem at this time, accusing Iran of attempting to achieve regional and “even global hegemony.”

“Nuclear weapons mustn’t be allowed to fall into the hands of Iran’s Ayatollah regime,” Peres said, calling Iran’s religious leadership the “most morally corrupt regime in the world.”

Hinting at the possibility of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the president reiterated the Israeli stance, according to which “no option should be ruled out in our dealing with the Iranian danger. This is an existential threat.”

“It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear [weapons] from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet,” Peres said.

Iran’s Khamenei criticizes U.S. ‘interference’ in Syria.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gestures before delivering a speech in Tehran Jan. 9, 2012. (REUTERS)

inShare1