WarSclerotic

Amir Eshel to be next IAF commander – JPost – Defense.

Subs, silos, UAVs: Rumors cloud Israel’s Iran clout | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Asked about the profusion of foreign reports that their armed forces could soon attack Iran, Israeli officials tend to smile and shrug enigmatically, seemingly content to let such guesswork simmer.

The diplomatic dumbshow, which preserves military secrecy while keeping war-wary world powers negotiating for a halt to Tehran’s nuclear programme, also conceals genuine bemusement in Israel at some of the assumptions abroad about its capabilities.

“This is speculation which is not entirely connected to reality,” Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon, a former top Israeli general, said on Sunday when grilled over predictions by U.S. media that Israel would assault its foe with drones, ballistic missiles, submarines and covert commandos, as well as warplanes.

“It’s part of the problem, an attempt to turn the discussion into one of ‘Iran versus Israel’ instead of ‘Iran versus the West, the United States, Europe’ and so on,” he told Army Radio.

Iran denies suspicions its nuclear energy programme aims to yield bombs but its record of hiding sensitive work from U.N. inspectors and refusal to negotiate have led to a stand-off with world powers and raised talk of last-ditch military action.

Israel, which sees Iran’s nuclear drive as a mortal threat, sent F-16 jets to destroy Iraq’s atomic reactor in 1981 and launched a similar sneak sortie against Syria in 2007.

But Iran, more distant and with its numerous, fortified facilities and vigilance for long-threatened raids, would pose a potentially insuperable challenge for an Israeli air force that lacks heavy bombers.

That has led some reports to assert that the Israelis have undisclosed capabilities that would close the tactical gap — despite the doubts of independent defence experts.

“SCIENCE FICTION”

In a front-page story on January 25 that prophesied war this year, the New York Times magazine spoke of Israel having “unmanned aircraft capable of carrying bombs to those targets (in Iran) and remaining airborne for up to 48 hours.”

Another major U.S. news outlet said Israel’s advanced drones could be used for the aerial refueling of fighter-bombers.

Both claims were ridiculed by Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, as “science fiction.” While Israel is widely believed to have used drones to fire on guerrillas in Gaza and Lebanon, those targets have been close, exposed and bereft of means to shoot down the slow, propeller-driven planes.

“Nobody has the ability to conduct any kind of strategic offensive warfare with drones — not the U.S., not Israel, not anybody,” Hewson said. “Such a task requires a level of technology and a force of UAVs (unarmed aerial vehicles) that does not exist and will not exist for decades.”

As for drones being used to refuel aircraft for the 1,500 km – 2,000 km (900 – 1,250 miles) journey to Iran, Hewson said: “Not a chance. Not even in theory. A total impossibility.”

Israel does, however, have a small number of jet-powered refueling planes.

Another focus of foreign attention has been Israel’s three German-supplied Dolphin submarines.

Citing unnamed intelligence sources, the Atlantic magazine in late 2010 said two of the subs were “currently positioned in the Persian Gulf” for a potential nuclear strike on Iran. That report also said a war was likely in 2011.

The Dolphins are small, diesel-powered, designed for coastal patrols and equipped with 10 torpedo tubes – a wholly different vessel to the behemoth nuclear submarines deployed by global superpowers.

Israel neither confirms nor denies widespread assumptions it has nuclear weapons. If they are on the Dolphins, experts agree, it would be in order to allow Israel to deter enemies by signaling that it could retaliate for any catastrophic attack.

But that logic would require the submarines to be able to launch the missiles at short notice, from the Mediterranean Sea where they are based. That would obviate the need to sail to the Gulf, which would take many days via Egypt’s Suez Canal and as long as a month if the Dolphins circumnavigated Africa.

“The United States is alone, perhaps in the world, in having the luxury of apportioning conventional and nuclear missions in its submarine fleet,” said James Russell, a former Pentagon aide now with the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

“The Israelis, it strikes me, don’t have that luxury.”

His point was that the Dolphins are too limited in range and payload to be able to provide a variety of services — whether conventional strikes or the latent nuclear “second strike.”

GOING BALLISTIC

U.S. television network NBC said last week Israel could use “long-range rockets” against Iran, an apparent allusion to its reputed intermediate-range ballistic missiles known as Jerichos.

Sticking to its policy of strategic ambiguity, the Israelis have never acknowledged having these weapons, stoking public jitters when test launches have been carried out from a major air base outside Tel Aviv — most recently in November.

Such high visibility in a small country with a free press may have put paid to Jerichos taking part in a surprise attack.

“Even if we have these things, they would take 10 to 12 minutes to reach Iran,” said one Israeli official on condition of anonymity. “That’s plenty of time for the Iranians to listen in to our media reports about the launches.”

Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who runs wargames for various Washington agencies, posited that Israel would use combinations of its known and rumored military assets for an attack. But he doubted they could deliver lasting damage.

“The number of targets that would have to be hit and the degree to which the targets are now hardened creates an overwhelming targeting problem for Israel,” he said.

Gardiner has studied past far-reaching operations from Israel, from its air strikes in Iraq and Syria to its 1976 commando rescue of airliner hostages in Uganda to its 1985 bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis. But those, he said, had limited value as precedents when it came to formidable Iran:

“It seems like the more coverage issues like the Iranian nuclear programme get, the more the coverage tends toward fantasy.”

The United States says it sees military force as a last resort but wants to exhaust diplomatic pressure on Iran. Some Israelis worry about their country’s core ties with Washington, and its own credibility.

“I think we have reached a surfeit point, a climax, and it would best to lower the tone,” former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told Israel Radio, referring to the media reports and knock-on debates about potential war against Iran.

‘Iran can destroy Israel in 9 minutes’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iranian blogger urges Tehran to exploit West’s inaction to ‘wipe out Israel’ by 2014; lays out strategy

Dudi Cohen

An Iranian blogger on Saturday urged Tehran not to delay an attack on Israel, claiming that the Islamic Republic could destroy the Jewish state in “less than nine minutes.”

Alireza Forghani, a computer engineer, wrote in his essay that Tehran should exploit the West’s dawdling over a strike on Iran to “wipe out Israel” by 2014 – that is, before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s term runs out. The post was widely covered in the Iranian media on Saturday.

Forghani lays out the religious justifications for the attack and presents strategies for an offensive that would target key Israeli sites using land-to-land missiles.

Maps featured in blog post

The first step in the strategy, Forghani suggested, should to launch ballistic Sijil missiles on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, as well as power stations and other energy sources, sewage facilities, airports, nuclear plants, media hubs and transportation infrastructure. In the second step, Shahab 3 and Ghader missiles should target the rest of the country’s population centers. Total annihilation, he asserts, could be achieved within nine minutes.

‘Killing civilians justified’

Forghani posited that targeting civilians could be justified with revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s ruling that Muslims must wage a Jihad against an enemy who attacks an Islamic nation.

“So since Israel has attacked Palestine and occupied this part of the Islamic Entity, defending the oppressed Palestinian Muslims is compulsory,” Forghani wrote.

The blogger appears to quote Ynet security analyst Ron Ben-Yishai as saying that there is no spot in Israel that is not vulnerable to an Iranian missile attack, although Yishai referred in his column to the capabilities of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, not the Islamic Republic.

Forghani, who describes himself as an enthusiastic supporter of the Iranian government and a former member of the Revolutionary Guard’s Basij militia, stressed that the opinions presented in his post are his own and do not represent the regime’s position.

The post was released on the same day that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard began naval maneuvers in the latest show of force near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the critical Gulf oil tanker route that Tehran has threatened to close in retaliation for tougher Western sanctions.

Plans for new Iranian war games in the Gulf have been in the works for weeks. But they got under way following stern warnings by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about any possible US or Israeli attacks against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

“The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed,” he said Friday.

Countdown to Zero in Tehran and Jerusalem | RSN Pick of the Day Right Side News.

There was a time when Israel did not deal with existential threats by urging the Americans to do something. That time was fairly recent. When Saddam decided he wanted to have his own nuclear reactor, fourteen Israeli Air Force jets put an end to his dream. The year was 1981.  

The Reagan Administration supported a UN resolution condemning Israel which stated that it was in “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct” and which fully recognized “the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development.”

Prime Minister Begin, easily the most conservative PM to hold the office, replied bluntly. “No “sword of Damocles” is going to hang over our head.”

Four years ago Israel launched a quieter attack was launched on a nuclear reactor in Syria, this time with the likely approval and assistance of the United States. Now after all the whitewashing of Iran’s nuclear program, it is coming down to the bottom line. Either a comprehensive attack will be launched or Iran’s nuclear program will pass the point of no return.

While there are some doubts about whether Israel has the capability to take out the program, in the past they have found innovative ways to do the impossible. It is quite likely that there is a plan on someone’s desk for getting the job done. The plan is probably bold, seemingly unworkable and reads as insane to experienced hands, but that would also describe the opening strike of the Six Day War or the Entebbe raid.

The question is why hasn’t it been carried out yet and the likely answer is Obama. Not just Obama, but the oddball mix of Clintonites and left-wing Chicago radicals who would be in a prime position to oppose or support any such move. Just as with the takedown of Bin Laden, it is likely that there are figures in the administration who support such a move and those who oppose it.

Israel has no doubt been hoping for a repeat of 2007 and an operation that takes place with the support and cover of the United States. A quiet operation that will mostly go unmentioned. Israel has been hanging on in the hopes that if it walks through the steps laid out by Washington D.C. then it will finally get the go ahead and any of the equipment and local support it needs to get the job done as comprehensively and safely as possible.

The Israeli cabinet and defense establishment has been having its own quiet debate on the subject, just as it before taking out Osirak. As then the lefties are opposed, but their best ammo comes from D.C. which has doubtlessly been stringing Israel along and promising that if Israel is patient then the problem will be taken care of. To the right the argument has no doubt been that the United States will not do anything and that Israel needs to do it alone.

Panetta’s statements in the past few weeks peg him as either an idiot or a man sending the signal that Israel is going to have to go it alone. If Panetta was an opponent of direct action all along, which may well be the case, then he is trying to sabotage any possible Israeli operation while disavowing any responsibility for it. Israeli Defense Minister Barak, who has been waiting for the Obamanoids to bring down the Netanyahu government and pave the way for his ascension, has begun talking tough on Iran. And talking in terms of a timeline. That’s more significant than anything else, but with the double eye of politics it can be read two ways.

Either Barak is rushing to get ahead and claim credit for any strike. Or he’s rushing ahead to claim credit for being tough on Iran, even as he knows that no strike will be carried out because he and his leftist allies have sabotaged any internal momentum on it. But as tempting as it is to be cynical about Barak, and there are plenty of reasons for that, the full substance of his remarks, which are beyond the scope of this piece, suggest a Barak and Netanyahu consensus has been reached on an attack. The triumphalist tone and the camaraderie indicate that the political cards have been dealt.

If the ball is finally rolling on the Israeli side then the situation in Washington has to be tense. It is doubtful that the Obama Administration would back any Israeli strike, openly or under the table. Whatever promises were made to the Israelis in exchange for patience were never sincere and if Israel seriously expected that when the checkpoints were reached and Israel stuck with a covert campaign, that Washington would support a strike, they were kidding themselves. And it would not be the first time.

The campaign of sabotage against Iran’s infrastructure and scientists that is being conducted by unknown actors has gotten a lot of attention recently. While the campaign has been blamed on Israel, it is likelier a CIA project being conducted by existing insurgent groups opposed to Iran, with the Saudis as the facilitators. Because this isn’t just an America or Israel deal, most of the Gulf oil states who have a lot more pull in Washington have a major stake in this and want something done.

The Obama Administration does not particularly care about Iran’s nuclear capacity. Its priority is democratic change in the region. Some of the Chicago crew believes Iran has a right to nuclear development or that its nuclear program would help achieve the Kissingeresque goal of cutting Israel does to size. But this administration also has an affinity for covert ops and it has likely signed on to joint covert sabotage efforts to keep the Israelis from doing something drastic.

Considering the sheer number of Clinton people around, some of them were probably involved in Operation Merlin which attempted to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by providing flawed nuclear plans. Operation Merlin badly backfired and helped the Iranians instead. Stuxnet was likely an idea that came from the minds behind Merlin that Israeli cyberwarfare specialists, namely hackers recruited to work on security operations, made into a moderately workable plan.

The blunt force assassinations may or may not have administration approval, but if they were they being carried out for the same reason, to keep the Israelis and Saudis from doing something more direct about the problem. The assassinations won’t stop the program, but they are a warning shot across the bow. The problem is that warning shots don’t stop nuclear missiles.

As the countdown to zero continues, it’s become more obvious than ever that nothing short of direct action will. But everyone has their own interests at stake.

The Iranian opposition doesn’t want an Israeli strike because it would politically benefit the regime, which might be the case but the opposition has already has its chance to overthrow the government and failed to do it. Diplomats may have confidence in a peaceful transition coming some day, but that day is much too far away, assuming it will even ever come. And should it come there is no reason to believe that the figures at the top of the opposition pile would be averse to a nuclear programor to using it against Israel.

Obama is not a fan of bombing Muslim countries, unless it is on behalf of other Muslim countries. His whole foreign affairs strategy was based around winning the Muslim world over and even an Israeli raid conducted with zero approval and even opposition would still be blamed on the United States. Additionally with an election coming up, a bombing raid could escalate into something bigger and affect oil prices. Given a choice between winning an election or a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, no one seriously doubts which he will choose.

The Saudis want Iran’s nuclear program gone, but they don’t want their Shiite rivals scoring martyr points in a confrontation with Israel. Their ideal operation would be as quiet as the Syrian reactor bombing, but even they know that isn’t likely to happen, not with an operation of this scope. And if the operation has to happen, then it’s better for Israel to get the blame, rather than fellow Muslim countries who might be involved in some small way too.

Finally there is Israel, where everyone who isn’t working for Haaretz or the EU agrees that something needs to be done. The debate has always come down to when and how. In security matters most Israelis still assume that the government will eventually do something about a security problem, even as they curse its ineptitude in all other areas.

The primary calculus for this type of decision making is the United States. In the past the Israelis went full speed ahead and apologized to Washington D.C. for it later. That species of confidence is nearly extinct. Boldness and courage are atypical not only among politicians, for whom it was never typical, but among the top military brass who authorized insane operations and even participated in them.

Still the clock is ticking. Whatever arrangements Jerusalem made with Washington D.C. are reaching the end. Netanyahu is often timid, but he isn’t stupid. The only thing that might still be slowing him down is the possibility that the elections will swap out Obama for a less hostile figure, but waiting until a new administration gets settled in would take too long. That doesn’t mean he might not do it anyway, but it has become much less likely. And a Romney Administration might be friendlier than the current one, but the return of Sununu is not exactly a harbinger of excellent relations either.

Adlai Stevenson blamed Israel for his loss to Eisenhower over the Suez Canal War. That grudge was carried on by his son who served as the United States Senator from Illinois. Carter, who blamed the loss of support from American Jews over his hostility to Israel for his defeat, has turned his grudge into a full time career of bashing the Jewish State. If Obama were to go down to defeat and blame Israel, he could certainly do a good deal of damage, even out of office, more if he were to break with recent precedent and try to reclaim his Senate seat.

But Obama doesn’t seem the type to let a single grudge consume this much of his focus and even if he were to go Full Carter, he couldn’t do nearly as much damage as he has in office or as an Iranian bomb could do to Israel. Even if an Israeli strike were to make the election tougher for Obama, it is doubtful that he could do that much more damage than he has done already, particularly with plenty of partisan domestic fights to consume his attention.

As the clock counts down to zero, the only real element that matters is the atoms of political courage that have to reach critical mass for a strike that will either cripple or destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions to take place

.:Middle East Online::Uncertainty on Israel’s plans on Iran triggers US anxiety :..

Israeli viewpoint not clear to Americans

BRUSSELS – The Obama administration is increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders’ provocative public comments on Iran’s nuclear program but does not have hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said.

The US uncertainty and lack of information about Israel’s plans on Iran were behind an alarming assessment of the situation reportedly voiced by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the officials said.

Panetta believes there is a “strong likelihood” that Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear installations this spring, the Washington Post said Thursday in an editorial.

When asked about the opinion piece by reporters travelling with him to a NATO meeting in Brussels, Panetta brushed it aside.

“I’m not going to comment on that. David Ignatius can write what he will but with regards with what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else,” he said.

“Israel indicated they’re considering this (a strike), we’ve indicated our concerns,” he added.

The Post columnist said Panetta “believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.”

President Barack Obama and Panetta are “said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold,” he said.

“But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.”

Panetta said Sunday in an interview with CBS that Iran needed “about a year” to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, and one or two more years to “put it on a deliverable vehicle.”

Iran insists its nuclear project is peaceful and has threatened retaliation over the fresh sanctions, including possibly disrupting shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Israeli media reported in October last year that the option of pre-emptive air strikes on Iran was opposed by the country’s intelligence services but favored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

Israeli television said Mossad chief Tamir Pardo raised the possibility of a unilateral strike on Iran during a visit last week to Washington.

One of the U.S. officials said that while Israel may have the military capability to delay Iran’s nuclear effort for a period of time, to deal the Iranian program a serious and long-term setback would require additional military power, presumably from the United States.

But Panetta’s alleged remarks and other Obama administration’s statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action – and distancing itself from an Israel strike if persuasion fails.

A strike on Iran and Iran’s response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election. Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel’s actions.

“The U.S. is not too excited about engaging with Israel or being part of anything at this point,” one official said.

A European defense analyst, who has access to classified all-source intelligence, said that while Iran’s behavior was relatively predictable, the greatest uncertainties facing the U.S. and its allies stemmed from Israel’s stance.

Despite internal power squabbles, the analyst said, Iran has been “quite restrained and limited in its responses.” Recent inflammatory comments by Iranian leaders, such as threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, were relatively low-intensity compared to other threats and physical confrontations in the Gulf of past years.

“Israel is, practically speaking, the wild card in the pack,” the analyst said. “We have no specific information on when or if they will attack but based on their past history and current stance, it is something we do expect at some point.”

UPDATE 1-Iran says will attack any country used to strike its soil | Energy & Oil | Reuters.

TEHRAN Feb 5 (Reuters) – Iran will attack any country whose territory is used by “enemies” of the Islamic state to launch a military strike against its soil, the deputy head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards told the semi-official Fars news agency on Sunday.

“Any spot used by the enemy for hostile operations against Iran, will be subjected to retaliatory aggression by our armed forces,” Hossein Salami said, during military manoeuvres.

The Revolutionary Guards began the two-day ground exercises on Saturday as a show of military might as tension rises between Tehran and the West over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme.

Iranian media said it was a small-scale exercise in southern Iran.

The United States and Israel, Iran’s arch enemies, have not ruled out a military strike against the country if diplomacy fails to resolve the standoff. Iran says its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, rather than aimed at developing weapons.

Iran has warned that its response to any such strike will be “painful”, threatening to target Israel, and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the vital oil shipping route of the Strait of Hormuz.

America’s UN victory – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: UN showdown over Syria situation enabled America to gain nice diplomatic dividends

Yitzhak Benhorin

For a whole year of “Arab Spring,” the Americans sought paths to the hearts of Arab world masses yet hit an impasse. Despite the repeated declarations of support for the masses’ right for freedom and political reform, the stains of the past were not washed off by diplomacy and America continued to be seen as the patron of tyrants.

On Saturday, the Americans recognized an opportunity and rushed to capitalize on its. The massacre in Homs required the Americans and Europeans to act quickly. It was a moral duty, which also offered diplomatic gains.

In order to encourage Russia and China to endorse a UN Security Council resolution, a toothless draft was submitted, without economic sanctions and without an arms embargo. There was also no obligation to comply with such resolution as it was not proposed in line with the UN Charter’s Chapter 7.

Yet this wasn’t enough for the Russians and they attempted to also scrap a clause urging the Assad regime to remove heavy weapons from populated areas. The American and European response to this was “Niet.”

The Americans realized that the Russians are resorting to foot-dragging and trying to postpone the vote. Indeed, Russia has a problem. Syria purchases Russian arms worth $4 billion and is the only state outside Russia that hosts a Russian naval base. On top of this, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who will be running for president in about a month, wishes to show that he is restoring Russia’s days as a superpower in the Mideastern theater.

The moment of truth was the charged meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The conversation between the two figures was difficult, as they found themselves at a dead-end. Russia wanted to postpone, while the US decided to put the Russian position to the test and expose the bluff, assuming there was one, via an immediate vote.

Americans stunned Russia

The American decision to vote immediately stunned the Russians. Usually, on these issues it is customary to work behind the scenes, in a bid to reach understandings before calling for a vote, yet the massacre in Homs did not allow the Americans to wait. They recognized an opportunity and decided to put the pedal to the metal.

The veto imposed by Russia and China a few hours later did not make much difference, because the resolution which the two states refused to endorse was toothless in any case. America’s objective was to portray the United States as supporting the Arab masses hungry for political freedom – in the face of Russia and China, which support a tyrant who slaughters his own people.

When America’s UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, left the Security Council session and headed to the reporters waiting for her, she said: “Let me begin by speaking directly to the Syrian people. The United States stands with you, the Syrian people, and we will not rest until you and your bravery achieve your basic, universal human rights, to which all human beings are entitled.”

“Today, we saw clearly which countries are prepared to support the people of Syria…as they struggle to attain a future of peace and democracy. And we saw which countries, for their narrow interests, do not,” Rice added. “But let there be no doubt. The United States will continue, with partners around the world -partners particularly in the Arab world – to ratchet up the pressure on the Assad regime until finally the people’s voice prevails.”

Voice of America has been broadcasting to the Middle East for many years now over the head of the Arab masses. Yet this time around, America’s voice aimed well. The US did not put an end to the massacre in Syria, but secured nice diplomatic dividends.

PM: Iran ‘chatter’ detrimental to sanctions – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Netanyahu urges Likud ministers to avoid making statements on possible strike in Iran; ‘Chatter causes extensive damage,’ he says

Moran Azulay

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Likud ministers on Sunday that speaking out about a possible strike on Iran could be damaging to Israeland detrimental to the global efforts to compel the Islamic Republic to abandon its atom weapon ambitions.

Referring to several recent politicians’ statements that caused a stir in the international media, most notably by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Netanyahu urged the ministers to stay clear of remarks on the Iranian issue.

“The chatter causes extensive damage, puts Israel on the front line and impedes the sanction efforts,” he said during a Likud ministers’ meeting.

Barak said last week that if sanctions on Iran fail, the international community would have to consider other options, while Ya’alon claimed that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilitiesare vulnerable to an attack. The two were speaking at the Herzliya Conference on security.

‘Power ensures our existence’

During Sunday’s meeting, the prime minister addressed recent developments in the Middle East, noting that Israel must stay strong in the face of turmoil.

“Over the past few days we’ve been reminded about the environment in which we live,” he said. “We’ve heard the Iranian leader‘s statements about destroying Israel, and we’ve seen the Syrian army slaughtering its own people.

“In this region, the only thing that ensures our existence, security and prosperity is power. We are committed to the continued cultivation of the State of Israel’s military, economic and social power.”

Also in the meeting, Netanyahu assured the ministers that Likud won’t grow more extreme in its right-wing policies due to Moshe Feiglin‘s gains in the party’s primaries and the joining of hundreds of settlers to its central committee.

“I don’t think that the Likud is becoming more right-wing,” he said. “The supposition that Feiglin could have on effect on the Knessest list isn’t based in reality.”

Netanyahu won last week’s primaries with 77% of the votes, while his opponent, Feiglin, received the remaining 23%.

PM: Recent ME events a harsh reminder of I… JPost – Middle East.

Netanyahu: In this region the only thing ensuring Israel’s survival, security and prosperity is our strength; Ya’alon says Assad’s fall could “break the axis of evil with Iran, Hezbollah.”

By Kobi Gideon/Flash90/Pool

Iran raid likely to drag in U.S. and hurt global economy | Reuters.

(Reuters) – An Israeli raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities would deliver a painful shock to the global economy, revive flagging Islamist militancy and possibly drag the United States into a regional war whether it backed its ally’s attack or not.

As if that prospect was not alarming enough, any doubts Tehran entertained about the wisdom of building a nuclear weapon would vanish the moment the strike occurred.

These longstanding U.S. and European assumptions about the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran are being re-examined with greater urgency in Western capitals after repeated warnings by Israel that the chance of a peaceful resolution may be closing.

There is concern that Israel may attack in coming months to disrupt the transfer of parts of Iran’s nuclear development work to an underground site south of Tehran that may be invulnerable to conventional bombing.

Western experts want Israel to think long and hard before embarking on a raid many suspect would spark a broader conflict.

“Whoever attacks Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is really making the decision to go to war with Iran,” Richard Burt, a former chief U.S. negotiator at strategic arms reduction talks, told Reuters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

“We are talking about a range of great uncertainties, all of them basically negative, so this is one reason why consistently the joint chiefs of staff of the uniformed military in the U.S. do not like the idea of attacking Iran.”

Analysts detect a growing gap between Israeli and Western views on using force against Tehran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is purely for peaceful purposes but the West suspects is aimed at acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

The New York Times recently reported that Israeli leaders, based on intelligence estimates and academic studies, had taken the view that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations would not produce such catastrophic events as regional war, widespread attacks by militants and massive oil price rises.

The newspaper said that Israeli leaders and agencies believe that Iran’s threats to retaliate against Israeli and Western targets if attacked were “overblown” and partly bluff.

Asked to spell out the consequences of a strike, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that he not want to explore a hypothetical question, arguing any risks “would be dwarfed in comparison to the danger of a nuclear Iran.”

“One thing is clear,” he told Reuters. “If Iran becomes nuclear then it’s the end of world order as we know it … This is what we have to think about, and not about what will happen in case some action is being taken.

U.S. newspaper The Washington Post reported last week that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believed Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it building a nuclear bomb.

Panetta declined to comment. But his alleged remarks and other Obama administration statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action – and distancing itself from an Israeli strike if persuasion fails.

The consequences of an Israeli attack would be wide-ranging and destabilizing.

IRAN EXPELS NUCLEAR INSPECTORS, QUITS TREATY

Iran would expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ending any possibility of a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue.

“There is not a country on Earth that is going to blame them for doing that, they are all going to blame Israel. Once Iran is out of the NPT, the sanctions are gone,” Ken Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, told Reuters.

Leaving the NPT would disrupt the sanctions regime since its measures are predicated upon enforcing treaty compliance.

IRAN DECIDES TO GO FOR THE BOMB

Experts say a raid would only delay, not destroy Iran’s program. And once it had recovered, Iran would probably seek to develop nuclear weapons. Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at Washington’s Center for International and Strategic Studies, told Reuters Iran would redouble “efforts to develop a deterrent so it never happens again.”

OIL PRICES SOAR, JOLT FINANCIAL MARKETS

A strike on Iran and Iran’s response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, or an attack on Saudi oilfields, would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election.

Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.

But the most serious fears debated at oil trading desks include the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters.

In the event of a big stoppage the consuming nations’ International Energy Agency would very likely release emergency government stocks to tame prices, as it did in June last year when Libyan output was lost.

Israel’s Ayalon argues that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a greater threat to the oil market as it could dictate prices. “It will be the end of the free flow of oil from the Gulf.”

IRAN HITS BACK IN THE GULF, LEVANT, POSSIBLY ASIA

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

But many experts say Iran’s leaders will be looking for ways to harass enemies and cause disruption while falling short of triggering massive U.S.-led retaliation.

Possible Iranian actions could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states or grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi’ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant “proxies” such as Hezbollah.

If the Iranian government interprets the strike as a fully-fledged attempt at regime change, it might adopt a more muscular response could include ballistic-missile salvos on civilian and military targets in the Gulf.

US GETS SUCKED IN, MAY ITSELF BECOME TARGET

Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel’s actions and come to Israel’s defense if Iran succeeds in landing missile attacks on Israel’s territory.

In a 2009 study for the Council on Foreign Relations, Middle East analyst Steve Simon, who is now Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa at the U.S. National Security Council, says that the United States would probably become embroiled militarily in any Iranian retaliation against Israel or other countries in the region.

Experts say Israel alone does not have the firepower to kill off Iran’s nuclear program and any U.S. help in that effort would therefore be very welcome. A study by former senior British intelligence official said the “The US would be assumed complicit, and would become embroiled in defending Israel against a counter-attack. This would stretch the U.S. military.”

STRAIN IN ISRAELI-WESTERN TIES

In November, the top U.S. military officer told Reuters he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to take military action against Iran.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also acknowledged differences in perspective between the United States and Israel over the best way to handle Iran.

In an indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also “prevent Iran being bombed.”

“Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security,” he wrote.

Referring to a strike, he went on, “the likely damage (to Iran’s program) would outweigh the benefits.”

“There would be problems between the U.S. and Israel, .and probably tensions between the U.S. and European allies as well.”

U.S. POSITION IN THE MIDDLE EAST CONSTRAINED

Simon’s CFR study states that since the United States would be viewed as having assisted Israel, U.S. efforts to foster better relations with Muslims would almost certainly suffer.

Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

“If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools’ paradise,” said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.

He said a raid would create “huge anti-Israeli feeling” and an “Islamic backlash” in the region.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a “disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run.”

Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be “forced out of the region,” a development he suggested would imperil Israel’s existence.

WILL IRANIANS RALLY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT?

A RAND Corporation report in 2011 noted that the use or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its nuclear program would probably strengthen domestic support for the government.

But an analyst in Iran who asked not to be identified as the subject was sensitive said he doubted whether there would be an uptick in popularity for the government, as there was during the country’s war with Iraq in the 1980s.

“The Iran-Iraq wartime public allegiance to the regime has diminished because of various factors. Public dissatisfaction is on increase over failing economy, hostile foreign policy and political infighting among the elites,” said the analyst.

Michael Axworthy, director of the Centre for Persian and Iranian Studies at Britain’s Exeter University, told Reuters that while Iranians might not rally to their rulers, they would tend to “go along with the statements that are produced.”

“This is a regime that expects to be isolated and to some extent thrives on isolation,” he said.

POSSIBLE SPUR TO PROLIFERATION BY OTHERS

Former U.S. negotiator Burt said some aspirant nuclear weapons powers might respond to a strike on Iran by redoubling efforts to get the bomb as a deterrent. But it was difficult to generalize and not all countries would take that view.

Ayalon said it would be the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran that would be the real spur to proliferation. (Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

(Reporting by William Maclean)