WarSclerotic

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-Iran: The Syrian Highway in the Fight Against Israel Is Still Open.

Michael Segall

• The wave of protest in Syria has put to the test the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime. Syria is the main state component of the “resistance camp” and serves as a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran sees its unequivocal backing for Syria as a demonstration of its ability to stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.
• Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. This would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.
• Ali Akbar Velayati, Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, speaks of the resistance camp as incorporating “the new Iraqi government.” If Bashar falls, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory.
• The fall of the Assad regime would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in view of the electoral victories of the Islamic forces in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.
• For as long as it lasts, the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines.

Iran Backs Its Syrian Ally

Since the wave of protest in Syria began as part of the Middle Eastern upheavals – with the Middle East being recast in the Islamic mold – the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime has been put to its ultimate test. Both the international community and the Arab-regional system (and Turkey) are trying to impose a change that entails Bashar’s ouster and the fostering of a democratic political process in Syria, with Iran (and Hizbullah) standing alone in backing Syria. At the same time, China and Russia are counter-balancing Western and Arab efforts to oust Bashar, impeding a tough resolution in the UN Security Council.

Syria was a critical bulwark of the old Middle Eastern regional order that Iran had cultivated with immense financial, political, and military investments. It is the main state component of the “resistance camp” that Iran counterposes to the “imperialist” presence in the region, and was also a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah and to a lesser extent for the other nonstate terrorist members of the resistance camp – particularly the Palestinian terror organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

The Arab Spring, or, as Iran calls it, the “Islamic awakening,” found Iran almost at the height of the resistance camp’s consolidation and power. Hizbullah had completed its takeover of the Lebanese arena, Hamas was entrenching its rule in Gaza, and the peace process with regard to Israel, in its Syrian and Palestinian channels, had stopped. Iran, for its part, was continuing to progress in its nuclear program and to project regional power as the United States talked of completing its withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, Iran had successfully defied the United States and the West, which it saw as “at a nadir of military and economic weakness.”

Now, as Bashar’s regime faces an ongoing storm of protest and he refuses to give up his rule despite both internal and external pressures, his ally Iran is backing him with all its might. It is doing so despite and perhaps because of the regional conditions that are fostering a different Middle East. Seemingly, Iran will have to pay a price for defying the Arab Spring and sustaining its unstinting support for Bashar. Iran, however, sees its unequivocal backing for its ally Bashar – as contrasted to U.S. president Barack Obama’s sudden abandonment of long-time U.S. ally Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – as a manifestation of its power and its ability to withstand the revolution and stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.

Iran wants to proceed carefully, without betraying the basic elements of its policy and losing its main cards in the region so far – Syria, Hizbullah, and the Palestinian organizations. Tehran is well aware that Bashar Assad may eventually be toppled, but for now keeps giving him its full support including security and military,¹ economic, and diplomatic assistance² (including coordinating positions toward Russia and China). Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” – as already evident from the Egyptian and Tunisian elections that saw the triumph of the Islamist movements, with which Iran maintained a dialogue during and despite the rule of the “dictators” – will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. As Iran sees it, this Islamic ambience, which is fundamentally hostile toward Israel and the United States, would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.

For now, Iran prefers to hold the rope at both ends: to keep supporting the Syrian regime and helping it to survive – including through Hizbullah – to repress the protest, and to portray the United States, Israel, and the moderate Arab states and bodies – those whose leaders still stand, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and the Arab League – as lurking behind the efforts to overthrow Bashar for having led the Middle East’s anti-Israeli, anti-Western resistance camp for years. Iran is pursuing this course even though it knows that, if Bashar falls, it stands to pay a heavy political and military price in terms of its future relations with the new regime and its ability to assist Hizbullah via the Syrian-Turkish conduit. The commander of the Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guards said recently in this regard that “the war in Syria is not a sickness that will destroy the regime,” since most of its citizens continue to support Bashar.³

Indeed, Iran’s loyalty to Syria has already cost it dearly in the form of rising tensions with Islamist Turkey. Here, too, Iran has criticized Turkey for siding with the West instead of Syria, and as relations have worsened, some in Iran have even characterized Islam in Turkey as “Western Islam” – an appellation formerly reserved in Iran for the moderate Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Syria: “The Gold-Plated Link in the Chain of Anti-Israeli Resistance”

Iran’s present position regarding the “plots” unfolding in Syria, along with Syria’s role in Iran’s overall regional policy, was formulated quite precisely by Ali Akbar Velayati. He is Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s special assistant for international affairs, currently coordinating for him the strategy toward the Islamic awakening in his role as secretary-general of the World Assembly of the Islamic Awakening. Velayati praised Syria’s staunch resilience “in the face of the plots and collusions of different states aimed at weakening Syria’s firm stance as the main arm of the resistance front against the Zionist regime.” Velayati also linked together all the members of this camp when he said that “the chain of resistance against Israel, whose main links are Iran and Syria, Hizbullah, the new government in Iraq, and Hamas runs along the Syrian highway.” He also referred to Syria as “the gold-plated link in this chain.”⁴

On another occasion, perhaps manifesting wishful thinking, Velayati insisted that the Syrian uprising had passed its worst and the Assad government would not collapse thanks to the government’s “strong roots” in Syrian society.

He added that Burhan Ghalioun, head of the opposition Syrian National Council, had no social base in Syria and accused him of being an “agent” of the West and Israel.⁵

Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, averred that “Fortunately, Syria is strongly moving towards stability and a full failure of the enemies’ plots grows more and more obvious each day.”⁶ Several times Iran has denied reports that it has held contacts with opposition elements.⁷

Velayati’s assertions echo repeated claims by various spokesmen and commentators that the “Syrian case” is different and not part of the Arab Spring. They also charge that the United States, Israel, some of the Arab states, the West, and Turkey (!) seek to exploit the atmosphere of the Arab Spring so as to be rid of Bashar’s regime, which they see as a thorn in their side given his strong posture – which they liken to Iran’s – against the West and his role as a key member of the resistance front against Israel and its efforts to gain legitimacy.

Is Syria a Red Line for Iran?

Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and former IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) commander, said in an interview to Hizbullah’s Al-Manar network that Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas constitute a red line for Iran, which “will not allow any problem to be created for them since they form the Islamic world’s front line [of defense] against Israel.”⁸

The conservative newspaper Kayhan, which reflects Khamenei’s positions, claimed the United States fears that the resistance camp will only gain power once the Syrian crisis ends and hence is working to topple the Syrian regime. The writer of the article opines that what is happening in Syria has no connection at all to the Arab Spring, which only provides a pretext for overthrowing Bashar and weakening the resistance camp. In his view, U.S. activity in Syria is aimed at offsetting the great damage that the Islamic awakening has inflicted on U.S. policy in the region, including the loss of its power base and popularity.⁹ Former Iranian ambassador to Syria Ahmad Mousavi said similarly that the West’s hostility toward Syria stems from Syria’s ongoing support for the resistance against Western peace plans aimed at bestowing legitimacy on Israel. Mousavi added that President Assad is the only Arab leader who has not been charged with either moral or economic corruption. He also expressed support for Bashar’s reforms in Syria.¹⁰

The hard-line newspaper Jomhouri Eslami, too, denies any Arab Spring context for the events in Syria and depicts them as an attempt by the West, led by the United States, to uproot a main pillar of the resistance camp. The paper describes the failure of the American attempt to influence the revolutions in the region, points to the rise of the Islamist regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and asserts that Iran and Hizbullah’s close ties with the Assad government are an important factor in its stability and have neutralized the plot by the king of Jordan and the Turkish government to topple him.

It is totally clear that the aim of the United States and its allies in ousting Assad’s regime is to destroy the resistance front against the Zionist regime. Neutralizing this plot requires strengthening the Syrian regime. This can be done through two channels: external support from Syria’s friends who share a common denominator in the struggle against Zionism and the United States, and internal reforms that the Syrian regime itself must carry out, and without which there will be no benefit from the external support….Even though the Syrian regime has overcome the plots, it needs to take some sort of measures to achieve full stability and not provide a pretext to the opponents. In truth, the rulers of Syria, more than in the past, must go in the direction of reforms….Reform must start with the Baath Party, continue with the uprooting of administrative corruption, and move on to solving the problems of the public’s welfare and ensuring freedom.¹¹

Ali Larijani, chairman of the Majlis, called on all the Islamic countries not to exploit the crisis in Syria and play into the hands of countries outside the region, or cooperate with their plot against Syria. “We expect Islamic countries not to allow those who hold a grudge against Syria for its resistance against the Zionist regime to take advantage of the situation.”¹² Majlis member Mohammad Karim Abadi said that Iran “strongly condemn[s] the plots against the Syrian nation that is on the frontline of resistance (against Zionists)….We ask Muslim nations in the region, especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to support the people of Syria who were in the forefront of Zionists’ aggression and their lands are still under the occupation of aliens.”¹³ The editor of Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, also criticized Qatar, calling it “the undeclared, and sometimes declared, base for the United States in the region. Qatar’s open ties with the Zionist regime and its open participation in the plots of Saudi Arabia and Turkey to exert pressure on Syria and remove it from the resistance axis, are only some examples of the treachery of the mercenary Qatar government.”¹⁴

Iran also exploited the recent suicide bombings in Damascus to slam the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and claim they were responsible. After one of the bombings, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said “the nation and the government in Syria will succeed to foil the Zionist-American axis that seeks to ignite civil war and separatism in the region.”¹⁵ The director of the board of the state-run Iranian satellite channel Al-Alam (which targets an Arabic-speaking audience) claimed that “the attack points to the terrorist nature of the armed group and to the activity of a few groups that work hand in hand with their allies.” He hinted that the attack was carried out after the intelligence agencies of Turkey, France, the United States, and several Arab states held parleys on sowing chaos and instability in Syria.¹⁶ The semi-official Fars news agency was more blunt. It claimed in a recent news dispatch from Syria that al-Qaeda and Salafi terrorists have infiltrated into Syria in recent months and were involved in terrorist attacks, the latest of which was a suicide attack that killed 25 people. The report maintained that, in addition to the support provided by Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks in Syria, Saudi clergymen and Friday prayers leaders in the kingdom have also called the protests and moves against the Syrian government as halal (religiously legitimate) and have persuaded people to conduct them.¹⁷

Iran and Turkey in Conflict: “Real Islam” vs. “Secular Islam”

Iran’s firm support for Syria, almost unquestioned within Iran, together with its opposition to Turkey’s strong stance against the violent repression in Syria, has quickly put the two states at loggerheads. And this comes shortly after a “golden age” of improving relations within the Syrian-Turkish-Iranian triangle, which had emerged briefly as a new regional axis before the Syrian crisis erupted. This tension between the two non-Arab states, each of which for its own reasons not only seeks to mold the new regional order but to stand at its helm, has brought their intense rivalry and political-religious divergence to the fore.

When it came to fine-tuning Iran’s policy toward Turkey, it was Velayati who detailed the extremely delicate Islamic issues between the two states. He criticized Turkey’s governmental system as “secular Islam,” a mere variant of Western liberal democracy, and an inappropriate model for countries now experiencing the Islamic awakening.¹⁸

Hassan Rowhani, one of Khamenei’s two representatives on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and head of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council, similarly claimed that, while the West wanted Turkey – not Iran – to be a model for the popular revolutions in the region, Turkey maintained close ties with Israel and its anti-Israeli policy was merely symbolic. Rowhani also asserted that the Second Lebanon War and Israel’s 2009 Gaza operation had provided the main impetus for the Islamic trend in the region; and that by supporting the Syrian opposition, “Turkey has crossed the boundaries that are permitted it.”¹⁹

Also joining the criticism were senior officials in the Iranian religious establishment. For example, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi advised Turkey not to stoke the Syrian crisis. He claimed the unrest there “is a conspiracy devised by the United States, Israel, and one of the Arab countries, and Turkey is feeding the flames of the crisis….Turkish officials took an anti-Zionist line for a while to gain popularity, but this popularity will turn into disrepute. Why do they not understand?”²⁰

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, called on Turkey to modify its policy toward Syria and recognize reality if it wants to pursue a policy congruent with Iran’s. The policy Turkey has adopted, he asserted, does not contribute to regional stability.²¹ Former Iranian foreign minister Manuchehr Mottaki, who was deposed a few months ago by President Ahmadinejad, also criticized Turkey’s position toward the Syrian crisis and called for a reconsideration. He also urged Syria to focus on reforms and denied any possibility of Iran intervening there.²²

The escalating tension between Iran and Turkey not only concerns the Syrian situation. It also stems from Ankara’s decision to station components of NATO’s antimissile defense system on its soil. The vice-chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee did not rule out the possibility that Iran, if attacked, would strike targets in Turkish territory, while IRGC aerospace commander Brig.-Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh stated:

We have prepared ourselves. If any threat is staged against Iran, we will target NATO’s missile shield in Turkey and will then attack other targets….We are sure that the missile system is deployed by the U.S. for the sake of the Zionist regime, but to deceive the world’s people, especially the Turkish people, they allege that the system belongs to NATO….Turkey is a member and cover for NATO. Today NATO has become a cover for the U.S. [moves] while the U.S. itself has turned into a cover for the Zionist regime….Yet the Turkish people are aware and we are sure that Turkey’s Muslims will stop this plot by themselves….We are sure that the Muslim people of Turkey will promptly cut these systems into pieces under threatening conditions.²³

Turkey, for its part, has not remained docile. With tensions between the two countries mounting, Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu during a recent visit to Tehran criticized Iran and urged his counterpart, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, to give the Syrian regime “good advice” on its responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria and the need to put a stop to it.²⁴

Whereas the Iranian Foreign Ministry is trying to calm the winds with Turkey and prevent further escalation, Khamenei’s bureau and elements connected to it are in fact pushing for a more aggressive policy toward Ankara. Salehi, for his part, trying to tamp down the tensions, said the two states had a good relationship and called on the Turkish media – which gave much play to Iranian statements that did not rule out an Iranian attack on Turkish soil – to distinguish between official spokesmen and those speaking only for themselves. He also said that policy decisions, at any rate, are taken by the supreme leader, the president, and the foreign minister.²⁵ It appears, however, that in the Turkish case in particular, and regarding the overall Iranian policy toward the regional changes in general with an emphasis on the Islamic awakening, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is not playing a significant role in leading the aggressive and defiant Iranian policy.

Saadollah Zarei is an international-affairs expert who also writes editorials for Kayhan. In an article in the conservative newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz on the crisis in Syria, he divided the Middle Eastern states into two blocs – the “resistance front” and the “conciliation front” – and suggested the cost-benefit tally for each of these:

The countries of the resistance front were always subject to criticism by the West as well as harsh criticism from the Arab states in the region. Now, when the international system has joined ranks to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime and is also threatening war against Iran, the Arab states that are members of the Arab League have convened and decided to suspend Syria’s membership²⁶ [a decision that Iran criticized] and also to impose sanctions on it [in an attempt to promote the designs of the West]. The events of recent years [the victories of Iran’s allies Hizbullah and Hamas in the anti-Israeli struggle], Iran’s progress in the nuclear field, the U.S. forces’ withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic situation in the United States, and the power struggles surrounding the presidential elections there are stymieing U.S. efforts to control and manage the region, and given these conditions of an administrative vacuum along with the turmoil in the Arab countries, Iran is the big winner. In parallel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are trying to thwart these developments [the strengthening of Iran and its allies] by isolating Syria, a strategic ally of Iran in the region and the bridge to Hizbullah and Hamas. Another actor that is trying to isolate Syria, with the aim of preventing Iran from taking the reins, is Turkey. Turkey knows that presently there is not a single Arab state in the region that can prevent it from becoming a superpower, which only Iran can do, and therefore it has joined the Arab states in trying to prevent the deepening of Iran’s penetration.

Zarei also asserts that Iran unquestionably and assertively backs Syria against the Western and Arab states.²⁷

Where to Go from Here?: A New Approach for the Resistance Camp

All in all, the crisis in Syria poses one of Iran’s most difficult challenges in recent years in the field of foreign policy and exporting the revolution. It is occurring at a time when international pressure on Iran is mounting and sanctions on its oil exports and central bank (CBI) appear more imminent than ever. Yet, even under the growing burden of sanctions, Iran is not abandoning its longtime ally and in recent weeks has been unequivocally supporting Syria and providing Bashar with military and security assistance to curb the protests.

Even though Iran, when referring to the crisis in Syria, often stresses the firm stance of the resistance camp and the price Syria is paying for being a main pillar of it, Iran is already preparing for the possibility – despite almost never publicly admitting it – that Bashar will eventually fall. Especially important here is the statement by Khamenei’s international-affairs adviser on incorporating the “new Iraqi government” in the resistance camp along with the growing contacts between Iran and that government, which began as soon as the United States had completed its withdrawal – a move whose strange timing plays into Iran’s hands. If Bashar falls, then, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory. In recent months Iran has – similar to its activity in Lebanon – been investing substantial resources in Iraq. This goes beyond the subversion it waged there throughout the U.S. presence and the assistance it provided, sometimes in coordination with and through Lebanese Hizbullah, to the radical Shiite elements there.

Furthermore, the possible loss of Syria will push Iran to deal more forcefully with its “backyard” – the Persian Gulf – and to settle accounts with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; Iran has not yet said its last word about the Shiite revolt in Bahrain and the Shiites’ struggle in eastern Saudi Arabia. Iran’s recent show of strength in the gulf in the form of a wide-scale naval and army exercise, to be complemented by a Revolutionary Guards exercise to be held in the coming weeks, along with escalatory rhetoric about possibly closing off the Strait of Hormuz in case of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and central bank, indicates that Iran aims to tighten its grip and further entrench its status in the region.

An Abundance of Fault Lines

For as long as it lasts the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines. Parallel to the metahistorical processes is the ongoing weakening of the United States in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic regimes that, albeit mostly Sunni, are much closer to Iran than to America. From Tehran’s standpoint, the real challenge is Turkey, as illustrated by the crisis with Syria. Turkey sees what is happening in Syria – its backyard – as part of the Arab Spring and calls on the president to respond to the will of the people, while Iran keeps backing Bashar and claims the Arab Spring is just a pretext to get rid of him. Both of these states have a superpower-imperialist past they would like to bring back, and will continue their dispute as the Middle Eastern tumult intensifies and even when the dust of the “Arab revolutions” settles. Both, with their apparent Islamic agenda, are competing for the same public, but still a wide gap yawns between them.

Iran appears to be at an advanced stage of reshaping what it calls the resistance camp. The fall of one of its mainstays, the Assad regime, would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in the region. In its view, the electoral victories of the Islamic forces (even if Sunni) and the possibility of communicating with them without fear of governmental repression – particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, while in eastern Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is still under tight control – opens for Tehran a new range of ideology-driven opportunities. As in the past, the common denominator around which it seeks to unite all members of the camp is hatred of the West and Israel. Here, Iran’s rhetoric about the Syrian crisis, which it portrays as an attempt to harm a central Arab actor that has operated against Israel and has paid and is paying a price for its actions, plays a salient role.

Iran will try to consolidate the resistance camp in accordance with the changing geostrategic conditions of the region. In the first stage, it will work to widen the camp’s ideological reach to include both a religious basis of Islam and an ideological-political basis of hatred of Israel and the United States. As for the practical aspects of the struggle against Israel, Iran will continue to leave them in the hands of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, attempting to broaden the scope of military-terrorist conflict with Israel in the future. Meanwhile, Iran is assigning an important role to its nuclear program and to formulating an appropriate deterrence concept that will be combined with its current “resistance camp” doctrine.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Michael Segall, “How Iran Is Helping Assad Suppress Syria’s ‘Arab Spring,'” Jerusalem Issue Brief, July 20, 2011, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=7945&TTL=How_Iran_Is_Helping_Assad_Suppress_Syria’s_”Arab_Spring”

2. http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/93333

3. http://www.nehzatejahani.com/1390/10/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%C2%AB%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%C2%BB-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D9%87/

4. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1496800

5. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

6. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277071

7. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666591&SRCH=1

8. http://shoranews.com/News/2549

9. http://kayhannews.ir/900921/14.htm#other1400

10. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30708565

11. http://www.jomhourieslami.com/1390/13900926/13900926_01_jomhori_islami_sar_magaleh_0001.html

12. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93113-islamic-countries-should-not-play-against-syria

13. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275529

14. http://www.kayhannews.ir/900908/2.HTM#other200

15. http://irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30751979

16. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010170171

17. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010171825

18. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

19. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1482337

20. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93510-ayatollah-advises-turkey-against-stoking-flames-of-syria-crisis

21. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1501152

22. http://www.javanonline.ir/vdcdf90osyt0k56.2a2y.html

23. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277163

24. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1502256

25. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30712338

26. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666436

27. http://www.siasatrooz.ir/vdcdso09.yt0nx6a22y.html

*     *     *

IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Never Mind Israel, Iran’s First Target Might Be its Arab Neighbors « Commentary Magazine.

As Jonathan noted, the New York Times seems determined to downplay Iran’s verbal threats against Israel, first eliminating them from its report on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speech last week and then dismissing them as mere “posturing and saber-rattling.” And I can understand why: Israel is the only country to be openly weighing military action against Tehran’s nuclear program. So dismiss the validity of the threat Iran poses to Israel, and you’ve also seemingly dismissed any need for military action.

The only problem with this approach is that far from being the only country seriously threatened by Iran, Israel may well not even be at the top of the list. To understand why this is so, it suffices to recall Saddam Hussein. Saddam also threatened night and day to destroy Israel. Yet the country he actually tried to wipe off the map wasn’t Israel, but Kuwait.

Nor is this surprising: Saddam’s Iraq, like today’s Iran, aspired to dominate the region. And for that purpose, taking over neighboring Kuwait was far more useful than attacking Israel, both to acquire Kuwait’s bountiful oil fields and to undermine another contender for regional dominance, Kuwaiti ally Saudi Arabia.

Because Israel is isolated from the rest of the Middle East, it is completely irrelevant to the internal jockeying for supremacy among the region’s various Muslim powers. Hence, if Iran’s goal is regional hegemony, then attacking Israel would be a sideshow, just as it was for Saddam – who, while launching a full-scale invasion of Kuwait, made do with lobbing a token 40 Scuds at Israel. The most important targets would be Iran’s regional rivals, first and foremost Saudi Arabia and its allies.

That is why, as Wikileaks revealed two years ago, Arab countries have consistently demanded more forceful American action against Iran. Saudi Arabia, for instance, delivered “frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran,” demanding it “cut off the head of the snake.” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi warned that “[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler.” King Hamad of Bahrain said Iran’s nuclear program “must be stopped,” because “the danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” Lebanon’s Saad Hariri urged military action by saying, “Iraq was unnecessary. Iran is necessary.” A senior Jordanian official said even though bombing Iran would have “catastrophic” consequences, “he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.”

What all these countries know is that they, rather than Israel, might well be Iran’s first targets – but unlike Israel, they lack the military capability even to credibly threaten to attack Iran themselves. And because these countries include some of the world’s major oil producers, that should be of great concern to the West.

None of this means the Iranian threat to Israel isn’t real: Even if a nuclear Iran never attacked Israel directly, it could still wreak havoc via satellite groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But Israel is far from being the only country threatened by Iran. And it’s about time Western pundits and policymakers woke up to that fact.

Incoming IAF chief: Iran is our top concern – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel said in rare speech last month that nuclear Iran would trigger arms race in Middle East, and should be addressed strategically before all other conflicts

Yoav Zitun

Eshel: Iran’s above all else (Photo: Roni Aviv, Bamahane)

The escalating public discourse over the possibility of a strike on Iran‘s nuclear facilities has put a magnifying glass on incoming IAF Chief Major-General Amir Eshel‘s stance on the issue.

Eshel, whose IAF appointment was announced Monday, seldom expresses his opinion publically – all the more so since becoming the head of the IDF‘s Plans and Policy Directorate in 2008.

But in a rare speech made last month at the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, Eshel stressed that while the decision to launch an airstrike on the Islamic Republic is left up to the political echelon, Iran is Israel‘s primary concern.

“Iran is above everything, and it must be taken into account, strategically, before the others,” he said. “A nuclear Iran would cause a mighty change in the region. It would trigger an arms race in the Middle East. I’m sure that other nations in the region will attempt to obtain such weapons as well.

“It could create a situation that leads to a global nuclear jungle,” he added. “This is not an official assessment, but the first lesson that leaders in the Middle East learned from the Arab Spring is that they should obtain nuclear weapons … Who would have dared to question (Gaddafi) or Saddam Hussein if they had atom weapons?”

Eshel raised the concern that a nuclear Iran could embolden terror groups that operate with the Islamic Republic’s backing, including Hamas and Hezbollah – a development that would restrict the IDF in Gaza and Lebanon.

Iran precedes Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

He argued that the Iranian issue even trumps Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, saying that an agreement with the PA won’t bring peace to the region.

“Even if Israel and the Palestinians sign a peace accord tomorrow, it won’t solve the other problems or the Iranian issue,” he said. “An agreement with them won’t create a paradise in the Middle East. I don’t belittle the issue, but if (the agreement) isn’t based on solid security arrangements, it won’t last.”

Eshel noted that as per the government’s order, the IDF supports the Palestinian apparatuses in the West Bank.

“We take many risks in order to help the Palestinians build better lives with a better economy,” he said. “But if we make a mistake here, there won’t be a second chance. This is why we are so determined (to reach an accord), because we already tried in 1993 and in 2000.”

In his speech, Eshel accused the regime in Tehran of running a terrorist state.

“Everyday Iran is fighting everyone, not only through terror but also through economic means,” he said.

Eshel voiced pessimism regarding the outcomes of the turmoil in the surrounding countries, noting that “our estimation that the revolutions would be taken over by other movements have come true.”

“If the economic issues aren’t addressed, a downturn is inevitable,” he said. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt could spread to the region, including Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.”

He warned that Syria’s chemical and biological weapons could fall into the hands of terror groups, noting that the country’s air force armament poses a challenge to the IAF.

“Syria has invested over $2 billion in its air force over the past two years,” he said. “We haven’t seen anything like it in the past two decades. They invested great funds in order to undermine our aerial superiority.”

Report: Top Iran military official aiding Assad’s crackdown on Syria opposition – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(A true “axis of evil.” – JW)

Prominent Syrian lawmaker says the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force has recently arrived in the country to help manage Assad’s regime brutal suppression of a 11-month-long popular unrest.

By Zvi Bar’el

A top Iranian military official is activily aiding the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad in suppressing popular unrest throughout the country, a top member of the National Syrian Council said on Monday.

According to the Syrian official, Kassam Salimani, commander of the Quds Force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces unit, has arrived in Syria recently and has taken up a spot in the war room which manages army maneuvers against opposition forces.

	Syrian forces tank moving along a road during clashes with the Syrian army defectors, in the Rastan area in Homs province, Jan. 30, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

The war room is also reportedly populated by Assad himself, as well as his brother Maher, brother-in-law Assaf Shaukat and cousin Rami Makhlouf, with the Syrian chief of staff’s authority reportedly restricted and divided up between other military commanders.

The Quds Force includes 15,000 elite soldiers who operated, among other locations, in Iraq during the war, and the specialty of which is engaging in unconventional warfare on foreign soil. Among other duties, the Quds Force is in charge of traning and funding Hezbollah.

Salimani’s presence in Syria serves as an indication of the kind of battle that Assad is planning against opposition forces, with the Syrian army reportedly planning to wage all out war against the rebel city of Homs.

According to the report, the Syrian president’s goal is to gain ground ahead of a planned visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who will be arriving in the country along with a military delegation which includes the head of Russian intelligence.

Assad’s aim, sources say, is to display his control of the situation and his ability to suppress the unrest, with the determining battles to be staged in Homs and in the reoccupation of the town of Zabadani, which fell to Free Syria Army forces.

An Al-Arabiya report indicated that the battle over Zabadani has already begun, with Syrian soldiers defecting to the opposition along with eight tanks, and that Homs has been placed under a siege which has included the cutting of electricity and water supplies.

The report also claimed that the Syrian army for the first time has been using rockets in order to target houses as well as mortars to hit populated areas. So far, 60 people were reportedly killed and hundreds wounded in this battle, as well as reports of the demolition of seven houses, residents and all.

Syrian opposition organizations that are active internationally are currently trying to gain a political front bypassing the UN Security Council, where a resolution underwritten by the Arab League failed due to Russian and Chinese vetoes on Saturday.

At this stage, opposition leaders are trying to find a way forward, as it is clear that Turkey and the Arab states oppose military action against the Assad regime, and the imposing of economic sanctions will not stop Assad.

Facing Russia and Chinese opposition, and the Iranian threat to open a new front, there is doubt whether a western coalition will agree to act directly against Syria. The question is whether the Free Syrian Army will be able to get additional military assistance, and to arm itself with heavy artillery, tanks and shells so that it will be able to pose a real challenge to the Syrian army, and change the civilian resistance into a real military struggle, much like the rebel forces in Libya.

Along with the Syria Free Army’s attempts to increase the number of defectors from the Syrian military, the opposition is also considering offering the minority Alawite elite guarantees of their safety in exchange for ordering Alawites to leave the regime and join the civilian resistance.

Along with the Syria Free Army’s attempts to increase the number of defectors from the Syrian military, the opposition is also considering offering the minority Alawite elite guarantees of their safety in exchange for ordering Alawites to leave the regime and join the civilian resistance.

Parallel to these efforts, however, the opposition seems to be facing a new and violent civilian group that is comprised mainly of Syria’s Kurdish minority. This group is working as strongmen for the regime, both in Damascus and in Kurdish population centers.

Arab League: Heavy fighting edging Syria i… JPost – Middle East.

U.S. Embassy In Syria Closed: Reports.

CNN is reporting that the United States has closed its embassy in Syria and withdrawn its staff.

ABC News confirmed that U.S. embassy officials have left the country.

“We have serious concerns about the deteriorating security situation in Damascus,” the State Department said in a written statement last month, according to Reuters.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford left Syria in October following threats to his safety, however he returned to the country in December.

This is a breaking news update. Please check back for more information. Reuters’ earlier story appears below.
WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama vowed to apply sanctions and step up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to leave power but said the Syrian crisis could be resolved without outside military intervention.

“I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention. And I think that’s possible,” Obama told NBC’s “Today” show in an interview broadcast on Monday. (Reporting By Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Bill Trott)

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report February 6, 2012, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama, by asserting Sunday, Feb. 5, he doesn’t think Israel has made a decision on whether to attack Iran, indicated he preferred to keep Israel back from military action and set aside as a strategic reserve, while at the same time using the broad presumption of Jerusalem’s assault plans to intimidate Iran into opting for diplomatic talks on its nuclear program.

To this end, the president directly contradicted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s statement six days earlier that he expected Israel to strike Iran in April, May or June.

In Israel, no knowledgeable source any longer doubts that the Netanyahu government has already reached a decision. It was instantly assumed that Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, whose appointment as the next Israeli Air Force commander was announced Sunday, would lead the coming operation against Iran.

Obama also said, “We are going to be sure we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this – hopefully diplomatically.” debkafile‘s analysts report that by “lockstep” he meant the role to which he had assigned Israel in the massive disinformation contest underway between the West and Iran.

Tehran responded to this verbal assault with one of its own, publishing a paper which suggested for the first time that Iran would not wait to be attacked but was preparing pre-emptive action of its own against Israel. The paper spoke of a surprise missile offensive targeting Israel’s military installations, which were said to be concentrated between Kiryat Gat and the South, and the central Lod-Modiin district in the center, which Iran considers to be the soft urban-military belly of Israel.
Two features stood out from the verbiage of the last 24 hours:
1. Iran has no intention whatsoever of abandoning its drive for a nuclear bomb. According to the information in Israeli hands, its program has passed the point of no return and capable of producing a weapon whenever its rulers so decide. This situation, American and Israeli leaders year after year had vowed to avert.
Iran underscored its negative on diplomacy by contemptuously refusing the IAEA inspectors visiting the country this week access to any of its nuclear facilities.

2. The US-led confrontation against Iran by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar has made Syria a major hub of the conflict, especially since the Russian-Chinese blockage Saturday of their UN Security Council motion to remove President Bashar Assad and end his brutal crackdown.

Israel has no role in this clash of wills, and President Obama is doing his best to keep Israel on the sidelines of the Iran controversy too, while he continues to angle for nuclear dialogue.
He was supported in this course by the veteran ex-diplomat Thomas R. Pickering who wrote in the New York Times on Feb. 2 that US relations with Iran remind him of the old Afghan adage: “If you deal in camels, make sure the doors are high” – meaning that to strike a deal, both President Obama and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would have to make concessions. Obama’s latest words indicate he is willing; Khamenei shows the opposite tendency.
Israel could if it so decided upset this unequal diplomatic applecart before it started rolling by a surprise attack on Iran without prior notice to Washington.

For the Obama administration the Security Council defeat was a major policy setback on top of reversals in Cairo.
Tehran in contrast was buoyed up by what it saw as the lifebelt Moscow and Beijing cast to rescue the Assad regime, for now at least, from the onslaught of its enemies and the stabilization of their Mediterranean flank to the west and direct front against Israel.

The Syrian ruler’s fall would rob Tehran of its most powerful military ally for taking on Israel without direct Iranian involvement. It would also cause the Lebanese Hizballah’s disempowerment as a military force.  Severance of its geographic link to Tehran via Syria would expose the Shiite militia to Western and Arab diplomatic pressure and an Israeli attack.

Sunday, Feb. 5, Tehran followed up with a large-scale, three-week long military exercise in southern Iran opposite the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Ocean. The Iranians were showing Washington that after stabilizing their Syrian front, they were braced for any military surprises the US or Israeli might spring on their most vulnerable region.
Monday, Feb. 6, opposition sources reported that the Syrian army had redoubled its deadly artillery and mortar offensive against Homs and, for the first time, bombarded the national financial and business capital of Aleppo. French sources reported Syrian armored cars were attacking Zabadani between Damascus and the Lebanese border.

If all these reports are confirmed, it would mean that Bashar Assad is taking ruthless advantage of the respite granted him by the Russian and Chinese Security Council veto to stamp out the uprising against him once and for all.

On the diplomatic front Monday, the US-led Western and Arab camp was reported to be pushing hard for the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Internal Security chief Mikhail Fradkov to use their visit to Damascus Tuesday and compel Assad to abandon his brutal attacks, pull his troops out of Syrian towns and step down.
To this end, the Western-Arab bloc is trying to set up another Council session before the end of the week – hopefully to reverse its contretemps of Saturday.

The Six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers meet in Riyadh this week for another round of consultations on the Syrian crisis after the Security Council fiasco and failed attempt to deploy monitors in the war-stricken country.
The West is also threatening to supply the rebels with heavy weaponry, at the risk of an escalation to full-scale civil war. This is an indirect admission that only light arms were given the anti-Assad forces until now. By boosting rebel strength, the West would tell Moscow that tolerance for the Assad regime to continue to rule Syria had dropped to zero.

The Russians are being called upon to back away from their support for Assad and reverse the policy which actuated their veto vote at the Security Council. Whether or not this is realistic will become known as the week unfolds.

Not If, But When.

– Alan Caruba  Monday, February 6, 2012

The Jewish sage, Hillel, said, “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” This has been interpreted to mean that it is an obligation to stand against evil, even if other’s courage desert them.

One doesn’t have to be a historian, a military strategist, a biblical scholar or any other credentialed expert to know that the question of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities is not one of if, but when?

On previous occasions, the Israelis, sensing a direct threat, attacked nuclear facilities, first in Iraq on June 7, 1981 when it destroyed the Osiris reactor under construction and again on September 6, 2007 when it destroyed an undeclared nuclear facility in the Deir ez-Zor region in Syria. It’s worth noting that neither action sparked a war.

Earlier, in 1967, the Israelis, acting on intelligence that Egypt was about to attack, launched its air force and ground troops in what came to be known as the Six Day War. In time, Egypt came to the peace table, signing a historic agreement with Israel.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now essentially clears the air lanes directly into Iran for an attack, shortening the route that otherwise might have been over the air space of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Israel with Saudi permission could use both routes because the Saudis are just as much opposed to a nuclear Iran. As it is, the U.S. Air Force has recently re-assigned key units formerly based in Iraq to Kuwait. The Middle East chess board is being reset.

The Israelis have already undertaken long range practice runs flyiing their bombers as far as Gibraltar and back.

The chatteratti are all saying that Israel faces an “existential” threat. They’re wrong. Israel faces an actual threat of destruction and Iran’s Supreme Leader has never made a secret of his intentions.

A February 1st Wall Street Journal editorial noted that James Clapper, President Obama’s top intelligence advisor, recently told a Senate committee that Iran’s leadership, including Ali Khamenei “have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States as a response to real or perceived actions that threat the regime.”

A story last year that made brief headlines involved a disrupted plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. The editorial noted that the press “went out of its way to cast doubt on the story. The Iranians can’t be that crazy?” Well, yes they are. What else should one expect from a regime that shouts death to America and Israel every day?

The editorial concluded, asking “If the regime is prepared to stage terrorist strikes in America when they don’t have a bomb, what will they be capable of when they do have one?”

Another suggestion that a mission is likely to occur was the unusual statement by the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, that he thought Israel would attack Iran. As the former Director of the CIA, he would be in a good position to know about such things, but it unusual for a DOD Secretary to make such predictions.

The political calculus for President Obama in an election year depends on whether the U.S. supports Israel (a popular option) or lays back and does little (as in Libya), thus losing any chance of securing the powerful evangelical Christian vote; not to mention Jewish support.

Israel will do what the United States, the Saudis, and everyone else in the region will not. It will save itself and the world from the crazed Iranian ayatollahs. The “collateral damage” will be people in Iran who will die as a result and the sad irony will be that the majority of Iranians want an end to the regime as much as the rest of the world.

Thus far, in addition to sanctions against Iran, several of its top nuclear scientists having been assassinated, and an explosion at an Iranian missile launch site killed some of its top military personnel. It also and temporarily eliminated its potential for launching a missile with a six thousand mile range, capable of hitting—you guessed it—the United States.

Presumably, members of Israel’s Mossad and the United States’ CIA should take a bow for these actions, but they can’t for obvious reasons.

After re-inviting members of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to visit recently, the Iranians refused to permit them to visit their nuclear facilities, many of which are buried in bunkers for protection. Meanwhile, the U.S. has let it be known it is working on even bigger “bunker buster” bombs.

Israel is doing its best to signal the Iranian regime that they need to change three decades of an incessant drive to acquire nuclear arms. On February 2nd, its Vice Premier and Strategic Affairs Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, called a nuclear Iran “a nightmare to the free world”, noting that “the West has the ability to strike, but as long as Iran isn’t convinced that there’s a determination to follow through with it, they’ll continue with their manipulations.”

Throughout modern history, even in the face of an imminent threat, the West as vacillated, cut deals with Hitler’s Nazi regime, tried to alter North Korea’s nuclear program with bribes, and dismissed other threats.

Reading the U.S.’s true intent must be a fulltime job in some office of the Israeli government. For three years, the message has been less than encouraging and even hostile. A U.S. President who declared Israel should return to its 1967 borders is out of touch with reality. One can only hope this is all an elaborate hoax to put Iran off its guard. If so, it hasn’t worked.

As Ya’alon has said, “The Iranian threat is not a case of Iran versus Israel. Israel has never declared war on Iran, but the Khomeinistic regime has declared total war on the State of Israel’s very existence.”

The Israelis will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It has no choice. It should be joined by the forces of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and others who would benefit, but as in 1967, 1981, and 2007, Israel will be left to do what others lack the courage to do.

The American Spectator : Pushing Israel to War.

By Jed Babbin on 2.6.12 @ 6:09AM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes that Israel will attack Iran in April, May, or June. This is according to a 2 February Washington Post column by David Ignatius, apparently relying on a conversation with Panetta. Ignatius’s column came out at the same time as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s speech in which Barak declared that Iran would soon enter a stage where its nuclear program would be immune from attack.

In his speech, according to a report in the Financial Times, Barak said, “The world today has no doubt that the Iranian military nuclear program is slowly but surely reaching the final stages, and will enter the immunity stage from which point the Iranian regime will be able to complete the program without any effective intervention and at its convenience.” He added, “Dealing with a nuclearized Iran will be far more complex, far more dangerous and far more costly in blood and money than stopping it today. In other words, those who say ‘later’ may find that later is too late.”

Had statements like these come during the Cold War from, for example, America and Britain, it would be suspected as a ruse. Such ploys were a commonplace then, each side trying to maneuver against the other to draw wavering nations to their side in the dispute du jour.

This is different. Since Obama took office, Israel has learned to suspect America, not trust it. Obama’s Islam-centric foreign policy has broken the link between Israel and the United States. There is no common policy on Iran that could have resulted in coordinated statements by Barak and Panetta.

The personal hostility between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the public face of deep disagreements. Their enmity became open after Obama had demanded Israeli-Palestinian negotiations based on the pre-1967 war borders. Last May, Netanyahu schooled Obama before the television cameras after a rocky private White House meeting. A visibly angry Obama shifted uncomfortably in his chair during Netanyahu’s compelling lecture. Netanyahu’s subsequent speech before a joint session of Congress amplified the clear break between the two men.

Since then, Obama, Panetta, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey have attempted to dissuade Israel from any military action against Iran. But the only result has been that Israel’s distrust of the Obama administration has grown to the point that Israel will not tell Obama what it plans. Panetta himself has worked to heighten that distrust. Last December, he blamed Israel for the lack of talks with the Palestinians, admonishing Israel to “Just get to the damn table.”

In effect, by its feckless actions and pressure on Israel but not Israel’s enemies, Obama has deprived Israel of options other than war. Continued sanctions against Iran have been met with defiance from Iran and dissembling from its allies. Iraq is apparently planning to help Iran avoid a pending embargo on Iranian oil by shipping Iranian oil from its ports, hiding its origin. (That plan may be only symbolic, because the construction of planned pipelines delivering oil and gas from Iran to Iraq’s export center are not scheduled to be finished until 2014.) The European embargo of Iranian oil is months away, and may never happen.

Obama’s actions have made the Middle East and Southwest Asia vastly more unstable. Our actions to encourage rebellion in Egypt and military action in support of the Libyan rebellion have only propelled the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood movement to power in both nations. Panetta’s announcement that we may withdraw from Afghanistan a year early relieves pressure on Iran and encourages both Iran and Pakistan to continue their strong support for the Taliban. Obama’s plan to release five top Taliban commanders from Gitmo is a major boost to the Taliban. According to a leaked NATO classified report, the Taliban are confident that they will return to power quickly after our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist action inside the United States. Iran was greatly emboldened when, in 2009, Obama’s “hands off Iran” policy failed to support the nascent rebellion against the mullahs. Last December, a New York court held that Iran had helped al Qaeda mount the 9/11 attacks. The sad fact is that, since 1979, Iran has paid no price for its central role in terrorism against the United States.

Obama’s preference for passive sanctions — rather than overt or covert measures that can deprive Iran from its ability to produce nuclear weapons — has granted Iran more time to reach what Ehud Barak called the “immunity stage.” What is that?

Immunity for Iran means that its nuclear weapons program would be so deeply buried and dispersed that only a nuclear attack on it could delay or destroy it. Israel can’t afford to wait for Iran’s nuclear weapons program to become immune. Israel would certainly use nuclear weapons in response to such an attack against it, but it isn’t about to wait until a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran is its only option.

The Israeli calculus is complex. Attacking Iran will certainly provoke Iranian attacks, using missiles and terrorist proxies, which could result in massive Israeli casualties. Hizballah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy, will launch its thousands of missiles into Israel. The Hamas terrorists in Gaza will do the same and other Iran-connected terrorists — including al Qaeda — will probably attack U.S. and other western targets. If Israel suffers massive casualties, it’s entirely possible that its Arab neighbors would try to mount another 1967-like attack.

But in 1967 and again in 1973, Israel had clear American support. When Israel appeared to be losing the 1973 war, U.S. Air Force aircraft were being armed and fueled to fly into the fight. That possibility still exists, but the Israelis’ distrust of Obama is so great that they aren’t including that in their war planning. Israel believes it is alone, and in that it’s probably right.

As I wrote about eighteen months ago in a quasi-fictional forecast, Israel’s military will be stretched to the limit in attacking Iranian targets that are a long flying distance from Israel, and are both dispersed and — in many cases — deep underground. If it chooses to attack, it should also judge that suppression missions against Hizballah in Lebanon and against Syrian missile forces are an essential part of the plan. Such an attack will ignite a theater-wide war that Israel may not survive.

Obama isn’t serious about preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. In the three decades since the Iranian regime came to power, no diplomatic effort has ever changed its behavior. The only option for us, for Israel, and for the shopkeepers of Europe is to strike at Iran’s nuclear program to dismantle it. But that option, despite what Obama and Panetta say, isn’t one we are seriously considering. Left with no other choice, Israel will have to do what we lack the resolve to do.

If Secretary Panetta’s belief is as the Washington Post reported, and if we are to take Ehud Barak’s statements at face value, Obama’s inaction would mean that Israel has concluded that it cannot rely on American action in its defense. By continuing inaction against Iran, going beyond ineffectual sanctions, Obama is pushing Israel toward war.

Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the U.S. for a major speech to the AIPAC group next month. It may be the last opportunity for him and Obama to come to an understanding on decisive action against Iran. Soon after Netanyahu returns home, the Israelis will have to risk their nation’s existence in a war that is as much ours as theirs.

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.

Israel and Iran on the Eve of Destruction in a New Six-Day War – The Daily Beast.

There are plenty of arguments against an Israeli attack on Iran. And all of them are bad.

by Niall Ferguson  | February 6, 2012 12:00 AM EST