WarSclerotic

Syrian forces resume Homs bombardment; up … JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS/Handout

The Final Countdown: Israel vs. Iran | FrontPage Magazine.

“No one should expect that a people who lost six million people to a lunatic ideology that had announced its intentions in advance, would make the same mistake twice.”

The 33-year farce of Western appeasement of Iran may be reaching its denouement. For the last few months, the pace of events have quickened as the West sanctions and threatens, and Iran blusters about closing the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off oil to Europe, and unleashing its terrorist proxies. Just last week Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei subtly suggested that Iran would step up its already considerable support of terrorist outfits targeting Israel and the U.S.: “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.” Indulging traditional Islamic anti-Semitic language, Khamenei said Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and claimed that the U.S. would suffer defeat and damage its regional prestige if it decides to use military force to stop the country’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would attack Iran in April, May, or June of this year, a supposition reinforced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in his remarks at the Herzilya Conference that Iran’s “military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.” The backdrop of this war of words is the West’s imposition of yet more sanctions, while the Iranian regime once again rope-a-dopes the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and rumors of American troop concentrations in the region abound.

A constant in all this the diplomatic fencing is the threat of military action by Israel, along with the rumors surrounding such an event and speculations about the extent of Israel’s military capabilities. More important, however, is the unsavory way the Obama administration is using the threat of Israeli military action to influence Iranian behavior, at the same time it positions itself to avoid any responsibility for an attack. Thus Panetta publicly has been warning Israel against attacking, listing all the “unintended consequences” that would follow, at the same time the U.S. demands that Israel do nothing without alerting the United States in advance. However, despite these public warnings to Israel, it has long been clear that the administration’s diplomatic efforts have all been underwritten by the implicit threat that Israel will take unilateral military action. So it is that Israel is made the Dirty Harry of the Middle East, her actions decried by Western nations too cowardly to do what they know needs to be done, as in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak atomic reactor only to be condemned by the United States.

For make no mistake, Iran cannot be allowed to succeed in manufacturing nuclear weapons, or even achieving “nuclear latency,” the ability rapidly to produce them when needed. Such armaments in the hands of an Iranian regime besotted with apocalyptic Twelver Shi’ism and religiously sanctioned Jew-hatred would radically reconfigure the Middle East, sparking nuclear proliferation in the region and endangering not just Israel, but a large portion of the world’s oil supply. Yet on her own, Israel can at best delay Iran’s progress for at best three to five years. Apart from the logistical challenges of such a complex attack, nuclear production facilities in Iran have been dispersed into 17 known sites, many of which have been moved deep underground into fortified bunkers and tunnels.

The fallout of such an attack, moreover, could hit Israel hard. By Israeli estimations, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah has stockpiled in Lebanon 50,000 missiles, which can reach every corner of Israel. Following the fall of Mubarak and the ascendancy of the Muslim Brothers, the southern border with Egypt is no longer secure, thus providing an avenue for Hamas terrorist attacks. A beleaguered Bashar al Assad in Syria could distract attention from his slaughter of Syrians by attacking Israel in the Golan. Although the United States has said it would defend Israel in these circumstances, it is not certain how reliable that pledge is in an election year, with a U.S. president who already has shown by his actions a marked dislike for Israel. After all, this is a president who counts Turkey’s Recep Erdogan as one of his closest international buddies, despite Turkey’s naked support for the genocidal Hamas, but who publicly disparages Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Certainly, Israel would find little sympathy and support in the U.N. or the E.U. after an attack on Iran.

Yet despite these difficulties, Israel cannot coexist with a nuclear Iran that has threatened to “wipe Israel from the map,” as Iranian president Ahmadinejad has said, or any longer bide her time hoping economic sanctions will work on religious fanatics. Israel takes seriously the post-Holocaust “never again” pledge that the rest of the world professes, but does little to enforce. No one should expect that a people who lost six million people to a lunatic ideology that had announced its intentions in advance, would make the same mistake twice. Nor should we expect a country that since its birth has been attacked three times by its more populous neighbors, and subjected to continual terrorist murder of its citizens by peoples who have made clear that Israel’s existence is a intolerable crime against their faith, to roll the dice and accept letting the world’s foremost supporter of jihadist terrorism acquire weapons of apocalyptic lethality. Yet at least publicly, there has been little appreciation of Israel’s existential predicament on the part of her presumed allies. On the contrary, for decades now Israel has been pressured to make concession after concession to enemies seeking her destruction, pilloried on the diplomatic world stage as a neo-colonialist racist oppressor, and blamed for every political and social dysfunction in the region, all at the hands of Western nations that would not tolerate living with Israel’s existential threats for five seconds.

Particularly distasteful has been the current administration’s actions. Even as he praises the “Arab Spring” and its alleged march toward liberal democracy, Obama has bullied, blamed, and put at risk the only genuine liberal democracy in the region, a beacon of freedom and respect for human rights, and a stalwart ally in the midst of Islamist hatred directed as much at America as at Israel. Rather than playing this duplicitous game of relying on Israeli military muscle to give teeth to diplomatic efforts while publicly distancing itself from an Israeli strike, the Obama administration should start planning and announcing a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran of the sort that drove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990-91. The stated goal, moreover, should not be just the degradation of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but the destruction of the Republican Guards’ military assets and the material support of Iranian dissident groups in order to effect regime change.

Instead, in our relations with Israel we increasingly resemble the despicable behavior of France and England towards Czechoslovakia in 1938. As Hitler used diplomacy as cover for his aggression, France and England pressured the Czechs to make more and more suicidal concessions. Afraid to fight when it most likely would have won, the French and English abandoned Czechoslovakia and had to fight anyway a year later, when victory was in doubt and ultimately achieved mainly because of Hitler’s lunatic invasion of the Soviet Union. So too today, the equally genocidal Iranian regime can be stopped by a unified and determined Western alliance. Instead, though, Obama is leaving Israel out on a limb as he calculates the “unforeseen consequences” and seeks political advantage. He needs to start calculating the easily foreseen and much more disastrous consequences of Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons. That’s what true leaders do: recognize that the choice is seldom between the good and the bad, but rather between the bad and the worse.

‘Israeli attack will prompt Pakistani response’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

European diplomat based in Islamabad says Israeli strike would force Pakistan to support Iranian retaliation, while EU official says ‘political and economic consequences of attack would be catastrophic for Europe’

Dudi Cohen and AP

Is the world counting down to “D-Day”? After US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated that Israel would attack Iran by June, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned government officials against “Iran chatter,” A European diplomat based in Pakistan said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation.

The diplomat’s statement raised the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, which is widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

To some, the greatest risk of an attack was to the moribund world economy. Nick Witney, former head of the EU’s European Defense Agency, said “the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe” since the likely spike in the price of oil alone “could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession.”

He said this could lead to “messy defaults” by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro.

Revolutionary Guard officers during exercise

Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that “the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies.”

Meanwhile, Iran continued to raise the bar, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander on Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic will target any country where an attack against it is staged.

Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s most powerful military force, did not elaborate. His comments appeared to be a warning to Iran’s neighbors not to let their territory or airspace be used as a base for an attack.

On Friday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

West, Arab states must move to stop Assad violence – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The only possible explanation for the conduct of China and Russia is the desire to prevent a Western ‘takeover’ of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

Haaretz Editorial

Russia and China’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution against Syria is in fact license for Syria’s president to continue slaughtering his citizens with impunity. The veto makes eminently clear how weak the international community is when it comes to people who are trying to free themselves from the dictator’s burden and who dream of democracy and a fair life.

China and Russia’s rejection of the resolution despite the terrible slaughter in Homs and despite changes made in the resolution to satisfy those two countries is nothing less than a spit in the face of Syria’s citizens. Their move makes the two superpowers full partners in the acts of murder.

	The United Nations Security Council
	Photo by: AP

The members of the protest movement in Syria waited a long time before they asked for help from the international community. Like their counterparts in Egypt, they thought at first that dialogue with the existing regime might bring about reasonable reform. But instead of dialogue, they got more bullets and bombs.

Even the Arab League hesitated before deciding on the extraordinary step of suspending Syria’s membership in that body and imposing economic sanctions. But even then, it left Assad with the opportunity to resolve the crisis by allowing Arab monitors to study the situation in his country. Assad mocked the Arab League’s proposal and thwarted the monitors.

All through that period, Western countries made do with denouncing Syria and imposing weak sanctions on the pretext that they were waiting for the Arab League to approach them, as if legitimization was needed to act against a murderous ruler.

It is difficult to think of a good reason to veto a resolution that does not even call for Assad’s removal, and is careful not to support outside intervention. The only possible explanation for their conduct is the desire to prevent a Western “takeover” of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

In light of the miserable outcome of the United Nations deliberations, and considering the terrible number of casualties, we can only hope that the West, together with the Arab League, will be able to quickly formulate a new, much more aggressive policy that will put a stop to Assad’s murderousness.

U.N. victory may push Syria’s Assad into unwinnable war.

The Russia and Chinese veto may bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s contention that he is fighting an Islamist insurgency funded and directed by foes in Gulf Arab states. (Reuetrs)

inShare

Scores killed and injured as Syrian army shells Homs; shelling seen as ‘real war’.

Monday, 06 February 2012

The shelling is the most intensive shelling on Baba Amro since the start of the protests. (Al Arabiya)

inShare2

Iran official suggests pre-emptive Israel strike – Washington Times.

As nuclear tensions escalate, threats grow.

Tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear program escalated as Tehran’s armed forces staged exercises over the weekend and Iranian leaders vowed to retaliate against Western sanctions and any Israeli strike on the regime’s atomic sites.

What’s more, an Iranian official called for a pre-emptive missile attack on Israel before the end of the year to prevent an Israeli attack on the Islamic republic. According to Israel’s Channel 2 on Sunday, Ahmed Tavakoli, head of the Iranian Parliament’s research center, posted the remark on the institute’s website.

Meanwhile, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned that Iran would punish military strikes against his country’s nuclear program, which Western nations fear is developing an atomic weapon.

His militia staged exercises over the weekend near the southern city of Jiroft, according to state media.

The military drills were executed a day after Iran’s supreme leader vowed that “sanction will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course.”

In recent days, Israeli officials have issued some of their strongest warnings to date that the Jewish state will not allow Iran to do that.

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday, referring to fears that, once Iran completes a new underground nuclear facility near Qom, its program will be immune from attack.

Israeli officials have said they will not allow Iran to enter this “zone of immunity.”

U.S. officials have said they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon and have not ruled out military action to stop them. But they believe the Islamic regime has not yet decided whether to create an atomic bomb.

Although small-scale, the exercises by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, whose senior leadership was implicated in a foiled terror plot against the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year, could stoke U.S. concerns that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program might blow back against the United States.

U.S. officials believe “Iranian retaliation would fall largely on U.S. military and even civilian personnel” serving in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, said Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.

Top U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers last week that Iran might use terrorist or criminal proxies to strike at American and allied targets, including in the U.S. homeland, in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said last week that he believes Israel could attack in the spring. The comments, which he has declined to dispute, were the latest in a series of public comments by U.S. officials rasing the specter of an Israeli strike.

The comments, Ms. Slavin said, are part of a concerted effort by U.S. officials “to smoke the Israelis out,” forcing Israeli officials into an unprecedented public debate about their options. “We are telling them every which way we can ‘Don’t do it,’ ” she said.

The Obama administration does not want Israel to strike because it would send the price of oil soaring and smash the international coalition against Iran that the United States has established, she added.

“The Israelis would be doing [Tehran] a huge favor if they attack,” because a divided and increasingly impoverished Iranian people undoubtedly would rally behind their leaders, Ms. Slavin said.

Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said there would be “no comment, no response,” to Mr. Panetta’s comments

But a veteran Iran scholar said bellicose rhetoric from Iranian leaders is to be expected as Iran celebrates the anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

“The rhetoric always becomes very heated at this time of year,” said Judith S. Yaphe, a research fellow at the National Defense University. “They will make very aggressive remarks. They will launch their latest, newest, flashiest technology.”

• Abraham Rabinovich in Jerusalem contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports.

After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror – St. Louis Jewish Light: World – After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror: World.

Obama: U.S. in ‘lockstep’ with Israel on Iran – Josh Gerstein – POLITICO.com.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72479.html#ixzz1lZnlGnYM

President Barack Obama said Sunday that he’s committed to working in “lockstep” with Israel to try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as concern is rising in the U.S. and overseas about a possible Israeli strike on Iran that could unleash violence across the Middle East.

Obama seemed eager to calm worries that Israel is on the brink of a pre-emptive attack, even as he continued to warn about the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Obama said during a six-minute, live interview from the White House during NBC’s Super Bowl pre-game show. “We are going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this — hopefully, diplomatically.”

Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he believes expanded international sanctions on Iran are hurting the regime.

“They are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure,” the president said. “But they have not taken the steps that they need to diplomatically to say ‘We will pursue peaceful nuclear power. We will not pursue a nuclear weapon.’ Until they do, I think Israel is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.”

Obama did not directly answer a question from Lauer about whether the U.S. has blessed any military action by Israel, nor would he say whether Israel has promised to warn the U.S. before carrying out a strike against Iran.

“I won’t go into the details of our conversations. I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we ever have. And my number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel,” Obama said.

A series of published reports and statements from Israeli officials in the past week have raised concern that the Jewish state may act in the next few months to try to set back Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful but outside experts believe is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

In response to a question from Lauer, Obama said he doubts that Iran is seeking to carry out attacks in the United States. “We don’t see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now,” the president said.

Obama’s statement was a curious one, since an intelligence community assessment that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper presented to Congress last week said that some Iranian leaders “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Obama said he prefers a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, in part because of the potential impact a military confrontation could have on the U.S. economy and on U.S. troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“But we’re not going to take any options off the table, and I’ve been very clear that we’re going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the president said.

Lauer did not ask Obama during the live interview about the violence Saturday in the Syrian city of Hama, where more than 200 people reportedly were killed by pro-regime forces.

But Lauer did remind Obama that in a Super Bowl interview in 2009, the president said that if he wasn’t “done” turning the economy around by now, he would not be reelected.

“I deserve a second term, but we’re not done,” Obama said Sunday. “When you and I sat down, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. … Now we’re creating 250,000 [a month]. We created 3.7 million jobs over the last 23 months. We’ve created the most jobs since 2005, the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990s, but we’re not finished.”

Obama cited his efforts to create jobs in the manufacturing and energy fields, as well as the administration’s work to increase regulation on the financial markets and improve education so American workers will be better equipped for the future. He also warned, in vague terms, that solutions Republicans are offering are unwise.

“We’ve made progress,” Obama said. “The key right now is to make sure we don’t start turning in a new direction that could throw that progress off.”

As he buckles down for his reelection bid, Obama refused to pick sides in Sunday’s showdown between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. He suggested his reticence was the product of true uncertainty rather than political caution.

“I can’t call it. I think this is going to be one of them where it comes down to a turnover,” Obama said during the six-and-a-half hour pre-game broadcast. “I think this is going to be a tough game. Both teams have their weaknesses. They’re not a strong as they were a couple of years ago.”

Asked by Lauer, Obama said his daughters Malia and Sasha are not quite old enough to be putting up posters of heartthrobs like Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. And the president said he wouldn’t welcome that sort of thing.

“I may call some executive privilege and say that that’s not appropriate,” Obama joked.

First lady Michelle Obama also made an appearance during NBC’s Super Bowl coverage Sunday, in a pre-recorded segment about the National Football League’s “Play 60” program encouraging kids to engage in 60 minutes of physical activity daily. The NFL public service effort is a partner of “Let’s Move,” Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity.

Early in the pre-game show, the first lady was shown giving a White House tour to James Gale, an 11-year-old boy originally from Liberia who now lives in North Carolina. Gale won a “Play 60” contest and was picked to deliver the game ball onto the field during the Super Bowl.

More of the interview with Obama is set to air on NBC’s “Today” show Monday morning.

House Intel Chair: Israel Attack on Iran Would Harm U.S. National Security – ABC News.