WarSclerotic

West of Eden-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

The expectation that Israel should ignore the lessons learned from the destruction of European Jewry is irrational.

By Chemi Shalev

I can well understand people who dismiss comparisons between Adolf Hitler and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 1939 Germany and 2012 Iran or the modern and well-armed state of Israel and defenseless Holocaust-era European Jewry. The differences are so vast that there is no wonder that many people find them ludicrous.

I can also empathize with those who suspect that supporters of an attack on Iran are cynically conjuring images of the Holocaust in order to advance their cause. In recent years, any tin pot dictator who threatens Israel is Hitler’s successor, any critic of Israeli policies is a latter-day Goebbels and every call to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders is but a station on the road to the Final Solution.

	Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at a ceremony in Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz in 2008.
	Photo by: AP

And when zealot settlers call IDF soldiers Nazis and their commanders Eichmanns, when left-wing radicals describe the Israeli army as SS stormtroopers and Gaza as Dachau, when one of the most popular characters on Seinfeld is a Soup Nazi and when Adolf Hitler himself becomes the darling of YouTube spoofs from the movie Downfall – one can hardly blame people for refusing to take Holocaust analogies seriously.

But even if the legacy of the Holocaust has been crassly trivialized and cynically exploited by politicians in Israel and in America, it is still a towering presence in the lives of most Israelis and Jews, individually, and of Israel and the Diaspora, collectively. It is not some distant memory, it is not a historical tragedy, it is not something that happened to our forefathers once upon a time in a strange and distant land, it is not a ruse, not a cover, not a pretext and not an excuse. Even as the last of the survivors are rapidly disappearing from our lives and even if their children and grandchildren are living secure and comfortable lives and even if Israel has the most powerful army in the Middle East and a reported nuclear arsenal that can destroy any combination of its enemies seven times over, memories of the Holocaust are omnipresent. And 70 years after the fact, it is the main prism through which I and most other Jews view the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran and the echo chamber where the arguments for and against a military attack are heard.

My mother, of blessed memory, never forgave her parents for refusing to leave Prague after the Nazi occupation in 1939, even though they stood a good chance of securing an exit visa. And she never forgave herself for not insisting.

It’s only bluster, they told her, a political posture He wouldn’t dare. The world won’t allow it. The Germans would never agree. The proud and lofty civilization of Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven cannot harbor such evil. Herr Hitler might be a ruthless and cunning and Jew-hating politician, but he’s not crazy. He knows his limitations. He isn’t suicidal. He wouldn’t push his country over the edge. All we need do is wait and this too shall pass. You go ahead, they told her, but we will stay here. Everything will be all right.

My grandfather died of typhus in October 1943 in the Terezin concentration camp in Czechoslovakia and my grandmother was gassed to death in Auschwitz in late 1944, when the Germans had already lost the war but were insanely insisting on using their last remaining resources to murder as many Jews as they possibly could. And when the Allies were asked to bomb the camps or the rail lines feeding them, but they couldn’t be bothered

. They were otherwise engaged.

So after listening carefully to the logical analyses of experts about the internal rivalries between the Ayatollahs, the limitations of the Iranian regime, its need to divert attention away from the deteriorating economy, the growing internal opposition, the prospects for regime change, the 3000-year-old civilization that would never be risked, the hidden rationality of the irrational bluster, the fact that the Iranian leadership is not suicidal and would not endanger its own existence and the deterrent power of Israel’s powerful army and nuclear arsenal – after all this, I still believe, as do many Jews and Israelis, that a nuclear Iran is the worst possible option and that anything and everything that can be done should be done to prevent it.

And though I freely admit that this attitude is heavily influenced by the trauma and the legacy of the Holocaust, I reject the notion that this is irrational. In fact, the opposite is true: it is the expectation that when they come to make a decision about Iran, Israelis should ignore their experience, disregard their memories and forget the lessons that they learned from the destruction of European Jewry that is itself irrational. Jews know better than most that the unthinkable should never be dismissed, that the monstrous is often a viable option and that inside any supposedly cool and calculating anti-Semite there may lurk a murderous barbarian just waiting for an opportunity.

After all, what differentiated Hitler from all the others was neither his motivation nor his intention to exterminate the Jews, but the fact that he had the means and the opportunity to do so. When Iran has a bomb and a missile to carry it, it too will have the instrument of Israel’s destruction at its disposal. No rational leader of modern-day Israel – which, despite the cliché, rose out of the ashes of the Holocaust – can ever allow such a thing to happen.

Other than “Israel-lasters” – that is people who have Israel’s worst interests at heart and who view American foreign policy through the narrow prism of weakening Israel as much as possible – most opponents of a military confrontation with Iran, either American or Israeli, are genuinely convinced that it would do more harm than good, would damage rather than enhance America’s interests in the Middle East and would entail horrific consequences for Israel and the region as a whole. And who are convinced that Iran will never attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because the regime, after all, is completely rational and intent on surviving.

On my side of the argument, I admit, there are some gung-ho Republican presidential candidates who sometimes seem absolutely gleeful in promoting an attack on Iran – remember John McCain’s 2008 rendition of “bomb, bomb, Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann? – as well as run-of-the-mill rabid right wingers who disdain diplomacy, don’t believe in sanctions, think that liberals and Europeans are weak-kneed appeasers, view all Muslims – including Hussein Obama, of course – as collaborating with Iran against Western civilization and would like nothing better than to see clouds of smoke, preferably mushroom-shaped, rising over Tehran.

But most Israelis, from both sides of the political spectrum, would rather have Iran cave in to sanctions or be defeated in the clandestine war that is being waged against it. They are perplexed by the opposition of some Israeli security chiefs to an attack and absolutely terrified of its aftermath and its fallout and the danger that these may prove no less destructive than if Iran had built the bomb.

Nonetheless, when push comes to shove, when all the other options have been exhausted, when there is no other avenue left, when it’s yes or no, do or die, kill or be killed – then I think that most Israelis and Jews, including myself, will support a military attack. And the only way to prevent such a risky and dangerous development is to stop the Iranian nuclear problem dead in its tracks, and to stop it now.

Otherwise, in all likelihood, with grave doubts and terrible misgivings, the planes, will be dispatched, the missiles will be launched, the troops will be landed and the bombs will then explode. Because the phrase “Never Again”, however grossly misused and cynically manipulated throughout the years, was actually meant for this very moment.

Rick Santorum: Obama helping Iran obtain nuclear weapons – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Republican presidential hopeful, coming off a 3-state primary sweep, says American President ‘throwing Israel under the bus’ over U.S. dependency on oil.

By The Associated Press

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday accused President Barack Obama of actively seeking ways to allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapon and suggested that the administration had betrayed Israel by publicly disclosing what may be a plan to attack the Muslim nation.

Santorum drew connections between the administration’s opposition to the Keystone pipeline project, which would bring oil from Canada to U.S. refineries, and American dependency on foreign oil and U.S.-Israel relations.

	Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaking during a rally, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012, in Oklahoma City.
	Photo by: AP

“We’re throwing Israel under the bus because we know we’re going to be dependent upon OPEC,” Santorum said during a speech in Oklahoma City. “We’re going to say, ‘Oh, Iran, we don’t want you to get a nuclear weapon — wink, wink, nod, nod — go ahead, just give us your oil.’ Folks, the president of the United States is selling the economic security of the United States down the river right now.”

The U.S. doesn’t purchase oil from Iran but its allies do. Pulling Iranian oil from the world market would wreak havoc on oil prices in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Santorum later told CNN that Obama’s actions support the view that the president was choosing Iran over Israel. He accused Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of divulging sensitive information about Israel’s plans to strike Iran and then invited scorn upon the Jewish state from the rest of the world.

Panetta is not on the record saying that the U.S. has concluded that Israel plans to strike Iran. The Washington Post published a column last week saying that Panetta has concluded that an Israeli strike is likely before summer, but Panetta has declined to comment on that assertion.

Santorum told CNN: “The president fought tooth and nail against putting sanctions on Iran and only capitulated at the end. This is a president who is not standing by our allies, is trying to appease, trying to find a way to allow — clearly to allow Iran to get this nuclear weapon. He’s doing absolutely nothing in a consequential way to make sure that they do not get this weapon.”

Iran has maintained that it is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon but refuses to capitulate to demands that it abandon controversial elements of its nuclear program. It argues that sanctions are a form of aggression.

The Obama administration has rejected Republican charges that it has been weak in its response to Iran and points to sanctions and diplomacy as a cautious but effective way of dealing with a situation that could upend oil markets and the world economy.

The Obama campaign responded to Santorum’s remarks by reiterating its position that more pressure than ever has been placed on Iran and that the president has led the international effort to sanction Iran.

Obama said this week that Israel had not decided whether to launch a strike against Iran and that he hoped the nuclear standoff could be resolved through diplomacy. However, the president also said the U.S. has planned a range of options and was prepared to exercise them if necessary.

Economic coercion by the U.S. and its allies appears more likely than a military strike. Besides new U.S. sanctions on Iran’s central bank, Europe has approved its first embargo against Iranian oil.

While campaigning in strongly conservative Oklahoma, Santorum defended himself against criticism from rival Mitt Romney over of his backing of home-state projects during his career in Congress, saying that some so-called earmarks were necessary for defense or health programs.

Romney has been challenging Santorum’s commitment to fiscal discipline by pointing out that Santorum sought funding for home-state projects when he represented Pennsylvania in Congress. The former Massachusetts governor has stepped up his criticism of Santorum since the former senator’s three-state sweep in Tuesday’s nomination elections.

The taint of earmarks, or spending that lawmakers direct to favorite projects, still dogs candidates courting the fiscally conservative tea party movement. Santorum argued that earmarks were a legislative check on the executive branch.

“There are good earmarks and bad earmarks,” he told reporters after a speech.

Santorum specifically defended targeted spending for the V-22 Osprey helicopter and a human tissue medical program in Pittsburgh. He declined to identify any earmarks he regretted.

On Wednesday, Romney said Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich belong to a category of Republicans who “spent too much money, borrowed too much money, earmarked too much.”

Santorum said Thursday that he fought to end earmarks amid concerns that lawmakers were abusing the practice. He tried to turn the issue back on Romney, who is having trouble winning over the conservative voters that Santorum, himself a conservative, is appealing to.

Santorum said Massachusetts benefited from earmarked money from Washington when Romney was governor.

“Gov. Romney’s campaign has been about serially tearing down but not offering any kind of vision about what he wants to do for this country,” Santorum said. “He’s not going out and talking about his record as governor of Massachusetts. He hides from that record.”
Romney, who had no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement urging Congress to ban earmarks permanently.

44% of Americans support strike … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Russia accuses West of arming Syrian rebel… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS/Amateur video

Arrow missile defense system successfully test… JPost – Defense.

Articles: Israeli Deterrence and Dolphins.

By Jonathan F. Keiler

TheSpec – Israeli author says attack Iran before it’s too late.

DDN09GOODMAN. Author and journalist Hirsh Goodman speaks in Hamilton Thursday night at Beth Jacob Synagogue. Gary Yokoyama/The Hamilton Spectator Source: The Hamilton Spectator

Daniel Nolan

February 10, 2012

A prominent Israeli writer is advocating his nation attack Iran’s nuclear development facilities now because the risk is too great after that country builds nuclear weapons.

Hirsh Goodman doesn’t believe sanctions being pushed by Western nations will stop Iran and said something has to be done this year before Iran moves its nuclear work underground.

He said a nuclear Iran, along with a nuclear Pakistan, would plunge the world into “a new cold war, if not a hot one.”

“The minute Iran is nuclear, it’s a whole different game,” Goodman said Thursday night at the Beth Jacob Synagogue in west Hamilton.

“Not because they are going to blow up Israel. They’ve got missiles that can reach the east cost of America, but what happens if the ayatollah (Iran’s supreme leader) wakes up one morning and destroys the Saudi fields and the Kuwaiti oilfields and the West is left with no energy.”

Goodman, 65, is a former defence correspondent for The Jerusalem Post and the founder of The Jerusalem Report. He has written three books, the most recent coming out last year called The Anatomy of Israel’s Survival. He works as a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

More than 100 came out to the event sponsored by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Hamilton.

Goodman said he hears the “fear” that if Israel attacks Iran, that nation will essentially make life hell for Israel afterwards. He said the actual assessment is that Iran “can do nothing” to prevent Israel from attacking its four nuclear development facilities, which he believes will put Iran’s nuclear ambitions back 20 years.

“What are they going to do?” he asked. “Not supply the world with oil. If there is terror, we’ll fight it. Iran today has never been weaker than it is right now. Their currency is finished … The country is in internal turmoil.”

He said if an attack is not done “when we can do it,” the only way to do it afterwards is with a tactical nuclear weapon.

“That’s a changed world,” Goodman noted. “No one has used a tactical nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There’s great benefit to getting it done when you can do it.”

Explosions rock Syrian city of Aleppo, state TV blames ‘terrorist gangs’.

Friday, 10 February 2012

People gather around the entrance of a damaged building after a car bomb blew up at security sites in Damascus Dec. 23, 2011. (Reuters)

inShare

DEBKA.

Vladimir Putin

“Russia is prepared to use military power to defend Iran and Syria. An attack on Syria or Iran is an indirect attack on Russia.”
This assertion by Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, a former member of Russia’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview on Russia Today TV on Feb. 1, fairly represented the Kremlin line on the conflict in Syria and its opposition to Western policies for Iran’s nuclear weapon program.
In taking a hard line on the two most combustible issues of the day, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin seeks much more than to fan Cold War fires with nationalist hot air, for the sake of winning his third term as president on March 4; he is laying the foundations of a comprehensive policy of confrontation with the United States to restore Russia’s superpower status. To this end, he is gladly extending a helping hand to any Middle East or Muslim factor willing to defy America.
This ambition transcends the Russian historic drive for warm water ports. Some Western and Israeli analysts assert that all Moscow wants is to maintain its presence in Syria’s Mediterranean ports of Tartus and Latakia and its lucrative arms market in Damascus. They argue that If Washington allows this – and refrains from sidelining Moscow as it did over the anti-Qaddafi operation in Libya – US and Russian interests in Iran would overlap and so prepare the way for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s fall.
This proposition was put forward by former Israeli Mossad chief and national security adviser Efraim Halevy, in the The New York Times of February 8.
But this thesis is not borne out in the information leaking out of the long conversation Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian SVR intelligence chief Mikhail Fradkov held in Damascus with the Syrian president Tuesday, Feb. 7, say DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence and Moscow sources.
According to those sources, Russia’s support for Assad rule is guided by a quite different set of motives. Those motives impelled Russia to join China in vetoing the Security Council resolution demanding that the Syrian ruler step down and halt his brutal crackdown.
Moscow sees a US-Islamist world conspiracy

1. One such motive is the conviction that the US is conspiring with Islamist movements to bring them to power in Middle East, Persian Gulf and Central Asian countries by helping them displace the incumbent regimes. This belief dominates the thinking in top political, military and intelligence leadership circles in Moscow.
They regard this putative conspiracy as a direct threat to Russia’s national security given the country’s demography.
Muslim minorities make up 20 percent of the Russian population. Muslim Adyghe, Balkars, Chechens, Circassians, Ingush, Kabardin, Karachay and numerous Dagestani peoples are the majority in the North Caucasus and the regions between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The Tatar and Bashkir peoples inhabiting the central Volga Basin are also predominantly Muslim.
The Russian fear of Muslim uprisings runs deep, harking back even before the Chechen revolt to the days of the Cold War.
Contemporary heads of the Kremlin believe that Washington has not fundamentally changed in the 33 years since a former Democratic administration headed by President Jimmy Carter was persuaded by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to let the Khomeinist Shiite revolution overthrow the Shah of Iran.
Carter and Brzezinski are also accused to this day of counting the moments to the Russian Communist Empire’s breakup based on the high Muslim birthrate which they predicted would make 70 percent of the Red Army Muslim – a prediction that was never fulfilled.
Therefore, an interview with Brzezinski on NBC News’ Morning Joe on Tuesday, Feb. 7 was enough to raise hackles in Moscow, especially when he downplayed Russian fears as “exaggerated” because Western powers were unlikely to antagonize China and Russia by meddling in their internal conflicts. But the former security adviser admitted that this fear might be “understandable” given past military interventions in Libya and former Yugoslavia.
Assad is Moscow’s favorite to win the civil war

2. Russian officials see Syria sliding into civil war. After weighing the domestic balance of power, they are betting on Assad as favorite to win the contest.
3. Moscow sees any Western-Arab intervention for toppling Assad as the prelude to an assault on the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran.
While Russia’s strategic assets in Syria are often mentioned, its heavy stake in Iran, mostly in Tehran’s nuclear industry and program, receives much less prominence in the West. Russia designed and built Iran’s first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, is responsible for its maintenance and is Tehran’s largest supplier of nuclear fuel rods.
Western and Israeli campaigns against Iran’s nuclear program are seen in Moscow as calculated to spoil Arab and Muslim markets for Russian nuclear technology sales and investment.
4. The Russians dismiss Western arguments for urging Assad’s removal as specious.
Former Russian Prime Minister and KGB head Yevgeny Primakov, a prominent Middle East expert and diplomatic veteran, explained the Russian veto to the Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat in an interview on Wednesday, Feb. 8: One reason, he said, was because the West-backed Arab League draft was one-sided, assigning all the blame for the crisis on the Assad government.
Moscow will give no quarter on Syria

“We [Russia] find that all the accusations are directed against the government troops and Assad personally, whilst his departure was framed as being inevitable.”
Primakov then referred to the Libyan operation: “They [the West] assured us that this [Security Council] resolution aimed at nothing more than to provide air cover to prevent Qaddafi using his air force against civilians. They deceived us, for this resolution aimed primarily to overthrow him.”
Turning back to Syria, the Russian diplomat asked: “If there are Western officials who are saying it is necessary that Assad leaves power, then I would ask them: Will this guarantee stability in Syria?”
These are the arguments put forward by Moscow for justifying their backing for Bashar Assad. And that is why the main purpose of the visit to Damascus by Sergei Lavrov and Mikhail Fradkov was to discuss ways of helping to strengthen Assad’s hand for fighting his opponents.

DEBKA.

Hillary Clinton and Ahmet Davutoglu

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to Washington Wednesday, Feb. 8, to market Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan‘s latest Syria initiative to the Obama administration when he meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The scheme aims at bypassing what he calls the “fiasco” of the Russo-Chinese defeat of the Western-Arab Security Council motion for terminating Syrian violence and Bashar Assad’s rule by embarking on an initiative with those countries “that stand by the people, not the Syrian government,” Erdogan explained to the Turkish parliament Tuesday night, Feb. 7.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources report exclusively that the Turkish leader hopes his plan will pit Western and Arab air and naval might against the Russian naval strength on hand for the Assad regime. It would establish a combined Turkish-Arab paramilitary monitoring force to occupy the principal flashpoint cities, declaring them “humanitarian zones” or “humanitarian cities.”
They would be placed off-limits to Syrian military and security forces and outside the regime’s jurisdiction.
Erdogan timed his initiative to steal the thunder of the Russian move in sending Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and intelligence chief Mikhail Fradkov to Damascus for talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad that day.
No regional air force is up to enforcing a no-fly zone without the US

The Turkish Prime Minister hoped to capture the lead of the Muslim-Arab front championing the beleaguered Syrian people. By showing Russia up as backing the villain of the Syrian drama, he sought to fuel Arab and Sunni Muslim mainstream resentment of Moscow.
The war-torn cities of Homs, Hama, Idlib, Zabadani, Deir al-Zour and Daraa are first in line for the project which is still a work in progress.
Our sources say Turkish military planners have not yet determined which Arab and Muslim governments will contribute to the force, or how it will gain admittance to Syria, attain control of the embattled cities and defend them against further Syrian attacks.
Erdogan claims he has commitments from Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates-UAE to jump aboard. He is now trying to bring Saudi Arabia into the operation.
To take off and operate in the Syria’s “humanitarian cities,” the force would require a substantial air umbrella for enforcing no-fly zones overhead.
The Turkish air force, though available, lacks the military and logistical technology for continuous around-the-clock surveillance with sophisticated intelligence support. The only power with the required capabilities is the United States, as NATO forces discovered last year in Libya. Without US command centers and spy satellites, NATO alone would not have been able to enforce the no-fly zone and carry out its offensive against Muammar Qaddafi’s army.
Could America get away with “leading from behind?”

US President Barack Obama therefore found himself Tuesday, Feb. 7, saddled by the Erdogan master plan with tough dilemmas. Before a decision, he has to consider four cardinal points:
1. Is he willing to circumvent the UN Security Council as Erdogan proposes and so give Moscow and Beijing powerful ammunition against America? They would maintain that in Libya the Obama administration and NATO at least tried to cover up their breaches of Security Council resolutions, whereas in Syria their interference blatantly defies and downgrades the Security Council.
2. Is the US ready to intervene militarily in Syria as it did in Libya – i.e., leading from behind – this time behind Muslim-Arab forces instead of NATO?
3. Would Turkish-Arab ground and air forces engage in battle with Syrian military forces trying to retake the cities and hit back against heavy bombardments? None of them is up to grappling with Syrian military might – less so if it is backed by Iran.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military sources add that Syria commands one of the most sophisticated and densely deployed anti-air missile forces in the world, as well as an air force fully able to take on intruding aircraft in dogfights or bomb the bases from which the no-fly zone aircraft are launched. Those bases are also within range of Iranian missiles.
Without the United States, the Erdogan initiative has nowhere to go. But if the Obama administrations goes along and agrees to lead it, major US naval strength including an US aircraft carrier might have to be called on to contend with Syrian air and missile capabilities. American warships would find themselves sharing the same water as the Russian naval carrier strike force docked in the Syrian port of Tartus.
Obama is in no hurry to plunge into a military adventure in Syria

In short, the scale of military intervention required in Syria would substantially top the NATO operation in Libya.
Leaving it to Turkish-Arab coalition carried the risk of extending the Syrian conflict beyond its borders and triggering inter-Arab and inter-Muslim warfare in other parts of the Middle East.
4. How far is Washington willing to stretch its relations with Moscow (see a separate item in this issue about Russia’s Syrian policy) in the tussle over the regime in Damascus?
What if the US backed the Erdogan scheme for a no-fly zone over Syria and Russian fighter jets and warships knocked the coalition planes out of the sky?
In consideration of these perplexities, the Obama administration was extremely cautious in its initial response to Prime Minister Erdogan’s new initiative. Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that the US is not considering arming opposition groups in Syria – giving him due notice that a broad US military involvement in Syria was out of the question for now.
Our sources in Washington and Ankara report that the White House was wary of receiving Davutoglu during his Washington trip. The Turkish prime minister pressed hard for a meeting, arguing that if the Arab and Muslim governments he had approached to join his coalition for Syria saw Obama receiving his foreign minister, they would view this as US support for the plan and join it.
When we wrote this, the White House has not scheduled a meeting with Davutoglu.
At the same time, the Pentagon and US Central Command have leaked reports that a preliminary review of American military capabilities has begun – just in case the president decides to call for them.