WarSclerotic

Sunday night: 2 Qassam rockets explode in Negev – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Rockets fired from Gaza after midnight land in open areas; no injury, damage reported

Ilana Curiel

Two Qassam rockets launched by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza exploded in open areas within the limits of the Sdot Negev Regional Council Sunday night. There were no reports of injury or damage.On Friday a rocket fired from Gaza exploded south of Ashkelon. There were no injuries in that attack either.

The rockets were fired at around 12:30 am. Residents reported hearing the “Color Red” alert system before the projectiles landed.

Israeli aircraft attackeda number of targets in Gaza overnight Sunday. At least six Palestinians were injured in the strikes.

The attacks came in response to the launching of three Grad rockets from the Hamas-ruled territory Saturday morning. The rockets landed in open areas near Beersheba, and caused no injuries or damage.

Iran Raid Seen as Complex Task for Israeli Military – NYTimes.com.

(This analysis, like all the others, presumes that Israel must use its warplanes to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is simply untrue. – JW ) 

Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press

One possible Israeli target, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, was guarded in 2007 by antiaircraft artillery.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.

That is the assessment of American defense officials and military analysts close to the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran’s nuclear program would be a huge and highly complex operation. They describe it as far different from Israel’s “surgical” strikes on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 and Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

Speculation that Israel might attack Iran has intensified in recent months as tensions between the countries have escalated. In a sign of rising American concern, Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in Jerusalem on Sunday, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, warned on CNN that an Israeli strike on Iran right now would be “destabilizing.” Similarly, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, told the BBC that attacking Iran would not be “the wise thing” for Israel to do “at this moment.”

But while an Israeli spokesman in Washington, Lior Weintraub, said the country continued to push for tougher sanctions on Iran, he reiterated that Israel, like the United States, “is keeping all options on the table.”

The possible outlines of an Israeli attack have become a source of debate in Washington, where some analysts question whether Israel even has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian retaliation.

“I don’t think you’ll find anyone who’ll say, ‘Here’s how it’s going to be done — handful of planes, over an evening, in and out,’ ” said Andrew R. Hoehn, a former Pentagon official who is now director of the Rand Corporation’s Project Air Force, which does extensive research for the United States Air Force.

Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said flatly last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task.

Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that “we don’t have perfect visibility” into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks aren’t that serious,” he said.

Given that Israel would want to strike Iran’s four major nuclear sites — the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan — military analysts say the first problem is how to get there. There are three potential routes: to the north over Turkey, to the south over Saudi Arabia or taking a central route across Jordan and Iraq.

The route over Iraq would be the most direct and likely, defense analysts say, because Iraq effectively has no air defenses and the United States, after its December withdrawal, no longer has the obligation to defend Iraqi skies. “That was a concern of the Israelis a year ago, that we would come up and intercept their aircraft if the Israelis chose to take a path across Iraq,” said a former defense official who asked for anonymity to discuss secret intelligence.

Assuming that Jordan tolerates the Israeli overflight, the next problem is distance. Israel has American-built F-15I and F-16I fighter jets that can carry bombs to the targets, but their range — depending on altitude, speed and payload — falls far short of the minimum 2,000-mile round trip. That does not include an aircraft’s “loiter time” over a target plus the potential of having to fight off attacks from Iranian missiles and planes.

In any possibility, Israel would have to use airborne refueling planes, called tankers, but Israel is not thought to have enough. Scott Johnson, an analyst at the defense consulting firm IHS Jane’s and the leader of a team preparing an online seminar on Israeli strike possibilities on Iran, said that Israel had eight KC-707 American-made tankers, although it is not clear they are all in operation. It is possible, he said, that Israel has reconfigured existing planes into tankers to use in a strike.

Even so, any number of tankers would need to be protected by ever more fighter planes. “So the numbers you need just skyrocket,” Mr. Johnson said. Israel has about 125 F-15Is and F-16Is. One possibility, Mr. Johnson said, would be to fly the tankers as high as 50,000 feet, making them hard for air defenses to hit, and then have them drop down to a lower altitude to meet up with the fighter jets to refuel.

Israel would still need to use its electronic warfare planes to penetrate Iran’s air defenses and jam its radar systems to create a corridor for an attack. Iran’s antiaircraft defenses may be a generation old — in 2010, Russia refused to sell Iran its more advanced S-300 missile system — but they are hardly negligible, military analysts say.

Iranian missiles could force Israeli warplanes to maneuver and dump their munitions before they even reached their targets. Iran could also strike back with missiles that could hit Israel, opening a new war in the Middle East, though some Israeli officials have argued that the consequences would be worse if Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon.

Another major hurdle is Israel’s inventory of bombs capable of penetrating the Natanz facility, believed to be buried under 30 feet of reinforced concrete, and the Fordo site, which is built into a mountain.

Assuming it does not use a nuclear device, Israel has American-made GBU-28 5,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs that could damage such hardened targets, although it is unclear how far down they can go.

Earlier this month, a Bipartisan Policy Center report by Charles S. Robb, the former Democratic senator from Virginia, and Charles F. Wald, a retired Air Force general, recommended that the Obama administration sell Israel 200 enhanced GBU-31 “bunker busters” as well as three advanced refueling planes.

The two said that they were not advocating an Israeli attack, but that the munitions and aircraft were needed to improve Israel’s credibility as it threatens a strike.

Should the United States get involved — or decide to strike on its own — military analysts said that the Pentagon had the ability to launch big strikes with bombers, stealth aircraft and cruise missiles, followed up by drones that could carry out damage assessments to help direct further strikes. Unlike Israel, the United States has plenty of refueling capability. Bombers could fly from Al Udeid air base in Qatar, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or bases in Britain and the United States.

Nonetheless, defense officials say it would still be tough to penetrate Iran’s deepest facilities with existing American bombs and so are enhancing an existing 30,000-pound “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” that was specifically designed for Iran and North Korea.

“There’s only one superpower in the world that can carry this off,” General Deptula said. “Israel’s great on a selective strike here and there.”

Israel to deploy battery of rocket interceptors; Iran stages land military exercises.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Israel’s decision to deploy rocket interceptors in Tel Aviv comes amid heightened regional tensions and speculation about a possible attack targeting Iran’s controversial nuclear program. (File photo)

inShare3

IDF factions push for offensive in Gaza – JPost – Defense.

(Over a month ago, I was told by a friend “in the know” to expect a Gaza offensive in the middle of February.  The “chance” “per-scheduled” deployment of the Iron Dome battery to “test” protecting Tel Aviv makes me believe he may have known what he was talking about. – JW )

Iran cold war: William Hague must act now to stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | Mail Online.

Our Foreign Secretary’s photograph should appear in dictionaries to illustrate the concept of curate’s egg. Yesterday the good part warned of the dangers inherent in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But then the bad part took over and things went downhill all the way.

Mr Hague warned that we’re risking a ‘new cold war’, this time with Iran. Yet nothing can be further from the truth. We’re not risking a new cold war, we’re smack in the middle of it. What we are risking is nuclear war, which is as hot as they come.

Considering that I’m-a-Dinner-Jacket doesn’t even bother to conceal his aggressive intent, the West clearly can’t allow his regime to affix nuclear warheads to the long-range missiles it has already, those that can reach not only Jerusalem but even London. What we need, and have a right to expect, from our leaders at this time is clear thinking, resolve and courage. What we get is platitudes.

The curate’s egg: William Hague was good in parts and bad in others over his dealings with Iran and its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Such as Hague’s contributions yesterday: ‘We support a twin-track strategy of sanctions and pressure and negotiations on the other hand.’ [We’re no doubt encouraged by the resounding success this strategy has produced so far.]

‘All options must remain on the table’ because a military attack would have ‘enormous downsides’.

What happened to ‘look before you leap’ and ‘a rolling stone gathers no moss’? Why didn’t they make it into this glossary of clichés?

We know war is nasty business, Mr Hague; no reminder necessary, thank you very much. We also know, however, that sometimes it takes small wars to prevent big ones. Craven appeasement of tyrants — pardon me, I meant ‘a twin-track strategy’ — has been known to produce nothing but disasters.

Hitler, for example, could have been stopped dead with a minimum of fuss at any time until his westward thrust. Even after the Nazis attacked Poland they were there for the taking, what with not a single tank covering their western border (where the French and the British had about 1,400 tanks safely parked, with handbrakes on).

Hague’s predecessor in the job, Anthony Eden as he then was, objected bitterly but was overruled by Neville Chamberlain, whom, at Maastricht time, John Major acknowledged as his role model. And then bombs came down on England, but at least their yield wasn’t measured in megatons, and there was no radioactive fallout.

Danger: Ahmadinejad and other ministers from the Iranian government visit Tehran’s nuclear reactor in pictures intended to show the country’s strength

Considering that Iran’s bombs are likely to be different from the Luftwaffe’s blockbusters, the military option is the only one ‘on the table’. All others have been blown off the tabletop — the risk is too high to shilly-shally.

Rather than putting pressure on Israel not to take preemptive action, Hague should be in Washington, working out the diplomatic specifics of a coordinated attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and infrastructure — and then in Saudi Arabia, making sure the consensus in the Arab League doesn’t go against us. Time is running out and, to put it into the kind of idiom Mr Hague seems to be most comfortable with, a stitch in time saves nine.

But at least Hague is aware of the danger. Shashank Joshi, of the defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, isn’t. ‘If we could live with nuclear weapons in the hands of totalitarian, genocidal states like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China,’ he said, ‘Iran in contrast… is far more rational’. If that’s the level of strategic thinking coming out of those tanks, they should all be decommissioned and broken up for scrap.

Lessons from history: Adolf Hitler at the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936

Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China were indeed totalitarian and genocidal regimes, but they didn’t rely on terrorism as their primary tactic in confronting the West. They were suspended in a global (or, in China’s case, regional) standoff with the West, and their aggressive ambitions were held in check by the certainty of nuclear obliteration by an American counterstrike. The US strategy behind this Mexican standoff was called MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), and, say what you will about it, it worked.

Today’s ‘rational’ Iran, on the other hand, isn’t at all like the Soviet Union — it can’t harbour any hopes of matching up to the West in a mano a mano situation. It’s more like an Al Qaeda with national borders, and it’s with Al Qaeda that Iran is reported to be coordinating its forthcoming actions. There wouldn’t be a swarm of bombers and ICBMs darkening the sky over London, Paris or Tel Aviv. But there well may be one nuclear missile hitting home, or one nuclear charge surreptitiously delivered in a suitcase by a foreign student of the LSE.

That’s why Iran’s leaders are indulging in the kind of brinkmanship that’s positively goading the West into an attack. They aren’t really scared of the hell that could be unleashed by the three US carrier groups in the region. They are prepared to take massive casualties in the hope of then inflicting them with plausible justification. The only action they would be afraid of is one that would wipe out their evil regime, but they think the West is likely to stop just short of it. I’m-a-Dinner-Jacket is prepared to gamble on the West’s cowardice and indecision, and he must feel the odds are good.

‘If they feel their regime is under existential threat, if they feel they face a Libya-like situation, they would have the option of building a bomb,’ explains Mr Joshi. And doing what with it? Putting it up on a pedestal and worshipping it from afar? ‘Building a bomb’ is precisely the option the likes of I’m-a-Dinner-Jacket must be denied. Whatever it takes. Before it’s too late.

Asking Israel Not to Attack Iran – By Mario Loyola – The Corner – National Review Online.

Daily Maverick :: A nuclear Iran: Netanyahu’s ‘Churchill moment’ looms dangerously close.

The two portraits that adorn the office of Benyamin Netanyahu say a lot about what the world can expect of the Israeli head of state in the face of Iran’s mounting nuclear capabilities. The first portrait, of Zionism’s founding father Theodor Herzl, denotes the prime minister’s core belief that Jews can only find safety in a national homeland. The second portrait, of Winston Churchill, expresses the former commando’s dedication to the principle that a true leader does not flinch when confronted by the facts. Like Herzl, who saw in the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the nineteenth century a portent of Nazism, Netanyahu sees in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s intransigence a likely repeat of the Holocaust. And like Churchill, who put the legacy of Neville “Peace in Our Time” Chamberlain to shame during World War Two, Netanyahu will not allow himself to balk at what he views as a genuine threat to his country’s existence.

It’s the latter portrait, of course, that Netanyahu holds closest to his heart. His personal identification with Churchill was made clear to the world in 2007, when he declared that “the year is 1938 and Iran is Germany”. Then, at a speech he gave before the UN General Assembly in 2009, he opened with the following words: “Over 70 years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the ‘confirmed un-teachability of mankind’: the unfortunate habit of civilised societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.”

While, by most accounts, Netanyahu’s self-identification with the British war-time hero falls short on a number of fronts (of which more shall be said below), the question brought up by his infamous UN speech remains: have the world’s “civilised societies” been once again asleep at the wheel?

Amongst other frightening items of journalism that have appeared in the last few days, an opinion piece published in The Telegraph on 17 February suggests the question isn’t so far-fetched. The op-ed began with the observation that if the two decades of relative comfort brought about by the end of the Cold War don’t end in 2012, the West’s efforts to prevent a nuclear catastrophe could trigger a huge crisis affecting millions. The piece went on to make this qualification:

“If that sounds like an alarmist prognosis, consider the situation in Iran. Despite an ever-tightening net of economic sanctions – not to mention a covert campaign of sabotage – Iran is drawing inexorably closer to achieving the ability to build nuclear weapons. At the last count, 6,208 centrifuges were enriching uranium inside a previously secret plant at Natanz, defying six United Nations resolutions which ban the regime in Tehran from operating a single such machine. Meanwhile, a further 412 centrifuges have been moved to another once-secret installation. The latter facility, known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, was discovered only by the skill of British, American and French intelligence agencies. With enough space for 3,000 centrifuges, it lies beneath hundreds of feet of rock, meaning that it could be immune from military attack.”

In an interview with the same newspaper, the British foreign secretary William Hague warned on Friday that any decision by the Ahmadinejad regime to construct a nuclear arsenal would trigger a “new Cold War in the Middle East without, necessarily, all the safety mechanisms”. Hague also told the BBC’s Andrew Marr on the weekend: “I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran. I think Israel like everyone else in the world should be giving a real chance to the approach we have adopted on very serious economic sanctions and economic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

For Netanyahu and his close ally Ehud Barak, Israel’s former prime minister and current minister of defence (and, coincidentally, its most decorated soldier), the above words will no doubt bring to mind shades of Chamberlain. That the pair has long been planning a pre-emptive strike against Iran is no secret, but it’s clear, given that Barack Obama’s national security advisor Tom Donilon met with them both on Sunday, that these plans are now very close to operational. Will Israel attack? It’s beginning to seem more and more likely.

Consider, first, that Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi chose Sunday – the day of Donilon’s visit – to announce that his country is determined to pursue the advancement of its nuclear programme, and is therefore ready to face any “worst-case scenario” (an instance of Israel-baiting if ever there was). Then consider that a senior United States official has just informed the Israeli left-wing newspaper Ha’aretz that the messages out of Israel in the last six months have been more strident, with respect to the likelihood of an attack, then at any time in the last two years.

Like Britain, the United States is calling for calm at the moment and a continued commitment to the twin strategies of sanctions and negotiations. But like his World War Two hero, Netanyahu is really starting to chomp at the bit. It’s a potentially catastrophic showdown, and although he routinely ignores the newspaper, the Israeli prime minister – if he wants Obama’s backing – would do well to read Ha’aretz’s 2009 deconstruction of his self-comparison to Churchill: “The American support [Churchill] received came at a price: the dismantling of the British Empire. Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed British colonialism, and in his first meeting with Churchill, when the United States was helping Britain but had not yet entered the war, the two signed the Atlantic Charter, which promised self-government for all peoples.”

Self-government for the Palestinians before Obama lends military support to Israel in a strike against Iran seems, for now, a fairy tale. Netanyahu, unlike Churchill, isn’t conceding. And so the truth is that the world doesn’t have a new Churchill to take on a man who may very well be the new Hitler. DM

How the U.S.-Iran Standoff Looks From Israel: Efraim Inbar – Bloomberg.

The upheaval in the Arab world has damaged Israel’s strategic environment. Its peace treaty with Egypt, a pillar of national security for more than three decades, is in question. More important, the events in the Arab world have deflected attention from Israel’s most feared scenario, a nuclear Iran, playing into the Iranian strategy to buy time in order to present the world with a nuclear fait accompli. Israel’s leaders fear that the international response is now unlikely to impact Iranian policy, at a point when its nuclear program is so advanced.

Only in November 2011 did the International Atomic Energy Agency, an institution that for years refused to call a spade a spade, publish a report voicing its concern over Iranian activities that do not easily fit with those of a civilian program. And only in January, did the European Union and the U.S. declare new sanctions that could have a significant effect on Iran’s economy. For Israel, this may have come too late.

Officials in Tel Aviv have tried to alert the West to the dangers of a nuclear Iran for more than a decade. They argued that Iran would cause the technology to proliferate in the region as states such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia sought such weapons, turning a multipolar nuclear Middle East into a strategic nightmare. A nuclear-armed Iran would strengthen its hegemony in the energy sector by its mere location along the oil-rich Arabian Gulf and the Caspian Basin.

It would also result in the West’s loss of the Central Asian states, which would either gravitate toward Iran or try to secure a nuclear umbrella with Russia or China, countries much closer to the region than the U.S. is. A regime in Tehran emboldened by the possession of nuclear weapons would become more active in supporting radical Shiite elements in Iraq and agitating those communities in the Arabian Gulf states.

Bombs to Proxies

Worse, since Iran backs terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it may be reckless enough to transfer nuclear bombs to such proxy organizations. They would have no moral constraints on detonating such a device in a European or American harbor. Iran’s nuclear program — coupled with further improvements in Iranian missiles — would initially put most European capitals, and eventually North American ones, within range of a potential attack.

Such arguments are nowadays more acceptable, but a large part of the Western strategic community, particularly on the European side of the Atlantic, views Iran as a rational actor that still can be dissuaded by economic sanctions. Moreover, even if Iran gets the bomb, it is argued that “it can be contained and deterred,” rejecting the “alarmist” view from officials in Jerusalem.

Israel is increasingly exasperated with Western attitudes for several reasons. First, it doesn’t believe that when Iran is so close to the bomb, sanctions are useful. Indeed, the history of economic sanctions indicates that a determined regime is unlikely to be affected by such difficulties. Moreover, the stakes that Iran’s ruling elite have in the nuclear program are inextricably connected to the regime’s political, and even physical, survival. The bomb is a guarantee for the government’s own future. Destabilizing a nuclear state, which may lead to chronic domestic instability, civil war or disintegration, is a more risky enterprise than undermining a non-nuclear regime.

Weak U.S. President

Unfortunately, American statements that all options are on the table, hinting at military action if sanctions fail, don’t impress the Iranians. The perception of most Middle Easterners, be it foes or friends of the U.S., is that President Barack Obama is extremely weak, hardly understands the harsh realities of the Middle East, and that American use of force is highly unlikely. Perceived American weakness undermines the chances of economic sanctions being effective.

Second, Israel’s threat perception is much higher than in the West, particularly after the recent Middle East turmoil. Actually, all Middle East leaders wear realpolitik lenses for viewing international affairs and tend to think in terms of worst-case scenarios. Israel’s leadership, in addition, sees through a Jewish prism and is unlikely to take a nonchalant view of existential threats to the Jewish state. Israeli fears have been fed by explicit statements from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who advocated the destruction of Israel. Jewish history taught Israel that genocidal threats shouldn’t be dismissed.

Third, the strategic community in Israel questions the possibility of establishing a stable deterrence between Israel and Iran, modeled on the relationship between the two superpowers during the Cold War. Mutual deterrence between two nuclear protagonists is never automatic. Maintaining a second- strike capability is an ongoing process, which is inherently uncertain and ambiguous. Moreover, before an initial “effective” second-strike capability is achieved, a nuclear race may create the fear of a first-strike attack, which might itself trigger a nuclear exchange.

In a multipolar environment, achieving stable deterrence would be even more difficult. Middle Eastern powers would also have to establish early-warning systems that monitor in all directions. These are complicated and therefore inherently unstable, particularly when the distances between enemies are so small. The influence of haste and the need to respond quickly can have dangerous consequences. The rudimentary nuclear forces in the region also may be prone to accidents and mistakes.

While it can be argued that Middle East leaders behave rationally, many of them engage in brinkmanship leading to miscalculation. More important still, the value they place on human life is lower than in the West, making them insensitive to the costs of attack. Iranian leaders have said they are ready to pay a heavy price for the destruction of Israel, anticipating only minimal damage in the Muslim world.

As a result, the strategic calculus in Jerusalem indicates that preventing a nuclear Iran is important and urgent, justifying risks and considerable costs. Delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions by even a few years would be a worthwhile achievement. Moreover, the feeling in Israel is that the fears many analysts express of regional repercussions from an Israeli military strike are exaggerated.

The debate in Jerusalem is whether to allow more time for covert operations, or to initiate a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. This is not an easy decision to make. An unexpectedly muscular Western move may spare Israel’s government the deliberations, but there is little hope that such a scenario will materialize. Once again, the Israelis would be left to go it alone.

(Efraim Inbar is a professor of political studies at Bar- Ilan University and the director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. This is the fourth in a series of op-ed articles about Iran, from writers in countries that have a direct interest in the escalating debate over how to rein in its alleged nuclear weapons program. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Opinion: Iran as continual regional menace – Stephen Blank – POLITICO.com.

As the crisis generated by Iran’s nuclear programs intensifies, we are learning more about Iran’s regional foreign policy. It demonstrates that Tehran menaces all its neighbors and rivals — not just Israel.

We learned late last year about an Iranian plot to hire a hit man from the Mexican cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies there. On Jan. 25, Azerbaijan uncovered an Iranian plot to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Baku, Michael Lotem. There were also reportedly plans to blow up a Jewish school near Baku — though these were later denied.

This is not the only such plots against Israel in Azerbaijan. In 2008, Azeri security forces seized members of a terrorist cell who planned to blow up Israel’s embassy in Baku, in revenge for the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, a notorious terrorist implicated in the 1983 attacks in Beirut that killed 241 Marines, the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 Americans and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Argentina.

Iran’s other neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, also confront Tehran’s systematic efforts to use terroism to subvert its neighbors. Iranians has reportedly trained Iraqi fighters, helping them develop improvised exploive devices and other weapons. It has assisted the Taliban and other terrorist groups; and, through Syria, is a leading supplier for Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups threaten not only Israel but also Lebanon. Meanwhile, Gulf states fear Iranian designs — either on their territories or their regimes.

Iran also targets Azerbaijan. In 2001, Iranian forces blew up an Azeri oil exploration ship in the Caspian Sea, claiming it was in Iranian territorial waters. In 2009, Iran’s movement of an oil rig toward Azerbaijan’s territorial waters in the Capsian Sea led Baku to seek Washington’s advice about reacting to this perceived threat of a joint Iranian-Russian encirclement.

Throughout the decade 2001-11, Iran often reprimanded Azerbaijan for being pro-Israeli and pro-American, and warned that if it hosted U.S. military facilities it would face devastating Iranian attacks. More recently, on Jan. 16, Iranian sites launched cyber-strikes against 25 Azeri Internet sites, apparently not for the first time.

Since Iran is regularly cited as a leading state sponsor of terrorism, it is hardly surprising that it continues to foment terrorist plots against neighboring governments.

Moreover, its policies appear driven both by anti-Semitism and aggressive, perhaps even neo-imperial, designs on the governments (if not the territory) of its neighbors. Tehren is likely to increase these terrorist activities, based on the belief that nuclear weapons could provide an umbrella and that its regional enemies are weak and irresolute

Tehran’s behvior undermines its own argument that Iran with a bomb could be deterred — since it Iran is not deterred even now from threatening its neighbors. U.S. history, with its Southern “fire-eaters” in the 1850s, driven by racism and chauvinism, as well as the rise of European dictators in the 1930s, tell us that states driven by deep ethno-racial hatreds do not necessarily know when to stop.

This is not an issue of the clinical diagnosis of Iran’s leaders. Iran might be deterred from striking at the U.S., but it is not deterred from trying to conduct acts of war against Israel, Saudi Arabia and possibly others. The necessity of thwarting Iranian nuclear weapons should, therefore, be evident since it threatens its entire region.

Stephen Blank is a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College. The views expressed here do not represent those of the Army, the Defense Department or the U.S. government.

U.S. concerned that Barak is pushing for Israeli attack on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The Barack Obama administration believes Netanyahu is still sitting on the fence over a future military strike on Iran.

By Amos Harel

Visits to Jerusalem by senior U.S. officials this week reflect a growing concern in Washington over the possibility that Israel will decide to attack nuclear sites in Iran. The Americans are particularly worried about the hawkish line that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has adopted on the matter. They apparently have the impression, however, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to come to a final stance on the dispute.

The number of visits that have been made here by senior members of President Barack Obama’s administration in recent months is unusual. A delegation headed by U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon arrived Saturday evening; and later this week, Israel will host James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence. On separate visits this past fall, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, paid a visit to Israel, as did U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose trip here came shortly after a visit to the United States by Barak.

	Defense Minister Ehud Barak, left, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Knesset in December.
	Photo by: Olivier Fitoussi

Last month, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, came to Israel, not long after taking office. In another two weeks, Netanyahu will be in Washington to deliver an address before the policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The Israeli premier is also expected to meet with Obama in the course of the visit. Even prior to that, next week, Defense Minister Barak will apparently make his own trip to the U.S. capital to meet with senior administration officials.

This air bridge between Israel and the United States has one primary purpose − to make clear to Israel that the time has not yet come for military action against Iran’s nuclear program, and that any premature assault would disrupt the increasingly stringent process of international sanctions against Iran that Obama has been leading.

In discussions with their Israeli counterparts, senior U.S. administration officials have said the sanctions regime that the Americans have spearheaded is unprecedented in its severity and more time is needed to gauge its impact on the regime in Tehran. Within the Israeli cabinet, there are also ministers who acknowledge that the sanctions exceeded most of the expectations Israel held until a few months ago.

On Saturday, Iran announced an immediate halt to the sale of oil to Britain and France. The move came in response to the tough stance the two European countries have taken on the Iranian nuclear program, and in reaction to the European embargo on Iranian oil that is due to take effect in July.

In a television interview at the beginning of the month, Obama said it was his understanding that Netanyahu was allowing more time to gauge the success of the sanctions and had not yet decided whether to attack Iran. However, others in the Obama administration have voicing more concerns. Defense Secretary Panetta has been quoted as saying he thinks Israel is close to a decision to attack this spring. In a CNN interview broadcast yesterday, Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said such timing would not be prudent and would undermine the stability of the region.

For his part, British Foreign Secretary William Hague also said an Israeli assault would not be wise.

Washington, like Jerusalem, appears to be under the impression that Barak will play a key role in Netanyahu’s decision-making. According to various assessments, in the constellation of forces within the senior forum of eight capital ministers, Barak represents the hawkish camp, while ministers Moshe Ya’alon, Dan Meridor and Benny Begin are leading the opposition to an assault at this time.

In a report in the New York Times about two weeks ago, U.S. administration officials were critical of Barak, who has warned against the prospect within a few months of Iran entering a “zone of immunity,” after which it would be impossible to destroy its nuclear facilities. Barak defines the “zone of immunity” in accordance with Iran’s progress in installing centrifuges at the Fordow underground site near Qom, the location of which would make an aerial assault much more difficult.

The officials have contended that Israel is placing undue importance on the “zone of immunity” issue and mentioned Netanyahu’s request that his ministers keep quiet about Iran. Since then, other than the Israeli premier, only one senior Israeli continues to constantly make statements on Iran − Defense Minister Barak, who again made expansive comments on the issue in Japan and Singapore last week.
Support for Barak’s position came yesterday from Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is based.

The Associated Press quoted senior diplomats in the Austrian capital as warning that the Iranians recently carried out significant work at the Fordow site.