WarSclerotic

Why an Israeli attack on Iran doesn’t make sense – latimes.com.

(A lefty, wishful thinking piece… JW )

Worse than a nuclear-armed Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran that has been attacked by Israel.

By Dalia Dassa Kaye

February 21, 2012

Talk of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is not subsiding. If diplomacy can’t head off Iran’snuclear ambitions, advocates for a military strike in Israel and the United States will only gain strength. While proponents may believe that Israel can endure the short-term military and diplomatic fallout of such action, the long-term consequences are likely to be disastrous for Israel’s security.

Those believed to favor a military option, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, argue that the Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran would be far more dangerous than a military attack to prevent it. But their position rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, it may result in the worst of both worlds: a future nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to do so.

Let’s consider a post-attack Middle East. The risk factors are well known: potential Iranian retaliation in the Levant, the Persian Gulf and perhaps against Israeli and American interests abroad, as well as destabilizing consequences for global oil markets. Those Israelis who favor a strike believe that such retaliation would be limited and in any case less harmful than facing a nuclear-armed Iran.

Those opposed to an attack, such as former Israeli Mossad head Meir Dagan, believe the risks are too uncertain and potentially too costly to justify a strike; in their view, covert actions will be more effective in slowing Iran’s program, with fewer repercussions.

The consensus among Western analysts is that a military attack against Iran would at best delay Iran’s nuclear development, not stop it. This is because Iran’s nuclear facilities are believed to be widely dispersed and deeply buried, and because the nuclear expertise that Iran has developed so far cannot be eradicated through military strikes. On top of that, military attacks could push Iran to weaponize its program.

Thus, what the region’s future may hold is not an Iran that has or hasn’t acquired nuclear weapons, but rather a nuclear-armed Iran that has or hasn’t been attacked by Israel.

Why should Israelis be worried about these alternatives? Because while a nuclear-armed Iran that hasn’t been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish its capabilities, to make sure it does not face an attack again. That could lead to escalation between two nuclear adversaries that have no direct lines of communication. Cold War-style deterrence is not likely to work well under such circumstances.

Absent an attack, there is at least the possibility Iran may seek only a “virtual” capability — reaping the benefits of deterrence by possessing the technology necessary to build a weapon but not actually doing so. Such a posture would still be worrisome and would require intrusive inspections to maintain, but it would be far less destabilizing than an openly nuclear-armed Iran. It would also decrease the incentives for neighboring countries to consider a nuclear option.

A unilateral attack by Israel would also diminish the determination of the international community to challenge Iranian transgressions of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments, or to continue to support Israel. The Obama administration has left “all options on the table,” but it clearly does not want a military strike.

Key players in Europe, not to mention smaller powers in Asia, would view military action as undermining diplomatic and economic options to solve the problem. Russia andChina’sresponse would be more hostile, jeopardizing Israel’s growing political and economic relations with both countries.

Regional reactions would also be negative, further inflaming anti-Israel sentiment in Arab nations. Iran has been losing ground with Arab populations disillusioned with its repression at home and its support for President Bashar Assad’s brutal repression in Syria, but an Israeli strike could allow Iran to bounce back as it plays the victim and fuels popular hatred toward Israel.

Likewise, Israel’s relationship with key neighbors Egypt and Jordan, more beholden to popular sentiment in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, could be severely strained, putting at risk vital peace treaties. Any prospect of shared anti-Iranian sentiment forging quiet common cause between Israel and Arab Persian Gulf states or Israel and Turkey would dissipate.

Israel has never been integrated into the Mideast. But Israel has rarely faced total isolation. When Israel has confronted Arab nationalist adversaries in the past (Egypt and Iraq), it had the non-Arab “periphery” to turn to (Iran and Turkey). When Israel perceived a rising threat from Iran, it turned to peacemaking with its Arab neighbors. Israel has not faced a strategic situation in which it is isolated from Arabs and non-Arabs alike, while at the same time facing growing international isolation.

To many in Israel, nothing could be worse than a future with a nuclear-armed Iran. But a future with a nuclear-armed Iran that has been attacked by Israel could actually be a lot worse

Dalia Dassa Kaye, a visiting fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp., is coauthor of “Israel and Iran: A Dangerous Rivalry.”

Crossed Signals Between Israel, U.S. on Iran Nuclear Program – Tablet Magazine.

And question linger: can Israel successfully pull off an attack?

See if you can follow this: Top U.S. general publicly warns ^[1] against an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, calling it “not prudent;” Israeli Defense Minister Barak demands ^[2] yet further sanctions, saying the current ones aren’t working well enough (implying that in the absence of further sanctions, an attack makes sense); Britain’s foreign minister also says ^[3] an attack right now is not a great idea; the Obama Adminstration sends its national security adviser and is about to send its intelligence chief to Israel to convey ^[3] that the time is not ripe; and finally—breaking the fourth wall!—top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, scold ^[4] the national security adviser, insisting that these U.S. warnings are not helpful, then leak this scolding. “The Iranians see there’s controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object to a military act,” a senior Israeli official explained to Haaretz. “That reduces the pressure on them.”

Meanwhile, Iran keeps tip-toeing closer and closer to Israel’s red line—unless we find out tomorrow that they already passed it. Last time, it was that the underground facility in Fordo was ready to enrich uranium … but uranium wasn’t being enriched there, yet. This past weekend, the Islamic Republic announced ^[5] that it has readied the Fordo site—whose ample fortification itself makes it threatening to Israel—for advanced centrifuges … but it hasn’t installed the centrifuges there, yet. It’s like poking a snake with a stick to see how firmly you have to poke it before it lashes out. And, as is Iran’s wont, it matched stick with carrot, sending ^[6] a letter hinting at a willingness to negotiate further. A team of U.N. atomic inspectors is back ^[7] in the country. If you expect much to come out of either development, you are one of the more optimistic observers.

Yesterday, the New York Times published the thoughts ^[8] of U.S. defense experts suggesting that Israel may well lack the capacity to pull off a successful air strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The article contained numerous interesting details, such as the fact that Israel’s likely flight path would take it over Iraq, whose airspace the United States is conveniently no longer obligated to defend, and Jordan, which perhaps helps explain why the peace process has evolved ^[9] into a gigantic pro-Hashemite charade over the past couple months. It’s a pretty good tick-tock of how Israel would go about launching a strike, and it doesn’t outright deny the possibility that a strike could achieve Israel’s goals. (Austin Long argued ^[10] in Tablet Magazine that Israel could pull it off.) Apparently revealing classified information, defense expert Edward Luttwak—whom literary editor David Samuels interviewed ^[11] last year—argued ^[12] that a far smaller strike, much more commensurate to Israel’s capabilities, could also do a number on Iran’s alleged weapons program, though I’d feel more comfortable if I saw other people arguing this, too, and if the military hadn’t recommended solely a major air war, and if the argument didn’t rely on Iran’s being likely not to retaliate at all.

But the Times piece, like everything else, is about message-sending: the United States telling Israel (and the public) that it doesn’t think Israel can credibly back up its threats. Indeed, it is one more instance of exactly the sort of thing Netanyahu and company were complaining about.

Of course, intrinsic to the “Israel shouldn’t attack Iran because it probably wouldn’t be successful” argument is the “the U.S. should attack Iran because Israel might not be successful” argument. The layers are dizzying, and ultimately inconclusive, as, for example, this entertaining Politico article ^[13] on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s maybe-strategic links about Israeli intentions illustrates. Maybe Panetta wants the public to think Israel is about to attack so other countries agree to further sanctions that head off the attack; maybe Panetta wants the public to think Israel is about to attack so that Israel doesn’t attack; maybe Panetta just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut.

What is clear is that Israel and the United States are not on the same page and perhaps not necessarily even speaking the same language, something that was apparent last week when Dennis Ross was trying to convince ^[14] Netanyahu and Barak that President Obama would resort to military action if it came down to brass tacks. The next, and perhaps last, best hope for getting the two countries on the same page will come March 5, when Netanyahu, in Washington to address AIPAC, will indeed meet ^[15] with Obama face-to-face for the first time since at the United Nations last September. Or maybe Bibi will be assured that, by the summer, the Republican primaries will be over and Obama will be facing a unified Republican field hammering ^[16] him every day for not being tougher on Iran.

The Israeli official who said this public discord strengthens Iran’s position is probably correct. Yet the administration also believes it is correct that now is a really bad time to attack, and may justifiably feel that that opinion will carry little weight unless it is made publicly, where the U.S. and Israeli publics can see it. A closer relationship between these two governments might not be tipping their respective hands, as the Israeli official feels. It might also have given the U.S. greater leverage over Israeli intentions and actions.

Back to their Old Ways? Iran, Hizbollah, and International Terrorism.

Since the rise of the ayatollah regime in Iran in 1979 and its role in the establishment of Hizbollah in Lebanon in 1982, the two – in the context of their patron-protégé relationship – have used terrorism as a tool in their struggles with enemies at home and abroad.

Since the terrorist attacks in the United States, and in light of many states’ reduced tolerance for terrorism exported from their sovereign territories, the Iranian regime reined in its terrorist acts and those of its protégé on the international arena. However, the most recent acts against Israelis abroad, carrying the fingerprints of Tehran, may be a sign that Iran and Hizbollah are reverting to their familiar evil ways.

If so, the international community and various security establishments will have to face the challenge of foiling continued activity of this sort and attempt to determine the future direction of the Iranian regime, primarily in light of the possibility that the international sanctions and embargo against Iran because of the nuclear issue will intensify.

In the past the Iranian regime operated various terrorist organizations to attack targets around the world, including assassinating Iranian exiles in European countries, and it urged Hizbollah to abduct people and/or hijack airplanes and send suicide bombers on missions all over the world. It also helped upgrade the capabilities of certain groups, turning them into guided “terrorilla” armies, trained and armed with advanced weaponry. This policy was meant to promote Iran’s geostrategic interests against its enemies, e.g., Israel – by increasing the military power of Hizbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and the US – by promoting groups such as al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia in Iraq. Until recently, it appeared that the Iranian regime had opted to cut back the use of terrorist organizations in carrying out attacks-by-proxy around the world.

The February 2008 assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus, Hizbollah’s most senior operations officer, a veteran partner of the Iranian regime in terrorism, and the key contact person in terms of strategic military cooperation between Iran and Hizbollah, triggered a joint Tehran-Hizbollah decision to avenge his death; to them, it was clear that Israel was responsible. Immediately after Mughniyeh’s death, Hizbollah agents began working with Iran toward this revenge, though such a mission has yet to succeed. At the same time, when Iran began suffering acts of sabotage, assassinations, and defections of senior Revolutionary Guards personnel and figures involved in the nuclear program, the desire for revenge merged with the decision to reestablish the rules of the game between Hizbollah and Iran on the one hand, and Israel and its allies on the other. This new determination is also the result of the political and economic pressure being exerted on Iran. Iran means to signal to its enemies that it has extreme responses at its disposal, including terrorism on the international arena.

Nonetheless, despite the close cooperation between Iran and Hizbollah, this is not a partnership of equals. Tehran was, and remains, dominant, and Hizbollah’s policy is greatly subordinated to Iran’s considerations, certainly regarding fundamental principles or issues of strategic import. While Iran operates according to the wishes of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his close associates, Hizbollah is not an independent agent when it comes to questions of war and peace or international terrorism. Hizbollah too must receive the green light from Khamenei. In addition, although operationally Hizbollah’s international terrorism apparatus has proven independent capabilities to carry out showcase attacks abroad, when necessary its personnel receive operational and logistical assistance from the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian intelligence services.

It is in this light that the missions Hizbollah and Iran have tried to carry out in recent years, both together and independently of one another, should be examined. Hizbollah, through its international terrorism apparatus, some of whose personnel were apprehended in Azerbaijan, planned to attack the Israeli embassy in Baku (May 2008); the organization planned to attack Israeli tourists in Egypt and Israeli ships sailing in the Suez Canal (late 2008); it gathered intelligence and planned attacks against various targets (ships, planes, synagogues) in Turkey (October 2009); and it attempted to kill the Israeli consul in Istanbul (May 2011). Hizbollah also planned attacks against the Israeli embassy and/or destinations popular among Israeli tourists in Bangkok. For its part, Iran attempted a string of terrorist attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets using Iranian agents or local terrorist cells trained and supervised by Tehran.

The attempt succeeded only in India

In January 2012, a local cell in Azerbaijan tried to attack Israeli Chabad representatives in Baku, but the cell was caught. Last week Iranian agents and their proxies tried to attack Israeli consulate personnel in Tbilisi, New Delhi, and Bangkok by attaching explosive devices to their cars. The attempt succeeded only in India. The choice of Asian and CIS locations (though Turkey and Egypt are also on the list) indicates operational capabilities and infrastructures available to Iran and Hizbollah in these countries, and also an assessment that the damage they would sustain as a result of these actions does not represent an actual threat to their interests and certainly does not outweigh the potential rewards.

Predictably, and like any state that supports terrorism, the Iranian regime has denied any connection to the events, and even tried to deflect blame onto Israel as a party interested in sparking an anti-Iranian provocation. At the same time, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi declared that Ayatollah Khamenei had instructed the representatives of the various Iranian defense systems to act against the enemies of the regime abroad and not restrain themselves any longer in reacting to attacks on the Iranian nuclear industry. Iran was thereby trying to clarify that it views its “defensive” activities as legitimate and that they would continue. Hizbollah leader Nasrallah, who denied his organization’s involvement in the recent attacks, also announced that his organization is determined to avenge the death of Mughniyeh in a way proportionate to the offense; he thus again committed himself to continue terrorist attacks abroad.

Despite the failed execution by the Iranian and Hizbollah proxies in most of the recent attempts, their abilities to carry out an effective lethal terrorist campaign should not be underestimated. The international political and economic sanctions imposed on Iran, the implied threats about possible military attacks on Iran by Israel and the US, and the weak response of the nations where the recent attacks failed to produce damage and deaths are all liable to spur Iran and Hizbollah once again to pursue intensive terrorism on the international arena. Moreover, the Revolutionary Guards’ attempt on the life of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington in late 2011 indicates that Iran may be trying to expand its attacks to states other than Israel that are partners to the international pressure on Iran.

At this stage, Israel has only increased security of its officials stationed abroad

As for Israel, the recent concerted effort against its representatives, consulates, embassies, and citizens sorely tests the government’s ability to continue its policy of restraint in the face of threats. At this stage, Israel has only increased security of its officials stationed abroad and has issued warnings to Israelis to take precautions. However, it is clear that continued Iranian and Hizbollah action, especially if it succeeds in causing real harm to Israelis, will force the Israeli government to respond more forcefully, and this could touch off a conflagration in the region, if not beyond.

Suicide bombers poised to strike U.S., Iran warns | The Daily Caller.

OfficialWire: TOP NEWS: Obama’s Weakness Shows As Ahmadinejad Sticks Two Fingers Up To America.

While Obama prefers to try sanctions and a wait and see policy, his weakness is splashed across the Arab world……..

Iran has ignored sanctions and it loaded it’s first domestic made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor and threatened to cut oil in six European countries, in the wake of EU and US sanctions.

Soon it will be when Iran will retaliate against it’s hated enemy Israel who took out their last nuclear reactor, and who will in power to stop them?

The fight in America is occupied with the presidential race and 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.

The latest Iranian offer to talk with UN Security Council appeared to offer no significant concessions. They believe that new talks would push them away from their nuclear programme. This was strengthened by Iran’s aggressive moves but failed attempts to attack Israel’s diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia.

Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister warned the Iranians that they cannot be allowed to have a “zone of Immunity“ at Fordow, where they can work on nuclear weapons underground and be protected from Israel’s weapons. Barak said they will attack before this happens.

Will Obama then be behind in the chair as the Israelis nuke Iran?

‘Azerbaijan arrests Iran-linked terror s… JPost – International.

By Ben Hartman

Police in Azerbaijan arrested a number of people with links to Iran and Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, AFP reported Tuesday according to Azeri state TV.

Azeri police said the detained suspects were planning attacks on foreign citizens in the Eurasian nation.

The state TV report said the suspects had bought weapons including firearms and explosives, and had gathered intelligence on potential targets.

Terrorists in India and Georgia, which neighbors Azerbaijan, targeted Israeli diplomats last week when they planned bombings of the Israeli embassies in New Delhi and Tbilisi. While Georgian sappers defused the bomb in Tbilisi, an Israeli diplomat’s wife and her Indian driver were wounded when a bomb attached to their vehicle exploded.

Israel blamed Iran for the attack. Tehran denied any role in the attacks, saying Israel seeks to tarnish the Islamic Republic’s image.

The Foreign Ministry announced last week that Israeli missions in foreign countries were on high alert after the terror attacks; four undisclosed embassies were closed for a number of days.

Israel fears reprisal attacks from Hezbollah after the recent anniversary of the assassination of the Lebanese group’s terror mastermind Imad Mughniyeh in 2008, which Hezbollah blames on its proclaimed archenemy Israel.

Herb Keinon contributed to this report

New claims suggest sweep of Iran’s covert plots – CBS News.

(AP)  BEIRUT — Piece by piece, the tools for an alleged Iranian-directed murder team were smuggled into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea. A sniper rifle with silencer. Pistols. Sixteen pieces of plastic explosives and detonators.

Finally came a dossier with photos, names and exacting details — down to workplace drawings — for Israeli targets in the capital of Azerbaijan.

Each step, according to authorities in Baku, was overseen by Iran’s intelligence services for what could have been a stunning attack weeks before the suspected shadow war between Jerusalem and Tehran flared in Azerbaijan’s neighbor Georgia and the megacities New Delhi and Bangkok.

The shadow war is picking up as concerns are growing over Iran’s alleged weapons experiments. Iran denies charges by the West that it seeks atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation.

The allegedly unraveled Baku plot in January, recounted through interviews and police records, has been largely overshadowed by this month’s arrests and attacks that suggest Iranian payback after the slayings of at least five Iranian scientists in the past two years — all with some links to Tehran’s nuclear program.

But the Baku claims offer a wider portrait of Iran’s alleged clandestine operations, and how they appear tailored to different locales.

“The moves against Israel taken in other countries and thwarted in Baku are undoubtedly interconnected,” said Arastun Orujlu, the head of East-West, an independent Baku-based think tank. “Iran tries to provoke Israel. Iran needs an external factor to mobilize and unite the society, but it realizes that it will lose a big war. That is why Iran is trying to provoke Israel to engage in smaller-scale confrontation.”

In Bangkok, the three Iranian suspects in custody took advantage of Thailand’s foreigner-friendly culture to party with bar girls while allegedly organizing a bomb cache whose targets, police say, included the Israeli Embassy. In New Delhi, the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three others were wounded by attackers using magnetic bombs — the same tactic used to kill a senior nuclear official in Tehran last month in an attack that Iran claims was masterminded by Israel. The same day as the New Delhi blast, a similar “sticky bomb” was found on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

The Baku allegations bring a different scenario: local mercenaries suspected of being recruited by a well-known gangster with alleged ties to Iranian secret services.

“Each alleged plot has its own signature,” said Theodore Karasik, a security expert at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, who was part of a fact-finding trip to Baku after the January arrests in Baku. “They all seem to have a bit of an amateur quality about them, however, as if Iran is trying various tactics to see what works.”

But the shifting tactics remain difficult to interpret, say security experts.

Some speculate they indicate a level of sophistication and preplanning to adapt plans that take local conditions and opportunities into account. An opposing view also is frequently cited: They represent a scattershot approach that shows panic and disarray as sanctions — and suspected covert attacks inside Iran — rattle Tehran’s leadership.

Iran denies any links to the attacks outside its borders, but accuses Israel of directing the slayings of the Iranian scientists as well as other clandestine acts such as a computer virus that targeted uranium enrichment equipment.

“There is no way to interpret its belligerent and violent behavior, which all but defies all operational and diplomatic logic, as anything but a sign that the decision-makers in Tehran are acting from their gut and not their head,” wrote Yoav Limor, a prominent defense correspondent for Israel’s national TV station.

The Baku case bridges both elements: A suggestion of some methodical planning, but also a risky reliance on the local underworld in a city that with a history of tensions between Iran and Israel.

The former Soviet republic — flush with Caspian oil and friendly to the West — sits on Iran’s western shoulder with deep connections into the Islamic Republic through Iran’s ethnic Azeri community, one of the nation’s largest whose members include Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Baku’s outward-looking policies also have been packaged into an international PR campaign as it bids for the 2020 Olympics.

In 2007, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities. The following year, Azerbaijan officials said they foiled a plot to explode car bombs near the Israeli Embassy in retaliation for the killing in Syria of a top commander in Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group. Two Lebanese men were later convicted in Baku for the bombing attempt.

Now, as Iran’s nuclear showdown with the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a weak point. Earlier this month, Iran’s foreign ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Israeli spy agency Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for “terrorists” to kill members of Iran’s scientific community.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Elman Abdullayev, dismissed the Iranian claims as “slanderous lies” designed to turn attention away from the alleged assassination plot uncovered last month.

Authorities in Azerbaijan’s National Security Ministry allege the weapons and explosives were smuggled into the country bit by bit beginning in October. The cache included three pistols and a military-grade sniper rifle with a silencer.

The suspected ringleader was a local thug, Balagardash Dadashev, who had a record that included kidnapping and robbery. Azeri officials believe Dadashev, at some point, branched out to make connections with Iranian agents, possibly linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the ultimate defender of Iran’s ruling system.

From a safe haven in Iran, Dadashev then reached out to two Azeri underworld figures to carry out killings of Israeli citizens.

Police say he first approached his brother-in-law, Rasim Aliyev, who at first rejected the idea. Then, authorities say, he and his Baku neighbor returned with a demand for $200,000. Dadashev countered with $150,000 and gave Aliyev a $9,300 advance as well a plan of a Jewish school in Baku and photos of two Israeli teachers working there. Police say Dadashev said they could target either of the two at their choice.

Aliyev’s neighbor, Ali Guseinov, used some of the money to buy a used car, according to investigators. He then requested a sniper rifle after seeing security cameras at the school, which caters to Azerbaijan’s small Jewish community. Police say pistols, explosives and detonators also were part of the plot’s arsenal.

The alleged plot collapsed with a series of raids and arrests announced Jan. 19. Dadashev was believed to be in Iran and out of the reach of Baku authorities. But in a purported confession shown on Azerbaijani state television, Aliyev said Dadashev had told him it was revenge for the alleged Israeli slayings in Iran. Some Israeli reports, which have not been officially confirmed, said the country’s ambassador also was a target.

Israeli security officials refuse to give further details about their investigations or coordination with authorities in Baku. Last week, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted the alleged Azerbaijan plot as part of Israel’s efforts to work with security forces around the world.

“In recent months, we have witnessed several attempts to attack Israeli citizens in several countries, including Azerbaijan, Thailand and others,” he said. “In each instance, we succeeded in foiling the attacks in cooperation with local authorities.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

(Time to ignore Obama and DEAL with this threat already!  Cmon, Bibi… – JW )

DEBKAfile Special Report February 21, 2012, 2:58 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iran General Mohammad Hejazi

Deputy Chief of Iran’s Armed Forces Gen. Mohammad Hejazi issued a new threat Tuesday, Feb. 21: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests… we will act without waiting for their actions.”
debkafile’s military sources report that an Iranian preemptive attack on Israel has been in the air for some weeks. It became realistic because the dragging out of the argument between Washington and Jerusalem over a military strike and the two government’s indecisiveness gave Tehran a golden opportunity to further its interests.
It bestowed on Iran the gift of entering into talks on its nuclear program with the six world powers (P5 plus 1) free of a military threat and therefore in a superior bargaining position. For openers, Tehran has already pocketed the Obama administration’s promise of permission to continue to enrich uranium up to 5 percent in any quantity and will be more than ready to lay down more demands.
Gen. Hejazi’s threat of a preemptive strike against Israel also serves the Islamic regime in its run-up to a general election on March 3. It aims to show the Iranian voter and Middle East public that Iran has successfully turned US and Israeli aggression against Iran against them and demonstrated they are no more than paper tigers incapable of carrying through on their rhetoric. The military initiative therefore stays in Iran’s hands.
In Tehran, the standard Israeli cliché of “We don’t’ advise anyone to test our resolve” has worn thin.
By letting two Iranian warships bearing arms for Assad pass Israel’s coast on its way to Tartus without interference, Israel encouraged Tehran to assume that, in the last reckoning, it will abstain from a unilateral strike to eradicate Iran’s nuclear facilities without Washington’s blessing.
The Netanyahu government’s resolve is expected to melt away under the bulldozer assault of one American emissary after another touching down at Ben-Gurion airport to corner them into backing down.
Once Israel lets its hands be tied, Tehran calculates, it will become progressively harder to break them loose, so that if Tehran does carry out a limited “preemptive” missile attack on the Jewish state, Jerusalem will again bow to Washington and let itself be coerced into not responding.
Thursday, Feb. 23, US National Director of Intelligence James Clapper arrives in Israel to tackle its military and intelligence chiefs on the question, after US National Defense Director Tom Donilon spent three days in fruitless discussions with government leaders Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff tried his hand at persuasion earlier this month. This cycle of pressure will peak with Netanyahu’s White House talks with President Obama on March 5.
The Iranians felt confident enough to safely deny requests from the team of IAEA inspectors who arrived in Tehran Monday for access suspect nuclear locations and meetings with scientists employed in their nuclear program.
Gen. Hejazi’s words were backed up by a four-day air defense exercise, dubbed Sarallah (God’s Revenge), in the south of the country. The Islamic Republic also took another initiative by cutting off oil exports to Britain and France and so turning the tables on the European Union’s oil embargo on Tehran.

Bolton:Private Pressure on Israel Not to Attack Iran Is ‘Failing’.

Israel Matzav: Obama placing ‘enormous pressure’ on Israel not to attack Iran.

A ‘senior Israeli official’ has told AFP that the Obama administration is placing ‘enormous pressure on Israel‘ not to attack Iran.

“Israel is under pressure from all sides. The Americans don’t want to be surprised and faced with a fait accompli of an Israeli attack,” the senior official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“They are telling us to be patient and see if the international sanctions against Tehran will eventually work,” he said.

At this time, Israel is coming under increased pressure from Washington and Europe to hold off from attacking Iran over its disputed nuclear drive and allow time for a regime of tight international sanctions to kick in.

Pressure is being exerted from all directions, officials acknowledge, with Washington’s concern over a pre-emptive Israeli strike reflected in the steady stream of senior officials arriving in Jerusalem for top-level talks.

…

Later this week, US Intelligence Chief James Clapper is also due to arrive, press reports said.

You all remember Clapper, don’t you? The clown who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is secular….

Barak has been “summoned” to Washington next week, media reports said, ahead of a visit by the premier himself on March 5 and a planned meeting between Israel’s PM and the American president.

I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that Barak was the ‘senior Israeli official’ who was the source for this article. After Barak’s comments after his meeting with Tom Donilon on Monday, it’s not surprising that Washington wants to try to bring him into line.

Barak may be the last of the ‘bitchonistim,’ the people from the Labor-Left who still aren’t ready to commit suicide on the altar of a ‘Palestinian state.’ (The roots of the ‘bitchonistim‘ are David Ben Gurion and Yitzchak Rabin). Barak was also Netanyahu’s commanding officer in Sayeret Matkal, the elite of the elite army units that reports directly to the Chief of Staff. As much as I have criticized some of what Barak did in the army in the past, I don’t see Barak – who believes that the Iranian threat is existential – putting Israel’s security in Obama’s hands. Ideologically, that’s not him.

What could go wrong?