21 | February | 2012 | WarSclerotic

Archive for February 21, 2012

In Israel, worries about Iran attack

February 21, 2012

By Aron Heller

Associated Press

JERUSALEM – Despite its confident saber-rattling, concern in Israel is growing that the country is vulnerable to a devastating counterstrike if it attacks Iran’s nuclear program.

An announcement this week that a mobile rocket-defense system would soon be built just outside Tel Aviv, where Israel’s sprawling military headquarters sits in the middle of office towers, museums, night spots and hotels, caused jitters. Israeli officials cite intelligence reports that Tel Aviv would be a main target of any attack.

Increasingly, the debate in Israel is turning to whether a strike can damage the Iranian program enough to be worth the risks. Experts believe that any attack would at best set back, but not cripple, the Iranians.

Vice Prime Minister Dan Meridor, who also serves as minister of intelligence and atomic energy, indicated Saturday that Israel was facing a new type of peril.

“Whereas in the past, there was a battlefield where tanks fought tanks, planes fought planes, there was a certain push not to see the homefront affected. Now the war is mainly in the homefront,” said the normally tight-lipped Meridor.

“The whole of Israel [is vulnerable to] tens of thousands of missiles and rockets from neighboring countries. So of course we need to understand the change of paradigm,” he continued. “If there is a war, and I hope there isn’t a war, they are not just going to hit Israeli soldiers. The main aim is at civilian populations.”

Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, a charge Tehran denies. Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence, citing Iranian leaders’ calls for its destruction.

An Israeli military strike would likely draw an Iranian retaliation, experts believe, which would involve either Iran’s firing its long-range Shahab missiles or acting via local proxies of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, or even Assad loyalists in Syria.

Unlike in the 2006 war against Hezbollah, Israel’s main population centers are believed to be possible targets this time.

Jerusalem is considered relatively safe because of its Islamic holy sites. But the Mediterranean coast, home to most of the population, with Tel Aviv at its center, seems like an attractive target.

The business and cultural capital of the country, with a metropolitan population of more than two million, Tel Aviv is critical to Israel’s image of itself as a modern place with a Western lifestyle. Israel happily markets the city as a high-tech, fun-loving hub.

Aside from a spate of Saddam Hussein’s rudimentary Scud missiles in 1991, the city has never truly been tested before. Although the Scuds caused little damage, memories of that war are vivid. The strikes caused widespread panic and tens of thousands of people fled to safer areas of the country or left altogether. A prolonged siege on the city today could likely fuel another exodus.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Barak on Iran: We’ll do what we need to do

February 21, 2012

Barak on Iran: We’ll do what we … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By HERB KEINON 02/20/2012 23:20

Defense minister’s comments come amid growing public calls for Israel not to hit Iran; US intel chief to visit for further talks on Tehran.

By Marc Israel Sellem

As more and more US officials publicly call on Israel not to attack Iran at this time, Defense Minister Ehud Barak emerged from a two-hour meeting Monday with visiting US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon saying sovereign nations act based on their own perception of their interests.

The US-Israel relationship, Barak said at a meeting of his Independence faction shortly after hosting Donilon, is a relationship between “two sovereign countries, each one responsible in the final analysis for the decisions it takes for itself and about its future.”

Barak’s comments came amid a wave of reports citing unconfirmed sources saying that the US – including Donilon – is pressing Israel to give more time for international sanctions to work before taking military action against Iran.

Barak gave little indication of friction with the US over the issue, saying the discussions with Donilon covered a wide range of issues, and that the security relationship between Israel and the US was excellent. He added that the relationship was unique it its “openness, mutual respect, understanding, attentiveness, and knowledge that at the end of the day we are talking about two very friendly countries with a very long and deep connection, that has deepened during the current administration.”

The White House put out a statement after the meeting saying that Donilon concluded three days of talks in Israel that “addressed the full range of security issues of mutual concern.”

“The visit is part of the continuous and intensive dialogue between the United States and Israel and reflects our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” the statement said, adding that Donilon confirmed a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama for March 5.

Even before that meeting, which is expected to focus primarily on the Iranian issue, James R. Clapper, Washington’s director of national intelligence, is expected to come to Jerusalem at the end of the week for further talks with Israeli officials about Iran.

Clapper serves as the head of the US intelligence community, acting as the principle advisor to the president, National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security.

Before going to Washington, where he will also address the annual AIPAC policy conference, Netanyahu will go to Ottawa and meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The flurry of high-level USIsraeli consultations comes even as significant US officials are publicly saying this is not the time for an Israeli strike on Iran.

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Army General Martin Dempsey, said in a CNN interview on Sunday that an Israeli attack on Iran would be “destabilizing” and “not prudent” at this point.

Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor stressed to reporters Monday that Dempsey said an attack was not prudent “at this point.”

“He said it is not prudent now, but does that mean later?” Meridor asked.

Meridor said the sanctions regime had been toughened to the point of causing “hysteria” in Iran.

“All this shows the pressure which this regime is under, but they have not yet decided to shut down their nuclear effort, so the struggle is on,” he said. “I think there is a chance of success [for sanctions] if they are done with determination, persistence and leadership.”

On Monday, Joe Cirincione, of the State Departments International Security Advisory Board that provides the State Department with independent advice on security and diplomatic issues, told CBS that it was uncertain whether an Israeli attack “would do enough damage to actually do much more than delay the program for a year or so.”

Cirincione said a strike would not bring about a quick end to this crisis; it would be the beginning of either a larger war or a long-scale, large-scale containment effort to try to stop Iran from what they would undoubtedly do, which would be race to build a bomb. During this period, he warned, oil prices would rise to $200, or even $300 a barrel, which would have severe “repercussions on an already fragile global economy.”

Not only American officials were carrying this message.

On Sunday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague publicly called on Israel to give the sanctions more time, saying that “Israel, like everyone else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach we adopted: very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.

Meanwhile, senior UN inspectors arrived in Iran on Monday to push for transparency, a day after Tehran responded defiantly to tightened EU sanctions by halting oil sales to British and French companies.

The five-member team from the International Atomic Energy Agency, led by its Global Inspectorate chief Herman Nackaerts, planned two days of meetings in another effort to extract answers from Iran regarding its nuclear program.

Nackaerts said on departure from Vienna that he wanted “concrete results” from the talks. His delegation was expected to seek, among other things, to question Iranian nuclear scientists and visit the Parchin military base believed to have been used for highexplosive tests relevant to nuclear warheads.

But Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi dampened speculation about such visits when he told the student news agency ISNA that the IAEA officials would not be going to any nuclear sites. “No. Their work has just begun,” Salehi said.

Meanwhile, diplomats doubted the talks would bring a breakthrough.

“I believe most are rather skeptical concerning the outcome because, well, Iran had a chance at the last meeting and didn’t seize it,” a senior Western official said, referring to the last trip by the senior IAEA team to Tehran at the end of January.

Referring to last week’s announcements by Iran of new nuclear advances, he said: “They send out the wrong signals that Iran is really willing to cooperate… We will wait and see what will come out of this meeting, but we should be prepared that Iran might try some technical steps… to appear cooperative without really providing the necessary cooperation.”

The European Union enraged Tehran last month when it decided to slap a boycott on its oil from July 1.

Iran, the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the main Gulf oil shipping lane, in retaliation and the United States signaled it would use force to keep it open.

The spiking tension has put upward pressure on oil prices.

On Sunday, Iran’s Oil Ministry announced that it stopped selling oil to French and British companies, although the move will be largely symbolic as those firms had already greatly reduced purchases of Iranian crude.

Deputy Oil Minister Ahmad Qalebani suggested the Western crackdown would backfire, saying that in targeting Iranian oil the West had achieved only a surge in crude prices from $103 a barrel to $120, “and it will reach $150.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nuclear Realities

February 21, 2012

Nuclear Realities – National Review Online.

By Victor Davis Hanson

February 21, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Given the worrying over nuclear Iran, it is timely to review the rules of nuclear proliferation.

NUCLEAR CRED
Otherwise insignificant nations and failed states gain credibility by shorting their own people to divert billions of dollars to acquiring a bomb. Take away that fact from Pakistan, and the United States would probably have reduced aid to such a de facto belligerent long ago. Without the ongoing appearance of possessing nukes, North Korea would probably earn about as much foreign aid as Chad or Niger. What makes France a world player, in a way that the much larger and richer Germany is not, is not just the burdens of German guilt, but also the fact of a nuclear France. The bomb sometimes achieves what even GDP, population, strategic location, or natural resources cannot.

MADNESS AS FORCE MULTIPLIER
Presumed madness is a force multiplier of nuclear capability, especially in an Islamic apocalyptic context. Under conventional nuclear deterrence, rough nuclear parity, and the assurance that neither side has a first-strike capability sufficient to render its opponent nuclearly impotent, prevent both wars and nuclear blackmail. But if a head of state can feign insanity, or, better yet, convincingly announce a wish for the apocalypse, then he can, in theory, circumvent some traditional rules of deterrence. An Iranian theocrat’s supposed willingness to use his sole nuclear weapon to wipe out tiny Israel — at the cost of losing 30 million Iranians from retaliation — yields a cheap way to obtain not just parity with Israel, but potentially a nuclear advantage.

In any given Middle Eastern crisis, a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran will always talk of the return of the hidden imam while threatening to repeat the Holocaust. By these means, it hopes to reap political concessions that its paltry array of nukes would not otherwise warrant. Acting as if one had nothing to lose is an advantage in nuclear poker — analogous to the supposedly prison-bound high-school dropout picking a fight with his graduating, Harvard-bound counterpart.

SORTA, KINDA NUCLEAR
All intelligence concerning the current status of the world’s nuclear club is inexact at best. Therefore, to achieve nuclear deterrence, it may not even be necessary for a rogue state to provide conclusive proof that it has nuclear weapons on hand and that they actually work.

Iraq might well never have been able to produce enough weapons-grade plutonium from its Osirak reactor to make a bomb, even had Israel not destroyed the plant in 1981. No matter: Had we known in 1991 that the reactor was intact and had been working for a decade, there is real doubt whether the United States would have dared to invade Iraq during the first Gulf War.

Moammar Qaddafi reportedly gave up his nuclear-weapons program for fear of meeting the same fate as Saddam Hussein. But he may have wrongly surmised, on the basis of our claim that we had invaded Iraq in part to stop Saddam’s WMD program, that the existence of such a program would have prompted a U.S. preemptive response. He might have been more accurate had he concluded that uncertainty about the status of his nuclear acquisition might have convinced the U.S. of the dangers of attacking such a potential nuclear power. Had Qaddafi instead accelerated work on his nuclear program from 2003 to 2011 — even falsely claiming at key intervals that he had a bomb — there is less likelihood that NATO would have bombed him out of power last year.

Syria, after the fall of Saddam, apparently better understood these realities and therefore was racing to enrich uranium and obtain one or two bombs. Israel destroyed its enrichment facility near Deir ez-Zor in 2007 when it was unequivocally clear that Syria was not yet nuclear. Note, as in the case of Saddam Hussein in 1981, that Bashar al-Assad did not retaliate against Israel in 2007 — apparently afraid to engage a nuclear Israel over a matter of nuclear weapons. Had the reactor not been bombed then, today, nearly five years later, Assad might well have been able to at least feign nuclear capability in a way that might have shielded him against foreign pressures.

To this day, we do not know whether North Korea has successfully detonated a nuclear bomb that is easily deliverable. But it does not matter; we need to know only that it has achieved some sort of nuclear reaction that suggests the ability to repeat it a few times. That fact prevents any sort of preemptive attack on a North Korean reactor, giving North Korea the sort of exemption that Iraq, Libya, and Syria never quite achieved.

NUCLEAR STOCKPILES ARE NOT ALL EQUAL
The United States, in well-meaning fashion, is supposedly considering unilaterally reducing its nuclear force, perhaps even well below the limits agreed on with the Russians. Rumors circulate that a few in the administration are pondering a more radical reduction, to 400 nukes or even fewer — about what China or India may possess.

If true, the logic is bewildering. There is little danger that the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile per se will ever encourage an American preemptive nuclear strike. There is even less likelihood that terrorists will get their hands on American bombs. In a defense budget of over $600 billion, maintenance of our nuclear stockpiles is not an inordinate expense. Nor is there any evidence that spontaneously reducing stockpiles will encourage the same from others.

Most important, what is forgotten is the reason why the post–Cold War American stockpile is still so large. Unlike Russia or China, the U.S. has several key allies that are non-nuclear and whose security needs are met by our nuclear umbrella — in the sense that we pledge to defend them to the last nuke from any existential attack.

But there is more to it than that. Our allies themselves, unlike the rogue states we have been considering, have the capability to become nuclear overnight. The reason why Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are not nuclear is not a matter of technology or finance; indeed, all four could this year alone create nukes as they do BMWs or Hondas. It is not just an American nuclear umbrella but rather a large American nuclear umbrella that assures such countries that they can rest secure without their own deterrent stockpiles.

In other words, if the Obama administration were to take us down to a few hundred bombs, it might send a signal to our allies that we could not possibly deter all their enemies simultaneously — and that they would be wiser to fend for themselves by obtaining their own nuclear arsenals. For each dozen bombs we retired, our allies might feel it necessary to make up the difference on their own.

DEMOCRATIC BOMBS
The danger is not the bomb per se, but rather who has it. Most of us do not worry about a democratic Britain, France, India, or Israel possessing nuclear weapons. The fright instead is over a Communist authoritarian China, an unhinged North Korea, an Islamist Pakistan, or an unstable Russia having nuclear weapons. Transparent democracies, in other words, are mostly reliable nuclear guardians; non-transparent autocracies are less so. Should Australia or Canada wish to acquire nuclear weapons, few privately would care; should Cuba or Zimbabwe, everyone publicly would care. It is always wise to limit the nuclear club, given the chance of accident or change of government; but wiser still to limit the non-democratic nuclear club.

PREEMPTIVE ATTACKS
There have been a handful of efforts to preempt and stop nuclear programs. Israel, as we have seen, has done it twice, against Iraq and Syria. America in 2003 claimed it was ensuring that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Note that all preemptive attacks so far have occurred in the Middle East — no surprise, given the rivalry of Israel, the Arab states, and Iran, the ubiquity of madmen, lots of cash, and 40 percent of the world’s oil.

What is strange is that Iran itself, the likely target of any future preemptive effort, was the first nation to attack another nation’s nuclear reactor. (Reports of Soviet efforts to target the Israeli reactor at Dimona during the Six-Day War are probably unfounded.) In 1980, Iran sent planes into Iraq to attack the Osirak facility, for fear that Saddam might develop a bomb during the Iraq-Iran War. That mostly failed mission damaged but did not destroy the facility, which was demolished a year later by the Israeli air force. For all the present Iranian talk of sovereignty, it was Iran that established the precedent that unhinged enemies cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. In the very first days of its war with Saddam Hussein it sought to ensure that Iraq would not go nuclear — perhaps with some help from Israeli intelligence. As a general rule, preemption against a nuclear facility is as immediately denounced as it is over time quietly appreciated — so long as the mission was successful.

IRAN
How do all these rules apply to Iran?

Tehran knows that it has enough natural gas for over a century of electrical-power production. It builds nuclear facilities only to gain prestige, expand its influence beyond what it otherwise would be, and engage in blackmail — always exaggerating the pace of its nuclear acquisition to convince potential preemptors that it may already have the bomb and therefore will retaliate in nuclear fashion. Likewise, it believes that the loonier and more suicidal it sounds, the more likely other countries are to grant concessions — successful states cannot afford to wager all that they have created on the likely hunch that a failed state like Iran is bluffing. If we cannot guarantee our allies deterrence from a nuclear Iran, then they will find a way to obtain it on their own — whether through preemption in the case of Israel or through nuclear acquisition in the case of the Gulf monarchies. Finally, Iranians understand the importance of knocking out an enemy’s nuclear facility — not least because they were the first ones to try it themselves.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Video: Ex-Netanyahu Aide Says Let Israel Attack

February 21, 2012

Video: Ex-Netanyahu Aide Says Let Israel Attack – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

“How can Israel not attack Iran?” asks former Netanyahu aide Bennett on Fox News. Iran is an “octopus of terror.”

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

The United States must let Israel attack Iran now, before it is too late to stop “a maniacal radical regime” from acquiring nuclear weapons, Naftali Bennett, former Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, told Mike Huckabee on his Saturday time slot on Fox News.

Bennett, who also served two years as director of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, says he thinks an Israeli military strike is imminent.

“Iran is racing towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. We are the very least moment. This will be the first time in world history that a maniacal radical Islamic regime will acquire a nuclear weapon,” Bennett told viewers.

”Iran is an octopus of terror” that spreads its tentacle as far away as Bangkok and Washington, said the former senior government official.

Asked if Israel could sustain a prolonged conflict with the Islamic Republic, he stated, “If necessary, we will. America has more [military] capabilities, but most of Iran’s facilities are still vulnerable. Right now, we could still take them out, but a year from now it is going to be a different ball game.”

Bennett criticized the Obama administration for having “squandered the ability to issue crippling and even paralyzing sanctions on Iran “the past three years. The new sanctions are “too little and too later,” he added.

He reminded Huckabee that the world condemned Israel for its pre-emptive strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor 30 in 19181, but the world then “blessed” Israel for the action a decade later.”

He said Israel cannot afford to wait for 12 months, when “we don’t what we are going to see.”

“There are no guarantees that others will take care of this…. If necessary, we will do this job for the world, but please, please don’t tell us to stand back and just wait and I guess pray for something good to happen,” he continued.

“Everyone in this region does not want Iran to acquire a bomb. We got to do the job. If Obama won’t, please let Israel do the job.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Netanyahu to Meet Obama on March 5

February 21, 2012

Netanyahu to Meet Obama on March 5 – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with US President Barack Obama in Washington during his March 4-6 AIPAC visit.

By Gavriel Queenann

Netanyahu and Obama in NYC

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will meet with US President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5.

According to Obama’s National Security Adviser Tom Donilon the two leaders will discuss the “full range of security issues of mutual concern.”

Netanyahu will be in Washington to address the annual policy conference of the influential pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which will be held on March 4-6.

Donilon just concluded three days of talks with Israeli leaders in Jerusalem amid escalating tensions over on Iran’s nuclear program. He met with Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and others.

The White House described the talks as a reflection of the Obama administration’s “unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

However, officials in Israel and the US have been increasingly at odds on how to deal with Iran, which both – along with other Western nations and Gulf Arab states – say is seeking nuclear weapons.

Israeli officials are said to favor a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities saying the window for decisive action is closing as Iran “enters the immunity zone.”

The Obama administration insists sanctions are having the desired effect and need more time.

Previously, Netanyahu publicly backed the White House led sanctions – but is said to have expressed reservations in closed-door sessions of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and defense committee.

However, last week Netanyahu openly said Western sanctions are “not working.” The Prime Minister’s change in public posture came after a series of terror attacks targeting Israeli diplomats in Asia, which he accused Iran of mounting.

His comments came shortly before Defense Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess told US lawmakers Thursday “we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandon its nuclear program.”

Critics of Obama’s sanctions-only policy note that North Korea succeeded in detonating two nuclear weapons in secret tests despite crippling sanctions, and widespread poverty and starvation in the country.

The US has urged Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Observers say recent leaks in the Obama administration appear to have been designed to hamstring an Israeli strike on Iran.

On January 31, Sen. Diane Feinstein leaked that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo was in Washington for secret talks on a possible Iran strike.

Then, just days later, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed Israel’s likely timetable for such an attack when he told reporters “a strong likelihood” that Israel would strike Iran in April, May or June,

US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey on Sunday said an attack on Iran is “not prudent.”

Dempsey told CNN that Israel has the capability to strike Iran and delay the Iranians “probably for a couple of years. But some of the targets are probably beyond their reach.”

However, proponents of Obama’s policy note that the White House continues to say it needs more time, which an Israeli strike would almost certainly provide.

Dempsey also expressed concern that an Israeli attack could spark reprisals against US targets in the Gulf or Afghanistan, where American forces are based.

“That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason that we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” Dempsey said.

However, senior Israeli officials in private conversations have expressed the belief that the White House desperately wants to avoid a spike in oil prices a strike might cause as the presidential elections looms on its political horizon.

The weak US economy has been in a holding pattern and Federal Reserve officials have frozen interest rates saying they do not expect recovery to begin until 2014.

British Foreign Minister William Hague told the BBC that London was convinced diplomacy was the only way to deal with Iran.

“I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” he said. “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.”

Israeli analysts, however, say that what is “wise” for Israel may not be what is wise for Europe, stuck in the quagmire of a sovereign debt crisis, or the United States.

While Western capitals are primarily concerned with the economic impact a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may have, officials in Jerusalem are primarily concerned with the potential impact of not attacking.

Iranian officials have repeatedly called for the Jewish state’s destruction and have referred to Israel as a “one bomb state.”

In Jerusalem, an Iranian nuclear weapon is an existential risk leaders have said they don’t believe Israel can afford.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

IDF Says Ground Invasion in Gaza ‘Matter of Time’

February 21, 2012

IDF Says Ground Invasion in Gaza ‘Matter of Time’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

It is only “a matter of time” before the IDF has to re-enter Gaza to control terror, IDF Chief of Benny Gantz warns.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Operation Cast Lead

Israel news photo: Flash 90

It is only a “matter of time” before the IDF has to re-enter Gaza to control terror, IDF Chief of Benny Gantz warns, three years after the three-week Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign.

The IDF has carried out a consistent policy since several months after Cast Lead to retaliate after almost every terrorist attack on Israelis. Hamas and other terrorist groups, both allies and rivals, have carried out hundreds of rockets, missiles, mortar shells and sniping attacks since the end of Cast Lead in January 2009.

Israel has been operating on the basis of a “Negev roulette” policy, by which the military usually carries out a symbolic response to terrorist attacks that cause no injuries or serious property damage.

When damage is more severe, so is the response, even though most of the terrorist attacks are launched without guidance systems that can pinpoint targets. Gaza terrorists basically attack rural areas in the hopes of hitting human targets and know that if they hit a crowded urban center, there is more likelihood of a large-scale retaliation.

Last week, Be’er Sheva was targeted, but there were no injuries or major damage. Past experience has shown that Hamas strategically escalates its attacks to achieve a political end or when it thinks is will win media sympathy if it draws the IDF into a ground incursion not Gaza.

The IDF lost most of its ability to directly hit terrorists after the Sharon government expelled more than 9,000 Jews and ordered the withdrawal of all military presence from Gaza in the summer of 2005.

The “Disengagement” program ostensibly was aimed at removing any reason for Hamas to attack Israel, but the rocket strikes actually increased and struck deeper into central Israel until Cast Lead.

The military previously has said it is preparing for returning to Gaza, but Israel Defense suggested that next time around it might carry out a strategy of “divide and conquer” by dividing the region into several parts, effectively preventing Hamas from exercising control.

The terrorist organization is in the midst of returning to a unity government with the rival Fatah faction, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas’ “peace” with Hamas has weakened his support from the United States and may cost him European Union backing as well. If Hamas and Fatah complete their unity arrangement and rocket attacks on southern Israel continue, the return of the IDF to Gaza could have severe consequences for Abbas as well as Hamas.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

IDF paratroopers earn coveted red beret

February 21, 2012

IDF paratroopers earn coveted red beret – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Young soldiers complete grueling march to Jerusalem; commander: it’s preparation for war

Yoav Zitun

Hundreds of paratroopers who joined the IDF in August of 2011 completed Monday a grueling 70-kilometer (roughly 42 miles) march en route to earning the unit’s coveted red beret.

The troops embarked on the march Sunday evening and were on the move for nearly 24 consecutive hours. During the challenging journey they had to contend with particularly harsh winter conditions as they marched through the chilly air of the Jerusalem Mountains.

Long march to Jerusalem (Photo: Reuters)

Starting next week, the soldiers will be assigned to various paratroop regiments for operational activity.

The long march began in the Bet Shemesh area and saw the soldiers walking through large swamps, before reaching the final destination: Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill. The troops received the red beret during a ceremony at the site, in the presence of family members.

Carrying 40% of body weight

“The journey was symbolic and perhaps exciting, but it’s part of our preparation for war and there were no songs involved. Everyone marched quietly,” Paratroopers’ training base Regiment Commander, Lt.-Col. Guy Berger, told Ynet. This was his third march as regiment commander and 10th since joining the paratroopers.

Happy ending (Photo: Reuters)

“The new thing about this march was that every soldier carried equipment, ammunition and arms weighing 40% of his body weight, to help train for a long walk to the enemy target,” Berger said.

“About 95% of the soldiers completed the journey, and none of them stopped midway. Most of the march was uphill, and during the last 10 kilometers (6 miles) we opened two stretchers in each platoon to simulate carrying the wounded,” he said.

“It’s always exciting to watch the soldiers march uphill to Jerusalem during sunrise,” Berger concluded.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘Israel under pressure from all sides’

February 21, 2012

‘Israel under pressure from all sides’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Senior Israeli official says ‘Americans don’t want to be surprised’ by attack on Iran. ‘They are telling us to be patient, see if sanctions will eventually work,’ he says

AFP

Israel is facing enormous pressure to refrain from staging a surprise strike on Iran‘s nuclear facilities, a senior Israeli official said Monday.

“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.

Barak ‘summoned’ to Washington

The latest visitor was US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who on Sunday held a two-hour meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and held similar in-depth talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

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

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

In an interview with CNN this weekend, top US military commander Martin Dempsey gave a blunt assessment that it would be “premature” to launch military action against Iran.

On Sunday, Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague said it would not be “wise” for Israel to take military action against Iran, echoing comments earlier this month by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

“The solution is never military, the solution is political, the solution is diplomatic, the solution lies in sanctions,” he told French Jewish leaders on February 8.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Report: Iran won’t allow Hamas-Fatah deal to mature

February 21, 2012

Report: Iran won’t allow Hamas-Fatah deal to mature – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Lebanon’s Al-Mustaqbal paper says Tehran issued official demand for Hamas leadership to pull out of Qatar-brokered unity deal

Roi Kais

Iran has reportedly issues a demand for Hamas to pull put of the Doha unity agreement signed with Fatah in early February.

The Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal quoted high-level Palestinian sources as saying that Tehran said it would not allow the deal to mature.

White House: Netanyahu, Obama to meet in Washington on March 5

February 21, 2012

White House: Netanyahu, Obama to meet in Washington on March 5 – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Meeting in two weeks will likely center on range of actions geared at preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability, whether through sanctions, talks, or military strike.

By Natasha Mozgovaya

U.S. President Barack Obama will host a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on March 5, the White House said on Monday, a session that will likely center on the West’s efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

A White House statement rounding up the recent Israel visit by Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, which announced the date for the upcoming meeting, indicated that the top advisor discussed the “full range of security issues of mutual concern” during his meetings with Israeli leadership.

	Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama at their meeting at the White House on May 20, 2011.
	Photo by: GPO

“The visit is part of the continuous and intensive dialogue between the United States and Israel and reflects our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security,” the statement added.

Donilon’s visit, as well as the planned Netanyahu-Obama meeting, came at a time of intense speculation concerning the possibility that Israel may initiate a strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons over its fears the Islamic Republic is progressing toward nuclear weapons capability.

On Sunday, U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey and British Foreign Minister William Hague warned against an Israeli attack on Iran, citing the grave consequences for the entire region.

In an interview broadcast on CNN, Dempsey said Israel has the capability to strike Iran and delay the Iranians “probably for a couple of years. But some of the targets are probably beyond their reach.”

He expressed concern that an Israeli attack could spark reprisals against U.S. targets in the Gulf or Afghanistan, where American forces are based.
“That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason that we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” Dempsey said.

Describing Iran as a “rational actor,” Dempsey said he believed that the international sanctions on Iran are beginning to have an effect. “For that reason, I think, that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent path at this point.”

“I believe it is unclear (that Iran would assemble a bomb) and on that basis, I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us,” Dempsey said.

Hague delivered a similar message in Britain. Speaking to the BBC, he said Britain was focused on pressuring Iran through diplomatic means.

In a sign that the diplomatic pressure might be working, Iran’s foreign minister said Sunday that a new round of talks with six world powers on the nuclear program will be held in Istanbul, Turkey. Ali Akbar Salehi didn’t give any timing for the talks.

The last round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany were held in Istanbul in January 2011 but ended in failure.

Last week, The Daily Beast reported that a secret Washington visit by Mossad chief Tamir Pardo earlier this month was meant to gauge how the Obama administration of would react to an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

Pardo’s visit was exposed last month by Haaretz after top U.S. officials mentioned his participation in a series of meetings in Washington at a public hearing in the Senate.

The report, citing U.S. officials, shed some light on the visit, saying the Mossad chief had visited the U.S. in order to determine how the U.S. would react if Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program despite U.S. objections.

According to U.S. officials cited in the report, Pardo asked top American officials questions such as: “What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?”

The report added that Israel has ceased sharing a “significant” amount of intelligence concerning its military preparations with the U.S.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment