WarSclerotic

Open Channel – Fears grow of Israel-Iran missile shootout.

With tensions between Israel and Iran running sky high over the latter’s nuclear program, U.S. officials and military analysts are growing increasingly concerned that Israel will launch a multi-phase air and missile attack that could trigger waves of retaliatory missile strikes from Tehran.

Such a shootout could quickly spiral into a regional conflict that would potentially force the U.S. to intervene to protect its interests.

The emerging consensus among current and former U.S. officials and other experts interviewed by NBC News is that that an Israeli attack would be a multi-faceted assault on key Iranian nuclear installations, involving strikes by both warplanes and missiles. It could also include targeted attacks by Israeli special operations forces and possibly even the use of massive explosives-laden drones, they say.

The Iranian response to such an attack is uncertain, but many experts and officials believe it is likely to include retaliatory missile strikes. Iran has more missiles in its arsenal than Israel, according to some estimates, and has the capability of striking targets in most Israeli population centers.

“I think that it would strike Iran as a reasonable response, an eye for an eye,” said Christopher J Ferrero, a professor of diplomacy at Seton Hall University in New Jersey and an expert on Middle East missile forces.

He also said Iran would likely attack major cities with its Shahab 3 missiles, which he said are not as accurate as the Israeli missiles, but would be an effective “instrument of terror … that could certainly cause significant damage to heavily populated suburban and urban areas.”

Israel possesses advanced anti-missile defenses, but those systems could be overwhelmed if Tehran launched large numbers of missiles, as Ferrero expects.

Given the immense difficulties in carrying out successful air strikes on the four key Iranian installations using its warplanes alone — as laid out last week by the New York Times, U.S. officials say Israel would be likely to coordinate such airstrikes with waves of missiles. This would greatly increase the chances of penetrating fortifications that Iran has built to protect some of its key installations and overwhelm Iran’s air defenses, said the former and current U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Two words:  Jericho missiles,” said one former White House and Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, when asked how Israel would attack Iranian targets at great distances. “They are conventionally armed, have a very small CEP (circular error of probability, meaning they are highly accurate) and can be used in conjunction with a strike fighter operation.”

Israel has as many as 100 Jericho ballistic missiles – both short- and medium-range – as well as submarine-launched cruise missiles, though the officials say they believe the latter are unlikely to be used. The short-range Jericho I missiles would be of no use in an attack on Iran, because the targets are far beyond its 300-mile range. However, the  medium-range Jericho II’s are capable of  hitting targets as far as 900 miles away – or as far east as Tehran. Israel also tested a Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missile in 2008 and Israeli media have reported that it may have deployed one or more of the weapons, which would put all of Iran within reach.

The missiles would most likely be launched from the Hirbat Zekharyah missile range, midway between Israel and the Mediterranean Coast, according to “Critical Mass: the Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World,” by William E. Burrows and Robert Windrem, and various Israeli press reports.

Although designed to be part of Israel’s nuclear deterrent force, the Jerichos can be equipped with high explosives as well as nuclear warheads. U.S. officials have said that an Israeli attack, if it happens, would be intended to surgically take out the nuclear facilities, not inflict the mass casualties that would result from a nuclear attack.

Related coverage:

Iran teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC

Panetta report fuels concerns that Israel will attack Iran

Iran has no capability to defend against a missile strike, said Ferrero, the expert on Middle East missile arsenals.

“If the Jerichos are accurate enough to get to their targets, they will get to their targets,” he said.

What Iran does have is hundreds of Shahab 3 medium range ballistic missiles, according to U.S. estimates. The Shahab 3 also has a range of roughly 900 miles.

Israel, possibly supplemented by U.S. shipborne anti-missile systems – the Aegis Standard Missile-2 — could intercept and destroy some of the incoming Iranian missiles, said Ferrero. But the numbers favor Iran, he said.

“I believe that (the Iranians) have a sufficient inventory that they could overwhelm those missile defenses and still get enough missiles through to cause damage,” he said.

The critical  factor may be the number of  missile launchers in Iran’s inventory, Ferrero said, because penetrating Israel’s defenses would require numerous  missiles, but also enough launchers to be able to fire them off simultaneously. That number is a closely guarded secret, he said.

Additionally, U.S. intelligence estimates say Iran has supplied Hezbollah with more than 40,000 short-range rockets and missiles since 2006. However, U.S. officials are uncertain whether Hezbollah would follow Iranian orders, and risk Israeli retaliation or, if they did, how many they would fire.  The majority of the rockets and missiles are unguided.  Israel and the U.S. have worked on a short-range missile defense system called Iron Dome, but there are concerns that waves of attacks could overwhelm the system.

Also open to question in U.S. and Israeli military circles is whether an Israeli attack would meet its objective: setting back the Iranian nuclear program anywhere from two to five years.

U.S. officials say Israel would be likely to concentrate its attacks on four key Iranian nuclear complexes. Key facilities within those complexes – the Natanz and Fordo centrifuge facilities, both south of Tehran; the Arak research reactor, southwest of Tehran; and a uranium hexafloride production and research facility near the city of Isfahan – are protected by heavy fortifications, they said.

The Jerichos are stored in tunnels in limestone formations around Hirbat Zekharyah and rolled out for firing. They would likely be used as part of a one-two punch, the officials say. The first attack would be carried out by Israeli strike fighters and would be intended to breach the heavily fortified outer ceilings of the facilities. The second (and possibly even third) wave would be missile attacks aimed at destroying the facilities within, the officials said. 

Asked if Jerichos would have the accuracy and the explosive power to take out hardened bunkers or fortifications believed to be protecting Iran’s most-sensitive underground nuclear facilities, a current U.S. official replied, “You would be surprised at their accuracy.” The official added that the missiles’ warheads would contain a special mix of explosives that could penetrate the Iranian defenses.

U.S. officials also say Israel may have learned the location of facilities that fabricate centrifuge components. These, too, could be targeted.

A 2010 book on the possibility of an Israeli attack laid out the difficulties Israel would face if it attempted to use only its strike fighters on those targets.

“Attacks against the sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Arak alone would stretch Israel’s capability and planners might be reluctant to enlarge the raid further,” wrote authors Steven Simon and Dana H. Allin, in “The Sixth Crisis – Iran, Israel and the Rumors of War.” Simon, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, now heads the Middle East Desk at the National Security Council.

The biggest problem is the fortification of the two centrifuge facilities. Simon and Allin describe the challenge using aircraft only.

“Natanz is the only one of the … likely targets that is largely underground, sheltered by up to 23 meters (75 feet) of soil and concrete,” they wrote. “… Bombs used in a ‘burrowing’ mode, however, could penetrate deeply enough to fragment the inner surface of the ceiling structures above the highly fragile centrifuge arrays and even precipitate the collapse of the entire structure.”

But for the attack to have high odds of success, they argue, aircraft would have to drop additional bombs into the cavities created by the first bombs. That would require “time on target” — a luxury that the Israeli jets at the outermost limits of their 1,100-mile range would likely not have. While they estimate the success rate of such a plan at “better than 70 percent,” they call it “complicated and highly risky.”

Another difficulty for attacking Israeli aircraft would be finding a route to the targets that could be flown covertly or with the tacit approval of Sunni Arab states, who are at least as frightened of an Iranian nuclear capability as the Israelis.

Simon and Allin (and others) have written that there are three “plausible routes” that Israeli warplanes would take to attack Iran: a northern approach, likely along the Syrian-Turkish border; a central path that would take them over Jordan and Iraq; and a southern route that would transit the lower end of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The southern route is the most likely, U.S. officials suggest, because the Saudis and other Sunni-dominated Gulf states are eager for someone to take out the Iranian threat. They prefer the U.S. do it, but have reportedly shared intelligence on the Iranian program with the Israelis, if only on a limited basis, according to the U.S. officials.

No matter what route the fighter bombers take, they would use what one U.S. official described as “high-low, low-high” flight paths – flying high first to increase fuel efficiency, then low for most of the trip to evade radar, then climbing high again as the bombs are released in what is known as a “flip toss” from as far as 10 miles from the target.

The Israelis would be prepared to lose aircraft if necessary, the officials said.

Although Simon and Allin do not discuss adding a missile component, other experts, including many current and former U.S. officials, believe the Israelis already have made a decision to have them in the attack menu.

Missile attacks would be coordinated with fighter-bomber attacks (presumably, the Israelis’ F-16, F-18 and extended-range F-15I Strike Eagle). The missiles would have to be launched so that warheads strike targets following the strike fighter attacks.  Because of the short flight time, minutes rather than hours in the case of the aircraft, the missile launch would almost certainly take place at the last possible moment to ensure the secrecy of the overall attack.

The Israelis are not planning to use their submarine-launched cruise missile force — “not enough of them,” one official said of the subs. (The Israelis have long had nuclear tipped sub-launched cruise missiles as part of their deterrent force.)

Beyond the strike fighters and the missile force, U.S. officials suggest the Israelis could use two other “weapons” against Iran.

The first is special operations forces that would be secretly inserted into the country. At the least, they could be employed to illuminate aim points for laser-guided bunker-busting bombs. At the most, they could launch their own attacks on facilities, particularly those believed to contain enriched uranium.

The other is a new generation of large drones with wingspans approaching those of a Boeing 777  (almost 200 feet). Costing $30 million each, the Heron drones are capable of remaining airborne for 40 hours at a time and have a range of 4,600 miles. While they can be equipped with surveillance and electronic warfare equipment, some officials call them “strike drones,” meaning they could be loaded with explosives and used to attack Iranian targets.

While the initial days of an Israeli-Iranian conflict would probably be bloody, most experts say that the open warfare would be expected to wind down within days or weeks, since neither side has the ability to occupy the other’s territory or enough missiles to sustain attacks.

But that would bring with it its own set of problems, as the conflict would be likely to continue on a lower level, involving covert operations and terrorism.

“You could have a very nasty covert war emerge,” said Ferrero.

Netanyahu takes Iran nuclear fears to Washington.

JERUSALEM, Feb 29, 2012 (AFP) – Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu will carry his warnings on the dangers of a nuclear Iran to the White House next week for talks amid renewed speculation over an Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic.
Netanyahu has already made clear that Iran’s nuclear programme, which Israel fears masks a weapons drive, will top his agenda in Washington.
“There is no doubt that one issue will be at the centre of our talks, and that is, of course, the continued strengthening of Iran and its nuclear programme,” he told his cabinet on Sunday.
Experts in Israel say Netanyahu’s discussions with President Barack Obama will be a chance for the allies to sound each other out on their sometimes divergent positions on Tehran’s nuclear programme.
“The prime minister wants to make Iran the central subject and I think the president this time does as well,” Israeli political scientist Jonathan Rynhold told AFP.
“There is a major disagreement between the (US) administration and the Israeli government about where the red line is on the Iranian nuclear programme,” said Rynhold, of Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv. “That will be a major issue of tension.”Netanyahu and Obama are to meet on Monday and the Israeli premier will address a convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group that evening.
It will be his first visit to the United States since September, when he met the president on the fringes of the UN General Assembly.
Obama is to speak to AIPAC on Sunday, when Netanyahu arrives in Washington, after a weekend stopover in Canada, where he will meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a keen backer of Israel.
“It’s basically a courtesy call and a thank you call in terms of Canada’s outspoken support for Israel,” Zachariah Kay, a scholar at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and founder member of the Israel Association for Canadian Studies, said of the Ottawa visit. “Keeping friends intact is the important point.”Some of its other friends have been piling pressure on Israel to desist from attacking Iran and allow time for a regime of international sanctions to kick in.
US military chief Martin Dempsey, in an interview with CNN earlier this month, warned that it would be “premature” to launch military action against Iran.
“Israel will be under a lot of pressure to give these sanctions time to work,” Rynhold said, adding that the United States could offer its own guarantees to the Jewish state.
“I think that if the administration were to give the Israeli government the impression that they would actually use force to prevent Iran going nuclear then that would definitely serve to tip the balance in the Israeli government in terms of waiting considerably longer. I think that in any event Israel’s unlikely to do anything in the next three months because President Obama will make a very strong case that sanctions have to be given time and I think that argument is likely to win, at least in the short term.” Iran has topped the agenda in US-Israel talks of recent weeks, which have included visits here by US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and US intelligence chief James Clapper.
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak left for Washington on Monday on a two-day US trip expected to include meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, and Donilon.
The United States is not alone in wanting to rein in Israel, the sole if undeclared nuclear power in the Middle East.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said it would not be “wise” for Israel to take military action against Iran, echoing comments earlier this month by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In 1981, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on the unfinished Osirak reactor outside Baghdad, leaving US officials stunned and earning it a sharp rebuke from its American ally.
For now, Israel says it is keeping all options open for dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme, which much of the international community fears masks a weapons drive, despite Tehran’s denials.
“The state of Israel is a sovereign state; it has the right and capacity to defend (itself) against any threat,” President Shimon Peres said last week. “When we say that all options are on the table, we really mean it.”

U.S. SEES IRAN ATTACKS AS LIKELY IF ISRAEL STRIKES – San Antonio Express-News.

New York Times

Striking Iran and the Myth of Regional War | FrontPage Magazine.

In 2007, Israeli Air Force jets crossed into Syria and destroyed an Iranian-backed nuclear reactor. The operation had the backing of the United States and employed intelligence derived from an Iranian defector. There was no regional war afterward. Not even an exchange of fire at the Israeli-Syrian border.

In 1981, Israel struck deep inside Iraq, destroying Saddam’s Osirak reactor. The attack was universally condemned at the United Nations and even by Israel’s allies. Had Saddam used it as the basis for a war, Israel would have had no international support at all. But again no war followed.

Today, Iran and opponents of any attack on its nuclear program hold up the specter of a regional war that will drag in the United States, devastate the region and drive up oil prices. This is the only card in their deck until the mullahs have their own bomb, and it’s an effective card to play. But is any of that a serious risk?

Let’s start by looking at the current state of the Iranian regime. The regime is wildly unpopular at home. It had to use its Revolutionary Guard corps to violently suppress protests against the regime, it does not trust its own military and without troops loyal to it close to home, the regime would be gone faster than you can say Nicolai Ceausescu. (If you have trouble saying that, substitute the fallen dictator of your choice.)

Iran has repeatedly attacked American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; its terrorists have attacked Israel and Jews around the world, but those attacks amount to terrorism and guerrilla warfare mostly carried out by secondary actors. It’s quite different from committing to a major conflict, which will give the regime a choice between either keeping its loyalist Revolutionary Guard at home and sending unreliable conventional troops off to fight and possibly turn on it, or sending off its trusted troops and leaving its leaders naked to the people’s wrath.

Another option is more terrorist attacks, which are already being carried out anyway. And as their recent attacks showed, Shiite terrorists aren’t all that much better than the Sunni kind. Their latest round of attacks mostly ended with dead terrorists killed by their own bombs. And it is only common sense that a regime this violent and stupid can no more be allowed to have nuclear weapons than Corcoran State Prison should allow Charles Manson to build his own flamethrower.

The only card in the Iranian deck is a naval conflict. The last time it tried one of those, the result was a decisive defeat for Iran, but that was back in the late ’80s. The Persian Gulf is vital to Iran’s assertion of power over the region. It has invested in developing its navy and a strategy that will allow it to take on greater powers.

This scenario is only plausible if we assume that Iran will begin a conflict that it is bound to lose in order to avenge the loss of a nuclear program that it no longer has.

There are two possible attack scenarios. First, Israel carries out a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program. This is the most likely scenario under the Obama administration, which has made it clear that it wants a conflict with Syria, but will not back any Israeli attack on Iran. Second, in a very unlikely scenario the administration, for some reason, changes its mind and decides to take out Iran’s nuclear program.

In the first and likeliest scenario, Iran would have to begin a war with the United States over an attack carried out by Israel. A war that it’s bound to lose. Like the lunatic with the lug nuts, the folks in Tehran are crazy, but they’re not stupid. If they were going to begin a war with the United States over something Israel did, they had plenty of opportunities with Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

In the second scenario, Iran would have the pretext, but that doesn’t automatically translate into an actual conflict either. For one thing, there is the same problem as before. A direct conflict would not end with an Iranian victory. There’s only so much guerrilla warfare you can carry out on the water before the game ends. Without a local civilian population and a vast landscape to hide in, the whole thing implodes.

A naval conflict would be less dangerous to the regime than a ground war, but it would be far more expensive. The Iranian economy is already in bad shape and while the regime will always choose guns over butter, it also needs a certain amount of butter to prevent the regime from being completely overthrown. It also needs credit to buy more guns.

The brief conflict would give the regime a boost at home, but would also demonstrate its unreadiness to take control of the Persian Gulf. It would set back its naval capabilities, impose a heavy price tag and pile one humiliation on top of another.

The Iranian regime is the motherland of terror, and terrorists are natural cowards. They want to intimidate and terrorize their enemies into giving in to their demands while avoiding the consequences. A nuclear bomb is the perfect coward’s weapon because it can be passed along to terrorists, while its mere possession makes retaliation too risky. Without the bomb Iran has to practice the fine art of shaking a stick that it can’t use.

The strangest twist in all this is that some of the most fervent progressive opponents of an attack on Iran are also proponents of an attack on Syria. Reports suggest that Iran actually has sent in a sizable force to help the Assad regime win the civil war. If opponents of an attack on Iran’s nuclear program really believe that it would have devastating consequences, why are they courting a conflict with Iran in Syria?

No one can predict the future, but the best guide to the future is the past. Israel took out nuclear programs in Syria and Iraq without a regional war. Taking out Iran’s nuclear program will require attacks on a larger scale, but the paradigm still holds. Israel and the United States recently took out an Iranian-backed reactor in Syria without it leading to a war.

That doesn’t mean that an attack will not lead to a war, only that it is not the likeliest outcome. And the war panic that is being brewed up serves Iranian interests. Iran’s best hope for buying time is to make an attack on its nuclear program seem as dangerous and costly as possible. That is the only real card it has to play and falling for it lets Iran bluff its way to a nuclear ace.

Youngstown News, Israelis’ paranoia is justified.

In recent days, as discussions about a possible war with Iran grow louder, I have heard that persistent question from people wondering if Israelis aren’t making too much of the Iranian threat. Are Israelis paranoid?

We can discuss whether or not a war is justified. We can argue about whether the U.S. should intervene, whether Israeli should — or could — take on Iran alone. We may wonder what would happen if Iran acquired nuclear weapons and a host of its Arab neighbors followed suit. And we can ponder which would entail more risk, going to war or learning to live with a nuclear-armed and, hence, much more powerful Islamic Republic.

But, no, there is no arguing the question of whether Israelis are paranoid: You bet they are.

And with good reason.

Let’s set aside the lessons of history, which are multiple, tragic and eerily repetitive. Let’s focus instead on the present.

‘Cancerous tumor’

Just a few weeks ago, on Feb. 3, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the country’s most powerful man and its spiritual leader, told the faithful in his Friday sermon that Israel is “a cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.” Iran, he said, would help anyone who wants to help carry out this Israelectomy. Khamanei vowed to promote, “The hegemony of Iran.”

While reaffirming his commitment to continue with the nuclear program, Khamanei admitted that Iran has already participated in recent wars between Israel and groups that exist for the purpose of destroying the country. “We have intervened,” he revealed to no one’s surprise, in the wars between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008.

During those wars, thousands of rockets were launched against Israeli civilians, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes and more than a million to live in underground shelters while missiles crashed above ground.

Back in 2006, a visibly shaken Israeli mother of three told me, “Next time, the rockets will carry nuclear weapons.” She was no security expert, but she expressed a fear that keeps parents awake, just as it does military and government leaders.

A few weeks ago, I witnessed a drill in which Israelis prepared for a “dirty bomb” attack near the country’s principal port, Haifa. The simulation presented what organizers called a “plausible” scenario in which terrorists detonate a conventional weapon laced with nuclear materials in a highly populated area. It’s a major fear of Israeli security experts, who believe Iran would be happy to hide behind terrorist groups, as it has done before, and pass them small quantities of radioactive material.

To anyone wondering if Israelis are worrying too much, there is much evidence to show that is exactly what they should be doing.

At about the same time as his “Israel is Cancer speech,” a close ally of Iran’s Khamanei published a theological justification of why Israel and the Jews should be killed, along with a detailed military proposal. “Residents of Tel Aviv and Haifa can be targeted even by Shahab 3 missiles … (the area) composes about 60 percent of the Israeli population,” wrote Alireza Forghani.

In the meantime, the prospect of rockets falling on Israelis requires no paranoia or imagination. Rockets and mortar shells are launched regularly toward Israel from Gaza. As I write this, three more missiles have just hit Israel. Since the start of the year, those trying to kill Israelis have launched 39 rockets. Last year they shot 653. Most — not all — of the projectiles miss their target, but they keep people, especially children, in a state of constant anxiety.

Long-range missiles

Iranian leaders repeatedly proclaim their wish to destroy Israel. Journalists have photographed military parades displaying long-range missiles, capable of reaching Israel and Europe, draped with banners reading “Israel must be uprooted and erased from history.”

And to those saying Iran makes “rational” decisions, let’s remember their rationality includes the belief that dying can be glorious. Chillingly revealing was their well-documented practice of sending thousands of Iranian children as human mine clearers during the war with Iraq.

Undoubtedly, there are strong arguments to make for and against attacking Iran to stop its nuclear program. But there is also plenty of reason to be nervous, even paranoid.

Frida Ghitis writes about global affairs for The Miami Herald. Distributed by MCT Information Services.

Copyright 2012 Associated Press.

Red lines | FP Passport.

For Iran watchers, the week or so leading up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington has been a busy one.

First, on Friday, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards report came out on Iran’s nuclear program, conveniently giving fodder for all sides of the bomb-Iran debate. The IAEA report, as an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security describes, shows that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program, including in its deeply buried Fordow plant, but having trouble with next-generation  centrifuge technology that could make its breakout to a nuclear weapon much faster. (See also the New York Times, which concludes, “The report is likely to inflame the debate over whether Iran is nearing what Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, calls entering a ‘zone of immunity.'”)

Also on Friday, the Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have not changed their view that “there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.” The Los Angeles Times ran a similar story a day earlier. (In his Friday sermon, Iran’s supreme leader seemed to confirm this assessment, calling nuclear weapons a “sin.”)

Then, on Monday, both the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press reported on the tense negotiations between Israel and the United States over what to do about all this. The Israelis are apparently “fuming” that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly warned against an Israeli strike on Iran’s facilities. Last week’s visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon reportedly did not go well precisely for this reason. (“We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served the Iranians,” one Israeli official told Haaretz, a comment sure to infuriate the White House.)

The Israelis do not plan to tell their American counterparts if they do decide to attack Iran, the AP’s Kimberly Dozier reported, a move a U.S. intelligence official interpreted for her as Israel wanting to give the United States plausible deniability in the event of a strike. But another way to look at it is as one more sign that Israel and the United States simply do not trust one another.

The key issue under discussion is what the appropriate “red lines” are — Iranian actions that would trigger a military response by Israel or the United States. For Israel, the bar is lower, but nebulous: Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about Iran soon entering a “zone of immunity” that will make an attack impossible. For the United States, the big no-no is weaponization. The Israelis believe that waiting until Iran decides to build a weapon is too late, but it’s not clear they have the capability to take out Iran’s nuclear sites (read: Ferdow) on their own.

The Journal suggests that Obama is coming Netanyahu’s way on this, but a story in today’s Los Angeles Times says the opposite. Clearly there’s a policy fight going on behind the scenes, and the president’s recent claims that he and Bibi are on the same page can’t be taken seriously. Haaretz reports tonight that “Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain ‘red lines,'” and that the distrust between the two men only seems to be deepening. Each leader feels the other is meddling in his country’s domestic politics — Obama by seeking to turn Israeli public opinion against a strike (example), and Netanyahu by working with Republicans to attack the president as soft on Iran.

The million-dollar question is whether all this drama is really about establishing a credible threat to get the Iranians to capitulate (while terrifying European and Asian countries into boycotting Iranian oil), or whether Israel is indeed serious about attacking if the sanctions don’t work, and is earnestly seeking U.S. buy-in.

I have some sympathy for the view that, by publicly warning against strikes, the Obama administration is undercutting Israel’s deterrent. Bluster aside, Iran has shown a tendency to back down when frightened, as in 2003 when it is thought to have shuttered its nuclear weapons program, and more recently when it toned down its tough talk about blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

But threats have consequences, too. U.S. officials haven’t clearly articulated why they believe all this war talk is unhelpful, but I suspect two reasons. One is the rising cost of gasoline, perhaps the issue that terrifies the political side of the White House most heading into November. Tensions over Iran are already adding about $10 per barrel to the price of oil, some analysts say, threatening to choke off America’s nascent economic recovery and make Obama a one-term president.

But the more serious issue is that if you make such a threat, you actually may need to carry it out someday. Is that something Barack Obama, a man who has staked his presidency on winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wants above all to do “nation-building at home,” is prepared to do? He’s already committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, taking containment off the table. He’s shown little inclination for taking the big political risk of putting some sort of “grand bargain” on the table. But if sanctions don’t bring Iran around — and there’s no sign yet that they will — and sabotage and asking nicely don’t do the job, what then?

Tyrants are never rational – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: We should all thank Olmert for recognizing Assad’s madness, bombing Syrian reactor

“Detached from reality,” “only understands force,” “delusional,” “mentally deranged” – these are just some of the derogatory terms being hurled at Syrian ruler Bashar Assad. The condemners and cursers are not Zionists, imperialists or other enemies of the Arab nation, but rather, an integral part of it: Rebelling Syrian residents and their supporters in the Arab world.

In the recent “Friends of Syria” conference that included the United States and Britain – but not Russia or China – all Arab states took the rebels’ side. Most Arab countries demanded Western military intervention that would end the carnage. Only the non-Arab Iran still supports the bloody regime of Assad Junior.

As to myself, on occasion I look up to the heavens and express silent gratitude. Thank you, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for apparently having the courage and leadership to decide one dark night on an aerial assault that – according to foreign reports – destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility shortly before its activation and killed several North Korean engineers.

In an intelligence failure that could have dwarfed the one before the Yom Kippur War, Israel apparently discovered the existence of this nuclear site dramatically late. Prime Minister Olmert could have adopted several steps: Convene a secret commission of inquiry, leak the story to the foreign media, accuse the IDF of failure, enlist global diplomacy to the cause, and so on.

Yet Olmert apparently chose a different option. After looking into practical alternatives, he did what one would expect of a prime minister: He assumed full responsibility and decided to bomb.

Many Israelis today thank late Prime Minister Menachem Begin for his order to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Few remember to thank former PM Olmert, may he live long, for his order on September 6th, 2007.

What would experts say?

It’s horrifying to think what would have happened in our region today had Olmert avoided a decision and bequeathed it to the next prime minister. Where would Assad be, when he possesses nuclear arms, what kind of intervention would the West be able to consider, and where would we be?

Israel’s civil society was not privy to the drama that likely preceded the operation. We can assume that most media commentators would have spoken out against it. Syria experts would tell us that Bashar Assad, a graduate of Britain’s education system, is a rational statesman. Should he be bombed late at night by Israeli jets, in the midst of Turkish-mediated peace talks no less, he would respond furiously and order a heavy bombardment of the Golan and Galilee regions.

On the other hand, the experts would have said, should we refrain from bombing the nuclear site, the rational Bashar Assad will face pressure and sanctions. He would be forced to embark on negotiations with the international community, which would demand that he shut down his nuclear facility. If not immediately than in a year, two years, or three years…

When making his decision, Olmert ignored the basic premise that prevailed at the time in respect to Syria, whereby Bashar Assad is a rational politician. Olmert reached the opposite conclusion, which leaders of the civilized world only reached this year, at a regrettable delay: Assad is an irrational leader. He is “detached, “delusional,” and “only understands force.” Hence, one would be right and justified to use force to curb Assad’s nuclear aspirations.

Olmert is believed to have issued the order, the Israeli jets took off, and their operation succeeded beyond expectations. Without this Olmert decision, the world today would not even be able to consider military action against Assad.

The lesson is not that we should always bomb without waiting or that military alternatives should only be discussed behind closed doors. In my view, the lesson mostly pertains to the issue of rationality and is unequivocal: There is no such thing as a rational tyrant.

If you lead a tyrannical regime that brutally suppresses fundamental freedoms in your country, this is the ultimate proof that you are irrational. And this is how you and your caprices should be treated.

WikiLeaks: Russia gave Israel Iranian system’s codes – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Document by intelligence company suggests Israel, Russia contracted deal several years ago under which Israel provided Russia with codes for UAVs it sold to Georgia in exchange for Iranian aerial defense system codes

Ynet

WikiLeaks has released an email exchange between employees of Stratfor, the US-based global intelligence company, which reveals Israeland Russia made a deal to swap access codes for defense and surveillance equipment.

According to the leaked document, Israel gave Russia the “data link codes” for unmanned aerial vehicles that the Jewish state sold to Georgia, and in return, Russia gave Israel the codes for Tor-M1 missile defense systems that Russia sold Iran.

In a document by a Stratfor employee dated February 2009 she says that she had met with a “Mexican source/friend” who told her that Israel and Russia had contracted a deal several years ago as part of which Israel provided Russia with codes of UAVs it had sold to Georgia. In exchange Moscow provided the Israelis with the codes for Iran’s Tor-M1 aerial defense systems.

The document suggests that the deal was signed before the Russia-Georgia warof August 2008 during which Russian forces invaded Georgia. At the time it was reported that Georgia was using Israel-made weapons.

It can also be understood from the document that the Georgians had at one point realized that their UAVs were compromised and were looking for a replacement for the Israeli made drones.

The Mexican source also addressed the S-300 aerial defense systems which Israel and the West have spent years trying to dissuade Russia from handing over to Tehran. The source said that Israel and Turkey were collaborating very closely in regards to the system and that since Russia sold them to Greece – Turkey’s longtime rival – Ankara has been busy tryinh to crack their codes.

He added that Ankara shared intelligence with Israel to make sure it has an edge over Iran should it get the systems from Russia.

Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.

By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that “all options are on the table,” the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,” said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

	Netanyahu, left, meeting with Obama at the United Nations last September.
	Photo by: AP

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu’s visit to the United States – and who asked to remain anonymous – said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

The White House proposed to the Prime Minister’s Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.

According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.

Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu’s, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign – and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu. Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is “weak on Iran.”

The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. Other senior Israeli officials – such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) – have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.

The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. “The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully,” he said. “A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what’s the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?”

The Obama administration’s suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama’s opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey’s statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks. Dempsey reportedly said, “I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” and added that a strike “would be destabilizing” and “not prudent.” But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.

Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey’s backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu’s view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.

The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, “There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some.” The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.

Netanyahu also believes that Obama’s scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel’s internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu’s suspicions were apparently heightened by last week’s report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran. Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of “business as usual,” according to a source.

Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.

Iran warns Azerbaijan over Israeli arms buy.

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Iran has warned that Israel must not be permitted to use Azerbaijan to stage “terrorist acts” against Iran. (Reuters)

inShare4

Iran challenged Azerbaijan on Tuesday over $1.5 billion in arms it said were purchased from arch-foe Israel, state media reported, in a sign of further strains between the neighboring countries.

Azebaijan’s ambassador to Tehran was called in to the foreign ministry to explain the weapons and to receive a warning that Israel must not be permitted to use Azerbaijan to stage “terrorist acts” against Iran.

Iranian news agencies reported that the ambassador, Javanshir Akhundov, acknowledged the arms purchase after getting confirmation from his government.

He explained that the weapons were bought “to liberate occupied Azerbaijani land,” but did not elaborate, according to the reports.

The Iranian agencies quoted Akhundov saying that Baku “will not allow the weapons to be used against third nations, in particular the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The reports came a week after police in Azerbaijan said they arrested an unspecified number of people linked to Iran and to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah on suspicion of planning attacks in the country.

On February 12, Iran accused Azerbaijan, which is mainly Muslim, of working with Israel’s spy services and helping assassins who murdered Iranian nuclear scientists in recent years.

Baku has rejected as Tehran’s claim as “slander”.

Relations between Tehran and Baku have been tense for several months.

In January, Azerbaijan said it had detained two people allegedly linked to Iranian intelligence accused of plotting attacks.

And in October 2011, Iran accused its northwestern neighbor’s security forces of shooting dead an Iranian border guard who had strayed into Azerbaijan.