WarSclerotic

Obama Must Not “Caution”, but Defend Our Most Important Ally | The Moral Liberal.

JAY SEKULOW, ACLJ

Israel is facing grave danger from Iran, which is expected to have nuclear weapons within a year.

The big question: Where does President Obama stand? Will he back Israel and defend our most important ally, if necessary?

Don’t seem to be getting that feeling from the White House. The Washington Post reports: “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold.”

The President “cautioning” Israel? He should be warning Iran, not Israel. Why is he urging Israel to stand-down? And, where’s our pledge of support to Israel? Our promise to defend them if necessary?

No, that’s not happening. Instead, Defense Secretary Panetta told reporters that “we have expressed our concerns” to Israel about a potential military strike against Iran.

Let’s put this into the proper perspective. Israel – under siege – in the crosshairs. Consider this new threat issued today by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He says Iran “will support and help any nations, any groups” in fighting Israel. He added: “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region. . . .and it definitely will be cut off.”

Israel has no shortage of enemies and Iran is said to be cozying up to anti-Israel groups around the globe. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak understands the danger. He says military action might be necessary if sanctions don’t work.

This from Barak:

“Today, unlike the past, there is no question of the unbearable danger a nuclear Iran poses for the future of the Middle East, for the security of Israel and for the security and financial stability of the entire world.

Today, unlike the past, the world has no doubt that the military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.

He who says ‘later,’ may find that it is ‘too late.’”

It’s been nearly 60 years since an American President turned their back on Israel. The last time that happened was in 1956 when President Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. We cannot turn our back on Israel again.

Stand with us and demand that President Obama support Israel and defend Israel if necessary. This is not the time for political posturing. It’s time to show our unequivocal support for Israel. Add your name to our petition now.

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

U.S. Leak on Israeli Attack Weakened a Warning to Netanyahu – IPS ipsnews.net.

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

The leak by Panetta (above) appears to confirm fears that efforts to distance the U.S. from an Israeli attack are undermined by competing interests. Credit:U.S. Navy

WASHINGTON, Feb 4, 2012 (IPS) – When Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius this week that he believes Israel was likely to attack Iran between April and June, it was ostensibly yet another expression of alarm at the Israeli government’s threats of military action.

But even though the administration is undoubtedly concerned about that Israeli threat, the Panetta leak had a different objective. The White House was taking advantage of the current crisis atmosphere over that Israeli threat and even seeking to make it more urgent in order to put pressure on Iran to make diplomatic concessions to the United States and its allies on its nuclear programme in the coming months.

The real aim of the leak brings into sharper focus a contradiction in the Barack Obama administration’s Iran policy between its effort to reduce the likelihood of being drawn into a war with Iran and its desire to exploit the Israeli threat of war to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran.

The Panetta leak makes it less likely that either Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Iranian strategists will take seriously Obama’s effort to keep the United States out of a war initiated by an Israeli attack. It seriously undercut the message carried to the Israelis by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last month that the United States would not come to Israel’s defence if it launched a unilateral attack on Iran, as IPS reported Feb. 1.

A tell-tale indication of Panetta’s real intention was his very specific mention of the period from April through June as the likely time frame for an Israeli attack. Panetta suggested that the reason was that Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak had identified this as the crucial period in which Iran would have entered a so-called “zone of immunity” – the successful movement of some unknown proportion of Iran’s uranium enrichment assets to the highly protected Fordow enrichment plant.

But Barak had actually said in an interview last November that he “couldn’t predict” whether that point would be reached in “two quarters or three quarters or a year”.

Why, then, would Panetta deliberately specify the second quarter as the time frame for an Israeli attack? The one explicit connection between the April-June period and the dynamics of the U.S.-Israel- Iran triangle is the expiration of the six-month period delay in the application of the European Union’s apparently harsh sanctions against the Iranian oil sector.

That six-month delay in the termination of all existing EU oil contracts with Iran was announced by the EU Jan. 23, but it was reported as early as Jan. 14 that the six-month delay had already been adopted informally as a compromise between the three-month delay favoured by Britain, France and Germany and the one-year delay being demanded by other member countries.

The Obama administration had also delayed its own sanctions on Iranian oil for six months, after having been forced to accept such sanctions by the U.S. Congress, at the urging of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The administration recognised that six-month period before U.S. and EU sanctions take effect as a window for negotiations with Iran aimed at defusing the crisis over its nuclear programme. So it was determined to use that same time frame to put pressure on Iran to accommodate U.S. and European demands.

By the time the news of the postponement of the U.S.-Israeli military exercise broke on Jan. 15, Panetta was already prepared to take advantage of that development to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran.

Laura Rozen of Yahoo News reported that U.S. Defence Department officials and former officials, speaking anonymously, said Barak had requested the postponement and that they were “privately concerned” the request “could be one potential warning signal Israel is trying to leave its options open for conducting a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the spring.”

The Israelis were not on board with that Obama administration tactic. In fact, Netanyahu seemed more interested in portraying the Obama administration as favouring a soft approach on Iran in an election year.

Instead of reinforcing the effort by Panetta to use the six-month window to bring diplomatic pressure, Defence Minister Barak, speaking on Army Radio Jan. 18, said the government had “no date for making decisions” on a possible attack on Iran and, adding “The whole thing is very far off. . . ”

Another indication that the Ignatius column was not intended to increase pressure on Israel but to impress Iran is that it did not reinforce the message taken by Gen. Dempsey to Israel last month that the United States would not join any war with Iran that Israel had initiated on its own without consulting with Washington.

Ignatius wrote that the administration “appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets which would trigger a strong U.S. response.” But then he added what was clearly the main point: “Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: the United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israeli population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.”

Ignatius, who is known for reflecting only the views of the top U.S. defence and intelligence officials, was clearly reporting what he had been told by Panetta in Brussels.

Further underlining the real intention behind Panetta leak, Ignatius went out of his way to present Netanyahu’s assumptions about a war as credible, if not perfectly reasonable, hinting that this was the view he was getting from Panetta.

The Israelis, he wrote “are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and constrained”. Emphasising the Israeli doubt that Iran would dare to retaliate heavily against Israeli population centres, Ignatius cited “(o)ne Israeli estimate” that a war against Iran would only entail “about 500 civilian casualties”.

Ignatius chose not to point out that the estimate of less than 500 deaths had been given by Barak last November in response to a statement by former Mossad director Meir Dagan that an attack on Iran would precipitate a “regional war that would endanger the (Israeli) state’s existence”.

After that Barak claim, Dagan said in an interview with Haaretz newspaper that he assumes that “the level of destruction and paralysis of everyday life, and Israeli death toll would be high.”

But Ignatius ignored the assessment of the former Mossad director.

The Panetta leak appears to confirm the fears of analysts following the administration’s Iran strategy closely that its effort to distance the United States from an Israeli attack would be ineffective because of competing interests.

Reza Marashi, research director at the National Iranian-American Council, who worked in the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs from 2006 to 2010, doubts the administration can avoid being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran without a very public and unequivocal statement that it will not tolerate a unilateral and unprovoked Israeli attack.

“Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And sometimes the only way to ensure that a friend doesn’t endanger you or themselves is to take the away the car keys,” Marashi said.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006

U.S. and Israel: Trying to gauge each other on Iran – CNN Security Clearance – CNN.com Blogs.

By Adam Levine, Pam Benson and Suzanne Kelly

As questions swirl about whether Israel may preemptively bomb Iranin an effort to slow its nuclear program, a senior congressional official said Friday the the head of intelligence met with American officials to get a better sense of how the U.S.would respond.

The head of Israel’s intelligence agency was just in Washington for meetings with intelligence officials and some members of Congress, according to Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA, and the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who mentioned the meetings during a hearing this past week.

The congressional source who spoke to CNN said when the head of the Mossad visited Washington this week, it was to hear what steps the United States might take against Iran, and to gauge what the United Stateswould do if Israel were to strike Iran on its own.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes Israel could strike Iranas early as this spring, CNN reported on Thursday, citing a defense official familiar with the defense secretary’s thinking.

Both the congressional or defense official declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the information.

Asked about that belief by reporters covering a NATO meeting in Brussels that Panetta was attending this past week, the secretary would neither confirm nor deny the report.

Panetta did say that the U.S. administration has expressed its concerns to Israel, although he did not elaborate.

One of those concerns could be what Iran’s response might be were Israel to strike.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told CNN’s John King on Thursday that Israelis “going to make its own decisions based on its history.” Gates said Israeli and American officials are at odds about what the response would be if Israel did launch a military strike.

“I think there is disagreement in terms of what we think the Iranians would do as a result of an attack, and for our part, I think most American senior officials believe that the Iranians will, in fact, retaliate – and not just narrowly, but potentially across the entire region,” Gates said in the exclusive interview that aired on John King, USA.

The senior congressional official said he believes Israeli officials would not alert their Americans counterparts prior to any strike onIran.

His opinion echoed a concern of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, who made similar remarks last December in an interview with CNN’s Barbara Starr.

“We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them,” Dempsey said.

U.S.and Israeli government officials have been talking. In January, Dempsey travelled to Tel Aviv to try and persuadeIsraelto give more time for the sanctions onIranto have their intended effect. The Israelis and Americans are working together, insisted the Director of National Intelligence. “We are doing a lot with the Israelis, working together with them,” James Clapper told a Senate hearing this week.

CIA Director David Petraeus said speaks monthly with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

President Obama and his administration’s misplaced concern.

Panetta voicing his opinion and in effect warning Iran of Israel’s intentions was shocking, despicable, dangerous and traitorous.

President Obama and his administration are concerned that Israelis may launch a unilateral attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to destroy them and thus prevent the Iranians from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons in an attempt to obliterate the country and remove it from the face of the earth, as they have pledged to do many many times. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes that Israel will attack within the next six months, possibly as early as April, because after that a successful unilateral attack will be much more problematic due to increased Iranian fortifications.

American concerns center on the impact an Israeli attack will have on the 2012 Presidential election and how it will affect Obama’s chances of being reelected. Obama and his administration believe that whatever the U.S. does or does not do should Israel attack will have a very negative effect on them and are trying very hard to convince the Israelis not to attack in the first place or to hold off until after the election if they do, which is of course why Panetta publicly voiced his opinion, shocking, despicable, dangerous and traitorous though voicing it was. Obama’s reelection is more important than anything to him and his administration, including Israel’s survival and U.S. national security, which would be severely threatened and jeopardized if Israel was crippled or destroyed. Panetta’s pronouncement compromised both but so what? If Obama is reelected so be it the thinking goes.

Presidential politics aren’t a factor for the Israelis however. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the Iranian’s possession is the most important consideration of all for them and if launching a unilateral attack is the only way to do that a unilateral attack there will be. Israelis know that their survival and the survival of their country hinge on keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power and they also know that their fate is in their own hands because no one else, least of all President Obama and the United States, will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They also know that their window of opportunity is closing fast, which means that Panetta is probably right…Israelis will launch a unilateral attack within the next six months, possibly as early as April, in order to prevent a nuclear attack on them by Iran, in order to keep them and their country from being annihilated by Iranian nuclear weapons.

Obama and his administration’s concern is entirely misplaced. They shouldn’t be concerned about the effect a unilateral Israeli attack will have on the 2012 Presidential election at all. They shouldn’t even be thinking about that. What they should be thinking about is the effect an Israeli attack will have on the United States, both a successful attack and an unsuccessful one. What they should be thinking about are the consequences for the U.S. of an Iran with nuclear weapons. They have already decided not to take any meaningful action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and to leave Israel to try and do so with the only option at its disposal, the military one. If Israel is successful, what does the United States do in its own best interests? If Israel is unsuccessful, what does the U.S. do? What does the U.S. do if Israel needs help after the attack has been launched? What does America do if Iran retaliates by attacking the United States? By attacking Israel? These are some of the concerns Obama and his administration should be thinking about. The 2012 Presidential election isn’t one of them. That’s Obama and his administration thinking about themselves. Thinking about the United States and the safety and security of the American people are something completely different.

Panetta voicing his opinion and in effect warning Iran of Israel’s intentions was shocking, despicable, dangerous and traitorous alright. Obama defended Panetta and that action was shocking, despicable, dangerous and traitorous too. It also sent Israel a clear, unequivocal message as well, for the umpteenth time I might add. It told the Israelis that they are on their own, that they can’t depend on the U.S. for anything and that America can’t be trusted to keep its secrets. Not as long as Obama is President anyway.

Don’t think Israel, which is integral to America’s national security and is America’s closest ally and only true friend in the Middle East, hasn’t taken notice.

Don’t think the American people won’t take notice as well.

The Iran War: Who will decide? – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The shortcomings in Netanyahu and the cabinet’s functioning put the ministers’ collective and personal responsibility into focus. They can’t just abandon such a fateful decision to Netanyahu and Barak alone.

By Amir Oren

NYT: Israeli attack on Iran would aggravate situation – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US paper warns against repercussions of military attack, urges to stick to sanctions, diplomacy instead. ‘Netanyahu may attack Iran before summer,’ it claims

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – Following multiple reports published about Israel‘s alleged plans to attack Iran, an editorial published by the New York Times on Friday warns against the repercussions of such an attack.

“We hope for everyone’s sake that Israel’s leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear program,” the NYT claimed.

According to the op-ed, Washington still believes there is “time and space” for sanctions to work and that “Israel must defend itself,” but adds “there is a frightening scenario going around Washington and several European capitals that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel may attack Iran before the summer — believing that President Obama will not try to stop him in the middle of a re-election campaign.”

Israeli defense officials claimed if a military strike is agreed upon, it would have to be postponed until the middle of next year. One official even remarked that the option of using force against Iran and causing harm to the Iranians is achievable.

The costs of an Israeli military strike — with or without American support — would be huge, and it would likely set Iran’s nuclear program back by only a few years. A strike would also unite Iranians around their government at a time when it is losing popular support fast. It would also shatter the international coalition for sanctions and draw more ire against Israel and the United States, the NYT article claimed. The editorial called for US officials to continue to pressure Israel to avoid such an attack.

Israel’s disagreement with the US as to the timing of a possible military attack on Iran emerged over the weekend after US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday he believes Israel is likely to strike Iran in the coming months.

Asked by journalists whether he disputes the report, Panetta said, “No, I’m just not commenting.”

Growing concern

Aaron David Miller, a Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, told the Bloomberg website that the allies have a “significant analytic difference” over how close Iran is to shielding the nuclear program from attack.

“There’s a growing concern – more than a concern – that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” Miller was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, CNN reported Saturday that Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo met with US officials in Washington to discuss a possible strike on Iran.

“It is always possible to find a diplomatic solution to Iran nuclear issue”, said US State Department spokesman Mark Toner Friday night in Washington. However he added that the US remains “committed to the so-called dual approach that combines diplomacy and the strengthening of the pressure. We are confident that we always have the time and space for a diplomatic solution.”

In an extensive interview published by NBC News on Friday, American officials claimed that while US authorities are satisfied relying on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel is more of a “wild card,” and would most likely launch an attack if intelligence confirms that Tehran is inching toward developing nuclear weapons.

The officials explained that Israel has an intermediate Jericho missile – the Jericho II – which is capable of hitting targets up to 1,500 miles away, and would most likely be equipped with high explosives, which officials described as highly accurate.

As for ground operations, some officials claimed Israeli commandos – either from the IDF or Mossad – would possibly be dropped at the sites to collect forensics or assist with illumination of the targets.

Instead of trying to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program, officials told NBC they believe the strikes will focus on the facilities that are deemed most critical, in an effort to delay the nuclear program.

Only Putin can decide if and when Assad will step down – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The situation on the ground in Syria hasn’t been affected by the diplomatic maneuvering at the United Nations, where Assad can still count on Russian support to block any resolution that even hints at foreign intervention.

By Zvi Bar’el

Images of the bullet-ridden bodies of bound Syrian civilians, some all but naked, are flooding Arab television broadcasts. Syrian human rights activists say on live TV they can’t collect their dead in neighborhoods that are being attacked by Syrian army mortars. The dead are estimated at more than 300 since Friday.

The many hundreds of civilians wounded in that time don’t appear to have much of a chance to receive medical aid. It’s not only that the hospitals are filled – many of the wounded fear heading to a clinic because they could be killed by the Syrian army.

	Russia President Dmitry Medvedev, right, and Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus last year.
	Photo by: AP

This has the been the demonstrators’ toughest day in Homs, Syria’s third largest city at more than 1.2 million people. Homs has become the symbol of Syria’s civil uprising. The destroyed homes in the Khaldiyeh quarter are evidence of the regime’s savage assault. Its new strategy to allow the army to attack and kill without distinguishing its target, as opposed to previous efforts to focus on the sources of the uprising, reflects the campaign’s current stage.

Syrian demonstrators who commemorated the massacre of tens of thousands of people at Hama on Hafez Assad’s orders 30 years ago can observe Bashar Assad’s decision to adopt his father’s methods. The younger Assad, who allowed opposition intellectuals to express their opinions during the early days of his rule and brought the Internet to his country, is proving to be a butcher keen to maintain his family’s power at any price.

Thousands have fled Syria and thousands more are on their way to the improvised refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Syria. On their way they are chased by gunfire from the Syrian army and thugs in the regime’s security forces. They must pass through the mine fields laid on the border to prevent people from fleeing. Still, the demonstrations continue in Homs, Aleppo and, yesterday, on Baghdad Street in the capital Damascus.

Facing the Syrian army is the Free Syrian Army, which numbers around 30,000, including generals and several hundred junior officers. But this force only has light weapons and relies on Lebanese smugglers for its supplies. Every once in a while it takes control of a small town or suburb.

According to Syrian sources, the rebel army is supported financially by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, but it can’t function as a regular army. It suffers from disunity; the ranks are loyal to various commanders. Meanwhile, another “army” has been set up by deserters in Homs, but it’s unclear how this force is coordinating with the Free Army. Al-Qaida might be able to penetrate this situation and spot an opportunity for a new battle led by extremist religious ideology, similar to what we’ve seen in Iraq.

The situation on the ground in Syria hasn’t been affected by the diplomatic maneuvering at the United Nations. Syrian television shows scenes from cities anyone would want to live in. Calm streets, only a few cars, and soft elevator music playing during the broadcast. Syrian television analysts say the dead – if they acknowledge any deaths – have been caused by opposition thugs on the orders of Arab countries at the behest of Western planners.

At the United Nations, Assad can still count on Russian support, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says his country will oppose any resolution that even hints at foreign intervention, blocks arms sales, imposes international sanctions or demands that Assad step down. Lavrov says Russia wants to see a Syrian solution, “not an American one.” If someone is to decide if and when Assad leaves, it will be Vladimir Putin, not Barack Obama.

Top Israeli minister calls to increase protection of cities amid fears of confrontation with Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

According to Home Front Defense Minister Vilnai, the main problem remains safeguards for private homes and essential infrastructures, as well as available strategic reserves of fuel and electricity.

By Barak Ravid

Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai is today expected to call for increased investment to protect Israel’s cities and national infrastructure. Vilnai presents his annual report on the Home Front’s preparedness for emergencies to the cabinet amid reports from the United States that Israel plans to strike Iran before June.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said the cabinet level discussion about the Home Front is a routine affair that was scheduled a long time ago and has taken place annually since the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006. Aides of the Home Front minister also insisted that there is no direct connection between the rising tensions with Iran and the timing of the meeting.

	Home Front Command drill in Tel Aviv
	Photo by: Alon Ron

The Home Front will take center stage in the event of a clash between Israel and Iran, since the assessment is that Iran will respond to any Israeli strike with a barrage of missiles that will target Israeli cities. According to this assessment, Iran will rally Hezbollah in the north and Islamic Jihad in the south to join in on the attack, which will result in thousands of missiles targeting Israeli cities and strategic installations.

Vilnai, who previously served as deputy defense minister, was made Home Front Minister after leaving Labor for Ehud Barak’s new party, Atzmaut. During a cabinet meeting last January, during which the new ministerial appointments were approved, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that a “specialized ministry would be set up to deal with the Home Front.”

A year passed without any development and the ministry is still not established, lacks budget and there are neither positions nor defined authorities for the Home Front Ministry.

According to the annual Home Front report, during 2011 preparedness was raised from “low” to “medium.” This means that in spite the improvement in readiness, there are still many gaps in the abilities of the Home Front to function under a missile strike or even in natural emergencies like an earthquake or a large-scale blaze.

The main problem remains the safeguards for private homes and essential infrastructures. In apartment buildings and homes built in the past 20 years, protected reinforced rooms exist. But in thousands of older structures, such protection is lacking. Moreover, strategic infrastructures are insufficiently protected for emergencies.

Another issue is the available strategic reserves of fuel and electricity. Until recent years the basic assumption was that power plants and the refineries would not be damaged during a war. However, the rise in the numbers of missiles in enemy arsenals capable of precision strikes has led to a reevaluation of this assumption, and the conclusion is that these installations will not function.

How Syria’s ruling apparatus became i… JPost – Opinion – Op-Eds.

‘World’s ability to limit Iran’s… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Rauf Mohseni/Reuters WASHINGTON – Iran’s missile program is becoming increasingly self-reliant, lessening the ability of the international community to limit its capabilities, the architect of Israel’s missile defense system warned on Friday.

As Iran’s technological know-how and its skill at constructing its own components grows, Western countries have fewer opportunities to delay its program by refusing to sell Tehran equipment or by supplying faulty parts, said Uzi Rubin, who founded the Defense Ministry’s Israel Missile Defense Association.

“It is less and less dependent on outside skill,” Rubin told the Foundation for Defense of Democracies before heading to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers later in the day.

“Today Iran can avoid all those export controls quite easily,” he continued, adding that currently, despite the economic sanctions, the country’s access to money is sufficient to “buy all they want.”

Rubin wouldn’t offer a timetable for how long it would take Iran to not only develop a nuclear weapon, but produce it in a form suitable for putting on a warhead, and then constructing the warhead itself. But he did say the time is “very short.”

Producing an intercontinental ballistic missile might take longer, but Rubin assessed that the Islamic Republics’s interest would be satisfied simply by posing a credible threat to the US homeland rather than in actually deploying an ICBM.

“Iran would love to be in a deterrent situation with the United States. That makes it a superpower,” said Rubin, who now heads a defense consulting firm.

He urged US political leaders to work to secure missile stocks in Middle East countries roiled by the Arab Spring.

He described missiles held in countries such as Syria as “really capable” and ones that could pose a grave challenge to the West.

“If you don’t take care of them, those missiles will end up in places that are bad for Israel and bad for the US,” Rubin said.

More than regime change, “What frightens me really is regime collapse.”

He explained that in that situation the fate of the missiles would be much more tenuous.

Rubin added that he wasn’t arguing to keep Bashar Assad in power for the sake of stability.

“Assad should go,” he stressed. “But for God’s sake, if he goes, let’s keep those stockpiles under control.”