WarSclerotic

Iron Dome ups its interception rate to over 90… JPost – Defense.

Syria’s Assad rebuffs Annan, troops attack… JPost – Middle East.

By Reuters

BEIRUT – President Bashar Assad told UN/Arab League envoy Kofi Annan on Saturday that no political solution was possible in Syria while “terrorist” groups were destabilizing the country.

“Syria is ready to make a success of any honest effort to find a solution for the events it is witnessing,” state news agency SANA quoted Assad as telling his guest.

“No political dialogue or political activity can succeed while there are armed terrorist groups operating and spreading chaos and instability,” the Syrian leader said after about two hours of talks with the former U.N. secretary-general.

There was no immediate comment from Annan after the meeting, aimed at halting bloodshed that has cost thousands of lives since a popular uprising erupted a year ago.

While they discussed the crisis, Syrian troops were assaulting the northwestern city of Idlib, a rebel bastion.

“Regime forces have just stormed into Idlib with tanks and heavy shelling is now taking place,” said an activist contacted by telephone, the sound of explosions punctuating the call.

Sixteen rebel fighters, seven soldiers and four civilians were killed in the Idlib fighting, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which said 15 other people, including three soldiers, had been killed in violence elsewhere.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who met Annan in Cairo earlier in the day, told the Arab League his country was “not protecting any regime”, but did not believe the Syrian crisis could be blamed on one side alone.

He called for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid access, but Qatar and Saudi Arabia sharply criticised Moscow’s stance.

“A truce is not enough”

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who has led calls for Assad to be isolated and for Syrian rebels to be armed, said a ceasefire was not enough. Syrian leaders must be held to account and political prisoners freed, he declared.

“We must send a message to the Syrian regime that the world’s patience and our patience has run out, as has the time for silence about its practices,” Sheikh Hamad said.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said shortcomings in the UN Security Council, where Russia and China have twice vetoed resolutions on Syria, had allowed the killing to go on.

Their position, he said, “gave the Syrian regime a license to extend its brutal practices against the Syrian people”.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are both ruled by autocrats and espouse a strict version of Sunni Islam, are improbable champions of democracy in Syria. Riyadh has an interest in seeing Assad fall because this could weaken its Shi’ite regional rival Iran, which has been allied with Syria since 1980.

International rifts have paralyzed action on Syria, with Russia and China opposing Western and Arab calls for Assad, who inherited power from his father nearly 12 years ago, to quit.

Lavrov told Arab ministers a new UN Security Council resolution had a chance of being approved if it was not driven by a desire to let armed rebels take control of Syria’s streets.

The United States has drafted a fresh resolution, but the State Department said on Friday it was not optimistic that its text would be accepted by the Council.

France says it will oppose any measure that holds the Syrian government and its foes equally responsible for the bloodshed.

Despite their differences, Lavrov and Arab ministers said they had agreed on the need for an end to violence in Syria.

They also called for unbiased monitoring of events there, opposition to foreign intervention, delivery of humanitarian aid and support for Annan’s peace efforts.

Skeptical dissidents

Annan also planned to meet Syrian dissidents before leaving Damascus on Sunday. He has called for a political solution, but the opposition says the time for dialogue is long gone.

“We support any initiative that aims to stop the killings, but we reject it if it is going to give Bashar more time to break the revolution and keep him in power,” Melham al-Droubi, a Saudi-based member of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the exiled Syrian National Council, told Reuters by telephone.

Annan’s trip to Damascus followed a violent day in which activists said Assad’s forces killed at least 72 people as they bombarded parts of the rebellious city of Homs and sought to deter demonstrators and crush insurgents elsewhere.

Decisive victory has eluded both sides in an increasingly deadly struggle that began as a mainly peaceful protest movement a year ago and now appears to be sliding into civil war.

The United Nations estimates that Syrian security forces have killed well over 7,500 people. Syria said in December that “terrorists” had killed more than 2,000 soldiers and police.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet Lavrov in New York on Monday when the Security Council holds a special meeting on Arab revolts, with Syria likely to be in focus.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 10, 2012, 1:13 PM (GMT+02:00)

Jihad missiles attack Israel from Gaza

After a short break Saturday morning from shooting more than 80 missiles against a dozen southern Israeli towns and villages Friday night and early Saturday, March 9-10, the Palestinian Jihad Islami  resumed firing on Beersheba and the Eshkol region.

They also released a video clip showing them firing Grad multiple rocket launchers mounted on vehicles on Israeli civilian targets.  debkafile: This was solid evidence that the Iranian-backed Jihad had put into service weapons smuggled in from Libya five months ago, as debkafile was first to report November 11, 2011: Fifty Libyan Muslim Brotherhood mercenaries arrived in the Gaza Strip from Tripoli last month at the wheels of minivans on which were mounted the new Grad multiple rocket-launchers last seen on the Libyan battlefield in use against Muammar Qaddafi’s army.

Western intelligence agents operating in the Gaza Strip who tried at the time to find out from the Libyan Islamist rebels who was behind the smuggling operation were blocked by a dense wall of Palestinian Jihad Islamic operatives.

Since then, the Libyans have been training the Palestinian teams in the use of the multiple rocket systems – undisturbed by any Israeli military interference.

Palestinians fire at least 80 rockets at Israe… JPost – Defense.

‘Naval blockade of Iran should b… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS/Stringer Iran

WASHINGTON – An international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports should be considered before any resort to air strikes against the country’s disputed nuclear program, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee said on Friday.

“That’s, I think, one option that needs to be considered” to boost pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program in line with UN Security Council resolutions, Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in an interview taped for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program.

He said any such blockade should be preceded by lining up alternative oil supplies to avoid a price spike on world crude markets. Iran is OPEC’s second-largest oil producer and the world’s third-largest petroleum exporter.

Levin was responding to a question about possible ways of increasing pressure short of combat, including imposition of a “no-fly zone” over Iran.

Such moves “could be very effective,” he said. “I think (these are) options that whoever is willing to participate should explore, including Israel and including the United States.”

Iran is widely suspected of enriching uranium, and other activities, as a prelude to building nuclear weapons. Tehran says the program is aimed at producing civilian nuclear power.

The international response to Iran’s nuclear program has evolved into a widespread consensus for substantial sanctions and other pressure, paired with incentives and diplomacy, to head off the possible development of nuclear arms.

Levin voiced optimism that increasingly strict sanctions, including an oil purchase embargo by the European Union to take full effect by July 1, might force Iran to relent.

“Not because it doesn’t want a nuke – I think it does – but because the price that it’s going to have to pay” in terms of isolation would be too high, said Levin, whose committee has an oversight role for the US Defense Department.

Levin said US President Barack Obama should seek congressional authorization before any US resort to military action against Iran. But he noted that presidents from both parties had maintained they were not bound to do so as commander in chief of US armed forces.

A senior Obama administration official, asked about Levin’s remarks, said, “Our focus remains on a diplomatic solution, as we believe diplomacy coupled with strong pressure can achieve the long-term solution we seek.”

Levin said he would not be surprised if Israel took military action within “months.”

“I would say that a strike is likely” if Iran continues to refuse to curb its nuclear program, he added. He said US-supported Israeli missile defense programs had undercut Iran’s ability to retaliate against Israel for any strike.

Asked why Israel alone should be allowed to have nuclear arms in the region, Levin cited the Holocaust, the genocide of about 6 million European Jews during World War Two by Nazi Germany, and what he called similar threats throughout history.

In addition, he said, Israel still faced a threat of being wiped out by some of its neighbors, “so it’s a deterrent against that kind of a threat.”

8 Observations About AIPAC, Iran, Obama, and Netanyahu – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

Sorry about not getting to this sooner, but all of this talk-talk-talk takes time to digest. Here are a bunch of observations about the past week, starting with my interview with POTUS and running right up to the present day!

1. Netanyahu won a crucial battle in Washington this past week. No one brought up the Palestinians (including, I should note, yours truly, in my interview with the President, who also didn’t mention the Palestinian issue). Netanyahu has quite masterfully shifted the conversation to the subject of Iran. This may be good for Israel in the short-term, but it’s bad for Israel in the long.

2. When Obama says he has your back, he has your back in a kind of a general way. In my interview with the President, he was quite specific about “having Israel’s back.” Clearly, this unequivocal, and yet vague, formula, made someone in the White House a bit nervous, because the president walked this statement back a few days later, suggesting that having Israel’s back doesn’t mean endorsing an Israeli attack on Iran, but being friends with Israel, the way we are friends with Japan. The walk-back is understandable — the last thing the White House wants to do is to convey anything looking like a green, or even yellow, light to Netanyahu, and these words, I suppose, could have been misinterpreted. On the other hand, perhaps this walk-back could have been communicated privately, so as not create the impression the President was putting distance between America and Israel. Yossi Klein Halevi has some thoughts on this that are worth reading.

3. There is something quite specific about the AIPAC circus — 13,000 Israel supporters in a convention center — that saddens me, and it is this: the AIPAC gathering is now the largest gathering of Jews, as Jews, in America (outside of certain ultra-Orthodox conclaves), and they have gathered not to advance the cause of Judaism, but to advance the cause of a strong Israel-U.S. relationship. I’m for a strong Israel-U.S. relationship (I’m not for it precisely in the same way AIPAC is, which is to say, free of any criticism of any Israeli action), but this was a gathering about mere politics. Imagine 13,000 Jews gathering to discuss, in plenaries and panels and discussion groups, oh, the Torah and its meaning. That would be a good thing, and a lasting thing, too.

4. I try to be careful these days not to be overly critical of AIPAC, mainly because the people who hate AIPAC are not merely hating on AIPAC, but hating on what it stands for, or what they think it stands for (perfidious Jewish power, etc.). Speaking of which, I thought the anti-AIPAC protests outside the Washington Convention Center were fairly pathetic this time around —  mainly a combination of Neturei Karta, the ultraorthodox nutbags who argue that Israel cannot be created until God gives His express written consent, and members of Code Pink. Which gave me an idea: Imagine having the Satmar Hasidim stage a production of The Vagina Monologues outside next year’s AIPAC convention. That would be huge.

5. There’s been a lot of dumb things said about this issue over the past week, but one paragraph, from Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine, strikes me as the dumbest. This is from a full-page ad in The New York Times, published after President Obama ruled out containment of a nuclear Iran as a policy option:

Some of us believe that Israel could actually work out peaceful relations with Iran and enhance its own security and U.S. security by ending the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, helping the Palestinian people create an economically and politically viable state, taking generous steps to alleviate the humiliation and suffering of Palestinian refugees, and supporting Palestinian membership in the United Nations. Those steps, done with a spirit of openhearted generosity toward the Palestinian people and the people of all the surrounding states, is far more likely than military strikes against Iran or endless assaults on Hamas to provide a safe and secure future for Israel.

The Jewish capacity for self-delusion is one of the natural wonders of the world. I don’t believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they’ve oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state. But Michael Lerner thinks the Iranian leadership seeks the removal of settlements in the West Bank. Unbelievable.

6. Re: AIPAC, one reason the group leaves a bad taste in my mouth: This, from their media guide: “Press are to stand in the back of the room and are not invited to ask questions.” And also, to go fuck themselves.

7. One of the issues I’m most concerned about is the use of “crippling” sanctions that will hurt innocent Iranians while not altering the behavior of the few guilty Iranians (those in the leadership who are moving forward on the nuclear program). My friend Reuel Gerecht, in an e-mail to me, addresses this problem. It’s worth reading his whole letter:

“I am not sure there is perfect symmetry between the prime minister’s words and deeds, but (Defense Minister) Ehud Barak appears at least as determined.  Although I don’t think President Obama has any intention–at all–to launch a preemptive strike on Iran, his speech at AIPAC did cut new ground re Israel vs Iran. You are definitely right about that. If the Israelis strike, he has to stand in their corner more, not less. The Iranians will guarantee this, I suspect, since Khameneh’i is most unlikely to do the intelligent thing after an Israeli attack and just play dead and aggrieved.) The President will now be even more obliged to use sanctions as a devastating hammer against the country (I am not wild about this: one of the many reasons why I have been in favor of American preemption since 2004 is that it would be much less damaging to ordinary Iranians). An Israeli strike will also make it much, much more difficult for Obama to continue his (disastrous) defense cuts. The Middle East will not let go of us.”

I’m not with him on the defense cuts, necessarily (actually, I don’t know enough to say one way or the other), but a great deal of what he writes makes sense.

8. On the bluff/not bluff question, I suggest you keep an eye of The Atlantic’s new Iran war clock. Dominic Tierney and J.J. Gould have put together a panel of all-star analysts, and Stephen Walt, to weigh in from time to time about the likelihood of war. Please bookmark this, it’s important. Right now, the panel puts the chance of an American and/or Israeli strike on Iran over the next year at 48 percent. I lean higher, but 48 percent is still frightening enough.

Iran expected to reject proposal for nuclear fuel swap – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Ahmadinejad to be questioned by parliament on Wednesday.

By Zvi Bar’el

Iran is likely to reject the offer to replace uranium enrichment with nuclear fuel, as it already produces it, according to a report in an Iranian newspaper quoting officials in the country’s nuclear agency.

The offer was the focus of discussions between the years 2009-2010, when Iran, Turkey and Brazil agreed to deposit 1,800 kilograms (out of a 3,000 total) of enriched uranium in Turkey. The United States and several European states rejected the agreement, as it grants Iran owenership over uranium deposited in Turkey, which it can ask for at any moment.

	Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
	Photo by: Reuters

On Thursday, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu described the agreement as a “missed opportunity,“ although Turkey continues to seek new agreements in the lead up to a meeting between representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which are set to take place in Istanbul in the beginning of April. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan is also expected to visit Iran in order to try and convince its leaders to show flexibility over the issue of its nuclear plan, and to present an appropriate solution to the crisis in Syria.

This diplomatic operation is intended to set the stage for an International Atomic Energy Agency governing board meeting set to take place in June. The IAEA and Iran agreed that the latter has until the date of the meeting to answer all of the agency’s questions regarding its nuclear development plan, while the Security Council is there to ensure Iran does not evade and answers all the questions dutifully. During the meeting, the board will discuss whether to move the Iran issue back to the Security Council once more, in order to discuss further sanctions on the country, and the future of a potential diplomatic channel. However, such a move could prove to be futile should Russia and China stand with Iran and oppose another round of sanctions.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameinei’s praising of Obama’s declaration that there remains a window of opportunity for diplomacy are understood in the West as an important and positive signal. There are those who see Khameinei’s words as a turning point, although a closer reading of his words shows that rather than praising Obama, Khameinei expressed his satisfaction with the fact that the U.S. “renounced the illusion“ of an attack on Iran.

“The United States should recognize a nuclear Iran,“ wrote Majid Hatmi, an Iranian analyst, apparently in agreement with the Iranian regime, which last month held a showing of its ballistic missile abilities, while releasing statements that it will continue with its nuclear program.

Meanwhile the Iraqi newspaper al Zaman quoted Iraqi sources claiming Iranian agents working in the country had ordered Iraqi Shiite organizations to avoid provocatively speaking out against Israel during celebrations of the anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s deposing and other gatherings.

It is not yet clear, whether the „window of opportunity“ Obama mentioned has led the Iranians to believe Israel will not stage an attack, as while diplomatic efforts are taking place, senior officers in the Iranian military have said that Iran was prepared for any scenario and will respond by firing rockets to any attack, all the while it is taking its time in its dealings with the IAEA.

For example, the IAEA inspection of a site in Parchin, where the IAEA suspects nuclear testing had taken place, was postponed by the Iranians, even though the Iranians had agreed in principal to an inspection of that site. The Iranians are demanding the buildings to be inspected be specified in advance, as well as, the methods used. According to Iran the site is a military installation not falling under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Last month IAEA requests to visit the site were twice rejected with the Iranians suggesting the inspectors visit another site in Mariwan, where nuclear research is conducted, in its place.

Iran suspects that IAEA inspectors have been providing information used to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and is trying to set new rules to insure secrecy in the future.

Iran hasn’t responded to allegations that it had been performing „clean up“ measures to hide evidence that it had conducted nuclear tests having to do with the development of nuclear weapons in Parchin.

And as though the nuclear issue was not taking place at all, the Iranian parliament has summoned the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to answer questions on a range of topics, on which he is being accused of malfeasance, mismanagement, wastefulness and corruption. If the query in fact takes place and is not canalled as it had been in the past, it will take place on Wednesday.

Among the 10 questions Ahmadinejad is scheduled to answer are: Why hasn’t the Iranian economy grown at an eight percent rate as he had promised? Why he fired the former foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki? Why he had failed to implement the reform of the government subsidies? And why he hasn’t created a ministry responsible for sports?

None of the questions has to do with the Iranian nuclear program.

By law the Iranian parliament can impeach Ahmadinejad if his answers aren’t sufficient. The important question at this time is whether the Supreme Leader will allow the questioning session to take place or will he intercede on Ahmadinejad behalf, as he had in the past.

Charles Krauthammer: Stakes are high in Israel – Rockford, IL – Rockford Register Star.

Lawrence Solomon: Time for Israel to act | FP Comment | Financial Post.

Getty Images

Israel should hit Iran’s pipelines, refineries and ports, in addition to its nuclear facilities. Destroying its energy infrastructure would severely weaken Iran.

Arab Spring reduces the risks of an attack on Israel

President Barack Obama recently provided Israel with a choice: Rather than bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities now, when success would be iffy at best, give diplomacy and “crippling” economic sanctions time to work. If crippling sanctions don’t work, Israel would still have the option to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities later, and with the promise of U.S. help.

But Israel, frustrated at the West’s tardiness in applying economic sanctions, has a third option that could have a high probability of success. In addition to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel could unilaterally cripple Iran’s economy by bombing its commercial energy facilities. Doing so soon — rather than after the U.S. election, as Obama requests — might have added merits, too: For Israel, the likelihood of a shorter and much narrower war with far fewer Israeli casualties; for the West, less likelihood of a prolonged oil crisis that would trigger another global recession.

The Arab Spring provides a constellation of reasons that motivates Israel to act soon. Prior to the rebellions that broke out last year throughout the Middle East, Iran had one Sunni ally against Israel, the Hamas-run statelet of Gaza, and two Sunni-hating allies, the Allawite-led government of Syria and the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. In a war against Israel prior to the Arab Spring, at least two and possibly all three would have eagerly joined in the fight, presenting Israel with the dread prospect of a multi-front war.

Now, and for as long as the turmoil of the Arab Spring persists, many Israeli analysts believe Israel has partial immunity from attack. Syria’s Assad, who is winning his brutal war against the Free Syrian rebels, knows that his government could fall if he gives Israel reason to join the rebels, who have reportedly asked Israel for help in countering Assad. Syria, the most formidable of Israel’s direct neighbours, would almost certainly refrain from attacking Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Hamas, which broke with Assad over his brutality toward fellow Sunnis, which now supports the Syrian rebels, and which, as a result, lost its Iranian funding of $23-million per month, may also stay on the sidelines in a war between Iran and Israel. “Hamas will not be part of such a war,” a member of Hamas’s political bureau in Gaza City told The Guardian this week. Even if Hamas does join the fight to maintain its anti-Israel credentials, it would be restrained, in deference to its new paymasters among the Saudis and other Sunnis — it is an open secret that the Saudis, who fear Iran as much as Israel does, are allied with Israel.

Even Lebanon-based Hezbollah would think twice about attacking Israel. For one thing, Hezbollah knows that Israel is unlikely to pull its punches in a new war with Hezbollah, as Israel did to its regret in their 2006 stalemate war. For another, Hezbollah’s Sunni neighbours within Lebanon have been increasingly vocal against Hezbollah’s support of Assad’s brutality, and may turn on Hezbollah should war between Hezbollah and Israel break out.

Israel knows that the fortuitous circumstances that it finds itself in could end abruptly. If Syria completes its crushing of its opposition soon, as many predict, the pre-Arab Spring status quo would have largely been restored. Iran would once again have Syria and Hezbollah as active allies.

The stars are also today aligned in Israel’s favour because of the U.S. election. In any attack by Israel on Iran, the U.S. government is sure to be supportive — Obama cannot afford to alienate the Jewish vote during his re-election campaign, even if, as most Israelis fear, he ordinarily works to undermine Israel.

Destroying Iran’s energy infrastructure — its oil and gas pipelines, its refineries, and its port facilities — would be relatively easy for Israel’s military and devastating for Iran, which depends on energy sales for some 80% of its export earnings and nearly 70% of its government’s revenue. Not only would Iran face bankruptcy without its energy economy, it would also face day-to-day chaos because Iran has a surprising dependence on natural gas and gasoline imports, making rationing a sudden necessity and daily life a hardship.

What might Iran do in the event of an Israeli attack? Prior to the Arab Spring, the West saw a high probability that Iran would attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. military installations in the Middle East, and launch terrorist attacks against Western targets. Israel prepared itself for a barrage of tens of thousands of missiles to be launched against it. But now, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the calculations may have changed. Without dependable allies, some believe Iran might be restrained in its response, launching its missiles in a long-distance attack on Israel and little else. Iran might now be far less likely to engage the U.S. overtly, making war short-lived and less disruptive to energy markets, and even if Iran did attempt to use the oil weapon by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. believes Iran would not succeed for long. While oil prices would rise, the Saudis and others promise to pump additional oil to minimize the disruption to world oil markets.

The upshot? Following an Israeli attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure as well as its nuclear installations, Iran would be weakened economically as well as militarily, possibly unable to rehabilitate the remnants of its nuclear program, certainly unable to finance the needs of its terrorist proxies. Even if Iran’s mullahs were able to hold onto power amid the chaos of war against their many political rivals, they would be in no position to rebuild their energy infrastructure without the U.S. first convincing Israel to refrain from future attacks. The price that Iran might have to pay for that U.S. intervention might be Iran’s agreement to finally sit down for meaningful negotiations with the U.S. aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.

Escalation in South: 8 hurt, 1 seriously, by G… JPost – Defense.