WarSclerotic

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 11, 2012, 1:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Murad Muwafi

Israel has passed a stern warning to the Palestinian Jihad Islami shooting missiles from Gaza for the third day to expect Israel punishment on a different scale from the current surgical air strikes if they dare fire the Fajr surface missiles supplied them by Iran, debkafile reports. The warning was relayed Sunday, March 11, through Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Murad Muwafi who is working with Washington to halt the Gaza violence.

The Iran-backed Jihad has in its arsenal Fajr 5 missiles whose range is 110 kilometers and Fajr 3 which has a 60-kilometer reach. They bring into range Israel’s urban, commercial and population hub cities between Tel Aviv and Rehovoth, which are outside the range of the Grads and Qassams, more 110 of which were fired from Gaza since Friday.

Military sources told debkafile that the Jihad terrorists are aiming for a spectacular, multi-fatality strike in a major Israeli city before ending this round of violence on order to strut as victors in Palestinian and Middle East public eyes. This ambition has been frustrated for three days by the Israeli invention, the Iron Dome interceptor of short-range missiles, which has saved important towns like Beersheba and the ports of Ashdod and Ashkelon from casualties and serious damage by intercepting the Grads before they land.
Islami Jihad tacticians are thought to be wracking their brains for some gadget capable of disarming the Iron Dome batteries.
They efforts of Gen. Muwafi to negotiate a ceasefire are complicated by not knowing whether Jihad Islami went into action against Israel on its own initiative – although the victim of Israel’s targeted killing Friday, March 9, was not one of its members, only the Popular Resistance Committee’s chief Zuheir al-Qaisi – or on instructions from its masters in Tehran and Damascus to promote their own interests.
The general assumption in Cairo and Washington is that the Jihad chiefs jumped in at first without asking for permission. But after 110 missiles pounded Israeli without incurring serious retribution, the decision about carrying on passed to Iran and Syria.

Both have an interest in a relatively low-intensity Palestinian missile offensive continuing against Israel.

Tehran sees it as a card to play at the nuclear talks with the six powers opening in Istanbul next month. It would show them that Iran is capable of generating a war situation in the Middle East without risk of a confrontation with the United States.

The Assad regime would typically use the Gaza Strip violence to turn the glare of international and Arab publicity away from its savage crackdown on the opposition and show the Israeli military to be the real persecutors of Arab civilians.
Gen. Muwafi’s queries have brought no responses from the Palestinian side and so it is hard for the American and Egyptian mediators to judge which way the wind is blowing in Damascus and Tehran.
Amid the uncertainty about the players behind the Gaza scenes and their motives, debkafile’s military sources foresee a Palestinian war of attrition stretching out into the next couple of months. Unless halted by a ceasefire, it could escalate sharply if Jihad introduces Fajr missiles to its operations and./or if Israel decides to send its army into the Gaza Strip and finally root out the missile threat Palestinian extremists have been wielding against Israeli civilians for a decade.

Hamas Seeks Ceasefire to End Escalation in Gaza – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Qassam rocket (archive)

Israel news photo: Flash 90

After more than 100 rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel over the weekend, the coastal enclave’s terrorist rulers are seeking a ceasefire.

According to a report on Kol Yisrael radio on Saturday night, Hamas is trying to reach a ceasefire through Egyptian mediation.

Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu acknowledged in a conversation with Kol Yisrael said that the terror organization’s Gaza prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, is handling the contacts with Egypt.

Al-Nunu said Hamas is awaiting Israel’s response to the request for a ceasefire, which will be delivered through Egypt. Al-Nunu said that if Israel stops attacking in Gaza, Hamas would be willing to discuss putting an end to the rocket fire.

Approximately 135 rockets had been fired from Friday afternoon and until 7:30 p.m. Saturday (Israel time), according to the IDF. 74 of the rockets struck within Israel. The Iron Dome system intercepted the rockets in 28 out of 31 attempts to do so.

Eight Israelis have been wounded by the rockets. Most suffered light to moderate wounds. One, a foreign worker, was seriously injured on Friday evening and was taken for treatment at the Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva.

The escalation in the rocket and mortar attacks began after the IDF hit and killed several Gaza-based terrorist gangs, including a senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

Shortly before 5:00 p.m. (Israel time) on Friday afternoon, IAF aircraft struck and killed the head of the Popular Resistance Committees, Zuhir Musa Ahmed Qaisi and his deputy, in a precision attack highlighting Israeli intelligence resources in Gaza and its efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

Qaisi planned and led in recent days a terrorist attack against Israeli targets on the Israel-Egypt border, the IDF said in a statement. The terror attack had been in its final preparation stages when Qaisi was struck and killed, the statement added.

Qaisi was one of the planners of the attack on Highway 12 near the border with Egypt in August of 2011, which killed eight Israelis, and was also involved in the firing of rockets at southern Israel, according to the IDF.

Shortly after 8:00 p.m. (Israel time), the IDF struck two additional terrorist cells, one in central Gaza and one in northern Gaza. According to reports in the Israeli media, two terrorists were killed in this attack, both from the Islamic Jihad.

Due to the escalation in the region, the Civil Defense (Home Front) Authority announced that schools will be closed Sunday in southern Israeli communities located between 7 and 40 kilometers from Gaza,  including those in Be’er Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Kiyrat Malachi, Yavneh, Ofakim, Netivot, Sderot, Gedera, Lakiyeh and Rahat will be closed. So will schools in the Hevel Yavneh, Gederot, Bnaya, Kidron and Gan Yavneh, but not Mateh Yehudah, Nahal Sorek and Brenner regional authorities. Fortified schools in the Gaza Belt communities close to Gaza will be open.

Gatherings of over 500 people in one place are forbidden. This includes performances, soccer games, etc. There are no restrictions on attending nonessential workplaces or going to shopping malls.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke with the heads of the councils in the south that were fired at (Be’er Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Malakhi, Gan Yavneh, the Eshkol Regional Council, the Sha’ar Hanegev Regional Council and the Bnei Shimon Regional Council). He asked the council chairmen to convey to residents his esteem for their fortitude. The mayors noted the security that the Iron Dome system provides to their residents.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “We will continue to hit whoever plans to attack citizens of the State of Israel. At the same time, we will continue to improve home front defense.”

*

Hizbullah Accuses Israel of ‘Cowardly Crime’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Gaza, seen from near Ashkelon after IDF hit

Reuters

The Iranian-funded Hizbullah terrorist organization has broken its silence and accused Israel of the “cowardly” elimination of a Gaza terrorist leader.

The IDF last Friday killed Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) leader Zohair al-Qaisi, who was planning another attack in southern Israel. The PRC also was involved with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit nearly six years ago.

His issued a statement calling the Israeli counterterrorist maneuver a “terroristic, Zionist crime,” Now Lebanon reported. Al Qaisi and another PRC terrorist were killed.

“The assassination came at a time when the [Arab countries are not] following up on Zionist terrorism; they are preoccupied with internal affairs, [and] some Arabs [are following] the American-Zionist plan,” Hizbullah stated.

Hizbullah’s statements are the first time the terrorist group has commented on the renewal of violence on Israel’s southern border. Hamas has enjoyed support from Iran but relations with Tehran have cooled since Hamas took a stand against Syrian President Bashar Assad, a key ally of Iran.

Israel has staged approximately two dozen attacks on terrorist targets in Gaza since the hostilities renewed Friday night. The Air Force late Sunday morning targeted a terrorist cell trying to launch rockets at Israel. Earlier in the day, Hamas sources told foreign media that one of those killed in a strike was a 12-year-old boy, but there was no confirmation.

An Islamic Jihad leader rejected talks of a ceasefire, but Egypt has been trying to arrange to a halt in the missile attacks on Israel and the retaliation by the IDF.

Gaza terrorists want guarantees that Israel will not target their leaders, but Israel always has reserved the right to strike “ticking bombs” terrorists who are planning imminent attacks, such as the one the Air Force prevented Friday night with the targeting of the Popular Resistance Groups terrorists.

U.S. Shifts Focus from Syria to Iran.

Al Arabiya

U.S. focus is currently centered on the Iranian issue, including its Israeli military dimension and the Russian-Chinese factor in international diplomacy. The case for undermining Iran through Syria, by mobilizing all efforts to overthrow the regime there, has somewhat receded. Yet, this does not mean that the goal of toppling the regime has been quashed or completely withdrawn, and there are differences regarding the means to achieve this and overall priorities. It seems that the main focus now in the rhetoric of the U.S. military, governmental, intellectual and media institutions has moved to Iran. This is happening in the wake of the success achieved by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in diverting the direction of American attention away from Syria and towards Iran. Here, most scenarios are military in nature, scenarios that are abundant and remarkable in their disarray and their implications for the domestic arena in the United States, having effectively become a major issue in the elections there.

During his visit to the United States a few days ago, Benjamin Netanyahu managed to score a great victory when he forced U.S. President Barack Obama’s hand into removing the containment of Iran as a hitherto main tenet of his policy, since the beginning of his term. This is a significant achievement for Netanyahu, given the fact that he has introduced to the U.S. political discourse a commitment at the level of the presidency to abandon the policy of containment. In fact, this policy has kept the military option at bay and instead focused on extended sanctions as a means to entice Tehran to cooperate, on the one hand, and to undermine and exhaust the regime in Tehran, on the other.

The other achievement Netanyahu secured was that, as he said, Obama has now acknowledged Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself. The word sovereign here, according to some, means that Netanyahu got Obama’s approval for Israel to unilaterally carry out a military strike against Iranian sites with a view to eliminate – or delay – the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In truth, the military option is a subject of dispute for the Israelis, Americans and Arabs equally. There is a school of thought that says that it would be foolish to grant Tehran the ammunition of Islamic and internal support for the regime that would break its isolation and give it the equivalent of an escape rope. Proponents of this view believe that laying siege to Iran by means of the sanctions and international isolation is the most effective option, especially since a military option would be open to the possibility of failure, retaliation and perhaps even a catastrophic deployment of WMDs in the region. They also add that the best option to get rid of the regime in Tehran lies in shutting down the Syrian gateway to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which requires overthrowing the regime in Damascus. This in turn would encourage the Iranian people to rise up against the regime, especially if there is going to be external support to do so.

The opposing school of thought, meanwhile, cites what Israel considers to be an existential threat, meaning that a nuclear-armed Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Thus, the Israeli leadership has decided that now is the right time to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, for reasons related to Iran, Israel and the United States.

With respect to Iran, the above holds true given the fact that intelligence estimates maintain that Iran has come a long way in building up its nuclear capabilities; therefore, when containment takes effect, it may be too late, because Iran would have then acquired nuclear weapons capabilities. And with respect to Israel, the political calculations of both the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister Ehud Barak have concluded that the military window is open to Israel only before the U.S. presidential elections, not after. Both men do not have confidence in that Barack Obama will deliver on any military promises against Iran if he is to be elected for a second term. Thus, Netanyahu and Barak reached the conclusion that the matter cannot bear any adventures. Then with respect to the United States, the electoral battle opens the door wide open for Israel to achieve the maximum possible amount of support for anything it wants, even if that should be a war rejected by the American public.

The timing of the military strike, according to the information circulated by American circles close to Israel, may be before June or may be delayed until October, in accordance with military considerations and political calculations. What is important is that the strike must take place before the presidential elections, as some are saying. However, there is another opinion that says that what Obama and Netanyahu agreed to is to delay the military strike until after the elections, with the U.S. President pledging to be a stronger partner for Israel in this endeavor. Of course, there is a third view that believes that all this talk about a military strike is posturing with a view to intimidate and pressure Iran to comply with the efforts of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany for a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. According to this view, Iran and Israel have never fought a direct war in both their histories, while appeasement seems to be a feature of the historical co-existence between Persians and Jews.

Those who assert that an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites will certainly take place expect it to be a purely Israeli operation, and not a joint U.S.-Israeli one. However, this involves the first wave only, bearing in mind that any Iranian retaliation against Israel will cause the United States to carry out qualitatively different military operations, which a former general said would be devastating on a large scale and would instill fear and terror in the heart of the Iranian leadership and destroy it.

The exit strategy scenario some invoke, meanwhile, is notable albeit unconvincing. The scenario revolves around letting the leadership in Tehran know that it would be better for it not to retaliate against an Israeli military strike targeting the Iranian reactors, because non-retaliation would enable the leadership to remain in power while a response would lead to its defeat.

In other words, advocates of this theory want to tell the leadership in Tehran that retaliation against an Israeli strike will invite the United States to enter as a direct party in military strikes against critical sites for the regime in Tehran, which would ultimately lead to the downfall of the regime. Otherwise, if the leadership in Tehran ‘swallows’ the Israeli strike without retaliation against Israel, then this would be one way to stay in power.

What does not seem to worry the proponents of this view is a potential response by Iran through proxy wars, for example by using Hezbollah or other groups against GCC countries. This is not a pressing concern for them, because the only priority is for Iran not to become involved in direct or proxy war against Israel, through Hezbollah.

Syria for these people is not an issue they are concerned about today, and the fact of the matter is that they don’t care whether Bashar al-Assad remains in power or steps down. They are speaking the language of ‘what is the alternative?’ and not the language of ‘the regime must be overthrown’, which was popular a few months ago. While these voices may be rather marginal in decision-making, they indeed influence the process of decision making, being senior pillars of the military and media institutions.

In truth, the Obama administration has in turn backpedaled from its enthusiasm for overthrowing the regime in Damascus by any means. Indeed, the administration has made it clear now that it will not take part in arming the opposition, will not intervene militarily as proposed by Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain, and will not take a tough stand in the Security Council as it had previously done. For this reason, negotiations over the U.S. draft resolution tell us that the Obama administration is willing to appease, rather than confront, Russia, and therefore, the U.S. draft resolution will most probably be a toothless one.

It could be that the pillars of the Obama administration are giving priority to cooperation with Russia and China in the Iranian issue, which is now ever more urgent because of what the Israeli government has elucidated. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the Obama administration has resolved to maintain the Assad regime in Damascus, but rather it believes that its ouster and disintegration will inevitably come.

It is for this reason that both U.S. and British diplomacy speak the language of peaceful resolutions, humanitarian aid and negotiations, and not that of regime change by arming the opposition – but of regime change through Syrian-made solutions. However, this does not intimidate the regime in Damascus, which is undaunted by talk of isolation and sanctions, as much as it would be frightened by arming the opposition and the reiteration of the need to overthrow the regime.

It is in this context that the mission entrusted to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as a joint UN-Arab League envoy can be understood, as tantamount to a mediation mission between the United States and European countries on one hand, and Russia on the other. This is not to mention its self-evident effect in buying time for the Syrian regime on one hand, and for the benefit of the efforts for reconciliation between the United States and Russia on the other.

While Russia is not budging from its basic positions, it is making room for enticements here and foreclosing prejudgments there. Currently, Russia is partner to the Americans in scaremongering against al-Qaeda and the unknown elements in the ranks of the Syrian opposition. Russia is also partner to a segment of the Israelis in trying to persuade the other hesitant segment that the present situation in Syria is better for Israel than a restive alternative with unknown orientations.

As there are divisions in Israel with regard to the Syrian regime, there are divisions in the Arab- and even the Gulf- camp, as evidenced by the developments of last week. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are at the vanguard of the efforts and strategy to arm the Syrian opposition, while other countries in the GCC – and also the Arab League and Turkey- want regime change in Damascus to take place by way of isolation, containment and sanctions, and not through arming the opposition.

Things are getting more complicated and obscure with the emergence of the Iranian question as an Israeli and American priority. U.S. officials are saying that while they are not fond of the idea of the U.S. taking part in arming the opposition, they do not mind if others do so. And while Gulf countries may not mind an Israeli military strike against Iran, they do fear U.S. military involvement as this may invite reprisals and anger against them.

It is an extremely dangerous phase then, and everybody is on the line regardless of whether any party is pretending to be safe and impervious to harm.

(The writer is a columist and political commentator. This article first appeared in Dar Al Hayat on Mar. 9, 2012)

Blog: Israel’s calculus for Gaza eruption.

Leo Rennert

Sowell: Iran benefits as Obama drifts with political winds | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com.

Obama, Iran and the 1939 Syndrome | IndepthAfrica.

On Tuesday EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton announcedthat the group of six global powers—permanent UN Security Council members the U.S., Britain, France, China, and Russia plus Germany—were resuming nuclear talks with Iran at an unspecified time and place.

She announced it just as Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Washington trying to convince the U.S. leadership that neither diplomacy nor sanctions were coming anywhere near stopping Iran’s push to nuclear weapons.

Ashton had earlier—on February 14—received a proposal for talks from Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. On Tuesday she said, “Today I have replied to Dr. Jalili’s letter….” What opportune timing.

And what a further blow to Israel.

Typical headlines have been saying Netanyahu told President Obama on Monday that Israel hasn’t yet taken a decision on attacking Iran. Yet, as described here and here, an “unnamed American intelligence official” has conveyed a different impression to Israel’s Channel 2 news.

Channel 2 reported on Monday night that the official said, “U.S. intelligence services believe that, in principle, Israel has already made the decision to bomb Iran.” According to Channel 2, the official warned that such an attack would entail thousands of casualties and spark a regional war or even World War III—in short, an all-out catastrophe. An official Israeli source dismissed these statements as “scare-mongering and psychological warfare.”

Just as there is a dissonance between the mainstream version—which says Israel hasn’t yet decided—and this apparent desperate attempt to bypass the Israeli leadership and scare its population silly via its most popular news channel, there is a dissonance between Obama’s words this week and what we read elsewhere.

In his AIPAC speech on Sunday: “I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy—backed by pressure—to succeed.”

And in Tuesday night’s news conference: “[Iran] understand[s] that the world community means business. To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss…how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful.”

Meanwhile IAEA chief Yukiya Amano says Iran has “tripled” its monthly production of 20-percent-enriched uranium since the IAEA’s previous report in November. That was the report that was seen as dramatically confirming Israel’s insistence over the years that Iran had never stopped working on the bomb.

Amano also expressed serious concern about the IAEA being denied, again, access to Parchin—the site where Iran has “built a large containment chamber” to “conduct high-explosives tests” that the IAEA considers “strong indicators” of nuclear-weapons development. That was according to November’s report. What’s going on in the chamber now? No one knows.

No wonder administration officials are so worried Israel will attack and trying to scare the Israeli people out of their wits about what will happen if it does. Seemingly it would make more sense for the administration—and the Western world as a whole—to get seriously scared about Parchin and drop the hang-up with Israel.

On Tuesday it was reported that Iran now says it will let the IAEA into Parchin—at an unspecified date. Even if that transpires, it will obviously be after Iran has had enough time to “clean” the site.

But never fear, as Obama said yet again Tuesday night: “What we’ve been able to do…is mobilize unprecedented crippling sanctions on Iran. Iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way.”

Two problems with that. First, regarding Iran’s nuke program, they’re not having the slightest effect, as the tripling of uranium production since November—among other things—attests.

And second, while there has indeed been some ramping-up of sanctions since November so that ordinary Iranians—not the regime—have been hit by them, both the U.S. administration and the Europeans are leisurely about the pace.

As for the Europeans, their embargo on Iranian oil won’t even kick in until July. And as Bret Stephens noted in the Wall Street Journal, it was Obama who “fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit.” And it’s Obama who is still delaying the sanctions on Iran’s central bank that the Senate passed 100-0 in December.

Again that dissonance—between the IAEA’s evident alarm and the U.S. and European governments’ ongoing nonchalance.

And if anyone still doubted that it was nonchalance—as well as delusion, cynicism, and denial—today’s decision by the Western powers to return to talks with Iran should put those doubts to rest. The Iran that has transparently been using such talks as delaying tactics for a decade; the Iran that regularly threatens another state with annihilation; the Iran that installs thousands of new, ever-more-sophisticated centrifuges in its underground Fordow facility as the Ashtons and Obamas of this world speak deplorable nonsense.

Israel’s Ynet News reports that Israeli “state officials” were “disappointed” with the Netanyahu-Obama meeting and quotes them saying:

The Iranians are charging at nuclear capabilities at full force and even the IAEA is falling in line with the Israeli intelligence evaluations. That is why the U.S. stance is problematic…. Right now we are certain the [administration] won’t do anything and we need to decide what to do…. The[administration] want[s] oil prices not to go up because it’s bad for their economy…. You have to consider the fate of the Western world…. It’s better to pay more for oil this year than to pay the cost for a nuclear Iran.

While not making a direct comparison, psychologically the current atmosphere in the West is the same as the one in 1939. Westerners who sought peace and coexistence had options but at the moment of truth they chose to sacrifice Czechoslovakia. We’ve been there. While being very careful with this analysis, we have the same psychological phenomenon.

It’s indeed a grim analysis but all too congruent with the facts. Consider:

• Obama and the Europeans do not really believe Iran can now be brought around by talks to cry uncle and give up the nuclear program in which it has invested enormously for decades.
• They do know that by resuming “diplomacy” with Iran, or at least putting it back on the agenda, they further isolate Israel as the lone “hawk” and slap it with a rogue-status—a destroyer of “peace”—if it does decide to act.
• Hence a collusion—tacit or not—of common interests emerges between the West and Iran of creating a pretense of diplomatic activity and thereby curbing Israel’s options.

Which means Netanyahu faces a true test as, once again, the Western world seeks abjectly for the easy way out.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator in Beersheva, Israel. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com.

PJ Media » Will the Iran Negotiations Be Too Big to Fail?.

On February 29, Secretary of State Clinton assured the House Foreign Affairs Committee — in absolute terms, three separate times – the Obama administration’s policy was not simply to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but a nuclear weapons capability.  She assured Howard Berman (D-CA) “it’s absolutely clear that the president’s policy is to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons capability.” She reiterated the policy to Eliot Engel (D-NY), and reiterated it again to Gary Ackerman (D-NY).

The “absolutely clear” policy lasted until the White House could get a hold of the New York Times. On March 2, unnamed “administration officials” told the New York Times that Clinton had “misspoken.”

The same day as the Times report, the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg posted the transcript of his interview with the president, in which Obama repeatedly phrased his policy as preventing Iran from “getting a nuclear weapon.” At AIPAC, Obama used the same formulation: “obtaining a nuclear weapon.” At various times in the past, Obama has phrased his position as preventing Iran from “getting,” “obtaining,” “acquiring,” or “deploying” a nuclear weapon. Each verb connotes a policy that makes actual acquisition the red line, rather than a nuclear weapons capability.

The significance of the “capability” versus “acquisition” issue is that it impacts the timing of a U.S. military response. The administration argues that Iran is “rational” (in Gen. Dempsey’s view) and “self-interested” (as Obama told Goldberg), and that sanctions will thus eventually work. On the other hand, Israel believes Iran is already approaching a nuclear weapons capability, and building underground facilities impervious to Israeli attack, fundamentally changing the strategic and security situation even if the bomb is not manufactured until later. In Israel’s view, even if sanctions might arguably work — which is speculative — the time for them to work is running out.

Thus Israel believes the U.S. red line has been set at a point that will not be reached until it is too late for Israel to act. That would leave Israel dependent on a future decision by a U.S. president to go to war — based on a pledge to use “all options” that is (as Secretary Clinton would say) “unenforceable.” According to the Washington Post, a “senior administration official” said after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, “Our red line is a nuclear weapon, and we didn’t change our policy” — which means the administration did not change its timing, leaving the U.S. red line at a point beyond Israel’s ability to strike.

The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials said a red line of nuclear weapons “capability” would be too ambiguous. But the difference between (1) a red line set far down the field (indeed right next to the goal line), and (2) an ambiguous red line set at an earlier point, is that the former effectively incentivizes Iran to continue marching down the field, whereas the latter would make Iran nervous now, rather than later.

If faced only with the first alternative, a rational and self-interested Iran will likely decide to continue its present course, perhaps negotiating a “framework agreement” or a “joint statement” of principles that will later break down, and eventually present the U.S. with a fait accompli – which is exactly what happened with respect to North Korea.

IDF: We’re prepared for what’s coming – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iron Dome system Commander says troops making tremendous effort to achieve successful results; ‘We have capability to keep going,’ he says

Yoav Zitun

Lieutenant Colonel Gilad Biran, the commander of the Iron Dome missile defense system told Ynet on Saturday that the troops operating the defense system have been working hard over the weekend to make sure that rockets are intercepted.

We are making a tremendous effort to achieve results. We are ready for what’s coming,” he said.

The missile defense system has intercepted some 30 rockets launched at Israel’s southern cities. “We have the capability to keep going if the situation persists,” Biran added.

However, Air Force officials stressed that the Iron Dome does not provide complete protection, and that citizens are urged to follow the safety instructions issued by the Home Front Command.

Iron Dome bttery in Beersheba (Photo: Herzl Yosef)

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IAF Chief Major General Ido Nehushtan visited the troops operating the Iron Dome missile defense system, and told them: “We are acting defensively and offensive, and are making efforts to do it to the best of our abilities.”

Barak said: “We are currently showing a 90% rate of successful interception – about 30 out of 32 rockets. The Iron Dome does not only protect civilians, but also gives the political and military echelons more flexibility in responding to threats.

“We won’t let anyone harm our civilians. Those who try to launch a rocket or plan an attack will pay a heavy price, and no one will be granted immunity,” said Barak.