Archive for March 19, 2012

Iron Dome Kills 80% of Targeted Rockets

March 19, 2012

Iron Dome Kills 80% of Targeted Rockets | Defense News | defensenews.com.

An Israeli missile is launched from the Iron Dome missile system in Ashdod, Israel, in response to a rocket launch from the nearby Palestinian Gaza Strip on March 11.

An Israeli missile is launched from the Iron Dome missile system in Ashdod, Israel, in response to a rocket launch from the nearby Palestinian Gaza Strip on March 11. (Jack Guez / AFP)

Tel Aviv — New technologies and procedures that proved effective last week in defending one-sixth of the Israeli population from Gaza-launched rockets are augmenting strategic options for Israel’s political leadership in response to growing threats.

Officials here creditedadherence to civil emergency procedures and Israel’s new Iron Dome intercepting system for Israel’s relative restraint during a week in which 1 million Israelis within 40 kilometers of the Gaza border were threatened by more than 250 rockets.

The rocket attacks were triggered by Israel’s March 9 aerial assassination of Zuhair al-Qaissi, a wanted Palestinian militant. The attacks quickly escalated to more than 50 per day as the Israeli Air Force struck weapons storage sites, rocket-launching squads and other targets throughout the Gaza Strip.

In five days of cross-border violence, interrupted by a short-lived, Egyptian-negotiated ceasefire, Israel waged 39 airstrikes that resulted in 26 deaths, according to Belal Jadallah, an independent Gaza-based journalist. Israel claims all but seven fatalities were militants who were involved in the fight.

During that time, the Israeli military said Iron Dome destroyed nearly 60 Grad-class rockets out of 75 intercept attempts — an unprecedented operational success rate of almost 80 percent.

In a March 13 visit to the Israel Defense Forces’ Gaza Brigade, Defense Minister Ehud Barak hailed the “extraordinary achievements” of Israel’s three deployed Iron Dome batteries. The system acted “as a deterrent for the other side,” Barak said, “while allowing for the freedom of action, maneuverability and discretion of our own political leadership.”

Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish, air defense commander for the Israeli Air Force, said last week’s performance of the Iron Dome validated doctrine and operational procedures developed for the world’s first active defense system against rockets and short-range missiles. In a March 15 interview, Gavish said IDF is readying its fourth battery for deployment and will continue to hone methods for expanding the defensive envelope.

When asked if Iron Dome tempered populist calls for renewed war in Gaza and helped influence the government’s relatively measured response to the salvos, Gavish replied: “I can’t say this was in the heads of decision makers, but the fact that this is an effective defense provides flexibility for the political echelon.”

Gavish said a key lesson from the latest cross-border escalation is the significant benefits to be gained from a combination of offense and defense.

“There is a general understanding that we now have a serious capability to limit the damage from the other side. In this round, to our good fortune, there were no serious casualties. But at the same time, as good as our defense is, it is not hermetic and our citizens need to obey the rules of Home Front command.”

He added, “We also need to remember that at the end of the day, the decisive outcome [of military operation] will be determined by offense, not defense.”

Brake or Accelerator?

While many here credit the physical and psychological security provided by Iron Dome for its calming effect on government decisions, others say new defenses will embolden proponents of military might. Just as missile defenses offer a convenient brake when the time is not right for military action, they also can serve as an accelerator for leaders bent on putting the pedal to the metal.

“Missile defense has a strategic function,” Efraim Inbar, director of Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, told Defense News. “It can make it easier for decision makers to make the tough calls required for offensive options.”

In a commentary published in the March 14 Jerusalem Post, Inbar and co-author Max Singer, founding director of the Washington-based Hudson Institute, argued for a large-scale incursion into Gaza to destroy “terrorist infrastructure” of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups.

Among the reasons cited in favor of renewed war in Gaza is to greatly reduce the missile retaliation Israel would face in response to an attack on Iran.

“Not only would most or all of the Gaza missiles and the organizations preparing to use them be destroyed, but deterrence against the missiles from Lebanon and elsewhere would increase. Such an action would also bolster credibility in the international community that Israel really might attack Iran’s nuclear sites,” they wrote.

Addressing the Israeli Knesset on March 14, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited “the winning combination” of offensive capabilities, missile defenses and national resilience that may be required to fend off the Iranian nuclear threat.

Netanyahu blamed last week’s rocket attacks on Iran, insisting that Gaza has become a forward operating base for the Islamic republic. “Sooner or later,” he warned, “Iran’s terror base in Gaza will be uprooted.”

Netanyahu told lawmakers he achieved his two goals in Washington talks earlier this month with U.S. President Barack Obama and other officials: “The first was to clarify that Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. The second was to elevate the threat of Iran’s nuclear weaponization to the top of the international agenda.”

He cited three historic examples in which Israeli premiers acted against the urgings of Washington: Israel’s 1948 declaration of its independent state; its pre-emptive attacks in the 1967 Six Day War; and the destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

“We prefer that Iran will abandon its nuclear program. But the obligation entrusted to me is to preserve Israel’s independent ability to defend itself from any challenge,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli leader dismissed those urging Israel to conclude a Palestinian peace deal as a step toward solving the Iranian problem. “Whoever wants to believe [that an agreement with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas] will stop the centrifuges from spinning … is simply burying his head in the sand.”

On the contrary, Netanyahu insisted Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon brought the Iranian threat directly to Israel’s doorstep. “Everywhere we evacuated, the Iranians came in. And now there are those suggesting we do the same in Judea and Samaria,” he said, using the Biblical reference to the West Bank.

He added, “It is forbidden for us to repeat this mistake for the third time.”

Israel Defense | Did Assad Transfer a Large Number of M-600 Rockets to Hezbollah?

March 19, 2012

Israel Defense | Did Assad Transfer a Large Number of M-600 Rockets to Hezbollah?.

Israeli elements are attempting to discover whether Hezbollah possesses quantities of M-600 rockets
https://i0.wp.com/www.israeldefense.com/_Uploads/dbsarticles/_cut/SA0000_0244x0240x0072_000xFFFFFF_missilesyria%40jpg.jpg

Israel is monitoring the movement of advanced weapon systems from Syria to Hezbollah and is attempting to learn if Assad’s regime transferred a large quantity of the improved M-600 heavy rocket to Lebanon.

The M-600 is an advanced Syrian-produced variant of the Iranian Fatah-110 rocket. Israel estimates that the Syrian chemical weapons industry will try to fit a chemical warhead on the M-600 rocket, as Syria’s military industry already produced chemical warheads for several variants of its Scud missiles. The rocket’s normal warhead weighs half a ton, and has a maximum range of 250 km. With such a range, the rocket threatens Israel’s northern border all the way south to Be’er Sheva.

It seems that Syria did transfer such rockets to Hezbollah, since the Fatah-110 rocket was developed by the Iranian weapon industry, and is launched from a rocket launcher similar to the SA-2 Surface-to-Air missile. The Fatah-110 has a warhead nearly twice the weight of the Scud missiles that were launched at Israel during the First Gulf War, which weighed about 300 kg. The length of the rocket is approximately 8 m, its diameter is 60 cm, and its total weight is about 3 tons.

According to Yiftah Shapir, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Syria’s president is allowing the transfer of any military system to Hezbollah. “Such a rocket in Hezbollah’s possession is a problem,” says Shapir. The David’s Sling defense system being developed by the Israeli company Rafael and the US company Raytheon, is intended to intercept rockets approximately the same size as the M-600.

Barack Obama Prepares for War Footing

March 19, 2012

Edwin Black: Barack Obama Prepares for War Footing.

Last Friday, March 16, President Barack Obama may have quietly placed the United States on a war preparedness footing, perhaps in anticipation of an outbreak of war between Israel, the West, and Iran.

A newly-propounded Executive Order, titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” renews and updates the president’s power to take control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, control and restrict all civil transportation, which is almost 97 percent dependent upon oil; and even provides the option to re-enable a draft in order to achieve both the military and non-military demands of the country, according to a simple reading of the text. The Executive Order was published on the White House website.

The timing of the Order — with little fanfare — could not be explained. Opinions among the very first bloggers on the purpose of the unexpected Executive Order run the gamut from the confused to the absurd. None focus on the obvious sudden need for such a pronouncement: oil and its potential for imminent interruption.

If Iran was struck by Israel or the West, or if Iran thought it might be struck, the Tehran regime has promised it would block the Strait of Hormuz, which would obstruct some 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil, some twenty percent of the global supply, and about 20 percent of America’s daily needs. Moreover, Tehran has promised military retaliation against any nation it feels has harmed it. The United States is at the top of the list.

Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would create an international and economic calamity of unprecedented severity. Here are the crude realities. America uses approximately 19 to 20 million barrels of oil per day, almost half of which is imported. If we lose just 1 million barrels per day, or suffer the type of damage sustained from Hurricane Katrina, our government will open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which offers a mere six- to eight-week supply of unrefined crude oil. If we lose 1.5 million barrels per day, or approximately 7.5 percent, we will ask our allies in the 28-member International Energy Agency to open their SPRs and otherwise assist. If we lose 2 million barrels per day, or 10 percent, for a protracted period, government crisis monitors say the chaos will be so catastrophic, they cannot even model it. One government oil crisis source recently told me: “We cannot put a price tag on it. If it happens, just cash in your 401(k).”

Since 2007, when the prospect of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz became a daily threat enunciated by Iran, our local, state, and federal governments at all levels have been criticized for having no specific plan in the event an oil interruption occurred. The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order appears to be the first step toward developing a potentially vast, far-sweeping plan that could reach into every garage and grocery store shelf. Government experts who watch the day-to-day ebb and flow of oil stocks were surprised at the sudden move. One quipped, “If this is true, it would be such a departure in policy, I can scarcely believe it.”

The March 16 Executive Order is based on the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and reads as a near-verbatim restatement of President Bill Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12919, and several other orders of prior presidents. No specific plan was every outlined based any of the enabling Executive Orders.

Obama’s Order sets forth as its rationale that “the United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.” It goes on in Section 103 C to authorize the President, “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements.” The task of advising is assigned, in Section 104 to “the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council,” which “shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.”

Those bodies will relegate their tasks to various secretaries of the Cabinet, specifically, the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources; the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy; the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources; the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation; the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials. Each of these Secretaries, according to Section 201, entitled, “Priorities and Allocations Authorities,” will be empowered, subject to the President and his advisers, to “analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies.” Their recommendations can, if need be, “control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.”

In subsection D, the Order states, “If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.” Hence, any arguments between Cabinet members is anticipated and dealt with.

The President, under the Order, will be empowered to order the “military use of civil transportation.” If implemented, the Secretary of Energy could rule “with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities,” in order to achieve “civil defense and continuity of Government.”

Sec. 203 is entitled “Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies.” It delegates to the Secretary of Energy “the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential.”

Sec. 204 is entitled “Chemical and Biological Warfare.” It ambiguously delegates “the authority of the President … to the Secretary of Defense.”

Part III of the Executive Order empowers the President and his advisers to effect “the expansion of productive capacity and supply.” This includes, “Loan Guarantees to reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense.” Any Federal Reserve Bank is directed to “assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.”

Section 303 allows the government to “enable rapid transition of emerging technologies,” that is, demand that certain needed technologies now kept out of the market be accelerated into the market. This could include alternative fuel vehicles which would relieve the approximate 67 percent of every oil barrel that goes to transportation. The same section allows the National Defense Stockpile to take control of strategic materials “if such transfers are in the public interest.” Indeed, under Section 306, entitled “Strategic and Critical Materials,” the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President … to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.” This includes oil and natural gas. In Section 307, entitled “Substitutes,” the national security team is empowered to “make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.” The term “Substitutes” refers to alternative and synthetic fuels, from algae to hydrogen — many of which are now in advance development.

In the event of an emergency, the Order would empower, “the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” to “procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government-owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons.”

Stockpiling or prioritizing will not require a state of war. In Section 310 entitled, “Critical Items,” the government is empowered “to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.”

Part VI is entitled “Labor Requirements,” and directs the Secretary of Labor “to collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense. In subsection 2, the Order brings up the non-dormant Draft. It mandates that the Secretary of Labor “upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services.” The Order adds that the Secretary “upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect … to making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor.” It goes on to empower “the head of an agency with authority under this order [to] formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs.”

In defining the civil transportation, the Order covers any possible gasoline rationing and vehicle restriction for vehicles that guzzle too much gasoline. The Order specifies “Civil transportation includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities. It adds, “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership” other than “petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.” Gasoline rationing and vehicle restriction for poor mileage cars and trucks is a concept already enshrined in the protocols of the Paris-based International Energy Agency. The United States is a member and has signed the treaty that covers such potential restrictions in the event of an oil interruption.

To avoid any doubt, the Order covers “all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.”

Because any oil interruption would have an immediate impact on the distribution of food, the Order also covers “the production or preparation for market use of food resources.” The Order asserts that “food resources” means all commodities and products … capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals.”

The Order explains that “‘Special priorities assistance’ means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.” In other words, the control of food and strategic materials, including oil, will be under federal purview, should an emergency occur and the Order invoked.

At press time, administration sources could not be reached to elaborate on the timing of what many see as a year’s overdue preparation for an oil interruption. Such an interruption and its disastrous consequence have been threatened for years. In short, for many years there has been no plan. But now apparently, the legal authority to organize a specific plan has been renewed and updated in crystal clarity.

Edwin Black is the New York Times best-selling investigative author of IBM and the Holocaust, Internal Combustion, British Petroleum and the Redline Agreement, and The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops — or the Day Before (Dialog Press), from which this article is adapted. More information about The Plan can be found at www.planforoilcrisis.com.

Russian special forces arrive in Syrian port: opposition sources

March 19, 2012

Russian special forces arrive in Syrian port: opposition sources.

A Russian ship carrying a unit of “anit-terrorist marines” is reportedly docked at the Syrian port city of Tartus. (File Photo)

A Russian ship carrying a unit of “anit-terrorist marines” is reportedly docked at the Syrian port city of Tartus. (File Photo)

Russian special forces have arrived in the Syrian Mediterranean port city of Tartus, opposition sources told Al Arabiya on Monday.

Israeli-based open source military intelligence website DEBKAfile has also reported that two Russian naval vessels have anchored at the Syrian port of Tartus.

The website cited reports from the Russian Black Sea headquarters at Sevastopol. The mission of the vessels was not disclosed, but one was reported to be carrying a unit of “anit-terrorist marines” and the other, a military tanker which joined “a Russian naval reconnaissance and surveillance ship already tied up in Tartus.”

The Syrian port of Tartus is now the only naval base Russia has outside the former Soviet Union. A Russian navy squadron made a call there in January in what was seen by many as a show of support for Assad.

Also in January, a Russian ship allegedly carrying tons of munitions made a dash for Syria after telling officials in EU member Cyprus, where it had made an unexpected stop, that it was heading for Turkey. Turkish officials said the ship had instead charted course for Tartus.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly previously said that Russian military and technical personnel were present Syrian and said his country will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria despite Assad’s yearlong crackdown on the opposition.

Antonov said Russia’s supply of weapons to Syria is in line with international law and will continue. “Russian-Syrian military cooperation is perfectly legitimate,” he said.

“The only thing that worries us today is the security of our citizens,” Antonov said in a reference to Russian military personnel in Syria that are training the Syrians in the use of weapons supplied by Russia.

He declined to say how many of them are currently stationed in Syria.

“It’s part of our contractual obligations,” said Antonov, who oversees military technical cooperation with foreign countries. “When we supply weapons, we have to provide training.”

Antonov dismissed previous allegations that Russia has sent special forces officers to assist government forces. “There are no (Russian) special forces with rifles and grenade launchers running around,” he said.

Support for daily ceasefires

Russia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, voiced clear support for a plan for daily humanitarian ceasefires in Syria and promised Moscow would press President Bashar al-Assad’s government to accept it, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Monday.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “clearly agreed to and was supportive of” the idea of a daily two-hour cessation of hostilities to allow for life-saving aid operations, ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger told Reuters after talks with Lavrov.

Asked whether Lavrov had promised that Russia would pressure Syria’s government to accept the plan, he said: “Yes, very much so.”
Russia has shielded Syria, its last ally in the Arab world, from U.N. sanctions over the Assad regime’s bloody suppression of an uprising against his government.

Moscow has been a steadfast ally of Syria since Soviet times, when it was led by the current president’s father, Hafez Assad, and has long supplied Damascus with aircraft, missiles, tanks and other heavy weapons

Israeli passenger planes ready for anti-missile system

March 19, 2012

Israel Hayom | Israeli passenger planes ready for anti-missile system.

The Elbit C-Music system will allow passenger planes to deflect shoulder-launched missiles if necessary • The Israeli Ministry of Transportation ordered the system, which reduces number of passengers on planes due to weight and space required.

Ilan Gattegno

 

The sky’s the limit with a safer El Al passenger plane on the way.

|

Photo credit: Yossi Zeliger

Erdogan to try mediation between US, Iran over nuclear program

March 19, 2012

Israel Hayom | Erdogan to try mediation between US, Iran over nuclear program.

Turkish prime minister to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama in Seoul next week during nuclear summit, will then continue on to Tehran where he will try to convince Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to abandon nuclear plans • Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz says SWIFT cut-off of Iran “is a severe blow to the Iranian economy that can lead to its collapse.”

Hezi Sternlicht, Yoni Hirsch, Shlomo Cesana, Eli Leon and Israel Hayom Staff
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan trying to mediate between U.S. and Iran.

|

Photo credit: Reuters

<< 1 2 >>

Former Israeli Spy Chief: Jews Facing ‘wave Of Terror’ Worldwide

March 19, 2012

Former Israeli Spy Chief: Jews Facing ‘wave Of Terror’ Worldwide | Fox News.

AP

A former head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency says a shooting attack on a Jewish school in France is part of a “wave of terror” being directed against Jews and Israelis worldwide.

Danny Yatom spoke to Israel Radio after a gunman opened fire at a school Monday in the French city of Toulouse, killing a rabbi, his two sons and another child.

Yatom says he believes Iran or its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah is likely behind the attack, but did not elaborate. He says assailants prefer Jewish civilian targets because they are easier to hit than Israeli ones.

It was not clear who carried out Monday’s attack.

Israel views Iran as an existential threat because of its nuclear program, support for militant groups and calls for the Jewish state’s destruction.

Obama Administration’s Optimistic Slant on Iran Nuclear Intelligence

March 19, 2012

Obama Administration’s Optimistic Slant on Iran Nuclear Intelligence.

Iran continues to make steady progress in stockpiling supplies of increasingly highly enriched uranium far above the quantities that it needs for its civilian nuclear program. Yet the Obama Administration maintains that Tehran has not yet decided whether to build a nuclear weapon.

This despite the fact that Iran continues to stonewall the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), defy multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, and shrug off a growing list of international sanctions.

The Obama Administration’s optimistic reading of the state of Iran’s nuclear program is based on a highly controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that assessed that Iran halted its weaponization efforts in 2003. The New York Times today reported that an intelligence crisis erupted in 2010 when the intelligence community wavered in its assessment only to reaffirm the 2007 NIE.

The U.S. intelligence community—which underestimated the speed of the nuclear breakouts by the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—continues to assess that Iran has frozen its nuclear weaponization efforts. Meanwhile, the IAEA, which has long remained cautious on the Iranian nuclear issue, released a report in November that cited evidence that Iran has recently experimented with the components of a nuclear weapon and worked on engineering studies for fitting a nuclear payload into Iran’s Shahab 3 ballistic missile.

Armed with the optimistic Iran NIE, the Obama Administration has pressed Israel to refrain from launching a preventive attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. This led to considerable tension ahead of the Obama–Netanyahu summit in early March.

One hopes that, despite the U.S. intelligence community’s spotty record in predicting the timetable of nuclear proliferators, it has kept accurate tabs on Iran’s nuclear program. But according to The New York Times, one former senior intelligence official admitted, “I’d say that I have about 75 percent confidence in the assessment that they [Iranians] haven’t restarted the program.”

It is little wonder that Israeli leaders remain concerned that the Obama Administration underestimates the urgency of Iran’s potential nuclear threat.

For more see: The Iran National Intelligence Estimate: A Comprehensive Guide to What Is Wrong with the NIE.

Iran Nuclear Program Soon to be Strike-Proof

March 19, 2012

Iran Nuclear Program Soon to be Strike-Proof – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Iran’s nuclear program will soon be strike-proof, according to Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
By Chana Ya’ar

First Publish: 3/19/2012, 5:55 PM

 

Ehud Barak

Ehud Barak
Flash 90

Iran’s nuclear proram will soon be strike-proof, according to Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Speaking on Monday to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Barak said the window of opportunity for a military strike is rapidly closing.

The Islamic Republic, he told the committee, is rushing to move its nuclear development facilities underground, and beyond the reach of any attack.

“The world, including the current U.S. administration, understands and accepts that Israel necessarily views the threat differently than they do,” Barak pointed out. “Ultimately Israel is responsible for taking the decisions related to its future, its security and its destiny.”

Iran’s nuclear program is “steadily approaching maturation and verging on a ‘zone of immunity,’ – a position from which the Iranian regime could complete its program without effective disruption, at its convenience,” he added in a statement released by his office to reporters.

Israel’s government leaders have been working in concert in recent weeks to accustom the population – and the rest of the world – to the idea that if necessary, due to the short time left before the sites are underground, the Jewish State is ready “go it alone” to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat. The US has bunker busters that could reach deep underground sites, but Israel’s are more limited.

Last week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reminded the world in one of his fiercest speeches to the Knesset in some time, that Israel has “never left its fate to others, not even in the hands of its best friends.”

Syrian capital sees heaviest fighting of uprising

March 19, 2012

Syrian capital sees heaviest fighting of u… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS
03/19/2012 16:45
Clashes appear to be an attempt by rebels to show they still pose a serious challenge; RPG fired at Syrian army general.

Syrian TV shows site of bombing [file]
By REUTERS
AMMAN – Rebels fought government forces in Damascus on Monday, in the most violent gun battles the Syrian capital has seen since the start of the year-long revolt against President Bashar Assad, opposition activists said.

The clashes near the center of Assad’s power base appeared to be an attempt by rebels, who have been forced out of Homs and Idlib and came under attack in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor on Monday, to show they still pose a serious challenge.

Fighting erupted after midnight in the upmarket al-Mezze district when up to six rebels fired a rocket propelled grenade at the house of an army general, said Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

Quoting local residents, he said the gunmen then took refuge in a building where they battled soldiers, gunfire echoing throughout the neighborhood. Official Syrian news agency Sana said three rebels and one member of the security forces died.

The armed confrontation came just two days after a double car bombing killed at least 27 people in the heart of the city, in a sign that the capital might be slowly sinking into mayhem.

“These clashes were the most violent and the closest to the security force headquarters in Damascus since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution,” said SOHR’s Rami Abdulrahman.

Video footage showed the top two floors of an unidentified apartment bloc scorched by fire, its walls and stairway pitted with bullet holes and shrapnel.

Reports from Syria cannot be independently verified because the authorities have barred access to rights groups and journalists.

The latest violence coincided with the arrival in Damascus of a team of five experts, sent by the UN-Arab League envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan, to discuss proposals to deploy international monitors in Syria.

A separate team of experts from the United Nations and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, led by the Syrian government, also started a mission to assess humanitarian needs, a source close to the mission said on Monday.

The group is due to visit areas hit by the uprising including the central city of Homs, scene of a month-long siege and military bombardment in February, and Deraa, where the revolt against Assad erupted a year ago.

The United Nations says more than 8,000 people have been killed and some 230,000 forced to flee their homes, including at least 30,000 who have escaped abroad. The government says about 2,000 members of the security forces have been killed.