WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | ‘When Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear bomb, he will build one’.

If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to build a nuclear bomb, “he will build one,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to himself in the third person, during an interview Tuesday with German public television station ZDF.

Commenting on accusations by the West that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad said, according to a Bloomberg translation of comments posted on Tuesday on ZDF’s website, “If Ahmadinejad were to build a bomb, he would announce it — and he would not be afraid of anybody.”

Asked whether Iran intends to build a bomb, the Iranian president was quoted as saying that atomic weapons were immoral and “belong to the last century,” and that, “We would never build an atomic bomb — but if we did build one, we wouldn’t be afraid to …”

“What does a country do if it’s attacked? What would the Americans do?” Ahmadinejad added, according to Bloomberg. “They would defend themselves, clearly. That’s what we would do.”

The Iranian president also said Israel’s establishment was “a colonialist plan that was born out of a lie. [The Jews] never controlled this land, they invented a blood-libel story called the Holocaust and the Palestinians are the ones who have to pay the price.”

On the occasion of the Persian New Year, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also delivered a speech to the country in which he addressed the nuclear issue. “We said that we do not have nuclear weapons in our possession and we will not build a bomb, but if there is any attack on us from our enemies, the U.S. or the Zionist regime, we will attack them with the same force with which they have attacked us.”

Khamenei added, “In time, when countries in the West are not able to get any more oil and gas, they will be forced to make concessions and this will be catastrophic for them.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s ally Russia is trying to persuade Israel and the U.S. to take the military option off the table on Iran. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke on Tuesday about concerns that Iran might attack Israel, saying, “I am absolutely convinced that Iran will never decide to do this, if only because the threat to destroy Israel will also destroy ‘Palestine.’”

Despite Russia’s calls to abandon military options against Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was expected on Wednesday to sign an agreement in Berlin according to which Germany will provide Israel with a sixth Dolphin submarine. According to foreign reports, the submarine can carry weapons, including nuclear warheads, and also enables Israel to launch a “second strike” on Iran in the event of a nuclear attack. The submarine fleet also enables Israel to conduct intelligence-gathering missions in areas far from its borders and to defend its waters. The estimated cost of the submarine is about 400 million euros (about $530 million).

Germany said on Tuesday that it would sell Israel the sixth military submarine and shoulder part of the cost, although it warned its ally that any military escalation with Iran could bring incalculable risks.

German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said he shared Israel’s fear of a nuclear-armed Iran, and he was convinced Tehran aimed to make nuclear weapons, but he called for caution.

“I recommend all sides show urgent restraint, both in their rhetoric and their action. A military escalation would bring incalculable risks for Israel and the region, to the detriment of Israel,” he told reporters at a press conference in Berlin with Barak.

Barak, in contrast, said all options regarding Iran should remain on the table, apart from containment. “To accept a nuclear Iran would be inconceivable and unacceptable to the whole world,” he said.

Israel is threatening to take military action, with or without U.S. support, if Iran is deemed to be continuing to defy pressure to curb its nuclear projects. Iran insists its nuclear energy program is purely non-military.

Dialogue between Israeli and U.S. officials, meanwhile, continues over the Iranian nuclear threat. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, who is visiting the U.S. and Canada, met Tuesday with his U.S. counterpart, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. After their meeting, Dempsey wrote on his Facebook page, “Regular and candid dialogue is critical as we face common threats and challenges.”

Obama assails Iran’s ‘electronic curtain’ in video message

Speaking on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, U.S. President Barack Obama accused Iran on Tuesday of imposing an “electronic curtain” on its citizens and promised new U.S. steps aimed at helping to ease the Iranian people’s access to the Internet and social media.

Speaking directly to ordinary Iranians in a video message marking the celebration, Obama acknowledged “continued tensions between our two countries,” which stem mostly from Iran’s defiance over its nuclear program.

But he insisted that the U.S. wanted a dialogue with Iran. “There is no reason for the United States and Iran to be divided from one another,” he said.

Obama’s overture to the Iranian people was the latest step in Washington’s push to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. He has urged Israel to hold off on any attack on Iran’s nuclear sites to allow more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work.

Renewing accusations of Iran’s suppression of its people, Obama said Iranians were “denied the basic freedom to access the information that they want.” He cited blocking of television and radio signals, monitoring of computers and cell phones and censoring of the Internet.

“Because of the actions of the Iranian regime, an electronic curtain has fallen around Iran,” Obama said in the video address, which was transmitted in Farsi as well as English. “Today, my administration is issuing new guidelines to make it easier for American businesses to provide software and services into Iran that will make it easier for the Iranian people to use the Internet.”

The steps appeared relatively modest, and it was unclear how much could be done without Iran’s cooperation.

The U.S. Treasury said its Office of Foreign Assets Control had spelled out a range of Internet services and software that could be exported to Iran, including online personal messenger services and supporting software, as well as browsers, document readers, personal data storage and mobile applications.

In his video message, Obama alluded to the Arab uprisings that have swept the Middle East over the past year, sometimes fueled by communication on social networking sites.

“We have learned once more that suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away,” he said.

Mass protests erupted in Iran in 2009 against the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the demonstrations were crushed by Iranian security forces, who jailed scores of activists.

Obama urged Iran to respect its people’s rights “just as it has a responsibility to meet its obligations with regard to its nuclear program.” He said Iran would be “welcomed once more among the community of nations” if it met those commitments.

The Bomb and the Bomber – NYTimes.com.

By ARI SHAVIT

If Iran goes nuclear it will change our world.

An Iranian atom bomb will force Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to acquire their own atom bombs. Thus a multipolar nuclear arena will be established in the most volatile region on earth. Sooner or later, this unprecedented development will produce a nuclear event. The world we know will cease to be the world we know after Tehran, Riyadh, Cairo or Tel Aviv become the 21st century’s Hiroshima.

An Iranian bomb will bring about universal nuclear proliferation. Humanity’s greatest achievement since 1945 was controlling nuclear armament by limiting the number of members in the exclusive nuclear club. This unfair arrangement created a world order that guaranteed relative world peace.

But if Iran goes nuclear and the Middle East goes nuclear so will the Third World. If the ayatollahs are allowed to have Robert Oppenheimer’s deadly toy, every emerging power in Asia and Africa will be entitled to have it. The 60-year-old world order that guaranteed world peace will collapse.

An Iranian atom bomb will give radical Islam overwhelming influence. Once nuclear, the rising Shiite power will dominate Iraq, the Gulf and international oil prices. It will spread terror, provoke conventional wars and destabilize moderate Arab nations.

As Iranian nuclear warheads will jeopardize Israel, they will imperil Europe. For the first time, hundreds of millions of citizens of free societies will live under the shadow of the nuclear might of religious fanatics. The union of ultimate fundamentalism with the ultimate weapon will imbue the world we live in with a hellish undertone.

If Israel strikes Iran it will change our world.

An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will create the most dramatic international crisis of the post-cold war era. As the Jewish state and the Shiite republic exchange blows, the Middle East will be rattled. Tensions will rise between pro-Iranian Russia, China and India and anti-Iranian United States, Britain, France and Germany. As oil prices soar higher (to $250-$300 a barrel), financial markets will panic and the world economy will experience a real setback.

An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will unleash a regional war whose consequences might be catastrophic. Iran will strike back with all it has: Hezbollah, Hamas, Shahab missiles, strategic surprises. Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz and call upon all Muslims to come to its rescue. Although most Arab regimes will be secretly supportive of the Israeli operation, the Arab masses might rise.

Throughout the world, millions of Muslims will see the attack on Iran as an attack on their own dignity and pride. The religious struggle provoked by the Israeli action might go on for decades.

An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities might drag the United States into war. Israel has limited air power. Israeli cities are threatened by 200,000 rockets. If an Iranian-led counteroffensive sets Tel Aviv ablaze and kills thousands of Israeli civilians, the U.S. will feel obliged to intervene. Rather than initiate a well-planned and internationally backed American surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear project, America will become captive of an Israeli-Iranian war spiraling out of control. After getting out of the Iraqi mud and while trying to pull out of the Afghan desert, America will be bogged down by a highly charged and highly priced conflict with the Islamic Republic.

The pivotal international issue the West has faced in the first 12 years of the 21st century has been Iran. The cardinal strategic challenge of the last decade has been how to prevent two threats: (an Iranian) bomb and (an Israeli) bombing. Yet the West failed to rise to the challenge in time.

For years it made every possible mistake. First President George W. Bush focused on Iraq rather than Iran. Then President Barack Obama wasted precious time on idle diplomacy. Britain and France tried their best but the European Union dragged its feet before taking decisive action. The economic sanctions that should have been activated 10 years ago were activated only last year.

The crippling sanctions that should have been imposed back in 2005 are yet to be imposed. The assertive-diplomacy track was not seriously pursued when it could have been effective. The creative-political-solution track was never really explored. Western leadership did not endorse a comprehensive, resourceful, consistent and tough third-way-strategy that could prevent Bomb and Bombing.

Now we are witnessing a shift. Terrified by the prospect of an imminent Israeli strike, decision makers and opinion leaders in the United States and Europe have Iran on their mind. Last week Tehran was cut off from the SWIFT bank-transfer network. By July, all E.U. nations will stop purchasing Iranian oil.

Yet all this is too little too late. Within nine months the Iranians will be immune to an Israeli air strike. By Christmas, Israel will lose the military capability to stop the Shiite bomb. As it will be existentially threatened, the Jewish State will feel obliged to take action.

So the summer of 2012 now seems to be the summer of last opportunity. If in the coming months crippling sanctions are not imposed on Iran and Israel doesn’t get substantial guarantees that will ensure its future, anything might happen. All hell might break loose.

If the West doesn’t get its act together at this very last moment, it might soon face the dire consequences of its own impotence.

Ari Shavit, a senior correspondent for Haaretz and a member of its editorial board, is completing a book about Israel.

New York Times Fronts Anti-War Reporting Against Action in Iran: ‘Could Leave Hundreds of Americans Dead’ | NewsBusters.org.

By Clay Waters

The New York Times, laboring under the false impression it participated in George W. Bush’s “rush to war” in Iraq, is pushing back hard against the prospect of preemptive action against Iran’s nuclear threat, raising the specter of another Middle East quagmire for the United States.

Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker reported Tuesday’s lead story, “U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils Of Strike At Iran.”

A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.

Omri Ceren responded at Commentary Thursday morning with “NY Times Simulates Journalism on Iran,” calling the article part of “the paper’s unsubtle front page campaign to brush back Israeli action against Iran.”

The paper’s war against action against Iran has been running for weeks. Times reporter Scott Shane’s February 22 front-page “news analysis,” “In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo,” was written in the style of an anti-war activist, complete with questioning the “new whiff of gunpowder in the air.” Shane quoted four scholars, all of whom were dismissive of the Iranian nuclear threat and against intervention, and even noted criticism of his own paper for overstating Iran’s threat.

Downplaying the Iran threat was also the focus of Monday’s front-page story, “Hawks Steering Debate on How To Take On Iran.” The text box read: “Differences among pro-Israel groups on Iranian policy.” Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin responded with “Jews Divided on Iran? Not Really.” Tobin pointed out: “The only organizations that the Times could find to back up that headline were J Street and Tikkun. While the former claims to be ‘pro-Israel’ even the latter’s adherents do not attempt to play that game. But however you wish to label them, the idea that disagreement from these two left-wing outliers constitutes any sort of a Jewish debate is comical.”

Rep. King: Israeli attack on Iran won’t be ‘surgical’ strike – The Hill’s DEFCON Hill.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) on Wednesday suggested that an Israeli attack on Iran could involve the United States in a military conflict with Tehran, but cautioned that the possibility should not weaken resolve to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

“There’s no doubt that if Israel does attack Iran, this is not going to be easy, it’s not going to be surgical, and again the U.S. could find itself implicated or involved in it,” said King on CNN’s “Starting Point.”

“I don’t think we can rule out an Israeli attack. I think we need to keep all the pressure out there. Sometimes the president has had mixed signals — I think in recent weeks he’s gotten more consistent to Iran. But again, the fact that there can be complications are not a reason why Israel shouldn’t do it or we shouldn’t do it,” he added.

King was responding to a question about a Pentagon war game exploring the fallout from a pre-emptive military strike by Israel against Iran, first reported in The New York Times. The war game, dubbed Internal Look, found such an attack would likely result in American casualties.

“We have to make sure that whatever we do, that it is going to work, the best that we know about it, and realize that Iran cannot be allowed to get any nuclear weapons,” said King.

King also warned against domestic threats from Hezbollah, a militant group bankrolled by Iran. The lawmaker is holding a hearing Wednesday on “Iran’s primary terrorism proxies” and “the real potential that the regime will activate its network of operatives to carry out an attack here.”

“Our preliminary findings are that this could be a very, very significant threat,” said King about his hearing “Iran, Hezbollah and the Threat to the Homeland.”

“Most Americans don’t realize that Hezbollah has had agents and operatives in this country for many years,” he said. “The conventional wisdom among intelligence or law enforcement was that they were here for fundraising, facilitation, recruitment, not necessarily to carry out terrorist attacks. However, we do know that a number of them have been trained as terrorists, so the question is how quickly they can be made operational and would they carry out attacks.”

King cited last year’s FBI investigation of a foiled Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and statements from Iran’s supreme leader on Tuesday that Iranians would attack to defend themselves from the United States or Israel to argue Americans should take the threat more seriously.

He said Hezbollah provided Iran with a “terrorist-trained force in this country.”

“It really is the A-team of international terrorism, far more sophisticated than al Qaeda,” King said. “I think it’s important to educate Americans and members of Congress, most of whom are not aware that Iran has such a significant number. We estimate it to be at least in the hundreds, if not in the thousands, of Hezbollah agents here in this country.”

Iranian Diplomats Cased Landmarks, Police Official Says – Bloomberg.

Iranian diplomats may have carried out “hostile reconnaissance” of New York City as many as six times, a warning sign the city could be targeted for terrorist attack, according to a New York Police Department official.

The incidents, which occurred between 2002 and 2010, involved videotaping or photographing New York landmarks, subways and bridges, said Mitchell Silber, director of the department’s intelligence analysis unit.

Hezbollah, a militant group allied with Iran that has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, also has ties to the New York region, he said.

“The city remains the most likely venue for global tensions with Iran to spill over onto American soil,” Silber told the House Homeland Security Committee in testimony prepared for a hearing in Washington today on the threat from Iran and Hezbollah.

Silber gave new details on the alleged Iranian reconnaissance efforts as tensions increase over the Islamic republic’s unwillingness to scale back its nuclear program in the face of opposition from the U.S. and Israel.

Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was concerned that Hezbollah would attempt a terrorist attack on American soil and that she had been in touch with U.S. Jewish groups. Napolitano said she wasn’t aware of any specific threats to the groups or other U.S. targets.

Surveillance Criticized

The New York police themselves have come under criticism for conducting surveillance of Muslim communities. The New York- based Human Rights Watch yesterday requested in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department formally investigate the city department’s actions.

The U.S. and Europe have piled additional economic sanctions on Iran since a Nov. 8 United Nations atomic inspectors’ report raised questions about Iran’s nuclear program. The sanctions are meant to pressure Iran’s leaders to abandon any weapons-related work and head off conflict in the Persian Gulf region that holds more than half the world’s oil reserves.

The Iranian surveillance has been going on for some time, Silber said. In February 2010, federal air marshals found four people who said they worked for the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Co. videotaping and photographing the Wall Street heliport, he said. One person held a camera at waist level, focusing on the structure and not the helicopters in the air, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net

On March 19, 2012, a terrorist opened fire on the Jewish school Ozar Hatorah in Toulouse, France. As of this writing, the suspected gunman, 24-year-old Muhammad Merah, is holed up in a nearby apartment building, with French police still attempting to negotiate his surrender.

Merah, a French-Algerian who spent time training in jihad camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, told the French authorities that the shooting was to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children. He also claimed responsibility for the March 15 murder of three French soldiers, which he said was due their role in the Afghanistan war.

Merah claims to belong to Al-Qaeda, and, indeed, appears to be a member of the French Al-Qaeda branch Fursan Al-‘Izza (“The Knights of Glory,” spelled in French, “Forsane Alizza”).

Following is an overview of this group:

Fursan Al-‘Izza Affiliated with Global Shari’a Movement

For its logo, Fursan Al-‘Izza uses Al-Qaeda’s well-known black flag, and is ideologically aligned with the worldwide shari’a movement calling to Islamize Western states and societies by implementing shari’a law, exalting the word of Allah, abolishing democratic states, and replacing them with Islamic regimes.[2]

The group’s leaders include Abu Hamza, aka Mohamed Achamlane, who used the handle “Cortex” on Islamic forums. Abu Hamza, 33, hails from the French city of Nantes, is fluent in both Arabic and French, and identifies himself as Fursan Al-‘Izza’s spokesman. He was set to stand trial on June 24, 2011, in Limoges for incitement, and for publicly trampling a copy of the French Penal Code while saying: “This is the book that should be burned,” apparently in a reference to Koran burnings spurred by American pastor Terry Jones. Another man, Oueri Neba, was to stand trial along with Abu Hazma for antisemitic comments he made at a McDonald’s restaurant in Limoges.[3]

Another central figure in Fursan Al-‘Izza, who used the handle “MedMed,” described himself as living in Caen, France.[4] He is the creator of Fursan Al-‘Izza’s official website[5] and a longtime active member of France’s Islamist forums.[6]

Fursan Al-‘Izza has supporters and members in Limoges, Caen, Paris (specifically in the 17th district and the immigrant suburb La Courneuve), and Toulouse, the scene of the shooting. In one of the group’s videos, it is shown holding a public meeting, which it says are held weekly and intended to “confront unbelievers” and provide “Islamic reminders [of a Muslim’s duties].”[7]

Fursan Al-‘Izza’s pages on Facebook[8] have been closed down several times. For this reason, the group is mainly active on Mon-islam.com, a comparable social network used by France’s Islamist community.[9] It also maintains a Twitter page.[10]

A recent Fursan Al-‘Izza video calls on “all Arab countries to boycott France and its products, and to teach them a lesson” by “pushing France a little deeper into the [economic] rut it has dug for itself,” until it repeals its laws banning the niqab and hijab. The video opens with the slogan “Restore the Caliphate,” and ends with the slogan “Disavow the idol of democracy.”[11]

“The future is Islam”[12]

Fursan Al-‘Izza Participates in Islamist Demonstration against France’s Burqa Ban

On April 4, 2011, Fursan Al-‘Izza, along with other Islamist groups like Jama’at Al-Tawheed, Sharia4Belgium, and Sharia4UK, announced that it would take part in an April 9 demonstration in Paris’s Place de la Nation against the French law prohibiting full concealment of the face – the so-called burqa ban – which went into effect on April 11.[13] The French authorities ultimately revoked the demonstration’s permit and broke it up, arresting several participants.

Following is a summary of the events:

Online flier for the April 9 demonstration: “The ummah is awakening!”

On April 3, 2011, Sharia4Belgium issued a video in which its leader, Abu Imran, aka Fouad Belkacem, responded to the France-based Jama’at Al-Tawheed’s call to participate in an April 9 demonstration against France’s so-called burqa ban, by affirming that he would, indeed, be in Paris to take part. Abu Imran also called on Carla Bruni to divorce French President Nicolas Sarkozy and to don the niqab. He asked Allah for the strength to hoist the black flag of Al-Qaeda atop the Elysée Palace. On April 6, MEMRI TV posted the video, with English subtitles, on its site.[14] On April 7, Jama’at Al-Tawheed’s website featured both the Sharia4Belgium video as well as another video, in which UK-based Islamist Anjem Choudhary, head of Sharia4UK, said he would also attend the April 9 demonstration in Paris.

On April 8, the demonstration, which had until then been authorized by the police, was banned on the grounds of “possible violence and turmoil.” Anjem Choudhary and Abu Imran were arrested en route to Paris, as were 19 niqab-clad women on their way to the Place de la Nation. One of these women was carrying an “illicit weapon.”[15]

Israel Hayom | Eilat bombing and abduction thwarted, security officials say.

(Whew…! – JW)

Alan Dershowitz: Why Deterrence Won’t Work Against Iran | JewishPress.

Following President Obama’s strong renunciation of “containment” and his expression of willingness to use military force as a last resort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, some on the left continue to oppose any threat to use the military option. Leading this approach is Fareed Zakaria, who recently on his CNN program, characterized the Obama policy as “a serious error,” and called instead for a “robust policy of containment and deterrence.”

But the policy that Zakaria is proposing is anything but robust. To the contrary, it is a call for inaction. It presumed that Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but that they will be deterred from actually using them by the threat of nuclear retaliation. Zakaria points to the fact that deterrence succeeded in preventing war between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as between India and Pakistan. He claims that each side was effectively deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction. He says it will work equally well with Iran.

Let us pause for a moment to understand precisely what a policy of deterrence entails. Any such policy is based on the promise that if one side launches a nuclear attack, the other side will retaliate with an equally devastating nuclear attack, thus assuring the destruction of both societies and the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. The first question therefore is whether the United States would actually be willing to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Israel by dropping nuclear bombs on Tehran, killing millions of its civilian inhabitants. The second question is whether any civilized country—the United States or Israel—should be willing to kill millions of Iranian civilians because their leaders made a decision to use nuclear weapons against Israel or the United States. The third question—and the one never asked by advocates of deterrence—is whether it would be legal, under the laws of war, to target millions of civilians in a retaliatory nuclear attack. These are the kinds of questions that Fareed Zakaria and his dovish colleagues refuse to ask. And the reason they refuse to ask these hard questions is precisely because we know the answers they would give: They would be categorically opposed to any retaliatory attack that targeted civilians in a tit-for-tat implementation of a mutually assured destruction policy of deterrence. If you don’t believe me, ask him!

As to the legality of nuclear deterrence, the International Court of Justice issued a decision in 1996, in a case challenging the lawfulness of using, or threatening to use, nuclear weapons. The majority decision declined “to pronounce…on the practice known as ‘the policy of deterrence’.” It did rule unanimously, however, that any “threat or use of nuclear weapons” must “be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law…” These rules, of course, generally forbid the targeting of civilian population centers and require proportionality even in the bombing of military targets. Since nuclear weapons are, by their nature, virtually incapable of destroying military targets without also inflicting countless civilian casualties, it would seem to follow that they could not be used except against remote military targets, such as ships and submarines on the high seas, or armies in isolated deserts or mountains. In a divided vote, the court ruled that:

“the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict…”

“However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

In other words, it would be unlawful for the United States to threaten or use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, since its “very survival” would not be at stake, but it might be lawful for Israel to do so because it is a small state whose very survival would, in fact, be at stake were it to be attacked by nuclear weapons.

Menachem Begin, the Israeli Prime Minister who ordered the preventive attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, expressly renounced mutually assured destruction as a policy. He said that Israeli “morality” would never permit a retaliatory attack against an Iraqi city: “The children of Baghdad are not our enemy.”

A preventive attack, on the other hand, is always directed against a military target. Only one person—a nuclear technician—was killed in the attack Begin authorized.

It would appear to be ironic that Zakaria, and others who purport to be “doves”, would favor a mutually assured destruction policy that threatens the deaths of millions, over a preventive policy that targets military nuclear facilities. But it is not at all ironic, since such doves would be against actually carrying out the threat that is central to any credible policy of deterrence. For them, deterrence is a bluff—a hollow threat and the Iranians would see right through it.

That’s why President Obama is correct in renouncing containment and insisting that he isn’t bluffing when he says Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, even if it takes a surgical military strike to stop them. I am not here arguing in favor of a preventive attack on Iran at this time. I am arguing against reliance on a policy of deterrence and containment, because I don’t believe it will work in relation to Iran, Israel and the United States.

What if deterrence and containment didn’t work, and Iran were to fire nuclear rockets at Israeli cities? Those who now advocate robust deterrence—instead of surgical prevention—would simply say to the remaining Israelis: “Woops. We were wrong. Sorry. We’ll build you a new Holocaust Museum.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report March 21, 2012, 7:37 AM (GMT+02:00)

The 24-year old suspect of Algerian descent stated he belonged to al Qaeda and trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Several gunshots were heard after the raid began before dawn Wednesday, March 21, in a suburb 3 kilometers from the Ozar Hatorah school. Two policemen were wounded. His brother was arrested as his accomplice. The man barricaded in the house is believed to be the motorcyclist who also shot French paratroopers last Thursday. He was under police suspicion after that attack but not arrested.

The two brothers belonged to an extremist Islamic organization called Forsane Alizz. Police appear determined to capture the killer alive. The Toulouse police appear determined to capture the killer alive.

The coffins of the Jewish teacher, Yonathan Sandler, 30, his sons Arieh, 3 and Gavriel, 6 and the Ozar Hatorah principal’s daughter, Miriam Monstango, aged 8, were taken off the El Al plane which landed at Ben- Gurion, Wednesday morning.  French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe flew to Israel with the victims and will attend the funerals at 10.00 Monday morning in Jerusalem on Har Menuhot.

Germany warns Israel against attack on Iran – JPost – Defense.

By REUTERS

03/20/2012 20:33

Barak meets German counterpart de Maiziere who says Berlin selling Israel 6th military submarine, warns “military escalation would bring incalculable risks for Israel and region, to the detriment of Israel.”

By REUTERS

BERLIN – Germany said on Tuesday it will sell Israel a sixth military submarine and shoulder part of the cost, although it warned its ally that any military escalation with Iran could bring incalculable risks.

German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said he shared Israel’s fear of a nuclear-armed Iran and he was convinced Tehran aimed to make nuclear weapons, but he called for caution.

“I recommend all sides show urgent restraint, both in their rhetoric and their action. A military escalation would bring incalculable risks for Israel and the region, to the detriment of Israel,” he told reporters at a press conference in Berlin with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak.

Barak by contrast said all options regarding Iran should remain on the table, apart from containment. “To accept a nuclear Iran would be inconceivable and unacceptable to the whole world,” he said.

Germany, which after the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust is absolutely committed to Israel’s security, has championed international diplomatic campaigns to rein in Tehran. But Berlin has also criticized Israel’s settlement-building program.

“Israel can be sure of German solidarity in questions of its sovereign integrity and its existence … but it is important that Israel and its partners make moves towards a solution of the Middle East conflict,” de Maiziere said.

Israel operates three German-built Dolphin submarines, manufactured by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), a unit of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, and expects delivery of two more shortly. The vessels are considered a vanguard against foes like Iran.

Israel is threatening to take military action, with or without US support, if Iran is deemed to be continuing to defy pressure to curb its nuclear projects. Iran insists its nuclear energy program is purely non-military.

The Dolphins are small, diesel-powered submarines, designed for coastal patrols and equipped with 10 torpedo tubes.

Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies. These could be onboard the Dolphins.

Israel’s purchase of a sixth submarine had been widely expected, although discussions over the degree of Germany’s contribution drew out the process.

“A further boat will be delivered to Israel and there will be financial help. It is part of the budget and is therefore a public action,” de Maiziere said.

Germany’s state budget for 2012 foresees spending of 135 million euros for “defense systems for Israel”, 70 million euros of which will fall this year.

Germany delivered the first three submarines between 1999-2000, two of which it paid for outright. In 2005 Germany struck a deal with Israel on another two submarines, this time paying a contribution of 333 million euros for both, amounting to about a third of the cost.