WarSclerotic

BERLIN – Israel’s vital security interests are integral to the interests of the Federal Republic, according to Philipp Missfelder, the Germany deputy spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party in the Bundestag.

In a wide-ranging telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post on Friday, the Christian Democratic Union deputy covered the pressing security issues unfolding in the Middle East.

“The Chancellor is 100 percent right that Israel’s security is in Germany’s national interest,” he stressed. “Israel’s military capacity should not be underestimated.”

“It was a mistake in the fall to rule out a military option,” Missfelder continued. “Obama was correct in how he handled it. The military option must remain on the table because, if not, the negotiating strategy will not be taken seriously by Iran.”

Last November, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, of the pro-business Free Democratic Party, spoke differently: “We reject a discussion about military options” in connection with the Iranian nuclear threat, he said.

Additionally, in February, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere delivered a grim assessment of Israel’s capability to knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities. He said an IDF strike on Iran would be “highly unlikely” to succeed, and would cause “obvious political damage.”

The 32-year-old historian is viewed by close followers of German-Israeli relations as a politician who seeks to breathe new life into strengthening the security bond between Israel and the Federal Republic.

Israeli diplomats in Berlin have praised Missfelder’s unwavering support for the security of the Jewish state over the years.

“Germany’s population wants to be the like the Swiss and stay out of conflicts, such as the one in Afghanistan,” Missfelder told the Post. “But that is no longer possible.

There is a joint responsibility towards Israel, to say to the German population that we have a new role in Europe and the world.”

When asked about what the UN has characterized as civilian massacres by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, Missfelder said, “Syria shows the region is in upheaval…There is no unity in the UN…[They are] no longer in the position to engage in protected responsibility in connection with Syria. Many have criticized [former president George W.] Bush for intervention, but the US should take more responsibility.”

He noted that a military option for Syria would be very difficult after the Libya decision, and one option would be to arm the opposition.

Missfelder added, “We will not profit from instability, friends of Israel and the West – and Israel belongs to West, in my view. My main concern is Iran will win great influence.”

In regard to the so-called “Arab Spring,” he said he was very skeptical in the beginning: “It was great that young people became political. But foreign policy is very serious.

There is romanticism in the world of art, but in foreign policy that is ridiculous.”

Egypt and Yemen, he said, are the largest question.

“Egypt is a challenge,” he continued. “It has not become easier. The Konrad Adenauer Foundation worked successfully in Egypt, but now is massively prevented. I cannot say that I was disappointed [when] I saw this development. It is not clear who will take over power on the long term.”

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation is a think tank affiliated with Missfelder’s party that promotes pro-democracy work.

Missfelder observed that the EU government in Brussels tends to be pro-Palestinian.

“Brussels is orientated on the Palestinians. I know this phenomenon from the Left in Germany,” he said.

Critics argue that the Left movement in Germany and many Left Party deputies have focused the bulk of their foreign policy work on criticizing Israel and advocating for the Palestinians – including, at times, the Hamas terror group in the Gaza strip.

Iran has not been forthcoming about its nuclear program and may have failed to declare some facilities to the UN, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday.

“Iran is not telling us everything. That is my impression. We are asking Iran to engage with us proactively, and Iran has a case to answer,” Amano stated.

Amano said that the IAEA has safeguarded a number of Iranian nuclear facilities which the Islamic Republic has declared to the agency.

“For these facilities and activities, I can tell that they are in peaceful purpose,” Amano said. “But there are also, there may be other facilities which are not declared, and we have the indication or information that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices,” he stated.

Amano’s comments came as six world powers that are poised to restart stalled talks with Iran sought on Wednesday to agree to a unified stance on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, diplomats at the United Nations’ nuclear agency said.

The United States and its Western allies – which have led international pressure on Tehran – initially pursued a resolution by the UN agency’s board of governors to rebuke Iran over what they see as its failure to answer mounting concerns of a disguised bid to develop nuclear arms capability.

That includes Iran’s refusal, during talks in Tehran this year, to grant UN inspectors access to a military site where they say research work relevant for nuclear weapons might have taken place. Western diplomats say they now suspect Iran may be trying to clean up the Parchin site, southeast of Tehran.

But diplomats said Russia and China – which are less keen on tightening sanctions – saw no need for a new resolution so soon after one was passed at the last 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in November.

Instead, the focus is now on crafting a joint statement to be delivered at the current board meeting, which took the unusual step to adjourn until Thursday to give more time for big power envoys to consult with each other and their capitals.

One senior Western diplomat played down any suggestion of major differences between the four Western states – the United States, France, Britain and Germany – and Russia and China.

It was “nothing that we can’t resolve,” the envoy said.

A joint statement would underline the importance of the powers’ upcoming talks with Iran and also urge it to cooperate with IAEA inspectors after two recent rounds of largely fruitless meetings in Tehran, another Western diplomat said.

The Western camp would want to see relatively tough language on Iran to pressure it to cooperate with the IAEA while China and Russia seek a milder statement to help foster a constructive atmosphere for more talks, analysts say.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who would lead future talks with Iran on behalf of the six powers, announced on Tuesday there would be an attempt to revive the talks – stalled for more than a year – aimed at allaying suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

A date and venue have yet to be agreed for the talks, proposed by Iran after a year’s diplomatic standstill that has increased fears of a slide into a new Middle East war.

New smart bombs with extended ranges and greater penetration and landing rights on aircraft carriers are just some of the requests that would appear on an Israeli military wish list, if one was presented to the Obama administration as a way to ensure that Israel succeeds in a potential attack against Iran.

While US President Barack Obama voiced clear opposition earlier this week to such a strike, Israel has been noncommittal. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC comparing Iran’s nuclear facilities to Auschwitz leaves little doubt about Israel’s seriousness when it comes to the military option.

And while the question of whether Israel can go at it alone against Iran remains up in the air, it would likely request some specific assistance from the United States ahead of a strike in order to make one – if it is launched – more effective.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz will head to the US in late March and if he had to present a wish list to the Pentagon, it might look something like this:

Currently, one of the main pitfalls of Israel’s strike plan is in its mid-air refueling capability, based on a small fleet of Boeing 707 aircraft. The last 707 arrived in Israel in early 2011 and while the official size of the fleet is classified, various reports have placed it at around nine.

Due to the distance the Air Force’s F-15 and F-16 fighter jets would need to fly to attack Iran, the need for mid-air refueling is critical, particularly considering the possibility that the planes will be engaged by Iranian interceptors or air defense systems and will need to burn fuel to outmaneuver them.

If the US loaned Israel or quickly sold it a few tankers, that could increase Israel’s ability to reach Iran and carry out the required number of sorties needed to do the necessary damage to its nuclear facilities.

The second gap is in Israel’s arsenal of bunker buster weapons. The IAF has a relatively significant stockpile of GBU-28s that are said to be capable of penetrating either 30 meters of earth or over six meters of reinforced concrete before detonating its warhead. Israel is also believed to have developed some of its own penetrators, which it has manufactured only a small amount of in recent years due to the high costs.

Israel has, however, closely followed Boeing’s development of the GBU-43 nicknamed the “Mother of all Bombs” (MOAB) as well as the more recent disclosure of the GBU-57, better known as the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP).

While the MOAB is not specifically designated to penetrate hardened targets, it would make the destruction of targets above surface easier since it can be done in one sortie with a C-130 Hercules. The MOP though, was specially developed to eliminate underground and fortified targets in North Korea and Iran and is said to be able to penetrate around 60 meters.

In other weapons, Israel could potentially ask for additional Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits and particularly ones with an extended range called the JDAM-ER.

This kit, which is installed on bombs like regular JDAMs, comes with an additional set of wings which extends the bombs range from about 30 km to close to 100 km, meaning that aircraft would be able to attack Iranian facilities from a greater standoff position and possibly even out of range of Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems.

The third request that Israel could potentially ask of the US would be to station search and rescue teams – possibly from the IAF’s 669 Unit – aboard aircraft carriers the US Navy has stationed in the Persian Gulf or alternatively in bases it maintains nearby. This would help Israel tremendously if it needed to launch a rescue mission to retrieve a downed pilot.

Due to the possibility of mechanical malfunctions in such a complicated mission, the ability to land, repair, refuel and rearm its aircraft in bases near Iran could also be something Israel would ask for.

But why would Obama agree to any of this?

This would depend on the timing of Israel’s request. While the president currently appears to be opposed to military force, he did stress at AIPAC that Israel has the right to act in self defense and to do what it feels it needs to do as a sovereign state.

In addition, if Israel informed the president that it had decided to attack and that there was no alternative, it would ultimately be in the US’s interest that Israel succeeds and that the damage it causes be surgical but also extensive. All of these different capabilities would increase the chances.