WarSclerotic

Iran to expand 20-pc uranium enrichment at Fordo with new centrifuges.

DEBKAfile Special Report May 17, 2012, 5:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

IR-2 centrifuge

New cascades of centrifuges are being installed at Iran’s Fordo nuclear underground facility raising the total to 3,000 machines. All the 800 machines operating at present are devoted to the 20-percent refinement of uranium, a grade just short of bomb material. This was disclosed by Western diplomatic sources Thursday, May 17, at the same time as Washington sources reported that the Obama administration had consented to Iran producing low-grade 5-percent enriched uranium in their secret direct dialogue.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced earlier this year that Iran would soon have 3,000 centrifuges spinning at Fordo, one-third of its ultimate goal of 9,000. Already, Tehran has accumulated a stock of more than 110 kilograms of 20-percent uranium, enough to fuel several nuclear bombs. That stock will soon be doubled or tripled by expanded production.
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report that by installing new centrifuges in Fordo, Tehran is cynically mocking President Barack Obama who defined the main objectives of their back-channel dialogue as being to halt Iranian production of 20-percent enriched uranium and shut down nuclear activity at Fordo. Our Iranian sources claim Tehran never signed on to those goals. It was only tacitly understood between them that the status quo at Fordo would be maintained for the duration of talks.

In other words, Iran was permitted to continue enriching uranium not just to the 5-percent level but to 20-percent military grade in order to keep the dialogue afloat.
But now, by installing the new centrifuges in Fordo, Iran is trying to use that dialogue as a foot through the door for turning tacit, provisional American tolerance of highly-enriched uranium production taking place during negotiations into absolute US acceptance of Iran’s right to keep going unhindered and so attain the status of a nuclear power.
An eagle eye is therefore needed to stay on top of Iran’s negotiating tactics, say debkafile’s military sources.

Only this week, Iranian officials admitted they were engaged in moving “step after step until the objective is achieved.” Media and other figures in Iran have hailed the US and other world powers’ consent to Iran producing low level (5 percent) enriched uranium in unlimited quantities as a huge feat gained by years of tremendous effort and the prelude to their step-by-step tactic eventually yielding more achievements.

Those comments clearly indicate that Tehran was not satisfied with what it had achieved so far and wanted a lot more.
In the last DEBKA-Net-Weekly issue of May 11, our sources reported that Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had earlier this month posted an unequivocal message to President Obama saying that, no matter what, Iran would not shut the Fordo underground nuclear plant.
The Iranian leader offered to sign and uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s additional protocol for on-site spot searches, substantially increase visits by the nuclear watchdog and permit the installation of cameras and other monitoring devices in various sections of the Fordo facility – provided that economic sanctions were lifted.
The White House has not yet answered Khamenei’s note, say our Washington sources.
In view of all these developments, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke Thursday, May 17, in a CNN interview in Washington, of his apprehension that the negotiations between Iran and the major powers would soon lead to an agreement with Iran that will enable Tehran “to deceive the whole world” and continue building a nuclear weapon.

Diplomacy, he said, would not contain Iran. “We are now facing – I don’t like the use of words like catastrophe that you have mentioned. It’s not about catastrophe. It’s about a real challenge to the whole world, not just to Israel. I think that a nuclear Iran will change the whole landscape of the Middle East. We have to do something to block it from happening, be it these sanctions or the negotiations or something else.”

Barak gave no indication of how Israel would respond to these developments, even though they are already in train.

IDF chief Gantz set to make historic visit to … JPost – Defense.

Photo: Ronen Zvulun / Reuters

The US military option for Iran is ‘ready,’ American ambassador to Israel says | The Times of Israel.

Daniel Shapiro’s comments, made at closed forum in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, broadcast on Channel 2 news

US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro. (photo credit: Uri Lenz/Flash90)

“It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically, and through the use of pressure, than to use military force,” Shapiro said in comments that were recorded Tuesday and were broadcast Wednesday. “But that does not mean that option isn’t available. Not just available, it’s ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it’s ready.”

Shapiro, the Channel 2 TV report said, was speaking at a closed forum in Tel Aviv — reportedly an Israel Bar Association event — and the comments were recorded by a newspaper reporter. The TV item noted that the envoy had apparently not intended for his remarks to be publicly aired.

The broadcast of the Shapiro comments came a day after Israel TV reported that the Israel Air Force is soon to take part in joint military exercises in the US. The IAF has not trained in the US for several years.

The exercises, to be held in the coming months, will strengthen the relationship between the IAF and the US Air Force as they practice carrying out joint operations, according to the report.

Israeli and US air defense forces are also to take part in a major joint drill later this summer in Israel to simulate a massive attack. Thousands of US soldiers are expected to arrive in Israel for the drills.

The various reports come amid ongoing concern in Israel and the US over Iran’s drive toward a nuclear weapons capability. Israel’s leaders have said Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear, and indicated that they are contemplating military intervention if all other efforts to thwart Iran fail. US President Barack Obama has said Iran must not get the bomb, and ruled out the notion of containment, but has urged patience to give economic sanctions and other pressure more time to work while stressing that the military option is “on the table.”

In Israel on Tuesday, American National Guard and Israeli Home Front Command forces conducted search and rescue drills. The operations would be applicable in the case of either an earthquake or a missile barrage, officials said. If there were a major aerial missile attack or a large enough earthquake in Israel, US forces might assist in search and rescue operations.

Israel-Saudi Alliance Finding Common Ground | Joe Tuzara | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

To maintain American freedom of action, the US Navy and US Air Force developed the US Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept in 2010. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert and US Air Force chief General Norton Schwartz discussed the new ASB Doctrine in the 21st Century Defense Initiative at Brookings May 16^th in Washington, D.C.

Admiral Greenert was the first senior American commander to put on public record the measures for repelling Iranian cruise missile attacks on US aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf. A critical element in the concept is to identify alternate airfields for which a squadron of F-22 stealth jets was stationed at the Al Dhafra air base in United Arab Emirates in late April.

The new operational concept is closely applicable to American tactics for defending the Persian Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman against possible Iranian aggression as the Gulf Cooperation Council member states takes its first unification steps to shore up its defenses against the threat.

Debkafile military sources report a series of military exercises observed in Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf in the last ten days practiced the new American doctrine which is designed to make the most of tightly coordinated operations by air, land, sea, undersea, space and cyberspace capabilities for defeating those of the enemy. The Israeli exercise, which ended May 13, drilled operating in unison with their American counterparts under the same doctrine.

On the day that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Iran not to meddle in the evolving Saudi-Bahraini union, the large US Amphibious Ready Group, 24th MEU, led by the USS Iwo Jima with 2,200 Marines aboard put into Jeddah, the Saudi Navy’s Red Sea command port.

It was the first time since the 2001 Gulf War that the Saudis had permitted US naval and air units of this size to anchor in one of their ports and allowed American military personnel to show themselves in its streets.

In Jordan, the United States is leading what it described as the “largest military exercises in the Middle East in 10 years”, Agence France-Presse reports.  Code-named Eager Lion 2012- over 12,000 soldiers are taking part in the war games, representing 19 countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Australia.

Israel – despite having extensive security agreements with Jordan – was not invited to participate in the exercises. Several Arab nations participating in the drill are still formally at war with the Jewish state.

Fueled by Iran nuclear threat, Arab uprisings and unrest in Bahrain, the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet; Saudi Arabia’s unusual step in joining the coalition with Israel is not only a matter of convenience but of necessity.

It is against this background of the evolving threats that significant shifts in strategic security hesitatingly become inevitable and plausible excuse for the Saudi controversy. And who would have thought Saudi Arabia’s foe- Israel, could be its friend in the near future? Of course, it is only matter of time that this shared crisis will turn out to be the best opportunity, for better or worst.

Nobody knows except the House of Saud under King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz could make a gutsy difference to make this a reality.

In fact, Saudi Arabia’s position remained unchanged, as the dashing hopes of progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians is contingent upon the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, the return of refugees as well as the continuing US commitment to defend the Gulf countries against the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

Open source military reports indicate that Israel and Saudi Arabia are forming an alliance against Iran, after the leadership in both countries had become estranged from Obama White House.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and King Abdullah’s mistrust of President Barack Hussein Obama as a credible and reliable ally is quixotically understandable.

Following Obama’s humiliation of Egypt’s long-time ally President Hosni Mubarak, calling for him to step down in the face of the student protests; the Saudis also became upset at the US apparent refusal to help fight off Bahraini uprisings, incited  and well coordinated by Shiite Iran.

To significantly preserve their survival and political independence, Israel and Saudi Arabia needs strategic cooperation to succeed against the Iranian threat. But for now, America’s waning influence in the Greater Middle East is superseded by the urgency of finding common ground between allies and enemies.

For the sake of an important intellectual argument, conventional wisdom dictates that an Israel-Saudi alliance is good in theory but from strategic standpoint, a secret alliance would be more practical.

This covert Israeli-Saudi alliance already exists within the broader framework of US-NATO alliance against Shiite Iran and its regional allies, Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Syria. The previously unthinkable alliance with Israel is also formed through strategic cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf.

Speculation aside, the only logical outcome of this diplomatic and military alliance would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, if Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons while it continues to dupe the West.

While divisive unseen political forces will never cease to exist between the Islamic Kingdom and the Jewish state, Pentagon has been heavily arming its Middle Eastern allies to protect American interests and to preserve regional peace and stability.

With this in mind, the removal of Iran’s hegemony from an attack by Israel would incontestably benefit Saudi Arabia. With Saudi Arabia on its side, Israel should grasp the opportunity for ending the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

President John F. Kennedy’s speech in Indianapolis fifty years ago well summed it up: “When written in Chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

Iran to Hezbollah: Don’t strike Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iranian media: Commander of al-Quds Force spoke with Nasrallah, said war against Israel would ‘hurt Iran and Hezbollah’; Revolutionary Guards later deny reports

Dudi Cohen

Iran scared of war against Israel? A senior Iranian official ordered Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah to refrain from striking Israel, several media outlets in Iran reported Wednesday.

Websites affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards quoted the commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, as warning Nasrallah not to strike Israel during a phone conversation.

According to reports, Soleimani told Nasrallah that a war against Israel would “hurt Iran and Hezbollah.”

The Fares news agency reported earlier that Soleimani warned Nasrallah not to make “radical” moves, adding that the authority of those who think of launching a sudden attack against the “Zionist regime” should be curbed.

Notably, last week Nasrallah said that as opposed to the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah now possesses the ability to hit specific Tel Aviv targets.

According to Wednesday’s reports, Soleimani said that a war would allow Israel to assume the role of victim.

However, the reports apparently angered senior Iranian officials, and several hours later the Revolutionary Guards denied the story, claiming it was a “big lie published on behalf of the Zionists.” According to the announcement, the West has been trying for some time to portray Hezbollah as a ‘two-faced organization.”

In the framework of his post, Soleimani is in charge of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite force, which among other things is in charge of coordination terror activity beyond Iran’s borders.

The Axis- – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

In what was clearly an officially-sanctioned leak, the U.S. sent Iran a clear message just a few days before the next round of Iran-West nuclear talks in Baghdad.

By Anshel Pfeffer | May.16, 2012 | 6:28 PM | 2

Syrian rebels sit on their armored vehicle as they patrol at Khaldiyeh neighborhood, in Homs province, central Syria, Saturday, May 12, 2012. Photo by AP

The word Iran appears only once in Wednesday’s report in the Washington Post on American assistance to rebel forces in Syria, which includes coordination of larger and much improved arms shipments. That mention was buried at the end of the long piece, almost as an aside – but Tehran’s address is written all over the report.

Administration sources emphasized to the Post that it’s not material aid either, the money and arms are coming from the Sunni Gulf states. What the U.S. is providing is “assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure” for the Gulf arms suppliers. Or in other words, America is the go-between, the crucial link ensuring that the most useful weaponry goes through to where the rebels need it most.

Since it’s not clear when the American aid began and from the wording of the report, it is clear that this was an officially-sanctioned leak, accurately timed to come out just a few days before senior American diplomats and other representatives of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany are to meet with a senior Iranian delegation in Baghdad.

The Syrian rebellion has been ongoing now for fourteen months, in the course of which anywhere between 10,000-25,000 Syrians have been killed, at least three-quarters of them civilians. Arms have been coming in, financed by the Saudis and other Gulf governments, earlier in a trickle but now apparently flowing, for most of that time. Until now the Obama administration has been observing a hands-off policy, denouncing President Bashar Assad and calling upon him to leave, but doing nothing to actually make that happen.

So why has the administration decided just now, not only to provide “nonlethal assistance” to the Syrian opposition, but also to announce it? The administration officials speaking with the Post went a step forward and reported that there were also discussions being held with leaders of the Kurdish community in eastern Syria, who have so far remained mainly on the uprising’s sidelines. One of the ideas apparently floated in these talks was the possibility of opening up a “second-front,” forcing Assad to split the forces still loyal to his regime and send part of them far away from Syria’s urban centers.

Assuming that nothing by now is going to force Assad out of power of his own free will, and the Gulf states obviously already know that the Americans are cooperating with them, the only player whom the administration is sending this message to is Iran – probably the country with the most to lose if and when the Assad regime goes down, taking with it a critical link in their strategic Shia chain of allies, which now includes also Iraq and Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon.

Assad’s downfall will not only mean the loss of an ally and the strategic “depth” that enabled Hezbollah to train and store advanced weaponry far away and relatively safe from Israel. It will serve as a major encouragement to the anti-regime elements within Iran, largely dormant for over two years since the suppression of the Green Revolution.

What is the administration hoping to gain from this signal to Tehran?

Are they hoping that the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will finally realize that the noose is beginning to tighten, and give up on the dream of nuclear weapons along with Iran’s strategic vision of a Shia crescent stretching across the Middle East? Hardly likely. But could Barack Obama be playing a much more Machiavellian game?

In its desire to prevent a war in the Persian Gulf, would the administration be willing to forego even this limited assistance to the Syrian opposition, in return for some flexibility over the uranium?

Top U.S. think tank warns against Israeli, American strike on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

RAND Corporation sides with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin, openly disagreeing with Netanyahu and Barak’s belligerent stance on Iran.

By Amir Oren | May.16, 2012 | 12:19 AM | 16

Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran Photo by AP

The RAND Corporation, a think tank which advises the Pentagon, warned on Tuesday against an Israeli or American attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors, and recommended the Obama administration try to “quietly influence the internal Israeli discussion over the use of  military force.”

In a document published in the think tank’s periodical, Rand Review, RAND openly disagreed with the belligerent stance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which are set to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other high-ranking officials over the next several days. In doing so, and without naming names, RAND sided with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former head of the Shin Bet Yuval Diskin.

RAND’s call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak’s approach “rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so.”

The document further stated that “U.S. intelligence officials should support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option.”

“U.S.-sponsored seminars outlining U.S. concerns and risk assessments for the Israeli intelligence and military community could also help shape the internal debate… U.S. public pressure on Israel will likely backfire given Israel’s sense of isolation, turning Israeli popular opinion, which is divided on the question of a military strike option, against the United States and allowing for more defiant positions among Israeli leaders… Encouraging Israeli leaders and journalists to report more to the public about security cooperation efforts could be helpful… War games now taking place at nongovernmental institutions in the United States and Israel explore conflict scenarios involving Israel and Iran. Such games clarify how an Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship might evolve and what military or political steps could heighten or diminish conflict.”

The document was spearheaded by former ambassador and head of international and security policy for the RAND Corporation James Dobbins. RAND, which is based in Santa Monica, California, is one of the most well-respected think tanks dealing with American foreign policy and security and specializing in operations research, in systems analysis, and in forecasting the tendencies of the U.S. Air Force, and other governmental branches.

According to Dobbins and his cohort, “diplomacy and economic sanctions are better suited than military action to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, that Israeli security will be best served by military restraint combined with greater U.S.-Israeli cooperation, and that the Iranian people offer the surest hope for a future Iran that is more amenable to U.S. interests.”

The document further warns that “an Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence… This is true even of Israel, whose principal vulnerability is not to Iranian military pressure but to attacks by Iranian-supported Hamas and Hezbollah.”

“Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked American or Israeli military attack… The sympathy thereby aroused for Iran would make containment of Iranian influence much more difficult for Israel, for the United States, and for the Arab regimes currently allied with Washington. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, such as Egypt, where public opinion has become less fettered and more influential.”

According to RAND, the “proximate objective of Western policy must be to dissuade Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons,” warning that crossing the nuclear weapons threshold will “only increase Iran’s isolation, reduce its influence, and increase the regime’s vulnerability to internally driven change.”

Furthermore, in order to prevent the Israel-Iran rivalry from escalating to a military campaign, the United States should “continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons… The potential emergence of a more democratic Iran or of more moderate leadership may diminish Iran’s hostility toward Israel as well as Israel’s heightened threat perceptions of Iran.”

ISIS: Iran’s foreign minister established clandestine nuclear program in the 90s – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) bases findings on 1,600 telexes and other material he has obtained.

By Reuters | May.16, 2012 | 3:58 AM | 1

Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Akbar Salehi smiles during a meeting with his Tunisian counterpart Rafik Abdessalem in Tunis April 23, 2012. Photo by Reuters

Communications from the 1990s suggest Iran’s current foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, had knowledge of a program to procure goods for an alleged clandestine nuclear program when he was head of a university, a U.S. nuclear expert said on Tuesday.

David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said among 1,600 telexes and other material he has obtained and is studying was a letter signed by Salehi as head of Sharif University in 1991.

The letter served as an end-user guarantee to a European supplier of materials that could have a dual purpose for use in a nuclear program. Tehran-based Sharif University, however, was acting essentially as a front for Iran’s military procurement network, Albright said.

“Salehi knew about or was involved in efforts to create an alleged parallel military nuclear program that is of great interest to the IAEA now,” Albright told Reuters, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog. “And the intention of that program was probably to make nuclear weapons, including producing highly enriched uranium,” Albright said.

While senior IAEA officials have in the past told Reuters they suspected Salehi and Sharif University played a role in such procurement activities, the telexes appear to be the first public evidence supporting those suspicions.

ISIS planned to publish its findings and some of the documents about procurement activities of Iran’s Physics Research Center in the late 1980s and early 1990s on its website this week.

The Iranian UN mission did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The findings come as Iran and the IAEA ended two days of talks and were to meet again next week, just days before negotiations between Iran and world powers in Baghdad.

The West is concerned Iran’s nuclear program may be aimed at developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

U.S. intelligence agencies have said Iran halted its efforts to construct a nuclear device in the fall of 2003, while continuing with research and uranium enrichment.

Physics Research Center

The IAEA in its November 2011 report said the Physics Research Center was established at Lavizan, a complex near a military installation in Tehran. It was completely razed in late2003 and early 2004.

The IAEA has been looking into the Physics Research Center, which acted as an umbrella organization under Iran’s defense ministry and coordinated various nuclear activities.

Senior IAEA officials have told Reuters the agency has known for many years that Salehi and Sharif University played a central role in Iran’s illicit nuclear-technology procurement activities while Salehi was head of the university in the 1990s.

ISIS said the Physics Research Center had used Sharif University “as a front” for buying certain goods overseas and hid “the true end use from overseas suppliers by providing an educational rationale for the purchases.”

The telexes showed that while the initial order came from the university’s purchasing department, when finalizing payments, the Physics Research Center and its chief, Sayyed Abbas Shahmoradi-Zavareh, appeared in financial-related telexes as the responsible party.

ISIS said it has a copy of a letter signed by Salehi as head of Sharif University in 1991 that, along with associated telexes, demonstrated he was aware of the Physics Research Center purchases of dual-use goods.

ISIS withheld the name of the company and the type of goods.

The letter certified that the goods would be used for university teaching or research and not for making weapons or ammunition.

One telex said Shahmoradi received from Sharif University the “full authority to make final decision” on purchasing, ISIS said, so “Salehi, as head of the university, must have granted that authority to Shahmoradi.”

ISIS also linked Salehi to the Physics Research Center by saying that when he was head of the university two packages could not be delivered to Shahmoradi at the university and the deliverer was told to redeliver them to the purchasing manager at the university or Salehi.

Telexes implied that Salehi knew of the procurement of whole body counters, used to measure radiation, and had a connection to Shahmoradi, ISIS said.

Nehushtan to ‘Post:’ IAF ready for threats, in… JPost – Defense.

Photo: Adi AvishaiMarc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post

The Israel Air Force is prepared for the many missions and threats it faces in the Middle East, including a possible operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities, outgoing OC Air Force Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan has told The Jerusalem Post.

The exclusive interview, which will appear in Friday’s Magazine, was conducted with Nehushtan – who has led the IAF for the past four years – just days before he handed over command to Maj.- Gen. Amir Eshel.

“I understand the missions that stand before the IAF, and we have done everything we can during this period to create capabilities so we can fulfill these missions,” he said in response to a question of whether the air force was capable of dealing with the Iranian threat. “In general, the IAF is prepared for all of these missions.”

Nehushtan came out strongly during the interview against the ongoing public discussion regarding a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying it lacked “basic facts.”

The Israeli media has been flooded with interviews and reports in recent months regarding a possible strike.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, for example, said in a series of interviews published on Independence Day that Israel had prepared a viable military option to attack the Islamic Republic.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has spoken many times about the need for the right timing for such a strike, while former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin have warned of the consequences of such an operation.

“I think that in this specific issue [Iran] we should not talk,” Nehushtan said. “I say this with all of the responsibility it entails. I think that a public discourse on this issue is lacking the basic facts needed to hold it and I think that it should not be held in this way.”

As an example, he brought Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981.

“The Iraqi thing was known for years before the reactor was attacked. It was known but it did not turn into a public discussion and that should be the case here as well,” he said.

During the interview, Nehushtan warned that Israel’s air superiority was increasingly undermined by the proliferation of sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems throughout the region – in Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.

“The IAF needs to be ready to fly in places where there is a threat to its superiority,” he said “This is the case already now and therefore when we approach a front like Lebanon or Gaza we will first look at the intelligence, then study the threats and then think about the best way to carry out our missions.