WarSclerotic

Barak: World’s paralysis over Syria bodes ill for bid to halt Iran’s nuclear program – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Speaking to the Washington Post, defense minister says all options on the table to stop Iran from going nuclear, adding there were ‘a lot of preparations on the technical level.’

Ehud Barak. Photo by Tomer Appelbaum

By Haaretz and DPA

Jun.21,2012 | 10:27 AM

By Barak Ravid | Jun.21,2012 | 10:27 AM | 2

The international community’s “paralysis” in the face of ongoing strife and violence in Syria highlights the importance of a unified global front against Iran’s nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview to U.S. media on Wednesday.

Barak’s comments came on the heels of a recent round of P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran in Moscow earlier this week, which ended in apparent failure after the sides were unable to reach an agreement on the inspection of certain nuclear and military installations.

Speaking about the prospect of resolving the West’s nuclear standoff with Iran through diplomatic means, Barak told the Washington Post on Wednesday that while Israel hoped “it will be solved by the free will of the ayatollahs, by the effectiveness of the sanctions, by the creativity of diplomacy or by any other miracle.”

“When we say that we are determined to prevent them, and we should all be determined, including the American leadership, the European leadership, the Russians, the Chinese, we mean what we say and that is all I can say,” Barak said.

The defense minister then indicated that the international community’s lack of resolve in dealing with ongoing Syria violence served as a warning against such inaction with Iran, saying Syrian President Bashar Assad was “living proof of the paralysis that sometimes takes over the world, even when there is no need for any further proof that something totally unacceptable that costs human life is happening.”

“Basically, [Assad] is slaughtering his own people and using every form of crime. Here you have real-time pictures of the actual crimes, the rows of buried children,” Barak told the Washington Post.

In an apparent link between the crisis in Syria and the standoff with Iran, Barak said that the world’s lack of resolve on Syria showed that “even when there is no need for any further proof, however tangible and visible the nature of the crimes, it doesn’t mean the world can mobilize the will to do something about it.”

“It’s a fact of life that we should bear in mind when we look at the overall picture around us. We are living in a tough neighborhood — no mercy for the weak, no second opportunity for those who cannot defend themselves. We have to be able to defend ourselves,” he added.

When asked whether or not Israel would launch a nuclear strike against Iran, the defense minister said: “You can’t expect me to answer directly.”

“We [the United States and Israel] are using the same rhetoric when we say that we are all determined to prevent Iran from turning into a nuclear military power, and we both say that all options are on the table. We mean it and we recommend to them to mean it,” he added.

Asked whether he felt the United States sincerely meant it weighed all options, Barak said: “At least on a technical level, there are a lot of preparations,” adding, however, that it was “not a secret that America prefers that it will be solved through diplomacy. We all hope that [diplomacy] will be successful, but time is not unlimited in this regard.”

Iran to build more ships, boost naval presence – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Navy commander says deployments meant to ‘safeguard interests of Islamic Republic, strengthen military power to defend Iran’

Reuters

The Iranian navy has announced plans to build more warships and increase its presence in international waters at a time of growing tension in the Middle East over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said the deployments would protect Iranian cargo ships around the world, in particular in the Gulf of Aden and the northern part of the Indian Ocean, according to state news agency IRNA.

The navy wanted to guard Iranian ships from Somali pirates, the report said.

IRNA did not mention Israel although the Jewish state has hinted it might take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

An Israeli official repeated the veiled threat on Wednesday following the failure of the latest round of international talks to make progress on the issue.

Iranian naval drill (Archive photo: Mehrnews.com)

State-owned Press TV quoted Sayyari as saying: “Our presence in international waters is aimed at safeguarding the interests of the Islamic Republic and strengthening military power to defend Iran.”

“So we will multiply our efforts to enhance our military might and have a presence in international waters,” he said.

The navy’s deputy chief for technical affairs said the force planned to build 10 more vessels, including destroyers and missile-launching frigates, Press TV said.

Work on building the ships would start after construction of “Velayat” a Mowj-2 class destroyer is completed. That is due at the end of the Iranian calendar year next March.

Iranian military officials often assert their military strength in the region, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil transit channel carrying supplies from Gulf producers to the West.

Tehran has previously threatened to block the waterway if attacked.

Two Iranian warships entered the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal in February 2011 for the first time, and naval vessels also called at a Syrian naval base this February in a show of support for its ally President Bashar al-Assad.

Syrian fighter jet reported missing lands in Jordan; pilot asks for political asylum.

Thursday, 21 June 2012

A Syrian MiG which was reported to have lost contact with its tower has made an emergency landing in Jordan. (File photo)

inShare1

Tony Blair: Military Option on Iran ‘On the Table’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Mofaz and Clinton meet in Washington

Ron Sachs/CNP

Although the renewed rocket attack on southern Israel by Gaza Arab terrorists has grabbed most of the headlines this week, Iran remains on top of Israel’s defense agenda. At a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington Wednesday, Vice Prime Minister and Kadima head Shaul Mofaz said that it was imperative that Iran’s nuclear program be stopped, and that no option should be taken off the table.

“After the failure at the third round of talks with the Iranians in Moscow, it is time for the United States and the Western powers to impose more severe sanctions in the oil embargo and financial sectors in order to stop Iran’s nuclear development program,” Mofaz said at the meeting. He added that in addition to these measures there is a need “to continue to prepare all of the other options.”

Agreeing with Mofaz was former British Prime Minister and current Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair. In an interview on IDF Army Radio Thursday, Blair said bluntly that “all options, including the military option, are still on the table. All these options are terrible,” Blair said, “but Iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear.

“I have already said a number of times that if we say that Iran cannot be allowed to be a nuclear power, we should mean it. We must be clear and say that all options are on the table.” A nuclear Iran, he said, would badly upset the stability of not only the Middle East, but the whole world. “This isn’t just Israel’s problem. The clearer and stronger we are, the less likely it is that we will have to actually use the military option,” he added.

Israel Hayom | ‘Iran could have material for bomb within 4 months’.

Israel says clock ticking after Iran talks fail | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Israel has responded to the failure of the latest nuclear talks between world powers and Iran with a familiar refrain: sanctions must be ramped up while the clock ticks down toward possible military action.

With diplomacy at an impasse, there is satisfaction among Israeli leaders at what they see as a tough line taken by the West in the negotiations on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israeli political sources said on Thursday.

A member of the British negotiating team quietly visited Israel on Wednesday to brief officials on this week’s Moscow talks, the sources said, and new U.S. and European sanctions against Iran are due to come into effect in the next two weeks.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak stuck closely to his stated line, without offering any new sense of urgency, when asked by the Washington Post how much more time Israel can allow for diplomacy to work.

“I don’t want to pretend to set timelines for the world,” he said, “but we have said loud and clear that it cannot be a matter of weeks but it (also) cannot be a matter of years”.

Preparations for any strike against Iran, which Israel and Western powers suspect is trying to develop the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, are closely guarded in Israel.

But Barak said that even in the United States, which has counselled against jumping the gun while a diplomatic drive with Iran is under way, “at least on a technical level, there are a lot of preparations”.

Iran and six world powers – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – failed to secure a breakthrough in Moscow at what was the third round of the latest diplomatic initiative, and set no date for more political talks.

DEMANDS

Last month, and again in Moscow, the powers asked Iran to close the Fordow underground facility where uranium is being enriched to 20-percent fissile purity, and to ship any stockpile out of the country, demands that come close to Israel’s.

Israeli Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz held talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Wednesday.

“I explained that after the failure of the … talks in Moscow, the West must impose a full oil embargo on Iran and tough financial sanctions,” Mofaz said on his Facebook page, adding: “In parallel, preparations for other options must continue.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not commented publicly on the Moscow talks. He had complained that the months of talking had given Iran a “freebie” to continue enrichment.

The right-wing leader has been cautioned by former Israeli security chiefs against ordering attacks on Iran, amid scepticism about how effective Israeli air strikes would be.

Iran, which has called for Israel’s demise, says its nuclear programme is designed for energy production alone. Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear power, says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to its existence.

Barak, in the newspaper interview, held out little hope that diplomacy would persuade Iran to bend.

“By the third meeting in a negotiation, you know whether the other party intends to reach an agreement or, alternatively, whether he is trying to play for time to avoid a decision,” he said.

“It seems to me that the Iranians keep defying and deceiving the whole world. But it’s up to the participants in the negotiations to reach this conclusion. We cannot afford to spend another three rounds of this nature just to allow the Iranians to keep manoeuvring.”

Weighing into the debate, Israeli President Shimon Peres told an audience in Jerusalem: “There’s not much time. If the Iranians … don’t heed the warnings, the calls and the economic sanctions, the world will look to other options.”

(Additional reporting by Crispian Balmer; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Britain, U.S. to offer safe passage to Assad ‘if he joins Syria peace talks’: report.

Thursday, 21 June 2012

Britain and the U.S. are mulling the prospect of offering President Bashar al-Assad clemency to attend a peace conference on Syria to discuss the country’s transition. (AP)

inShare2

The United States and Britain are willing to offer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “safe passage and even clemency” in a bid to convene a U.N. conference in Geneva to discuss the political transition in Syria reported The Guardian on Thursday.

The British newspaper reported that the initiative follows Russian President Vladimir Putin showing encouraging signs to both British Prime Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in Los Cabos.

A senior British official was quoted by the Guardian as saying: “Those of us who had bilaterals thought there was just enough out of those meetings to make it worth pursuing the objective of negotiating a transitional process in Syria.”

The newspaper said that Britain is willing to give Assad clemency “if it would allow a transitional conference to be launched.”

They may consider offering him an opportunity to attend the conference.

However, a senior British official said that Cameron had not made a final decision on this matter.

On Tuesday Cameron spoke of the dangers of Syria slipping into a civil war.

Violence has killed more than 15,000 people in Syria since a revolt erupted last year against -Assad, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Thursday.

At least 10,480 civilians, 3,715 soldiers and 830 defectors have been killed in the crackdown and in clashes since March 2011, said the Britain-based group, which counts those who have taken up arms against the regime as civilians.

Russia has been the staunchest ally of Assad and resisted any attempts by the United Nations to enforce strict action against the Assad regime.

However, talks in Mexico indicate a willingness on Putin’s part to discuss Syria’s future sans Assad.

The Guardian reports that U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will try convince U.N. envoy Kofi Annan to host a conference in Geneva “using the transition on Yemen as the model.”

Many analysts have pressed for Syria to follow the Yemen model which saw Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down from power in exchange for immunity.

The conference’s agenda would be to create a broad based government in Syria which would supervise the holding of elections in 18 months.

The proposed conference would see U.N. member states, representatives of the Syrian regime and opposition as well as influential key figures, including Russia.

The Guardian reports that Russia wants to see Iran attend the event which has been proposed to take place at the end of the month.

( Comment from Blimp – JW )

On 19th June, J.W. printed a very interesting piece entitled : “A Nuclear EMP attack on Iran may be the only option left for Israel.” Here are some further thoughts:
There may be no other choice for Israel.
As a defence and geopolitical analyst in the UK, this subject holds particular interest for me, my colleagues and those we advise. In February 2012, we came to very much the same conclusion as the article of the 19th. The logic seems to go something like this:
Iran, by playing the international community along in their usual manner, has gained valuable time in continuing uranium enrichment, protecting production facilities and developing offensive capabilities. Iran is already a considerable threat to Israel and the rest of the free world but will become even more of a threat if not stopped.
President Obama, despite manoeuvring considerable military assets in the region and making some very fine speeches, has not actually done anything to stop the Iranians and still thinks that sanctions, meetings and talks will solve the problem. They will not, in our view.
Thus Israel is faced with the unappetising choice either of letting Iran become even more of an existential threat, or trusting the US to protect them, or stopping Iran. I believe that Israel cannot rely on Obama, who would wring his hands and make a bellicose speech if Iran attacked Israel, but by then it would be too late. Israel cannot allow Iran to become more of a threat, so it has to stop Iran.
If it has to stop Iran and go alone, then our own assessment is that tactical nuclear weapons will indeed be needed to create the ground shock to reach the deepest bunkers. A low level EMP strike, in addition, would enable Israel to carry out its mission, reduce losses and limit retaliation. A blast at around 50kms high would knock out everything electronic within a radius of around 750 kms.
We have argued for a number of years now, sometimes at very high levels, that appeasement of Iran will not work. As a result, if the Free World does nothing, then Israel, not by choice but by necessity, may have to use these weapons. We argue that by appeasing Iran, world leaders have thus brought the world closer to its first nuclear war and to the great danger of proliferation in the Middle East and elsewhere.
We can understand only too well that Israel, with its history, will not allow its people yet again to be slaughtered. We can understand, as Gentiles, only too well, the phrase: “Never again!”
I should make it very clear that we are not giving an opinion on whether Israel should use these weapons. That is a matter for the Israelis alone and we are not so presumptuous as to think our opinion should even be considered by Israelis anyway, but the hard, cold logic of the situation is interpreted by us as arriving at a point where this could be the least worst option, from the Israeli viewpoint, if international, and particularly US, inaction leaves no other alternative.
Israeli nuclear and military doctrine would appear to allow the use of such weapons if the country is mortally threatened and we believe also that aircraft were armed and made ready with nuclear weapons during both the Yom Kippur War and the First Iraqui War, although never used. There is apparently a precedent therefore.
Of course bien pensants everywhere will condemn Israel if they attack, as they always do, but that great man, General Moshe Dayan, once said: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” He made a good point.

What if the Iranians get there first?
Would you mind now if I turned this argument on its head and considered the proposition from another direction?

What is the threat of Iran developing or acquiring and then using such a weapon?

This is something that, as analysts, we have been considering for some time. We think it is a real threat. We think it is a greater threat than a nuclear attack using the type of warhead that, until now, we have considered the primary threat.

A traditional nuclear bomb will destroy a city. An EMP device can destroy a country, if exploded at high altitude. That country could be Israel, it could be my country; Great Britain, it could be America.

We believe that that the Iranians are only too well aware of just what devastation this mighty weapon could deliver; a true bringer of Armageddon. It is one of the reasons why we, as rather unimportant and inconsequential analysts, are with you, our Israeli friends, in insisting to those in power in the West that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapon capability or use any weapons that they may have already acquired. (We think there are indications that the Iranians may already have acquired at least two Soviet era nuclear devices when the USSR broke up.)

What is the logic behind our concern on EMP devices in Iranian hands?

It arises from the intelligence reports, mostly in the public domain, regarding Iranian actions and statements. Let me give you some examples to support our case:

1. In May 2005, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets told us that recent missile tests by Iran may have been part of the development of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) warhead. We believe they were just that. Jane’s is a very reliable source.
2. It has separately been reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have successfully tested a ballistic missile from a ship in the Caspian Sea that would be EMP capable.
3. The Iranian Navy is also armed with ballistic missiles, which could fire an EMP missile, we are told.
4. High altitude triggers are being developed by the Iranians, according to usually reliable sources. These would be used in EMP devices.
5. Iranian military handbooks are reported to already point out the benefits of such EMP attacks.
6. Iranian Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, speaking on 29.4.2012 in Yazd, Iran, said that : “The power of our naval forces is such that we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within three miles of New York.”

That would be an ideal position from which to launch an EMP device. It is now well known how such a device could be concealed within a shipping container and launched at its target country from that country’s own territorial waters. It does not need to be particularly accurate either.

So, it appears to us that the Iranians are and have been actively developing such devices and we infer from Admiral Fadavi’s comments that they have targets in mind. In particular, one target that should concentrate President Obama’s mind, we would have thought.

Therefore perhaps another question that should be asked is: “Can we let Iran obtain, retain or develop EMP weapons?”

We believe the answer to that question is a firm “NO!” Many in Israel would, we think, agree with us.

Not only would repeated statements from the Iranian Theocracy lead us to believe that they are serious in their intention to eliminate Israel, and attack the West, but the God like power, given by EMP, to reduce advanced societies to the way of life of the nineteenth century would appeal to every mad despot on the planet, should the Iranians be allowed to continue. Every despot would want his own EMP weapon.

It is sad that the West is not standing at Israel’s shoulder to prevent Iran creating Mayhem. It is sad that Israel must stand alone for the moment, perhaps hopeful that President Obama’s soaring rhetoric will mean that the US will actually support Israel again instead of handicapping her.

I have said to JW previously that, at this moment in history, Israel seems to me to be comparable with Leonidas and his Spartans, standing there firm, brave and defiant, ready to take on the threat from a new Persia under a new Xerxes, who this time seeks to establish a world-wide Caliphate.

Leonidas and his men probably saved the West from Persian conquest. Israel may go down in history as having carried out a similar service to the world.

I wish you well.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Iran’s nuclear program: When might Israel attack. – Slate Magazine.

By Lally Weymouth|Posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012, at 7:24 PM ET

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak during a visit to Bogota, Colombia, on April 16.Photo by Guillermo Legaria/AFP/Getty Images.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak sat down this week in Tel Aviv with Lally Weymouth. Excerpts:

Q. An Israeli was killed this week in the south by someone from the Sinai. How do you see the situation in the Sinai?

A. It was another terror attack on our project to build a fence [between Israel and Egypt]. We have a crash program now to build a fence to block the flood of workers from Eritrea and North Sudan and terrorists and smugglers into Israel. This [incident] follows another rocket attack near Eilat from Sinai. That’s dangerous because it means a loss of grip on the Sinai by the Egyptian authorities, and the terrorists abuse this. We are determined to stop the infiltration and to deal with terrorist attacks and the launching of rockets into Israel from Sinai.

What’s your view of the outcome of the Egyptian elections?

It’s up to the Egyptian people. We expect whomever will be elected to establish a government that will live up to the international commitments of Egypt, including the peace treaty with Israel and keeping law and order in the Sinai.

This week, nuclear talks between the “P5 + 1” [United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany] and Iran resumed in Russia. Do you hold out any hope for these talks?

We hope that we’ll wake up and there will be an agreement to end the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But we are too realistic. Sanctions are working better than in the past; diplomacy is more determined. But if I have to ask myself whether this will convince the ayatollahs to sit around the table and decide that the time has come to put an end to the military nuclear program, I don’t think that’s the case. They still feel there is room for maneuver. There is still a need both to ratchet up the sanctions and to heighten significantly the demands on the Iranians that would put an end to enrichment, would take all the enriched uranium out of the country, and would close and dismantle the installation at Fordow.

Close the installation at Fordow?

Close and dismantle it. I would expect the P5 + 1—this is now the third meeting in Moscow. There was a meeting in Baghdad and Istanbul before this. By the third meeting in a negotiation, you know whether the other party intends to reach an agreement or, alternatively, whether he is trying to play for time to avoid a decision. It seems to me that the Iranians keep defying and deceiving the whole world. But it’s up to the participants in the negotiations to reach this conclusion. We cannot afford to spend another three rounds of this nature just to allow the Iranians to keep maneuvering.

How much more time can you allow?

I don’t want to pretend to set timelines for the world. But we have said loud and clear that it cannot be a matter of weeks but it [also] cannot be a matter of years.

Do you know when the Iranian nuclear program will have gone too far to be able to do anything about it?

Everyone knows that the Iranians are trying to reach nuclear military capability. We all know that, until now, [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khomeini did not order the actual building of weapons or explosive devices. Because they think that if they try to break out toward nuclear military capability, probably America or Israel or someone else will contemplate what to do about stopping it. They are trying to reach a certain kind of physical immunity against surgical attacks by burying [facilities] deep into the ground, spreading the sites over different parts of the country, producing more and more centrifuges, and accumulating more low-enriched uranium. So they are trying to reach a certain redundancy, or what I call the “zone of immunity.”

What do you mean by zone of immunity?

It means they reach a situation where, through redundancies, neither Israel and probably not even America can do anything surgically to block it. Once Khomeini reaches this kind of situation, he can be practically assured that he [has] crossed the point of no return and will end up more like North Korea or Pakistan, rather than like Iraq or Syria.

Are you worried that a third nuclear site may be discovered?

If you wait long enough, probably you will find a third or fourth or fifth site. I don’t see any imminent sign of it. But they probably don’t need it.

I saw one report speculating that Iran can produce highly enriched uranium at Fordow.

The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] reported that they found certain materials enriched to 27 percent [at Fordow]. There are more actions taken by the Iranians to move toward nuclear military capability than we probably know about. We are not on the inside. They are very deliberate and determined to defy the whole world the way that Pakistan and North Korea did. We have to be open-eyed. We’re living in a tough neighborhood.

Can Israel launch a military strike against Iran, and can it succeed?

You can’t expect me to answer directly. We [the United States and Israel] are using the same rhetoric when we say that we are all determined to prevent Iran from turning into a nuclear military power, and we both say that all options are on the table. We mean it and we recommend to them to mean it.

And you feel the U.S. means it?

At least on a technical level, there are a lot of preparations. But it’s not a secret that America prefers that it will be solved through diplomacy. We all hope that [diplomacy] will be successful, but time is not unlimited in this regard. Iran is not just a challenge for Israel—it remains a major challenge for whoever is willing to look reality in the eyes. Iran is a radical Muslim theocracy that is trying to reach nuclear military power. It also tries to hegemonize the whole [Persian] Gulf. Talk to the leaders of the Gulf. They are terrified by the possibility that Iran will turn nuclear. A nuclear Iran will be the end of the nonproliferation regime: Saudi Arabia will turn nuclear immediately, Turkey within several years, and probably the new Egypt will start moving to do it. Not to mention the potential of weapons-grade material leaking into the hands of terrorist groups from Iran.

Then comes the issue of terror. The Iranians are sponsoring terror among the Baluchi tribe in Afghanistan, among the insurgents in Iraq—they are everywhere. They are trying to raise their profile in Cuba, in Nicaragua, and Venezuela, of course. They have a global aspiration, and the world won’t be the same place once they turn nuclear. Whoever thinks that it’s complicated to deal with Iran right now, as some think tank leaders are writing: Just close your eyes and think what it will mean to deal with these very same issues once Iran turns nuclear as a result of an absence of political will. It will be much more dangerous, much more costly in terms of human lives and financial resources. And it will become nuclear if the world will not be tough enough to stop it.

Do you think it is up to Israel to stop it?

We always hope it will be solved by the free will of the ayatollahs, by the effectiveness of the sanctions, by the creativity of diplomacy or by any other miracle. When we say that we are determined to prevent them, and we should all be determined, including the American leadership, the European leadership, the Russians, the Chinese, we mean what we say and that is all I can say. We have another neighbor. …

Syria?

Yes, Bashar al-Assad is living proof of the paralysis that sometimes takes over the world, even when there is no need for any further proof that something totally unacceptable that costs human life is happening.

You mean the world is just standing by?

Basically, [Assad] is slaughtering his own people and using every form of crime. Here you have real-time pictures of the actual crimes, the rows of buried children. Even when there is no need for any further proof, however tangible and visible the nature of the crimes, it doesn’t mean the world can mobilize the will to do something about it. It’s a fact of life that we should bear in mind when we look at the overall picture around us. We are living in a tough neighborhood—no mercy for the weak, no second opportunity for those who cannot defend themselves. We have to be able to defend ourselves. We are extremely thankful to this administration: It is doing more than the past to back the security of Israel.

What is the administration doing?

They are giving us support, despite economic pressure there, in keeping up the qualitative military edge of Israel. They helped us with our multilayered interception systems against missiles and rockets, starting with Iron Dome and continuing with Arrow. But we understand that we have to be able to protect ourselves against any foreseeable threat.

Going back to Syria, do you think the West should arm the opposition?

I think many steps should be taken. Russia has invested a lot of political capital and money in the [Assad] regime. They should have a certain role if we want to succeed. The whole structure of the Syrian state should not be blamed—it is a family and certain individuals [who are responsible]. I believe that if America and Russia talk[ed] together about who can use what leverage, that could be extremely effective. And of course Turkey, the most important neighbor of Syria. What can we do in order to remove this family from power without destroying Syria as a state? Not repeat the mistakes that were made in Iraq, where everything from the Baath Party to the military was dismantled. There’s no need to do that [and increase] the chances that they will end up with a chaotic civil war, where the bad guys will be more prominent. It’s time for the world to dictate to Mr. Assad to move out of power or else. But the “or else” can be convincing only if America and Russia will join hands.

But Russia is still sending weapons to Syria.

Yes, but they should be convinced in an honest, frank discussion. They could have a major role in helping to solve the Syrian issue.

You’re not worried about the Muslim Brotherhood or others who could come to power?

I feel the longer the world is paralyzed and lets this massacre keep going by the Assad family, the more chaotic the situation will end up being.

U.S. officials are very concerned about Syria’s huge pile of chemical weapons and what to do to secure them if the Assad regime goes and the chemical weapons are let loose.

We [are] also. [Assad] now is supported by Hezbollah and Iran. They are the only ones who are actually supporting him physically: sending materials, sending people, providing ideas based on their experience in Lebanon about how to brutalize your own people. When Assad falls, there is a certain risk that Hezbollah will try to grab some weapons systems, some anti-aircraft systems or some long-range missiles from the falling Syrian regime. Some people even raise the risk that they will try to grab some chemical materials. We still prefer to see [Assad] fall, even with all those risks. We are watching and following it carefully.

Do you believe that one good thing about the downfall of Assad would be that it could break the axis between Syria and Iran?

Yes, Iran and Hezbollah are the main supporters [of Syria], and it will be a blow to both the ayatollahs in Tehran and to [Hezbollah’s Hasan] Nasrallah and his people in Beirut.

Do you believe that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lost a lot of power?

The real leader is Khomeini. I heard he is going to retire next year. Basically, [Iran’s leadership] is a collective—sometimes American newspapers describe [certain leaders] as either radical or moderate. Don’t delude yourself that the moderate ayatollahs are not ayatollahs. All are ayatollahs.

Do you feel this U.S. administration has been supportive of Israel?

In terms of our security? Yes, this administration was really supportive of Israel.

Do you think the U.S. administration understands that you have a difficult choice to make about Iran?

Yes, I think so. The discussions between us and the White House are honest and frank, with a clear understanding of the differences between our point of view and theirs with regard to Iran. We can fully understand the fact that we look at things a different way. I believe that the State Department, Pentagon, and White House understand that when it comes to the vital security interests of Israel, only the government of Israel has to make the decisions.

I would not be surprised if in [the nuclear talks], the Iranians will come with some gambit, trying to blur the picture. They want very much to delay any kind of clear conclusion about their intentions for the next half a year so they can [wait for]
the American election and for a better time for them.

You think they want to delay until after the American election?
Yes.

Why?

Because they want to continue with the program. They are afraid that if they are exposed now, at a certain point, the P5 +1 will say there is no way to deal with them and who knows what will follow. If they gain another half a year, they will have more time.

And then a new administration might come into office.

They waited 4,000 years to have a nuclear bomb, so they can wait another four months. They want to see how the new president, be it Obama or Romney, sees it. In the meantime, they can enrich another [batch of] low-enriched uranium. They want to delay.

Are you worried about the Americans making a bad deal?

We hope for the best. We are realistic and skeptical. We are not part of the P5 + 1, and we do not pretend to run the world. But we shared honestly and clearly with our colleagues in both Europe and America our thought that the Iranians will probably try to gain time by [making] some gestures that will be misread as forthcoming. But if you look at the details, you will see that it really does not block them from moving toward a nuclear weapons program.

In the middle of this, you have a new government here. What do you think will happen to the peace process?

Yes, we have a new government here—a very big one. I believe it is a great opportunity right now.

Recently you spoke about unilateral gestures on the part of Israel.

I didn’t say unilateral. I think we should use this opportunity to reactivate the peace process. If it is possible to have a breakthrough toward an agreement—it should be done. I don’t want to relieve Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] or the international community from their responsibility for the deadlock we are in now. But I think there is an inherent Israeli interest in reviving the peace process with the Palestinians, and probably with the moderate parts of this region.

What do you mean by “moderate parts of the region”?

I mean both with the Palestinians and with every moderate country in the region from Morocco to the Gulf. We have an interest to find a way to talk with them about how to move [the peace process forward].

Will the talks resume?

I don’t know because it takes two.

Is the prime minister interested? Are you?

I am interested, but the real news is not me. I was interested to start with. It’s the entrance of [Shaul] Mofaz and Kadima [to the coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], which is the biggest party in the Knesset. We delayed the election by a year and a quarter, and that is enough time to try to leave an imprint. Mofaz is a strong proponent of the idea of resuming the peace process with the Palestinians. It takes two to tango. We cannot impose it upon Abu Mazen. I hope that they will understand the uniqueness of this opportunity, instead of going to [seek recognition from the U.N.] General Assembly. We better start to move forward. If something complete cannot be achieved, probably [there can be] interim agreements. If nothing works, even unilateral steps might be a possibility.

What did you mean by that?

I just meant we have to think about all options. We have such a wide government that the coalition has no dissonance when we decide to move forward with the peace process. Based on this opportunity, we should try to push it. Mofaz and myself and the prime minister are committed to try and do it.

Focus U.S.A.-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

President Barack Obama speaking during a news conference at the G20 Summit, Tuesday, June 19, 2012, in Los Cabos, Mexico. Photo by AP

Senators send letter to U.S. President, advising cut of diplomatic push to end standoff; American ex-official: We need the third track, a visible preparations for a military option.