WarSclerotic

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.

Hamas Calls Ceasefire After Nearly 100 Rockets – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Hamas officers in Gaza

“In response to the Egyptian efforts to try and stop the aggression on our people, we at Al-Qassam Brigades and all resistance factions declare our commitment to stop this round of confrontation, as long as (Israel) commits to stopping its crimes,” said a statement from Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades.

The statement noted that terrorists had fired 96 rockets and nine mortars at Israel during the recent wave of violence.

“Our confrontation with the enemy in this round was at the minimal level of fire and responses, this is a message that the (Israeli) leaders should understand very well,” said the statement quoted by AFP.

The statement comes after terrorists fired at least 41 rockets into Israel on Wednesday alone.

Three short-range Qassam rockets exploded in areas within the Eshkol Regional Council district a few minutes prior to the noon hour. The Color Red rocket alert siren apparently failed to activate and warn residents of the incoming missiles. One of the rockets started a fire, but no one was injured in the attack.

An early-morning barrage fired at the Eshkol just minutes before Israel’s final day of classes for some 640,000 public high school students had already sent youths racing for their shelters just before school was about to start.

The three rockets landed in open areas around the Eshkol region at about 8:00 a.m. The attack came minutes after medium-range a Grad missile was fired at the city of Be’er Sheva.

In a joint IDF and Shin Bet activity Wednesday in southern Gaza, IAF aircraft targeted a Global Jihad terror operative involved in the planning and execution of Monday’s terror attack against Israeli construction workers.

One Israeli civilian was killed in that attack, which took place on the Israel-Egypt border.

Earlier, IAF aircraft struck seven terror sites in Gaza overnight Tuesday and early Wednesday morning. Hits were confirmed and all aircraft returned safely to their airbases.

On Wednesday evening, the IDF’s Home Front Command issued security instructions for residents of communities located near Gaza.

For communities located within 7 kilometers of Gaza, residents are asked to enter a protected space upon hearing an alarm or explosion.

Only fortified schools will be open, and open-air gatherings are forbidden.

Shopping centers will be open as usual.

For communities within a 7-15 kilometer range of Gaza, schools will be open as usual without limitations, and open-air gatherings will be allowed.

Eilat Residents Fear for their Safety – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

( I live in Eilat and am unafraid.  Then again, I’ve been under rocket and missile fire numerous times. – JW )

Road to Eilat

Just ten days after Highway 12 near Eilat was reopened to evening and nighttime traffic, the IDF closed it once again on Wednesday for security reasons.

The road was initially closed for traffic ten months ago, after the combined terrorist attacks that killed eight Israelis near the border with Egypt. In March, the road was reopened to daytime traffic.

Wednesday’s decision was made following a security assessment in which it was decided to increase security in the region. Until it is decided by what means to secure the road, it will remain closed.

Moshe Yosef, a 42-year-old resident of Eilat who volunteers with the local police, told Arutz Sheva on Wednesday that local residents feel very unpleasant and unsecure.

“The terrorists are handling our lives,” he said, adding, “The IDF must take action and constantly patrol the road.”

Yosef added that anyone traveling on Highway 12 constantly looks around, due to a fear of an attack. “There is no security on this road. I personally do not travel on this road,” he said.

He noted that today, more than ever, Eilat residents fear infiltrations by terrorists.

“Sudanese infiltrators come here freely, so who knows if there any agents of Al Qaeda among them,” said Yosef. “In the meantime we try to continue with our regular routine because there is no choice, but it’s not safe here. I live right at the edge of the city of Eilat and I feel uncomfortable. I sleep with a gun.”

Tardy IDF intelligence, slow responses aggravated Gaza clash. Egypt cuts military contact.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis June 20, 2012, 8:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

Missile that injured Israeli Border Police

At a particularly sensitive moment in Israeli-Egyptian relations, Israel’s military leaders were caught napping by the June 18 terrorist attack from Sinai on the southern Route 10, in which an Israeli fence team worker was killed. Because they were too slow to catch on to the identity of the perpetrators, those military chiefs misdirected their reprisals at the wrong quarters and so sparked a three-day missile-for-air strike cycle in Gaza.
That slowness of uptake was evident at the different military and defense levels of responsibility – the field command, the Southern Command and the general staff. Above all, the forces under the Southern Command were not ready for action although their sector abutting the Gaza Strip and the Egyptian border of Sinai should have been on high alert.

It took three days and scores of missiles from the Gaza Strip before an Iron Dome missile defense battery was finally deployed Wednesday, June 20. The battery immediately intercepted a Grad missile before it exploded in the town of Netivot.

debkafile’s military sources trace the start of the downward turn of events to Monday, June 18. After word was received of a major roadside bomb-RPG-shooting attack on an Israeli team working on Route 10 on the Israel-Egyptian border fence and the death of Said Fashasha, the IDF made every possible mistake.
Instead of waiting for solid intelligence to come through on the terrorists’ identity, Israeli commanders lashed out in every direction.
An unidentified officer decided that the hand behind the attack was that of the Palestinian Jihad Islami. He may have been the same wise guy who attributed to Hamas the double Grad missile attack two days earlier on two southern locations, Ovdat and Mitzpeh Ramon. Some military sources “explained” to Israeli media that Hamas was shooting missiles on orders from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in order to heat up the Egyptian-Israeli border ahead of the second round of the presidential election.
This caused Israeli media to hare off in the wrong direction. Neither Hamas nor the Muslim Brotherhood was actually involved in either of those attacks, but since the information was not corrected, the misapprehension stood and generated more damage.
The field commanders concerned were not informed by the general staff or military intelligence that the Grad missiles in southern Israel were fired by al Qaeda from Sinai. This failure left the command chain in the field unprepared for follow-up attacks from the same quarter in Sinai. The deadly ambush on Route 10 two days later was therefore not linked to the earlier Grad missile fire.
The consequence of this lapse was that when the IDF decided to retaliate, it went after the wrong terrorists – Hamas and Jihad Islami in Gaza – so touching off a three-day missile blitz against a range of Israeli locations and military targets.
As we reported Tuesday night, Hamas posted a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak through intelligence channels saying that it can’t stop shooting missiles at Israel as long as the IDF continues to strike targets in Gaza. “We had nothing to do with the attack on the Philadelphi Route 10 on Monday, and we’re certainly not looking for trouble with Cairo over military action from Sinai,” said Hamas.
The note, disclosed by debkafile’s intelligence and military sources, went on to say that IDF attacks on Hamas and Jihad Islami personnel were unwarranted since neither was involved in the Route 10 ambush.

“If you stop attacking us, we’ll stop launching missiles at Israeli targets,” Hamas offered.
But the next day, IDF carried on striking targets in Gaza, so as not to be seen caving in to Hamas demands.

At the same time, the IDF and the various intelligence bodies, including the Shin Bet, finally put two and two together and correctly assigned the Route 10 attack to al Qaeda in Sinai. Wednesday, a targeted air strike over Rafah killed Ghaleb Ramlath and injured Muhammad Rashwan, two al Qaeda operatives in Gaza and Sinai, who were involved in that attack.

Israeli diplomacy around the episode was completely botched. When defense ministry officials invited Egyptian commanders at liaison offices in Sinai to cross into Israel and view the fragments of the Grad missiles, they refused. They said they did not believe Israel’s version of the episode and declined to be drawn by Israel into any sort of involvement.

Given the turmoil in Cairo, it should have been obvious to defense ministry “diplomats” that Egyptian army personnel would on no account risk being seen in the company of Israeli officers.
By now, the situation has become so bogged down that it is hard to see how the Gaza exchange of blows can be stopped.