WarSclerotic

UN pulls out of Syria as fighting flares.

Demonstrators take part in a protest against the Assad regime in Yabroud, near Damascus, yesterday. Photo: Reuters

THE UN military observers sent to Syria to monitor an April 12 ceasefire that never took hold have suspended their mission, veteran peacekeeper Norwegian Major-General Robert Mood says.

Speaking of intensified violence over the past 10 days, the risk to observers and the ”lack of willingness by the parties to seek a peaceful solution”, he said the mission is ”suspending its activities.”

”There has been an intensification of armed violence across Syria over the past 10 days,” the mission chief said. ”This escalation is limiting our ability to observe, verify, report as well as assist in local dialogue and stability projects – basically impeding our ability to carry out our mandate.

Mission chief, Major-General Robert Mood: ‘There has been an intensification of armed violence.’ Photo: Reuters

”The lack of willingness by the parties to seek a peaceful transition … is increasing the losses on both sides: innocent civilians, men women and children are being killed every day. It is also posing significant risks to our observers.”

Meanwhile, Syrian rebels have held meetings with senior US government officials in Washington as pressure mounts on America to authorise a shipment of heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, to combat the Assad regime.

A senior representative of the Free Syrian Army met the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, and special

co-ordinator for the Middle East, Frederick Hoff, in the past week at the US State Department, sources said.

The rebel emissaries, armed with an iPad showing detailed plans on Google Earth identifying rebel positions and regime targets, also met senior members of the National Security Council, which advises President Barack Obama on national security policy.

The rebels have compiled a ”targeted list” of heavy weaponry, including anti-tank missiles and heavy machineguns, that they plan to present to US government officials in the coming weeks.

The consultations come before this week’s G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, where British and US officials are expected to make a last-ditch attempt to get Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene in the Syria crisis.

Privately, Western diplomats admit they now harbour scant hope of forcing a change of heart on Russia, which has steadfastly refused to bow to US and British pressure to do more to arrest Syria’s slide into sectarian civil war. While there remains little appetite for direct Western military intervention, advanced contingency plans are already in place to supply arms to the rebels.

The move is expected to gather force following the expected failure of the Annan peace plan and the meeting of the Syria contact group scheduled for June 30 in Geneva.

Senior Middle Eastern diplomatic sources said Libyan-supplied weapons, paid for by Saudi Arabian and Qatari government funds and private donations, had already been stockpiled in expectation of the ”inevitable” intervention needed to end the Assad regime.

”The intervention will happen. It is not a question of if but when. The Libyans are willing to provide the anti-tank weapons, others are prepared to pay for it,” a source said.

Obama just doesn’t get it – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Islamists taking over while Western liberals, led by president, still deep in ideological slumber

Shaul Rosenfeld

In February 2011, a few weeks after Egypt’s uprising erupted, when the Arab Spring was supposedly just around the corner and meant to bring us a new Middle East in the undying spirit of Shimon Peres, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times stood at Tahrir Square and delivered his own, no less immortal vision.

Friedman, whose name is mentioned by Israel’s finest colleagues without forgetting to note that he is “the world’s most important journalist,” examined the Cairo square with his sharp eyes, and found no hint of Islamic inspiration or influence, and certainly no Islamic forces behind the scenes patiently waiting for the reward that Tahrir’s “Facebook kids” will hand over to them.

What he did see using his incredibly developed journalist prowess was genuine de-colonization of Egypt, the rise of progressive democratic forces that will forever change Egypt’s dictatorial face, an Egyptian Pharaoh (Mubarak) removed from power with the vigorous encouragement of President Obama, and an Israeli Pharaoh (Netanyahu) who, being a lowly man, cannot grasp the significance of the regional change. So much for Thomas Friedman’s interpretation.

As we know, much water, and mostly blood, has flowed through the Middle East ever since then. In Tunisia, which was meant to pave the way for positive change, we saw the establishment of an Islamic Brotherhood-led government after the victory of the Ennahda party, which has made the sources of its authority clear to all.

Meanwhile, Libya of the post-Gaddafi lynch mostly makes sure that Gaza’s arms warehouses are well stocked. In Syria, they make sure to meet the daily massacre quota. In Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood and the Salafis are taking over parliament. The Brotherhood’s Mohammad Morsi is about to succeed the terrible Mubarak who slipped into a coma, while the Tahrir kids bemoan their “stolen revolution.”

Yet in New York, the “world’s most important journalist” still does nothing but write about the march of folly of those who, unlike him, have yet to recognize this great Mideastern era.

Overdose of wishful thinking

Yet Friedman is no more than an example of an allegory for the way many in the West, including its leaders and journalists (led by Obama) formulate their doctrine in line with the ideological color of their worldview, and as result of an overdose of wishful thinking. For them, reality is no more than a burdensome nuisance.

According to this mechanism, the Egyptian people’s deep desire for democracy, equality, civil rights and respect for women and minority rights is attested to by the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, and not, heaven forbid, by the mood of the more than 80 million citizens of this country.

According to polls undertaken in Egypt in 2008 and in 2010 by Gallup, some 95% of Egyptians want Islam to have greater influence in politics, 64% want Islamic Law to be the basis for legislation, 54% support public segregation of men and women, 82% support stoning as punishment for adultery, and 84% endorse the death penalty for those who shun Islam.

In 1979, in the name of noble human rights ideals, Jimmy Carter abandoned the Persian Shah, paved Khomeini’s way to Tehran, and with his own hands turned Iran from America’s most important ally in the Persian Gulf to an Islamic Ayatollah republic.

In 1991, in the name of lofty democratic ideals, and with the encouragement of the West, Algeria too decided to play the democratic game. The government called elections, the Islamic FIS party won a majority, the election results were dismissed, and the country found itself in a bloodbath that lasted for more than a decade and claimed some 100,000 victims.

In 2006, in the service of these same ideas, the Bush Administration forced Ariel Sharon and the Palestinian Authority to hold democratic elections. The vote indeed took place, Hamas won the jackpot, and we all know Gaza’s history ever since then.

Yet since the outset of 2011, equipped with the same divine ideals of spreading democracy to all, including the Levant, and utilizing an amazing inability to foresee the future, Obama, Friedman and the finest liberal forces in the West continue to joyfully market their goods, while refusing to wake up from the ideological slumber they’ve slipped into many years ago.

US military intervention in Syria – “Not if but when”.

DEBKAfile Special Report June 16, 2012, 3:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

As the violence in Syria continued to go from bad to worse in scope and intensity, US official sources had this to say Saturday, June 16,  about planned US military operations in the war-torn country:
“The intervention will happen. It is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when.’”

A Syrian Free Army rebel delegation is now in Washington to talk about their requests for heavy weapons from the Obama administration. In their meetings with US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and the State Department’s expert on Syria Fred Hof, the rebel leaders handed in two lists for approval: types of heavy weapons capable of challenging Bashar Assad’s armed forces and selected targets of attack to destabilize his regime.
debkafile’s Washington sources disclose that the administration is very near a decision on the types of weapons to be shipped to the Syrian rebels and when. Most of the items Washington is ready to send have been purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and are ready for shipment.
The White House is also close to deciding on the format of its military operation in Syria. Some sources are defining it as “Libya lite” – that is, a reduced-scale version of the no-fly zone imposed on Libya two years ago and the direct air and other strikes which toppled the Qaddafi regime.
Following reports of approaching US military intervention in Syria and a Russian marine contingent heading for Tartus port, the UN observer mission in Syria has suspended operations and patrols. Its commander Maj. Gen. Robert Mood said, “Violence has been intensifying over the past 10 days by both parties with losses and significant risks to our observers.”

He said the risk is approaching an unacceptable level and could prompt the 300 observers to pull out of the country.
Friday, June 15, debkafile reported:

A contingent of Russian special forces is on its way to Syria to guard the Russian navy’s deep-water port at the Syria’s Mediterranean coastal town of Tartus, Pentagon officials informed US NBC TV Friday, June 15. They are coming by ship. According to debkafile’s sources, the contingent is made up of naval marines and is due to land in Syria in the coming hours.

In a separate and earlier announcement, US Defense Department sources in Washington reported that the US military had completed its own planning for a variety of US operations against Syria, or for assisting neighboring countries in the event action was ordered – a reference, according to our sources, to Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Syrian civil war is now moving into a new phase of major power military intervention, say debkafile’s military sources. Moscow, by sending troops to Syria without UN Security Council approval, has set a precedent for the United States, the European Union and Arab governments to follow. They all held back from sending troops to Syria because all motions to apply force for halting the bloodshed in Syria were blocked in the UN body by Russia and China.

According to US military sources, in recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed and how many troops. The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said.

Senators urge Obama to set conditions in Iran talks – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Letter sent by 44 US senators urges president to reconsider talks with Islamic Republic unless it agree to immediately shut down nuclear facility, freeze uranium enrichment

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – Forty four US Senators, both Republican and Democratic, sent a letter to President Obama Friday, urging him to reconsider talks with Iran unless it agrees to take immediate steps to curb its uranium enrichment activity.

“Steps it must take immediately are shutting down of the Fordow facility, freezing enrichment above five percent, and shipping all uranium enriched above five percent out of the country,” the senators wrote in the letter, which was initiated by Senators Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

Referring to a third round of talks between Iran and the 5+1, scheduled for Moscow on Monday, the senators wrote: “Were Iran to agree to and verifiably implement these steps, this would demonstrate a level of commitment by Iran to the process and could justify continued discussions beyond the meeting in Moscow.

“On the other hand, if the sessions in Moscow produce no substantive agreement, we urge you to reevaluate the utility of further talks at this time and instead focus on significantly increasing the pressure on the Iranian government through sanctions and making clear that a credible military option exist,” they wrote, adding that “as you have rightly noted, ‘the window for diplomacy is closing.’ Iran’s leaders must realize that you mean precisely that.”

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that world powers will outline to Iran a “very clear path” to resolve the impasse over its suspect nuclear program at talks in Moscow.

During a joint appearance with President Shimon Peres at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington on Tuesday, Clinton said “there is a unified position being presented by the P5+1 that gives Iran, if it is interested in taking a diplomatic way out, a very clear path that would be verifiable and would be linked to action for action.

“I am quite certain that they are under tremendous pressure from the Russians and the Chinese to come to Moscow prepared to respond. Now whether that response is adequate or not we will have to judge,” she added.

Former Iran negotiator: Islamic Republic unlikely to accept West’s offer in upcoming round of nuclear talks – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Hossein Mousavian, who was a senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team between 2003 and 2005, dismisses West’s proposal as ‘diamonds for peanuts.’

By Reuters | Jun.15, 2012 | 11:24 PM | 4

Iran’s heavy water nuclear facilities near the central city of Arak. Photo by AP /ISNA,Hamid Foroutan

By Reuters | Jun.15,2012 | 11:24 PM | 7

A former Iranian negotiator on Friday dismissed as “diamonds for peanuts” a proposal by world powers that Tehran halt higher-grade uranium enrichment and close an underground nuclear site in exchange for reactor fuel and civil aviation parts.

Hossein Mousavian, now a visiting scholar at Princeton University in the United States, said he did not believe Iran would accept the offer when the two sides hold a new round of discussions in Moscow on June 18-19.

It will be the third meeting since diplomacy restarted in April after a 15-month hiatus.

“I do not expect too much, said Mousavian, a senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team in 2003-05. If the major powers are not ready to move on the critical issues of gradually removing sanctions on Iran and recognizing its right to refine uranium, “I’m afraid the Moscow talks also would fail,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Mousavian held his post before conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over from his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami in 2005. Western envoys who know Mousavian say that at the time he appeared to be genuinely interested in reaching a deal with the West.

The six powers – the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia – want to make sure Iran does not develop nuclear bombs. The Islamic Republic wants a lifting of sanctions and recognition of what it says are its rights to peaceful nuclear energy, including enriching uranium.

European Union officials said on Monday that Iran had agreed to discuss a proposal to curb its production of higher-grade uranium at the meeting in the Russian capital, an apparent attempt to reduce tensions ahead of the talks.

The development followed more than two weeks of wrangling between Iranian diplomats and Western negotiators over preparations for the closely watched round of negotiations.

Mousavian said Iran was ready for a “big deal” on the decade-old nuclear dispute, but political constraints in the United States ahead of November’s presidential election and other factors meant the other side was not.

“President Obama has very limited room to maneuver in an election year,” Mousavian said. Barack Obama’s Republican opponents have attempted to paint him as soft on enemies of the U.S.

In the immediate term, the powers want Tehran to cease enriching uranium to 20 percent fissile concentration, because such production represents a major technological advance en route to making weapons-grade material.

They put forward a proposal on how to achieve this at a round of talks in Baghdad in May, in which Tehran would stop production, close the Fordow underground facility where such work is done, and ship its stockpile out of the country.

In return, they offered to supply the Islamic state with fuel for a medical research reactor in Tehran, which requires 20-percent uranium, and to ease sanctions against the sale of commercial aircraft parts to Iran.

No agreement was reached in Baghdad but the seven countries agreed to continue discussions in Moscow.

“I believe this is diamonds for peanuts,” Mousavian said, adding that Iran already had fuel rods. “Therefore this is not something great to offer Iran.”

The International Crisis Group think-tank said the powers’ offer “was deliberately ungenerous” and likely to have been meant as an opening bid in what they regarded as a longer process of negotiations.

But a U.S. nuclear expert, David Albright, said Mousavian’s comments showed the “difficulty of negotiating” with Iran.

The agreement sought by the powers in Moscow would be a small but important step which does not solve the Iran nuclear issue, said Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) think tank. “Iran should expect only a small incentive in return – the fact of the matter is that these actions are equivalent to peanuts for peanuts,” Albright said in an email.

Mousavian said, however, that Iran was ready for confidence-building measures regarding its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, which it started in 2010 and has since expanded.

He said his own proposal was that Iran would agree to eliminate such material from its stockpile, either by converting it to fuel, exporting it or lowering its enrichment concentration to 3.5 percent – the level usually required for power plants.

Clinton: Syrian forces in Aleppo could be red line for Turkey.

Big powers move in on Syria: Russian troops for Tartus. US forces ready to go.

DEBKAfile Special Report June 15, 2012, 7:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Syria   US military action   Russian military 

A contingent of Russian special forces is on its way to Syria to guard the Russian navy’s deep-water port at the Syria’s Mediterranean coastal town of Tartus, Pentagon officials informed US NBC TV Friday, June 15. They are coming by ship. According to debkafile’s sources, the contingent is made up of naval marines and is due to land in Syria in the coming hours.

In a separate and earlier announcement, US Defense Department sources in Washington reported that the US military had completed its own planning for a variety of US operations against Syria, or for assisting neighboring countries in the event action was ordered – a reference, according to our sources, to Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Syrian civil war is now moving into a new phase of major power military intervention, say debkafile’s military sources. Moscow, by sending troops to Syria without UN Security Council approval, has set up a precedent for the United States, the European Union and Arab governments to follow. They all held back from sending troops to Syria because all motions to apply force for halting the bloodshed in Syria was blocked in the UN body.

According to US military sources, in recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed and how many troops. The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said.

Lovely summer for a war.

One of these lazy, sunny days, we’re likely to hear on the news that Israel has just bombed Iran.

The question of whether Israel will soon attack Iran is one of those things where your senses completely deceive you. The more Israeli politicians and generals talk about it, the closer it seems, and the more fearful you become – but the bombast is a good sign that it’s not about to happen because if it was, they wouldn’t be talking about it so loud for Iran to hear. No, it’s when the rhetoric has quieted down, when things seem too peaceful for a war to just suddenly break out – when you don’t sense danger, when you’re not afraid – that’s when Netanyahu would have the maximum (though still miniscule) element of surprise against Iran and be most likely to pull the trigger.

Actually, now that I write this, I think Netanyahu figures this is exactly what the Iranians are thinking, so at some point he’s going to start beating the war drums really loud, and when they’re at their peak, when the Iranians are thinking that this isn’t the time, that’s when he’ll give the order.

Well, who really knows if Bibi is second-guessing or third-guessing Iran on how to catch them unawares, or as unawares as is still possible. What I am pretty well convinced of, though, is that barring the virtual impossibility of Iran’s agreeing very soon to shut down its entire nuclear project and let Israel verify that it has, then at that point if Obama will not attack Iran – and it seems he won’t – Bibi will. Within the coming months. Sometime before the November 2 presidential election – a one-time window of opportunity when Israel can do whatever it wants and get the White House’s support – but long enough before the vote so it doesn’t look like Bibi is timing the war to influence its outcome. Before October, I’d say.

I don’t understand people who think Netanyahu is bluffing. Sure, he’s threatening war partially for effect – he wants to scare America and Europe into pressuring Iran in the hope that this will convince Khameini to halt the nuclear project; naturally, Bibi would prefer to neutralize Iran without having to fire a shot. But what if Iran doesn’t agree and goes on enriching uranium and acting suspiciously, as it’s doing? Is Bibi then going to trust Obama or Romney to save Israel from what he envisions as a second Holocaust,  knowing that he will bear eternal responsibility if they don’t? I don’t believe he considers that an option. And I think that in Netanyahu’s position, most of the prime ministers before him would probably size things up the same way. Israeli-style fear and aggression didn’t start with Bibi, I’m afraid.

Three months ago, he told Channel 2 that stopping Iran’s nuclear program was “not a matter of days or weeks. It is also not a matter of years.” That would seem to leave “months” as the time frame he had in mind.

And today, Moshe “Bugi” Ya’alon, the vice premier and former IDF chief of staff, told Haaretz’s Ari Shavit in a long interview that everything we’re seeing and hearing is absolutely for real.

There’s one other thing that convinces me Bibi’s going to do it:  He has this Roman air about him now. He has this flat stare, he talks quietly, with little expression – as if it’s beneath his station to exert himself, as if all he has to do is be there for everyone and everything to arrange itself according to his will, which is unerring. He’s always been a hugely arrogant, vain person, the power and prestige have always gone straight to his head – but he’s never had such power and prestige as he has now, and his head is the size of the sun. Obama is nothing to him, America is nothing to him, other people’s opinions are nothing to him. He’s invincible. He will do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it.

I know this is hard to imagine. The sun’s shining, people are looking forward to going on vacation; the idea that Israel is about to start a war with Iran that could bring in (as Ya’alon expects it will) Lebanon, Gaza and maybe Syria, too, seems ridiculous. It contradicts the evidence of our senses. But the senses are one thing, and reason is another, and my reason, at least, says that one of these lazy, sunny days, the war Bibi’s been promising us for so long will be here. And on schedule.

IDF chief of staff-turned-vice premier: ‘We are not bluffing’ – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(This is one of the few articles that I consider to be a “must read” for followers of this site.  I have excerpted only that portion relating to the Iran/Israel conflict. – JW)

Moshe Ya’alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He suggests you do the same.

Men watching the launch of a Shahab-3 missile near Kom. Photo by AP

Iran’s Natanz reactor. Photo by AP

Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?

“I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say, as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others. But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

If you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today, would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is negligible, low, middling or high?

“The probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low. I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders − not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East, we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it’s clear that Iran will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against Iran’s nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There is also a high probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate against us. That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to that possibility that we have to deploy.”

What the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of truth regarding Iran.

“Definitely. When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about 150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred centrifuges, most of which were substandard.

“At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic bombs.

“In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development system which they are hiding from the international supervisory apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types, which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of Europe. Those missiles were built from the outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear. Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a nuclear-threshold power.”

But to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a level of 90 percent and above. At the moment it is still not there.

“True, but if Iran goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the capability to enrich uranium to above 90 percent within two or three months. Even if it does not build a standard nuclear bomb, within less than six months it will be in possession of at least one primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb.”

If so, maybe it’s already too late. The Iranians won and we lost and we have to resign ourselves to Iran’s being in possession of nuclear weapons in the near future.

“Absolutely not. It will be disastrous if we or the international community become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of values and its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional weapons. Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and it is not propaganda. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to world peace.”

Crossing red lines

But you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no return. Doesn’t that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or bombing?

“We are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The international community can still act aggressively and with determination. Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or bombing, the answer is clear: bomb.

The answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the Cold War. We also survived the nuclearization of Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is said to possess strategic capability that is able to create decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say that just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live in the future with the Shiite bomb?

“No and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that if Iran goes nuclear, four or five more countries in the Middle East are liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also need a bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear Middle East will not be stable and therefore the world will not be stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in its wake nuclear chaos.

“The second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will allow Iran to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states, finding themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they prefer: distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of the energy sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very large slice of the world’s oil supply. That will have far-reaching international implications. But a nuclear Iran will also challenge Israel and bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our borders. That will have serious consequences for Israel.

“The third answer to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is liable to use its nuclear capability. That does not mean that the day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a plane or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of the use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist organization could smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or the port of London or the port of Haifa. I also do not rule out the possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by means of missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is not impossible.”

But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.

“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”

Bombing too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious war, thousands of civilians killed.

“Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to assume that Israel will be attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low, but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the alternative of a nuclear Iran, there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war than to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as I am concerned.”

How many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?

“I cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we not terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have to be ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not go nuclear. Again: I hope it does not come to that. I hope that it will be done by others. In the Iranians’ eyes, Israel is only the Little Satan, and the United States is the Great Satan. But as I told you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? “

Hezbollah scenario

Hezbollah can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases, strategic targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive missile attack make you lose sleep?

“My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the government of Lebanon will bear very great responsibility.”

You answered my question about the home front. But what about the argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear capability?

“First things first and last things last. In regard to a religious war, isn’t the regime in Iran waging a religious war against us today? In regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not accept that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime. In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid of the regime of the ayatollahs.

“Let me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more. If so, they will say, ‘What did we accomplish? What did we gain?’ But the question is far broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the Iranian regime that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability. And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of force?

“Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its results only from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in the discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on [the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community. The president of the United States has undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear power. If Iran defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a collision course with the West.”

But the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in head-first?

“There is agreement between the United States and us on the goal, and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear bomb.

“We do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First, because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as long as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our assessment there is no certainty that it will be possible to intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave the order to build a bomb . Third, there is a disparity between the sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of threat and urgency in Washington.”

Yet, Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of ‘Hold me back.’

“Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not bluffing.’ If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb, decisions will have to be made.”

Is there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already in the year ahead?

“There was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we talked about years. Now we are talking about months. It is possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword touch its throat.”

Israel Hayom | Syria and the decline of the UN.

Dore Gold