WarSclerotic

One Per Cent: Iran nuclear facilities ‘Thunderstruck’ by AC/DC malware.

( Some true comic relief from “New Scientist.” – JW  )

Jacob Aron, technology reporter

(Image: Classic Rock/Future Publishing/Rex Features)

In 2010, Iran’s nuclear facilities were infiltrated by Stuxnet, the centrifuge-wrecking malware allegedly cooked up by the US government. Now they seem to have been hit again by a bizarre attack forcing nuclear plant workstations to pump the song Thunderstruck by heavy metal band AC/DC through the speakers at full volume.

News of the attack comes from Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at Finnish computer security firm F-Secure, who says he recently received a series of emails from a scientist working at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI):

“I am writing you to inform you that our nuclear program has once again been compromised and attacked by a new worm with exploits which have shut down our automation network at Natanz and another facility Fordo near Qom.”

The Iranian scientist goes on to say that they believe the attackers used Metasploit, a common hacking tool which provides a variety of ways to penetrate supposedly secure networks. “There was also some music playing randomly on several of the workstations during the middle of the night with the volume maxed out,” says the scientist. “I believe it was playing ‘Thunderstruck’ by AC/DC.”

While the US military has used heavy metal music as a weapon in the past it seems unlikely that a Stuxnet-like stealth attack would announce its presence with a few blasting power chords, suggesting the hit is more likely the work of a thrill-seeking hacker. Hypponen says he has been unable to verify any details of the attack, but has confirmed that the emails were sent and received from within the AEOI.

Syria’s SNC to accept transition led by regime figures; Assad’s days seen ‘numbered’.

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

SNC spokesman Georges Sabra said that they want to put an end to the massacres and protect Syrian civilians, and accept the initiative to remove Assad and transfer his powers to a regime figure. (Reuters)

  inShare1

IDF chief: Attack in Syria may lead to broader conflict – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Gantz tells Knesset Defense Committee strike on chemical weapons stockpiles may drag Israel into major war; says defections motivated Syrian rebels

Yoav Zitun

During a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee debate Tuesday on the possibility of an Israeli attack on Syria‘s stockpiles of chemical weapons, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz said the army may find it difficult to launch a “pinpoint” attack and warned that any other strike in Syria may drag the Jewish state into a broader regional conflict.

Gantz told the committee that Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime has boosted protection around its chemical weapons stockpiles and that the weapons have not landed in the hands of “negative elements” as of yet.

“But this situation may change,” he stressed, “and then we will be faced with a dilemma.”

Gantz said Israelmust also consider “who will remain after we act and in whose hands (the weapons) will land.”

Addressing the civil war in Syria, the army chief said Iran and Hezbollahhave provided substantial assistance to Assad’s forces – including weapons – but added that the defections of top commanders are hurting the Syrian army and motivating the rebels.

Earlier, the rebel Free Syrian Army said the Syrian government has movedchemical weapons to airports on its borders.

“We in the joint command of the Free Syrian Army inside the country know very well the locations and positions of these weapons,” a statement from the FSA said.

“We also reveal that (President Bashar) Assad has transferred some of these weapons and equipment for mixing chemical components to airports on the border.”

The statement said the weapons had been moved in a bid to pressure the international community, much of which has called for Assad to step aside in the face of a 16-month uprising against his rule.

Poll: Most Israelis trust U.S. as an ally | Lansing State Journal | lansingstatejournal.com.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds his weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday in Jerusalem. He says, “The real thing — the real question — is not stated policy (from the U.S.) but actual results on the ground.” / Pool photo by Gali Tibbon

By Michele Chabin, Special for USA TODAY

JERUSALEM (USA TODAY) — With the borders they share with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and even the Palestinian territories relatively peaceful at the moment, Israelis have been enjoying an unusually calm summer — at least at home.

That can change quickly in this part of the world.

The violence in Syria threatens to spill into other countries, Iran’s Israel-hating leaders refuse to end a nuclear program that could produce an atomic bomb, the Muslim Brotherhood has gained the presidency in Egypt, and Israelis continue to be targets for terrorism worldwide.

Worrisome to many here is where the United States will come down if serious trouble befalls the Jewish state.

A poll of Israelis in June found that most trust the United States to come to Israel’s help in an existential threat, but they don’t think the current U.S. administration is handling the threats well.

“We have to destroy Iran’s weapons with or without the Americans’ help, and it should be done before the elections, while Obama can’t act,” Avraham Nachmani, 51, of northern Israel, said as he stood outside a cosmetics store while his wife shopped.

Iran is among the biggest worries. The Islamic republic continues to enrich uranium into possible weapons-grade material and has refused to let United Nations inspectors verify whether it is abiding by an agreement not to make nuclear weapons.

The United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions against Iran to get it to open up its program to inspection. During the latest talks between six world powers and Iran held in Moscow, Iran insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Efraim Inbar, a Bar-Ilan University political scientist, said many Israelis are “disappointed” by President Obama’s continuing determination to pressure Iran with economic sanctions and diplomacy, not a military assault.

“By failing to explicitly threaten the regime with American military force, the president is projecting the image of the U.S. as a weakling, and radicals will take advantage of it and Israel,” Inbar said.

No ‘results on the ground’

Iran’s nuclear program was at the top of the agenda during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s visit to Jerusalem this month. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday it would be the No. 1 subject when he meets Friday with Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who will be visiting Israel.

The sanctions that Obama prefers to use to pressure Iran have aimed to stop it from selling its oil.

The U.S. Treasury Department also recently blacklisted several companies and individuals that it says may be helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Obama has insisted Iran must not develop nuclear weapons, but Netanyahu said Sunday that despite Obama’s insistence, the threat is “still with us four years later.”

“The real thing — the real question — is not stated policy but actual results on the ground,” Netanyahu said.

Israel also says it has “rock solid” proof that Iran’s Hezbollah operatives were behind the killing Wednesday of five vacationing Israelis and a bus driver in Bulgaria. The website of Iran State TV called the accusation “ridiculous.”

Obama condemned the “barbaric terrorist attack” but did not mention Iran. The White House said Obama pledged to provide “whatever assistance is necessary to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators.”

The June poll commissioned by the Begin Sadat Center at Bar Ilan University and the Anti-Defamation League found that nearly 70% of Israelis have a positive attitude toward the United States. More than 90% believe that in an existential crisis or “moment of truth,” the United States would come to Israel’s aid.

Obama is not viewed as favorably. In 2009, 54% of Israelis viewed him positively, compared with 32% in June.

Some Israelis said they want an assurance that the United States would support Israel if it attacked Iran’s nuclear capability to end the bomb threat.

Just 19% of Israelis support a military strike without U.S. support, according to a poll conducted by the Washington-based Brookings Saban Center in February.

Forty-two percent favor an attack if the United States is on board.

Counting on sanctions

Israeli military analyst Yaakov Katz, co-author of Israel vs. Iran: The Shadow War, says the polls show Israelis are “skeptical” about Obama’s determination to take military action to stop Iran.

Simon Knopf, 50, an American-born physician’s assistant who moved to Israel five years ago, said Iran doesn’t worry him.

Cradling his 5-year-old son, Avichai, in his lap, Knopf said, “I think the economic sanctions are taking their toll on the Iranian people and eventually they’ll rise up against their leaders. The regime is strong, but it’s only a matter of time until it’s toppled.”

Watching her two little boys running around a play area, Arij Mohammed, a 25-year-old mother dressed in jeans and a colorful Islamic head scarf, admitted she fears Iran.

“I’m not an Israeli citizen, but I live here, and I worry about my family. My only concern is to keep them safe,” said Mohammed, a resident of East Jerusalem.

Regardless of which U.S. presidential candidate wins in November, Israel will do “what if feels is in its own interest, even if it goes against American policy,” Katz said.

Michael Segall, senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, said he believes the Iranians are taking advantage of the run-up to the U.S. election and making provocative moves such as conducting missile tests in international shipping waters off the Strait of Hormuz.

“They know Obama is limited in what he can do militarily, for political reasons, so they’re mocking the U.S.,” Segall said.

Asia Times Online :: Israel stirs on the eve of Middle East war.

By Victor Kotsev

Perhaps the most ominous words uttered in recent months by Ehud Barak, the influential Israeli defense minister, came in the form of a paradoxical reassurance. “I believe and hope that there will be no war this summer, but that is all that can be said at this time,” he said in a televised interview on Friday.

Conventional wisdom has it that the louder the Israeli threats of war, the less likely that a war is imminent – and, in certain situations such as the present one, vice versa. Earlier this year, threats were flying – Barak was talking about the Iranian nuclear program entering an “immunity zone” by the end of the summer – but more recently this has changed dramatically. As Reuters observed two months ago, Israeli officials have gone into an

ominous “lock down.” [1] Now comes Barak’s statement.

The million-dollar question is, which war. From a narrow Israeli perspective, war may in fact be avoidable and all the threats – Barak is certainly aware of the ripple effect of his words – could be primarily defensive in nature. With the entire region in flux and its home front underprepared (only 53% of Israelis, for example, are equipped with gas masks), Israel might ideally prefer to save its shots.

From a broader regional perspective, the civil war in Syria is already a fact, and it looks as if the violence, both there and elsewhere, can only explode further. At some point in the near future, somebody will likely feel compelled to intervene, if not against the Iranian nuclear program, then against the Syrian chemical and biological weapons, if not through a full-scale attack then by a “surgical strike”. If not Israel, this would most likely be the United States, though other regional players also stand ready to weigh in. In many ways, it’s a war of nerves as much as it is a diplomatic bazaar, and it is hard to tell who will blink first and what deals will be struck.

Barak’s words come at a particularly sensitive time, when the Israeli army is on high alert near the northern border and the Israeli leadership is reportedly preparing for a spillover of violence from the Syrian conflict. One scenario that is particularly worrisome and has attracted a lot of attention is that, as the Syrian regime collapses, some of its missiles tipped with chemical weapons could fall into the hands of either Sunni Muslim extremists or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This danger, of course, could be used for propaganda purposes, in order to justify a pre-emptive strike on Syria backed by the US and other Western powers; this is a tempting hypothesis, but it carries significant hidden risks and costs. Most importantly, any Israeli intervention, save perhaps for a very brief and pointed strike, could rally popular support behind Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and thus backfire spectacularly. Other Arab states might face public pressure to shift their stance as well, and the coalition against Assad may come under strain. (During the First Persian Gulf War, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sought to exploit this dynamic by firing Scud missiles at Israel.)

Also, Syria’s response to an Israeli incursion could escalate much more quickly and to much more gruesome levels than that against other aggressors. As the Syrian foreign ministry spokesman put it on Monday, “These [chemical and biological] weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under its direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression.” [2] It should be noted that the Syrian regime is almost as unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction against another Muslim country as it is against its own population, which leaves Israel the main target of its current threats.

It is true that, among the regional countries, Israel is best equipped to deliver a blow to Syria – after all, it successfully deceived the Syrian air defenses in 2007, when it bombed an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. By contrast, the other regional heavy weight, Turkey, lost a plane on a reconnaissance mission near the Syrian border this year.

It is also widely believed that among all Israeli politicians, Barak, in particular, is itching for action, and it is possible that some American officials would rather see him engaged in Syria than in Iran, particularly prior to the US presidential elections in November. It is easy to imagine, however, an outcome in which the negative consequences of such action far outweigh the positive ones.

Surprises are possible, and Saudi Arabia is one corner from which we can expect them. Recently, the kingdom made a remarkable choice of a new spy chief, in the face of the “peasant-prince” Bandar bin Sultan. He is a familiar personality in international diplomatic circles, having served for over two decades as the Saudi ambassador in Washington, but for a number of years he had been sidelined. John Hannah, writing for Foreign Policy Magazine, discussed his return to diplomacy last year, [3] and now, it seems, he has re-assumed his spot at the center of the action.

The prince’s exploits are legendary – in the 1980s, for example, he reportedly arranged the delivery of Chinese medium-range missiles to Saudi Arabia under the nose of the US administration, sparking a diplomatic crisis. His resourcefulness is likely being put to use in Syria.

As a Saudi analyst told Reuters on Friday, “Bandar is quite aggressive, not at all like a typical cautious Saudi diplomat. If the aim is to bring [Syrian President] Bashar [al-Assad] down quick and fast, he will have a free hand to do what he thinks necessary. He likes to receive an order and implement it as he sees fit.” [4]

Yet, while coordinating a surprise move with the Israeli “enemy” may well be within Bandar bin Sultan’s (and Saudi Arabia’s) repertoire, it is hard to imagine that the Saudis would be comfortable with an Israeli intervention in a predominantly Sunni Muslim country. In fact, Prince Bandar is known as a hawk on Israel, and his earlier diplomatic downfall is rumored to have been caused in part by his aggressive support for the Palestinians during the Second Intifada (Palestinian uprising).

A damning 2002 quote, which is widely attributed to him and slams the US policy of supporting the Jewish State, goes:

It is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is necessary to survive, and if that means we move to the right of [late al-Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden, so be it; to the left of [former Libyan leader Muammar] Gaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it. It’s damned lonely in our part of the world, and we can no longer defend our relationship to our people.

Syria, similarly to the Palestinian territories, might be unpalatable for the Saudis as a target for an Israeli intervention, but Shi’ite Iran is a different matter altogether. In fact, for several years now credible rumors have circulated about the alleged Saudi-Israeli cooperation against the Iranian nuclear program, even claiming that Saudi Arabia has offered its air space as an attack route to the Israelis.

As a side note, this year the Iranians chose to start the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on a different date than Saudi Arabia, in a fresh affront to Riyadh.

For Israel, too, Iran is a much more urgent target than Syria (the Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah also likely ranks higher than Syria, though not as high as Iran). In fact, since the start of the unrest in their northern neighbor the Israelis have generally preferred as much stability in their immediate neighborhood as possible, and have been skeptical about the Syrian rebels’ ability to guarantee that. In the Iranian nuclear program, on the other hand, they see an urgent threat accompanied by the long-term danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Right now, Israel seems content to wait as tensions in the Persian Gulf rise by the day, both in order to increase international pressure on Iran and in hopes that the US might get drawn into the fray. Most recently, over half of the Iranian parliament reportedly backed a bill calling on the military to block the Strait of Hormuz. This is a red line for the US, yet the move is mostly symbolic, since final authority over the matter rests with the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

At the same time, however, an aide to Khamenei reportedly threatened that Iran would increase uranium enrichment levels to over 50% fissile material in response to the international pressure, while a computer virus that is attributed to the Islamic Republic has been making rounds in the Middle East. The code, dubbed “Mahdi,” is believed to be Iran’s response to cyber warfare waged against it by the West, and has reportedly infected a number of computers in Israel and other countries. [5]

Finally, both Israel and the US pointed a finger at Iran for the terror attack which claimed five Israeli lives in Bulgaria last week, as well as for a similar plot foiled in Cyprus earlier this month. Both are doing their best to sell their narrative to the international community, and to prepare world public opinion for hostilities.

The main difference is in their time frames, and a long string of top American visitors in Jerusalem (Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in the last couple of weeks) is widely interpreted as an ongoing American campaign to restrain Israel for another few months. The Israelis, however, are growing increasingly restless, as are the Saudis. Barring substantial progress against Iran and its allies soon, the Americans might not get their wishes.

Some analysts have speculated that an American-led campaign in Syria might postpone an Israeli strike on Iran, not least because the Assad regime is a key element of Iran’s influence on the Levant. [6] However, in order for this strategy to work (assuming it would), the Americans would need to assume responsibility for Syria themselves.

This is where the bargaining gets really tricky. Both the Israelis and the Americans would prefer to do as little of the heavy lifting themselves, and to reap as many of the benefits as possible. Each country has a different calculus of its goals and capabilities, and each may find itself compelled to act under different circumstances. Needless to say, the actions of each influence the other.

On the Israeli side, domestic political considerations also weigh in. Last week, the largest party in the Israeli Knesset (parliament), Kadima, left the coalition, which it had joined barely two months ago. While this was due to a domestic intrigue, it will most likely lead to elections early next year, and will put pressure on Barak and his ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to deliver on their promises to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, the exit from the top decision-making panel of Kadima’s head, Shaul Mofaz, can be seen as conducive to rash military action. Mofaz, a Persian Jew born in Iran and a former chief of staff of the Israeli army, was widely perceived as a moderating influence when it comes to Iran.

Overall, it is hard not to agree with the acclaimed economist Nouriel Roubini, who predicted earlier this month that a “perfect [economic] storm scenario” was “unfolding,” in part due to the high likelihood of large-scale violence in the Middle East. While it is not yet completely clear who the main actors would be – and whether Israel would be directly involved – the likelihood that the various diplomatic negotiations will succeed grows slimmer with each day that passes. Conversely, the danger of a regional war increases.

Notes:
1. Iran attack decision nears, Israeli elite locks down, Reuters, May 17, 2012
2. Syria says could use chemical arms against foreign intervention, Reuters, July 23, 2012
3. Bandar’s return, Foreign Policy, April 22, 2011
4. Saudi Prince Bandar: a flamboyant, hawkish spy chief, Reuters, July 20, 2012
5. ‘Mahdi’ virus stole data on national infrastructure, Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2012
6. The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria, Foreign Policy, June 4, 2012.

Victor Kotsev is a journalist and political analyst.

‘Syria moves chemical weapons, won’t use t… JPost – Middle East.

U.S. military completes initial planning for Syria – CNN Security Clearance – CNN.com Blogs.

By Barbara Starr

The U.S. military has completed its own planning for how American troops would conduct a variety of operations against Syria, or to assist neighboring countries in the event action was ordered, officials tell CNN.

In recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed, how many troops, and even the cost of certain potential operations, officials tell CNN.

Multiple military officials say initial planning is complete with a full understanding of what types of troops and units would be needed. This has been done so that if President Obama were to ask for options the military would be ready to present them. But officials say additional detailed work would have to be done before forces could be deployed.

The planning comes as the U.S. has become increasingly concerned that the violence in Syria is verging on civil war. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the recent series of bombings have heightened the worry.

Dempsey said it reminded him of the escalating violence during the Iraq war.

The violence “gives us all pause that have been in Iraq and seen how these issues become sectarian and then they become civil wars and then they become very difficult to resolve,” Dempsey told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

A senior U.S. official said the developments have been a matter of discussion in the Obama administration.

“There is a sense that if the sectarian violence in Syria grows, it could be worse than what we saw in Iraq,” the official said.

The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. Officials say all the scenarios would be difficult to enact and involve large numbers of U.S. troops and extended operations.

The planning, officials insist, is being done protectively and there have been no orders for any action from the White House.

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. The official emphasized that the U.S. routinely maintains this type of naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, but acknowledged the current focus is on Syria.

The United States, Britain and France have all been discussing contingency scenarios, potential training and sharing of intelligence about what is happening in Syria with neighboring countries including Jordan, Turkey and Israel. But it is Jordan, so far, that is most seeking the help because of its relatively small military and potential need for outside help if unrest in southern Syria were to impact Jordan’s security.

U.S. special forces are training and advising Jordanian troops on a range of specific military tasks they might need to undertake if unrest in Syria spills over into Jordan or poses a threat to that country, three Defense Department officials told CNN. The officials declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the training. Jordanian officials also are refusing to publicly confirm details, but a senior Middle Eastern government official also confirmed details to CNN.

The U.S. has been training in Jordan using mainly special operations forces under a program called Joint Combined Exchange Training, which sends troops overseas to train foreign soldiers and units in specific missions. Jordan’s major security concern is that if the Syrian regime were to suddenly collapse, then it would face unrest on its northern border, as well as the possibility of large refugee flows, weapons smuggling into Jordan, and potential disarray in Syria’s chemical and biological weapons complex. Jordan also is considering how and where to potentially set up humanitarian assistance bases inside its borders, another matter the U.S. is advising it on.

The Jordanians do not believe regime of Bashir al-Assad would attack them. But they have made it clear to the United States they want the training so they are ready to move quickly if any scenario develops that could destabilize their country, which is already reeling politically from a collapsing economy. While there’s no formal agreement, one of the U.S. officials said the U.S. would come to the defense and support of Jordan in the event any of the Syria scenarios pose a challenge.

While there is no current scenario for putting U.S. troops on the ground in Jordan or Syria, the U.S. could wind up providing air support to move Jordanian troops to the border. In addition, American forces could provide a wide range of intelligence and surveillance capabilities to Jordan so they would have up-to-date information on what is happening on the Syrian side of their border region. In one of the most extreme scenarios, a small unit of Jordanian troops could move into Syria to protect a chemical or biological weapons site.

U.S. satellites are monitoring the chemical and biological weapons sites around the clock, and so far “there is no reason to believe they are not secure,” one of the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. believes the facilities are guarded by some of the most elite Alawite troops loyal to al-Assad. But the official noted that the opposition forces appear to be gaining strength in some areas, and that the United States, Jordan and the allies are concerned that as the amount of al-Assad controlled territory shrinks, some of those critical facilities could be open to attacks, pilfering or efforts by terrorist groups to buy material.

“This is getting a fair amount of attention,” another U.S. official told CNN. Also discussed with Jordanian forces was the possible need for U.S. chemical and biological weapons detecting equipment, the official said.

The overall assessment by the U.S. is that in the event some action had to be taken to secure Syrian chemical, biological or weapons facilities, troops from some country would have to enter Syria in a matter of hours.

This latest training is said to be separate from the recent multinational “Eager Lion 2012” training exercise that took place in Jordan.

During that exercise, U.S. and Jordanian troops also practiced many of the same scenarios, but the JCET training is much more focused, according to the officials.

IDF: Syrian chemical threat targets Israel. Obama warns Assad against “tragic mistake”.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 23, 2012, 11:09 PM (GMT+02:00)

Fighting in Aleppo, Syria’s second city

Senior Israeli military officers, referring to the Syrian foreign ministry statement Monday, July 23, that Syria would only use chemical weapons against “external aggression,” found in it a direct threat by the Assad regime to turn those weapons against Israel.

It was Syria’s rejoinder to Israel’s vow to use force against those chemical weapons to prevent them from reaching Hizballah’s hands in Lebanon.
Tensions between Syria and Israel, like its other neighbors – especially Jordan and Turkey – rose to a new pitch in the wake of the new Syrian statement.
Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said plainly Sunday that preventing Syria’s chemical weapons from “falling into the wrong hands” was a key to Israeli security, while Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he had ordered the Israeli military to prepare for a possible attack on Syria’s weapons arsenal, because “Israel cannot accept the transfer of advanced weapons from Syria to Lebanon.”

Monday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, catching onto Syria’s veiled threat, called it unacceptable: “This is typical of the complete illusion of this regime that they are the victims of external aggression.”
A few hours later, the UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said in New York that he was “very concerned” that “Syria may be tempted to use chemical weapons.”

He was followed by Pentagon press secretary George Little who told reporters: “They should not think one iota about using chemical weapons,” he said. “We have been very strong in our statements inside the US government on the prospective use of chemical weapons and it would be entirely unacceptable.”
Finally, US President Barack Obama said Monday that “Assad will be held accountable if he makes the tragic mistake of using chemical weapons.

An Israeli officer told debkafile that the Syrian foreign ministry’s statement was tantamount to a declaration that the Assad regime holds all the cards on when and against whom to use its chemical weapons. America, Israel, Jordan and Turkey have no say in the matter. Assad alone will decide if and when to wage chemical warfare against such enemies as Israel and Jordan, although he may be expected to follow Iran in refraining from going after American targets at this time.
He has, in other words, given himself carte blanche for resorting to chemical warfare at a time of his choosing by reiterating that his government is subject to external Arab and Western aggression.
Israeli sources point out that the Syrian statement omitted any mention – certainly no denial – of the possible transfer of those weapons to Hizballah in Lebanon. The Assad regime must therefore be understood to reserve to itself that option, too, thereby laying Israel wide open to a direct threat. Israel and its military were alone in expressly vowing to prevent this transfer.
“We understand the Syrian ruler to be preparing to expand the Syria war into Lebanon whence his troops can threaten northern and Mediterranean areas of Israel,” said a US military source.
Another development Monday portending the further exacerbation of the Syrian crisis was the announcement by Aeroflot that it was suspending flights to Damascus in two weeks “for economic reasons.”
It looks as though Moscow foresees a further downturn in the Syrian conflict and estimates that by early August intensified air force activity in Syrian skies will reach a dangerous level.
Sunday, July 22, debkafile’s exclusive military sources outlined the military dilemma facing Israel with regard to the Syrian chemical weapon threat.  

Iranian Red Lines-Can We Detect When They are Crossed? – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

Lt.Cols. (res.) Drs. Dany Shoham & Raphael Ofek

Analysis: Red lines and deterrence – JPost – Defense.