Archive for July 2012

IDF on alert as Syrian fighting nears northern border

July 27, 2012

Israel Hayom | IDF on alert as Syrian fighting nears northern border.

Engineering work carried out on Golan Heights along border with Syria to prevent entry of infiltrators and refugees • Rebels in Aleppo preparing for major military assault by government troops • Jordanian soldiers reportedly fire back at Syrian troops trying to prevent refugees from crossing border.

Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti and The Associated Press
Israeli military forces moving along the Syrian border this week.

|

Photo credit: Reuters

A lost source…

July 27, 2012

I’m sorry to tell you that Debka has canceled my weekly subscription because they were angry  I re-posted it here.

I begged them to reconsider as this is not a commercial site and is here for the good of us all.  Unfortunately, they cut me off anyway.

If any of the users of this site has a subscription, please contact me at: josephwouk(at)gmail.com.  All of us here could benefit.  Thanks for your help.

This is one hairy weekend.  Allepo and the Russian fleet are due to happen tomorrow.  For the time being, Israel has to be ready to respond rather than taking the initiative. 

Some here are convinced that Assad will pull a “Samson” when the rebels close in and will launch on Israel to preserve his Islamic honor before being killed. 

I don’t know enough about Assad to judge this opinion and am interested in any knowledgeable feedback.

שבת שלום

– JW

Russia to keep Tartus base

July 27, 2012

Russia to keep Tartus base: Voice of Russia.

Jul 27, 2012 16:37 Moscow Time
© Flickr.com/ syrialooks /cc-by-nc-sa 3.0

тартус сирия порт корабли море

Russia will maintain its logistics naval station in the Syrian port of Tartus. Commenting on the issue earlier this week, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov accentuated the importance of the Tartus base in providing logistics services to the anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden.

He said that there were ten Russian warships and ten support ships in the Mediterranean now, as part of planned maneuvers announced last year.

On July 10, a combined squad of Russia’s Northern, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets entered the Mediterranean on a three-month-long training mission to practice anti-piracy and rescue efforts. Some of the ships will call at Tartus.

Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, said in an interview that as long as Russia positioned itself as a naval power, it must have ports, mooring sites or, preferably, naval bases abroad. Russia pulled out of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and also out of Aden. Tartus is the only site where Russian ships can dock for refueling and repairs and allow their crews to rest a little, he said.

“Strictly speaking, the Tartus station is not a naval base. We only have a floating repair dock there. The port is not equipped to be a base, but potential changes are possible. If we maintain our presence there, modernization will be needed.”

Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Military Forecast Center, echoes that with tension mounting around Syria and military intervention not altogether unlikely, the Russian base in Tartus acquires vital geopolitical significance.

“If Russia loses that base, it will have nowhere in the Mediterranean to fuel or repair its ships. The moment Russia loses the Tartus base, it will also lose Syria. Consequently, and I deem it quite possible, military actions against Iran may begin. That scenario will create very complicated problems for Russian troops stationed in the Caucasus. Therefore, and it should be admitted frankly, when we talk about Syria, we talk about Iran and the Russian troops in the Caucasus.”

Russia has never made a secret of its intention to keep its logistics base in Tartus.

Built by the former Soviet Union in 1971, the Tartus station was conceived as a supply and maintenance center for the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean. It has two floating docks, a repair workshop, storage and other facilities, and several small barracks. Its personnel currently numbers 50 servicemen. After the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the 5th Mediterranean Squadron was dissolved, but the base remained. Today, it’s Russia’s only naval station in the region.

Former top IDF officials worry that Netanyahu is bent on an Iran strike

July 27, 2012

Former top IDF officials worry that Netanyahu is bent on an Iran strike – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

ANALYSIS: It looks like Netanyahu and Defense Minster Barak are set on an Iran strike, but some of Israel’s former defense top brass agree that, right now, an attack would do more harm than good.

By Amos Harel | Jul.27, 2012 | 10:20 AM
Ehud Barak observing the Syrian border this week.

 

“I am terribly confused. For the first time, after many years of experience in this field, I think I have a better grasp of the calculations that are motivating the enemy than of our own.” Thus said an experienced intelligence analyst who spent many years in the inner sanctum of Israel’s security system. Realities in the Middle East have changed drastically during the past two years, the man observed. It seems that for the first time in a very long time, Israel cannot really take steps to curb the developments that threaten it – from the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the potential worrisome collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. Yet in one area, Israeli action can have significant, dramatic repercussions, ones that will influence life in the region as a whole – and that area is Iran.

In recent weeks I’ve held discussions with five retired defense establishment officials, each of whom held a top post. In fact, between them, they held virtually every major command post that one can imagine in the Israel Defense Forces. The talks were held separately (some of these figures loathe one another, due to disagreements which are personal, not strategic in nature). The troublesome thing about the conversations was their consistent, uniform tone: All these interlocutors are very worried about what they perceive as the prime minister’s, and the defense minister’s, increasing inclination to attack Iran.

None of the five has publicly voiced opposition to such an attack, nor did they always see eye to eye about specific details of the Iranian issue. Most of them take exception to the outspoken statements by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin, who expressed opposition to oppose bombing Iran under any circumstances (Dagan), and characterized the Netanyahu-Barak position on this subject as being irrational and “messianic” (Diskin). What unites the five is doubt about the timing: An attack during the next two months, they say, without international backing and in defiance of American preferences, would bring more harm to Israel than good.

At the end of 2011, Ehud Barak introduced into international discourse about Iran’s nuclear program the concept of Tehran’s “immunity threshold.” This idea, devised originally by the IDF’s Intelligence Corps, refers to the regime’s desire to establish vital components of its nuclear program in various fortified sites that will essentially be safe in the event of external military attack. Now, it seems that, with respect to that scenario, the point of no return may have already come and gone: The Iranians have developed sufficient production capability and knowledge regarding how to respond to attacks, to be able to provide their nuclear program with a kind of insurance policy.

Barak’s assessments implied that by the end of 2012, Iran will have passed the immunity threshold. Indeed, such protection against an Israeli attack is being attained relatively quickly. The U.S. Air Force, with its enhanced attack capabilities, might have a few more months than Israel to launch a crippling strike against Iran’s program.

Delivering a speech at a Defense Ministry reception on Independence Day last April, Barak elaborated on the details of the immunity threshold concept. Thereafter, however, it seemed to vanish from Barak’s public pronouncements; in a fairly assertive speech he delivered on Wednesday at the National Defense College, he had nary a word to say about the idea.

Some people believe that the concept is no longer germane, because months ago, Iran passed the threshold and now hosts well-protected nuclear facilities. The Iranians have moved a large number of uranium enrichment centrifuges to the underground facility at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom, which helps render an air attack against the nuclear program useless, these experts contend. What remains for Israel to do, they suggest, is to consider carrying out an aerial attack as a display of its deterrent powers, not as a substantive strike intended to decapitate the Iranian program.

The brilliance of the minds behind the operative planning in Israel should not be belittled. If we consider past operations attributed to Israel in this area, it seems plausible to argue that Israel would be able to pull off an operational success this time as well, in Iran. Yet the positive strategic dividends of such as an operation would be limited. Moreover, they could be offset by a number of dangers: from a rift in relations with Washington to, in extreme circumstances, a regional war.

Cynics would argue that the immunity threshold concept serves an utterly different goal: The Iranian threat bolsters Barak’s own political immunity, since he has survived by being known as Netanyahu’s right-hand man on sensitive security matters.

Duan-Iran deal

In the middle of this past week, the political arena was rattled by the so-called Duan-Iran deal, by the prime minister’s effort to lure four MKs from the Kadima party (including MK Avi Duan ) to join the government, together with former MK Tzachi Hanegbi. This political jockeying was associated by some media outlets with the Iranian issue: Netanyahu, they suggested, initially declared that early elections would be held, and then suddenly brought Kadima into the coalition in May, for the purposes of paving the road to an attack on Iran. According to some analysts, Kadima chairman Shaul Mofaz quit the coalition in mid-July due to his reservations about an attack on Iran (this issue was arguably more important to him than the crisis about conscription of Orthodox men to the IDF ). Furthermore, pundits say, Hanegbi was going to join the coalition so as to help give Netanyahu the sweeping support for a strike that Mofaz was supposed to have garnered.

This scenario has many loose ends, however. Mofaz presented himself publicly as a vehement opponent of a unilateral Israeli attack. So why would Netanyahu rely on him as a potential supporter of just such a strike? This strategic explanation of recent occurrences in the political arena also overlooks the extent to which sheer political survival affects the thinking of figures such as the prime minister and also Mofaz – especially at moments when they consider signing a coalition agreement between parties. And the benefits (strategic, moral, political or otherwise ) to be accrued by Hanegbi’s inclusion in the government remain hard to fathom.

US fears major Iranian threat in Persian Gulf

July 27, 2012

US fears major Iranian threat in Persian Gulf – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Washington Post report reveals that security experts believe that Iran’s upgraded military capabilities could be key in case of military confrontation in Persian Gulf

Ynet

Published: 07.27.12, 11:36 / Israel News

Experts estimate that Iran is bolstering its retaliation capabilities against US naval ships in the Persian Gulf– among other things Tehran is amassing an arsenal of advanced anti-ship missiles and expanding its fast attack boat fleet, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

According to the Post, officials claimed that the new systems, many of which were developed with foreign assistance, are giving Iran’s commanders new confidence that they could quickly damage or destroy US ships if hostilities erupt.Although US Navy officials are convinced that they would prevail in a fight, Iran’s advances have fueled concerns about US vulnerabilitiesduring the opening hours of a conflict in the gulf.  
מחקר הזהיר מיכולת איראן "לערוך מארב ימי נרחב" (צילום: EPA)

Iran has growing naval capabilities (Photo: EPA)

Experts including current and former military analysts believe that increasingly accurate short-range missiles— combined with Iran’s use of “swarm” tactics involving hundreds of heavily armed patrol boats — could strain the defensive capabilities of even the most modern US ships.

According to expert assessments, the likelihood that Iran would risk an all-out attack on a vastly superior US fleet is small. But leaders in the Islamic Republic could decide to launch a limited strike if Israel or the United States bombed the country’s nuclear facilities.

‘Devastating first salvo’

Iran’s ability to inflict significant damage in this scenario is substantially greater than it was a decade ago. A Pentagonstudy in April warned that Iran had made gains in the “lethality and effectiveness” of its arsenal.

Iran’s increased power to retaliate has led some military experts to question the wisdom of deploying aircraft carriers and other expensive warships to the gulf if a conflict appears imminent.

A 2009 study prepared for the Naval War College warns of Iran’s increasing ability to “execute a massive naval ambush” in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway dotted with small islands and inlets and perfectly suited for the kind of asymmetric warfare preferred by Iran’s commanders.

According to the study: “If the US chooses to station warships in the Strait of Hormuz during the buildup to conflict, it cedes the decision of when to fight and allows the fight to begin in the most advantageous place for Iran.

“This could lead to a devastating first salvo on US Navy warships, which would most likely be operating under restrictive rules of engagement.”

Since the study’s release in 2009, analysts say, Iran has added defensive and offensive capabilities.

Some of them have been on display in recent months in a succession of military drills, including a missile exercise in early July dubbed Great Prophet 7.

The exercise included a demonstration of Iran’s newly deployed Khalid Farzh anti-ship missile, which has an internal guidance system, a powerful 1,400-pound warhead and a range of 180 miles.

The April Pentagon assessment signed by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted that Iran’s arsenal now includes ballistic missiles with “seekers” that enable them to maneuver toward ships during flight.

Modern US warships are equipped with multiple defense systems, such as the ship-based Aegis missile shield. But Iran has sought to neutralize the US technological advantage by honing an ability to strike from multiple directions at once.

The emerging strategy relies not only on mobile missile launchers but also on new mini-submarines, helicopters and hundreds of heavily armed small boats known as fast-attack craft.

‘360-degree threat’

A Middle Eastern intelligence official who helps coordinate strategy for the gulf with US counterparts said some Navy ships could find themselves in a “360-degree threat environment,” simultaneously in the cross hairs of adversaries on land, in the air, at sea and even underwater.

“This is the scenario that is giving people nightmares,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing strategy for defending against a possible Iranian attack.

In line with these assessments the Navy has ordered new systems for defending against small-boat “swarms,” including ship-launched unmanned aerial vehicles and special missiles and artillery rounds for use against fast-attack craft.

But many of the new defenses will not be deployed for several months, said Michael Eisenstadt, a former military adviser to the Pentagon and the State Department.

“We’re behind and we’re catching up,” Eisenstadt added. “But if there’s a conflict in the near term, we may not be completely ready.”

Experts believe US forces would probably recover quickly from any early losses, but Iranian leaders could claim a psychological victory if the world’s media carried images of burning US warships in the gulf.

“A lot of Iranian ships would be at the bottom of the gulf, but Iran would be able to point to a victory,” Eisenstadt said.

“The outcome would never be in doubt when you’re dealing with the most powerful military in the world. But in their minds they would have shown the world that if you mess with us, you’ll pay a heavy price.”

Meanwhile, US ships continue steaming toward the gulf as the Obama administration seeks to reassure allies in the region and discourage Iran from moving to block the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

US and Middle Eastern officials acknowledge that deployments carry inherent risk, but they say there are no good alternatives.

“It is a dilemma,” the Middle East intelligence official said. “When the Navy ships are in the strait, they are vulnerable to attack. But if you were to take them away, the gulf countries would feel more vulnerable. And already they feel very, very vulnerable.”

Romney to Israel Hayom: Israel deserves better than Obama

July 27, 2012

Israel Hayom | Romney to Israel Hayom: Israel deserves better than Obama.

In special interview ahead of his visit to Israel, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney vows: I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is • Romney calls 1967 borders “indefensible,” and says Iran is closer to nuclear weapons than it was when President Obama took office.

Amos Regev and Boaz Bismuth
Romney on Iran: Commitment to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear

|

Photo credit: Getty Images

<< 1 2 3 >>

Romney to Haaretz: Military option on Iran should not be ruled out

July 27, 2012

Romney to Haaretz: Military option on Iran should not be ruled out – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

On the eve of his visit to Israel, in an exclusive interview with Haaretz, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney asserts that Iran is the biggest threat to the world, reaffirms Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and reiterates his respect for Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Ari Shavit | Jul.27, 2012 | 12:31 AM | 14
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivers remarks about the shooting in Colorado

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivers remarks about the shooting in Colorado in New Hampshire.

LONDON – The man sitting on the other side of the table may be the president of the United States next year. According to the most recent public opinion polls, his chances are almost 50-50. But in the midst of the major campaign for Ohio, Florida and Virginia, Mitt Romney abandoned everything in order to spend a few days in England, Poland and Israel. That’s why he is now sitting in a steamy room in one of the historic buildings in the Tower of London compound. That’s why he is devoting half an hour of his time to me, removing his jacket and shaking my hand, and giving me a big smile. He says a few words about the surprising heat in England, asks what’s going on in Israel. He radiates old-fashioned American warmth.

But when the recording device is turned on, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate immediately becomes tense. He is careful not to say anything superfluous. He refrains from making any commitments. Like a diligent student at an oral exam, he carefully weighs every word he is about to utter. But the interviewee is even more focused on what he is not allowed to say than on what he is about to say.

He is not allowed to say how he loathes U.S. President Barack Obama. He is not allowed to say that he thinks Obama has pulled America down into the depths. He is not allowed to express his concern over what he sees as America’s domination by un-American ideas.

Although Romney sees himself as the next Ronald Reagan, who has come to save his homeland from the hands of a failed Jimmy Carter, he lacks Reagan’s passion. Nor does he have Reagan’s maturity and sense of mission. The former governor of Massachusetts is an intelligent, professional and good-hearted businessman, but he lacks charisma. If a fire is burning in his bones, he hides it well.

Big drama. This time the debate is over the decline of America and the battle is over America’s identity. For old America, the 2012 elections may be the last chance to reclaim the hegemony; for liberal America, the 2012 elections constitute an attempt by benighted forces to run a vapid candidate against the progress represented by Obama. The former regard the latter as Americans who have deviated from the path, and the latter regard the former as fanatics and racists who want to turn back the clock. Because the two forces are colliding with intensity and violence, the election campaign is expensive and polluted. The two Americas wrestling in the arena are beating each other to a pulp.

The man sitting opposite me is a very surprising candidate for the role of the Great White Hope. For most Republican voters, he is too rich, too liberal and too reserved. He is also a Mormon. So what Mitt Romney has to do now is to ensure that the elections won’t be about him, but about Obama. That the elections will be a national referendum about the economy and about Obama’s worldview. Only by being anti-Obama does the elitist from Boston have a chance to win the votes of conservative Southern Evangelists who don’t really like him. Will he succeed? Does he have what it takes?

When I observe the tall, handsome man who is answering my questions so cautiously, I have a feeling that the drama surrounding him is even bigger than he is.

Governor Romney, President Obama gave his formative foreign policy speech in Cairo in June 2009. It was basically about appeasing Islam. Should you be elected president, where will you hold your formative speech and what would it say? What would be the fundamental values and principles of Romney’s America in the international arena and how will they differ from Obama’s?

“I don’t have a current plan for where my first address related to foreign policy might be, if I am lucky enough to be elected president. But my objective will be to describe a foreign policy that shows confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in the application of our might. I believe that over the centuries this nation wisely had a great deal of confidence that our cause was just and that the endeavors we undertook were for good purposes. The clarity of our purpose was described to our citizens and people around the world. When we applied our military might, it was with resolve to be successful and to fulfill a mission. I hope that I will be able to maintain that tradition and that these principles can be applied in today’s world.

“Because we are on foreign soil, I will refrain in this interview from being critical of the president or open[ing] up new avenues of foreign policy that might be seen to be in contradiction to that of the current government. That being said, I have spoken many times about my view that this coming century must remain an American century. By that I mean that America should maintain the moral, economic and military leadership that will allow it to remain the leader of the free world and insure that the free world remains the leader of the entire world.”

Throughout the world and in the Middle East as well, America’s allies feel that the U.S. is not as strong as it was and that it does not stand by its friends as it used to. Do you share this notion and how are you going to address it?

“I can tell you that it is my firm belief that it is a benefit to my country and the world to show our friends and allies that it’s better to be a friend than a foe. To stand by our friends at all times and particularly when a friend is in great peril. Secure commitments to values and allies formed our sphere of influence over the past years, and so it should be in the future.”

Governor Romney, when you arrive in our region, you will find that what is on everybody’s minds − Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, Israelis − is the fear of Iran going nuclear. As president, would you prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, whatever it takes?

“I have said in the past and I can reiterate now that it is essential that Iran does not become nuclear. A nuclear Iran represents the greatest threat to the world, to the United States and to the very existence of Israel. A nuclear Iran would mean that Hezbollah or other actors would potentially someday be able to secure fissile materials which would threaten the world. Five years ago I spoke at the Herzliya Conference and I laid out seven steps that I felt were necessary to keep Iran from becoming nuclear. These included crippling sanctions, indicting [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide, standing for voices of dissent within Iran, and developing reliable military options were they the last resort that had to be exercised. I continue to believe that these principles are vital, and are perhaps more urgent today.”

Would you support regime change in Iran? If the Iranians should rise against Ahmadinejad as they did in June 2009 − would you stand by them?

“America is wise to stand by people seeking freedom − particularly in nations that regularly chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”

We are wise to listen to the words people say because, frightful as these words may be, history proves thatsometimes they are carried out.

“If there are voices for change and hearts yearning for freedom, America will stand by them.”

But time is running out. Engagement failed, sanctions have not yet worked, regime change has not yet occurred. Therefore we find ourselves in a dramatic situation: Iran has enriched uranium for five to six bombs, and is only a year away from the ability to produce a first bomb. It might be that by now the only option is the military one. Should it be considered and employed?

“I think I made it clear in my address in Herzliya [in January 2007] that a military option is by far the least attractive option, but it should not be ruled out. The military option should be evaluated and available if no other course is successful.”

Senator John McCain said some time ago that there is one thing worse than a military attack on Iran and that’s a nuclear Iran. Do you agree?

“President Obama has said that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. I feel a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The term ‘unacceptable’ continues to have a meaning: It suggests that all options will be employed to prevent that outcome.

“I am personally committed to take every step necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capablity.”

Some fear that America has lost it. After the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis, it does not have the stamina needed to deal with the Iranian challenge. When faced with the ultimate dilemma, it will choose containment. It will live with a nuclear Iran just as it lives with a nuclear North Korea.

“I think there is recognition in America that a nuclear Iran is different than North Korea. Both are very dangerous and destructive. We know North Korea has been … providing nuclear technology to Syria. That being said, a nuclear Iran will certainly usher in a period of nuclearization throughout the region. Given the fact that Iran is the leading sponsor of terror and has various surrogates such as Hezbollah … one is concerned that fissile material may fall into the hands of a group like Hezbollah, which is now on the ground in Latin America. That could affect not only our friends around the world but actually our own country. We are weary of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the majority of the American people recognize that Iran is of a different character.”

In the past you said there is some truth in the statement that President Obama − unintentionally − is pushing Israel to war because it feels so desperate. Is this still true?

“I don’t want to make any comment about the president.”

‘Butcher in Damascus’

So let me ask you about your friend Benjamin Netanyahu. He feels it’s 1938 all over again. Like in the 1930s, the West fails to rise to a historic challenge. Like in the 1930s, the Jewish people are in jeopardy. The combination of an unconventional regime with unconventional weapons is disastrous. Hence, Netanyahu might feel he must strike. Were this to happen, what should be the American reaction?

“I cannot speak for the president and for the nation. But as allies and nations that share profound values, we will work very closely together to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. We will employ every means short of military power. We recognize that if all means are exhausted and fail, a military option will have to be considered.”

As you are so close, would you say to the prime minister: Bibi, relax, you can trust America. America will eventually deal with Iran. Don’t do anything hasty.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu always has to do what he feels is in the best interests of his own nation. I know that our nation will always feel the same about ours.”

Iran is the important regional issue, but Syria is the more urgent one. If chemical weapons fall into the hands of Hezbollah or jihadist organizations, should America intervene and take military action?

“I think it is important for the responsible nations of the world to seek to understand which forces in Syria represent real change, rather than the kind of destruction that might occur if Al-Qaida were to seize the development of chaos and assert leadership in some significant way in Syria. I would hope that nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and others would identify responsible voices of dissent within Syria, provide them with the arms they might need to protect themselves and further their cause. We must do our best to prevent the most radical Al-Qaida or Al-Qaida-like Jihadists from trying to secure a role in the reshaping of a new Syria.”

Are you not appalled by the fact that the international community is so impotent in dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s atrocities? Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is actually supporting and arming a war criminal who’s butchering his own people − and gets away with it.

“I was very disappointed with the vote of condemnation at the United Nations being vetoed by Russia and China. I was appalled at the decision by Russia as reported in the media to provide attack helicopters and other armaments to the ‘Butcher in Damascus.’ The world looks with horror at the devastation being caused by Assad.”

Coming closer to the country you are about to visit: Are Israel’s settlements legal or illegal? Should Israel build more of them or dismantle them?

“I am afraid that any discussion of settlements would lead me into waters of showing a distance between me and the president. That will not be appropriate for me to do while on foreign soil.”

Do you support the two-state solution? Do you think that a Palestinian state should be established?

“I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state. I respect Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state. The question is not whether the people of the region believe that there should be a Palestinian state. The question is if they believe there should be an Israeli state, a Jewish state.”

‘Time of turmoil’

Facing Putin’s aggressive policies, China’s rise and radical Islamic threats − did President Obama really lead from behind?

“I have got no comment on President Obama.”

Obviously, you will not repeat now what you said not long ago − that the president ‘threw Israel under the bus.’ But would you say in a positive manner that Israel should not be thrown under the bus?

“In a time of turmoil and peril in Israel’s neighborhood, it is important that the security of America’s commitments to Israel will be as clear as humanly possible. When Israel feels less secure in the neighborhood, it should feel more secure of the commitment of the United States to its defense.”

Isn’t it in everybody’s interest that there be some daylight and distance between the two countries?

“I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see. There will be, of course, times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests − but those we are best in keeping to ourselves, in private.

“If I will be president, there will be no confrontations between our nations  before international institutions.there will be no public denouncing of Israel by the U.S. in the UN. Israel’s friendly and unfriendly neighbors will know we stand with you. I believe that is the real way to achieve peace-by working with Israel, not creating distance between Israel and America.”

Why Israel? Why now? What is the statement you are making in this critical time by traveling specifically to the U.K., Poland and Israel?

“The purpose of my trip is to listen and to learn. I do want to hear from individuals who are in places of strategic significance, who share our values and who have perspectives of significance relating to the tumultuous events throughout the world.”

Governor Romney, you’ll be arriving in Jerusalem on Saturday night, on the eve of the day on which we commemorate the destruction of the First and Second Temples. Many Israelis feel that the fate of the ‘Third Temple’ relies on its strong bond with a strong America. Can you assure them that should you be president, you will reverse the trend of American decline? Can you guarantee that both America, and Israel’s bond with America, will be strong once again?

“American strength is an ally for peace, unparalleled in world history. We must strengthen America through strong values, a stronger economy and a military that is second to none. I believe that our friends and allies support our strength by linking with us. We in turn reinforce them as they face various foes that seek to weaken them.”

Apart from the question of America and Israel, there is the question of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu. Is the special friendship between the two of you a political asset or a political liability?

“I have no idea what political impact it has, but nevertheless, this is a personally rewarding relationship which he and I will share, win or lose. I am no more involved in your politics than he is in ours. But I respect him, I respect the strength of his character and I respect the clarity with which he speaks. I believe strong leadership is always the best defense.”

If I may ask, Mr. Governor, does the Holy Land, to which you’re heading now, evoke religious feelings in you?

“As I run for political office, my policies are not shaped by my religious feelings. That being said, I have grown up in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have read and studied what my faith refers to as the Old and New Testaments. I’ve been on a boat in the Sea of Galilee. I’ve been to the Garden Tomb and other sites which I deem as having religious significance. Yes, for me Jerusalem and Israel are places of divine significance.”

One small question as we end this interview. Will you win on November 6? Will Mitt Romney be America’s 45th president?

“I certainly hope so.”

Syrian opposition braces for ‘mother of all battles’ in Aleppo

July 27, 2012

Syrian opposition braces for ‘mother of all battles’ in Aleppo.

Between 1,500 and 2,000 estimated opposition fighters had arrived from outside Syria’s most populous city to reinforce some 2,000 already fighting inside Aleppo. (Reuters)

Between 1,500 and 2,000 estimated opposition fighters had arrived from outside Syria’s most populous city to reinforce some 2,000 already fighting inside Aleppo. (Reuters)

Syrian opposition forces braced Friday for a decisive “mother of all” battle in Aleppo against President Bashar al-Assad’s army battling to retake the country’s commercial capital in what the United States said it feared could become a massacre.

The Syrian army has been sending waves of reinforcements towards the northern city, and Troops stationed on the outskirts of Aleppo unleashed barrages of heavy-caliber mortar rounds on the western neighborhoods of Saladin, al-Sukkari and al-Fardos, while Russian MI-25 helicopter gunships struck al-Sakhour in the east with rockets, several opposition activists in the city said.

“The special forces were deployed on Wednesday and Thursday on the edges of the city, and more troops have arrived to take part in a generalized counter-offensive on Friday or Saturday,” a security source told AFP of Aleppo.

Opposition fighters also brought in reinforcements, with the source estimating that between 1,500 and 2,000 opposition fighters had arrived from outside Syria’s most populous city to reinforce some 2,000 already fighting inside Aleppo.

“They are mainly present in the southern and eastern suburbs of the city, mainly Salaheddin and nearby districts,” he said.

The airport was cut off from the city, as four of the five roads leading to it were under rebel control, he added.

Rebels also said a regime assault appeared imminent.

“We expect a major offensive at any time, specifically on areas across the southern belt, from east to west,” Colonel Abdel Jabbar al-Okaidi, a spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), told AFP via Skype.

Okaidi added that some 100 tanks and a large number of military vehicles had arrived in the country’s commercial hub.

In the first reported casualty on Friday, a man of about 60 wearing a traditional white prayer outfit was killed near a park in Saladin. His body was placed in a mosque pending identification.

Thirty-four people were killed in Aleppo and its environs on Thursday, according to opposition activists keeping a tally of casualties in the northern city.

“The rebels have so far been nimble, and civilians have mostly been the victims of the bombardment,” said activist Abu Mohammad al-Halabi, speaking by phone from the city.

“There is lots of internal displacement, and schools have been turned to makeshift shelters that are packed. One shell hitting a school will result in a catastrophe,” he said.

On July 20 the rebels launched an all-out assault to overrun Aleppo, a move analysts say is aimed at establishing a bastion close to the rebel military headquarters in neighboring Turkey.

The newspaper al-Watan, which is close to the regime, led on Thursday with the headline “Aleppo, the mother of all battles,” adding that “the army continues to chase terrorists in the outskirts of Damascus and the province.”

Citing an Arab diplomatic source, it added: “Aleppo will be the last battle waged by the Syrian army to crush the terrorists and after that Syria will emerge from the crisis.”

Washington warned that the Syrian regime may be preparing to carry out a massacre in the city.

“This is the concern, that we will see a massacre in Aleppo, and that’s what the regime appears to be lining up for,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

“Our hearts are with the people of Aleppo. And again, this is another desperate attempt by a regime that is going down to try to maintain control, and we are greatly concerned about what they are capable of in Aleppo.”

But she stuck to the U.S. position of only providing non-lethal assistance to the opposition rebels who have been fighting for 16 months to topple Assad.

“We do not believe that pouring more fuel on this fire is going to save lives. We are working in non-lethal ways. We are working to support the Syrian opposition,” the spokeswoman told journalists.

Obama to sign enhanced Israel security act

July 27, 2012

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

 

By JTA

 

07/27/2012 02:27

 

WASHINGTON – US President Obama will sign a bill to strengthen security cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Obama will sign the Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 on Friday, said Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council.

“The bill deepens our security cooperation with Israel by expanding our military assistance and providing Israel with access to additional equipment,” Vietor said.

The act, which underwent its final vote in Congress last week, would enhance defense cooperation, joint exercises and joint anti-missile defense systems, as well as add congressional oversight to ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge in the Middle East. It also would direct additional US materiel for storage in Israel; such materiel is available to Israel in case of a war.

Exclusive: U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s | Reuters

July 27, 2012

Exclusive: U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s | Reuters.

A F-35 fighter jet prepares for landing with its life fan cover deployed over Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland in this undated handout image. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Handout

 

WASHINGTON | Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:57pm EDT

(Reuters) – The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin Corp on a $450 million program to enhance electronic warfare equipment on the F-35 fighter jet, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel’s $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters.

The Pentagon said the Israeli foreign arms sale could be worth up to $15.2 billion if all options are exercised, when it first approved the sale in September 2008.

“This agreement kicks off the Israeli program,” said one of the sources, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Now all of the agreements are in place.”

The F-35 will allow for even greater collaboration in the coming years with Israel, a critical strategic ally for the United States at a time when much of the Middle East is in turmoil.

The deal comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepares to visit Israel next week where he will discuss heightened tensions with Iran, which on Thursday underscored its support for Syria despite its brutal crackdown on a 16-month uprising.

It also provides a vote of confidence in the embattled F-35 program, whose cost and technology challenges have overshadowed a year of progress in flight testing.

The deal will allow increased participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program by Israeli companies, including Elbit Systems Ltd and state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, which will start building wings for the radar-evading warplane.

IAI already builds wings for the F-16 fighter jet, the world’s most widely used fighter, also built by Lockheed. Elbit, in a joint venture with Rockwell Collins, makes the advanced helmet used by pilots on the single-seat F-35.

Agreement on development of the new Israeli version of the F-35 will allow Israel to install its own radio and datalink systems, as well as other equipment, on the jets it is buying.

But the deal also covers enhancements to the airplane’s electronic warfare capabilities that will benefit the United States, Israel and the other nine countries that either have already ordered fighter planes, or plan to in coming years.

The radar-evading, multirole F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest arms purchase, expected to top $396 billion for 2,443 aircraft in three models through the mid-2030s.

Lockheed and its subcontractors are building the stealthy warplane for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps along with Britain and seven other co-development partners — Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

In addition to Israel, Japan also has a signed agreement to buy the F-35, which was designed to replace a range of fighter, strike and ground-attack aircraft, including the F-16.

The Defense Department this year postponed production of 179 F-35s until after 2017, stretching development and testing in an effort to curb costly retrofits and save money. The latest restructuring, the third such major revamp, added 33 months and $7.9 billion to the development plan.

Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier by sales, is developing the F-35 with Northrop Grumman Corp and Britain’s BAE Systems PLC. Britain initially invested $2 billion in the F-35’s development, the most of any of the eight partner nations.

Work on the electronic warfare enhancements will be done largely by BAE Systems, the sources said.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)