Speaking in a closed meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on Thursday that he is not troubled by the possibility that an investigative committee could be formed after a theoretical Israeli strike on Iran.

Netanyahu criticized security establishment officials for their handling of the issue, hinting that they are primarily concerned about avoiding having to take responsibility for their actions.

Two officials who attended the meeting, who asked to remain nameless, said that the majority of those present left the meeting feeling that Netanyahu remains steadfast in his determination not to rely on the United States, and can be expected to order the IDF to attack Iran in the coming months.

Others present at the meeting however, pointed out that Netanyahu’s comments seemed to be part of the “psychological warfare” campaign that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are conducting, in order to pressure the U.S. into attacking Iran itself.

At one point during the meeting, a participant asked Netanyahu what he thinks could possibly happen the day after an Israeli strike on Iran. According to one official present at the meeting, the question angered Netanyahu. “If an investigative committee is formed, I’ll go and say that I, I am responsible,” said Netanyahu, as he pounded the table, and his chest, with his fist.

The fuming Netanyahu didn’t stop there. “I’ve had enough of this atmosphere,” he said. “It’s also felt in other discussions [on Iran], people keep showing me presentations prepared as if for an investigative committee. I’ve told them to stop with these presentations, stop speaking on protocol, and get to the point,” said Netanyahu.

Netanyahu made it clear to those present that he prefers that the U.S. “do the work,” though he admits that the U.S. is not prepared to pursue a military option at this point.

According to Netanyahu, certain criteria would have to exist before the U.S. would be willing to attack Iran. If Iran were to begin enriching uranium to 90 percent instead of 20, attack American interests in the Persian gulf, of carry out a massive attack against Israel, then the U.S. might be prepared to strike.

Netanyahu stated that the chances of these things happening is low, though if the U.S. does attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel will not need to attack as well, explaining that “Israel will be hit with ricochets no matter what happens.”

Furthermore, Netanyahu pointed out that he holds a bi-weekly meeting to discuss that issue and prepare for it stating that “even if rockets are fired, it’s preferred over a nuclear bomb”

Netanyahu was also asked if an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear facilities would effective enough to stop the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, or only set it back a year or two. Yet again, Netanyahu reference the 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. “We also said then that it would take them two years to rebuild the reactor, but the fact remains that to this day Iraq doesn’t have a nuclear weapon,” said Netanyahu.

The Prime Minister’s Office responded “we do not comment on issues discussed in closed session discussions, also as statements extracted from them are inaccurate.”

via

Iran commander: We have reached … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

Israel realizes: Only US can stop Iran – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Israeli decision-makers becoming increasingly convinced Washington determined to prevent nuclear Iran

It’s a known secret that the IDF and the security establishment have been focused over the past few years on creating a viable military option for a strike in Iran. Israel has invested billions in this endeavor. The goal was to obtain operational capabilities that would serve as the basis for a strike, which, if launched, would set Iran’s nuclear programseveral years back. With a little luck, it would stop the nuclear program altogether.

A creative plan towards this end was devised during Gabi Ashkenazi’s tenure as IDF chief of staff, but back then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak faced two obstacles: The Obama administration was, and remains, vehemently opposed to a strike for fear of a spike in oil prices, which would hamper economic recovery and hurt the president’s chances for reelection.

In Israel, senior IDF officers and the intelligence community urged Barak and Netanyahu to delay any plans for an attack.

Changes in IDF command (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

Ashkenazi, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and then-Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin were not against attacking Iran in principle. They were convinced, along with other top intelligence officials and IDF General Staff officers, that Iran must be prevented from achieving nuclear capabilities at almost any cost. They’re still convinced of this. But in their opinion, a strike in Iran, particularly one that is carried out by Israel, must be a last resort, when, as Ashkenazi said at the time, “the sword is on Israel’s neck.”

The security echelon’s position was that should Iran reach the point where only a military operation could set back or halt its nuclear program, it would be preferable that the US carry out such an operation, mainly because it possesses the capabilities, resources and army bases to operate in all of Iran and sustain a military campaign over a long period of time – even months. Such an ongoing operation would prevent Iran from rehabilitating its nuclear program.

Back then, the security establishment and Mossad were still under the impression that economic sanctions, diplomacy and a covert technological war led by Washington would set Iran’s nuclear program back more than any Israeli strike could.

Wasting time? Obama and Sarkozy (Photo: AP)

It must be noted that at the time the social unrest in Iran threatened to topple the conservative regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Looking back, in light of the recent developments, it is safe to assume that had the American and European sanctions been imposed two or three years ago, by now Iran would have been willing to compromise. But in the current situation, Iran is just beginning to feel the economic pinch of the western sanctions, while its nuclear program is in an advanced stage and has even been accelerated. But the Obama administration and Europe wasted valuable time at the UN Security Council trying to conduct dialogue with Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran constructed the fortified facility in Fordo, installed advanced centrifuges in the facility and produced enough low-enriched uranium for three or four nuclear warheads. Today, the centrifuges in Fordo are already enriching uranium to a fissile concentration of 20%. From here it would not take Iran a long time to produce fissionable material. They already have enough enriched uranium to build a number of bombs.

Therefore, from a military and perhaps even a strategic perspective, Netanyahu and Barak were right in their assumptions. At the time, Israel could have struck Iran’s nuclear facilities with relative ease and delayed the nuclear program by more than one or two years. But since then Iran has expanded the “immunity zones” protecting its nuclear and missile program. At the time, they were quite exposed.

But the heads of the security establishment were also right to object to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and missile caches. Such a strike, if it is not carried out by the US, must at least be launched in full coordination with Washington – due to its scope and possible complications. This would not be a pinpoint attack such as the one which destroyed the Iraqi reactor in 1981 or the one which targeted the Syrian reactor in 2007 (according to foreign reports, the attack in Syria was carried out by Israel). An attack on Iran would require flying or sailing through enemy territory, which naturally increases the chances of being detected early on in the operation. To overcome at least some of the complications which could arise in the event that Israeli forces are detected before reaching their targets – we would need the US. At least this is what Israeli security officials claim in interviews with the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The Iranians are using the negotiations with the West to gain time, which is being utilized to increase the pace of uranium enrichment and weapons development. However, for the time being Khamenei cannot decide on advancing towards “nuclear breakout” capability ahead of building an actual nuclear bomb; but he will be able to make such a decision in the beginning of next year.

Meanwhile, Israel is continuing with its preparations, which are headed by IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz. Members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee claim that former security officials who are against an Israeli strike are not familiar with the current plan and the existing capabilities. Judging by his appearances before the committee, Gantz appears to be fairly certain that, if ordered to attack, the IDF would be able to surprise the Iranians and shock the world.

There are, however, those who claim that Gantz is also opposed to a strike, as are the current heads of the Air Force, IDF Intelligence, Mossad and the Shin Bet. But this claim is false. Cabinet ministers have heard Gantz say that there will apparently be no choice but to strike Iran. It seems that, just like Netanyahu and Barak, he is convinced sanctions and diplomatic pressure will not be enough to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.

Israelis officials believe Iran will achieve “nuclear breakout” capabilities long before the sanction threaten the regime in Tehran.

From information that has already been leaked to the press, it is fairly obvious that Gantz prefers that such a military operation would be led by the Americans – for a number of reasons: The American military has the staying power to conduct a military campaign that would stop Iran’s nuclear program completely, while Israel only has the capability to set the nuclear program a few years back. Moreover, should the Americans decide to strike Iran, they would also help Israel fend off a counter-strike by the axis of evil, which will include Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and maybe Syria as well.

Another possible reason is that a unilateral Israeli strike launched without Washington’s backing would isolate Israel diplomatically.

It seems that Gantz – like Ashkenazi, Diskin and Dagan – believes Iran must be prevented from achieving nuclear capabilities at almost any cost – preferably with the US’ help.

In any case, Israel has yet to reach the point where it must decide whether or not to strike Iran. In light of the economic situation in Iran and the current stage of its nuclear program, Israel has until mid-October to decide. After that, the weather may hinder any Israeli attack. But Israel can even postpone the strike until the spring. It does not appear that the situation on the ground will change drastically during this time.

Israel’s decision-makers, headed by Netanyahu and Barak, are becoming increasingly convoinced of the US’ intention to prevent a nuclear Iran – regardless of whether Obama is reelected or if Mitt Romney takes office. Israel’s knowledge of the Pentagon’s plan for an ongoing aerial-naval operation in case Iran decides on a “nuclear breakout” has contributed greatly to Jerusalem’s faith in Washington’s resolve.

“We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, period,” Defense Secretary Panetta said this week during his visit to Israel. After becoming more familiarized with the Pentagon’s plan, Israel’s leaders have reached the conclusion that the US is apparently prepared, and has the capabilities, to pulverize Iran’s military nuclear program.

The continued deployment of American, British and French forces (both aerial and naval) in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean is seen by Jerusalem as proof that the West’s intentions are serious.

It is clear that Netanyahu and Barak will have to determine whether Israel can trust the US’ promise to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions with military force in case the negotiations and sanctions prove to be insufficient – or launch a unilateral blue-and-white attack on the Islamic Republic.

Israel Hayom | On Iran: Mission possible, and before it’s too late.

Those were dark, ominous days in the United States, perhaps the darkest in the months since the war began on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese delivered a devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Americans did not know what had hit them. Their mighty fleet, which boasted some of the best warships made by man, went up in a plume of smoke. Japanese forces had invaded the Philippines and Southeast Asia, consolidating their control of the sea and air routes. After a string of victories, they proudly planted their national flag, with its famous red sun, into the soil that had become part of their empire, one which was expanding by the day, like an unstoppable tsunami.

In Washington, officials barely had time to process what had just happened. In the American capital, the leaders set in motion the process of recovery: military draft prcodures; manufacturing and production geared for a wartime economy; building and training of forces; expansion of the military; dispatching reinforcements, and planning for combat in two theaters, one against the Japanese, who had dragged the Americans into the war, and the other against the Nazis, who were allied with Japan in the Axis of Evil.

The challenge facing the Americans was complex. What should they do in the meantime? How to take the initiative and boost morale? How would they go about proving that while anyone could take America by surprise, nobody could defeat it?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered his armed forces to deliver a vicious counter-blow by launching a military operation unprecedented in the annals of human history. The military was instructed to strike the Japanese by hitting at the heart of their arrogant empire, Tokyo.

From an operational and a logistical standpoint, it was mission impossible. At the time, the U.S. did not possess long-range bombers, nor did it have military bases close enough to hit Tokyo. It only had a few aircraft carriers, but even these were only able to transport short-range bombers, thus making them suitable for naval combat.

Was there no military solution? There always is, as long as one summons the necessary talent, skill and initiative, and employs the element of surprise.

This was how American planners came up with the “Doolittle Raid.” Led by Lt. Col. James Doolittle of the U.S. Air Force, it was a plan that required volunteers to undertake a dangerous mission, so dangerous that it was doubtful whether they would return home. The idea was to outfit U.S. aircraft carriers with medium-range B-25B Mitchell bombers. Although they were originally designed to operate from a terrestrial base, the plan was to place them on aircraft carriers. Once the carriers moved into position close enough to Tokyo, the planes would be ordered to take off for bombing runs of the Japanese capital.

How would these pilots get back to safety? There was no turning back. The B-25Bs were not designed to operate from aircraft carriers. B-25B pilots had never previously flown them from aircraft carriers. Because this plane lacked the necessary arrestor hook with which all planes that took off from aircraft carriers were outfited, the bombers would not be able to land back on the carriers.

This was a one-way mission. The pilots had to take off, drop their deadly payload, and continue onward in the direction of China in the hope that they would land there and hook up with friendly Chinese forces, while avoiding hostile Japanese troops.

Was this impossible? The military had no trouble in finding the necessary number of volunteers. There were 80 air crew members, five for each of the 16 planes that were to be deployed.

“I just came here to do my duty,” one of the participating pilots was quoted as saying recently, as the U.S. celebrated the 70th anniversary of the operation. “We had total faith in and complete respect for Lt. Col. Doolittle. Our country was at war. We were pilots, air crews. Of course we volunteered. Why wouldn’t we?”

On April 18, 1942, the mission received the go-ahead. Doolittle’s bombers, including Doolittle himself leading the run, shocked the Japanese when they descended from the skies over Tokyo at low altitude and began bombarding the city. One of the bombs exploded near the palace of the Japanese emperor.

Most of the air crews landed safely in China, subsequently returning to their units for active duty. Three airmen who could not eject in time were killed, and eight were taken prisoner. Three were executed and one died as a result of inadequate treatment of his wounds.

The Doolittle Raid was symbolic in nature, but it yielded tremendous psychological benefits. It convinced the American public that the Japanese were not immune, and that their capital was vulnerable to attack by the long arm of the U.S. military. The operation proved to be a humiliation for the Japanese, who had to wrestle with the realization that they were no longer impregnable or immortal. The raid also made clear to Japan that this war would be no walk in the park, and that they needed to contend with an America that was determined to summon all of its capabilities.

For the U.S. military, the raid showed that there was no such thing as “mission impossible.” There are only challenges that can be overcome with a spirit for combat.

Obviously, no two historical periods are identical in nature. It also goes without saying that any military operation designed to remove the Iranian nuclear threat would be different, unique and more complex than many other military operation undertaken in history, either by us or by others. The Israel Air Force has proved itself repeatedly over the course of the last 64 years, successfully executing missions that were far more intricate than the surprise attack on Tokyo. There was the pre-dawn raid of June 5, 1967; the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and (according to foreign media reports) the strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.

What about the Iranian nuclear program? For those who would prefer to avoid acknowledging reality, Israel is already at war with Iran. It is a war of intelligence, a war of computers, a war on scientists, a war against terrorism abroad, a war against Iran’s terrorist satellites in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Most importantly, it is a war to ensure the continued existence of the State of Israel, and to remove the fear that it will one day be attacked by weapons of mass destruction. The working assumptions of this war were originally minted by the founding fathers of the state, and they are no less accurate and relevant today than they were in those days.

Israel cannot allow any Islamic state in the Middle East to develop nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them from great distances, capabilities which could be used against us at a future date.

All of the fancy theories of nuclear strategy which speak of “first strike” and “second strike” may be suited to global superpowers or countries with large territories and populations. But Israel cannot afford to absorb a “first strike,” even with the knowledge that it would be able to deliver a “second strike.” Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s spiritual leaders, has already described Israel as a “one-bomb country.” In other words, dropping just one atomic weapon on the “Zionist enemy” would be enough to break Israel’s spine.

Israel’s leaders must decide

Israel cannot afford to put these assumptions to the test. It cannot afford to allow a situation in which the Iranians could, for their own reasons, decide to press the red button. The Iranians cannot be permitted to possess even one bomb. They must be stopped before it is too late. That’s the story in a nutshell.

The debate over whether Israel should strike Iran has long veered beyond the bounds of good taste and logic, so much so that it has damaged national security. Roosevelt did not ask his fellow Americans for permission or agreement to dispatch 80 volunteers for a one-way mission to Tokyo. More than four years later, his successor, Harry Truman, did not consult public opinion polls to see if he had the green light to order the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These presidents acted according to their responsibilities as leaders, and they took executive decisions. They stated their goals and mapped out plans of action which they felt served the best interests of the country.

What is going on in our neck of the woods? After “the first strike” leveled by the erstwhile former heads of Israel’s top defense agencies, we were treated this week to a “second strike”: the alleged positions of current defense chiefs, through media leaks which essentially amounted to a gift for the chaps in Tehran who were certainly gleeful while reading quotes attributed to this or that senior official. They most certainly saw reason to pat themselves on the back while crowing, “The Zionists have become confused.”

Senior security officials not only have a right, but an obligation, to express their views to the civilian leadership, particularly if they do not agree with official policy.

There is always a need for a resident contrarian. Nonetheless, all of these exchanges must remain behind closed doors. They are not for public consumption.

In his groundbreaking book “Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace,” published in the mid-1960s, former Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence chief Yehoshafat Harkabi wrote that nuclear strategy was so complex that it was naturally an issue not fit for public debate. The author, who was regarded as one of the brightest minds to ever serve in the IDF, determined that it was a matter to be dealt with solely by the country’s leadership and experts.

It is the leadership which must make the final determination, just as it did in the one instance in which the walls of secrecy have almost entirely been cracked — the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. An absolute majority of experts opposed the strike at the time, as did most politicians, one of whom today occupies the president’s chair (and doing so with the honor and respect that befits the position).

At the time, Shimon Peres was opposed to then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s plan to bomb Saddam’s Osirak reactor. Peres was convinced the move would push the international community to abandon Israel as if it were “a juniper tree in the Arava Desert.” To this day, Peres believes he was correct in his assessments. History, however, proves he erred. It was a good thing for the State of Israel that Saddam Hussein’s atomic weapon was neutralized before it reared its ugly head.

Big time, big bang

What will happen if Israel doesn’t make sure it denies Iran a nuclear bomb?

1. Serious erosion in Israel’s deterrent capability. The first-ever Shiite nuclear bomb would imbue Iran with a sense of confidence and hubris that would naturally spread to all its proxies and clients. Hezbollah and Hamas would surely think to themselves, “If ‘Big Brother’ in Tehran has the bomb, our room to maneuver against Israel would surely expand. Israel’s ability to harm us would shrink, for it would fear that if they went too far, the Iranians would come to our aid big time, and with a big bang.”

2. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East. With a nuclear-armed Shiite Iran, all the dream and aspirations for a restoration of the old order would come to life. Saudi Arabia, the Sunni kingdom and the bastion of “the protectors of Islam,” would be left with no choice but to arm itself with a nuclear bomb. Long before Iran’s drive for a nuclear bomb, Tehran was locked into a years-long struggle with the Saudis for regional influence in the Persian Gulf. The same goes for Turkey, whose leaders want to resurrect the Ottoman Empire and its rule over the region. Egypt may have fallen into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it, too, is a Sunni nation. It will almost certainly want to relive the (albeit brief) days when it was the largest, most important Islamic state. Is this not the last thing we need? To be surrounded by a number of nuclear states? Just observe the trepidation caused by Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons.

3. Nuclear terrorism. This is Western countries’ worst nightmare, one that has haunted them for years — the prospect that nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of organizations like al-Qaida, the global jihadist movement, and others of its ilk. From the minute that nuclear arms are manufactured, they could take on a number of forms, sizes and weights. Iran, the most notorious state sponsor of terrorism, could provide a nuclear device to a terrorist organization. This would be most unfortunate, particularly when these groups are supposedly operating on their own behalf. This would allow Iran to achieve its goals while effectively hiding behind the “legitimacy” accorded a state that on the surface does not appear implicated in the act. This is “war by proxy,” a war waged by a third party who at times knows who is behind a plot, while at other times has no idea.

4. The economic and civic price of living in a country under the shadow of a nuclear threat. In the 1950s, as Americans were in the throes of a national panic over the prospect of a nuclear war against the Russians, a subculture of “living in the shadow of the bomb” began to take shape. Nuclear bomb shelters were constructed, and schoolchildren were drilled to “duck and cover” in the event of an atomic attack. In hindsight, this chapter in history provided material for black-and-white movies, including classics like “Dr. Strangelove.” For Israel, however, the consequences of a Shiite nuclear threat are liable to be much more costly and dangerous.

There are those who say, “What’s the rush? The Iranian bomb is a global problem, and it is up to the international community to solve it. To be more precise, it is an American problem, so the U.S. should deal with it. In any event, the Americans have imposed sanctions, and they will impose more sanctions, and they are preparing plans for action. The Americans are bigger than us, and stronger than us, and more capable. In short, let Uncle Sam solve the problem for us, and we can just sit on the sideline and rub our hands in glee.”

It would certainly be much more convenient, and tidy, if the Americans handled this issue for us. It is highly doubtful, however, that the Americans will do this. President Barack Obama is less than 100 days away from election day. During this time, he will have no motivation to order his military to launch another war in the Middle East. There is also the issue of Obama’s record as commander in chief. Save for the brilliant assassination of Osama bin Laden, the president’s term has been mostly a series of military and diplomatic failures in the wider Middle East region.

Let us assume for a moment that Obama is re-elected. Would he really want to kick off his second term in office by dispatching troops to fight a war thousands of miles away from home?

Perhaps it would be preferable to wait for the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. If he is elected, he will certainly solve the problem for us, right? There is certainly no doubt that Romney is much more sympathetic and supportive of the Israeli cause, as evidenced by his strong statements against Iran’s nuclear program. But if he defeats Obama, he will only enter office in January 2013. What would the Iranians do until then? Would they idle on stand-by? Or would the “supreme leader” give the order for his underlings to construct five atomic weapons within a short time (as the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran could)?

The natural inclination is to avoid a decision altogether. The issue is not an urgent one when the fissionable material is piling up. Unlike the actual bomb, there is nothing urgent about “nuclear installations.” Nor would it be urgent if the Iranians actually built a bomb, since they don’t have the means to deliver it. Let’s wait until they construct a compact device, a nuclear warhead, and affix it to a missile. Wait, even then it would be wise to show restraint. After all, the missile is not fueled up, right? Only after there is a nuclear-tipped missile ready to be deployed, and the doors to the silo slide open, and the missile is launched, only then would we all agree that “the sword is against our necks.” Even then, however, there is a chance that the missile could veer off target and miss us altogether, right?

It’s no wonder that so many people prefer not to decide at all. It’s no wonder that so many media outlets in Israel are in favor of a non-decision. What’s the rush? Why the urgency? Who wants to decide? Who wants to accept responsibility? Don’t you remember the Yom Kippur War? Didn’t we wait until the last minute?

For those who need to have their memories jogged, the Yom Kippur War is the perfect example of a chain of events which led to an erroneous decision. In the days leading up to that war, the government was in active session. It heard the assessments delivered by the heads of the intelligence agencies, and it adopted their recommendations against a pre-emptive strike despite the increasingly evident signs of war on the ground.

When the realization sank in that the intelligence experts had erred, the government also erred in deciding against a pre-emptive strike on the concentration of enemy forces in Syria and Egypt in the early morning hours of Yom Kippur. The government’s rationale was that the international community, particularly the Americans, would oppose an Israeli first strike.

The problem posed by the Iranian nuclear threat needs to be solved, quickly. The decision needs to be made, quickly. The centrifuges continue to spin, and the enriched material continues to pile up.

As long as the Iranians are given the message that they have nothing to worry about, that there is no military solution, that no one is capable of making a decision, it becomes more likely that we will wake up one morning and watch Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s smiling face as the Iranians conduct their first successful nuclear test, with passages of the Koran read in the background.

And that would not even be the worst-case scenario.

As Conflict Continues in Syria, Assad’s Arms Face Strain – NYTimes.com.

With diplomatic efforts dead and the future of Syria playing out on the battlefield, many of the Syrian government’s most powerful weapons, including helicopter gunships, fighter jets and tanks, are looking less potent and in some cases like a liability for the military of President Bashar al-Assad.

Rebels have turned part of Mr. Assad’s formidable arsenal on his own troops. Anti-Assad fighters on Wednesday shelled a military airport in the contested city of Aleppo with captured weapons. On Tuesday, rebels used commandeered Syrian Army tanks in a skirmish with Mr. Assad’s troops.

Perhaps even more worrying to Mr. Assad, his military has come to rely more heavily on equipment designed for a major battle with a foreign enemy, namely Israel, rather than a protracted civil conflict with his own people. Close observers of his military say Syria is having trouble keeping its sophisticated and maintenance-intensive weapons functioning.

The strain is likely to grow more acute as the government depends on helicopter gunships to extend its reach to parts of the country rendered impassable to logistics convoys and even armored vehicles by the rebels’ improvised bombs.

Analysts said Syria’s fleet of Mi-25 Hind-D attack helicopters, which numbered 36 at the start of the conflict, is insufficient to hold back rebels as the number of fronts, from Aleppo and Idlib in the north to the suburbs of Damascus in the south and Hama and Homs in the center of the country, continues to proliferate.

Maintenance technicians are struggling to keep the machines aloft in an intense campaign and in the searing heat and sand associated with summer desert war. Estimates are that only half his fleet can be used at a given time, with some helicopters cannibalized for spare parts and Mr. Assad dependent on supplies from Russia.

“This army is going to start breaking,” said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst now studying Syria for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Not the whole thing at once, but pieces of it will break.”

Mr. White said that by his estimates the Syrian military suffered nearly 1,100 soldiers killed in July, and is losing more soldiers and officers to defections. The loyalties of many commanders and units are suspect, he added, and months of sustained combat are no doubt taking a heavy toll on tanks and aircraft in a military that he said “was never known for maintenance.”

Defections of government troops and seizures of armaments are also a growing problem. Rebels in Aleppo claim to have control of a total of 14 T-72 and T-55 tanks and many indirect-fire weapons, including artillery pieces as well as mortars.

“The tanks are driven by our members, and their specialty is driving tanks, that’s what they did before they defected,” said Bashir al-Haji, a Free Syrian Army commander in Aleppo. “The tanks and artillery are important in our fight because they enable us to shell the regime from a distance.”

More potent arms for the rebels and the strain on helicopters may help explain why the Syrian military recently began using L-39 trainer jets in and around Aleppo, Syria’s most heavily populated city.

Another explanation for the appearance of jets “is that the Syrian military is fighting for Aleppo without enough artillery tubes,” said Joseph Holliday, a former American intelligence officer who covers the war for the Institute for the Study of War, in Washington.

At a glance, and for now, the government’s helicopter fleet is an imposing force. Highly maneuverable and able to carry several types of munitions, including free-fall bombs, it allows Mr. Assad’s military to roam above the Syrian countryside, seeking targets beyond the ready reach of its ground units.

Rebel commanders routinely say that what they most need are antiaircraft weapons to thwart government aircraft, especially helicopters.

But even if the rebels have no missiles these aircraft are almost certainly a dwindling asset, arms specialists who follow the Syrian conflict say. An American government official who covers the war said that fewer than 20 of these aircraft were likely available to the Assad government on any given day, out of the 36 in the fleet.

Mr. Holliday, the former American intelligence officer, put the estimate of working Hind-Ds even lower. “Assessing a max of 15 operational,” he wrote by e-mail.

As backup attack gunships, Syria possesses a similarly sized fleet of Gazelle helicopters, a platform more suited for attacking armor than foot-mobile guerrillas, and a much larger fleet of Mi-8 and Mi-17 utility helicopters, another Russian-made design.

Open-source estimates indicate Syria began its crackdown with 100 Mi-8s or Mi-17s, along with more than 30 Gazelles.

Robert Hewson, a specialist in air-launched weapons at IHS Jane’s, noted that the pylons on the Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters can be fitted with many of the same Russian-made weapons carried by the Mi-25, including one of the most powerful pieces of ordnance that have been verified thus far in the conflict: 550-pound OFAB free-fall bombs.

Taken together, Syria’s helicopters have been used in attacks with high-explosive rockets fired from pods, in the release of unguided bombs like the OFAB and possibly in at least one cluster-munitions strike. These are weapons commonly associated, in the public’s mind, with fixed-wing attack aircraft, including Syria’s MIG 23s.

But the Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters have many other missions. By early summer, rebel commanders and Western analysts said, many Syrian units were largely confined to their garrisons. Some, as in Azaz, had been principally resupplied by these utility helicopters — a mission that demanded many flight hours and diverted aircraft from ground-attack roles.

Mr. Holliday said that perhaps 60 of those helicopters were still in full-time service.

Two wild cards remain in the air-to-ground element of the conflict. First, the analysts said, was the meaning of the recent use of Syria’s ground-attack jets. This introduced a delivery system with a heavy payload and the ability to frighten inexperienced guerrillas with low-level passes.

But that can be read as both an incremental move intended to increase the pressure on antigovernment forces and an indication that Syria’s helicopter squadrons are less robust than even several weeks ago.

If so, like the increased use of helicopters earlier this year as the anti-Assad fighters’ effective use of makeshift bombs spiked sharply upward, it could be a sign that the Syrian military has fewer combat tools at its disposal than before, and fewer options for pushing its foes back.

That could augur a larger future role for Syria’s fixed-wing fleet.

The second wild card lies in the rebels’ acquisition of more weapons able to down aircraft, especially helicopters. In an interview last month, a Syrian Mi-17 pilot who had defected said that through June he and his peers did not worry about the anti-Assad forces, often referred to as the Free Syrian Army, possessing heat-seeking, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles.

The principal worry, he said, was fire from RPG-7s, a shoulder-fired anti-armor weapon that at short ranges can be effective against helicopters, too. (Such a system was used last August, American military officials said, to down an American Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, killing all 38 people aboard.)

“We knew that the Free Syrian Army didn’t have antiaircraft missiles,” he said. “So we flew at an elevation higher than kilometer — above the RPGs.”

In recent weeks there have been indications that the anti-Assad fighters are creeping toward posing greater risks to the government helicopters.

One video, which analysts said was credible, showed a fighting group in Rastan with what appeared to be two-thirds of an SA-7 shoulder-fired, heat-seeking missile system. NBC News reported this week that unnamed anti-Assad sources claimed to have obtained as many as two dozen heat-seeking missiles via transit through Turkey. The claim has since been denied by other opposition members, though the American government official said that there were indications that rebels had apparently captured more SA-7 missile tubes and batteries from Syrian government stocks. The official added that as yet the essential grip stock required to fire the weapon had not been seen.

With the question of whether the anti-Assad forces have obtained functional antiaircraft missile systems still unsettled, another question is not.

Many videos have shown fighting groups with what appears to be a growing number of captured 12.7-millimeter, 14.5-millimeter and 23-millimeter machine guns — all of which can be lethal to helicopters, and show the risks to Mr. Assad, whose own weapons have been increasingly turned against the forces that secure his fate

Report: Syria moves missiles to Lebanese border – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Days after Netanyahu, Barak warn of possible military intervention in Syria, Assad moves anti-aircraft missile batteries to Lebanese border

Roi Kais

The Syrian army has moved new surface-to-air missile batteries to the Lebanese border, Arab media reported Friday. The report comes after Israel had warned it will strike Syria’s chemical facilities if President Bashar Assad transfers his chemical stockpile to Hezbollah.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he does not preclude the possibility of military intervention in Syria and Defense Minister Ehud Barak stressed that Israel will consider action.

On Thursday, a Lebanese defense official told the Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Akhbar newspaper that the Syrians have shared some of the details of their deployment with the Lebanese. According to the source, the Syrians have devised a comprehensive military plan along the Lebanese border.

The London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat also addressed the deployment. A Lebanese military source told the paper there is no concrete information on the deployment of surface-to-air batteries on the border. He explained that the reinforcements were routine steps taken by the Syrian army in order to prevent the infiltration of gunmen from Lebanon into Syria.

He stressed there was no hostility between the two nations that would warrant the mobilization of anti-aircraft missiles. Asked whether the Syrian army is taking precautions for fear of a strike, he said that the deployment is done “according to a coordinated air defense plan. Assuming that the Syrians fear a NATO strike against them, Lebanon would not allow such a strike against Syria from its territory or airspace.”

Lebanese military expert Nizar Abdul Kader said, “The Syrian military reinforcements were meant to warn outside elements of mounting military intervention against the regime. The deployment of anti-aircraft missiles is a precaution against airstrikes that can harm the Syrian regime.”

Meanwhile, Syrian opposition members reported that two senior army officials have defected. One is Ahmed Tlas, head of military procurement at the interior ministry and the second is Mohammad al-Haj Ali, a military academy senior official.

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

• By REUTERS

Iran prepares for 60 percent uranium enrichment.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 3, 2012, 10:07 AM (GMT+02:00)

Model of a fortified Iranian nuclear site

The months of negotiations with the six world powers were happily used by Iran for great strides toward bringing its nuclear weapon program to fruition.

Tehran’s back-channel dialogue with Washington leading up to the negotiations served the same purpose. Since diplomacy ran aground, war has become inevitable and preparations for cutting short Iran’s rapid progress have accelerated.
Former Israeli Mossad director Ephraim Halevi commented to the New York Times Thursday, Aug. 2, that if he was an Iranian he would be very worried in the next 12 months.
Developments in Iran and the region at large are generating the current eve-of-war climate in the Middle East:

1. While Saeed Jalili communed at leisure with Catherine Ashton in world capitals, uranium enrichment levels in Iran crept past 20 percent in expanded quantities. The six powers are understandably reluctant to admit that in the time bought by negotiations, Iran was able to refine uranium up to 30-percent grade or even a higher and go into advanced preparations for 65 percent grade enrichment. Now the Iranians are well on the way to an 80-90 percent weapons grade.
The talk in Tehran about the need for nuclear-powered ships and submarines offered a fictitious pretext for crossing that threshold. Iran is not about to build those vessels or engines for lack of technology, materials and infrastructure. But nuclear-powered ships’ engines require the same highly-enriched uranium (90 percent) as bombs.

2.  Iran has launched a crash mega-fortification program for sheathing in steel and concrete nuclear facilities whose transfer to underground “immune zones” for escaping bombardment would be too costly, cumbersome and time consuming.
If the US and Israel leaves Iran alone to complete this project, they will have forfeited the opportunity of pre-empting Iran’s nuclear program – only inflicting partial and temporary damage at best.
3.  President Barack Obama is under very heavy pressure from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil states to waste no more time and destroy that program without further shilly-shallying.
4.  Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi tried to achieve that objective indirectly by massively backing the Syrian revolt against Tehran’s best friend Bashar Assad in the hope that his fall would stop the Iranians in their tracks. They never came close: Assad is still fighting tenaciously and his army is in intact after 17 months.

5.  Instead of capitulating to the odds against the Syrian ruler, Tehran increased its military stake in Assad’s battles.
debkafile’s military sources say that without Iran’s lavish and timely air and ground supply corridors, the Syrian army would have long since run out of arms for defending the Assad regime against revolt.
The Gulf governments are therefore forced to accept that their plans to weaken Iran by toppling Assad have backfired in more ways than one.
6.   Turkey and Iraq, each for its own reasons, are letting Iranian arms pass through their territories to Damascus, a move which is counter-productive to Gulf interests on the Middle East keyboard. Ankara, in particular, hosts rebel command centers and training camps with one hand, while, with the other, lets arms shipments through to Assad’s army for destroying those same rebels the moment the cross into Syria.
7. UN, American and European sanctions have failed to drive Tehran into giving up its nuclear program, as even the White House admitted Wednesday, Aug. 1, or slowed down its development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

8. US and Israeli intelligence experts agree that Iran will be able to produce dirty bomb within three months, ready to hand out to the terrorist networks run by the Revolutionary Guards external clandestine arm, the Al Quds Brigades. They are designed for use in time of war against Israelis abroad and Americans in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Israel fears the radioactive bombs will find their way to Tehran’s surrogates, the Lebanese Hizballah or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

9. Those experts also agree that the Tehran-sponsored terrorist campaign against Israel has already begun. Launched by Hizballah or the Al Quds Brigades, it is expected to gain impetus.  The July 18 attack in the Bulgarian town of Burgas, in which five Israelis and a Bulgarian were killed, is seen as the precursor of more attacks whose dimensions will expand in a way that forces Israel to retaliate.

Another Call for Israel’s Annihilation | FrontPage Magazine.

Ahmadinejad continues to push his country towards a seemingly inevitable showdown with the West. In a speech posted yesterday on his website, Ahmadinejad contended that the ultimate goal of world forces should be the annihilation of Israel. 

The speech was aimed at the ambassadors of Islamic countries ahead of “Qods Day,” also known as Jerusalem Day, an annual Iranian anti-Zionist event established in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini. Qods Day falls on August 17th. The Iranian leader illuminated its significance. “Qods Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems,” he said. ”Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”

Expressing many of the all-too-familiar anti-Semitic slanders, he accused ”Zionists” of being “behind the scene of the world’s main powers, media, monetary and banking centers.” With a nod towards the American presidential election, the Iranian leader also labeled Jews as ”the decision makers, to the extent that the presidential election hopefuls must go and kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their election victory.” He further claimed that a “horrible Zionist current” has been managing world affairs for “about 400 years.”

He lashed out  at Europe as well. ”Zionism is the modern times plight of the human society and when we meet the European politicians they say speak transparently about everything, but they refrain from talking about the Zionist regime, which proves that Israel is the axis of unity of the world hegemonic powers,” he said.

The attack comes on the heels of the latest round of sanctions imposed by Western nations attempting to persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear development program. Iran claims it is intended for peaceful purposes, but the West rightly fears it is about making atomic weapons that would inevitably be used against Israel.

The effectiveness of the sanctions remains controversial. There are reports that the sanctions are crippling Iran’s economy in the short term, producing runaway inflation and high unemployment. Yet as recently as Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was forced to admit that Iran hasn’t reined in its  nuclear program, even as he repeated the increasingly tiresome rhetoric about the Islamic Republic’s “willingness” to negotiate–again.

The House and Senate are currently working to reconcile the latest round of purportedly “crippling” sanctions before breaking for recess at the end of the week. The aim is to close several loopholes by expanding the list of Iranian entities subject to sanctions. The Obama Administration is also being asked to impose penalties on foreign companies doing business with Iranian energy and financial companies. Yet as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Iranians “are pros when it comes to creating hundreds of new front companies to replace those on the sanctions’ list.” They further note that despite Congressional requests, the administration is ”waging a behind-the-scenes campaign to water down existing sanctions by granting nearly every available waiver to countries that continue to buy Iranian oil.”

Proponents of tougher sanctions, such as Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) Rep. Robert Dold, (R-IL), and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), insist there is a better way. They have called for a blacklist of Iran’s entire energy sector, labeling it a “zone of proliferation concern.” Lawmakers have also pushed for sanctions on the directors and shareholders of organizations like the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications  (SWIFT), the Belgian bank consortium that provides financial communications and clearing systems for the Central Bank of Iran. The administration is against the move, claiming individual banks would take SWIFT’s place. But as the Journal notes, it is unlikely too many banks would be willing to cut themselves off from the international finance system in order to “place themselves in a basket of outlaw or shady banks.”

Unfortunately, the Obama administration holds the upper hand. The current draft of the bill says the president shall impose sanctions–and that provision is non-binding. Thousands of waivers have already been issued by the Treasury Department, and the president has granted both China and India permission to continue importing Iranian oil. Furthermore, the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Obama administration are attempting to  water down the sanctions even more as a sop to the insurance industry that underwrites shipping companies, cargo carriers, or airlines that have been subject to sanctions. If Congress were to pass the severer restrictions outlined above, it would force the president to reveal whether he is genuinely interested in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon–or simply paying lip service to the idea.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seemingly betting on lip service. On Wednesday, he contended that sanctions against Iran were largely useless, and that the “time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out.” The New York Times reported that “public statements and private communications from the Israeli leadership” have renewed concerns that Israel may attempt a unilateral strike on Iran as early as this fall. That sent several administration officials hightailing it to Israel, including Defense Secretary Panetta. According the to theTimes, “a number of administration officials say they remain hopeful that Israel has no imminent plans to attack and may be willing to let the United States take the lead in any future military strike, which they say would not occur until next year at the earliest.”

In other words, the administration is doing everything it can to persuade the Jewish State not to roil the American presidential election by forcing Obama to reveal where he really stands regarding the prospect of renewed war in the Middle East. The Times dances around this reality, noting that one of the reasons Israel “may act in September or early October” is that “Mr. Netanyahu feels that he will have less leverage if President Obama is re-elected…” (Or maybe no leverage at all if the president wins another four years). It is also worth remembering that Obama is in the midst of an unprecedented courtship of the Muslim Brotherhood, highlighted by his invitation to newly-elected Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi to visit the White House in September. It is virtually certain that an attack on Iran led or assisted by the United States would put a huge dent in the president’s Muslim “outreach” efforts.

Efraim Halevy, a former chief of Israel’s intelligence agency and national security adviser, made it clear that some officials in Israel are running out of patience. “If I were an Iranian, I would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks,” he said. That sentiment was echoed by Amos Harel, defense correspondent for Haaretz. He estimated that the chance of an attack before November was 50 percent. “It’s probably a more crucial junction than it was ever before,” he contended. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev, who noted Ahmadinejad’s “extreme, poisonous language is unfortunately par for the course for the Iranian leadership,” called upon the international community to ”prevent the Iranian regime–with its fanatical and hate filled agenda–from obtaining nuclear capability.”

Whether the international community–or the Obama administration–is up to the task is anyone’s guess.