WarSclerotic

Israel Beefs Up Military Readiness — News from Antiwar.com.

Some view the actions as preparing for war on several fronts, but it could be just more posturing

Israel’s Defense Force is said to be beefing up its defensive capacities and preparing for the possibility of an armed conflict on several fronts, just days after top Israeli officials got in another diplomatic clash on how imminent a threat Iran presents.

The military is “dispersing rations, munitions and strategic supplies among facilities nationwide in order to protect them during wartime,” reports the Israeli Ynet News.

“The IDF plans to store tens of thousands of rations and non-classified ordnances in private locations nationwide,” Ynet News added, “as the location of the major bases is known and they may be targeted by enemy rockets.”

While these could be somewhat ordinary military preparations in what is a hyper-militarized state, some have interpreted these actions as preparations for possible retaliatory strikes from Iran or its allies following some potential Israeli attack on Iran.

The Obama administration reiterated yesterday that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that they would know if Iran actually made the decision to begin developing weapons. This was an apparent rebuke to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s claim on Thursday that new US intelligence “transforms the Iranian situation into an even more urgent one.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney would not comment on any alleged new intelligence, other than to reiterate that the US estimate on Iran’s program hasn’t changed from the reigning consensus, that weaponization was halted back in 2003.

Officials in Washington were reportedly “livid” with the unilateral Israeli leak of US intelligence. The incident underscored the apparent distrust between the Obama administration and that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose administration is frustrated with Obama’s lack of will to attack Iran for a nuclear weapons program it doesn’t have.

Another possibility is that Netanyahu’s administration is just posturing. But he doesn’t have US support for a unilateral attack at the moment, and the Israeli defense establishment, including many current and former military officials, seems to be strongly against an attack at the moment as well.

Syria Could Attack Israel as a Diversion | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

It’s been over 16 months since the “Arab Spring” first reached the shores of Syria. 16 months of gun battles, defections and condemnations that have slowly loosened the iron grip of the ruling Assad regime. With heavy fighting in the capital of Damascus, and with much of the country now in the hands of opposition forces, it would appear as though one of the most authoritarian regimes on earth is on its way to way to total collapse. For many people around the world, that country’s civil war might not appear to have particular significance for them. Yet the troubles in Syria could quickly escalate, causing very real consequences felt worldwide.

There are many outside players involved in the current conflict. Turkey has played a lead role in supporting the opposition forces of the Syrian regime, which fall under the banner of the “Free Syrian Army.” The Turks allow them to operate on Turkish soil, provide them with funding, and offer them military cover. Military and financial aid has come from many Sunni Arab countries as well, most prominently Saudi Arabia. Not surprisingly, there’s been a rise in radical Islamists that have joined the fight against Syria in recent months. Aside from being aligned with Sunni extremists, these Islamist militants also happened to be dedicated, more regimented fighters than their many of their more secular comrades. Perhaps not coincidentally, the United States is therefore also supporting anti-Assad forces.

For the Iranians, Syria is critical to the realization of its geopolitical goals, and perhaps even its very survival. The fall of the Assad regime would have disastrous consequences for them, and as a result it is apparently actively collaborating with Hezbollah agents to prop up the dying regime. Syria today serves as a conduit to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, which is considered by the U.S. and Israeli governments to be a terrorist organization, and which was most recently linked to the suicide bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Syria assists the Iranians in subverting both military and economic sanctions that have targeted Iran’s nuclear ambitions, allowing that country to maintain its financing, purchase Russian military hardware, and smuggle banned technologies. And Syria has served as a moral ally against the interests of Israel, the Sunni-Arab world, and the United States.

So what might the Syrian regime do if it feels its back pushed even harder up against the wall? An increasing number of scenarios point to a potential war with Israel. One setup would see the Syrian regime attack Israel in an effort to divert international attention. The Syrians have tested this before. Back in June of 2011 the regime bussed hundreds of Palestinian protestors to the heavily guarded Israeli border, which they subsequently stormed. Last month, nearly 500 Syrian soldiers with 50 military vehicles crossed into the demilitarized zone between the two countries. No shots were fired, though Israel did file a complaint with the United Nations. Israel is now publicly boosting its defenses on what had traditionally been a relatively quiet, albeit tense Golan Heights border. The Assad regime might once again attempt to hijack the Palestinian cause to further the benefits of such a dangerous move. This time around it could bus additional Palestinians to the Israeli border, and once again encourage them to storm it, this time in much greater numbers. Or it could simply attack Israel outright, in a last ditch hope to unite the Arab world around the regime.

An increasing number of nightmarish scenarios include Syria getting involved with its chemical weapons. One sees the regime transfer its chemical weapons to Hezbollah, or have other radical Islamist groups raid its stockpile or attack neighboring states. Neither the Jewish state nor the United States could afford to allow a non-state armed group to obtain a true chemical or biological weapons capability. Aside from a likely devastating war with Israel, chemical weapons in the hands of Hezbollah could also affect Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other oil-rich or otherwise strategically significant parts of the Middle East, where rumblings are already underway amongst their Iranian-allied Shiite populations.

Another scenario would see Syria unleash its chemical weapons onto its own people, and perhaps on Israel as well for cover, in a last ditch effort to quell the revolution. Taking no chances, Israel has re-issued gas masks to residents near its northern border, and along with the United States it has publicly announced concern for the safekeeping of Syria’s well known WMD programs. If Syria attempted to launch a chemical attack it would almost certainly lead to a preemptive attack by Israel.

Any of the abovementioned scenarios would have serious implications for much of the world. Oil prices could spike significantly. The United States could quickly be sucked into a conflict it has taken great pains to stay away from thus far. U.S. deterrence could diminish. As the civil war in Syria comes to a head, the likelihood of the region descending into chaos grows.

Articles: Apocalypse Soon.

By Richard A. Baehr

Iran’s ties to Latin America worry U.S. – SFGate.

The debate on Iran is running off the rails – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

It is impossible to allay apprehensions regarding the decision makers’ judgment. But this does not detract from the leaders’ authority to make decisions, even fateful ones.

For a long time now there has been lively public debate around the possibility of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The debate itself is legitimate; it is a difficult, complex decision with far-reaching strategic, political and security-related consequences. In the eyes of many, it is one of the most momentous decisions in Israel’s history.

Of late, however, we have been witness to a massive campaign in the media against an Israeli attack. This, too, is ostensibly legitimate, even if the timing, the scope and the slightly hysterical tone of the campaign raises some questions. But in the past few days the dispute has begun to run off the rails, taking on a style and content that are foreign to democratic discourse.

One can argue over whether or not military action should be taken, over the timing of such action and the required degree of coordination with the United States. But in recent days the dispute has taken a dangerous turn. In the pages of this august newspaper, certain voices have explicitly advocated on behalf of refusing orders and demanded that the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff refrain from carrying out a direct order by the government of Israel. One of them even, very generously, drafted a letter of resignation for the chief of staff. I wonder whether they would make a similar suggestion if the issue were a cabinet resolution ordering the evacuation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as part of a permanent arrangement with the Palestinians. These statements border on calling for a military putsch and undermine the foundations of Israeli democracy. I am always astonished anew at the sight of those with the high praises of democracy on their lips and the pen of anti-democracy in their hand.

The elected leadership must not only hear, it must also listen carefully to the military and professional echelons and respect their professional autonomy, but the military leaders must execute, faithfully and with dedication, the decisions of the elected government. In Israel’s War of Independence David Ben-Gurion took critical decisions against the advice of all the military experts, but they were carried out – sometimes, as in Latrun, with devastating results. When then-GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Dan Harel was asked, on the eve of the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, what he felt when he closed the gate to the Jewish settlers in the Strip for the last time, he said: “The IDF does not choose its tasks.” I have no doubt that, were it demanded of him, the chief of staff would do the same tomorrow – and therein lies the secret of the power of the State of Israel.

Some people question the very right of the prime minister and the defense minister, with cabinet approval, to decide on attacking Iran. If taking action in Iran could, heaven forfend, cause the death of hundreds of Israelis, these people say, who gave you the right to sentence them to death? The argument is ridiculous, stupid and anarchistic, since if it were adopted it would spell the end of every national and state entity, including Israel. By the same logic, one could ask who gave Ben-Gurion the authority to declare the State of Israel when he knew this would endanger the entire Yishuv – and which did in fact lead to the death of 6,000 Jews, including 2,000 citizens on the home front.

It is impossible to allay the apprehensions regarding the nature and quality of the judgment of the decision makers, which are grounded in fact. But this does not detract from the authority, the right and the duty of the leaders to make decisions, even fateful ones.

And to the worriers, I can only suggest that next Shabbat they go to services and recite together with me, with great intention and concentration, this sentence from the Prayer for the State of Israel: “Send Thy light and Thy truth to its leaders, officers, and counselors, and direct them with Thy good counsel.”

Israeli official: Iran has made progress toward developing nuclear warhead – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The new intelligence was introduced as a last-minute update to the special National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program that was submitted to U.S. President Barack Obama a week ago.

By Barak Ravid | Aug.12, 2012

As the dispute between Israel and the Obama administration over how to address the Iranian nuclear threat rages, a senior Jerusalem official has said Iran has made significant progress in developing the components for assembling a nuclear warhead.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said new intelligence obtained by the United States, Israel and other Western countries shows that the Iranian activity around the “weapon group” – the final stage in the development of a nuclear weapon – is progressing far beyond the scope known to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The new intelligence was introduced as a last-minute update to the special National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program that was submitted to U.S. President Barack Obama a week ago.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Israel Radio on Thursday, confirmed the report’s existence and said its intelligence made taking action on Iran “more urgent.”

Iran’s Shahab-3 missile has a range of 1,500 kilometers, allowing it to hit any part of Israel.

Over the weekend, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said “we currently still have time and space to allow for a diplomatic solution” in Iran. He said that if the Iranian regime begins to “to pursue breakout capacity” in its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Washington “would have time to respond to that as necessary.”

Carney declined to comment on the Haaretz report about the New Intelligence Estimate, saying he does not comment on intelligence matters. He did, however, comment on Barak’s remarks.

“We have the capacity … to an awareness of the program in Iran,” Carney told a White House press briefing on Thursday. He said the United States had “enough of an awareness … that allows us to be sure that Iran has not begun to pursue breakout capacity and that we would have time to respond to that as necessary.” He clarified later that he was referring to the IAEA’s reports on Iran’s nuclear program.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor also weighed in, saying over the weekend that according to American intelligence assessments, Iran is not on the verge of achieving nuclear weapons.

This week the Obama administration will hold talks with representatives of some of the countries of the international group on Iran’s nuclear program. The head of the U.S. negotiating team, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, will go to Beijing, Moscow and London this week, in part in an effort to unstick the negotiations with Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet decided whether to attend the UN General Assembly in New York next month, although senior aides say he and his advisers are inclined to set out immediately after Yom Kippur so Netanyahu can address the assembly on September 27.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu on Friday asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to cancel his plans to take part in a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, scheduled to take place in Tehran later this month.

The Prime Minister’s Office, reporting the phone call, said Netanyahu told Ban the trip would be a major mistake, even if it is made with good intentions.

“During your tenure as UN Secretary-General, you have acted fairly,” Netanyahu told Ban, according to a statement on his office’s website. “This is why I was so disappointed to hear about your intention to attend the non-aligned summit that will be held in Tehran at the end of the month.

“Even if it is not your intention, your visit will grant legitimacy to a regime that is the greatest threat to world peace and security. Not only does it threaten countries throughout the Middle East, not only is it the greatest terrorism exporter in the world, but it is impossible to exaggerate the danger it presents to Israel. The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and openly declares its intention to destroy the State of Israel,” he said.

“In spite of decisions by the UN Security Council, harsh sanctions and repeated proposals to reach a diplomatic solution, the Iranian regime ignores the international community, misleads inspectors and races to carry out its intention of equipping itself with nuclear weapons.”

US didn’t foresee 9/11, officials in Jerusalem say, after White House claims it would know if Iran was about to get the bomb | The Times of Israel.

Withering response from anonymous sources in Israel to Obama spokesman’s attempt at reassurance

Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, pictured in the Knesset in December 2011. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Israeli officials issued a withering response Saturday to assurances from the White House that the US would know in good time if Iran was making a “breakout” to a nuclear weapon.

The Americans “didn’t see 9/11 coming,” Israel’s Channel 2 news quoted what it said were “sources in Jerusalem” saying, a day after White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed the US can see what’s going on with Iran’s nuclear program and that it would know if Tehran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“I would also say that we have eyes — we have visibility into the program, and we would know if and when Iran made what’s called a breakout move towards acquiring a weapon,” said Carney.

The exchanges of rhetoric came as Israel’s leaders issue increasingly clear hints about an imminent Israeli resort to military action to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive, and with the US reportedly trying to persuade Israel to hold its fire.

Israel’s main TV news broadcast reported on Friday evening that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have “almost finally” decided on an Israeli strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities this fall, and a final decision will be taken “soon.”

Channel 2 News’ diplomatic correspondent Udi Segal said Israel does not believe that the US will take military action as Iran closes in on the bomb.

The US, the TV report said, has not provided Israel with details of an attack plan. President Obama has not promised to attack Iran if all else fails. Conditions cited by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for an American attack do not calm Israeli concerns. And Obama has a record of seeking UN and Arab League approval before action. All these factors, in Jerusalem’s mind, underline the growing conviction of Netanyahu and Barak that Israel will have to tackle Iran alone, the TV report said.

Netanyahu, for his part, “is convinced that thwarting Iran amounts to thwarting a plan to destroy the Jewish people,” Segal said. The prime minister considers Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to be acting rationally in order to achieve “fanatical” goals.

The extensive TV report made much of a recent speech by Netanyahu, at the scene of last Sunday’s terror attack thwarted by Israel at the Gaza-Egypt-Israel border. “It becomes clear time after time that when it comes to the safety of Israeli citizens, Israel must and can rely only on itself. No one can fulfill this role except the IDF and different Israel security forces of Israel, and we will continue to conduct ourselves in this way,” Netanyahu said.

Carney said on Friday that Washington still believes there is “time and space” for the “extremely and increasingly aggressive sanctions” against Iran to work.

On Thursday, US National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor also said Iran was progressing in its nuclear program — but was not yet on the brink of having a nuclear weapon.

Report: Peres Working Against Iran Attack Idea – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

President Shimon Peres at Holocaust Ceremony

Flash 90

President Shimon Peres appears to be leading a coalition of government officials, MKs, and public figures who oppose Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear program. A report on Channel 10 Saturday said that Peres has not only been expressing his opinion against a strike – he has been spreading his opinion at every opportunity, including at meetings with foreign dignitaries.

Peres is said to have pressed U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on the point when the two met several weeks ago, with Peres stressing that attacking Iran would not be a good idea. Peres’ office had no comment on the story.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a weekend interview that Israel could not depend on the Americans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Barak dismissed a pledge by U.S. President Barack H. Obama to move militarily against Iran’s nuclear facilities next spring if sanctions fail to stop Tehran’s activities. Barak said that there was no way for any leader to make that kind of guarantee so far in advance.

In addition, Barak said, it was impossible to guarantee that Obama would still be president next April, given the close contest for the U.S. Presidency, with elections set for November. And if Obama is not elected, Mitt Romney, as a new president, could not be expected to take on such a major task so early in his term. Within six months, Barak said, Iran would be at the “point of no return” in its nuclear program. Although it was easier to do nothing, “there are moments in history when a nation’s leaders must make difficult decisions,” he said.

7 Reasons Why Israel Should Not Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities – Jeffrey Goldberg – The Atlantic.

On his Twitter feed, Oren Kessler reports that news analysts on Israel’s Channel 2 are in agreement that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities seems to be imminent.

Ari Shavit, of Haaretz, is reporting that an unnamed senior Israeli security official he interviewed who is identified in a headline as “the decision-maker” (If you guess Ehud Barak, the defense minister, you would not be wrong) is arguing that the zero-hour is approaching for an Israeli decision:

“If Israel forgoes the chance to act and it becomes clear that it no longer has the power to act, the likelihood of an American action will decrease. So we cannot wait a year to find out who was right: the one who said that the likelihood of an American action is high or the one who said the likelihood of an American action is low.”

Aluf Benn, the editor of Haaretz, writes that the world seems to have accepted the idea that Israel will soon strike Iran: “All the signs show that the ‘international community,’ meaning the western powers and the U.S. in the lead, seem to have reconciled themselves with Israel’s talk of a military strike – and now they are pushing Netanyahu to stand by his rhetoric and send his bombers to their targets in Iran. In general terms, the market has already accounted for the Israeli strike in its assessment of the risk of the undertaking, and it is now waiting for the expectation to be realized.” And then, of course, there is Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad, who warned earlier this month that Iran should fear an Israeli strike over the next twelve weeks.

I’m not going to guess whether Israel will strike Iran tomorrow, next month, next year, or never. I believe it is highly plausible that Netanyahu and Barak will do so at some point over the next twelve months, if current trends remain the same. (The Atlantic Iran War Dial, which is set by a panel of 22 experts, currently puts the chance of an Israeli or American strike over the next 12 months at 38 percent.)  Obviously, the Obama Administration believes that Netanyahu and Barak are itching to give the strike order soon. Otherwise, why would it have sent half the senior national security team to Israel over the past several weeks?

Though I have no idea what’s going to happen in the coming weeks, this seems like an opportune moment to once again list the many reasons why an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a bad idea. Believe me, I take seriously the arguments made by Netanyahu and Barak in favor of action against Iran (read the Shavit piece, linked above, for a very good summary of all the reasons why a nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe for Israel, and pretty damn bad for the Arabs and the West as well), but the negatives still outweigh the positives in my mind: Here are some potential consequences of an Israeli strike:

1) Innocent people will die. It is quite possible that even a limited Israeli strike could kill innocent Iranians, and it is an almost-sure thing that Iranian retaliation will kill innocent Israels.

2) It very well might not work at all. The Israeli Air Force is very talented and brave, but it doesn’t have the capacities of the USAF. It would only have one shot at these facilities, and it might not do much in the way of significant damage. It could also lose pilots, or see its pilots shot down and captured.

3) Even if a strike does work, it may only delay the Iranian program, and it might even speed it up. Any Israeli preventive strike would justify, in the minds of Iranians — even non- or anti-regime Iranians — that their country needs nuclear weapons as protection. Certainly much of the world would agree, and the sanctions put in place on Iran may crumble. So acceleration of the nuclear program may be a consequence of an Israeli strike.

4) An Israeli strike may cause a surge of sympathy for Iran among Sunni Arabs across the Middle East, who right now despise the regime for, among other reasons, supporting the Assad government in Damascus. Right now, Arab opinion is hardened against Iran and its Lebanese proxy, the terror group Hezbollah. An Israeli strike could reverse this trend, and would be a boon to Assad and Hezbollah in many other ways as well — for one thing, it would take attention away from the continuing slaughter of innocent Syrians by Assad. Conversely, an Israeli strike would be very useful for those forces around the world trying to delegitimize and isolate Israel.

5) A strike could trigger an overt war without end (Iran, of course, has been waging subterranean war on Israel, and America, for a long time now, and Israel and America respond, in subterranean fashion), and an all-out missile war may escalate into something especially horrific, so in essence, Israel would be trading a theoretical war later for an actual war now.

6) A strike could be a disaster for the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might not be — there is no sympathy for the Iranian regime among Americans (except on the left-most, and right-most margins) and there is plenty of sympathy for Israel. But an attack could trigger an armed Iranian response against American targets. (Such a response would not be rational on the part of Iran, but I don’t count on regime rationality.) Americans are tired of the Middle East, and I’m not sure how they would feel if they believed that Israeli action brought harm to Americans. Remember, American soldiers have died in the defense of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but they’ve never died defending Israel. I doubt Israel wants to put Americans in harm’s way now. And it certainly isn’t healthy for Israel to get on the wrong side of an American president.

7) The current American president is deeply serious about preventing Iran from going nuclear. I believe he would eventually use force (more effectively, obviously, than Israel) to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. His position will be severely compromised if Israel jumps the gun and attacks now. Again, what I worry about, at bottom, is that an Israeli attack would inadvertently create conditions for an acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program.

Home Front Command begins SMS alert experiment – JPost – Defense.

Photo: Reuters