WarSclerotic

Video: Syria war plane ‘downed by rebel fi… JPost – Middle East.

Iran might not retaliate against an Israeli strike, says vice prime minister | The Times of Israel.

Silvan Shalom, who opposes Israeli intervention and says he hopes ‘we don’t arrive at such scenarios,’ also notes Tehran has limited missile arsenal

Silvan Shalom (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/Flash90)

Iran may not necessarily retaliate should its nuclear facilities be attacked by Israel. And even if it does, Tehran does not possess unlimited missiles, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, who opposes an Israeli strike on Iran at this stage, said on Monday.

And while Syria, Lebanon, and/or Hamas might attack Israel in the aftermath of a strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel could hit back at infrastructure critical to everyday life such as power plants and refineries, Shalom added.

“I hope we don’t arrive at such scenarios,” the vice premier stressed, in an interview on Israel Radio.

Iran has stated repeatedly that it would hit back at Israel were it to come under Israeli attack.

Shalom said he expects the international community to levy “real sanctions” on Iran, capable of forcing it to give up its nuclear program. One such measure would be stricter sanctions on Iran’s central bank, Shalom said.

He also reiterated that Israel should allow more time for sanctions before considering a resort to military action.

On Sunday, in comments that contrasted with reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have all-but decided on the need for a military strike, Shalom had told Army Radio: “If the sanctions are for real, they get the job done. We saw that with the apartheid era in South Africa, we saw it with Libya’s nuclear program and we saw it with North Korea… Maybe we’ll see them work against Iran.”

Shalom said in that interview that the current sanctions placed by the international community on Iran were not effective enough to bring about a 180 degree shift in Iran’s nuclear policy, but that if the regime is made to feel it is at risk, it could abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The former foreign minister said that Russia and China were not going to support tougher sanctions, fearing rising energy costs and the loss of regional influence, but that the US and Europe could do more than they were doing at present.

When asked if he sided with the prime minister on the necessity of an Israeli strike on Iran, Shalom said, “I believe we still have time to convince the Americans to implement tougher sanctions.”

On Friday, Channel 2 News devoted much of its evening program to the issue of Iran, positing that Netanyahu and Barak are “almost ready” to approve an Israeli military attack despite opposition from the Obama administration and from many Israeli security chiefs. Several Hebrew newspapers have carried similar assessments, apparently based on briefings by people close to the prime minister and defense minister.

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

Iran seeks to save pivotal Syrian ally, sees conflict as part of broader threat.

Monday, 13 August 2012

Next week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will attend an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of Islamic Countries set to focus on the Syrian crisis. (AP)

  inShare

Iran, dismayed at the plight of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, is seeking to shore him up and counter a perceived drive by Western and U.S.-aligned Sunni Muslim nations to roll back its own power in the Middle East.

A hastily-convened conference in Tehran on Thursday looked like an attempt by the Islamic Republic to forge a coalition of friendly countries opposed to Western and Arab support for rebels determined to end four decades of Assad family rule.

Iran, handed geostrategic windfalls in the past decade by Washington’s elimination of two of its main enemies, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, now fears the pendulum of regional influence could swing the other way.

Salehi, in an opinion piece in the Washington Post on the eve of the Tehran meeting, presented Iran as “part of the solution, not the problem” – as the United States contends.

“As the world has witnessed during the past decade, we have acted as a stabilising force in Iraq and Afghanistan, two other Muslim countries thrown into turmoil,” he wrote, alluding to U.S.-led military interventions in both states.

Salehi also said Syrians should decide their own destiny through a forthcoming presidential election, decreed by Assad.

Tehran has resisted any negotiated transition requiring Assad’s exit and the loss of a partner who has helped Iran flex its muscles in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Earlier this week, senior Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili was in Damascus for talks with Assad, declaring that his country wouldn’t allow “the axis of resistance, of which it considers Syria to be an essential part, to be broken in any way”.

Next week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will attend an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of Islamic Countries set to focus on the Syrian crisis. Iran will want to prevent any attempt to suspend Syria’s membership of the Jeddah-based OIC.

While Iran has repeatedly denounced Turkey and Qatar, alongside Saudi Arabia, for supporting Syrian rebels, it has been forced to seek their help in securing the release of 48 Iranians kidnapped by the insurgents last week.

Syrian rebels accuse them of being elite Revolutionary Guards sent to assist Assad’s forces in crushing the opposition.

Salehi has acknowledged that some are retired Guards or soldiers, but said they were religious pilgrims, not fighters.

Maplecroft’s Skinner said concern over the captives might in part have motivated Iran’s flurry of diplomacy.

“If they are serving members of the Guards, then Iran’s diplomatic initiatives may be linked to the hostage-taking because of the sensitive information they may have,” he said.

For Iran, “losing” Syria would be a damaging blow, but prolonged post-Assad instability might offer opportunities to a country adept at pursuing its interests in a conflict-ridden region, as it has shown in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“Assad is far from gone and even when he is, things are going to be chaotic for a while,” said Dina Esfandiary of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “

“And Iran thrives in that kind of context.”

5 Signs that Israel is Close to Attacking Iran – Business Insider.

In the past year, it was easy to label the Israeli rhetoric about war as a diversion from burning internal affairs, such as social justice protests, tax reliefs for big companies, tax hikes for regular citizens and the issue of drafting ultra-orthodox Jews to the military. However, in the past few days, there are ominous signs that Israel is getting much closer to a strike on Iran.

Is this another bluff? Here are 5 signs that point to higher chances that Israel might be more serious now:

1. Prime minister given extended authority: In a fast move that was deemed by many as undemocratic, the Israeli government gave (Aug. 12th) extended decision making powers to PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The first modification of government rules since independence makes it easier to bypass opposition within the government to a strike on Iran.
2. Israeli Home Front holds huge drill: A major drill is held this week (Aug. 13-17)  to prepare the Israeli home front for the possible counter attack that Iran and / or its allies would launch on Israel.
3. Bank of Israel gets ready: Israel highly regarded governor of the central bank, Stanley Fisher, said (Aug. 8) that he is taking steps to prepare the financial system for a possible Israeli strike on Iran.
4. France is preparing mass evacuation: France has set up contingency plans for a mass evacuation of French nationals. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis also hold a French passport.
5. Media Blitz: While the world is busy with so many economic issues, the debate about a strike in Iran flooded the Israeli media over the weekend, justifying such a move and preparing the public. These seem to be orchestrated by Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak, who hints that the window of opportunity is closing. This includes the usually left-leaning Haaretz, which reported (Aug. 12) that Iran made progress towards a nuclear bomb. PM Netanyahu declared that Iranian threat “dwarfs” all others. This was the first topic of his opening statement in the weekly government meeting.

Netanyahu and Barak don’t have clear support in the Israeli public. While there’s no doubt that Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, many feel that an Israeli strike is not the way to go, and that it could be counterproductive. The current and former top military brass is opposed to the war, a

The sanctions imposed by the US and Europe on Iran are weakening the country: oil production is falling and rising prices of food are angering the public. The public outrage, especially regarding the price of chicken, caused Iran’s national police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam to call state television not to broadcast films where people eating chicken are seen.

In case violence breaks out, oil prices would surely rise. The implications for currencies would be a stronger dollar and yen, with varying degrees of losses for other currencies. More details about potential currency movements are here.

The peg of the Swiss franc to the euro could break in such an event, as the franc could attract even stronger demand. This is what happened during the Arab Spring.

Pro-Obama Media at War with Government over Iran – Inside Israel – News – Israel National News.

Israeli press

Flash 90

Israeli journalists who support U.S. President Barack Obama are waging a full-scale war against the government of Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel prepares to launch a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear Holocaust program.

“I have been a journalist since 1957,” said veteran writer Shlomo Nakdimon on Galei YIsrael Radio Monday morning, “and a reigning government has never been attacked this way.” He accused the press of damaging the government’s ability to rule.

The accusation follows weeks in which Israel’s second-largest daily, Yediot Aharonot – which also publishes the Ynet website – and both of the commercial television stations, Channel 2 and 10, have been pummeling the Netanyahu government over its military plans.

Yediot Aharonot contended in its Friday issue that the plan to strike Iran is opposed by every single senior official in Israel defense establishment. Its writers – and the analysts on Channel 2 and 10 – portray Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as men who are driven by “messianic” thinking to act against the advice of the entire security establishment, both present and past.

On the previous Friday, Yediot quoted unnamed sources in the Obama administration as saying that Saudi Arabia would shoot down Israeli jets en route to an Iran attack. Other “spins” launched by the newspaper recently are that the U.S. has presented to Israel detailed plans for its own Iran strike, which is supposed to take place in 2013, and that a strike on Iran would help get Obama reelected rather than hinder his reelection.

Naftali Bennet, who is running for the top spot in the Jewish Home party, wrote in a Facebook post Monday: “The press has fallen on its head – national strength is required!”

“This is the first time in the history of the state of Israel that an orchestrated and thorough campaign is being waged against the right of the state of Israel to defend itself – and this is being done from the inside,” he wrote.

“A day does not go by without a headline that says: ‘Israel is not ready for war’; ‘Netanyahu will lead us to a disaster’; ‘the home front is unprepared’, and more – all in order to frighten the Israeli public into opposing Israeli  measures against Iran’s nuclearization…

“Friends, they are trying to portray Netanyahu as messianic, delusional, crazy, irresponsible. Based on personal acquaintance with him, let me state clearly: Netanyahu is taking care of the future of the nation of Israel in its land, responsibly.

“What do they think? That Netanyahu wants to send people to their deaths? That he yearns for missiles to fly into Tel Aviv? That I and people like me are excited about wearing uniforms again, saying goodbye to our families and fighting again?”

In the News1 website, founded by independent investigative journalist Yoav Yitzchak, pundit Itamar Levin has penned two articles attacking Yediot and Ynet as “traitors” and “liars,” no less. Levin says Yediot reported that Barak held a meeting with the Mossad’s senior leaders in an attempt to convince them of the necessity of a strike on Iran, but failed to win them over. It later turned out that the meeting took place three years ago, but no apology or clarification was issued, Levin wrote.

Levin accused Yediot of endangering Israeli pilots by publishing the dates for a planned attack and the possible routes to be used by IAF jets. He explained that Yediot is motivated by commercial considerations, as it is fighting for its life in the face of the growing popularity of Israel Hayom – the competing newspaper owned by pro-Netanyahu Sheldon Adelson.

Iran can build an N-bomb by Oct. 1. Cairo coup hampers Israeli action.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 13, 2012, 9:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak visit scene of terrorist Sinai attack

At its present rate of enrichment, Iran will have 250 kilograms of 20-percent grade uranium, exactly enough to build its first nuclear bomb, in roughly six weeks, and two-to- four bombs by early 2013, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report. Hence the leak by an unnamed Israeli security source Sunday, Aug. 12, disclosing Iran’s progress in developing the detonator and fuses for a nuclear warhead which can be fitted onto Shehab-3 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel.
Since 20 percent refined uranium is a short jump to weapons grade fuel, Iran will have the capability and materials for building an operational nuclear bomb by approximately October 1.
This knowledge is not news to US President Barack Obama, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, or Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – and certainly not to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  Netanyahu’s comment at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday: “All threats against the home front are dwarfed by one – Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear arms!” – was prompted by that deadline.
Ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not have that information when he “assured” Tel Aviv students Sunday, “Iran’s nuclear program has not reached the threshold necessitating Israeli action now or in the near future.” He further claimed that Israel’s “defense leaders” don’t subscribe to the view that “action now is unavoidable.” Olmert, who stepped down under a cloud of suspected corruption in 2009, has not since then had access to regular intelligence briefings on Iran. So either he spoke out of ignorance or willfully joined an opposition chorus of voices speaking out against Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The fact is that when Olmert approved the Israeli strike for destroying a nuclear reactor under construction by Iran and North Korea in northern Syria in September 2007,  Iran was years away from accumulating enough enriched uranium and the capability to build nuclear warheads.
Both are now within Tehran’s grasp in weeks.

Leading an opposition campaign to bring down the incumbent government is legitimate. Discrediting belated Israeli action to pre-empt a nuclear Iran as fodder for that campaign is not.  If what Olmert and Barack (the same defense minister as today) did in 2007 was necessary then, action now for delaying Iran’s imminent “breakout” to a bomb is many times more necessary and far more urgent.
However Netanyahu and Barak have put themselves in a straitjacket by two lapses:

1.  By foot-dragging on their decision for two years, they have led their opponents at home and in Washington – and Khamenei’s office too – to believe that, by turning on the heat, they can hold Israel back from military action against Iran’s nuclear program until it is too late. The time has been used not just for Iranian nuclear progress, but to enlist ex-politicians and retired generals at home and add them to the voices, especially in the White House, which believe Israel can learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
2.  Netanyahu and Barak have behaved as though a decision on Iran is in their exclusive province, insulated from the turmoil and change swirling through Israel’s Arab neighbors in the past two years.
But the Middle East has a way of catching up with and rushing past slow-moving politicians:
Sunday, at 10:00 a.m. Netanyahu warned his ministers that no threat was worse than a nuclear Iran. At 17:55 p.m., Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi dropped a bombshell in Cairo. In one fell swoop, he smashed the Egyptian military clique ruling the country for decades, sacked the Supreme Military Council running Egypt since March 2011 and cut the generals off from their business empire by appropriating the defense ministry and military industry.
That fateful eight hours-less-five-minutes have forced Israel’s leaders to take a second look at their plans for Iran.
Morsi’s lightning decisions were the finishing touches that proved the Islamist Bedouin terror attacks in Sinai of Aug. 5 fitted neatly into a secret master plan hatched by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to seize full control of rule in Cairo – a plan debkafile first revealed exclusively last Friday, Aug. 10.
Netanyahu now faces one of the hardest dilemmas of his political career – whether to go forward with the Iran operation, which calls for mustering all Israel’s military and defense capabilities – especially for the repercussions, after being suddenly confronted with unforeseen security challenges on its southwestern border, for thirty years a frontier of peace.

The exceptional talents of Netanyahu and Barak to put off strategic decisions until they are overtaken by events has landed Israel in an especially perilous plight, surrounded now by a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran from the east;  threatened Syrian chemical warfare from the north and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt to its south.

‘US would actively support Israel if it attacks Iran’ | The Times of Israel.

Washington would provide air defense against Tehran and its proxies, sources say

Illustrative photo of the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier that was deployed earlier this year to the Persian Gulf (photo credit: Official U.S. Navy Imagery/flickr)

The US would support Israel if Jerusalem were to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program, the Hebrew daily Maariv quoted diplomatic sources saying on Monday.

According to the report, Washington would provide Israel with an air defense ‘umbrella’ against the anticipated retaliation by Tehran and its proxies — notably Hezbollah — in the event of a strike. There is no indication from the report that the US would engage in offensive military action against Iran.

Messages passed from Republican and Democrat policy makers in Washington to Israeli counterparts suggest that should Israel decide to bomb Iran in advance of the US presidential elections in November, President Barack Obama would order the American armed forces to join in the military effort.

Such an intervention, the sources explained, would all but guarantee Obama a second term in office. If he chose not to act, the president would likely be handing the office over to the Republicans, they said.

Advisers close to Republican candidate Mitt Romney and Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren were among those who passed the messages between Washington and Jerusalem, Maariv claimed. The Israeli embassy in Washington declined to respond to the report.

Obama is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a UN summit in September, in what could be a meeting that determines whether or not Israel would go it alone against Iran.

Iranian officers led Syrian regime militias in Homs: defected general.

Monday, 13 August 2012

A resident walks past buildings damaged in what activists said was an air strike by the Syrian Air Force at al-Khalidiah neighborhood in Homs. (Reuters)

  inShare1

The Yeshiva World Israel: Are We Ready For Strike Against Iran? « » Frum Jewish News.

The speculation surrounding a military strike against Iran remains a top news story. The big question is “Are we ready?”

In recent years, the military has spent billions of NIS towards improving the military’s outstretched arm, the air force’s capabilities to strike distant targets. The experts feel that today, the IAF is at an unprecedented level of readiness and striking ability. Much time and expense has been dedicated to perfecting mid-air fueling and other actions that are required if IAF fighter jets are sent on a mission to a far off country. According to many foreign reports, the IDF also has an arsenal of long range accurate surface-to-surface missiles.

An attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a complicated operation, far more complex than Israel’s air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 or the strike against the Syrian reactor in 2007. Regarding the latter, Israel never accepted responsibility for that aerial assault but Jerusalem is believed responsible.

For one thing, Iraq and Syria were unprepared for an assault. This is not the case regarding Iran. Additionally, the experts do not agree regarding the number of targets but according to the conservative approach, fighter planes would have to effectively strike at least four facilities while evading advanced anti-aircraft systems.

Yediot Achronot reports the IAF will require a minimum of 100 F15 (Ra’am) and F16 (Sufa) fighter jets, which will have to travel far, over 1,300km (780 miles) and dozens of planes will have to refuel in midair. According to American reports Israel does not have a sufficient number of refueling planes for such a mission, so if Israel decides to go ahead without prior US knowledge and cooperation, the situation would become increasingly complicated since if the US is not behind the move, it may not be willing to provide the needed equipment to actualize an assault.

Foreign reports cite three possible aerial routes to Iran, the southern [dangerous] route amid reports Saudi Arabia will down Israeli planes violating its airspace; the northern route via hostile Turkey and Syria with the latter in the midst of a civil war or the NY Times route, perhaps the safest, over Jordan and Iraq. Analysts add Jordan is likely to agree to ‘close its eyes’ to fighter jets and according to reports, Iraqi anti-aircraft capabilities is quite limited and this route would pose the least danger to IAF aircraft.

Realizing the Iranians are prepared the air force is also taking into account that some planes will be fired upon and downed, and pilots taken prisoner, but even if all the planes make it home safely, it is not guaranteed that the mission will succeed in delaying the nuclear program a number of years. It does not appear that anyone expects to eradicate the nuclear program due to the reality there are too many facilities buried too deeply in mountains or underground.

On the homefront the IDF is prepared for a confrontation with Hizbullah in Lebanon and against Hamas and other terror organizations in Gaza. The Arrow system is being relied upon to defend the homefront against long range missile attacks into Israel along with the Iron Dome operating in the south guarding against short range rockets.

Experts feel the IDF is far better prepared along the northern border than in 2006, including both standing and reserve duty forces. The intelligence community had a list of 200 targets in southern Lebanon when the Second Lebanon War began and today, that number has increased to 2,000.