WarSclerotic

‘Iranians planned to assassinate Israeli ambassador’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As Danny Ayalon seeks African nations’ support for Iran stance, Kenya’s intelligence services reveal they prevented plan to assassinate Israel’s Ambassador in Kenya

Itamar Eichner

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Thursday praised the Kenyan goverment for its efforts to stop Iranian terror threats against Israeli and Jewish targets. .

Ayalon who is currently visiting Kenya as part of a round of visits in three African countries – Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya, praised the local authorities after they arrested the two Iranians in June when the suspects led Kenyan security forces to 15 kilograms (33 pounds) of RDX, a powerful explosive, in the coastal city of Mombasa where several hotels are owned by Israelis.

It has now been revealed that the targets included Israel’s Ambassador to Kenya, Gil Haskel.

One official said the Iranians are members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, an elite and secretive unit.

During Ayalon’s visit, all three countries expressed concern regarding Iran’s attempts to increase its terror activity in Africa.

Ayalon is also using the visits to conduct a diplomatic battle against Iran, and is trying to convince the African leaders not to take part in the conference of Non Aligned Nations at the end of the month in Teheran.

Avi Granot, deputy director of the African section in the Foreign Ministry, said that the Israeli request to send a delegation of lower ranking representatives was being mulled.

A week before Ayalon arrived in Africa Iranian Vice President Hamid Bakai visited the continent for a round of visits and handed each leader a personal invitation to the conference.

Security and Defense: Delayi… JPost – Features – Week in review.

Backstabbing Democracy: A Nuclear Iran and the Israeli Media | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

( The central thrust of this article is accurate.  I simply don’t think many pay much attention to the lefty press here.  It’s OUR lives at stake here.  Who would you trust?  _ JW )

August in Israel is usually full of hot air, and this one is no exception. The country is sweating under the relentless summer sun, and whatever your occupation and the higher calling in your life, if you’re an Israeli with children, your main agenda is quite simple – keep your kids from destroying the universe during this last month of school vacation, after all the camps have ended.

For the local journalists, August is the “cucumber season”, when the real news is slow and the inherent silliness of the Israeli press (caused by the poor level of recruitment and professionalism) runs wild. In recent years, though, instead of reporting on items like “Chechen fighters establish a colony in Southern township”, the summer tea-time of the collective brain of the Israeli press took a decisive turn to the political.

Last year, it was the “popular uprising” of the well-to-do Israelis of the Centrist-Left persuasion that fascinated the media in the way a kitten is fascinated by a ball of yarn. From the moment the first tent appeared on Rothschild boulevard in Tel-Aviv, the Israeli “watchdogs of democracy” abdicated their responsibility to report and to analyze, much less criticize, and became what Vladimir Lenin called a “collective propagandist, agitator and organizer of the masses”. In the following days and weeks, it became painfully obvious that the socio-economic composition of the protesting crowd matched almost completely the audience of two commercial TV channels who competed between themselves for the privilege of being the most radical and most shrill with the most dramatic shots and the most inflated numbers.

Those outside of Israel who took their cue from the local press and became obsessed with “Tahrir in Tel Aviv” could remind themselves that, far from being real bonfires of the Israeli tribe, both channels, 2 and especially 10 are so incapable of setting a unifying agenda for their potential viewers that they constantly bleed money and balance on a brink of financial extinction. When they embraced the protests of 2011, it was not a great alliance but a kiss of death. Large swaths of the public, suspicious of the journalists and their not-really-hidden real motive – to bring down the Netanyahu government – stayed away from the action. Then September came, and the silly season was over.

This year, despite the attempts to revive the protests in a more extreme and violent form, the Israeli press abstained. Maybe it was preoccupied with its own self-inflicted problems – instead of increased prestige and ratings, the only tangible result of the public outcry against Big Business was the sharp decrease of advertising revenue from Big Business, which brought most of the printed media close to insolvency and brought about massive layoffs. Or maybe it was just disappointed – after all, the demonstrations, however successful in reshaping the Israeli political agenda and bringing forward issues that lay dormant – taxes, prices, housing and social services – haven’t managed to unseat the hated government of the Right, so why bother?

The only aspect of the renewed protest that got media attention, in a morbid and wildly irresponsible way, was the suicide of one of the demonstrators who blamed the government for his business failings. In the following days, the media’s insistence in turning him into some kind of a tragic hero and to transform his personal misfortune into a national tragedy (I am quoting actual headlines here), caused a dozen new attempts by copycat wannabe self-immolators, before saner heads and the deep-seated Jewish aversion to suicide prevailed.

I am bringing this up because without understanding the modus operandi of the rancid mess that is the mainstream Israeli media, it is impossible to plumb the depths of insanity to which it sank in the recent weeks of August 2012. Lead by a member of the Board of Trustees of George Soros’ International Crisis Group (which is, of course, firmly opposed to any kind of military action against Iran), “Yedioth Ahronoth” columnist Nahum Barnea, the press is both whipping up hysteria about an “imminent” Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations – AND blaming Netanyahu and the Defense Minister Ehud Barak for their “irresponsible blather”! At the same newspaper, on the same page, you can read an editorial demanding “a widest possible discussion” on the merits of the attack and its’ consequences AND the ruminations of the chief editorial columnist about how in the past, “the responsible leaders ordered such attacks first and only then talked about it”.

Day in and day out, Israelis are bombarded by gossip in the guise of reporting. Today we’re being told that the decision has been made, tomorrow – that it will wait until September when Netanyahu might meet with Obama at the UN. Mysterious “sources” report that the security establishment is against the attack – a day later you’ll learn from the same “sources” that the generals – naturally – prefer an American-led operation. The febrile atmosphere caused the usual Left-wing nuts to erupt – while the increasingly unhinged Yoram Kaniuk called on the “true Beitarim” to rise on Netanyahu and “stop” him, the assorted “progressives” started a Web petition calling on the Israeli pilots to refuse an order to bomb Iran. One of those, law school professor Menahem Mautner, cheerfully proclaimed in a radio interview that a huge difference exists between the Left and the Right with regard to the (blatantly illegal) refusal to obey lawful military orders given by an elected government. Turns out, that the Right refuses, because it wishes to turn Israel into a racist theocracy, and therefore it must be crushed, while the Left wants to preserve Israeli democracy and therefore its refusal is legitimate and must be respected.

There’s of course nothing “democratic” in the idea that in a crisis, an opinion of the military bureaucrats and “intelligence professionals” must prevail over this of the civilian leaders elected by a clear majority of the people. This, in fact, is what the Israeli hard Left has been dreaming about all along – since it can no longer persuade the people to follow its suicidal course, it must utilize tools outside of representative democracy to make the will of the people irrelevant. This anti-democratic mood is fully shared by the ideological elder twins of the Israeli “liberals” in America – that’s why the “progressive” Peter Beinart’s Open Zion is willing to entertain the possibility of a military coup “to save Israel from itself”.

It is also worth noting, without getting into the debate about the merits and dangers of a preventive strike against Iran, that the Israeli “security professionals” were wrong in the past, sometimes – disastrously wrong. From the fateful mistakes that led to the appalling loss of life in the Yom Kippur War to the failure to predict and prepare for the fall of secular dictatorships throughout the Middle East, the Israeli generals and spooks erred time and again, sometimes on the side of war, sometimes on the side of peace. In the last two decades they gave their support to policies of withdrawal and appeasement that failed spectacularly – in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza – and failed to prepare the armed forces for the inevitable reckoning. Hundreds of Israeli civilians lost their lives, thousands were wounded and traumatized, billions of shekels were lost, because the generals made mistakes for which they weren’t held accountable. Up until Syria exploded, the same generals, united under the Leftist umbrella organization with the deceptive name “Counsel for Peace and Security”, promoted the idea of giving up the Golan Heights “for peace”.

Whatever the outcome of the internal Israeli debate on the pros and contras of the attack on Iran, it must not be hijacked by the anti-democratic Leftist elite, sub-par journalists with ulterior motives and the manipulative security establishment. Israel has suffered enough from insufficient civilian control over its military. Instead of proclaiming generals’ infallibility and giving uncritical support to their anonymous insinuations, the responsible press should have called them to order and demanded to lay their opinions where they belong – at the table of the civilian decision-makers – instead of spreading confusion and panic at the civilian rear.

Vilnai: Israel is more ready… JPost – Features – Week in review.

Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski

Outgoing home front defense minister Matan Vilna’i nearly gave people who care about Israel around the world a heart attack this week, even though he really intended to ease their fears.

Vilna’i gave a parting interview to Ma’ariv’s veteran Knesset correspondent, Arik Bender, headlined “Vilna’i: There is no reason for hysteria, the home front is ready.” Just as he did in other interviews, he downplayed threats and boasted about the work he had done to prepare Israel for any eventuality.

But the Reuters news agency took a quote from Vilna’i out of context and headlined its reports, which were published around the world, “Israeli minister: Possible war with Iran could be month-long affair with 500 dead.”

Coming from the ultimate expert on Israel’s readiness for war, who happens to be moving 7,130 kilometers away next Wednesday to Beijing, it is no wonder such a headline set off alarm bells. But those familiar with Vilna’i know he did not intend to scare anyone.

Vilnai’s deep voice and calm demeanor could act as a sedative for even the most stressed. He is not running away from Israel to China.

He accepted a plum posting as ambassador to Beijing that will cap off 50 years of public service in which he rose through the army’s ranks to deputy chief of staff and then toiled for 13 years in politics.

For the past five years, he has been in charge of the home front, first as deputy defense minister and then as a minister.

And for the record, a month-long war with 500 dead is the worst-case scenario that Israel is preparing for – it’s not something expected. Whether you are a worry-wart or happy-go-lucky, the fact that such preparations are being made is undoubtedly a good thing.

Vilna’i had something to say to both worriers and warmongers in an interview this week with The Jerusalem Post:
Matan Vilna’i, should we be worrying?

Whenever there is a possibility of war, you have to worry. And everyone who lives in Israel needs to know that at any point there can be a war. The right thing to do is to make sure we are doing everything possible to avoid war until there is no choice. That is correct whether the war is on the home front or in enemy territory. We would only go to war if the sword was clearly at our throats.

Are we prepared to endure attacks on multiple fronts?

Over the past three years, Israel has prepared in a way we never have before. There is no reason to enter hysteria. We can feel very good about what we have done. It won’t be like the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when we were not ready.

What did you mean when you talked about 500 dead in a month-long war?

That people who spoke about thousands were exaggerating. The numbers “500” and “one month” are the Defense Ministry’s assessment for the worst-case scenario that we need to prepare for based on the strength of the enemy. I agree with that assessment, so that is what we are getting ready for. But it could be more and it could be less. In the Gulf War, two Israelis were killed from direct hits of Scud missiles from Iraq while 28 marines in Saudi Arabia were killed from one missile. In the Second Lebanon War, 40 citizens were killed by 4,000 missiles. Now there are are 10 times as many missiles in Lebanon. There should not be panic as though there will be thousands of casualties.

Do you think Israel will attack Iran?

I won’t get into predictions. What I did was not necessarily connected to Iran. I had to get the country ready for earthquakes and for every eventuality. We prepare for the worst-case scenario. I don’t deal with scaring people.

What is the greatest challenge you are leaving for your successor, Avi Dichter?

I left him my outlook and my framework for getting the job done. There is work that will never be done. People have forgotten that at the beginning they said there was no need for a ministry. Now no one is saying that. The home front has changed dramatically.

What about reports that one-third of the population has no shelter of any kind?

Building shelters for the entire population is important, but it is a project of dozens of millions of shekels that I don’t think we should invest in. If people listen to our warning systems and get to the most protected place possible, that is what should be done. Educational commercials will start airing soon about choosing the best place to go in an emergency.

Can you understand why the public would think you are escaping a troubled ministry on the eve of a potential conflict?

The press may say we are on the eve of a conflict but I am not so sure. I built a whole system to deal with any scenario. I have been dealing with security for 50 years and now I have a right to go do something else. The prime minister and foreign minister asked me to go to China. I have learned a lot about China over the past few months, I am excited about the opportunity and I intend to do that job well.

Can you persuade China to cooperate with efforts to prevent the nuclearization of Iran through non-military means?

I will do everything I can. I don’t think I can persuade them. They have their considerations. I will do what I can to represent Israel’s interests.

What is your greatest accomplishment and your biggest regret?

I took the home front, an issue that politicians didn’t want to touch for 60 years. There were 20 years of un-implemented decisions, and I took care of it.

Warning for Dichter: Home Front Not Ready – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Children in bomb shelter (illustrative)

Flash 90

The Home Front is not prepared to respond to disasters, warns Brigadier-General (res.) Amatzia “Patzi” Chen. Different organizations tasked with first response still do not coordinate their actions, despite previous tragedies such as the Carmel fire disaster, he told Arutz Sheva.

“The lack of coordination between systems brought about all the problems that were revealed during Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War,” he said.

“Avi Dichter’s appointment is really the marking of the first person to be fired by the committee of inquiry that will be set up if the Home Front is attacked,” he warned. “So I suggest that Dichter check to see if all the systems that are supposed to work are working, and to see how to get them ready for a state of war.”

The United States set an example by learning from disasters in Vietnam, he said, and putting a top commander in charge of communications between forces – a move that helped the American army in Iraq. Israel should do the same, he said, “There should be coordination between all government offices and every branch of the IDF.”

Chen called for public discourse over Home Front preparedness. Currently, the topic “isn’t on the agenda,” he lamented.

Instead, he said, there is a public discourse on the possibility of an Israeli strike in Iran. He condemned those who openly called on pilots not to obey strike orders, calling them “an irresponsible gang motivated by personal interests” that is “undermining the foundations of democracy.”

Iran is simply not afraid of the United States, says Israel’s former military intelligence chief | The Times of Israel.

Adds Amos Yadlin: As Israel agonizes over whether to let its military option lapse, it needs more indications of US commitment to use force if necessary

Amos Yadlin (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Iran’s behavior shows it does not seriously believe the US will resort to military action against its nuclear program, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, told The Times of Israel.

As for Israel, Yadlin said, it needs to see both firmer US declarations, and actual indications that the US means what it says about a possible resort to force, as it agonizes over whether to let its window for military action against Iran close and place its faith in the US to thwart Iran come what may.

That window for Israeli action “extends into 2013,” Yadlin added. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, by contrast, has said it closes at the end of this year — one of the factors behind the feverish speculation of recent weeks about an Israeli strike in the fall.

In a clear and candid interview Wednesday, Yadlin, who retired as MI chief at the end of 2010, urged President Barack Obama to make a statement to Congress, specifying “that if the steps the administration is relying upon today, like negotiations and sanctions, do not achieve success by the summer of 2013, then the Americans will deal with the problem via military intervention.”

Such a statement, he said, could assuage Israeli concerns over American policy. And in addition to declarations, he said, the US should take certain actions “to show that you’re serious. More intensive missile defense in the Middle East, exercises with your allies in the Middle East — in order to demonstrate to the world more clearly that you’re really training for this and preparing for this.”

As things stands, said Yadlin, who today heads the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, ”The Iranians have just said that they’re not afraid of the Israelis. They didn’t say they’re not afraid of the Americans. But you can see from their behavior that they’re not afraid.”

It was unacceptable, Yadlin added, for a US defense secretary “to stand up publicly and say that an attack on Iran will plunge the world into World War III or the Middle East will go up in flames. That shows that you don’t really mean to do it.”

A former IAF fighter pilot who fought in the 1973 war, and who was one of the eight pilots who bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, Yadlin said he was certain that, if all else failed, a single “smart, surgical” air operation by the US could halt the Iranian nuclear program. And he said there was a “high likelihood” of a US attack in 2013-2014, if “all the other options will be exhausted in the eyes of the Americans.”

“The United States can do it when it finally understands that negotiations will get nothing from the Iranians and that the sanctions are not achieving what is necessary,” Yadlin said. “I am one of those who believes that President Obama understands the American interests regarding Iran, regarding the proliferation that would follow if Iran goes nuclear. The next day the Saudis, the Turks and after that maybe Egypt and Iraq [would seek to go nuclear]. There is no American president who wants the NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] to collapse on his watch and for Iran to be the Middle East hegemon because it is nuclear…

He added: “Look, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, but he’s not a vegetarian. Ask bin Laden. What has happened to various al-Qaeda leaders?”

But if Israel’s concerns were not assuaged, and if it saw no alternative, the possibility of Israel attacking Iran “cannot be excluded,” he said. The pre-conditions set by the prime minister and the defense minister that would lead to an attack on Iran have been fulfilled, he noted:

“What they say, more or less, is that all the strategies being employed against Iran have either failed or are not working. The diplomatic negotiations that took place in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow produced nothing. The sanctions may be painful for the Iranians, but not to the extent that they change their minds. The secretive operations for which no one takes responsibility have not stopped the Iranian nuclear program. The regime is relatively stable.”

“On the assumption that the cost of an Iranian nuclear bomb to Israel’s security, and the danger it poses, are greater than [the cost of] an attack on Iran, I think it can happen.

Still, Yadlin said, he did not believe Israel’s capacity to intervene militarily would end this year. Asked when Israel would no longer be able to take effective military action, he answered, “It was presented by the defense minister as the two final quarters of 2012. There are people who think differently — who think that for us, too, it extends into 2013. I’m one of those people.”

Syria opposition fighters acquire Stinger missiles: sources.

Friday, 17 August 2012

The U.S. fears that advanced weapons sent to Syrian rebels might reach hands of Jihadi groups. (Reuters)

  nShare

Oil falls to $114 as U.S. considers oil release | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Brent crude oil fell to around $114 on Friday after the United States said it was considering the possible release of oil reserves to dampen prices and the Israeli president spoke out against any lone Israeli attack on Iran.

News the White House was “dusting off old plans” for a potential release of strategic oil stocks helped knock more than $1 per barrel of Brent, which hit a three-month high on Thursday.

The global benchmark has risen more than a third in less than two months on worries that conflict over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme could lead to war, disrupting oil supplies from the Middle East.

But the oil price rally has come at a time when world economic growth is slowing, dampening demand for fuel, and oil supplies have been ample, helping restock inventories, and many investors feel the recent price rises have been overdone.

Brent crude fell $1.40 to a low of $113.87 a barrel before recovering to around $114.00 by 1008 GMT. The September contract which expired on Thursday ended at the highest since May 2. U.S. oil slipped 40 cents to $95.10, after settling up $1.27.

“The market moved a long way in quite a short time and we are now seeing some profit-taking,” said Eugen Weinberg, global head of commodities research at Commerzbank in Frankfurt.

“But sentiment towards commodities and other ‘riskier’ assets has improved with the euro strengthening and the dollar easier. The market is looking for reasons to correct a little.”

U.S. officials will monitor market conditions over the coming weeks, watching whether gasoline prices fall after the September 3 Labor Day holiday, in line with usual practice, a Washington source with knowledge of the situation told Reuters.

The United States has not yet held talks with international partners about a coordinated move. The source said Britain, France, Germany and other partner nations in the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) had been receptive to a potential release a few months ago when conditions were similar.

Britain’s energy ministry said on Friday it was prepared to ask the IEA to take action to deal with high oil prices, however neither it nor its partners had made any decisions to release stocks.

Japan and South Korea saw no need yet for a release from reserves, government sources said on Friday.

ISRAEL VS IRAN

Oil prices were also dampened by easing concerns of a supply disruption from the Middle East after Israeli President Shimon Peres downplayed the prospect of a unilateral strike on Iran.

Peres said on Thursday he trusted U.S. President Barack Obama’s pledge to prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons.

Peres’ comments appeared to challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who have both raised the prospect of a unilateral Israeli strike.

Oil prices received some support from comments by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday, which helped push stock markets to multi-month highs on Friday and boosted the euro.

Merkel voiced support for ECB President Mario Draghi’s euro crisis-fighting strategy and pressed her European partners to move swiftly towards a closer integration of fiscal policies, saying time was running short.

Hopes the euro bloc may finally be getting a grip on its problems lifted top European shares in early trading with the main indexes in London .FTSE, Paris .FCHI and Frankfurt .GDAXI all in positive territory, helping the MSCI index of global shares .MIWD00000PUS extend an 11.5 percent gain that started back in June.

The euro was buoyant around $1.235 and hit a six-month high versus the yen.

Investors are now looking for indications on whether the U.S. Federal Reserve will initiate more measures to stimulate growth, with data still suggesting that the world’s biggest economy hasn’t reached a stage of steady recovery.

(Additional reporting by Manash Goswami and Elizabeth Law in Singapore; Editing by Alison Birrane)

Israel pushing Washington to up the Iranian ante | Reuters.

(Reuters) – An upsurge in Israeli rhetoric warning of an imminent attack on Iran is aimed more at Washington than Tehran, and does not mean that the warplanes are firing up their engines.

A plethora of media reports over the past week has sent shivers through financial markets by suggesting that Israel might strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities ahead of U.S. presidential elections in November.

However, senior Israeli officials say a final decision has not yet been taken, with government ministers still at loggerheads over the issue and the military hierarchy unhappy about the prospect of going it alone without full U.S. backing.

But if U.S. President Barack Obama does not lay out his red lines in the coming weeks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel compelled to act, his inner circle says.

“Tehran doesn’t see a U.S. strike on the horizon and is confident Washington will prevent Israel from attacking,” said a senior Israeli official, who declined to be named.

“So Israel is looking for stronger public statements from Obama, either at the U.N. General Assembly or some other forum, that would change Iran’s assessment,” he added.

While Tehran says its nuclear programme is peaceful, Western powers believe it is trying to produce an atomic bomb, and Israel views it as an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Netanyahu is set to travel to the General Assembly at the end of September and hopes to meet Obama to discuss the crisis.

He wants to secure three commitments: a pledge that the United States will attack if Iran does not back down; a tight deadline for negotiations with Tehran, which have so far proved fruitless; and a further tightening of the sanctions noose.

“Israel is telling President Obama that unless there is a change of tack, Israel will go it alone. I do believe that Netanyahu is serious about this,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

DEJA VU?

To a degree we have been here before.

In November 2011 there was a similar upsurge in alarmist chatter about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike. On that occasion it was a clear attempt to get world powers to ratchet up economic sanctions on Iran. It worked.

This time, Israel is telling the world the sanctions aren’t proving effective and that only military force, or the very real threat of it, will dissuade Iran, as happened in 2003, when Tehran temporarily halted its nuclear work following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, fearing it would be next in the firing line.

“Iran will not engage seriously unless their situation is so bad that the alternative, giving up on their nuclear ambitions, will look better,” said Emily Landau, a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies.

But there is a fear in Israel that Netanyahu and his wily defence minister, Ehud Barak, have overplayed their hand.

U.S. officials have expressed incredulity at the chutzpah of the Israeli leadership in trying to corner Obama less than 100 days before his highly delicate re-election bid.

“I don’t know what they are playing at,” said a U.S. diplomat in Israel, adding: “A unilateral strike by Israel would be an act of folly.”

In what was widely perceived in Israel as sharp slapdown for Netanyahu, U.S. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned this week that any Israeli strike would not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme.

“I may not know about all of their capabilities, but I think that it’s a fair characterization to say that they could delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” he said.

MISSION DELAY

However, Israel has never claimed its air force, which lacks heavy bombers, could wipe out Iran’s distant, numerous and well-fortified facilities. Instead, officials argue that buying time would be a good enough result.

“If we succeed in pushing off the nuclear program by six or eight or 10 years, there’s a good chance that the (Iranian) regime will not survive,” an unidentified top “decision maker”, widely believed to be Barak, told Haaretz newspaper last Friday.

“So the objective is delay,” he added.

Cynics say the objective could equally be to drag America into the war through a precipitous action, with Obama likely to face irresistible domestic pressure to leap to Israel’s side.

A U.S. blogger published this week what he claimed were Israel’s war plans leaked by an Israeli army officer.

The document promises “an unprecedented cyber-attack”, a “barrage” of cruise missiles “to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks” followed by an air attack by planes with special equipment to render them invisible.

Compelling doubts have been raised about the veracity of the document. A similar version appeared days earlier on an Israeli internet forum that said it was based on “Israeli publications, foreign media reports and the author’s own imagination”.

Nonetheless, the spin, leaks and anonymous briefings have spread anxiety, with queues building for gas masks at Israeli distribution centres and hedge funds laying bets on a potential spike in oil prices because of the war threat.

“All this exceeds anything I have ever seen before, and I have been around a long time,” said Uri Dromi, a spokesman for former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who accused Netanyahu of reckless scare-mongering and damaging ties with Washington.

“It seems like he has forgotten who is the super power here,” he said.

Certainly, when Israel undertook daring attacks in the past, there was no wild public debate beforehand – such as in 1981 when it destroyed a nuclear plant in Iraq and again in a 2007 raid on Syria, which apparently targeted a nascent reactor.

David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he thought all the noise and fury could be an Israeli bid to shift world focus away from Syria and back to Iran. He did not see it as a prelude to a strike.

“No. I don’t think so, because usually they would go very quiet,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington; Editing by Will Waterman)

Iran: Israel’s existence ‘insult to all humanity’ – CBS News.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s president says Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity.”

It’s one of his sharpest attacks yet against the Jewish state. It comes as Israel openly debates whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said confronting Israel is an effort to “protect the dignity of all human beings.”

He was addressing worshippers at Tehran University after nationwide pro-Palestinian rallies, an annual event marking Quds (Jerusalem) Day on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

Iran and Israel have been bitter enemies for decades. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called Israel a “cancerous tumor” that must be wiped out.

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its nuclear and missile programs and repeated references by Iranian leaders to Israel’s destruction.