WarSclerotic

Iran begins construction of $300 million anti-aircraft missile base | The Times of Israel.

New facility near the city of Abadeh will host 7 battalions, says senior commander

An anti-aircraft gun guarding the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in Iran in 2007. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian, File)

Amid increasing talk of a possible Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, Iran has begun construction of a new, state-of-the-art, anti-aircraft missile base.

The new base, located near the city of Abadeh, in southern Iran, will cost $300 million, be home to 6,000 personnel, and host seven battalions, Iran’s Fars news agency reported Tuesday.

The Deputy Commander of the Khatam ol-Anbia Air Defense Base, Mohammad Hosseini, said the base, the largest of its kind in Iran, will also include one of the most important military training centers in the country.

Last month, a senior Iranian air defense commander asserted that all Iranian air defense units and systems are fully prepared to repel possible enemy air raids.

Also on Tuesday, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled an upgraded version of a short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile just weeks after it was test-fired, Iranian state media reported.

At the ceremony unveiling the Fateh-110, or Conqueror, Ahmadinejad told a group of defense officials that Iran wants to advance its defense technology “not in an aggressive context, but as a deterrence.”

“We do not seek it for conquest, domination of neighboring countries and the world. We do not want it because of defiance,” said Ahmadinejad, according to state TV.

Iran considers both the United States and Israel as potential adversaries. Neither country has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, which they claim is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes.

The official IRNA news agency reported Tuesday that the new version of Fateh-110 has a quicker launch capability, a longer life and can be used in adverse weather conditions, but gave no other details. The missile has been in service in Iran over the past decade.

Iran claimed earlier in August that it successfully test-fired the missile, saying at the time that Fateh-110 has an improved accuracy to strike land and naval targets within a 300 kilometer (185 mile) range.

Since 1992, Iran has tried to set up a self-sufficient military program. The country’s military leaders have said they believe future wars will take place in the air and on sea, and Tehran has sought to upgrade its air defense systems and naval power in anticipation of such a possibility.

Iran has also been pushing to upgrade its missiles, which already can target Israel and US bases in the Middle East. The Pentagon released a report in June noting significant advances in Iranian missile technology, acknowledging that the Islamic Republic has improved the accuracy and firing capabilities of its missiles.

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said Iran will commission a new generation of fighter jets, missiles, unmanned drones and submarines by the Iranian New Year, which falls in March 2013.

Iran’s purported military advancements are impossible to independently verify because the country does not release technical details of its arsenals or rely on equipment from major international defense contractors.

Odd silence at the airport – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Israelis going about their business as if threat of devastating war with Iran not looming

Yaron London

During a visit to the airport a few days ago, I noticed that the terminal was busy, but not more than usual for this time of year. I didn’t see families dragging luggage behind them and pushing packages that were wrapped in haste. I didn’t see people bidding farewell to loved ones who are staying behind with tears in their eyes. I didn’t see people rushing to the airline counters in hopes of purchasing a ticket at the last minute. I didn’t see an unusual amount of police trying to keep the order. Even American yeshiva students, who tend to leave Israel at the beginning of every war, did not paint the terminals with the black of their clothes.

No, I didn’t notice anything that reminded me, let’s say, of the Americans’ evacuation from Saigon hours before it was taken over by communist forces, or of Jews trying to hide from the Wehrmacht’s Panzers. In short, Israel’s only international airport seemed to be operating normally, as in times of peace.

And this is peculiar, because according to many, a terrible war may break out at any minute. Thousands of rockets will be launched from the north, ballistic missiles will be coming in from the east and at least some of them will penetrate Israel’s air defense systems and destroy entire areas in major cities. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousand will not make it to the shelters in time, and hundreds, maybe thousands will suffocate due to the shortage in gas masks.

According to senior security officials, this scenario may play out if the “forum of nine ministers” backs Netanyahu and Barak‘s position and authorizes them to send our warplanes and commando units to Iran. It is entirely possible that just one minister, smart or dumb, level-headed or hot-tempered, may tip the scales in favor of a strike and cause us great suffering – worthwhile or not. It is clear that for the pessimists, staying in Israel means that they are gambling with their lives.

And it is known that many Israelis hold foreign passports, many have enough cash to remain abroad for a lengthy period of time, and many, both Jews and Arabs, have relatives overseas who would greet them with open arms. Many Israelis have experienced persecution and have developed sensors that warn them of imminent disasters. So how is it that I saw no sign of this at the airport? And how is it that Israelis are not sensing that their lives are in danger, or maybe they do but are not behaving as one would expect of people in their situation? And how is it that despite the constant chatter about an impending war, we continue to go about our business as though tomorrow things will not be worse than they were yesterday?

Perhaps the current mood of the Israelis is embodied in the phrase, “We overcame Pharaoh and we will get through this too”; and maybe, despite all the painful lessons we have learned, we still tend to count on our leaders’ wisdom; and perhaps we put our trust in the military – or maybe we are just in denial. It is also possible that we are acting this way because we realize we have no other country.

US advisor: Obama should ask Congress to authorize use of force in Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Former Bush advisor Elliott Abrams says such a move would ‘show seriousness of purpose and send an unmistakable message to the ayatollahs’

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – A senior Middle East advisor during President W. George Bush’s term has said that President Barack Obama should ask the Congress for authorization to use force in Iran, just like his predecessors have done before the Gulf Wars and after 9/11.

In an article titled “Time to authorize use of force against Iran,” published in the Weekly Standard, Elliott Abrams writes that the Israeli talk about a solo military strike in Iran stems from the fact that “Israelis do not believe the United States will perform the task—will ever use military force, even as a last resort, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

The former National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs added that Iran also shares this view, and continues to advance its nuclear program uninterrupted while presenting “ridiculous proposals and refusing to engage in serious bargaining.”

Abrams dismissed presidential advisor Dennis Ross’ proposal to give Iran an “endgame proposal” while developing a “day after strategy” and providing Israel with military capabilities, saying it only reinforces the view that the United States will not act in Iran.

Obama and Netanyahu. In cahoots over Iran? (Photo: GPO)

He also addressed Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin’s op-ed piece, which urged President Obama to visit Israel and reaffirm his administration’s commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran, saying that “the idea of an Obama visit to Israel in the weeks just before, much less just after, the Democratic party convention is unrealistic; The time for Obama to do that is long past.”

According to Abrams, “More persuasive than the Ross or Yadlin proposals would be an effort by the president to seek a formal authorization for the use of force from Congress. This is the way for him to show seriousness of purpose, and for Congress to support it—and send an unmistakable message to the ayatollahs.

“Such a proposal by President Obama would be controversial, and many Democrats would vote against him,” Abrams wrote, “But it would, in the phrase Mr. Obama likes to use, be a teachable moment. First, the very presentation of such a resolution by the White House would show a new level of clarity and commitment. This would be likely to affect both Iranian and Israeli calculations far more than statements like “all options are on the table.”

Meanwhile, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency are intensifying efforts to gain access to Iranian military sites that are suspects of being used for secret nuclear weapons-related experiments, two senior diplomats said Tuesday.

The IAEA suspects that Iran is in the final stages of sanitizing the site and is trying to gain access to the site before the alleged clean-up succeeds in erasing any traces of such work.

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful contrary to Western fears, has denied experts of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency permission to visit the Parchin site despite multiple requests from the agency this year. Tehran says a visit is possible only after extensive planning and a detailed outline of procedures – a caveat IAEA officials describe as a stalling tactic.

The agency said a new meeting was planned for Friday “to resolve issues relating to Iran’s nuclear program,” terminology similar to that describing previous such sessions related to Parchin.

Why Obama Still Won’t Go to Israel « Commentary Magazine

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 08.21.2012 – 12:00 PM

The disagreement between Israel and the Obama administration over whether it’s time to acknowledge that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program is starting to make a lot of people nervous.

Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seem to be interpreting the administration’s staunch refusal to abandon a diplomatic track that has already clearly failed as meaning that the president won’t make good on his promise to stop Iran from going nuclear. That has led to talk that Israel will strike Iran without U.S. assistance or permission and that it may do so even before the November presidential election.

The Americans are doing everything they can to persuade the Israelis to stand down but in the absence of trust in the president, mere words may not be enough. That’s why one of Obama’s leading Jewish supporters, columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, believes it’s time for some symbolism. Goldberg writes today in Bloomberg that a long sought presidential visit to Israel before the election would do the trick. He’s right. If President Obama were to take time out from the campaign for a stop in Israel some time in the next few weeks, Netanyahu would have no choice but to postpone any attack plans. Though it is possible that Obama will listen to Goldberg, such a visit with less than 90 days before the election is a long shot. It is far more likely that the president will rely on his usual form of method of trying to communicate with the Israelis: pressure and threats aimed at making Netanyahu back down. But since that has never worked in the past, Obama’s supporters ought to be asking themselves what’s behind the president’s reluctance to act in a manner that might convince both Israelis and their Iranian foes that he isn’t fibbing about being prepared to act on the issue during his second term.

Though the Democrats’ campaign staff may think any time not spent in a swing state is a bad idea, an Obama visit to Israel now would be a coup for the president. It would monopolize media attention during the trip and thus hurt Mitt Romney. It would also bolster the president’s sagging Jewish support.

Even more important, such a dramatic gesture accompanied by a presidential speech in which he warned Iran that they must halt their nuclear program or face the consequences would convince the Israeli public that he could be relied upon to keep the promise he first made about stopping Tehran during the 2008 campaign. Under those circumstances, there would be no possibility of a unilateral Israeli attack since Netanyahu could not then justify such a move by pointing to distrust of Washington.

It would all be so easy but the question to ask about this scenario is why the president has always been so reluctant to show the Israelis some love when it would cost him so little and bring such a great reward?

The only possible answer is the one we always are forced to return to when discussing the problematic relationship between the Obama administration and Israel: the president’s equivocal feelings about the Jewish state. As veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller memorably put it a few weeks ago, Barack Obama is the first president in a generation “not in love with the idea of Israel.” That’s compounded by his open and very public dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu.

While Obama’s defenders are right to note that there’s nothing all that unusual about the lack of a visit to Israel during a first term, this is a president who has gone out of his way to pick fights with Jerusalem and to avoid the country during trips to the region. It appears that if Obama is to go to Israel, as his campaign hinted earlier during this summer, it would only be as a re-elected president with the whip hand over Netanyahu and not as a candidate who has to show some deference to his ally.

One imagines that Obama is recoiling at the very idea of being forced to pretend to be friendly with Netanyahu even if it meant avoiding an attack on Iran that he opposes or helping his re-election. Given the stakes involved, his refusal to take some good advice from a supporter tells us all we need to know about the president’s attitude toward Israel.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs.

( An intelligent summary of the current situation. – JW )
By Victor Kotsev

So heated and so public has become the debate over whether Israel would and should attack Iran in the fall that the editor-in-chief of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz remarked sarcastically in an editorial: “[Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak deserve a medal for their contribution to strengthening Israeli democracy. For the first time a broad and noisy public debate is taking place over whether to go to war, with the encouragement and participation of the prime minister and the defense minister.”

The donnybrook among both Israelis and Americans is quickly turning into a free-for-all; the dominant narrative that Jerusalem is feverishly pushing for a strike while Washington is feverishly pushing back, while not necessarily wrong, is proving simplistic.

In both countries there are different camps and sub-camps divided over the issue, which are simultaneously grappling and bargaining with each other, while trying to jointly bargain and grapple with the Iranians. The Iranian camp is equally diverse and divided, and other American allies, such as Saudi Arabia, are bringing their own narrow interests into the dispute. The result: a genuine mess.
It is generally believed that Barak and Netanyahu are the two chief hawks in the Western camp, while United States President Barack Obama is the top dove. Some heavy blows were exchanged among the three in the last weeks. Obama’s recent pressure on Barak and Netanyahu, epitomized by a series of visits by top US officials in Jerusalem, resulted in an explosion of rhetoric and positioning.

To name a few key incidents: the hawks retaliated by leaking information on a brand new American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which reportedly reverses previous findings, arguing that Iran has accomplished significant progress toward building a nuclear bomb. To quote the Israeli defense minister, “As far as we know it brings the American assessment much closer to ours.”

If confirmed, this information about the 2012 NIE would constitute a serious coup for the war camp. Needless to say, the entire American decision-making process is far more complex than just Obama’s, and the weight of established bureaucratic procedure is palpable even in the president’s office.

Thus, the 2007 NIE, which stipulated that Iran had “halted” its military nuclear program in 2003, arguably tied the hands of former US president George W Bush (whether the latter, previously known as a hawk, was happy to have his hands tied at that point, is the subject of another debate). Similarly – though to the opposite effect – the 2012 NIE could help force Obama’s hand to start a war down the road.

At the very least, the leak would make it harder for Obama to keep negotiating with Iran. Ironically, in the immediate American response to the reports we can find some of the very few existing signs that the talks are still alive: White House Spokesman Jay Carney told Ha’aretz on August 9 that the administration would not comment on the information and remains focused on the negotiations.

Still, the White House took only a few days to return the blow, in the face of the top American soldier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US armed forces General Martin Dempsey. Dempsey’s comments that Israel could “delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities” were widely perceived as a “punch” in the faces of Barak and Netanyahu. [1]

Shortly afterwards, Netanyahu introduced the new Israeli home front defense minister, former Shin Bet (counter-intelligence) chief Avi Dichter, who resigned from his opposition seat in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in order to join the government.

Importantly, Dichter also joined the so-called security cabinet – the body of eight, now nine, who make important security decisions such as the decision to attack or not to attack Iran. Rumor has it that the security cabinet was split in the middle over the Iranian nuclear program, and that Dichter is likely to support Netanyahu and Barak. [2]

Not only that message to Obama; a series of former Israeli officials and military analysts stepped forward and offered publicly the information that if, essentially, Obama commits to attacking Iran by June 2013 (in the absence of a peaceful resolution to the issue), Israel would agree to hold off from striking on its own in the run-up to the US presidential election in November (which also roughly coincides with the time when bad winter weather sets over Iran, greatly hampering any strike).

Some Americans also made proposals in a similar vein, and one Israeli report even claimed that Obama had accepted the deal. [3] Much of the speculation currently centers on whether there will be a meeting between the Israeli and American leaders around the time of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in late September.

In many ways, this is a stereotypical Middle Eastern bazaar response when met with the intractable wishes of a powerful (or wealthy) stranger: everything has a price, and the stronger the stranger’s desire, the higher the price becomes (some military gear and cash gifts are also reportedly under discussion).

Incidentally, Middle Eastern bargaining is also usually accompanied by flowery story-telling, and both camps have their own apocalyptic scenarios and counter-arguments. To see two versions of this debate, click here (registration required) and here

Still, Obama might personally profit from such a deal. It would allow him to polish his security credentials – which already received a boost with the killing of Osama bin Laden last year – in the run-up to the vote while simultaneously avoiding a war and kicking the Iranian problem further down the road.

He has often been accused by critics of handling foreign policy issues in the latter way, but if he can persuade both domestic hawks and doves that he is doing their bidding, and that right before the vote, it might work for him spectacularly for once. (If Iran collapses economically meanwhile and surrenders its nuclear program peacefully, he would have hit the jackpot.)

The exchange continues. Amid a flurry of leaks and reports in the Israeli press, which some observers speculate were aimed at preparing the Israeli public psychologically for war, Israeli President Shimon Peres (recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and incidentally one of the architects of Israel’s own nuclear program) came to Obama’s aid on Thursday.

“Now, it’s clear to us that we can’t do it alone,” Peres said in an interview with the Israeli TV Channel 2. “We can delay [ran’s nuclear program]. It’s clear to us we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.”

It had been widely accepted that Peres was the most prominent Israeli opponent of a strike, but this was his official joining the fray, and his comments reverberated loudly. Ha’aretz published a cartoon of him jumping out of a birthday cake – he turned 89 earlier this month – and firing at Netanyahu and Barak with a sub-machine gun. Moreover, when the prime minister’s people protested that the president had “forgotten his place”, former Israeli president Yitzhak Navon, 93, jumped to Peres’s defense.

Add to their camp a number of former security heavyweights – most importantly, the legendary spy chief Meir Dagan – and it is very hard to claim that the doves in Israel lack historically grounded or authoritative voices.

Nevertheless, it is hard to call who will have the last say. What is truly remarkable about the Israeli debate is that it goes contrary to all military doctrines of the Jewish State, which rely heavily on the element of surprise.

Consequently, some observers have concluded that the Israeli behavior is a complex bluff designed to focus the international attention better on the Iranian nuclear program – a remarkably successful bazaar strategy. Others, however, contend that all the noise actually serves to desensitize the listeners and to create an environment in which the most surprising action paradoxically ends up being the one most frequently discussed – namely, an attack.

Still others caution that Barak and Netanyahu themselves are uncertain which it is, and a war might start without anybody truly wishing it. (Though the latter may sound incredible, there are plenty of historical paradigms for it.)

Ironically though predictably, a lot comes down to the interplay of economics and cold geostrategic calculations. Thus, for example, it could be that some in the corridors of power in Washington would like to see a war between Israel and Iran – if only to test how a future hypothetical missile exchange between the US and China might play out.

As Robert Haddick writes in Foreign Policy,

The outcome of an Israel-Iran missile war will have profound implications for military strategies and investments in Asia. The expansion and modernization of China’s ballistic and cruise missile forces is a recurring topic in the Pentagon’s annual reports on China’s military power. In a recent study CSIS performed for the Pentagon, it noted the vulnerability of US military bases in the Pacific to missile attack and recommended increased missile defenses and dispersal of airfields and aircraft around the region.

Should a lopsided outcome occur in an Israel-Iran missile war, military planners on all sides would likely scramble to reassess their assumptions. Should Arrow and the US Navy’s missile defense systems sweep a large Shahab-3 raid from the skies, American planners would undoubtedly gain confidence in their ability to sustain a forward presence in the Western Pacific in the face of China’s growing missile forces.

By contrast, should Iran succeed in pummeling Tel Aviv and other targets in Israel, US policymakers would likely develop doubts about the long-term future of their forward-basing plans in the Pacific. The outcome of a missile war would also affect the long-running debate over funding the Pentagon’s troubled effort to build limited defenses against intercontinental missiles. [4]

On the other hand, economic considerations seem to be the primary factor holding back a strike. The potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the catastrophic effect the resultant spike in the price of oil may have on world economy has received much attention.

Less known are the effects to the Israeli economy in particular. According to one recent report, the Jewish State stands to lose as much as US$42 billion over the five years following the war. [5] Even just the threats are reportedly hurting Israeli businesses, with foreign customers requesting additional guarantees. [6]

The hawks, of course, will argue that the costs of Iran producing a nuclear bomb would likely be higher, yet this is not an argument that can easily be verified – or, in all likelihood, quantified in specific amounts of money. Moreover, it could be that Tehran’s own economic woes, given enough time, will bring the ayatollahs to their knees and prevent a war.

As a result of the ever-harsher sanctions to which the Islamic Republic is subjected, Iranian oil production is down (exports even more so), the Iranian currency has collapsed in value and the prices of most goods have skyrocketed. Many ordinary citizens are now priced out of foods such as meat, creating much anger and misery.

While the government is reportedly mulling a “multi-tiered exchange rate” akin to that introduced by Venezuela in 2010 in order to subsidize indirectly basic commodities, it is particularly telling that, according to some accounts, it has started to censor images of chicken from movies and TV.

Such an Orwellian situation attests to great distress, as do the ever-uglier Iranian counter-threats. On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel “a malignant cancer, an insult to humanity”, and expressed his hope for “a new Middle East, with no memory of the American or Zionist presence”. A high-ranking Iranian general chimed in, saying that he would welcome an Israeli strike since it would give the Iranians an excuse to “get rid of Israel forever”.

It is inconceivable that the hardship will not reach the Iranian nuclear program soon, if it isn’t doing so already. Still, whether this will happen soon enough to prevent a war, and how much time is on the clock, is not known.

Notes:
1. US punched Bibi, Barak in the face, Ynet, August 15, 2012.
2. Netanyahu’s pick for home front defense minister – a vote in favor of Iran strike, Ha’aretz, August 15, 2012 (registration required).
3. Obama set to assure Israel that, if all else fails, US will attack Iran by June 2013 — TV report, The Times of Israel, August 14, 2012.
4. This Is Not a Test, Foreign Policy, August 17, 2012.
5. War with Iran could cost Israeli economy $42 billion, The Times of Israel, August 19, 2012.
6. ‘Debate over Iran strike is bad for business’, Jerusalem Post, August 20, 2012.

Victor Kotsev is a journalist and political analyst.

Alon Ben-Meir: Israel’s Posturing: Behind Netanyahu and Barak’s Threats to Attack Iran.

Successive Israeli governments have consistently inhibited in the past any public discussion about Iran’s nuclear program and what Israel might do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent weeks however, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have been openly discussing the issue while intimating their readiness to take whatever actions necessary to eliminate the Iranian threat. The question is why Netanyahu and Barak have chosen to “advertise” their deep concerns now and why they have such an urgency to act at this particular juncture, both of which have prompted newspaper reporters and bandits to speculate about what the real intentions are behind this public exposure and what is to be expected. Meanwhile, former and current officials, including President Peres, have expressed pointed objections to taking any unilateral military strikes against Iran, insisting that if such action became necessary, it must certainly be led by the U.S. to shield Israel from being singled out and blamed for the potentially disastrous regional consequences.

Having concluded that sanctions and diplomacy have failed as Iran is either technologically nearing the point of no return or achieving a zone of immunity that will make their most advanced nuclear plants at Fordo (near Qom) impregnable to air attack, the Netanyahu government has decided on a new strategy designed to achieve multiple purposes. While Israel’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has not changed, the new strategy is meant to strongly convey that Israel is not bluffing. Israel’s groundwork for the new strategy is as follows: Israel will alert its closest ally, the U.S., alarm its European friends, credibly threaten Iran and gather more information, warn other enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, test the private sentiments and public reactions of the Sunni Arab states, and will finally prepare the Israeli public while laying in wait for the right moment to strike, should everything else fail.

The Netanyahu government has already expressed its displeasure with the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whereas many Israelis believe that President Obama’s credibility is on the line and he will act militarily should it become necessary, others, including Netanyahu and Barak, are not so sure. They are concerned that Obama may eventually have to choose between preventing or containing Iran and will settle on the latter by providing Israel and other Arab allies in the region with some kind of security umbrella.

Netanyahu and Barak are troubled by the fact that Obama has relied excessively on a diplomatic solution knowing full well that the Iranians are masters of playing for time. Moreover, he chose to impose gradual sanctions to which the Iranian government was able to adjust instead of inflicting real, crippling sanctions, especially after the failure of the first few sets of negotiations, which could have forced Tehran to change course. This approach, from the Israeli perspective, played into Iran’s hand while engaging the P5+1 (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany) in futile negotiations that have never stood a chance of success.

By asking the P5+1 to declare that the talks with Iran have failed, Netanyahu is alerting the U.S. that time is of the essence and challenging Obama to take more decisive actions against Iran. Netanyahu’s rationale is that since Obama seeks to prevent an Israeli attack in an election year, he will be under immense pressure from his presidential rival, Mitt Romney, not only to adopt a final set of truly crippling sanctions but to be clear about his willingness to use force against Iran before it reaches the point of no return or enters the zone of immunity.

Netanyahu’s message of alarm is directed against the EU, Turkey and China, which will be the most affected by the potential disruption of oil supplies should the Strait of Hormuz become imperiled. Netanyahu and Barak are convinced that the EU in particular is engaged in wishful thinking, believing that continuing diplomatic efforts coupled with stiffer sanctions will force the Mullahs to come to their senses. The EU clearly view Netanyahu as overzealous about Israel’s national security, are extremely worried about an Israeli attack and are convinced that the repercussions will be catastrophic. Thus, for them, no attack should be contemplated as long as Iran is willing to continue to talk.

Using the repeated Iranian existential threat against Israel, and while observing the Western powers’ ineptitude in the past in dealing with the genocide in Bosnia, Sudan and now the wholesale slaughter in Syria, Netanyahu has little faith in what the EU can, or will, do to bring Iran to a halt. The EU, from Netanyahu’s perspective, could have done a great deal more to cripple Iran economically but it still has yet to do so. At the same time, the EU refuses to declare Hezbollah, Iran’s prime surrogate but Israel’s staunchest enemy, as a terrorist organization while it continues to allow Hezbollah to freely raise tens of millions of dollars in Europe, when much of it is used for buying armaments to target Israel.

The direct threat against Iran is based on Netanyahu and Barak’s calculation that although public discussion about the potential attack on Iran provides Tehran more time to prepare for the worst, it will provide Israel with certain advantages. Fear of an imminent Israeli attack will force the Iranian authorities to take additional security measures to protect their nuclear facilities, which will reveal Iran’s preparedness and capabilities, and expose its weaknesses and how much of its boastings of a damaging counter-attack against Israel are in fact accurate. Importantly, Israel will also be in a position to better assess the Iranian public’s reaction and whether the rumors of an imminent attack will precipitate panic, which may reveal how the Iranian authorities react and pacify the public. More than anything, Israel wants Iran to take its threats seriously, which explains why Netanyahu and Barak openly stated that when it comes to Israel’s national security, Israel must, in the final analysis, rely only on itself.

Netanyahu’s and Barak’s exposé is also intended to warn all those who might think of coming to Iran’s aid by engaging Israel on another front (in particular with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas) that they should think twice before they dare to provoke Israel. By openly discussing their intentions, Netanyahu and Barak want these groups or states to assume that Israel would not have discussed such a sensitive national security matter had it not taken into full consideration their potential involvements. The message to Hezbollah is clear: there will not be a repeat of the 2006 war, Israel will break its back and that this time around no one will come to its aid considering Syria is in shambles and Iran is under intense economic pressure and too busy to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of an Israeli attack.

The other target of Israel’s open discourse on attacking Iran is to test the Sunni Arabs, especially the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia. There have been ongoing tacit discussions between Israel and the Gulf States about the potential Israeli strike and how that might affect both their public reactions and their private interests and concerns. There is no doubt that all Sunni Arab states would prefer to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons peacefully. But after failing to do so by diplomatic means, they would support an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, whether the attack is carried out by Israel, the U.S. or through a joint effort. Saudi Arabia in particular sees the conflict between Shiites verses Sunnis in terms of regional domination with a focus on the Gulf, and views Iran with nuclear weapons as a nightmarish scenario that must be prevented at all costs.

Finally, Netanyahu’s and Barak’s message was intended for the Israeli public not only to prepare them for a potential Iranian counter-attack but to begin psychological and logistical preparations ( including the distributions of gas masks, stocking underground shelters with food and water) to avoid public panic and rally the nation around the government’s prospective actions. Although the Netanyahu government is not dismissive of the voices of the Israelis who consider a unilateral attack as ill-conceived and extremely risky, Netanyahu and Barak want to demonstrate unshakable resolve in the face of an existential threat and that the public can ultimately trust their judgment. Moreover, such an exercise, even if a strike is avoided either because of the United States or because of Netanyahu’s/Barak’s readiness to act, will be good for Israel and good for the entire region as long as Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.

Israel has time and again stated in the past that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to quickly assemble such arsenals. The Israelis insist that whatever repercussions arise from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will be far less ominous than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities, which will have far more reaching geopolitical and security implications that will adversely affect every state in the region.

In the final analysis, an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may not come as soon as many predict. The strike can and may well happen but it is very unlikely that such an incredibly ominous undertaking will occur without a minimum of U.S. acquiescence, if not outright support and direct involvement. Regardless of how much Netanyahu and Barak may be sure of themselves and Israel’s military capabilities, they cannot afford to make any mistakes or miscalculations because Israel’s future is on the line.

Yet, exactly because of that, no one should think for a moment that Israel is bluffing. Netanyahu and Barak have concluded that diplomacy has run its course and only extraordinary, crippling and immediate sanctions may still have a slim chance of success. Once Israel determines that Iran has either achieved the point of no return or is about to reach the zone of immunity and the U.S. is not prepared to take military action, Israel will attack Iran singlehandedly and no consequences of such an attack, from the Israeli perspective, will fare against such an existential threat.

Iran: Israel in no position to fight us – Israel News, Ynetnews

FM Salehi tells Egypt newspaper Jewish state a ‘malignant tumor that is destined to be destroyed’

Roi Kais

“Israel is not in a position that allows it to wage a war against Iran,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on Tuesday.

In the interview, Tehran’s top diplomat called the Israel a “malignant cancerous tumor which is destined to be destroyed.”

Addressing the debate in Israel regarding a possible strike on Iran’s nuclearfacilities, Salehi said Israel is “in no position” to attack, adding that “Israeli newspapers have confirmed this.”

The Iranian FM continued to say that the “hints regarding the American and Israeli military option prove that the other options have failed. In any case, we are preparing for every possibility.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that the “very existence of the Zionistregime is an insult to humanity.”

In the speech which was broadcast live on Iranian TV in honor of al-Quds Day, the Iranian president added that “the western powers cannot tolerate criticism of the Zionist regime. They feel compelled to defend it.

“The Zionist regime is a malignant cancer, if even one cell remains on Palestinian land, the current situation will continue in the future,” the president said and warned: “Zionists want to spread.”

Obama Should Go to Israel – Jeffrey Goldberg – The Atlantic.

Aug 21 2012, 9:41 AM ET 13

Amos Yadlin, one of the smartest Israeli analysts there is (and a former chief of military intelligence), argued this weekend in a Washington Post op-ed that President Obama might be able to forestall an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by going to Israel and making the case, before the Knesset, that a nuclear-armed Iran is a national security threat to the United States. Showing Israel, and the many Arab countries that worry as well about a nuclear Iran, that there is a direct U.S. self-interest in preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, could serve to convince doubtful allies that Obama means what he says — that he will stop Iran, by whatever means necessary, from gaining possession of a bomb. Yadlin:

(Obama) must convince Israel, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia that the U.S. military option is credible and effective.

A gesture directly from Obama could do it. The U.S. president should visit Israel and tell its leadership — and, more important, its people — that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will. This message, delivered by the president of the United States to the Israeli Knesset, would be far more effective than U.S. officials’ attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed doors.

In my Bloomberg View column, I explicate on Yadlin’s point:
A visit to Israel would do more to delay a strike on Iran than any other step the administration could take. The beauty of this idea is that Obama won’t have to say anything new. He’s on record explaining why the idea of containing a nuclear Iran isn’t an option; he’s on record promising to stop Iran by whatever means necessary; and he’s on record explaining why a nuclear-free Iran is in the interests of the U.S.

“If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation,” he told me in an interview this year.

When I asked him what his position would be if Israel were not in the picture, he answered: “It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

These words, delivered in the Oval Office, are powerful. But delivered in Jerusalem, before the Knesset, they would deeply reassure the prime minister and the Israeli public. What could be more effective than the U.S. president explaining to Israelis, in Israel, that their two countries share the same interests?

Yes, Obama is running for re-election, and it is hard to leave Ohio and Florida. But a trip to Israel — a place he hasn’t visited as president — would put Iran on notice that Obama is deadly serious about thwarting their plans. Combined with stops in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, such a visit would also allay the fears of our Arab allies. Most important, such a visit could prevent war. Which, of course, is a very presidential thing to do.

Iranian leaders in Israel’s sights after calling for its destruction.

DEBKAfile DEBKA

Upping the ante? Iran unveils up… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.