WarSclerotic

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.

Will America Forsake Israel? | FrontPage Magazine.

Posted By Giulio Meotti On August 17, 2012 @ 12:15 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 5 Comments

The Israel-Iran countdown has begun and with respect to Tehran’s nuclear race we are witnessing the greatest crisis in the US-Israel relations. Will America help the tiny Jewish State? Can Israel trust the word of a US administration that has treated Jerusalem like a banana republic?

A few days ago, Israeli officials told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that “the US’ stance is pushing the Iranians to become a country at the brink of nuclear capability.” Very few people in Israel believe that the US will ever launch another preemptive war against the ayatollahs. The US, especially if Barack Obama gets the re-election, will be tempted to reach a compromise with the Iranians.

Israel is dependent on the US for economic, military and diplomatic support. American taxpayers fund 20-25% of Israel’s defense budget, with the Jewish State being the largest recipient by far of American aid since World War II. Israel is required to use a portion of US aid to buy from the US defense establishment, but no other country — certainly not any European one — provides the weapons needed to protect Israeli lives. Moreover, the United States has cast 40 vetoes to protect Israel in the UN Security Council.

There is a quid pro quo for such support, but also a limit to what even that degree of dependence can buy. The current Iranian nuclear race made it very clear. And it made clear that the US can forsake, again, the Israelis.

Washington doesn’t support Israel because of the Jewish State’s democracy, the Holocaust or its respect for human rights. Israel’s strategic value has always been the primary motivation for US support. But it can change tomorrow, especially if Israel’s survival becomes a burden for Washington (France has been Israel’s most important ally after the war, but Paris suddenly abandoned the Jews for the Arab world). Israel must remember that she is America’s ally and client, not “friend.”

The first US presidents after Israel was established — Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson — gave nothing to the Jewish State. And we were in a time when the ashes of Auschwitz were still warm, while today the memory of the Holocaust is fading. Truman maintained a US embargo against arms sales to the Israeli and Arabs, which was effective only against Israel. In 1948, it was US pressure which forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai where Israeli forces were pursuing the defeated Egyptians.

In 1960 the Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann was apprehended by Israeli agents in Argentina and flown to Jerusalem for trial. Argentina turned to the UN Security Council, asking it to condemn Israel and order Eichmann’s return. Washington intended to support the Argentinean complaint and only the furious reaction of Israel’s foreign minister, Golda Meir, dissuaded Washington to do that.

Prior to the Six Day War, Abba Eban approached Lyndon Johnson and all he got was an arms embargo on the Middle East. In 1970, at the height of the “War of Attrition,” the US turned down an urgent Israeli request for security assistance.

In 1992 the Bush-Baker Administration humiliated the Israelis by an ultimatum: “Settlements or loan guarantees” (the latter Israeli general and minister Rehavam Ze’evi dismissed Bush senior as being “anti-Semitic”). The US post-Gulf War’s settlement included American efforts to dislodge Israel from the territories by endangering Israel’s security and claim to the land. The former editor of The New York Times, A.M. Rosenthal, wrote that “the Bush administration has a spiritual affinity for Arab rulers and oilmen, but bares its teeth when Jerusalem shows independence.”

Bill Clinton’s appeasement has been a tragedy for the Jewish people, since he pushed the Oslo process along and encouraged its implementation, bearing a historic responsibility for the Intifada’s bloodshed, in which 2000 Israelis paid with their lives.

In 1981 the Jewish State bombed the Iraqi reactor of Osirak. Recent files released by the UK National Archives show that Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir Nicholas Henderson, was with US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger as the news came in. “Weinberger says that he thinks Begin must have taken leave of his senses. He is much disturbed by the Israeli reaction and possible consequences,” Nicholas cabled London. Alexander Haig was secretary of state then. “I argued,” he recalled, “that while some action must be taken to show American disapproval, our strategic interests would not be served by policies that humiliated and weakened Israel.”

Those who remember Ronald Reagan as friendly to Israel may be startled to recall the vehemence of his reaction against Israel. The Reagan administration’s immediate response was to impose sanctions on the Jewish State and Reagan suspended the delivery of F-16 fighters doing something even Jimmy Carter refused to do: use arms supplies as leverage against Israel. Washington has also armed Israel’s western neighbor to the teeth. The Egyptian army is now infinitely more modern then when the Egyptians carried out their successful initial attack against Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Can we forget the US treatment of Jonathan Pollard, the only American to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally? Despite the fact that nobody has given one specific example of how Pollard hurt the US, the Israeli is still being held in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Pollard has been in prison longer than anyone ever sentenced in the US for passing classified materials to a friendly foreign power (the median sentence for someone spying for a non-Soviet power has been less than three years). For his contribution to Israel’s security and for his long suffering in prison, Pollard is an Israeli hero. He is the source of the Israeli preparedness for the Iraqi missile attacks during the Gulf War, when Saddam’s rockets began to rain down on Tel Aviv, and Israelis wore gas masks. Pollard warned Israel of Iraq’s bellicose intentions, and that Syria’s Assad was amassing quantities of chemical weapons. By its own agreement with Israel, the US should have given this information to Jerusalem. But it was deliberately blocked by Weinberger.

Today Israel can stand tall in the face of its important ally because it never asked American soldiers to spill their blood for its defense. It’s Washington that must beg for Israel’s alliance and protect the Jews, as it cannot afford disengagement from the only democracy in a region dominated by Islam. Will the US eventually be compelled to sacrifice Israel on the altar of “realism” and oil price, when Iran’s knife will descend on the Jews? And will the Jewish State’s leadership dutifully bind Israel on the altar?

As Charles Krauthammer spelled it out, “for Israel the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews.” If Israel won’t be able to change the US’s red line on Iran and Jerusalem capitulates to Washington’s appeasement, the Iranians’ ghoulish utopia will be soon armed with atomic bombs. And the Jews? They will be psychologically weaker and totally dependant on others’ help. Like it was before and during the Holocaust.

Articles: Iran’s Khamenei and Israel’s Casus Belli.

By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

Israel preparing to attack Iran: Report – The Times of India.

Syria’s neighbors braced for chemical threat. Assad warns Turkey on Stingers.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 17, 2012, 10:14 AM (GMT+02:00)

Syrian CBW ordnance

The US and its allies are discussing a worst-case scenario that could require up to 60,000 ground troops to go into Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites following the fall of the Assad government, an unnamed American source said Thursday night, Aug.16.
This scenario postulates the disintegration of his security forces, he said, leaving chemical and biological weapons sites vulnerable to pillaging. It assumes the sites could not be destroyed by aerial bombings in view of health and environmental hazards.
“There is no imminent plan to deploy ground forces,” the source insisted. This is just a worst-case scenario.
debkafile’s military sources find in this disclosure a bid to psychologically prepare the world for the prospect of chemical warfare, as the dialogue between Bashar Assad and his neighbors gains in violence.
The American special forces deployed on the Jordanian-Syrian border and in bases in Israel and Turkey clearly perceive a chemical-biological weapon threat. Military and medical preparations are being quietly put in place. Reconnaissance teams from potentially targeted countries have infiltrated Syria. They are on the lookout for any chemical missiles being moved into firing positions, although it is taken into account that Assad may be shifting decoys and that not all the real launchings can be stopped.
The Syrian ruler may also decide to transfer chemical explosives to Hizballah in Lebanon. Israel is on record as warning it would prevent this.
Medical preparations are also in place. The US and France are flying special military hospital facilities trained in the treatment of chemical weapon injuries to Turkey and Jordan.
Israeli hospitals are on war alert and have begun opening fortified emergency wards and making them ready for patients.
Tuesday, Aug. 14, IDF Home Front Command units embarked on a series of chemical attack drills in the towns of the northern district down to Afula, which is 52 kilometers east of Haifa and 110 kilometers north of Tel Aviv.
The soldiers taking part those drills wore new anti-contamination suits.
In Tel Aviv, city hall announced underground parking spaces would be available in an emergency as bomb shelters for up to 850,000 people.

Wednesday, August 15, Bashar Assad’s violence again broke new ground:
Syrian air force bombers struck Azaz not far from the Turkish border – for the first time with the aim of razing a complete Syrian town. More than 80 people were killed and 150 wounded. He was telling the Free Syrian Army rebels who had been using Azaz as their command post and logistical hub for the Aleppo battle that the gloves were off and the same punishment would be meted out to any urban areas hosting them.
The Syrian ruler also warned Ankara through back channels that if any more Turkish FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles were supplied to the FSA, he would arm the 2,500 Turkish rebel PKK Kurdish fighters allowed to deploy on the Syrian-Turkish border with Russian SA-8 anti-air missiles for use against Turkey.

Ankara shot back: That will be war.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military sources report that Assad is resolved more than ever to stand fast after the shot in the arm he received last week from Tehran.
Iran’s National Security Adviser Saeed Jalili visited Damascus Aug. 6-7 to ascertain that Syria would strike Israel and US military targets in the region with all its might if they attacked Iran.
Assad was ready to offer this pledge, but demanded in return that Tehran guarantee to exercise all its military capabilities to save him from any military or covert attempts to end his rule – whenever it was requested.
Jalili promised him that guarantee. He also held a similar conversation with HIzballah’s Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut.

U.S. officials: Securing Syria’s chemical weapons could take thousands of troops – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Washington, allies discuss possibility Assad regime loses control of WMDs; American official: United States still has no plans to put boots on the ground in Syria.

The United States and its allies are discussing a worst-case scenario that could require tens of thousands of ground troops to go into Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites following the fall of President Bashar Assad’s government, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.

These secret discussions assume that all of Assad’s security forces disintegrate, leaving chemical and biological weapons sites in Syria vulnerable to pillaging. The scenario also assumes these sites could not be secured or destroyed solely through aerial bombings, given health and environmental risks.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to explain the sensitive discussions, said the United States still had no plans to put boots on the ground in Syria. President Barack Obama’s administration has, in fact, so far refused to provide lethal support to the rebels fighting to oust Assad’s regime and the Pentagon has played down the possibility of implementing a no-fly zone anytime soon.

“There is not a imminent plan to deploy ground forces. This is, in fact, a worst-case scenario,” the official said, adding U.S. forces would likely play a role in such a mission.

Two diplomatic sources, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said as many as 50,000 or 60,000 ground forces may be needed if officials’ worst fears are realized, plus additional support forces.

Even a force of 60,000 troops, however, would not be large enough for peacekeeping and would only be the amount required to secure the weapons sites – despite some of the appearances of a Iraq-style occupation force, the diplomatic sources cautioned.

It is unclear at this stage how such a military mission would be organized and which nations might participate. But some European allies have indicated they are unlikely to join, the sources said.

The White House declined comment on specific contingency plans. Spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while the U.S. government believes the chemical weapons are under the Syrian government’s control, “Given the escalation of violence in Syria, and the regime’s increasing attacks on the Syrian people, we remain very concerned about these weapons.

“In addition to monitoring their stockpiles, we are actively consulting with Syria’s neighbors – and our friends in the international community – to underscore our common concern about the security of these weapons, and the Syrian government’s obligation to secure them,” Vietor said.

The Pentagon declined to comment.

Potentially dozens of sites

While there is no complete accounting of Syria’s unconventional weapons, it is widely believed to have stockpiles of nerve agents such as VX, sarin and tabun.

The U.S. official said there were potentially dozens of chemical and biological weapons sites scattered around the country.

Securing them could not be left to an aerial bombing, which could lead to the dispersion of those agents, the official said.

“There could be second-order effects that could be extremely problematic,” the official said of aerial bombing.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last month that it was important that Syrian security forces be held together when Assad is forced from power, citing, in particular, their ability to secure chemical weapons sites.

“They do a pretty good job of securing those sites,” Panetta said in an interview with CNN in July. “If they suddenly walked away from that, it would be a disaster to have those chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands, hands of Hezbollah or other extremists in that area.”

The United States, Israel and Western powers have been discussing the nightmarish possibility that some of Assad’s chemical weapons could make their way to militant groups – al-Qaeda style Sunni Jihadi insurgents or pro-Iranian Shi’ite Lebanese fighters from Hezbollah.

Some Western intelligence sources suggested that Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, both close allies of Syria, might try to get hold of the chemical weapons in the case of a total collapse of government authority.

Syria began to acquire the ability to develop and produce chemical weapons agents in 1973, including mustard gas and sarin, and possibly also VX nerve agent.

Precise quantities and configurations of chemical weapons in the Syrian stockpile are not known. However, the CIA has estimated that Syria possesses several hundred liters of chemical weapons and produces hundreds of tonnes of agents annually.

The Global Security website, which collects published intelligence reports and other data, says there are several suspected chemical weapons facilities in Syria.

Analysts have also identified the town of Cerin, on the coast, as a possible production site for biological weapons.