WarSclerotic

When Meretz supports an attack on Iran – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

( Meretz is the far left political party in Israel. – JW )

The decision to attack Iran cannot only take into account the potential consequences of action but must also consider the danger of doing nothing at all.

I have marched with David Grossman at Peace Now demonstrations in the past, and it is likely that we will march together in the future. But our opinions differ when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. I will start by saying that I have no idea whether, when or how the Iranian nuclear sites should be attacked. But the firmness with which Grossman rejects the attack is bad for Israel’s security and for regional peace.

Grossman warns that Benjamin Netanyahu’s historical perspective makes him predisposed to push for an attack, which could bring disaster upon the entire nation. However, Grossman forgets a number of Netanyahu’s other tendencies, stronger by far, that in my opinion will end up tipping the scales toward hesitation and rejection of an attack, which could be our downfall. Among these tendencies are the desire to maintain the status quo and the safe routine of our lives, the difficulty of taking responsibility for crucial actions, and the natural tendency to avoid risks.

Such a crucial decision cannot be based solely on the potential danger and anticipated damage that could result. It must also take into account the danger of doing nothing at all. Almost no public debate is being held about these things. They are almost out of the realm of discussion for Grossman and others who oppose military intervention in Iran. The reason is that the outcome of these dangers, however unlikely, is far worse than we can afford to imagine. That is precisely the reason why we should be afraid of not taking action.

Like Grossman, I too am not comfortable with the daily use of the metaphor of the Holocaust in Israeli public discourse. Still, the truth about Iran must be told: since World War II, we have not seen a regime with a messianic ideology (religious or nationalist) more belligerent and radical than Iran. Iran is not led by a gang of insane leaders. It is led by rational leaders caught up in an insane ideology that they want to impose on the whole world.

In addition to its desire to obtain nuclear arms, Iran has spent years arming itself with sophisticated conventional weapons. Is all this weaponry, which has put a heavy burden on Iran’s economy, just for display in the annual parade marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution? Are Holocaust denial, the demonization of Israel, the arming of Hezbollah, the terror attack in Bulgaria and the attempted terror attacks in Georgia and Kenya intended only as propaganda for internal consumption?

Let us say for a moment that the world accepts Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, and that Iran does not use them. Is this situation not fraught with danger as well? Would it not elevate Iran’s status enough to encourage it to use its conventional weapons against us and its other neighbors? Would such a situation not be an extremely strong incentive for dozens of other developing countries to develop nuclear weapons as an economic start-up, with no proper supervision or security technology?

In a major psychiatric study conducted several years ago, researchers compared the way mentally stable people and those suffering from clinical depression assessed the likelihood of various dangers such as illness or accidents. The assessments of the group that suffered from depression were much more exact, while the mentally healthy group deluded themselves by not taking the dangers seriously. We have an almost evolutionary tendency to minimize dangers. While this helps us to function and aids our survival, we can pay a very high price for it at times.

The debate between the right wing and the left wing is relevant on a variety of economic and political issues. Like Grossman, I believe that the Israeli government is not doing enough to move forward on an agreement with the Palestinians.

But when it comes to Iran, we must not allow our traditional positions to dictate our opinions. We must use the national intellect without bringing ideology into it, just as we do when we try to solve difficult problems in our personal lives. I will sleep much better at night if I hear Avigdor Lieberman argue against attacking Iran while Zahava Galon speaks in favor of it.

Professor Eyal Winter is the director of the Center for the Study of Rationality at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

(CBS News) The rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria is directly affecting all of its neighbors, including the kingdom of Jordan.

The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, who has ruled Jordan since the death of his father King Hussein in 1999, told “CBS This Morning” that Syria’s president Bashar Assad will continue to “stick to his guns” indefinitely.

Jordan’s King Abdullah on Syria

“He believes that he is in the right,” Abdullah told Charlie Rose in Amman on Sunday. “I think the regime feels that it has no alternative, but to continue. … I don’t think it’s just Bashar. It’s not the individual. It’s the system of the regime. So if Bashar was to exit under whatever circumstances, does whoever replace him, have the ability to reach out and transform Syria politically? So for Bashar, at the moment, if I if I’m reading the way he’s thinking, is he’s going do what he’s going to do indefinitely.”

Though he thinks there’s still hope, Abdullah said, “I’m worried about the longer we take to find a political solution and the more the chaos continues then we may be pushing Syria into the abyss. So my point of view is let’s move as quickly as possible. I mean, conference after conference is great. International forums where we get the Russians and Chinese involvement is fine. But we can’t afford time. … There’s a reality on the ground that’s catching us up, if it hasn’t already.”

Abdullah defined “the abyss” as “complete and utter civil war, which will take us, I think, years to come back from.”

Assad, like deceased Libyan dictator Qaddafi, has reportedly used aircraft against his own people. Asked if Assad would cross the line into using chemical weapons, Abdullah said, “I hope to God that he wouldn’t because I think that would be a tripwire for many nations in the international community. … The chemical weapons (are) something that scares everybody. What scares most of us is the chemical weapons falling into rebel hands. And who are those rebels? And obviously the use of chemical weapons against innocent people.

“… There’s so many levels of attention against Syria. So as we’re working on the political level, trying to find a solution, if he uses chemical weapons, is that the tripwire that all of a sudden…the international community has to react? So I hope he understands that this would be a major miscalculation. More complicated than that, what happens if some of those storage depots fall into rebel hands?”

Abdullah said he thinks the weapon sites need to be secured by the international community. Asked if that might be a reason for intervention by outside forces, Abdullah said, “I hope that you’re not looking at it as a reason for intervention. I think it’s a crisis where we have to react. And the problem – I am weary of people looking at it as a reason – in other words, I hope people are not planning to sort of push whoever there may be to make sure that those storage sites fall into… the minute you cross the borders then no plan goes the way you planned it. So the minute you cross the border with armed forces or the military, then it’s anybody’s guess what the outcome is.”

Iran’s vice-president to pay historic visit to Egypt – Politics – Egypt – Ahram Online.

Iran’s vice-president Hamid Baghaei will arrive in Cairo on Wednesday to meet President Mohamed Morsi, the first time in decades that a high-ranking Iranian official has visited Egypt.

Egypt and Iran have not had full diplomatic relations since 1980, following Iran’s Islamic Revolution and Egypt’s recognition of Israel.

Baqai will deliver an invitation for Morsi to attend the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) later this month, according to Ahram’s Arabic-language website.

“The president has yet to decide whether to attend the summit,” Morsi’s spokesman Yasser Ali was quoted as saying.

The NAM summit will take place from 26-31 August in Tehran.

An Iranian news agency stirred controversy in June when it quoted Morsi as saying that he sought to restore long-severed ties with Iran, a few days after being elected as Egypt’s first president following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

However, Morsi swiftly moved to deny that he had spoken to Fars news agency.

Can Bibi and Obama Trust Each Other When it Comes to Iran? – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.

Israeli and American flags are positioned near a missle launcher. (photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Print

FONT SIZE

The following scenario is how western sources believe the American strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would unfold, if and when the order was given. The offensive would start with a barrage of dozens, not to say hundreds of Tomahawk missiles on Iran’s antiaircraft batteries, command and control centers, main headquarters, radar stations and intelligence centers. The missiles would be launched from any location at America’s disposal, to wit from almost anywhere around the globe. Incidentally, that would also include bases in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Sixth Fleet vessels in the Mediterranean sea, aircrafts, strategic bases and USN vessels deployed off Iran’s shores (albeit outside the Strait of Hormuz). Having precise, pinpoint and very lethal impact, these missiles are expected to keep the number of collateral civilian fatalities to a minimum. This orchestrated attack would not last longer than a few minutes. Once completed, Iranian airspace should be relatively safe for USAF planes.

This would all start much earlier, however. Following the decision by President Barack Obama, the United States would assemble a formidable flotilla consisting of three or four aircraft carriers just off the Iranian shore. (It could also be Romney’s call, but given that he is trailing so much behind the incumbent in three battleground states, the presumptive Republican nominee stands a slim chance of getting elected). The Americans are likely to stay away from the Strait of Hormuz, or else the entire region could be engulfed in fire well before the first bomber even takes off. And there is really no need for that. A Task Force headed by three carriers consists of dozens of warships. Each carrier is escorted by its own armada of destroyers, frigates, minesweepers, missile boats, radar boats, as well as intelligence and supply boats. This fleet also features special intervention forces from the Marines and Navy Seals in the event that specific ground operations in Iran are called for.

To enlighten the reader, the number of planes on two American carriers equals the size of the entire Israeli air force, consisting of more than 400 fighter jets and fighter bombers of every kind. The Americans have in all 11 carriers. Two such carriers are currently deployed in the Persian Gulf. Incidentally, the two alone could certainly do the job. But the Americans are a thorough, tenacious people. They usually take a very long time to get going and do something. But as soon as they do, they won’t take any unnecessary risks chances. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) would have to fly 1,200 kilometers to reach its objectives over Iran, and then head back. We are talking about a distance of approximately 2,500 kilometers which would be flown over enemy territory saturated with deadly air defenses, not to mention that mid-flight fueling once or twice during such an operation would be necessary. On top of this enormous headache, the planes in the end would have only a few minutes to spend over the targets. By contrast, the Americans have an aircraft fleet that is the same size, or maybe even twice the size of the IAF, deployed just off Iran, a stone’s throw away. How simple.

To Exist or Cease To

Once deployment on the ground is completed, an ultimatum will ensue. The American President will deliver a stern address, leaving the Iranian leadership with a very simple choice: Tehran must see to the immediate discontinuation of its nuclear program, removal of enriched uranium from the country, shutdown of the centrifuges (mainly at the underground site at Qom), discontinuation of the military program and the activity of the “weapons group”. In return, the West would provide Iran with civilian reactors for manufacturing electric power. The Iranians would be given just a few days to accept the offer (which cannot be turned down), or to turn it down. No new negotiations would be held; there would be no more delays or more dialogs. Take it or leave it. If the Iranians choose to snub, they will be pummelled by Tomahawks followed by an inferno.

Following a doctrine called Shock and Awe, the American operation in Iraq had indeed achieved remarkable success in scattering Saddam Hussein’s military (albeit later the Americans were beleaguered by waves of terror). Having learned the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, the US apparently has no intention at this time of making a significant ground incursion into Iran. You won’t be seeing hundreds or thousands of flag-draped caskets flown to DC. There won’t be an “Iranian quagmire.”

Once the Tomahawks have done their share, the strategic bombers would step up to the plate. Last week, the United States officially launched the GBU-57 Bunker Busters. With $300 million into research and development, the Boeing-developed bomb weighs 13 tons, five of which are explosive material. Nicknamed MOB, Mother of All Bombs, this is one bomb you don’t want to be around when it detonates.  Its development was completed several weeks before the official announcement was made, and according to sources in Washington it’s already in serial production. Able to penetrate through 61 meters of concrete or the side of a mountain, this bomb is more powerful than any bunker-busting bomb at Israel’s disposal. Weighing more than an F-15 or F-16, it cannot be mounted as a payload on these planes. Such a bomb can be dropped only from a heavy strategic bomber taking off from some base around the world. (The Americans have many such bases the world over, and in the Iranian case, the bombers would more than likely take off from AFB Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.)

The Americans have a large quantity of strategic bombers, some of which are stealth, easily capable of reaching Iran. They don’t nosedive onto the target (that’s passé). The bomb is not laser-guided either. Instead, it is dropped vertically, like in the old days. While flying over the target, the pilot simply releases the bomb. The targets aren’t small by any means. These are big installations. One of them, for example, is a gigantic concrete facility. In another location, an entire side of a mountain has to be ‘shaved off’. What we will see in Iran is a high-altitude flyover of strategic bombers, virtually impervious to antiaircraft fire, which will simply release quite a large number of 13-ton bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Once it’s done, very little will be left behind.

Beating the Hell Out of Iran

The American offensive is expected to last anywhere between two days to two months. It’s all up to the Iranians. However, there will be one underlying principle, namely minimum injury to Iranian civilians. But it will all depend on the Iranian reaction. If the Iranians react reasonably, attempting to intercept American planes or target USN vessels, the Americans will show understanding. After all, these are the rules of the game. However, if the Iranians were to try setting the Gulf region on fire, attacking Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and obviously Israel, whether on their own or via their proxies in Lebanon, Syria or Gaza, the United States would ratchet up the campaign. Strategic Iranian objectives would be targeted, as well as Revolutionary Guard bases. A real attempt to destroy the Iranian military would be made so as to inflict as much damage as possible. Iconic symbols of the regime as well as economic objectives would also come into the cross-hairs, and more.

The higher the Iranians raise the bar, the stronger the American reaction would be. And the equation is very simple to understand from the beginning. The Iranians could play according to Hoyle once the American onslaught begins, or they could attempt to go the whole nine yards, taking the chance of never making it through the first. The possibility that an American aircraft carrier and its ancillary flotilla would anchor off the Lebanese shore as a pachydermic hint to Nassrallah should not be ruled out either.

To stave off the potential for a large-scale regional war, the Americans would try to contain the offensive as much as possible, focusing on Iran’s nuclear facilities. By and large, most American experts believe that the ayatollahs — rather than going ballistic and getting the daylights beaten out of them, would let wisdom prevail by bowing their heads and letting the whole thing blow over. They would be able to exact the price from the Americans in many other ways, primarily through terror, at their own convenience.

Not likely to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program altogether, this campaign would, however, likely set it back significantly, anywhere from five to ten years. This would herald a strategic change; in fact, nothing more is really called for. Such an objective could only be accomplished through the might of a superpower. In American terms, this would not be deemed an event that would usher a historical change. As long as ground forces remain out of the game, it would be no big deal. It would not be too high of a strategic gamble. As for oil prices? It’s not as bad as it sounds. At the beginning of the American onslaught, oil trading would be suspended for a week or two (similarly to the aftermath of 9/11). The United States and the West have immense oil reserves that can be used in the interim. Assuming that the Iranians would opt for the sane option and not set the Gulf region on fire, this could conclude almost uneventfully. Perhaps it would even prompt a dramatic plummet in oil prices in the mid-term, once it becomes clear that the crisis is over and there is no more room for concern. Maybe not. Either way, Obama would not care less because it would take place well into the latter part of his second term in office.

There’s Still Time

Looking at it from all angles, any sensible person understands that such an American offensive is immeasurably preferable to an Israeli operation – in terms of capabilities, results and indirect implications for Israel. It’s all been covered before. The Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently said [November 8 2011]at such an attack would not see 50,000 or even 5,000 Israeli fatalities, but 500 at the most. Earlier this week [July 30 2012] he said he was sending back his gas mask because there was no danger of a chemical attack on Israel. (Yet it seems that he forgot to update the hundreds of ministry of defense employees who are hurriedly dishing out gas masks to thousands of concerned citizens.)

However, some people have a different view, believing that the analyses and results given by Operations research are skewed downward. Armed to the teeth with accurate, heavy missiles, whose trajectory can be corrected in midflight, many of the enemies surrounding Israel could fire them at us. All it would take to add a zero next to the number of casualties is one direct hit of a missile on a strategic installation. A massive salvo of thousands of missiles on Israel would force it to launch a ground operation in Lebanon, which means war. And if in the end all this does is set back the Iranian nuclear program by just eighteen months — which is what we have been told we are capable of — the bottom line would mean a crushing blow to Israel’s deterrence.

It was less than a year ago that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confronted the former Israel Director of Military Intelligence Major-General (res.) Amos Yadlin over this issue [at the Brooklyn Institute, on November 30 2011]. Nobody in the world, Yadlin told Panetta, believes that you mean business when you say “all options are on the table.” With barely a year gone by, nowadays many do believe Uncle Sam. The Americans have been voicing a much sterner stance. The only dispute revolves around the timetable. For their part, the Americans explain that there is no “immunity zone” and there are no restrictions. Given American might, Iran can be attacked deep into the “immunity zone” even if it already acquires the nuclear capability, yet before it assembles an atomic bomb. These are two different objectives. Acquiring enough enriched uranium is not be-all and end-all. The Iranians are still quite a ways from assembling an operational nuclear warhead and having it mounted on a Shihab [long range] missile. Only when accomplished does this pose a strategic threat that could preclude a preemptive strike. That is why all intelligence officials, Israeli and American alike, estimate that there still remains a “thwarting period”. In other words, the gun is still not to our head. This is not the eleventh hour. And that’s why the Americans look Israelis straight in the eyes and say they will go the whole hog. The ayatollahs will not have a bomb. Period.

No Trust and No Belief

And this brings us to the Archimedean point of the entire story: Netanyahu and Barak do not believe Obama and Panetta. Period. The Israeli Prime Minister does not have strategic faith in the President of the United States. This puts a kibosh on the possibility of seeing Obama meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval Office, looking him straight in the eyes and saying: “Bibi, trust me. It’s not going to happen. Period.” There were times when the relationships used to be like that, between [former Israeli prime ministers] Rabin and Clinton; between Sharon and Bush and between Olmert and Bush. Those relationships were based on blind trust between leaders that did not lie to each other. This is wanting today. It’s gone. So when [chairman of the Kadima Party] Shaul Mofaz met with Netanyahu and told him: “Bibi, leave it to them. They put in a lot of effort; they are making preparations and they are training; they’re studying Iran,” Netanyahu replied: “Obama won’t strike.” Mofaz retorted: “Give the man a chance,” and Bibi rejoined “It’s risky. In his second term, he [Obama] would care less about Israel than he does now.” And that’s the whole issue.

Mofaz could have talked himself blue in the face trying to convince Bibi that Obama had told him that he was “determined to prevent [Iran] from going nuclear.” Bibi hears those things day in day out from Secretary Panetta, Secretary Clinton, National Security Adviser Donilon and Obama himself. Yet Bibi does not believe them; neither does Barak, or at least he pretends not to. If there had been trust between the parties, we could have been sleeping soundly. We would have been able to continue building Israel’s military capability, however limited, yet still sleep soundly. But not with these guys. Given the current situation, the only time we would be able to sleep soundly is when we are six feet under. We are doomed not sleep a wink for a very long time. However, at least this week, following Panetta’s visit [on August 1] some calm was noted on the various fronts. Until the next outburst of panic.

Posted by Rupert Prince Consulting.

If my Israeli friends will permit a British supporter, who is not Jewish, to put his oar into the water, could I, with due deference, enter the debate about Joseph’s recent posting on EMP weapons, a reprint of his article of June 2010.

There have been some very cogent and well argued replies to JW, which take a different view. They make good points, which should be considered carefully. Particularly if you an ethical human being and more particularly if you are an Israeli, having to live directly with the consequences of the decision to go with EMP weapons.

However, I am afraid that I have to go along with many of the points that JW made back in 2010.

He is absolutely right in pointing out the similarities to 1939, when the world prevaricated and Jews died in their millions as a result. That inaction cannot be allowed to happen again. The world let the Jews down once. They must not be allowed to do so again. Even if Israel has to go alone to remove the existential threat.

That threat, by the way, as many world politicians (I hesitate to call them “Statesmen”) cannot see, or do see and then ignore, is to the world, not just to Israel. I agree with JW’s assessment. Iran with nuclear weapons, not least EMP weapons, is a universal threat.

Now, as a defence and geopolitical analyst, I have come to the same conclusions as JW, from a rather similar viewpoint. Could I explain why?

Like JW, I have been watching the Iranian threat develop for a number of years and I have been warning our clients, and our national leaders, that Israel may find the use of EMP weapons the only logical solution to an increasingly complex problem.

Pure logic alone, disregarding other factors, must lead an analyst to this conclusion, if our analysis is correct, that is. It may not be correct, of course, and many in the Political Establishment and the Intelligence Community will disagree with our take on the situation.

So what do you think? Here is how we see it:

1. Iran wishes to destroy Israel.

2. Iran wishes to spread their version of Shia Islam throughout a new Caliphate, encompassing the whole world. No dissent allowed.

3. Iran is much closer than most “experts” say (as we have consistently forecast) to producing deliverable nuclear missiles.

4. Iran probably has, in our balanced estimation, at least two nuclear cruise missiles, obtained from Ukraine.

5. Iran could use the warheads of these missiles in a non conventional way at any time, if we are correct. Think of a small ship off the Israeli coast.

6. Not enough attention has been paid, in our view, by the West, to the considerable threat from Iran’s chemical and biological weapons. We particularly note anthrax here.

7. Iran is working on the technology to produce and deliver EMP weapons of their own. There are reliable reports of missile tests in The Caspian Sea, work on high altitude triggers and assistance from the North Koreans.

8. Iran with EMP weapons, either directly, or through proxies, could hold the world to ransom. They would have greater power than the Nazis in 1939. Even the mighty US will become a “one bomb” country if that bomb is an EMP device.

9. Therefore Iran, we believe, must be stopped-at all costs and now.

10. Clearly, if the Obama administration could be relied upon to act before it is too late, it would be infinitely preferable for the US to use its massive attack capability to remove the Iranian threat.

11. However, it is clear that the Obama administration cannot be relied upon.

12. We know that Obama prevented an earlier planned attack by Israel on Iran. If that attack had gone ahead, we would not be in such a dangerous situation now.

13. If, therefore, the Obama administration cannot be relied on (unlike the Pentagon and the CIA, we believe, who do understand the situation, as do  probably most of the US population) Israel may be forced to go alone. Not by choice but by necessity.

14. Having pored for many hours over the statistics and the various possible attack plans, and accepting the ability of the Israelis to think and plan imaginatively, it is still a difficult situation-if limited to conventional weapons.

15. How does Israel knock out control and command systems, anti-aircraft systems, the nuclear targets and at the same time stop any retaliation of consequence in one raid or a sequence of raids?

16. Tactical nuclear weapons could reach the deep bunkers with “ground shock”, much of the command and control could be dealt with and I have no doubt that the Israelis have a few other tricks up their sleeve but what about the counter attack?

17. I am afraid that Obama’s constant procrastination and belief in talking to the enemy have merely led to a huge build up in Iran’s capacity to hit back at Israel, the Gulf States and US interests. He has caused the potential for great damage.

18. Therefore, we have been advising for some time that Israel may well find the use of EMP weapons the only logical decision.

19. I do not need to repeat here the effects of such weapons. They are, by now, well known but what would be the subsequent advantages for Israel-and for the world if they are used?

20. The first advantage, that we see, is that if the attack is as successful as Israeli raids generally are, then any rogue nation who had toyed with the idea of messing with Israel will not do so in the future. Their populations would fear Israel. Far from making the world a more dangerous place, we believe (against the general consensus, I should add, in fairness) that the world will become a safer place.

21. Secondly, Israel will be able to claim, with complete honesty, that she had tried to deal with Iran in a more conventional way, along with the US but, sadly, they had come to learn that Mr Obama was strong on words but weak on action. She had no choice. (I will happily write such an essay of justification for the Israelis to present to that useless talking shop, the United Nations, should the need arise).

22. Then, with the Shia bomb threat removed, Sunni nations in the area will no longer need to acquire their own nuclear bombs. An otherwise inevitable nuclear arms race could be avoided.

23. Iran will no longer be able to be the world wide leader in exporting terrorism. Iran’s proxies will doubtless make dying gestures but their supply of weapons will disappear.

24. The US will not wake up one morning and find that nothing with a chip works where the Iranians have launched their own EMP weapon from a freighter off New York. As they have already indicated they will be able to do.

25. The increasingly ineffective West may just get a wake-up call that sometimes you have to fight to survive. Military preparedness could once again become more important than burgeoning bureaucracy.

26. The democratic Iranian opposition could well seize the day and overthrow the tyrannical theocratic rulers that imprison them. Particularly if we all give them some help, along with the humanitarian aid that will be needed.

As I hint above, I always tell my clients to understand that I may be wrong and I should do the same to you, JW’s readers. What I can tell you though, is that I admire and respect the Israelis. They have now what we once had in the UK when we faced the Nazis alone: guts and determination, and I wish them well. Whatever they decide.

FSA claims it killed Russian general in Syria who had been aiding Assad regime.

Wednesday, 08 August 2012

Free Syrian Army shows identity card of the Russian general Vladmir Petrovic Kojai, it claimed it has killed. (Al Arabiya)

  inShare

Jalili in Damascus underscores Iran’s commitment to Assad.

DEBKAfile Special Report August 7, 2012, 9:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

Saeed Saeed Jalili and Bashar Assad – closer than ever

Tehran gave Bashar Assad its strongest avowal of support Tuesday, Aug. 7, while heaping threats on the heads of his enemies.

Saeed Jalili, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stood alongside the Syrian ruler in Damascus at the end of their talks and vowed not to let Iran’s “close partnership with the Syrian leadership to be shaken by the uprising or external foes” or the “axis of resistance (Iran, Syria, Hizballah) be broken in any way.” Assad then affirmed his determination to purge Syria of violence and bring his forces to victory.
debkafile: When Iranian and Syrian leaders refer to “external foes,” they mean the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
Jalilii was sent to Damascus to publicly and unambiguously display Iran’s commitment to save Assad from being overthrown either by internal or external forces. He arrived from Beirut after a conference Monday with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah. The Iranian official most likely laid before the Syrian ruler plans for the responses of the three allies to coming events in the Syrian conflict.
debkafile reported earlier Tuesday:

Tehran is not done with threats after shaking its fist at Israel: Tuesday, Aug. 7, Iranian Armed Forces Chief Gen. Hassan Firuzabadi pointed at Ankara and other Middle East capitals when he declared: “Turkey will be next in line for violence after Syria if it continues to work on behalf of Western interests.”

He went on to assert that “Ankara is toeing the Western (American) line in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They are therefore accountable for the bloodshed in the Arab Republic [Syria]”
The Iranian army chief warned: “If those nations carry on this way, they should realize that Turkey is the next in line.”  He was in fact holding them all responsible for a potential outbreak of war with Turkey.
Spreading around responsibility for violence with accompanying threats appears to be Iran’s latest diplomatic ploy.
Earlier Tuesday, Tehran passed a message to Washington in which the United States was held responsible for the lives of the 48 Iranians nabbed by Syrian rebels in Damascus last week. The message was dropped off at the Swiss embassy in Tehran which handles US interests in the absence of diplomatic ties. It denied that the hostages were Revolutionary Guardsmen and insisted they were pilgrims to Shiite shrines in Syria. All the countries “supporting current events in Syria, starting with the US,” would be held responsible for their safety by Tehran.
The rebel Free Syrian Army‘s Al-Baraa Brigade has threatened to execute its Iranian “prisoners” if Syrian army shelling continues against Aleppo. Three were reported already dead as a result of that shelling.
Gen. Firuzabadi addressed his threat to Turkey shortly before the arrival in Ankara of Iran’s foreign minister, Ali-Akbar Salehi, in the hope of galvanizing the Turks into forcing the Syrian rebels to let go of their Iranian hostages.
Tehran now holds at least three nations, the US, Turkey and Israel, in peril of military action in the context of the Syrian conflict.  Israel was the object of the first threat of engulfment by the “Syrian fire.”
Director of Iran’s National Security Council Saeed Jalili arrived Monday in Beirut for urgent talks with Hizballah leaders, as disclosed by debkafile in an earlier report.

Iran reaffirms ‘unbreakable’ all… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

(A rat swimming to a sinking ship. – JW )

For the first time major publications have considered out loud the possibility of Israel using an EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) weapon against Iran. 

Two years ago, another time when it looked like the conflict was soon upon us, I posted about that possibility on this site.

I have reproduced my June 2010 post below. – JW

_____________________________________________________________

The Time Has Come…

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…”

Kris Kristofferson’s lyrics to his classic song Bobby McGee have never been more appropriate than they are right now to an Israel facing a soon to become nuclear Iran.

Any hope that the West, led by the US and Barak Obama would succeed in preventing this terrifying threat to world order have by now been completely dashed.  The hysteria over Israel’s enforcement of it’s blockade against the Iranian proxy Hamas, removes all doubt that the West will find any and all excuses to avoid confronting the threat posed to the world by radical Islam.

The parallels to the catastrophic “appeasement” policy towards Nazi Germany prior to 1939 are more than an exaggerated overstatement.  In many ways the parallels are frighteningly similar.

Germany, a country of 78 million in 1939 laid before the world its dream of an Aryan empire that would last a thousand years.  They also blamed all the troubles of the world on the Jews and promised to put an end to them.

The West stood by and did nothing as the Nazis built up the most powerful war machine in the world in contravention to the Versailles treaty.  What resulted was the greatest cataclysm in the history of the world.

Iran today,  also a country of 78 million  has announced its intentions to bring the world under the domination of Islamic sharia law.  It also blames the Jews for all the troubles in the world, although it includes the US as well.  While its war machine cannot compare to that of the US, its acquisition of nuclear weapons would make it safe from any retaliation for its continuing and increasing support for terrorism world wide.

Look at the reaction to the direct act of war by North Korea in its unprovoked sinking of the South Korean destroyer.  While North Korea blithely denies having committed the act, they threaten the Korean peninsula with war if any response is made against them.

Other than mealy mouthed tut-tutting, what has been the response of the civilized world?  Nothing at all.  Nor will there be for the very simple reason that the North has nuclear weapons.

Understand that this is the very reason Iran is so intent on acquiring these weapons at any cost.  They know that it will insure the survival of their corrupt and hated regime against any and all threats whether from without or within.

Israel at this point has nothing left to lose by putting an end to this Iranian threat once and for all.  The endless pundits and military analysts who claim that the most Israel can do is slow down their progress for a few years do so out of their ignorance of the power of EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse).

A nuclear based EMP weapon launched on a Jericho III missile and detonated 150 miles above Iran would cause no casualties whatsoever to the people on the ground.  What it would do is destroy all electrical based equipment from radios to trucks to power grids to tanks to missiles to centrifuges.

The destruction is not temporary, it is permanent.  Every circuit board and electrical switching device in Iran would have to be replaced.  The net effect would be to remove Iran as a military threat on any level whatsoever for a minimum of one to two decades.

No more threats against the straights of Hormuz; their navy simply won’t function.  Their nuclear program would be permanently stopped dead its tracks.

The negative result would be an enormous humanitarian crisis, as the basics for the functioning of a modern society in Iran would be wiped out.  The entire world would have to pitch in to help the Iranian people survive the loss of their 21st century technology.

However, the cost of doing this and the unavoidable suffering that would result pales in comparison to the potential for true Armageddon should the radical Islamic mullahs gain the power of nuclear weapons.

Of course Israel would be roundly condemned by the entire world for taking this action, the same way it was when it destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor.  Nonetheless, underneath the condemnation would be the biggest sigh of relief the world has ever experienced.  The only powers that would be truly upset by such an action would be Iran’s terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon and perhaps also North Korea.

Israel is a small country, but a great and powerful one at the same time.  Golda Meir is quoted as saying, “We Jews have a secret weapon in our struggle with the Arabs; we have no place to go.”  That remains the truth to this day.  While the Western nations look the other way as Iran develops the power to destroy the Jewish state, Israel does not have that luxury.

The time has come to put an end to radical Islam’s threat to the world.  Almost every violent struggle in the world today has at its root this atavistic and intolerant ideology whose world leader and main source of funding worldwide is Iran.

It is a very frightening choice for Israel to make.  The sad truth is that the weak-willed and hypocritical governments of the world have forced Israel’s hand.  It is no longer a choice, it is a necessity.

The time has come…

Joseph Wouk
June 3, 2010

Here’s How Israel Would Respond To An All-Out Missile Attack From Iran – Business Insider.

Iran’s possible nuclear program is dominating news from the Middle-East because Israel knows if it perfects a thermonuclear device, Tehran likely has the ability to deliver it aboard some of its current missiles.

Israel thinks this is too great a threat for it to allow.

The Jewish state has worked with the U.S. over the years to develop a pretty comprehensive missile defense system and we’ve outlined a rough version of it here, along with Iran’s biggest threats.

While Israel’s system strives to be fully comprehensive in its defense, if any of Iran’s rockets were strapped with a nuclear device — or if Iran could hand deliver a device into Israel — none of this preparation would mean much at all.

The homemade Qassam rocket has already been sent into Israel

Bukvoed / wikimedia

The Qassam rocketis typically manufactured by Palestinian militants and fired into Israel without advanced guidance capabilities. They cost an estimated $800 each.They’re a very, very basic type of missile, propelled by a solid mixture of potassium nitrate fertilizer mixed with sugar. The warhead is typically scavenged TNT or urea nitrate. They have no guidance mechanism beyond aiming, and an estimated 2,048 were fired into Israel in 2008.

Grad missiles have killed 22 people since 2000

Morag Agmon

Since 2006, Hamas has been lobbing ex-Soviet 122mm Grad missile into Israel. The missiles are likely copies imported from Iran or China, brought into the Gaza strip from tunnels to Egypt.These rockets have a range of 20 kilometers, but are typically fired from a moving launcher, greatly expanding their abilities.

The Grad rockets, with the improvised Qassam rockets, have caused some of the most pain in Israel, claiming the lives of 22 citizens since 2000.

The Sejjil missile is capable of striking Tel Aviv, Israel

Youtube / screenshot

Tel Aviv, Israel is roughly 1,600 kilometersfrom Tehran, Iran. That, for all intent and purposes, is the magic number here; a central point in Iran to a central point in Israel is roughly 1,600 km. These are the ballistic missiles that can allegedly make that trip.The Sejjil missile is a solid-fueled Iranian surface-to-surface missile that is roughly 58 feet long and can travel between 2000 and 2500 kilometers, bringing Israel well within its range.

That missile is strikingly similar to the Iranian Ashoura missile, with an alleged range of 2,000 km. That medium ranged ballistic missile has been in service since November 1997.

The Shabab-3 missile can also reach deep into Israel from Iran and carries multiple warheads

(Yes, it’s photoshopped. But still, at least one of these is the Shabab-3

YouTube

The original Shabab-3 missile should only reach 1,280 km, but the upgraded Medium Range Ballistic missile version can allegedly reach up to 1,950 kilometers.The Fajr-3 missile is likewise a medium range Ballistic missile, but it has the ability to launch multiple reentry vehicles. What does that mean? A single rocket can release multiple warheads, each aimed at the same target in the hope that the multiple warheads overwhelm the missile defense system.

Essentially, Israel would have to contend with these long and short-range threats

Rocket fires from the Gaza strip

paffairs_sanfransisco / flickr

Both a long-range ballistic missile assault and a short range rocket attack. Then, provided the air defense worked, retaliation.They’ve been preparing for the long range threat for some time, and that’s one area where the U.S. has been of some assistance. However, the short range rockets were an unexpected development for the Israel Defense Forces, and they had to adapt quickly to protect population centers.

Israel’s existing air defense system is made up of three main parts

Missile Defense Agency

The Israel Defense Forces have three main ways to take out an incoming missile

• The Iron Dome is the first tier of aerial defense designed to take out mortars and short range rockets incoming from the Gaza territories
• The Patriot missile system, acquired from the United States, is designed to intercept aircraft and incoming medium range missiles.
• The Arrow Anti-Ballistic missile defense system is designed to take out incoming long range ballistic missiles. It’s capable of destroying the missiles when they’re outside the atmosphere.

The Iron Dome is the first line of defense

NatanFlayer / wikimedia

The Iron Domeis made up of a tracking radar, a command console and a missile launcher. It is designed to take out those Qassam improvised rockets.The Iron Dome is largely successful because the IDF prioritizes incoming missiles. If a Qassam missile is poised to land in an uninhabited region, the IDF would instead target a missile poised to strike a populated city.

The system has been very effective at minimizing the domestic impact of the Qassam missile. Iron Dome went from conceptualization to reality in four short years, nearly unprecedented for a defense project. The U.S. has provided funding and support, and is getting some systems in the future. 

Even though it was designed in the sixties, the Patriot system is still decades ahead of the incoming missile’s tech

Public Domain / Wikimedia

The United States first deployed the Patriot missile defense system in 1984. It’s made up of a stationary launcher that can hold four missiles and a command and control center that implements the missiles. The scanning radar enables the system to identify, target, and take out incoming aircraft or medium range missiles.Since the initial deployment, a large number of upgrades have been added into the system to keep it modern.

Still, given that the Patriot systems would be hypothetically aimed for incoming F-14 Tomcats or ex-Soviet ballistic missiles, the Reagan-era tech should be more than capable of overcoming the most devastating parts of the retro-assault.

The Arrow Missile System can take out those long range threats from a hypothetical Iranian bombardment

US Navy

The Arrow missile systemhas been operational since 2000. The United States and Israel developed the air defense system together, and it remains Israel’s primary long range air defense system.The system has demonstrated that it can take out a ballistic missile when it is outside the atmosphere. While the Iron Dome has mostly seen deployment in the south of Israel to defend from the most consistent short range rocket threat, the Arrow system is being deployed in the center of the country to maximize aerial protection.

It is manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing. 

David’s Sling, when complete, will complement the Iron Dome system by hitting medium sized threats

Press Photo / Rafael

The David’s Sling missileis being jointly developed by the Israeli contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and American contractor Raytheon.The missile is designed to intercept medium to long range rockets and some cruise missiles, and in general to aid the Iron Dome in defending Israeli air space.

The idea is that David’s Sling would take care of rockets and cruise missile that exceed the speed and range of the Iron Dome system but are too small to warrant the use of the Arrow system. It’s currently being tested before full integration.

It’s worth noting that there is a small but important American military presence in Israel

U.S. Missile Defense Agency

The only foreign troops stationed in Israel are a force of Americans manning a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) X-band radar system on Mt. Keren in the Negev desert.What does this mean? Well, the THAAD system is one of the best aerial defense systems in the world. If anything goes into the air in the region, Americans will know about it before anyone else, even the Israelis.

This — as well as multiple aircraft carriers and destroyers already placed in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean — could give Israel the extra firepower it needs to deter and retaliate against an attack.