WarSclerotic

Jerusalem Post – Breaking News.

IAI moves up Arrow-3 test.

Arie Egozi

6/8/2012

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announced Monday that it will soon hold the first full-scale test fire for the Arrow-3 missile.

The test-fire will see the Arrow launched at a target simulating an advanced long-range ballistic missile, similar to advanced projectiles whose interception is more complex.

As previously reported by IsraelDefense, IAI has accelerated the development of the Arrow-3 ballistic missile defense system, partially with the help of US funding.

Arrow-3 is meant to intercept long-range missiles, even those carrying unconventional warheads. Today, two Arrow-2 missile batteries are protecting Israel against ballistic missiles.

The first Arrow-3 test-fire was held in 2011. Arrow-3 batteries are meant to be deployed alongside Arrow-2 batteries, and each will be employed according to a potential threat against Israel.

Can We Still Tell if Iran Decides to Build a Nuclear Bomb? – Micah Zenko – The Atlantic.

The U.S. and Israel may have different “redlines” for when Iran crosses the nuclear threshold.

The most important unanswered question about the heightened U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program is whether Iran’s political leadership will decide to pursue a nuclear weapon. The key judgments in the last declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear program found with “high confidence” that “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003, and this conviction remained with “moderate confidence” through mid-2007.

U.S. officials believe that only one person holds the power to decide whether or not to pursue a bomb–meaning to enrich enough uranium to bomb-grade level that can be formed into sphere that could be compressed into a critical mass–the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Testifying before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in late January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated: “Iran’s technical advances, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthen our assessment that Iran is well-capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon if its political leaders, specifically the supreme leader himself, choose to do so.”

Shortly thereafter, Clapper echoed this statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “That is the intelligence community’s assessment, that that is an option that is still held out by the Iranians. And we believe the decision would be made by the supreme leader himself, and he would base that on a cost-benefit analysis in terms of — I don’t think you want a nuclear weapon at any price.”

One month later, James Risen reported in the New York Times: “American intelligence analysts still believe that the Iranians have not gotten the go-ahead from Ayatollah Khamenei to revive the program. ‘That assessment,’ said one American official, ‘holds up really well.'”

On Monday, however, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak introduced a new observation that upends the previous understanding of this particular redline: “[Israel and the U.S.] both know that Khamenei did not yet ordered, actually, to give a weapon, but that he is determined to deceit and defy the whole world.” When asked, “What does that mean, that the ayatollah has not given the order to build a nuclear bomb?” Barak replied:

“It’s something technical. He did not tell his people start and build it–a weapon–an explodable device. We think that we understand why he does not give this order. He believes that he is penetrated through our intelligence and he strongly feels that if he tries to order, we will know it, we and you and some other intelligence services will know about it and it might end up with a physical action against it.

So he prefers to, first of all, make sure that through redundancy, through an accumulation of more lowly enriched uranium, more medium level enriched uranium and more centrifuges and more sites, better protection, that he can reach a point, which I call the zone of immunity, beyond which Israel might not be technically capable of launching a surgical operation.”

If the United States accepts this logic–that the Supreme Leader would never issue the formal order to pursue a nuclear weapon for fear of foreign detection–then what was once a distinct and identifiable redline for U.S. intelligence no longer exists. In other words, any U.S. or Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program will target a latent capability that might eventually lead to a weapon protected by Barak’s ill-defined zone of immunity, but not an actual nuclear weapons program.

This is a tremendous shift by Israel over how we would know if Iran decides to pursue the bomb. Before the Obama administration decides to go to war, Congress, journalists, and U.S. citizens could ask the following questions:

1. Are violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, UN Security Council resolutions, and ongoing inadequate cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency sufficient grounds for suspecting that Iran will soon achieve nuclear weapons capability?
2. Does the Obama administration accept Barak’s new principle, contradicting Clapper’s earlier assessment that the supreme leader’s decision is paramount?
3. It is unlikely that Iran would needlessly test a nuclear weapon, since it would not be required to verify that it worked. What sort of credible information will the Obama administration declassify and make public that would justify a preventive attack on Iran?

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

via Syrian prime minister defects to Jordan | The Times of Israel.

Three other ministers also leave tottering regime

Riad Hijab (photo credit: CC BY Al Manar TV, Wikipedia)

BEIRUT — Syria’s prime minister reportedly defected to Jordan Monday, the latest and highest-profile in a series of defections from President Bashar Assad’s regime.

An official in Amman reported that Riad Hijab defected to Jordan with his family. Three others ministers reportedly defected with him, as well as several high-ranking army officials.

Hijab released a statement from Jordan saying he had “joined the ranks of the freedom and dignity revolution,” Al-Jazeera reported.

Hijab’s spokesman, Mohammad Otari, said the operation has been planned for months and was designed to strike a blow to Assad’s regime from within.

“This defection has been being planned for more than two months. He was given two options: to either take the office of prime minister or be killed. He had a third option in mind: to plan his own defection in order to direct a blow to the regime from within and today he is declaring his defection,” Otari told Al Jazeera.

Syrian state TV claimed he had been fired.

Hijab is a former agriculture minister and a loyalist in President Bashar Assad’s ruling Baath party. He is the first cabinet minister to defect.

Hijab was appointed as prime minister on June 23. Omar Ghalawanji, Hijab’s deputy prime minister, was named as a temporary replacement.

The announcement came hours after a bomb attack ripped through the third floor of the state TV building in Damascus, causing heavy material damage and light injuries.

A deadly uprising has convulsed Syria for the past 17 months.

Other high profile defection in the last several months include Manaf Tlas, the son of a former defense minister, and a high-ranking intelligence official who fled on Sunday.

The Syrian finance minister apparently tried to flee as well but was caught in the process, Al Arabiya reported.

Syria’s new chemical equation – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The IDF assumed the Syrians would not make ‘first use’ of chemical weapons but would respond with them if Israel attacked Syrian territory with weapons of mass destruction. All that has changed.

By Reuven Pedatzur |

Syria changed its status two weeks ago: The regime in Damascus admitted that it had stockpiles of chemical weapons that were ready to be used. The switchover was done casually, in the shadow of that country’s raging civil war. But it seems it deserves more attention than it has received.

The acknowledgment of the chemical weapons came from Syria’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, who merely wanted to clarify that the regime didn’t plan to slaughter its people using weapons of mass destruction. In this way, he inadvertently revealed his country’s chemical capabilities. Syria will never use chemical weapons or any other nonconventional weapon against its own people, he said at a briefing to journalists. They would only be used against an external attack.

That was how he ended the chemical ambiguity that Syria had adopted since the 1970s; he hinted at the existence of biological weapons and, more importantly, made clear that Syria was sticking to its policy of “first use.”

This clarification is of great importance since it establishes Syria’s intention to use chemical weapons against an attacking army, even if the attack is carried out with conventional weapons. This is a significant innovation. Until now, it was assumed Syria’s chemical weapons would be used only if it was attacked by weapons of mass destruction. Now it turns out that the Syrian army’s plans include a chemical response to any outside aggression.

The Syrians began stockpiling chemical weapons in 1973, shortly before the Yom Kippur War. Since then, they have expanded the program, so their chemical weapons inventory is the most advanced in the Middle East, according to Western assessments. In the 1980s, the Syrians began developing chemical warheads for their ballistic missiles. These can cover every spot in Israel, as we all know.

Syria, like Israel, did not join the 1993 treaty banning the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Syria thus maintained ambiguity regarding its quantity and kinds of chemical weapons; it also maintained ambiguity about its policies.

In developing chemical weapons, the Syrians wanted to create a strategic balance against Israel’s nuclear weapons. They developed the weapons as weapons of deterrence, not use. Even during the greatest wartime crises, presidents Hafez and Bashar Assad did not use their chemical weapons. They did not use them in the Yom Kippur War when the Israel Defense Forces approached Damascus, during the first Lebanon war when the Syrian army was routed in the Bekaa Valley, or when the Israel Air Force – according to foreign reports – attacked their nuclear reactor in 2007.

Indeed, the IDF viewed Syria’s chemical weapons as a component in the deterrence between the two countries. The IDF’s working assumption was that the Syrians would not make “first use” of chemical weapons but would respond with them if Israel attacked Syrian territory with weapons of mass destruction. All that has changed. The Syrians apparently have changed the rules of the game and the deterrence equation.

It’s very possible that this has happened because of the pressure on the regime; it’s in danger of being deposed. But that doesn’t matter. The IDF must take into account that the Syrian army could use chemical weapons in response to an attack on Syrian territory – yet another good reason not to interfere in the events across the border.

Israel’s envoy to U.S. blames Iran for Sinai attack, but evidence is lackingIsrael News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

On his Twitter and Facebook accounts, Michael Oren points his finger at Islamic Republic, even though Ehud Barak attributed the attack to an Al-Qaida affiliate.

By Barak Ravid

Israel’s ambassador to the U.S Michael Oren, who is no stranger to gaffes, provided yet another strange headline on Sunday. Only hours after the attack on the Kerem Shalom crossing, before the fog of war had time to dissipate, the ambassador announced on his Twitter account that Iran was behind the assault.

“Iranian backed terrorists again struck at our Southern border today killing 15 Egyptian guards and attempting to massacre Israeli civilians,” Oren wrote in a Twitter post. On his Facebook page he wrote that “terrorists also shelled Israeli farms and towns along the border… the thwarted attack underscores the length to which the extremist regime in Iran will attempt to kill innocent Israelis.”

It is unclear what prompted Oren to release these statements, as it is clear he was in no possession of evidence linking Iran to the attack. Just how unfounded these allegations are was further underscored by a briefing given Monday morning by Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. In the briefing, Barak said the insurgents were operatives in an organization affiliated with Al-Qaida, “apparently some kind of global Jihad, with unclear connections.”

Oren’s gaffe brings to mind a statement made last month by his boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – shortly after the terror attack in Burgas, Bulgaria. While it was still unclear whether the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber or caused by hidden explosives, Netanyahu wasted no time in pointing a finger at Iran. A day later Netanyahu corrected himself, saying Hezbollah was behind the attack. It is worth noting, however, that two weeks after the Bulgaria attack, Israeli, Bulgarian and U.S. officials are still searching for a lead on the identity of the perpetrator.

Like Netanyahu, Oren’s statements on Twitter and Facebook are part of an Israeli propaganda campaign aimed at smearing Iran’s image. Yet like everything in life – it is all about dosage. Sometimes the urge to galvanize the world against the Iranians can lead to nothing more than baseless exaggerations.

Israel Hayom | Israeli official: US refuses to declare Iran talks have failed.

IsraCast: Israel’s Final Countdown on Iran?.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad

 Is Israel’s final countdown for an air strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons sites already underway?

Ephraim Halevi, a former Mossad director has set the alarm bells ringing by telling the New York Times that if he were an Iranian he ‘would be very fearful of the next twelve weeks’. However IsraCast Analyst David Essing noted that Gen.(res.) Amos Yadlin, the former commanding officer of IDF Intelligence, has now said that although Israel’s ‘checklist’ for such an attack is just about complete, he believes that 2013 should be the year of decision.

Yadlin’s checklist for attacking Iran…

Amos Yadlin

Gen.(res.) Amos Yadlin knows a thing or two about attacking hostile nuclear targets; he was one of the pilots who bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and he also served as the IDF’s commanding officer when Israel purportedly took out Bashar Assad’s secret reactor in 2007. Interviewed on Channel 1 TV, Yadlin said: ‘ You don’t need to be a former Mossad chief, like Halevi, to realize the Israeli leadership’s checklist for attacking Iran is just about complete. ‘All the necessary conditions were now checked with an affirmative V’.

This is the check list:

1. Failure of nuclear negotiations with Iran

2. Failure of sanctions to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons project

3. Failure of clandestine operations to bring Iran’s nuclear program to a halt

4. Failure of internal dissent to topple the regime

This being the current situation, Yadlin explained that Israel’s political leadership (Netanyahu and Barak) would be tending to the only remaining option – a military strike. In this vein, he noted that Barak had warned some four months ago that ‘Iran was approaching a zone of immunity’ in which Israel’s limited military capabilities could not eliminate the nuclear menace. Yadlin referred to the cascades of additionial centrifuges at the new Fordo facility near Qom that are spinning out more enriched uranium, the central component in the nuclear weapons program. So Israel’s political echelon was now debating the two very problematic decisions – ‘either bomb Iran or acquiesce in an Iran A-bomb’.

Iran feeling the heat…

The Iranian Missile Range

Yadlin then presented his personal position, what he called a ‘third way’. He contended that Iran was indeed feeling the heat despite its bluster. The good news was that since the EU embargo on Iranian oil went into effect on July 1, Iran has been losing $140 million dollars daily. In a year this would skyrocket to 10% of Iran’s annual GNP. In fact, Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, the commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, has warned that Iran is entering ‘a sensitive and fateful period’. He referred to the ‘soft war’ being waged against Iran that includes economic sanctions, computer viruses, and espionage. Oddly enough, the high level commander made no mention of a military strike by Israel. The fact is the Iranians scoff at the notion that Israel would dare to attack Iran against the express will of the U.S., nor do they believe that President Obama will risk an American attack, if at all, before the U.S. presidential election in November.

One way or the other!…

But on this score, Halevi known for his understatement, has warned the Iranians ‘they have got their math wrong’ if they think more nuclear talks would dissuade Israel. On this score, Prime Minister Netanyahu has drawn his line in the sand by declaring that so far Iran has not backed down ‘one iota’. And secondly, when it comes to the reports that current security leaders, including Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Mossad director Tamir Pardo, oppose a solo Israeli strike, the PM declared: ‘I will decide and I haven’t decided yet’. In any case, Netanyahu would need government approval to launch an attack. Yadlin noted that in the eight member security there were two former IDF chiefs-of- staff, Ehud Barak and Moshe Yaalon well versed in military matters. Yadlin believed that speculation about the security echelon differeing with the political leadership was ‘exaggerated’. The decision on an attack involved many military and political aspects – ‘not only if, how and when to attack but also what happens the day after’. Gen. Benny Gantz had also served as an IDF attache in Washington and was well aware of the potential backlash from the Obama administration. Therefore it was essential that a serious in-depth dialogue was being conducted behind closed doors before any proposal be brought to the full cabinet. (Another consideration would be to prevent security leaks -DE). Gantz had not made any public statement on the question and when the time came he could be expected to present his professional position to the cabinet before it voted on whether to launch a military operation against Iran.

What does it boil down to? If Ephraim Halevi gave the impression that Israeli fighter-bombers may soon be on the tarmack revving their engines to take off for Iran, it’s possible. In a subsequent interview with Channel 22 TV, Halevi said he did not think that Israel would attack Iran without the green light from the U.S. Go figure. For their part, the Iranians have been revving up their centrifuges with one official commentator even warning that Iran may enrich its uranium to fifty or sixty percent, a hair’s breadth from 90 percent weapons grade. Iran stands defiant in the face of the ‘soft war’. The visits by high level U.S. officials to Israel such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as additional military aid and fresh financial sanctions on foreign banks obviously make an impact on Jerusalem. Amos Yadlin thinks there are solid reasons for giving the U.S. more time and that 2013 should be the year of decision. In his view, a nu clear armed Iran is also an intolerable threat to America’s national security and no U.S. president, be it Obama or Mitt Romney, will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But if this is true, it could mean that Israel, by waiting too long, could forfeit its capability of self- defense and become entirely dependent on a U.S. defense umbrella, something Hillary Clinton has proposed for the Gulf states.

Official: Hezbollah attack more dangerous than Iran missiles – Israel News, Ynetnews.

In wake of ongoing debate over possible Israeli attack on Iran, security assessments indicate that biggest threat to Israel is not Islamic Republic’s missiles but rather Hezbollah’s ability to fire rockets at Israel

Attila Somflavi

The continuous debate over a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked further discussion about the major security threats Israel currently faces.

While senior security establishment officials vehemently warn against the ramifications of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, security and government assessments indicate that the biggest threat to Israel is a deadly response from Iran’s ally Hezbollah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah has previously warned that its missiles and rockets could strike anywhere inside the Jewish state.

A government source said that “Hezbollah is the long arm of Iran,” adding that “this terrorist organization will undoubtedly barrage Israel with thousands of missiles. It won’t begin with Kiryat Shmona and end in Haifa, but will reach further into Israel. Hezbollah could cover Israel with rockets.”

According to additional assessments, Hezbollah has acquired medium-long range Scud missiles. However, IDF sources have asserted that it holds a significant list of targets which will enable the Israeli Air Force to hit long-range missile launch pads.

“In the event of a Hezbollah attack, there is no doubt that one of the first missions will be to destroy Hezbollah’s long-range missile launch pads, just as we did during the Second Lebanon War,” said an official source.

Iran has 300-400 Shahab missiles

When asked why Israel has yet to launch a preemptive strike on the targets, the source said that “a preemptive attack means instigating war. We can’t constantly be in a state of endless fighting.”

Security establishment officials estimate that Iran has between 300 and 400 Shahab-3 ground missiles that it can fire at Israel. However, if the Islamic Republic does decide to fire missiles at Israel, it would most likely not use its entire missile arsenal.

In recent years, Israel has accelerated the development of the Arrow missile defense system, designed to thwart long-range missiles in a US-backed “race” against Iran, Syriaand other regional enemies, a senior Israeli defense official said on Sunday.

“The accuracy and the reach will be greater,” the official said of Arrow, which has been operational since 2000 and is designed to blow up incoming missiles at altitudes high enough for non-conventional warheads to disintegrate safely.

In parallel with Arrow II, Israel is developing Arrow III, which is due to be operational in 2014 or 2015. Unlike previous generations of the interceptor, Arrow III will engage incoming missiles in space, using detachable warheads that, turning into “kamikaze” satellites, will seek out and slam into the target.

“The recent developments indicate that Israel has the means to handle a missile attack from Iran or from the Gaza Strip. The major problem Israel currently faces is the significant missile arsenal the Hezbollah holds and its ability to fire rockets at Israel for a long period of time,” said the official source.

Defense Ministry experts have estimated that in a war with Iran and Hezbollah, some 300 Israeli civilians will die. The forecasts are based on the number of missiles and rockets the enemy has, data accumulated in the wake of previous wars, and preparedness in the Israeli home front.

Israel’s EMP Attack Can Send Iran Back to the Stone Age – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

As Iran miscalculates Israeli resolve, it is clear that the diplomatic dance of deceit and empty bluster for years is over. The die is cast and Israel has crossed the Rubicon, since a significant spectacle of events is set to begin to work against Iran come October.

While the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations, the wild card is in Israel’s hand – with Electrnonic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) inscribed on it. Since diplomacy and sanctions were an abject failure, war has become inevitable and preparations for preventing Iran’s rapid nuclear progress have, thus far, accelerated.

Despite Israel’s highly advanced technology and strategic military advantage, Israel’s fear of an Iranian existential threat is understandable. In any case, Israel has done it the past with flawless precision when it destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. Both surprise attacks were immensely successful and kept Israel’s enemies scratching their heads in disbelief, stunning the world.

Iran has reached the ‘zone of immunity.’

There are five solid reasons that Iran has now entered what Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak termed as the “zone of immunity”:

First, Iran plans to ratchet up enrichment up to 60 per cent uranium which is now on the way to an 80-90 percent weapons grade.

Second, Iran has accelerated its forced projection and tested ballistic missiles delivery system in an EMP mode with North Korean assistance.

Thirdl, Iran’s stockpile of low grade enriched uranium can be converted to five nuclear weapons if refined further, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.

Fourth, satellite imagery shows mega-fortification of underground nuclear facilities impervious to U.S. super bunker buster bombs.

Finally, Iran has started the process of loading 163 fuel rods into the core of Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor.

In light of the latest developments, there is no question that Iran is now a de facto nuclear state – a “casus belli” for Israeli military action. Although the military option is unattractive and untenable, failure to act would be much worse if Iran got the atomic bomb.

A large majority of Israelis and Americans believes that Israel would be better off if the U.S. would lead the attack on Iran.

For the most part, Israel’s dilemma is focused singly on the use of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) without informing the U.S. Regardless of the consequences, the U.S. would have no choice but to support Israel. The stakes are simply too high to ignore this time. However, trust deficit and loss of U.S. credibility compels Israel not to depend on others to protect the Jewish people.

The reality on the ground is revealing: Iran needs only one or two nuclear bombs to start a thermonuclear war against Israel and the United States, to hasten what these religious nuts believe is the coming of the Islamic messiah.

Evidentially, a nuclear-capable Iran can unleash a single atomic bomb on Israel with simultaneous asymmetric proxy attacks in the U.S. and other western targets. But thanks to heaven – and Israel – the Islamic republic is not there yet.

In addition, intelligence sources have now indicated Iran is within two years of bringing the Islamic revolution to the U.S. in the form of an EMP attack.

So  the game-changer would be a significant EMP event that would take Iranians back to the Stone Age.

What would an EMP attack look like?

If Israel chooses one of its Jericho III missiles to detonate a single EMP warhead at high altitude over north central Iran, there will be with no blast or radiation effects on the ground.

Coupled with cyber-attacks, Iranians would not know it happened except for a massive shutdown of the electric power grid, oil refineries and a transportation gridlock. Food supply would be exhausted and communication would be largely impossible, leading to economic collapse. Similarly, the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Fordo, Natanz and widely scattered elsewhere, would freeze for decades.

Iran’s response to an EMP attack would be futile and uncannily tragic. Before the elite Qods force could mine the Strait of Hormuz and wreak havoc to Arab Gulf states oil refineries, the Fifth Fleet and U.S. military installations, Iran’s administrative-industrial-military complex infrastructures would have been laid to waste without the ruling clerical regime knowing about it

In this scenario, a rain of missiles from Lebanon’s Hizbullah, Hamas in Gaza would have to be endured by Israel. Frankly, one thing is certain- Israel won’t nuke Iran unless it unleashes chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to Israel’s enemies.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has stressed that Israel would consider the transfer of Syrian chemical weapons to Hizbullah a “casus belli” and act “without hesitation or restraint.”

On a constructive note, Iranian Green opposition forces would have an opportunity to take to the darkened streets of Tehran and rid themselves of the fanatical regime.

Hence, if Iran doesn’t blink, Israel certainly will attack in the fall with no ifs and or buts.

Furthermore, the mathematical probability of Iran winning the war is naught, since as Israel knows best, when it comes to Israel’s security, there can be no substitute for victory.

Speculation aside, war becomes inevitable for reasons beyond logic and difficult to explain – and the consequences are actually unpredictable and messy. Typically, in these most challenging and uncertain times, it is very difficult indeed. This is yet another reason why Israel’s risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, will never be brought to a peaceful conclusion.

As former Mossad chief and national security adviser Ephraim Halevy, quoted by the New York Times, said, if he were Iranian he “would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks”.

Sources:
http://www.empactamerica.org/index.php
http://youtu.be/PPzIWsdnj0w