WarSclerotic

Israel’s message to Panetta: U.S. can’t prevent an attack on Iran – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Another major topic of discussion will be efforts to prevent Syria’s chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta arrived in Israel last night for a brief visit that will focus on the American-Israeli dispute over whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak plan to stress that Israel reserves the right to defend itself, and to make its own decision on whether to attack.

Another major topic of discussion will be efforts to prevent Syria’s chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon.

A senior government official told Haaretz that even if Jerusalem attacks Iran over Washington’s objections, he doesn’t think the United States will turn its back on Israel. Israel, he added, must retain sole responsibility for its security.

Panetta’s visit comes against the backdrop of a rash of media reports about the possibility of an Israeli strike. In a series of interviews with Israeli television stations on Tuesday, Netanyahu said, “Iran wants to annihilate us. I won’t let that happen.”

He also stressed that regardless of the defense establishment’s views, it’s the government that will make the decision on whether to attack. He was responding to media reports stating that virtually all senior defense officials, including Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, vehemently oppose an attack now, in the run-up to the U.S. election in November.

While no decision on an Israeli strike has yet been made, a complex campaign is being waged over the issue on at least three fronts: between the Obama administration and the Israeli government; between President Barack Obama and his rival, Republican candidate Mitt Romney; and between politicians and defense professionals within Israel. All sides are making heavy use of the media.

The American-Israeli dispute revolves around both whether to attack, and when. Twice in the last 48 hours, Panetta acknowledged that sanctions haven’t yet caused Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but insisted that they have had a major impact on Iran’s economy, as witnessed by its willingness to discuss a negotiated solution. Therefore, he said, what’s needed is to keep up the international pressure.

Panetta also denied that Jerusalem and Washington would discuss detailed military plans against Iran, but said they would “continue to work on a number of options.”

Netanyahu, meanwhile, said on Tuesday that “things that affect our fate, our very existence, we don’t entrust to others – not even to our best friends. Obama and Romney both said that Israel has the right to defend itself against any threat, and we are obligated to make the decisions.”

The public statements have been accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of American leaks, including Haaretz’s report that Netanyahu was shown American plans for attacking Iran (and given the message: “We can do it better” ), Yedioth Ahronoth’s report that America would attack Iran within a year and a half, and a surprising report about how Israel eavesdrops on the CIA in Tel Aviv (the message: “We also know some unpleasant things about you” ). The bottom line of all these reports is that America is committed to decisive action against Iran, but not now. And it is embracing Israel in an effort to prevent an Israeli attack before November.

That embrace is also connected to the Obama-Romney race: During his visit to Jerusalem this week, Romney outflanked Obama to the right on Iran, while Obama sought to preempt by announcing new legislation on American-Israeli security cooperation and reiterating his previous pledge of another $70 million for Israeli missile defense systems.

Barak also intervened in the battle for Jewish American voters’ hearts on Monday, when he told CNN that the Obama administration has done more for Israel’s security than any of its predecessors.

Finally, there’s the internal Israeli front, where Netanyahu and Barak are lined up against the defense professionals. In his television interviews on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he will listen willingly to the professionals’ views “in the proper place: in closed forums, not in the media. The media discussion is irresponsible and undermines national security.”

It is a matter of principle, he added, that in Israel, “as in every democracy, it’s the government that decides, and the executive agencies execute.”

As for international objections to an Israeli strike, he said, “I’d be happy if the world, and the United States, would do the job.” But while international pressure has hurt Iran’s economy, “it hasn’t set its nuclear program back by so much as a meter.”

Gantz, for his part, said on Tuesday that “None of the media reports in recent days were from me or on my behalf.”

Gili Cohen and Barak Ravid contributed to this report

Israel thinks again about an apology to Turkey | The Times of Israel.

As Panetta begins his Israel talks amid mounting concern over Iran and Syria, there’s a new awareness in the prime minister’s circle of the advantages of healing ties with Ankara

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in Washington DC, in May. (Photo credit: Chad J McNeely/Ministry of Defence/FLASH90)

As US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta arrived in Israel on Tuesday night, the Iranian nuclear drive was, as ever, high on the agenda for his talks with Israeli leaders. So too, unsurprisingly, was the bloodshed in Syria, and concerns over President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, or other terror groups.

But a third subject — extremely relevant to those first two familiar hot-button issues — was also the source of intensified focus: the unresolved crisis in Israel’s relations with Turkey.

On her visit here two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is understood to have urged Israel’s leaders to do what is necessary, however unpalatable, to heal the rift with Ankara. Panetta was bringing a similar message. And in the prime minister’s circle, there is growing awareness these days of how important it is to try to fix the relationship.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hitherto balked at apologizing to Turkey for the deaths of nine of its citizens in the Mavi Marmara incident — the May 30, 2010 flash point when Israeli naval commandos opened fire after being attacked by club-wielding thugs aboard the vessel that sought to bust Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

Netanyahu feels strongly that an apology would almost amount to a betrayal of those commandos, who resorted to live fire because they felt their lives to be in danger. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, no less concerned to do the right thing by the IDF, nonetheless has been convinced for some time that the advantages of a healed partnership with Ankara outweigh the disadvantages — including the sense of injustice and humiliation — of saying sorry.

The argument advanced by the US and long accepted by Barak has been that the hostility felt by Turkey is harming wider Israeli interests, and most notably undermining international solidarity in the battle to thwart Iran — Israel’s most pressing regional concern.

The new factor is the escalated chaos in Syria — and the heightened concern over chemical weapons falling into dangerous and irresponsible hands — a casus belli, according to Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman. It is in that light that Israeli-Turkish ties take on even more importance: Israel’s air strike in northeast Syria in 2007 — subsequently acknowledged abroad as having destroyed a North Korean-built nuclear reactor — was described in foreign reports as having involved a route back from the target that passed through Turkey. The IAF was reported to have jettisoned fuel tanks and munitions close to the Syria-Turkey border.

Flying such a route might not be necessary to deal with a chemical weapons threat. But far better, if Israel feels the imperative to strike at chemical weapons stores or convoys, to do so with a mollified Turkey across the border than with a Turkey still highly hostile to Israel and well-placed to intervene.

Netanyahu said in a Channel 2 interview on Tuesday night that he was “not eager” to order military action to defang the chemical weapons threat, but that “Israel does not rule out the possibility.”

Assad’s non-conventional weaponry is said to be stored at some 40 locales, and currently to be under relatively secure control. But Hezbollah and al-Qaeda operatives are active in Syria. And the situation, as Assad battles for survival, is fluid, dangerous and thoroughly unpredictable.

That’s why Panetta, while doing his best to reassure Israel about US determination to stop Iran, and consulting and coordinating over Syria, is also engaged in some reasoning, and even some urging, about Turkey.

Panetta: Syria military must remain intact when Assad goes – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US defense chief tells CNN it would be a ‘disaster’ if Syria’s chemical weapons fall into Hezbollah’s hands

Reuters

Government forces in Syria should be held together when President Bashar al-Assad is forced from power, the US defense secretary said on Monday, warning that the mistakes of the Iraq war must not be repeated.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an interview with CNN during a visit to Tunisia, said maintaining stability in Syriawould be important under any scenario that sees Assad leave power.

“I think it’s important when Assad leaves, and he will leave, to try to preserve stability in that country,” Panetta said.

“The best way to preserve that kind of stability is to maintain as much of the military and police as you can, along with security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government. That’s the key.”

The Bushadministration’s decision to disband Iraqi security forces, made shortly after the US-led invasion in 2003, was an important catalyst for the bloody civil war that followed.

Critics said that decision, made by senior Pentagonofficials and announced by the head of the US occupation authority at the time, Paul Bremer, set loose tens of thousands of armed, disaffected young men.

Asked whether security forces should remain intact in a post-Assad Syria, or whether they should be disbanded as they were in Iraq, Panetta said it was “very important that we don’t make the same mistakes we made in Iraq.”

Clashes rage between rebel fighters and government forces in Syria as the country’s divided opposition seeks to oust Assad in a 16-month-old revolt that shows no signs of nearing a conclusion.

Government forces have been pounding rebels with tanks and air strikes, and last week Damascusthreatened to use chemical weapons if foreign countries intervened in the conflict.

The Obamaadministration has said it is stepping up assistance to Syrian opposition members, although the support has remained limited to non-lethal equipment.

There are concerns, however, about what might follow Assad in a strategically positioned country rife with religious and ethnic tensions.

“Particularly when it comes to things like the chemical sites, they do a pretty good job of securing those sites,” Panetta said, referring to Syrian forces.

“If they suddenly walked away from that, it would be a disaster to have those chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands, hands of Hezbollahor other extremists in that area.”

Lebanon‘s powerful Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah has publicly tied its fate to Assad.

Iran brings forward nuclear timetable – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: If Islamic Republic maintains current pace of uranium enrichment at Natanz, Fordo facilities, it can become nuclear power in two years unless stopped

Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, but if it continues to enrich uranium pace at the current pace, it will become a “nuclear threshold” country within a year. According to intelligence officials, there is a possibility that between mid-2014 and the end of that year the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear power with more than one bomb in its arsenal.

To understand how Iran is advancing its nuclear program one must first understand how a nuclear warhead is produced.

The production of a nuclear warhead similar to bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima requires some 25 kilos (55 pounds) of highly-enriched natural uranium containing +90% U-235, the fissile isotope of uranium.

The most difficult stage in this process is enriching uranium to a low concentration level (LEU). One nuclear bomb requires 1,600 kilos (3,530 pounds) of low-enriched uranium that has a 3.5-5% concentration of U-235. The next stage is enriching the uranium to a 20% concentration level. Between 220 and 260 kilos (485-573 pounds) of 20% enriched uranium are required to produce weapons grade uranium, which must contain highly enriched uranium (HEU) with an isotopic concentration greater than 90% U-235. Upon reaching this stage, it takes only a few months to produce enough HEU for a number of nuclear bombs.

• To date, Iran has produced some 6,600 kg (14,550 pounds) of LEU. If the enrichment process continues, it will have enough HEU to build four or five nuclear warheads.

• Iran has already advanced to the next stage and has enriched 1,000 kg (2,200 pounds) of LEU to a fissile concentration of 20%. Currently the Islamic Republic possesses some 160 kg (352 pounds) of 20% enriched uranium (about 100 kg, or 220 pounds less than the amount needed for a nuclear bomb).

• The Iranians have some 10,600 centrifuges in two nuclear plants in Natanz and Fordo. Between 328 and 348 of these centrifuges are already active. The Pakistani-made centrifuges in Natanz, which are less advanced, are mostly used to produce LEU. The centrifuges are concentrated in underground halls that are vulnerable to bombs both Israel and the US possess. But the Natanz plant also contains 164-174 advanced IR-1 Iranian –made centrifuges capable of producing 20% enriched uranium. The centrifuges in Natanz produce four kilos (nine pounds) of uranium enriched to 20% each month. The Fordo centrifuges produce about eight kilos (about 18 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20% every month.

The data indicate that Iran has significantly increased the pace of its uranium enrichment over the past four months. Currently the Islamic Republic produces 230 kg (507 pounds) of LEU each month and 12 kg (about 26 pounds) of uranium enriched to a fissile concentration of 20%.

Satellite image of nuclear plant in Fordo (Photo: AFP)

Most of the efforts to speed up the enrichment process are concentrated in Fordo, where Iran will eventually produce weapons grade uranium if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gives the order to do so. In order to shorten the uranium enrichment process, Iran is developing two types of centrifuges, IR-2 and IR-4. Fortunately, Iranian engineers have run into some technical difficulties, and have yet to be able to activate the centrifuges.

The facility in Fordo is situated inside a mountain and is protected by layers of rock. The US Air Force has yet to develop a bomb capable of penetrating the plant. It appears that the Iranians are willing to “sacrifice” the facility in Natanz in the event of an American or Israeli strike.

Should the Iranians continue to enrich uranium at the current pace, they will have some 260 kg (about 570 pounds) of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20% in January or February of 2013. With this amount, it would take Iran only about two months to produce weapons grade uranium for a nuclear warhead or bomb – a “nuclear threshold” situation. Western intelligence officials have not identified any “technological bottleneck” that can prevent Iran from enriching uranium to a fissile concentration of +90%, meaning that it could theoretically become a nuclear power by mid-2014 or a few months later.

Such a nuclear “breakthrough” may result in a military confrontation with the US or other countries and put the regime in Tehran at risk. Iran believes that a reliable nuclear arsenal containing a number of nuclear warheads would prevent a military strike and even serve as a bargaining chip to lift the harsh economic sanctions imposed by the West. This is why Khamenei – before deciding on a nuclear “breakthrough” – will likely demand that Iran produce enough 20% enriched uranium for four nuclear warheads.

It is also very reasonable to assume that Tehran is secretly developing nuclear warheads which can be mounted on ballistic missiles already in its possession and on more accurate long-range missiles that are most likely being developed. Iran already possesses missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,242 miles) that are capable of reaching Eastern Europe.

According to the Pentagon, in 2015 Iran will have missiles that can also pose a direct threat to the US.

Iranians disregard Israeli threat – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Khamenei certain Israeli military strike can’t stop Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities, believes West won’t attack due to oil crisis threat

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his close advisors have reached the conclusion that that the “military option” placed on the table by Israel and the West is a mere empty gun, at least until the end of the year because of the elections in the US. The Iranian deterrence is based mostly on money, and more specifically the assumption that an attack on its nuclear facilities would result in a sharp rise in oil prices. Even if the Gulf States increase their oil production, Iran’s retaliatory measures (such as mining the Strait of Hormuz) would lead to a shortage of crude oil and expectations of a shortage. The result would be a price hike that would deal a devastating blow to the chance that the economies of Europe, the US, China and India would recover from the deepening global economic crisis anytime soon.

As for an Israeli strike, as frustrating and insulting as it may be, the Iranians are not in the least bit concerned. They believe that Israel’s military capabilities alone are not enough to cause any significant or long-term damage to their missile arsenal and nuclear plants. But that’s not all. There are other reasons why Tehran estimates Israel won’t attack:

1. The ayatollahs are convinced that the Israeli government and people are extremely fearful of the response such an attack would trigger from Iran, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas (from Gaza) and perhaps even Syria.
2. Khamenei and his aides believe the relations between the US and Israel are a mirror image of the ties between Iran and Hezbollah – classic patron-client relations in which there is concern for the client’s military and economic needs, but the client provides services to the patron and follows orders. According to this premise, just as Hezbollah must shower Israel with rockets in the event of an attack on Iran, Israel must refrain from striking at this stage if Washington believes it would hurt Obama’s interests.
3. The Iranians believe Israel is already isolated in the international community and would not dare isolate itself even more by launching an attack and risk being blamed for deepening the economic crisis.

The regime in Tehran is dealing with a host of internal economic and social problems stemming from the harsh sanctions imposed by the West, but at the same time it is advancing its nuclear and strategic missile programs. Therefore, Israeli officials estimate, only a real physical threat or an actual strike can stop or at least delay Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Officials in Jerusalem, Washington and London believe the sanctions will eventually cause Iran to stop enriching uranium, particularly if Tehran’s efforts to bypass these sanctions are also curtailed. But until this happens, in at least two years’ time, the nuclear threat will have reached the US as well.

Jeremy Issacharoff, deputy director-general for strategic affairs at the Foreign Ministry, believes the sanctions offer a window of opportunity to resolve the nuclear crisis without military intervention. “As long as the Iranians are under the impression that they are paying a small price for the uranium enrichment – they will continue. But if they realize that the West is determined with regards to the sanctions and that they will suffer even more in the future, then they will stop enriching uranium,” he said.

“This is proven by the fact that their key demand in the negotiations with the West is to lift the sanctions. If they realize that the sanctions will not be removed, they may stop enriching uranium or at least make some concessions (that will slow down the pace of enrichment). This is happening now because they are confidant. The real test is not the threats but what is happening on the ground.”

In order to achieve nuclear capabilities Iran must create not one but three “immunity zones” (the term was coined by Defense Minister Barak):

Military-technological immunity zone:Protection of its missile stockpiles and nuclear plants from a strike. The nuclear facility in Fordo, for example, was built inside a mountain, covered by layers of rock.

Nuclear-technological immunity zone:A situation in which Iran’s ability to produce a number of nuclear bombs will become irreversible – to the point where sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even a strike cannot affect it. In practical terms, such a situation calls for Iran possessing enough uranium enriched to a fissile concentration of 20% and more to produce 2-4 nuclear warheads, as well as the knowledge to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. Such a development would alter the strategic balance in the Middle East and Iran would be able to leverage its position as a nuclear power to soften the sanctions and deter other countries from attacking.

Political immunity zone:Meant to provide Iran’s nuclear and missile scientists, as well as its Revolutionary Guards, with enough time to create the other immunity zones. A key factor here is the talks with the West, in which Iran is stalling for time by hinting that it would possibly make concessions with regards to uranium enrichment to 20% if sanctions are eased. But EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton found that the Iranian representatives to the talks have no authority to even discuss such matters.

As part of their efforts to create an immunity zone, Iran is also threatening to mine the Hormuz shipping lane and attack oil fields in the Gulf States – an act that would surely lead to a spike in oil prices. However, this appears to be a false threat, because by mining Hormuz Iran would be mining its own exporting route, while Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait have other shipping lanes. But this threat – real or not – is causing Europe and the US to all but rule out a military strike.

Israel believes Iran will be crossing the “red line,” after which only a military strike can stop it from achieving nuclear capabilities, when it possesses the technological know-how and enough uranium to produce one or more nuclear bombs – even if it has yet to make a “breakthrough” towards building a nuclear bomb. But the Obama administration contends that a military strike should only be carried out if and when the Islamic Republic makes this “breakthrough.” But by then, Netanyahu, Barak and Strategic Affairs Minister Ya’alon claim, it will be too late – and perhaps too little. Why? First of all, because it is not clear whether western intelligence agencies will learn of such a breakthrough in time, and secondly, after Iran will be “on the brink” of achieving nuclear capability, even the American bombers won’t be able to destroy Iran’s enriched uranium and stop its plans for a nuclear warhead.

American officials visiting Jerusalem and the Kirya army base in Tel Aviv these days are trying to allay Israel’s concerns, saying they have operational plans in place. Our bombers are capable of flying back and forth to Iran until the nuclear weapon components are destroyed, they say; we have large forces deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean that are prepared to carry out these operational plans, and our Air Force has recently announced that the 30,000-pound behemoth bunker buster is ready to be used if needed. Even the Fordo plant cannot be protected from these bombs, they argue, so even if word of a “nuclear breakthrough” arrives a little late – it won’t really matter.

It’s safe to assume that Israel is currently focusing its efforts on creating a viable and available military option, but Jerusalem has not reached the point where it has to decide whether or not to strike. Israel may reach this point by the end of the year or the middle of 2013 – depending on Khamenei’s actions. In the meantime, the “forum of eight,” which consists of ministers with vast security-related experience, has yet to discuss this possibility (any decision to attack Iran will likely be reached by the Cabinet).

In summation, it is safe to say that Iran is close to creating the “immunity zones” that will allow it to cross the nuclear threshold. But there remains a period of six months to a year in which even Israel alone would be able to set Iran’s nuclear program several years back. In any case, the Americans can halt Iran’s race towards a bomb by either attacking its nuclear plants or imposing even harsher sanctions that would be backed by a credible threat of a strike. But in order for this to happen, Israel must convince the US to act with resolve. Therefore, this week’s talks with visiting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are incredibly important.

Obama orders new sanctions on Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US leader imposes fresh penalties on China, Iraq banks that assist ‘increasingly desperate Iranian regime’ to access international financial system

Yitzhak Benhorin, AP

President Barack Obama is leveling new sanctions on banks in China and Iraq that the White House says have helped Iran evade international sanctions.

The new penalties target China’s Bank of Kunlun and Iraq’s Elaf Islamic Bank. In a statement, Obama said the sanctions make clear that the US will expose any financial institution that assists “the increasingly desperate Iranian regime” to access the international financial system.

“By cutting off these financial institutions from the United States, today’s action makes it clear that we will expose any financial institution, no matter where they are located, that allows the increasingly desperate Iranian regime to retain access to the international financial system,” the president said in the statement.

Ahmadinejad at nuclear reactor (Photo: AP)

The election year announcement comes as Obama aims to show he is being tough on Iran amid criticism from Republican rival Mitt Romney.

“Since taking office, we have presented the Iranian government with a clear choice: come in line with your international obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face growing consequences,” Obama said.

“With these actions, we are once again reaffirming our commitment to hold the Iranian government accountable for its actions. The United States remains committed to a diplomatic solution, but the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations. If the Iranian government continues its defiance, there should be no doubt that the United States and our partners will continue to impose increasing consequences.”

Obama also expanded penalties on Iran’s energy and petrochemical sectors, authorizing sanctions on those who try to purchase oil from the Islamic republic through the National Iranian Oil Co. and the Naftiran Intertrade Co. Earlier US sanctions already penalized entities that purchased oil through Iran’s Central Bank.

However, the sting of those sanctions was lessened when the US granted waivers to 20 countries because they had significantly reduced their purchases from Iran. Countries that received waivers for Central Bank purchases will also be exempt from these expanded penalties.

Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said existing sanctions already have resulted in a significant amount of Iranian oil coming off the market, the Iranian currency has lost nearly 38% of its value in the past year and that firms from around the world have divested themselves from doing business with Iran.

Some Republicans, including Romney, and Israeli officials are skeptical about whether economic pressure will persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program.

“All the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week.

A third set of sanctions announced by the White House on Tuesday targets individuals and entities that help Iran purchase dollars or precious metals like gold in attempt to boost its sagging currency.

Obama’s new sanctions come as Congress pushed ahead this week with a new package of crippling sanctions on Iran that target energy, shipping and financial sectors.

“The congressional efforts can be complimentary to what we’re doing,” Rhodes said, adding that administration officials have worked closely with lawmakers on the legislation.

The West suspects Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes such as power generation and medical treatment.

Netanyahu: I won’t let Israel face an Iranian atomic threat.

DEBKAfile Special Report July 31, 2012, 9:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Tuesday, July 31, that he hasn’t yet reached a decision on attacking Iran. He then went on to say, “The ayatollahs have inscribed Israel’s destruction on their banner” and stressed his personal commitment “not to permit Israel to come under Iranian atomic threat.”
Netanyahu spoke shortly before US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said upon landing in Israel: “I think it’s the wrong characterization to say we are going to be discussing potential attack plans. What we are discussing are various contingencies and how we would respond.”

During his brief Israel stay as part of a Middle East tour, Secretary Panetta will hold talks with the prime minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which he said would be about “the threat that we’re confronting and to try to share both information and intelligence on that.”
When the prime minister was asked by interviewers why it was in Israel’s interest to lead the assault on Iran, the prime minister said no one would be happier than he to see other world nations, especially the United States, solving the Iranian nuclear problem by means of economic and other pressure. But, he said, Israel has always been guided by the principle of never devolving its destiny to others, especially when it was a matter of surival. He quoted US President Barack Obama’s assertion that Israel has the right to act in its own defense.

Asked about preventing Syria’s chemical weapons from reaching terrorist hands, such as Hizballah, the prime minister replied that he is not looking for a military operation, but not precluding one either.
Netanyahu’s interviews Tuesday night to a wide range of Israeli media were aimed at clarifying his new economic program of tax hikes and spending cuts in the face of critics.
Earlier, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz took angry issue with a campaign some Israeli media were conducting against a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear program by claiming that a whole range of security officials were against it, including the IDF chief.
“None of those reports come from me or represent my views,” he said, while inspecting a new intake of gunners and home defense recruits. “Iran is the only country in the world which is building a nuclear weapon capacity while threatening at the same time to destroy another country. That is a grim problem for the world and the region which we dare not ignore.”
Lt. Gen. Gantz added: “For me, ‘all options on the table’ is not a slogan but a working program.”

Syrian rebels now have anti-aircraft missiles, NBC reports | The Times of Israel.

Weapons smuggled across border with Turkey, Free Syrian Army claims

Free Syrian Army soldiers are seen at the border town of Azaz, some 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of Aleppo, on Sunday, July 29. (photo credit: Turkpix/AP)

Syrian rebels have acquired shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, NBC News reported late Tuesday night.

According to the report, Free Syrian Army rebels claim they now have nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles smuggled from Turkey.

The exact type of missile was not mentioned in the report. Such a weapon, however, would offer a significant defense against helicopter gunships that Syrian government forces have deployed against rebel strongholds such as Aleppo, where intense fighting has raged for nearly two weeks.