U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles | Danger Room | Wired.com.

Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

* “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged.  It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.

* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.”

But the first attack might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

At the same time, the U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.

That will be no mean task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and Gulf naval forces.”

Some of this defensive work has already begun. To keep the Strait open, the U.S. has kept up a steady patrol of aircraft carriers and stationed gunboats, minesweepers, and robot subs in nearby Bahrain. To spot Iran’s missiles — many of which can hit their targets in as little as four minutes — the U.S. is building a next-generation X-band radar station in Qatar. To knock those short- and medium-range ballistic missiles out of the sky, America has sold billions of dollars’ worth of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense interceptors to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Those anti-missiles will be augmented by U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic-missile defense systems — one of the most-proven components in the American interceptor stockpile.

But to make sure Tehran’s missiles don’t hit Riyadh or Kuwait City, the U.S. will have to take out Iran’s eight ballistic-missile bases and 15 missile production facilities, and 22 launch facilities if a preemptive strike is ever ordered. America will “need to destroy as many missile launchers as possible … in order to reduce number of incoming warheads,” Cordesman writes. Each target will require two aircraft each — either carrier-launched F/A-18s or F-15Es and F-16Cs flying from nearby air bases — for a total of 90 jets. Auxiliary targets could include Iran’s refineries, its power grid, its military bases, and its roads and bridges.

American jets and fighters will be pretty much free to fire at will — the Iranian air force is a joke, and its air defense systems don’t have the sensors or the networking to seriously threaten U.S. jets. Still, those air defenses and enemy fighters will have to be taken out before they manage to get off a lucky shot.

Drones will be deployed for further intelligence, “deception, jamming, harassment, or destruction of enemy forces and air defense systems.” Special operations forces will conduct “direct action missions, special reconnaissance, and provide terminal guidance for attacks against valuable enemy targets.” Somehow, attacks from Iran’s terrorist allies — including Hamas and Hezbollah — will have to be blunted, as well.

And then, of course, there’s the main attack.

Destroying each of Iran’s five nuclear facilities will require a pair of B-2 bombers flying out of Diego Garcia. Every plane will carry two of the U.S. military next-gen, king-sized bunker-busters, the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The “GPS-guided weapon contain[s] more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a 20.5 foot-long bomb body of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel installations,” writes Cordesman, who believes such a bomb can set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions for years.

Israel might — might — be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall  mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.

And even if the reactors are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East would look like the day after Israel attempts a nuclear strike on Iran.

Which leaves the American attack option. It may be technically possible. “It’s clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in the spring. Cordesman would rather see negotiations instead: “The brief shows just how dangerous any war in the Gulf could be to the world’s economy.” Some politicians may be calling for a preemptive strike on Iran. There’s a reason military planners are so wary.

Iran set to unveil homegrown medium-range cruise missile | The Times of Israel.

‘Our enemies will never be able to withstand the tide of Iranian missiles,’ deputy defense minister says

A missile displayed during a military parade outside Tehran. Iran has continued to buy weaponry despite sanctions. (photo credit: AP/Vahid Salemi)

Iran is set to unveil a new homegrown medium-range cruise missile which can hit anywhere in Israel, Deputy Defense Minister Mahdi Farahi said on Sunday.

The announcement came amid prolonged tension surrounding Iran’s unsanctioned uranium enrichment program and speculation regarding a possible Israeli attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

“The Meshkat cruise missile, which God willing will be unveiled soon, has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers. It will be the upper hand of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Farahi was quoted by PressTV as saying on Sunday.

“Our enemies will never be able to withstand the tide of Iranian missiles,” Farahi told Fars news agency, adding that the missile could be fired from land, air and sea.

Farahi also dismissed Israel’s Iron Dome missile interception system. “If the Iron Dome could protect Israel, then how could so many rockets hit it,” he said, referring to ongoing rocket fire into Israel from Gaza.

Iran is working on its own homegrown anti-missile system, which it announced last week was 30 percent completed.

The Sunday Times of London reported earlier on Sunday that Israel is in possession of a specially designed electromagnetic bomb capable of demolishing Iran’s electric network in the event of a military conflict between the countries.

Germany urges Iran to make “substantial” nuclear offers – AlertNet.

JERUSALEM, Sept 9 (Reuters) – Germany’s foreign minister on Sunday urged Iran to make “substantial offers” to restart nuclear talks with world powers and told Israel allowing the Islamic Republic to get the bomb was “not an option”.

Guido Westerwelle’s comments, made during a visit to Jerusalem, followed weeks of rhetoric in Israel over a possible go-it-alone strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and calls by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for world powers to set a “red line” for Tehran.

Westerwelle, whose country, together with France, Britain, Russia, China and the United States, has held three rounds of inconclusive talks with Iran this year, said there was still time for a diplomatic solution but warned Iran not to try to acquire nuclear weapons.

“Nuclear arms in the hands of the Iranian government is not an option and we will not accept this,” he said as he met Netanyahu.

Germany and other countries want Iran to open up its nuclear facilities to international scrutiny and to provide proof that its civilian nuclear programme does not have a military dimension.

“We share the concern in Israel about the nuclear programme in Iran,” Westerwelle told reporters in earlier talks with Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday.

“But it is serious, and it’s crucial, and this means that talks for the sake of talks is not what we are seeking,” he added.

“And therefore we call on the government in Iran to come back to the table with substantial offers, which is very necessary and very crucial at this time.”

At a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Cyprus on Friday, Germany, Britain and France called for new EU sanctions against Iran.

The ministers did not say what further measures the EU could take. The 27-nation bloc banned imports of Iranian oil and isolated its banking system in the last round of sanctions that came into full force in July.

The sanctions appear to have contributed to a collapse in the Iranian currency which plunged to an all-time low on Sunday. Central Bank Governor Mahmoud Bahmani said: “We are fighting with the world in an economic sense.”

“The conditions we are in are war conditions,” Bahmani added, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency.

The sanctions are aimed at forcing Iran to curb nuclear activities that the West believes are aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability, an allegation Tehran denies.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful energy purposes and that it will not bend to pressure from the West.

Israel, believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, views the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear bomb as a threat to its existence and has said it may use military means if diplomacy and sanctions fail.

Addressing his Cabinet on Sunday, Netanyahu hailed Canada’s decision on Friday to cut diplomatic relations with Iran over its nuclear activities.

“I call on the entire international community, or at least on its responsible members, to follow in Canada’s determined path and set Iran moral and practical red lines, lines that will stop its race to achieve nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said.

The Associated Press: Iran’s currency falls to record low against dollar.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s currency hit a record low against the U.S. dollar in street trading, the semiofficial Mehr news agency reported Sunday.

Mehr says the rial dropped nearly 7 percent in a single day, to 24,300 rials to the dollar. Street traders say the rial rose slightly later on Sunday to around 23,900 rials to the dollar.

The collapse of the currency is a sign of the effect of Western sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. The West suspects Iran is aiming to build nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

On July 1, the European Union banned import of Iranian oil, and the U.S. tightened sanctions against Iran’s banks.

On Friday, Canada cut diplomatic relations with Iran over its nuclear program, support for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime and the country’s poor record on human rights issues.

Governor of Iran’s central bank, Mahmoud Bahmanai, said the plunge of the rial was the result of a rush on the market by buyers seeking to obtain the dollar, rather than other economic reasons.

The current official rate is 12,260 rials to the dollar, used only for special purposes such as importing food and medicines.

Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran faced “barriers” to transfer its oil revenue into the country because of the sanctions. Crude export account for about 80 percent of Iran’s foreign currency revenue.

Also Sunday, lawmaker Ahmad Tavakkoli criticized the government for allegedly failing to provide enough hard currency. He said that for the past two weeks, the Ahmadinejad administration refused to supply the market with hard currency.

Pulse touted as safe way to cripple Iran | The Australian.

U.S. Worries on EMP Strike Began with Arutz Sheva – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

(I guess I don’t qualify as an “official.” _ JW )

Jericho III Missile

Courtesy of Israel Aerospace Industries

An August 6 opinion article by Dr. Joe Tuzara on Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) regarding Israel’s possible use of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bomb against Iran has triggered a chain reaction, allegedly influencing U.S. intelligence sources who have since been quoted in several publications, including the New York Post. The latest in the chain of news outlets to quote the report is the London Sunday Times.

The intelligence sources reportedly believe that the Arutz Sheva article was more than an innocent op-ed by a physician, and that it “reflects official Israeli government thinking about a possible preemptive response to Iran’s expected emergence as a nuclear weapons state in the near future.” This, according to the Washington Free Beacon‘s Bill Gertz, who reported on the U.S. intelligence agencies’ concerns August 29.

“It was the first time the issue of a nuclear EMP attack by Israel had appeared in a mainstream Israeli press outlet,” wrote the Beacon.

“U.S. officials also suspect the article was written by someone in the Israeli government who favors such a strike. Another theory among analysts is that the Israeli government, at a minimum, encouraged publication of the article,” it reported.

“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 no blast or radiation effects on the ground,” Dr. Tuzara wrote in his original article.

“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.”

It is not clear why the intelligence officials appear to believe the op-ed was an official Israeli message to Iran, rather than simply being the writer’s opinion.

Arutz Sheva is a private publication and is usually very critical of the government’s policies, especially regarding Judea and Samaria. However, it is probably the only Israel-based publication that consistently and exclusively features op-eds by thinkers who do not let the “politically correct” stream cloud their reasoning. In other words: many of the articles that appear on Arutz Sheva simply make sense. This could be have something to do with the U.S. analysts’ belief that the article reflects an official position.

Google Translate.

(This story has been up since this morning in Hebrew but debka has yet to translate it into English.  The Google translation is not great but one can decipher the content with a little work. – JW )

Military and intelligence sources of DEBKAfile

Netanyahu and Barak: Will they continue to walk together on Iran?

Opponents of the Israeli attack Iran over the weekend found a new encouraging sign indicating that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even more isolated in its decision to attack Iran. Political armrest – his main military attack decision – ie, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, according to their version, Barak does not support more Israeli attack on Iran.
Why?
Ehud Barak was impressed, so this theory claim holders, especially last week during a visit to Israel’s armed deputy U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James Bienenfeld Admiral James A. Winnefeld, the U.S. military preparations to attack Iran are extensive and serious.
Political use attack opponents ‘discovery’ This is ridiculous.
Defense Minister Barak, the Israeli public did not have to wait for the visit of Deputy Chiefs armed Americans to understand the seriousness of American preparations. They could read exclusive details about it for the last four months, starting in June, DEBKAfile.
The following main points: the U.S.” in coordinated for three aircraft carriers with their air assault forces against Iran.
In addition, all combat fleet of British and French, are also placed against Iran.
” U.S. air forces in large coordinated hundreds of fighter planes – the bomb, which two squadrons of stealth F-22, the countries of the Persian Gulf.
U.S.” in concentrated on the two islands closest to the Persian Gulf, Bsoktra Yemen and Oman delivery, large assault forces now numbering at least 50,000 soldiers.
These two islands are now, as of this writing American military controlled almost completely, become a kind of two aircraft carriers and U.S. forces, with forces stationed them there is only one purpose is to attack Iran. In other words, in terms monument to American forces, Iran has not only placed three aircraft carriers, but at least six aircraft carriers and their strike forces. Again we mention that this is a sense of the size of the U.S. force stationed with Iran.
U.S. operational modus Aofrandi always held that to go to war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq in the past, and against Iran in the future, should the United States” in concentrate in at least six to seven aircraft carriers and their strike forces. Concentration of American troops already stationed in Iran.
But the origins of the Ikdbka Washington reported that there is only a problem ‘little’ with this concentration.
President Obama instructed to concentrate the power not to attack Iran, but to convince Iran that it must return to the negotiating table” from the political with the six world powers, and accept the terms Shen pose on the Iranian nuclear program.
This firm position of Obama, so far, is the main reason why the political elite Iranian military refuses to be impressed by this concentration of American forces, and why Iranians do not believe that the Americans would attack them. This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and a host of American circles, now pressed Obama to set “red lines”.
What do the ‘red lines’ are?
‘Red lines’ are to determine exactly when what steps Iran would continue to make its nuclear program, Obama shoots mighty forces these Americans attack Iran.
As at A 9.9, Obama refuses to establish such lines. As an American presidential refusal, the Iranians refused to stop enriching uranium levels very close to their military rank, which gives the hands of nuclear explosives.
This is why the new version of Israelis oppose attacking Iran, the defense minister, Ehud Barak, broke left, glamorous shallow.
Today, there are four military timers ticking against Iran:
One. U.S. equity timer controls Obama. President directed the forces necessary to attack, but we refuse to use them. He also refuses to set “red lines”.
Second. Timer Netanyahu and Barak says that until the last week of September will be Iran enough enriched uranium to allow it to produce nuclear explosives, and must not allow Iran to cross this red line.
3. Timer former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who on August 2, said that ‘if I Irani, I was most concerned in 12 weeks. Out of these 12 weeks, five weeks have passed, there are still seven weeks. Less than two months. That is, until the end of October!
4. Timer Hanegbi, who last week ruled, that 50 days will be crucial for the future of Israel, no less than the Yom Kippur War. Other words clocks of Ephraim Halevy and Hanegbi, plus or minus, are those clocks.
When the countdown four clocks, one American, three Israeli persists, do the opponents of Israeli Iran strike, supported by external factors, an effort to add another clock Ehud Barak.
The more complex way these circles, political and personal enemies harshest of lightning. Now they are suddenly willing to make him a political alliance.
Look if they succeed?

Israel Defense | Lowering the Price of Oil.

Yoel Guzansky

3/7/2012

Netanyahu and Barak climbing down.

Amir Rapaport

7/9/2012

The more the date gets closer, it becomes clearer that these are the most important elections in the history of the state of Israel – the election campaign taking place far beyond the sea, in the United States, of course.

It was supposed to have been different: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received an important statement from US President Barack Obama in May 2010, according to which “Israel has a right to defend itself on its own.” However, statements and reality differ. The US actually finds it inopportune  for Israel to launch an independent attack operation in Iran at this time.

How did we reach a situation where Netanyahu spoke this week about ‘red lines’ that would allow Israel to avoid an attack in Iran in the coming months (while arranging an awkward ladder for himself and for Ehud Barak so they can descend from the tall tree they climbed up on)? To understand this, one needs to return to the start of the summer.

The tension discussed in Israel towards a possible attack in Iran was authentic. The round of appointments planned in the General Staff was delayed, even though the summer is the season for role exchange. Thus, for example, Maj. Gen. Ya’akov Ayash remained as head of the Operations Branch, and was not replaced by Maj. Gen. Yoav Har Even, who was intended to replace him. In addition, Ayash did not depart for his next role as IDF attaché in Washington).

Throughout the past few weeks, Netanyahu and Barak fanned the media flames on the issue of an Iranian strike. There were illegitimate purposes to that (Netanyahu apparently believes that a defense agenda is preferable to an economic one near an election year) and legitimate ones (pressuring the US and the West to act with greater determination against Iran’s nuclear program and Iran itself – to halt the race towards a bomb).

Did Netanyahu and Barak seriously consider an attack in the coming fall? It’s possible that they didn’t know themselves, but in any case, like many other past sophisticated efforts by Ehud Barak, this one went wrong as well.

The snowball that brought about a severe tear in the relations between Israel and the US began rolling due to the firm background debriefing given by Ehud Barak to Nachum Barnea and Shimon Shefer of Yedioth Aharonot and several other journalists. The Americans were not fond of the voices coming from Jerusalem, to say the least (the US embassy itself was busy throughout the last summer, debriefing Israeli journalists to convey through them the message that Israel has no reason to attack, and that it has someone to trust). One way or another, when the US is angry, the ground trembles. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of defense and embassy persons delivered firm messages to Israel against the attack. The US-Israeli strategic relations seemed as though they were taking a beating. This is how instead of pressuring the US, the pressure is primarily discernible in the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem.

Red lines?
What is the significant of the red lines that Netanyahu talked about this week? In truth, there is no such line, not on a timeline, and not in some geographic point. To keep the issue as vague as possible, his people spoke in Jerusalem this week of how if Barack Obama would vocally commit to the US not allowing Iran to become nuclear; if the economic sanctions are intensified (they suddenly remembered in Jerusalem that the sanctions are pressuring the Ayatollah regime in one way or another); and if the threat of a US attack would become tangible to Iranian eyes – then Israel will not have to attack in the coming months.

It was also recalled that in 2003, Iran’s nuclear program was frozen for two years against the backdrop of the US invasion of Iraq and genuine concern that Iran would be next in line to be dealt with by the US in the framework of the “Axis of Evil.” The words of the Israeli officials primarily created anticipation towards President Obama’s speech at the Democratic party convention this week.

Another fact: There is nothing to actually build upon true red lines. The US is neck-deep in its elections, and only wants to shake the Israeli nuisance until after November. No matter how you look at it, Israel is simply folding, unless everything isn’t as it seems (which is also an option).

Cabinet
The reports about Netanyahu’s resolve to investigate the leak from Tuesday’s cabinet meeting which discussed the Iranian issue should also be read cautiously. As a rule, any word regarding Iran is suspected of disinformation, so the focus should be directed at what is certain: the Israeli government has never discussed the possibility of an attack against Iran. It has not been presented with all the possible options for an operation and their various significances. The intelligence organizations view this forum as less classified than off-the-record background meetings with media representatives.

Speaking of the intelligence organizations, the reports about disagreements surrounding the Iranian issue are correct. The differences in approaches are ‘natural’. They all see the overall picture in a fairly similar manner. Disagreements, even personal ones, between the members of the military echelon and the members of the political echelon have always existed, and will apparently also continue to exist. Netanyahu is guarantied a majority in the cabinet forum (approximately 19 ministers) for any decision found appropriate, so long as it is supported by the IDF.

Another fact: the political-security cabinet has held dozens of closed deliberations on the Iranian issue (not including “the discussion”, the one where the operational options will be inspected). There are usually no leaks from this forum, which includes about eight ministers. There is a tie in this forum, as of today, on the issue of the possible attack: four on the supporter’s camp, led by Barak and Netanyahu, and the objectors, led by Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Moshe Ya’alon, which number four as well.

Russia Renounces
Sometimes it happens that news of significant, far-reaching historic and defensive significance vanish from the media’s attention. It is possible that in retrospect it will turn out that Russia’s call for its citizens to leave Syria this week will turn out to have such a significance.

The reason that elements within the defense establishment attribute considerable importance to this call is the fact that Israel and the West have been expecting for months now to see when Russia will renounce Bashar al-Assad. Each day where Russia continues to support a regime that massacres its citizens results in strategic damage to Russia’s relations with the rest of the Arab world and with the future regime that will be established in Syria. Russia is aware of this, but on the other hand, it is important for it to show the whole world that it does not abandon its allies (like the quick US renouncement of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, for example).

Intelligence elements in Israel anticipated seeing when Russia will initially begin to evacuate its military advisors from Syria, and when it will clear its forces from the Tartus port (the only port where it has a friendly pier in the Mediterranean Sea). This may a clear sign to the fact that Bashar Assad’s regime is over and done with. These steps have not yet happened, but the call for the civilians to leave Syria might soon turn out to be a clear indication towards Russia’s renouncing of Syria.

Given this, the reports that Assad is organizing a shelter for himself in Russia towards the day he relinquishes the regime seem considerably authentic. The scenario that Assad might leave to Russia is certainly logical.
Bedrock of our existence
And now, without a shred of cynicism: There are governmental ceremonies that cause quite a bit of excitement, and in my opinion, such is the ceremony held each year in September on the lawn of the President’s house in Jerusalem, where the Israeli defense awards are granted.

Thus, on Monday, when dozens of the award recipients stood upon the stage of honor to receive the award, I was exited for them, and a thought crossed my mind; how lucky are we that while tens of thousands of people invest their efforts towards unfounded hatred and pointless discussions on whether or not the defense budget is a waste of money, we have several thousands of people who are the technological basis for Israel’s military might.

The explosion of IQ on the stage at the President’s residence on Thursday was tremendous. The winners received the award from the president, the ministry of defense and the chief of staff, with the picture of Eliyahu Golomb, the IDF’s first force builder, in the background. The media gave its full attention to the only award winners whose contribution to Israel’s security could be mentioned: those involved in the technologically unprecedented project which transformed an active defense system against missiles in a record time of less than two and a half months.

However, additional development persons from IAI were also on the stage, as well as several geniuses from the IAF and the Intelligence branch who were involved in other projects – all of which could be said about them is that they have had a tremendous contribution to Israel’s security, and that those involved in them displayed tremendous daring and rare creative originality. It can only be guessed that they are projects connected to the Iranian issue.

One last note about the Iron Dome project, the great star of the Israeli defense awards. The chairman of the prize committee, Maj. Gen. Danny Yatom, rightfully reminded the contribution of Amir Peretz, who insisted on advancing the project during his term as minister of defense. In retrospect, the fact that the project only started in 2008 cannot be considered as less than stupidity. A reminder – the rockets already began landing in Israel’s southern region in 2000. In 2004 there was a main headline in Ma’ariv by this writer about a secret project for developing a system against missiles (the project was so confidential that it was denied by elements in the ministry of defense who weren’t even aware of it). Even though the technological feasibility was already given in 2004, the project only started during Peretz’s term, and without the active support of the IAF, which preferred investing the money in more offensive measures.

This is presented as food for thought for those who object to any project out of a short-sighted budgetary view (after all, the project to establish the fence at the Egyptian border could have originally started years ago were it budgeted in time, instead of being carried out at record speed and greater cost today).

Syria transferred chemical weapons to port city, raising alarm bells, report says | The Times of Israel.

Russian and US warnings came after reports that embattled regime moved weapons

An IDF drill simulating an attack on Israel with chemical weapons, 2008 (photo credit: Gili Yaari / Flash 90)

The Syrian regime transferred chemical weapons from a storage base near Damascus to the port city of Tartus last month, sparking American and European concerns that the weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or other extremist organizations inside Syria, Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported Sunday.

On August 20, US President Barack Obama declared that the US would consider military intervention if Syria deployed or used chemical weapons in its possession. British diplomatic sources told the Kuwaiti daily that Obama issued the strongly-worded warning following the transfer of weapons from Damascus to Tartus.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that US and Middle Eastern officials were concerned that Syria had dispersed its chemical weapons stockpile, considered to be the third-largest in the world, to 20 sites around the country.

It did not detail where those sites were.

Officials in Israel and the West fear that chemical weapons may fall into terrorist hands in the chaos surrounding Syria’s bloody civil war. They also fear Assad may use the weapons on rebels or transfer them to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite terror group .

In a speech delivered on September 3, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah declared that his organization does not possess chemical weapons and that such weapons are banned under Islamic law, a claim voiced in the past by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Nasrallah’s reference to chemical weapons may have followed pressure from Syria’s ally, Russia. Lebanese daily Al-Nahar reported Sunday that a Russian envoy recently arrived in Beirut and warned Nasrallah against accepting chemical weapons from Syria. According to the daily, Russian President Vladimir Putin assured Israel that Syria’s chemical weapons will not leave their storehouses. Al-Nahar is staunchly opposed to Hezbollah and aligned with the March 14 movement led by Saad Hariri.

The diplomatic sources who spoke to Al-Rai speculated that the weapons were moved to Tartus as part of the Assad regime’s “plan B” to flee to an Alawite-majority region of Syria if the regime is in jeopardy.

The ancient port of Tartus, along the country’s coast, is one of the country’s few Alawite majority enclaves. In August, Jordan’s King Abdullah speculated that Assad may try to create a mini-state in the area should he lose control of Damascus.

Ten thousand soldiers are on permanent alert to take over 31 bases inside Syria where chemical weapons are stored, if the West becomes convinced that those weapons may no longer be secure, the British diplomatic sources told Al-Rai.