WarSclerotic

Israeli Diplomat Is Man in Middle – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

( Michael Oren { orig. Bornstein } was a good friend of mine at Columbia College and law school.  We ended up making Alia around the same time and remained friends until I left Israel in the late 90’s – JW )

Iran nuclear chief says Tehran does not intend to enrich uranium beyond 20 percent – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Iranian news agencies cite Fereydoun Abbasi as saying that most of Iran’s activities are geared at enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, rejecting claims of a nuclear weapons program.

By Haaretz | Sep.18, 2012 | 10:06 AM | 1

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, is escorted by technicians during a tour of Tehran’s research reactor center in northern Tehran, Iran, on Feb. 15, 2012 Photo by AP

By The Associated Press and Reuters

Sep.18,2012 | 10:06 AM | 1

Iran does not intend to enrich uranium above the 20 percent level, the chief of Iran’s nuclear program told the country’s media outlets on Monday, adding that Iran increased its enrichment activities after failing to obtain uranium for its Tehran research facility.

The comments by Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Fereydoun Abbasi came after the Iranian nuclear chief said earlier Monday that that “terrorists and saboteurs” might have infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency in an effort to derail his country’s nuclear program.

“Terrorists and saboteurs might have intruded the agency and might be making decisions covertly,” Abbasi said at the annual member state gathering of the IAEA, alleging that explosives had been used to cut power lines from the city of Qom to the Fordo underground uranium enrichment plant on August 17.

A day later, he said, IAEA inspectors had asked for an unannounced visit to Fordo.

“Does this visit have any connection to that detonation? Who other than the IAEA inspectors can have access to the complex in such a short time?” Abbasi-Davani told the gathering in Vienna.

“It should be recalled that power cut-off is one of the ways to break down centrifuge machines,” he said, referring to the machines used to enrich uranium, which can have both civilian and military purposes.

On Tuesday, both state-run Press TV and Iran’s official news agency IRNA cited Abbasi as saying of Monday’s meeting that Tehran’s goal wasn’t to enrich uranium beyond 20 percent.

Speaking to reporters, the AOEI chief said that the only reasons Tehran upgraded its uranium to 20 percent was because it failed to obtain uranium for its Tehran Research Reactor, adding that most of Iran’s enrichment activities were conducted at the 3.5 percent level.

Rejecting claims that Iran was using its civilian reactors to hide a nuclear weapons program, Abbasi said that the purpose of the enriched uranium was to produce radiopharmaceuticals.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran would be on the brink of nuclear weapons capability in six to seven months, adding new urgency to his demand that President Barack Obama set a clear “red line” for Tehran in what could deepen the worst U.S.-Israeli rift in decades.

Taking his case to the American public, Netanyahu said in U.S. television interviews that by mid-2013, Iran would be 90 percent of the way toward enough enriched uranium for a bomb. He urged the United States to spell out limits that Tehran must not cross or else face military action – something Obama has refused to do.

“You have to place that red line before them now, before it’s too late,” Netanyahu told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, saying that such a U.S. move could reduce the chances of having to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.

Nasrallah, in rare public address, hails ‘start of a serious movement in defense of the prophet’ | The Times of Israel.

As 500,000 supporters in Beirut shout ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to the Great Satan America,’ Hezbollah leader urges week of protests over anti-Islam movie

BEIRUT — The leader of Hezbollah made a rare public appearance Monday at a rally in Beirut, calling for sustained protests against an anti-Islam film that already has provoked a week of unrest in Muslim countries worldwide.

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has rarely been seen in public since his Shiite Muslim group battled Israel in a month-long war in 2006, fearing Israeli assassination. Since then, he has communicated with his followers and gives news conferences mostly via satellite link.

On Monday, Nasrallah spoke for about 15 minutes before tens of thousands of cheering supporters, many of them with green and yellow headbands around their foreheads — the colors of Hezbollah — and the words “at your service God’s prophet” written on them.

Police officials estimated the crowd at around 500,000 — an exceptionally large turnout even by standards of the Hezbollah group whose rallies normally draw huge numbers.

Diplomats at the US Embassy in Beirut have started to destroy classified material as a security precaution and sent local Lebanese employees home early amid the anti-American protests.

In Washington, a State Department official said there was no imminent threat to the heavily fortified Beirut embassy, which is about an hour away from where the nearest demonstration is planned. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss security procedures, said the decision to “reduce classified holdings” was routine and made by embassy staff.

Nasrallah, who last appeared in public in December 2011 to mark the Shiite holy day of Ashoura, said the US must ban the movie and have it removed from the Internet and called for his followers to maintain pressure on the world to act.

“This is the start of a serious movement that must continue all over the Muslim world in defense of the prophet of God,” Nasrallah said to roars of support. “As long as there’s blood in us, we will not remain silent over insults against our prophet.”

The crowd chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to the Great Satan America,” reported Israel Radio.

He has called for a series of demonstrations this week to denounce the video.

Hezbollah supporters wave flags and hold up Arabic banners that read, “At your service God’s prophet; America equals terrorism; and America does not equal freedom,” during an anti-US rally in Beirut, Lebanon on Monday (photo credit: AP/Hussein Malla)

Hezbollah’s rallies seem aimed at keeping the issue alive by bringing out large crowds. But the group also appeared to be trying to ensure the protests do not spiral into violence, walking a careful line. Notably, Hezbollah held Monday’s protest in its own mainly Shiite stronghold of Dahieh in south Beirut, far from the US Embassy, in the mountains north of the capital, and other international diplomatic missions.

For the group, anger over the low-budget movie that denigrates the Prophet Muhammad provides a welcome diversion from the crisis in Syria, which has brought heavy criticism on Hezbollah for its support of President Bashar Assad. But stoking riots in Beirut could also bring a backlash in the tensely divided country.

“Some people still don’t know the level of insult done to our prophet,” Nasrallah said. “The world should understand the truth of our relationship and ties to our prophet.”

The movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” portrays Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester. Protesters have directed their anger at the US government, insisting it should do something to stop the film’s distribution, though it was privately produced. American officials have criticized it for intentionally offending Muslims — and in one case, acted to prevent it being shown at a Florida church.

In a televised address on Sunday, Nasrallah had blamed the US for the film, saying, “The ones who should be held accountable and boycotted are those who support and protect the producers, namely the US administration.”

He called for protests on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Protests against the movie were largely peaceful in the Middle East but turned violent for the first time in Afghanistan on Monday as hundreds of people burned cars and threw rocks at a US military base in the capital, Kabul. Many in the crowd shouted “Death to America!” and “Death to those people who have made a film and insulted our prophet.”

Afghan religious leaders urged calm. “Our responsibility is to show a peaceful reaction, to hold peaceful protests. Do not harm people, their property or public property,” said Karimullah Saqib, a cleric in Kabul.

On the main throroughfare through the city, demonstrators burned tires, shipping containers and at least one police vehicle before they were dispersed. Elsewhere in the city, police shot in the air to hold back a crowd of about 800 protesters and prevent them from pushing toward government buildings downtown, said Azizullah, a police officer at the site who, like many Afghans, only goes by one name.

More than 20 police officers were slightly injured, most by rocks, said Gen. Fahim Qaim, the commander of a city quick-reaction police force.

The rallies will continue “until the people who made the film go to trial,” said one protester, Wahidullah Hotak, among several dozen people demonstrating in front of a Kabul mosque, demanding President Barack Obama bring those who have insulted the prophet to justice.

Several hundred demonstrators in Pakistan’s northwest also clashed with police Monday after setting fire to a press club and a government building, said police official Mukhtar Ahmed. The protesters apparently attacked the press club in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province’s Upper Dir district because they were angry their rally wasn’t getting more coverage, he said.

Police charged the crowd in the town of Wari, beating protesters back with batons, Ahmad said. The demonstrators then attacked the office of a senior government official and surrounded a local police station, said Ahmad, who locked himself inside with several other officers.

One protester died when police and demonstrators exchanged fire, and several others were wounded, police official Akhtar Hayat said.

Elsewhere in Pakistan, hundreds of protesters clashed with police for a second day in the southern city of Karachi as they tried to reach the US Consulate. Police lobbed tear gas and fired in the air to disperse the protesters, who were from the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami party. Police arrested 40 students, but no injuries have been reported, said senior police officer Asif Ejaz Shaikh.

Pakistanis have also held many peaceful protests against the film, including one in the southwest town of Chaman on Monday attended by around 3,000 students and teachers.

In Jakarta, hundreds of Indonesians clashed with police outside the US Embassy, hurling rocks and firebombs and setting tires alight, marking the first violence over the film seen in the world’s most populous Muslim country.

At least 10 police were rushed to the hospital after being pelted with rocks and attacked with bamboo sticks, said Jakarta Police Chief Maj. Gen. Untung Rajad. He said four protesters were arrested and one was hospitalized.

Demonstrators burned a picture of Obama and also tried to ignite a fire truck parked outside the embassy after ripping a water hose off the vehicle and torching it, sending plumes of black smoke billowing into the sky. Police used a bullhorn to appeal for calm and deployed water cannons and tear gas to try to disperse the crowd as the protesters shouted “Allah Akbar,” or God is great.

“We will destroy America like this flag!” a protester screamed while burning a US flag. “We will chase away the American ambassador from the country!”

Demonstrations were also held Monday in the Indonesian cities of Medan and Bandung. Over the weekend in the central Java town of Solo, protesters stormed KFC and McDonald’s restaurants, forcing customers to leave and management to close the stores.

German authorities are considering whether to ban the public screening of the film, titled “Innocence of Muslims” because it could endanger public security, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday. A fringe far-right political party says it plans to show the film in Berlin in November.

Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the West to block the film Monday to prove they are not “accomplices” in a “big crime,” according to Iranian state TV.

Such an appeal falls into the major cultural divides over the film. US officials say they cannot limit free speech and Google Inc. refuses to do a blanket ban on the YouTube video clip. This leaves individual countries putting up their own blocks.

Arabs sense weakness – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

The wave of anti-West riots that is sweeping through the Muslim world will gradually subside, mostly because the regimes in Muslim countries, from Indonesia to Algeria, realize that this wave threatens them more than it does the West.

This is why they have regained their composure and have begun taking measures to curb the riots: Access to western diplomatic missions has been blocked; large forces have been deployed in sensitive areas; and clerics, as well as Islamist politicians are urging the public to respect foreigners.

When the riots erupted after the anti-Islam filmwas posted on YouTube with Arabic subtitles, the regimes in the Muslim countries displayed sympathy and understanding with the rage and violence of the masses, and they refrained from taking any measures to protect the US, British and German embassies. The street sensed that it had the government’s support and went wild.

Now the moderate Islamist leaders, including Egypt’s Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, are taking action because they realize that this wave threatens them as well.

The riots erupted, among other things, due to genuine rage in the Arab world over the movie, which was justifiably viewed as an intentional insult to the prophet Mohammed and an attempt to tarnish Islam’s image. Every Islamic child is taught that the prophet and the Quran are sacred, so any attack on them, such as the Coptic film, stirs among Muslims a sense of an almost existential threat, as well as fear and frustration. All of these feelings were expressed in an outbreak of rage and violence.

Riots in Afghanistan (Photo: AFP) (צילום: AFP)

Another reason is what is referred to as the frustrating “cognitive dissonance” Muslims all over the world have been experiencing for the past 200 years or so. On the one hand they are taught from birth that Islam is a source of greatness and achievements in all fields – as was the case during the religion’s golden age. On the other hand, the frustrating reality is that despite their oil reserves, the Muslims cannot integrate into the modern world and succeed in it. They are having trouble feeding their children when the heretics in the West boast unimaginable achievements in every field. According to Professor Dan Schueftan, all this creates feelings of insecurity, inferiority and sensitivity to any insult to the Arab honor – be it real or fictitious.

The third reason relates to the situation created as a result of the turmoil in the Arab world. Suddenly, the street became a dominant factor that imposes its will on the new Arab regimes, which are cautious not to anger it for fear they will meet a fate similar to, let’s say, Mubarak’s. This is apparent in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Jordan and even in the Palestinian Authority. If in the past the Arab dictatorships imposed their will on the people by way of draconian coercion and enforcement, today, in the aftermath of the revolutions, the Arab street imposes its will on the regimes. The regimes in Egypt, Libya and Yemen went as far as justifying the rage and violence of the masses in response to the anti-Islam film.

Organized and armed terror groups inspired by global jihad and the Salafi movement took advantage of the chaotic situation created by the riots. It happened in Libya last Tuesday, and then in Sinaiand Afghanistan. Over the past two years these groups, which consistently fight the West, the US and the secular Arab regimes have amassed weapons and power mainly because the regimes that once limited their activity are no longer. Now they are threatening the moderate Islamist regimes, which are aware of this threat and have begun to act.

The fifth cause of the Muslim riots is the weak response from the West and the US Administration in particular. The statement from the White House and State Department, which was adopted by German Foreign Minister Westerwelle, condemned the insult to the Muslim religion’s values and also said, in very soft rhetoric, that there is “no justification for this kind of senseless violence.”

Such a statement may be taken seriously in London or Berlin, but in the Muslim world it was interpreted as an admission of guilt by the US, which, from the Muslims’ perspective, legitimizes violence. The lack of a threat allowed the masses to go wild.

Despite the ObamaAdministration’s mistakes, including extremely lax security at the US Consulate in Libya and the appeasing, almost Chamberlain-esque response to the violence, it is not too late to rectify the situation. Experience has shown that the US can still apply effective pressure on the new Arab regimes, including the Islamist ones, which are in need of Washington’s aid. There is already an indication that the White House’s policy is moving in this direction.

Another option is to boost US military presence (in the air and on the ground) near or right above the sensitive zones and have Marines secure the diplomatic missions. Such measures have been proven to have a moderating effect on incited masses.

Amid unrest, Clinton to lobby lawmakers on Mideast aid.

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meetings on Capitol Hill have not yet been scheduled. (Reuters)

 hare

Danon: Israel’s dangerous Iranian dilemma | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dons a Western appearance but is no friend to nearby Israel. (Vahid Salemi Associated Press)

As the war of words heats up regarding a possible Israeli military strike on Iran, now is the time to look at one of the key arguments used by those opposed to such an act of self-defense.

Time and again we have heard the question “Why now?” asked whenever an Israeli prime minister must make a decision that placed Israel’s very existence in jeopardy.

Each time, Israeli leaders knew to focus on the real question — “What is the alternative?” — and then go forward on the lonely path toward a more secure and free Israel.

There are many examples of such decision-making, but three stand out.

In the spring of 1948, it was far from an obvious decision that the pre-state Jewish community would declare its independence the minute that the British Mandate rule ended.

The nascent state had been, for all intents and purposes, at war since the approval of the November 1947 United Nations partition plan. As the British were preparing to leave, armed Arab militias were rising up throughout the Holy Land, and the Arab states that surrounded it had begun to amass troops and arms on the borders.

The Jewish leadership in Palestine was at odds about how to act. Most analysts warned David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, that a declaration of independence would not be accepted by the international community.

In May 1948, Ben-Gurion was finally able to persuade a majority of the People’s Administration to approve such a declaration. The final vote was 6-4, with three members missing.

Almost half the members were positively considering the alternative of a U.S.-sponsored cease-fire and promises of support if they delayed the declaration. But Ben-Gurion understood that the time for a decision was upon them and that he could not worry about world opinion.

Another example was the Six-Day War. In mid-May 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the U.N. peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert, which served as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, and began amassing troops in the formerly demilitarized zone.

On May 22, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping — a vital waterway that international law had declared must remain open to all countries. As Egypt increased the number of troops in the Sinai, Israeli fears were compounded when Nasser signed military pacts with Syria and Jordan.

During this tense time, President Lyndon B. Johnson implored Prime Minister Levi Eshkol not to attack the Arab countries and promised increased aid and oil supplies to Israel if it waited for an internationally-accepted solution. The Israeli newspapers were full of editorials calling on the government not to attack without prior agreements with international powers.

In fact, in a cabinet meeting on June 2, 1967, the Israeli government decided not to attack and to continue to wait for the international community to provide a solution.

By June 5, Eshkol and his cabinet had had enough. They realized that no outside power, no matter how friendly, could be trusted to ensure Israel’s security or even survival. The decision was taken to launch a surprise attack that would guarantee Israel’s security for years to come.

A more recent example that is perhaps most analogous to today’s situation was Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s 1981 order to destroy the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq.

As the evidence mounted in the late 1970s and early 1980s about Iraq’s nuclear program, the Israeli government was faced with a difficult choice. Saddam Hussein declared repeatedly that his country was working on a civilian nuclear program. All of Israel’s allies urged patience and spoke of the need to negotiate.

Once again, an Israeli prime minister is faced with a difficult choice.

The international community is urging Israel to take a wait-and-see approach. In the end, this is a judgment that can be made only by Israel’s democratically-elected government.

Danny Danon is deputy speaker of the Knesset and the author of “Israel: The Will to Prevail.” His column is distributed by McClatchy Tribune.

Rudaw in English….The Happening: Latest News and Multimedia about Kurdistan, Iraq and the World – Should the Kurds Support Israel’s Attack on Iran?.

Every now and then, it is said that Israeli fighter planes will use Kurdistan’s airspace to reach Iran. This is a serious matter. It incriminates the Kurdish people. It automatically makes Kurdistan an Israeli ally. But Kurdistan is not an independent state. It does not have its sovereign airspace. Kurdistan doesn’t have an air force either, to join the Israeli attack.

It is a semi-autonomous region whose main goal is to maintain its own security and avoid any act that may endanger its hard-won political and economic stability.

The region has already received enough accusations of having relations with Israel. So I don’t think Kurdish leaders will do anything that will prove what the Arab world has been accusing them of for years.

If Israel decides to attack Iran, it will do so regardless of what the world thinks. Israel doesn’t need anyone’s permission or support — certainly not that of the Kurds — to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. All they need is to be sure that Iran is building a nuclear bomb.

The idea of an Israeli attack is not new. Israel has been working on it for a long time. It is said that they already have nuclear submarines lurking beneath the Persian Gulf, under Iran’s very nose.

One of Israel’s closest allies is the tiny state of Azerbaijan on Iran’s northern border. The two small countries enjoy very strong relations and it is likely that Israeli jets will take off from Azerbaijan to bomb sensitive Iranian sites.

But even without Azerbaijan or the Persian Gulf, Israel will, without a doubt, ignore any country’s airspace in order to reach its targets. To them the threat of a nuclear Iran and the survival of the Jewish state is more important than violating someone else’s airspace.

For now, an attack on Iran or the talk of it seems to have been put on hold until after the American presidential elections. But what should the Kurds do if this attack happens? They have no support to offer, and they have no means to prevent it.

What they can do is to hope that it will be a quick and decisive attack. Israel will do it for its own sake, but the outcome will serve the Kurds, too.

Around 7 million Kurds live in Iran and they will always be there. They will always struggle for their freedom and their rights. They have to deal with the government in Tehran either through arms or through negotiations. But it is difficult to negotiate with a nuclear power.

A nuclear bomb will give Iran impunity. Behind a nuclear bomb, Iran will bully the region even more than it is doing today. The Kurds hope that the international community will take their case more seriously, but if Iran goes nuclear, even that little hope will be dashed.

The nature of the regimes in Iran, Syria and Iraq is dictatorial and unfortunately Kurds know from experience how brutally those regimes use their weapons. So we should hope that none of our neighbors ever develop a nuclear bomb, not just Iran. And not only our immediate neighbors — we should in fact hope that no country in the Middle East, as far away as Yemen and Sudan, ever becomes a nuclear power.

They might never drop an atomic bomb on Kurds, but since we live right in the middle of them, since we have ambitions for an independent state and are often described as separatists, agents of the west, and infidels, we shouldn’t want these countries to have more than AK-47 Kalashnikovs. Even Kalashnikovs might be too much, given the mentality of these regimes.

Dictatorial states do not deserve nuclear bombs. In France, Britain, America or Israel, a nuclear bomb is a national weapon. Presidents and prime ministers come and go in a democratic process. But any regime in the Middle East will treat a nuclear bomb like a family possession.

If Bashar al-Assad was a nuclear power, the world wouldn’t be treating him with such a carefree attitude and would ask him to step down. With a demoralized army and rusty tanks he still defies the world. He threatens to use chemical weapons in the final showdown. So imagine what he would do if he had an atomic bomb. He would cling to it to ensure his clan would rule Syria for a thousand years. But in Operation Orchard in 2007, Israel attacked and destroyed Syria’s nuclear reactor and took care of that for everyone else.

If Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb, he and his sons and grandsons would have ruled Iraq for god knows how many years. With an army of hungry soldiers who didn’t even have money for a bus ticket to go home on leave, he harassed and threatened the entire region for three decades. Imagine what he would have done if he had a nuclear weapon. For sure his genocide campaigns would have continued to the last Kurdish child and the world wouldn’t dare to raise a finger.

But thankfully, in Operation Babylon in June 1981, Israeli F-16s destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactors outside Baghdad and nipped Saddam’s diabolical dreams in the bud.

Because of those Israeli attacks, Syria is weaker today, and it is easy to set conditions for the regime in Damascus. The Israeli attack of 1981 made it impossible for Saddam Hussein’s family to rule Iraq forever.

Therefore, a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will only make it easier for the Kurds and the international community to deal with Tehran in the future. 

Israel’s Arrow-3 missile-killer nears test – Military & Aerospace Electronics.

Amid growing fears Israeli leaders are preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, defense sources say the Arrow-3 interceptor, seen as Israel’s ace in the hole against Tehran’s ballistic missiles, is close to its first flight test.

The two-stage missile being developed by state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries and the Boeing Co. of the United States will be Israel’s main line of defense against Iran’s growing arsenal of immediate-range Shehab-3 missiles and the more advanced Sejjil-2 weapons under development.

The upcoming test-firing, delayed for about a year, will take place against a backdrop of growing threats of retaliation by Tehran if Israel, or even the United States currently locked in its own confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf, attacks the Islamic Republic.

The Arrow-3, the most advanced component of a multilayered missile defense shield the Israelis are building, will take place “soon,” says Itzhak Kaya, who heads the Arrow program.

This will be the first test of all the Arrow-3 systems. Subsystems have already been tested.

The second stage has its own propulsion unit that enables it to maneuver toward its target. It can reach twice the altitude of Arrow-2.

The Pentagon, which provides much of the funding for the joint program and has been seeking to persuade U.S. legislators that it’s worth Congress investing taxpayers’ money in the project, says Arrow-3 will be able to provide four times the coverage of Arrow-2.

Kaya disclosed that recent testing involved simulated interceptions to evaluate Arrow-3’s detection capabilities.

The new variant operates with an advanced version of the EL/M-2080 Green Pine solid-state, phased array radar system manufactured for Arrow by Elta Electronic Industries of Ashdod, a subsidiary of IAI’s Electronic Group.

“A successful identification of the attacking missile by the Arrow System increases the chances and certainty of an interception,” Kaya said.

Neither of the first two Arrow variants has been used on combat and there have been concerns about its ability to counter a heavy salvo of Shehab or Sejjil missiles.

Uzi Rubin, considered one of the pre-eminent missile system analysts in the Middle East, recently said Arrow could cope with any missile fired by the Iranians.

“I can’t say that every incoming will be known down,” he told Israel Army Radio. “There isn’t 100 percent protection and not everything is a success.

“But for every single missile coming from Iran there’s a single Arrow missile capable of intercepting it one for one.”

Rubin, a former air force brigadier general, was head of Israel’s Missile Defense Organization in 1991-99 and oversaw development of the Arrow series.

“Iran has between 300 and 400 Shehab-3 missiles it can fire at Israel,” he said.

He also disclosed that Iran’s aerospace industries manufacturing the Shehab, a program controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has significantly improved the missile’s accuracy from “a marked target that could cover a few kilometers to just a few hundred meters.”

That would make the Iranian missiles a much greater threat to Israeli airbases and military installations, as well as the national infrastructure, than previously thought.

The latest variant of the high-altitude, long-range Arrow is designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in space outside the Earth’s atmosphere in the final phase of their trajectory and destroy them on impact.

The Arrow-2, the version operationally deployed by the Jewish state, is built to tackle hostile missiles at lower altitudes within the atmosphere by exploding near them.

The first Arrow missiles were deployed in 2000. There are at least two batteries operational, one in northern Israel and the other outside of the coastal Palmachim air force base south of Tel Aviv where most of the program’s test flights have been conducted.

Arrow-2 will remain as a secondary line of defense, with two other systems designed to counter shorter-range missiles and rockets closer to the ground.

The Iron Dome system, developed to intercept projectiles with a range 5-40 miles, has been in action against Palestinian Grad and Qassem rockets since March 2011 and is reported to have a kill rate of around 75 percent.

It’s built by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, which is also developing the David’s Sling system to counter missiles with a range of up to 130 miles. It’s not expected to be deployed for another 18 months.

ABQJournal Online » Obama’s Mideast Policy a Complete, Utter Failure.

The American Spectator : The War to Come.

By George H. Wittman on 9.18.12 @ 6:09AM

It may be shocking to some, but the Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was correct when he said a few days ago that Israel can not survive a nuclear weapon attack. He didn’t add, but it is certainly true, that these need only be lower yield devices. A brief study of the industrial topography and demography of Israel shows that a minimal number (3-4) well targeted nuclear weapons would leave Israel inoperable as a modern state.

President Obama clearly has been provided with adequate technical intelligence to inform him of the details involved. Iran already has adequate delivery systems as outlined by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta last February when he referred to the effective operational state of the Shahab-3 and the medium range ballistic missile, Ashura, as being able to hit Israel and Eastern Europe. The White House knows that Israel is in danger of obliteration if Iran is allowed to launch even a modest attack on Israel. So far the American presidential response appears to be, “Iran knows the U.S. will respond appropriately, and that is adequate deterrence.”

The theoretical punitive response by Washington would be too late to save the continued existence of Israel. While the threatened U.S. counterattack might destroy Iranian nuclear development facilities, in order to have a serious lasting impact the economic base of Iran would have to be destroyed. Its oil production and distribution facilities would have to be targeted for demolition. Such an action defines the term “counter-productive ” if the international importance of Persian oil resources are taken into consideration. And, of course, Israel would be in ashes.

To be specific about Iran’s current nuclear weapon capability, one need only refer to the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): “Iran… has produced 418 pounds of 20% enriched uranium.” This uranium could be converted to weapons grade product before the end of this year. This is an increase over the 321 pounds of similar grade uranium reported available in May 2012. More importantly, the IAEA reported a doubling of the enrichment centrifuges since May, bringing the total to 2,140 at the advanced nuclear facility a Fordo, a deep buried mountain site outside the ancient city of Qom.

Fifty-five pounds of 90% enriched uranium is considered necessary to construct one nuclear explosive device. Taking 20% enrichment up to 90% weapons grade has been referred to as not difficult and solely dependent on processing time. With the increased number of centrifuges in operation reported by the IAEA, the calculation has been made that it would have take no more than a few months for the Iranians to accomplish this. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that the Iranians will have launch-capable nuclear missiles in 6-7 months.

It is generally accepted in defense circles — and reported earlier in this column — that the Iranians already have the short-term capability of constructing several “Hiroshima” implosion bombs. The issue at hand is the ability to construct smaller, higher yield devices capable of being placed on, and detonated from, the existing medium-range Iranian missiles. The IGRC already have enough of these appropriately-ranged and target-guided missiles to simultaneously hit all of Israel’s scientific and production centers as well as its various deep bunkered military installations.

Pentagon sources have indicated it’s not difficult technically to calculate how quickly Iranian scientists and technicians could handcraft the needed marriage of high-weaponized explosive product and the guided missile-connected delivery system. This information is well known by all existing nuclear-armed countries. This is why the intensity level of anxiety on the international scene has risen so sharply in the past few months.

The only mystery still extant is how this nearly open secret has been so successfully kept from publication. The reason is that such information is tantamount to pulling the trigger on a holocaust that Iran is not yet prepared to create — even on Israel. And against which the Israelis are not yet fully ready to defend. The problem that the Israel Defense Command and PM Netanyahu face is whether they can fully destroy Iran’s offensive capability aimed at Israel and/or effectively defend against the expected Iranian counter-thrust to an Israeli preemptive attack. One thing is certain: Israel can not and will not depend on the current American administration to assist in Israel’s initial attack.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on the White House’s desire for Israel to wait until after the American presidential election before taking any offensive action. A new logic has been introduced by events in many Moslem capitals following the original riots in Cairo and the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. If anything, the Obama Administration has hardened its position against Israeli military action against Iran. In turn, however, the Israeli choices have been reduced as Tehran now has the chance to exploit the anti-American/anti-Israel political support engendered by the wave of “holy war” spirit contained in the widespread radical Islamic demonstrations and attacks.

In brief, the Iranians do not fear the potential of an Israeli counterstrike. There is consequently nothing but Tehran’s own current technical limitations to restrain the initiation of a Persian first strike nuclear attack on Israel’s key centers. Bibi Netanyahu knows this and so do his military strategists. As soon as Israel has the wherewithal to effect an initial strike wiping out Iranian nuclear weapon-launching capability, the strategic instinct would have to be to do it as soon as they can. The question is: When can Israel be sure it can destroy all of Iran’s nuclear launch assets?