WarSclerotic

Tehran displays missiles capable of reaching Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Ahmadinejad opens military parade by saying anti-Islam film an Israeli-hatched plot ‘to divide Muslims.’ Air force chief warns that ‘Zionist entity will cease to exist’ if war breaks out

Dudi Cohen, agencies

Iran proudly paraded its military hardware in Tehran on Friday under the gaze of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who used the event to again defiantly lash out at the West and Israel.

The display, involving thousands of military personnel, tanks and missiles borne on trucks, marked the anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Among the weapons on display were the surface-to-surface missile Qadr-F, which has a range of 2,000 kilometers (about 1,243 miles) and can reach Israel, and the Sajjil two-stage ballistic missile, which was not displayed in previous parades. It also has a 2,000-km range. The Fateh-110, Shahab-2 and Qiam missiles were also displayed.

During the parade, Iran’s Revolution Guards Corps’ Aerospace Commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned that the day a conflict begins, “the number of missiles launched would be more than the Zionists could imagine.

“If a conflict breaks out, the Zionist regime would be able to manage the beginning of the war, but the response and end would be in our hands, in which case the Zionist entity would cease to exist,” the Fars news agency quoted the commander as saying.

Ahmadinejad at military parade

Before the procession began the Iranian president lashed out at the West over an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and the publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed by a French satirical weekly.

Ahmadinejad said that “in return for (allowing) the ugliest insults to the divine messenger, they — the West — raise the slogan of respect for freedom of speech.”

He asserted that this shows a double standard and “is clearly a deception.” The Iranian leader spoke during a military parade Friday in Tehran.

The remarks come after a week of protests and riots by Muslims angered by the film that depicts Islam’s prophet as a womanizer, religious fraud and child molester. The violence has left at least 30 people dead.

He called the film an Israeli-hatched plot “to divide (Muslims) and spark sectarian conflict.”

In the speech, which was broadcast on state television, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was using “the same spirit and belief in itself” shown in that war to “stand and defend its rights” today against pressure from world powers.

Iran is locked in a showdown with the UN Security Council over its controversial nuclear program.

The West, led by the United States, has tightened the vice on Iran by implementing crippling economic sanctions, while US ally Israel – the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear weapons state – has threatened air strikes on Iranian atomic facilities.

Ahmadinejad implicitly referred to his often expressed opinion that the Holocaust never happened to lambast the West for perceived selective censorship.

“They stand against a question about a historical incident… they threaten and put pressure on nations for posing the question while at the same time in regards to the obscenest insults to the human sanctities and prophets… they shout adherence to freedom (of expression),” he said.

Ahmadinejad’s stance challenging the facts surrounding the Holocaust is shared by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the country’s commander-in-chief.

Early this week, Khamenei told naval cadets: “In some Western countries, no one dares to question the unknown incident of the Holocaust or for that matter some of the morally obscene policies like homosexuality… but insulting Islam and its sanctities under the pretext of freedom of expression is allowed.”

Clashes flare in Pakistan, cinemas torched on Muslim ‘Day of Love’.

Friday, 21 September 2012

Tens of thousands are expected to take to the streets across the country after the Pakistani government called an impromptu public holiday to let people protest. (Reuters)

  inShare

Israel rejects U.S.-backed Arab plan for conference on nuclear-free Mideast – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The conference would take place in Helsinki toward the end of 2012, or early in 2013; Israel calls it ‘coercion.’

By Amir Oren | Sep.20, 2012 | 1:51 AM |

Israel expressed its strong opposition on Wednesday to an Arab initiative, supported by the Obama administration, to hold a conference that would debate the possibility of a nuclear-free Middle East.

The conference would take place in Helsinki toward the end of 2012, or early in 2013. Brig.Gen. (Res.) Shaul Horev, director of the Israeli Nuclear Energy Committee, who reports directly to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, immediately trashed the idea.

President Barack Obama had promised to promote the move at the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Horev expressed Israeli opposition at the 56th general convention of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, saying that the idea of a nuclear arms-free Middle East, which been met with reservations by Israel, was now even less possible, due to the “volatile and hostile situation” in the area.

“In order to realize this idea there is need for prior conditions and a complete reversal of the current trend in the area,” Horev said. “This is an idea born in other areas and alien to the reality and political culture of the area. Nuclear demilitarization in the Middle East, according to the Israeli position, will be possible only after the establishment of peace and trust among the states of the area, as a result of a local initiative, not of external coercion.”

Horev began his address by criticizing Iran and Syria, whom he described as the centers of negative processes in the area, due to their covert moves to obtain nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction. He added that Iran is creating a “hollow impression” that it intends to cooperate, but the international community’s moves actually have had no effect on the Iranian nuclear plan. Moreover, “Iran might be searching for an excuse to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” Horev said.

According to Horev, Israel is not indifferent to Iran’s direct and vitriolic threats on its existence, and warned that the Assad regime in Syria might use chemical arms against the rebels, or transfer it to Hezbollah. Horev added that Israel supported Jordanian use of nuclear power for civilian use.

National Iranian American Council (NIAC): New Senate Push for Iran War Red Lines as Netanyahu Ups Pressure.

Thursday, September 20, 2012
By: NIAC News

Washington, DC – Some in the Senate are renewing their push to impose “red lines” on the President for war with Iran.  

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a motion to consider several measures, including a Joint Resolution sponsored by Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Bob Casey (D-PA) that would convey Congressional support for military action to prevent Iran from achieving “nuclear weapons capability.”

The measure contradicts President Obama’s policy that he would take military action if Iran were on the verge of actually acquiring a nuclear weapon, not a theoretical capability.  The Administration has sparred with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over the refusal to commit the U.S. to military action based on “nuclear weapons capability” — which many nonproliferation experts argue Iran technically achieved some time ago.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Foreign Policy Magazine, “Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.”  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected the call for deadlines to be imposed on U.S. policy.

The Administration’s comments earned a rebuke from Netanyahu.  “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,” said the Prime Minister, which many interpreted as a threat that Israel would strike Iran if the U.S. does not agree to the red line.

The Administration previously resisted pressure to adopt the red line in March, when a similar resolution was heavily lobbied for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to the White House.  That measure was tacitly rebuffed by the President at the annual AIPAC conference, where he stated that his red line was Iran building a weapon, not building a capability.  The President later told reporters, “This is not a game.  There’s nothing casual about it.  And when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk…it indicates to me that that’s more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.”

The House, however, went on to pass that resolution.  It stalled in the Senate due to concerns by Senator Rand Paul that it could be interpreted as an authorization for war.

But recently, Senator Graham reintroduced the resolution with a clause that it was not an authorization for war.  He also restructured it from a simple sense of Congress to a Joint Resolution, which according to Senate aids means it would go to the White House for signature–representing an damaging split on U.S. national security policy between the President on one hand, and Congress and Netanyahu on the other.

The measure was blocked yesterday on the Senate floor as part of an unrelated disagreement regarding funding bills, but could be brought up as soon as today before the Senate adjourns.

UPDATE: Senator Rand Paul is circulating a letter opposing S.J.Res.41 calling it “a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war.”

Israel Stands Up for Free Speech (Would Obama?) | Mike Lumish | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

Judge: Offended by film? Don’t watch it

 Court rejects Arab leaders’ request for temporary ban on anti-Islam film; Judge postpones permanent ruling until response from Google is submitted…

Judge Miriam Mizrahi decided against provisionally blocking access to the film, deciding instead that the court would await a response from Google before issuing a final ruling on the matter.

“The freedom of speech is our guiding principle, and such things take time,” she said.

The petitioners attempted during the hearing to press the judge on the matter, but to no avail, with the judge suggesting that “for the time being, anyone who finds the film offensive should avoid watching it.”

Meanwhile, the Obama administration actually sought to get youtube to take the thing down, entirely.

Google Inc., which owns YouTube, has already blocked access to the film in Libya, India and Indonesia after deadly protests in several countries, but it has rejected a request by the White House to pull it from the site altogether.

The Obama administration was, of course, entirely wrong to request that youtube remove the thing and kudos to Israel for standing up for free speech. A question does occur to me, however.

How would we feel if the movie was anti-Semitic hate speech? Would we favor its removal or would we consider it a matter of freedom of speech and, therefore, support its presence at that popular media sharing site? My suspicion, naturally, is that if it was an example of anti-Semitic hate speech we, at my blog Israel Thrives, would generally be in favor of seeing it removed.

It would obviously depend on the specific nature of the work, but I am not opposed, on principle, to the suppression of anti-Semitic material, so how can I favor the continuation of Innocence of Muslims on youtube?

This is not an easy question, is it?

There are at least two significant differences, however.

The first is that the publication of anti-Semitic material does not send Jewish people into frenzies of violence.  It simply does not.  The Arab-Muslim world bubbles with Jew hatred and they publish all sorts of material, and broadcast on the airwaves all sorts of mierda, that is grossly anti-Semitic.

And, yet, somehow, we never seem to riot.  Some of the Arab countries like to show anti-Semitic films during Ramadan that have big audiences that, for example, show evil Jewish / Israeli men capturing innocent Arab or Palestinian children for the purpose of cramming them into barrels studded with pointy spikes so as to get Muslim Baby Blood for our Passover matzoh.

And we look up from our books and our computers and our shovels and we shrug and roll our eyes because we cannot allow anyone’s reactions to interfere with freedom of speech.  We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied into giving up fundamental values.

But the second point is also very important.  The fact of the matter is that anti-Semitism is a genocidal form of racism.  Racism varies between groups, but what distinguishes anti-Semitism from other forms of racism is the obvious fact that the consequences are sometimes genocidal.  We are still within living memory of the Holocaust.  My father’s side of the family, as I have occasionally mentioned, got wiped out during Operation Barbarossa in the Ukraine during World War II.  They weren’t soldiers, they were merchants and they were craftspeople and they were slaughtered because German anti-Semites spread hatred toward us.

If I publish some stupid cartoon of Muhammed, however, this does not cause anyone to want to murder Muslims other than, perhaps, other Muslims.  But if people publish tracts and articles and books claiming that the Jews secretly control this or that government or that “Zionists” or “Israelis” or “NeoCons” love to wage war and to kill children, this incites the hatred of the entire world against us.

We are .2 percent of the world’s population.  We are maybe 14 million people.

Islam represents 1.5 billion people and is one of the oldest and proudest empires that the world has ever seen.

And that makes for a very big difference, indeed.

Ross, Dershowitz: Obama… JPost – 2012: The US Presidential race.

Photo: Brett Weinstein / Wikimedia Commons (CC)

via ‘US officials blame Iran for cyber attac… JPost – International.

09/21/2012 11:25

Hackers say anti-Islam video was impetus for cyber attacks, but officials tell NBC News that Iran likely retaliating for sanctions.

Cyber warfare [illustrative] Photo: Ho New / Reuters

US National Security officials accused the Iranian government of carrying out cyber attacks against the websites of US banks JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, NBC News reported Thursday.

A Middle East group of hackers claimed credit for the denial-of-service attacks, that made both websites unavailable to some customers earlier this week, citing the anti-Islam video that mocks the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as the reason behind the attacks.

Related:

Officials: IDF networks safe from cyber attacks

‘Obama secretly ordered cyber attacks on Iran’

Denial-of-service (DDos) attacks seek to disrupt websites and other computer systems at the targeted organization by overwhelming their networks with computer traffic.

However, US security sources rejected the hackers’ claims of responsibility, telling NBC News that this is “a cover” for operations of the Iranian government, and suggesting the attacks are in response to US sanctions on Iranian banks.

The Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), a financial services industry group, issued a warning to US banks, brokerages and insurers on Wednesday to be on heightened alert for cyber attacks after Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase experienced unexplained outages on their public websites.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Ahmadinejad: Anti-Islam film an … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: REUTERS

Expert: Israeli strike on Iran’s nuke sites would be folly – Israel News, Ynetnews.

( Like all the other “experts,” this one is clueless {as are we all} to Israel’s real capabilities. – JW )

In-depth analysis of possibility of military strike against Islamic Republic highlights Israel’s weak points; states lack of refueling jets, massive ordinance penetrator bombs as major drawback

Ynet

Israel’s weak spots in a possible strike against Iran are placed under the spotlight yet again: An in-depth analysis written by Dr. Josef Joffe from Stanford University for the International Institute for Strategic Studies presents the difficulties Israel will be faced with should it decide to go ahead and bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

In his paper Joffe explains that Israel does not have a bomb that can destroy the Fordo underground facility near Qom, expands on the fact that Israel would have to fly over hostile countries en route to Iran and focuses on the lack of refueling jets.

The article, which was published along a series of articles on security matters in the ‘Security Times,’ opens with a description of the MOP bomb: “The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the most powerful explosive device in the American arsenal,” writes Joffe.

‘Geography remains Israel’s foremost enemy’ (Photo: AFP)

“Six meters long and weighing 14 tons. The monster bomb is built to bore through concrete 60 meters thick before its 2.5-ton explosive charge detonates. It would be the weapon of choice to wipe out the deeply bunkered Iranian enrichment facility at Fordo, near Qom.”

According to Joffe, the US air force ordered MOPs when the Fordo facility was uncovered, the first were delivered last fall. Israel does not have MOPs or American B2 bombers, which would be used to transport the bombs if the Americans attack. Yet Fordo is only one of the problems Israel is facing.

Another difficulty in a military strikeagainst Iran is the distance. Out of the eight central air force targets in the Islamic Republic, only the Arak facility is reachable without refueling.

“An F-16I ‘Storm’ flies very high in very thin air, with extra fuel tanks it can cover 1500 km. Yet if it flies low to evade radar in Jordan, Iraq and Iran, its combat radius shrinks by half. The F-15I ‘Thunder’, the IAF’s mightiest jet probably has similar specs: 1000 to 1500 kilometers.

Joffe goes on to explain in detail why it just is not enough: “The pilots would have to turn back about a hundred kilometers short of the enrichment sites at Fordo and Natanz. If they were to fly on anyway, they would have to refill their tanks over territory that’s not exactly friendly: Jordanand Iraq using the direct route; or, on the northern variant, along the Syrian-Turkish border.

“They could fly undetected only over the sea, around the Arabian Peninsula. That would mean 5000 kilometers: an absurd venture…Geography, then, remains Israel’s foremost enemy, one that can be overcome only by midair refueling.”

Yet refueling might be Israel’s main problem, says Joffe: “Israel has only five tanker jets modified Boeing 707s. Time for some mental math: The IAF has 100 Storms and 25 Thunders. If they’re all deployed at once, they would have to be refueled twice, on each leg of the mission. 125 times two equals 250 – with a handful of tankers?

“Then with half the fleet, perhaps? That wouldn’t change much either, because bombers have to arm themselves against fighters and ground-to-air missiles. The Iranians’ 50-odd fighters (F-14s, Mirages and MiG-29s) may be old to obsolete, but still have to be reckoned with.”

In line with American assessments claiming that Israel cannot destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and would only be able to delay Tehran’s efforts to achieve nuclear capability, Joffe believes that the IDF would choose to hit a few of targets rather than all eight of them.

He concludes that the air force might try to take out key components in the nuclear supplies chain by destroying the enrichment facility at Natanz, which is more vulnerable than Fordo, as well as the uranium converter facility at Isfahan.

Joffe explains that without the possibility of converting uranium to gas, Iran would be forced to halt enrichment activities.

It’s a holy war, stupid – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Radical jihadists determined to establish Sunni Islamist state in the Levant

Daniel Brode, Daniel Nisman

While discussing the bloodshed in Syria at a September 7 conference held in Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan drew a chilling parallel. “What happened in Karbala 1,332 years ago is what is happening in Syria today,” he said, comparing the Syrian revolution to the most divisive event in Islamic history, the Battle of Karbala.

Those in the West with any interests in the region have much to learn from Erdogan’s history lesson. What was originally depicted as a popular uprising against tyranny is now undeniably a war for religious supremacy in the Middle East. In this war, those Syrians who originally took to the streets in their aspirations for democracy have become the only guaranteed losers.

In the year 680 AD, Hussein Ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet Mohammed and 70 of his followers confronted 1,500 fighters from the Umayyad Caliphate in present day Iraq. Hussein had embarked on a crusade to wrest control of the caliphate from his archrival Yazid I, only to be slaughtered along with his family. Hussein’s followers would eventually form the Shiite sect of Islam, and remain locked in a bitter rivalry with Yazid’s fellow Abu Bakr supporters, whose descendants comprise the Sunni sect.

Now, 1,332 years later, Hussein’s descendants are marching into Syria to fend off another onslaught in the historic territory of the Umayyad Dynasty. In recent months, Iran’s elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has become an important gear in Assad’s ever-resilient fighting machine, while Iranian currency and equipment continue to flow across Iraq to into Assad’s coffers. Meanwhile, Tehran has also begun to send in hundreds, if not thousands, of rank and file Basij militiamen – the notorious henchmen responsible for crushing Iran’s Green Revolution – to intimidate the opposition. In addition, reports indicate that Iranis dispatching members of Iraq’s notorious “Mahdi Army” – the foot soldiers of firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr – to do battle in Syria at the ayatollah’s behest.

The alliance between the Assad dynasty and the region’s Shiites is a classic example of realpolitik – Middle Eaststyle. Assad’s secretive Alawite minority is by no means similar to Shiism, having been branded as an offshoot of Islam following a politically-motivated fatwa (religious decree) issued by a prominent Lebanese cleric named Musa Sadr in the 1970s.

Foreign policy swamp

The fatwa enabled the Assads to stave off accusations of heresy from Syria’s majority Sunni population. In return, the Assad regime agreed to bolster Lebanon’s previously impoverished Shiites and Syria’s Alawites into the formidable force they are today. Today, the Shiite Hezbollah faction continues to return the favor, funneling its members into Syria to participate in hostilities, while even firing rockets previously aimed at Israel into rebel strongholds across the border.

This strategic alliance, born out of mutual fears of domination by the region’s Sunni majority, has placed Syria at the heart of Iran’s Shiite axis. Losing Assad would ultimately put Shiite rule in Lebanon and Iraq in jeopardy, and Iran on the defensive against a Sunni-Islamist surge backed by petrodollars from the Gulf Arab states and diplomatic cover from the West.

The Iranians now unabashedly admit their support for the world’s most isolated regime. Iran’s defense minister, Ahmad Vahidi said, “Syria is managing this situation very well on its own, but if the government can’t resolve the crisis on its own, then based on their request, we will fulfill our mutual defense-security pact.” It is well known that Vahidi’s defense pact is already in play. Farsi is now a common dialect spoken in Assad’s command centers, while Shiite holy warriors dispatched by Iran are fighting alongside Alawite militiamen in the alleyways of Aleppo.

In their eyes, Iran’s ayatollahs and Shiites across the region are as outnumbered in today’s Middle East as when Hussein confronted Yazid 1’s army in the eighth century. Under the patronage of Sunni powerhouses in the Arabian Gulf, radical jihadists are making their presence felt, determined to establish a Sunni Islamist state in the Levant. The growing rate of suicide bombings, beheadings, and persecution of religious minorities across Syria are further indicative that these radicals have stolen the show from a secular opposition long-abandoned by so-called “Friends of Syria” coalition in the West.

The apocalyptic scenario unfolding in Syria combined with anti-American protests gripping the rest of region are enough to turn the deserts of the Middle East into a foreign policy swamp for decision makers on both sides of the Atlantic. Disengagement, however, will only bring the specter of terrorism and instability closer than ever to Europe’s soft underbelly. In an age where the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction threatens global security, Syria’s continued position as an Iranian outpost is as threatening to the region as the prospect of Syria becoming an assembly line for Sunni jihadists.

In a conflict which will ultimately be determined by foreign support, the United States and its NATO allies must be religiously devoted to bolstering Syrian moderates. Only by matching the resolve of Assad’s allies with a fanatical commitment to secular and rational elements in the Syrian opposition, can the United States and its allies finally re-establish themselves as a major influence in the Middle East, and stop the age old battle of Karbala from wreaking havoc on the region for years to come.

The authors are intelligence managers and senior analysts at Max Security Solutions, a geo-political risk consulting firm based in Tel Aviv, Israel. They specialize in Middle East and North African affairs.