WarSclerotic

Israeli plans to attack Iran | Vestnik Kavkaza.

by Peter Lyukimson, Israel. Exclusively for VK

Israeli political observers agreed in early September that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scrapped plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012.

Political analysts believe that the decision was made in the light of tensions between him and US President Barack Obama. The government, Israeli military authorities acknowledged the wise position of the US, confident that such operation carried out without US and NATO support would be destined to fail and could worsen the position of Israel in the region. Analysts do not rule out that all talks about a possible attack were necessary for Israel to pass harsher sanctions against Iran and gain guarantees that the US and Israel would destroy Iranian nuclear facilities when the point of no return is reached and nuclear bomb creation becomes inevitable. Netanyahu achieved the goals at a certain extent. Sanctions got harsher and, although Obama has given no guarantees about the point of no return, he is being pressurized by the US society to give a promise.

One of the most informed Israeli journalists Yossi Melman listed five reasons why Israel would not attack Iran before the presidential polls.

1. Israel will have autumn holidays lasting about a month. All governmental and civil work in the country will be “paralyzed”, making a strike at that period when everyone is having time off is pointless.

2. Netanyahu will visit the US in late September to attend the UN General Assembly and meet Barack Obama personally. It would be foolish to expect an attack during his visit to the US or his return.

3. Israel and the US plan joint military drills in October. Israel would most likely want to keep the plans in force.

4. Netanyahu has no need for approval by the Cabinet majority to make a strike on Iran. In other words, the government would not want to take such responsibility and the prime minister would not want to take it alone either.

5. Israel acknowledged that, despite intensification of nuclear bomb developments in Iran, the country will not construct it in late 2012.

Melman says that there will be no strike until November 4. What will happen after the US elections is uncertain.

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next 2 months is still possible. There are facts proving the idea.

1. In his New Year speech for the Likud Party (Rosh Hashanah), former head of the parliamentary commission for foreign affairs and defenses Tzachi Hanegbi said that the prime minister would need to make a hard decision in the following 50 days and expressed hope that it would be the right one. He reminded that there would be a price to pay for attacking Iran. But if Israel neglects the Iranian nuclear bomb, there will still be a price to pay. Hanegbi reminded that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had warned against allowing Israeli opponents to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Hanegbi is a notable figure in Israel. He was one of the most authoritative politicians of Likud for years, but he joined the Kadima Party of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He returned to Likud and became a close associate of Netanyahu. Hanegbi is also notable for speaking for an attack on Iran.

2. Israel continues expanding the Iron Dome air defense system, setting anti-air systems in various parts of the country.

3. Before the autumn holidays, Israeli state structures held an off-schedule session, opening 16 coordination points for the structures. They have been filled. Moreover, candidates for coordinators were selected without a start of open contests for the positions.

4. Outraged by leakage of information from the government, Netanyahu ordered all ministers to be checked with truth verifier machines to find the leaker.

5. US intelligence services started drills on prevention of attacks on Israel and Jewish community leaders, should Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Thus, the facts speaking for an attack on Iran are just as convincing as the contrary facts. The current Israeli government will most likely stick with the crossroad. Hanegbi was doubtlessly right when he said that any decision will need a very high price to be paid by Israel and primarily by its citizens.

 

Former Ambassador: Israel Alone Again, As Usual – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Zalman Shoval

Flash 90

Israelis need to get used to the idea that they are alone when it comes to dealing with Iran – and that they should not expect that the U.S. will fight Israel’s battles for it. In an interview with Arutz Sheva, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval said that Israeli and U.S. interests diverged when it came to Iran. “We need to get used to the fact that, as usual, we are alone,” he said.

The current situation, he said, was reminiscent of the situation before the Six Day War, when Israel received no support from the U.S. – and indeed, was told point-blank by the Johnson administration that if Israel took the initiative and actively attacked Egypt, it would have to suffer the consequences itself, despite the fact that Egypt committed an act of war by closing off the Straits of Tiran.

The U.S., he said, will stand behind Israel if it appears necessary – if Israel, for example, appears to be losing – but when it comes to decisions on how to defend itself, Israel should not expect the U.S. to make recommendations.

The U.S. interest in the events in the Midldle East surrounding Iran go far beyond Israel’s concerns over a nuclear-armed Iran, Shoval said. Until the election, the question of how an Israeli attack will affect his campaign is the number one interest of U.S. President Barack H. Obama, but Obama finally seems to have decided that he needs to take care of America’s economy, Shoval said – and if reelected, that domestic agenda will be far more important to him than a nuclear Iran.

With that, he added, the U.S. understands that it must act to prevent Iran from going nuclear – not necessarily to save Israel, but to save its strategic position in the world, and in the Middle East in particular Eventually the U.S. will act, he said – but by the time the U.S. is ready to move, it may be too late. “The U.S. wants to put off the confrontation for a year or two, but every delay gives the Iranians another advantage,” Shoval said.

In the end, he added, it will be up to Israel to decide what is best for its interests. “Of course, we must do this in a way that does not dismiss or disdain our friendship with the U.S.,” he added.

Obama and Netanyahu shadowbox on Iran ahead of final round Sept 28.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 11, 2012, 8:49 AM (GMT+02:00)

At odds – but still talking

The wrangling over Iran between the offices of the US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, has been reduced essentially to a battle for the agenda of their meeting in New York on Sept. 28: Netanyahu will be pressing for a US commitment to military action if Iran crosses still-to-be-agreed red lines, while the White House rejects red lines – or any other commitment for action – as neither necessary nor useful.
Israel’s latest rebuttal came Monday, Sept. 10 from former Military Intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin, who argued that even without agreed red lines, Israel was quite capable of coping with its enemies without the United States.

The sparring appeared to have reached a point of no return, leaving Obama and Netanyahu nothing more to discuss. However, just the opposite is true. For both leaders their upcoming tête-à-tête is vital. It is the US president’s last chance to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program before he faces the American voter on Nov. 6, while the prime minister will not forego any opportunity to harness the US to this attack. He needs to prove – not just to the anti-war camp ranged against him at home, but also to assure the military – which has been falsely reported as against an attack – that he bent over backward to procure US backing.
Netanyahu does not feel that even if he fails to talk Obama around (more likely than not), he has lost American support; he counts on the US Congress to line up behind Israel’s case for cutting down a nuclear Iran which is sworn to destroy the Jewish state, as well as sections of the US public and media and some of he president’s Jewish backers, including contributors to his campaign chest.
Those are only some of the reasons why the last-ditch US-Israeli summit cannot be avoided and indeed may be pivotal – both for their participants’ personal political destinies,and for the Middle East at large.
debkafile’s Washington and political sources disclose that their dialogue will have two levels according to current planning:

1. In New York, Obama and Netanyahu will try and negotiate a common framework;
2. At the Pentagon in Washington, defense chiefs Leon Panetta and Ehud Barak will be standing by to render any agreements reached in New York into practical, detailed plans which would then be referred back to the two leaders for endorsement.

The heated dispute between US and Israeli officials over “red lines” was therefore no more than sparring over each of the leaders’ starting-points for their New York dialogue and therefore their agenda and final understandings. Behind the clash of swords, US and Israeli diplomats are working hard to negotiate an agreed starting point. They are putting just as much effort into preventing the row deteriorating into a total rupture before Sept. 28.

Netanyahu discussed another red line Monday when he interviewed President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, their first meeting in three months. Although the Israeli presidency is a largely titular function, Peres has elected himself senior spokesman for the opponents of an Israeli military operation against Iran.

While their advisers sought to establish agreed lines between them ahead of Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, debkafile reports that the confrontation between the two Israeli politicians ended inconclusively, because Peres kept on demanding that the prime minister bend to the will of the White House.

Canadians in Iran faced ‘very real’ threat, officials warn – The Globe and Mail.

Barak: War – only as a last resort – Israel News, Ynetnews.

( “Bah… bah…. SNARL!! Ooops… Bah… bah…” – JW )

Defense minister continues to pursue moderate tone on possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities; says government must exhaust all other options before launching a military campaign

Neri Brenner

Defense Minister Ehud Barak once again took a more moderate approach over the possibility of a military strike against Iran.

Speaking at a ceremony to mark the upcoming New Year at the Tel Nofbase Barak told the soldiers: “The political echelons see it as their responsibility to ensure that if wars can be postponed we will do so, we will make sure that if we go to war it is after all other options have been exhausted.”

Barak added: “We do not live in Western Europe or North America, this is a tough environment…and hostile forces surround us.”

“The State of Israelin general and the air force in particular…need and must be prepared at all times; sharp, determined and accurate so that if we are forced to act, we will do so successfully. We, me included, as well as senior commanders and Israeli civilians put out trust in you knowing that if the need to act arises, you will act and obtain victory.”

Barak’s statements follow additional moderate statements which he has recently made vis-à-vis Iran.

Last Thursday Barak commendedthe US preparedness in the Persian Gulf saying: “We cannot ignore the Americans’ impressive readiness for dealing with the Iranian challenge,” noting that the US is deploying forces in the Persian Gulf, a measure of “utmost importance.”

IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz also attended the ceremony during which he said: “We will not hesitate to act and do the work we are required to do, be it Gaza…or any other field.”

‘Hezbollah aiming 60-70 thousand … JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

Israel, U.S. at odds over ‘red line’ for Iran – The Washington Post.

By Joel Greenberg, Updated: Monday, September 10, 7:22 PM

JERUSALEM — Despite attempts to align their positions on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel and the United States are publicly at odds over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest demand that Washington set clear “red lines” beyond which it would launch a military attack.

Netanyahu reiterated that demand Sunday at the weekly meeting of his cabinet, urging world powers to “set moral and practical red lines for Iran” that he said could stop its “race to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

The call appeared to be rebuffed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who when asked whether Washington would lay out such “red lines” or spell out the consequences for Iran of failing to reach agreement with world powers by a certain date, replied: “We’re not setting deadlines.”

Clinton, who spoke in an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Sunday, added that the United States has “always said every option was on the table, but we believe in the negotiation” coupled with stepped-up sanctions to influence Iran to change course.

“It’s a very challenging effort to get them to move in a way that complies with their international obligations,” Clinton said. “But we believe that is still by far the best approach to take at this time.”

Netanyahu has repeated his demand for an ultimatum to Iran several times in recent days, arguing that only such a firm stance has a chance of swaying Tehran and averting a military confrontation. His position reflects a sense of urgency projected by the Israeli leadership, which views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has warned that time is running out as Iran’s nuclear facilities approach a “zone of immunity,” protected in underground bunkers invulnerable to Israeli attack.

Netanyahu’s demands, which he says are under discussion with Washington, sparked a heated exchange last month between him and Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, according to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who was present and gave his account of the meeting. Rogers said Netanyahu was “at wit’s end” with what the Israeli leader sees as a lack of U.S. resolve to take military action if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Shapiro has denied that there was such an exchange.

Explaining Netanyahu’s stance, a senior Israeli official said that “the prime minister strongly believes that the Iranians have to be given clarity.”

“Only if the Iranians are presented with a crystal clear dilemma, that unless they stop there will be consequences, and those consequences will be grave, do you have any hope of succeeding,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly. “If the Iranians believe they have wiggle room, there will be no change in their behavior.”

Barak said after a meeting last week with Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that there were “differences” between Washington and Israel and that “the clock is ticking at a different pace for each of us.”

Clinton voiced a similar assessment in the Bloomberg radio interview. “They’re more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they’re right in the bull’s-eye, so to speak,” she said, referring to the Israelis. “But we’re convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation.”

There was no response from Netanyahu’s office to Clinton’s statements, but Dore Gold, a former U.N. ambassador who has advised the prime minister, told Israel Radio that the remarks meant that the United States faced “a serious problem” in stopping Iran because of the lack of a “concrete threat.”

“There are differences in approach here,” he said of the views in Washington and Jerusalem, “and they are deep.”

No Red Lines: Another US Rejection of Israel’s Security Concerns on Iran | JewishPress.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks to the 2011

Over the last two weeks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been repeatedly calling for the U.S. and the international community to set “clear red lines” for Iran. Just this weekend, for example, he made this demand no less than three separate times.

It seems that Netanyahu is practically begging for the U.S. to give Israel an out from having to strike Iran on its own;  some kind of guarantee that if it doesn’t the U.S. will or at least some deterrent factor which will cause Iran to slow down its nuclear program.

Otherwise, it seems, Israel will have no choice but to strike, something the U.S. does not look favorably upon.

This morning’s news seemed to bear good tidings for Netanyahu’s “clear red lines” campaign. In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last night, Netanyahu said that the U.S. and Israel were currently discussing the issue of red lines.

(The host asked: ”Who do you think would follow Canada with some kind of red line?” Netanyahu answered: “Well, we’re discussing this right now with the United States.” Here’s the video.)

The implication being that such red lines might be set, and Israel could thereby avoid or at least push off the agonizing decision of whether, when and how to strike Iran’s nuclear program.

The Jerusalem Post ran with the story, providing the following lead headline this morning: ”PM: Israel discussing red lines for Iran with US“. But by 9:30 the Post replaced the lead headline with an almost opposite report from Bloomberg News: “Clinton: US ‘not setting deadlines’ for Iran.”

Apparently, the U.S. Secretary of State also gave an interview yesterday on the same topic, spoiling any positive implications Israelis could glean from the fact that such discussions were taking place.  Clinton was asked whether the U.S. will set any “sharper red lines” for Iran and answered, “We’re not setting deadlines” for Iran and said that negotiations are the best way to resolve the situation.

This is yet another public rejection by the U.S. of Israel’s position on Iran’s nuclear program. It comes shortly after the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that he and the U.S. by extension, “don’t want to seem complicit if they [Israel] choose to strike.”

If only this were some public facade meant to utterly confuse the Iranians as the U.S. secretly prepared to fulfill its responsibility as leader of the free world and protect its own interests by striking Iran.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that the Obama administration is still clinging to the naive belief that if America is respected enough and patient enough, and puts enough distance between itself and Israel, the international community will line up behind it (or in front of it, according to the “lead from behind” strategy”), and Iran will willingly give up the one thing that will make it immune from foreign intervention and give it the chance to create that “new international order” the Ayatolla was talking about.

This approach has failed.

The 120 countries and the U.N. Secretary General who participated in the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Tehran proved that the international community is not lined up behind the U.S. and that Iran is not diplomatically isolated.

The negotiations between the Permanent Members of the Security Council and Germany (the “P5+1”) and Iran dragged on and on, went no where and all the while Iran sped up its nuclear program, doubling the number of centrifuges at its nuclear facility buried in a mountain near Qom.

Sanctions might have had time to work had Obama had gotten moving with them at the start of his presidency instead of chasing the holy grail of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord (starting even before Israel held its own elections by dispatching George Mitchell to Israel) and apologizing to the Muslim world with his “address on a new beginning” at Cairo University in which he recognized Iran’s “right to access” nuclear energy.

Aside from more time for sanctions, for the soft-power approach to work, it also would have needed to be backed up by the threat of hard power: a credible military threat, something Israel has long demanded. To be credible that threat would have to have some trigger point, e.g., those “clear red lines” that Netanyahu is begging for but which Clinton said yesterday the U.S. would not set.

That American refusal to give Israel any kind of hard guarantee or to make it clear to Iran that it will not be allowed to continue with its nuclear program, makes it very hard for Israel to justify not striking Iran which would essentially sub-contract Israel’s right of self-defense to the United States.

Presidential Polls, Israel, and Iran’s Nuclear Ambition.

( Breitbart is an extreme right wing journal. – JW )

Breitbart

As the Romney-Ryan ticket inches ahead in the polls, one of the little noticed implications just may be the avoidance, at least for a time, of World War III.

World War III? How does that work?

According to high-level U.S. intelligence sources, Israel will likely unilaterally launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and is basing the timing of that strike, in part, on the U.S. presidential election. Sources say Israel is more likely to consider delaying the strike until spring if they are optimistic that there will be a leadership change in Washington.

An article in the Israeli National News in early August suggested that the Israeli political and military leadership, in order to put Tehran’s experiments with atomic playthings out of business, is prepared to unleash a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) against Iran sometime this fall by exploding a nuclear device high above the Iranian desert. Such a strike would send intense electromagnetic radiation over as much as 1,000 square miles, frying Iran’s electrical grid and bring its oil business, transportation, defense capabilities and most everything else that operates electronically to a grinding halt.

Nobody would be injured, radiation would stay in the stratosphere, and the Iranians wouldn’t know anything had happened until they flipped on the lights. In short order, food supplies would be consumed and would perish; all forms of communications would be out of business; transportation would stop; and the country would undergo economic collapse. That would just be the collateral damage. The real benefit, for Israel, would be that Iran’s uranium-enriching centrifuges would be frozen solid for years to come.

An added benefit? Retaliation by Iran would be minimal, as its airplanes would be grounded, missiles stuck in their silos, even military vehicles rendered useless. Of course, Israel would likely be attacked by Iran’s non-state proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, but sources that are familiar with Israeli defenses say they could defend themselves against such attacks to a great extent, and damage would be controllable.

Israel would certainly count on its closest ally for support in defending itself against such an attack – another reason why it might be more likely to strike before the US election. To ensure continued support from Jewish donors and voters, Obama would be hard-pressed to deny support to Israel shortly before November 6.

It would be a first, all right – the first nuclear strike since August, 1945, the first to start a war, and the first time an Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapon has departed science fiction and entered reality.

Washington intelligence hands experienced in Mid East politics tell me that this is no pipe dream.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, barring some miraculous about face on the part of the regime in Tehran, are prepared to take the unilateral decision to launch a strike. And sources say an Israeli strike would not end with the EMP:

For lasting effect, I believe there will be a decapitation aspect to the target set: not just the political leadership but also the scientific community and the command structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). If the Israelis can manage to find a series of individual cars in the midst of rush hours in various cities and put limpets on them to blow up particular scientists, they can find the houses where they live and strike them. Cutting off the heads of lots of snakes.

The Israelis are famous for being as creative as anybody in their understanding of warfare and use of innovative techniques. A 1980s bombing raid, in other words, is no longer the go-to weapon in the country’s arsenal; instead look for multiple tactics, from special operations and undercover attacks, cyber warfare, industrial sabotage to unexpected explosions and unexplained accidents.

But back to those Obama-Romney polls. Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama and is convinced that if Obama is re-elected Israel will be in for very tough times—if it will even survive—and that the US would do little or nothing to prevent Iran from arming itself with nukes. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November.”  So if it looks like Obama is pulling ahead in the polls, off goes the Israeli Jericho III missile and boom goes its 750kg nuclear device.

The matter was exacerbated last week when the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog of nuclear activity in Iran, reported that Tehran has doubled the number of centrifuges churning out nuclear fuel in bunkers far below the ground over the past year despite pressure from the West. And suspicion of Tehran’s intentions only increases as it continues to deny UN inspectors into its nuclear sites.

Israel recognizes, according to Ilan Berman, Vice President of the right-leaning American Foreign Policy Council and an expert on Israel-Iranian relations, that it is now on its own, and that if it is going to interfere with Tehran’s nuclear intentions it will have to do so itself. Further, says Berman, Israeli politicians are realistic enough to know that whatever they do, they are unlikely to shut Tehran’s nuclear program down – or diminish Iran’s nuclear ambitions — but will more likely delay the venture for an undetermined number of years.

It is during that window, while Iran rebuilds whatever the Israelis destroyed, that they think they’d get more help from a Republican Administration in Washington than from Obama.

So, according to one of my US intelligence sources, “while the digital age may have rendered moon phases obsolete, my old training still has me paying attention to dark nights – try the  moonless 15-17th of both September and October. But who knows?”

Mr. Regnery is the former President of Regnery Publishing, was Publisher of The American Spectator, and served in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department.

THE DAILY STAR :: News :: Middle East :: Israeli attack on Iran may rely less on surprise, more o

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shakes hands with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle during their meeting at his office in Jerusalem on September 9, 2012. Westerwelle said, during his visit to Israel, that a nuclear-armed Iran was “not an option” as he called on Tehran to hold “substantial negotiations” over its controversial atomic programme. AFP PHOTO/ABIR SULTAN/POOL