Archive for October 2012

Israel intelligence: Jihadi Attacks from Crumbling Syria

October 8, 2012

Israel intelligence: Jihadi Attacks from Crumbling Syria :: Gatestone Institute.

by Yaakov Lappin
October 8, 2012 at 4:30 am

Al-Qaeda-inspired terror organizations cannot be deterred. Once Assad falls, the radical elements can raid Syrian military bases, arm themselves with a range of devastating weapons, and turn their sights to the Israeli border.

As Israel’s military watches Syrian sovereignty crumble and scores of militant groups form in the resulting vacuum, it is on alert for jihadi terrorist attacks from Syria.

The working assumption in Israeli defense circles is that sooner or later, Assad will fall, and Israel will have to deal with whatever will replace him.

The topping of Basher Assad will break the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut axis, which has seen Syria act as the critical bridge linking Iran to Hezbollah.

Should Syria’s Sunni-majority succeed in putting together a new government, it will accurately view Iran and Hezbollah as aiders and abettors in the massacres perpetuated against tens of thousands of Sunni civilians who tried to overthrow Assad.

A Sunni Syria will, however, in turn take its place in a new radical Sunni bloc of Middle Eastern states, and link up with the Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt, Hamas in Gaza, and Islamist Turkey.

The new Sunni Islamist bloc will be every bit as hostile to Israel as the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis, but also marked, in Syria and Egypt, by instability and power vacuums that will allow Salafi jihadi groups to do as they please.

Whether Syria disintegrates into warring sectarian mini-states, or transforms itself into a Sunni Islamist state, the outlook for regional security is not especially sunny.

An illustration of how edgy the situation is can be found in an incident on the border in recent days: an IDF lookout identified dozens of armed Syrians in civilian clothing approach the Israeli border.

It was not immediately clear who the armed men were – were they rebels engaging the Syrian army (the civil war has gotten so close to the Israeli border that IDF soldiers are saying they can hear mortar shells explode in Syria), or were they militant Islamist forces testing the IDF’s response?

Taking no chances, the IDF evacuated the top of the popular Mount Hermon area, which, during the Jewish holiday season, is usually brimming with visitors.

Although the incident has passed, the danger has not; and the IDF’s Military Intelligence has predicted that an attempted attack on an Israeli target from one of the growing number of radical forces operating in Syria is only a matter of time.

Combat forces stationed in the IDF’s Northern Command, including infantry and armored divisions, have therefore been working closely with Military Intelligence to prepare for a rapidly changing environment.

Military Intelligence has been briefing commanders of Israeli armored vehicle brigades in the north on the new threats.

Gone are the days when the threat was primarily the centralized, hierarchical, Syrian army. Now, the threats are irregular terror militias armed with explosives, shoulder-held grenade launchers, roadside bombs, anti-tank missiles, and a range of firearms.

Once the intelligence is received, commanders on the ground must use the new information to create new contingency plans and new deployment patterns.

As the recent escalation between Turkey and Syria has demonstrated, the IDF must also continue to worry about the possibility of a confrontation with regular Syrian forces,.

With the Assad regime feeling its back to the wall, there is no way to know how the situation might proceed: decisions that now seem self-destructive from Syria’s perspective, such as creating provocations with neighbors, or even a misfired shell (as with Turkey), could set off a chain of unpredictable events.

Similarly, suspicious movement of Syria’s chemical weapons will spark a crisis.

To ensure that it can quickly mobilize its Artillery Corps to the Syrian front, the IDF held a surprise and vast live-fire exercise on the Golan Heights in recent weeks. During the drill, Artillery Corps soldiers were, without warning, airlifted from their routine security missions in the West Bank to the Golan Heights, where they assumed their positions and began firing at virtual targets.

The IDF is satisfied with the result of the drill: it proved to itself that it can quickly mobilize its heavy firepower and begin to shell targets at a moment’s notice.

Standing Arab armies were a bigger threat to Israel’s security, but because they were controlled by central governments, Israeli deterrence against that threat proved effective for decades.

Although the same deterrence is now in effect against terror organizations which have seized territory and power – Hamas and Hezbollah – the al-Qaeda-inspired terror organizations cannot be deterred. Once Assad falls, the radical elements can raid Syrian military bases, arm themselves with a range of devastating weapons, and turn their sights to the Israeli border.

So the Arab winter continues to take shape.

Israeli air, missile, artillery pound Gaza after massive Palestinian barrage

October 8, 2012

Israeli air, missile, artillery pound Gaza after massive Palestinian barrage.

DEBKAfile Special Report October 8, 2012, 10:21 AM (GMT+02:00)

 

Israeli warplanes, self-propelled artillery and short-range missiles attacked Hamas and Jihad Islami positions and command posts in the Gaza Strip early Monday, Oct. 8, shortly after Palestinians loosed a barrage of 55 missiles and mortar shells on the Eshkol district.

Both terrorist organizations claimed they were responsible for the barrage, which caused no casualties only heavy damage to property. As of now, Palestinian fire continues.
Casualties from the Israeli reprisal are reported in the Gaza Strip.

debkafile: Israel’s response was major because for the first time the two dominant organizations in Gaza, the radical Hamas and Iran-sponsored Jihad Islami, assumed responsibility for avenging an an Israeli attack on radical Salafist terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda. This attests to the comprehensive ties of operational collaboration forged between the diverse terrorist organizations fighting Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Sunday, Oct. 7, a targeted Israeli air strike critically injured two motorcyclists, members of al Qaeda-linked groups in the Rafah district of southern Gaza. Palestinian sources reported 11 people injured including five children.
Israel also suspects that the pilotless helicopter sent by Iran to breach Israeli air space Saturday, Oct. 6, which flew in from the Mediterranean over the Gaza Strip, was jointly orchestrated by Tehran, Hizballah and Hamas as part of a war exercise Hamas conducted in the Gaza Strip on that day.

Iran minister floats ‘trade-off’ in nuclear dispute

October 7, 2012

Iran minister floats ‘trade-off’ in nuclear dispute – Israel News, Ynetnews.

( Another stall?  Or are they finally beginning to crack? – JW )

FM Salehi tells Der Spiegel ‘if our right to enrichment is recognized, we will voluntary limit amount of our enrichment’

AFP

Published: 10.07.12, 17:35 / Israel News

The Iranian foreign minister has proposed a “trade-off” in the country’s stand-off with the West over its disputed nuclear program, in an interview with a German news magazine.European Union ministers are due to meet on October 15 when Britain, France and Germany will press for tougher sanctions on Iran’s energy sector and financial institutions.

In Monday’s edition of Der Spiegel, Ali Akbar Salehi reiterates that Iran has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and insists there is no proof it is conducting nuclear research for military ends.

However he said: “If our right to enrichment is recognized, we are ready for a trade-off. We would, on a voluntary basis, limit the amount of our enrichment.”

But he said in the interview published in German that Iran would need “the guaranteed supply” of appropriate fuels from abroad.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran would not back down on its nuclear drive despite the problems caused by Western sanctions, including a dramatic slide in the value of its currency.

Israeli Planes in ‘Mock Raids’ over Lebanon

October 7, 2012

Israeli Planes in ‘Mock Raids’ over Lebanon – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

The Air Force carried out “mock raids” over Lebanon, hours after Israel downed a drone, Lebanese media report. TV: Hizbullah launched it.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

First Publish: 10/7/2012, 11:40 AM

 

IAF F-16

IAF F-16
Israel news photo: Flash 90

The Air Force carried out “mock raids” at medium altitude over southern Lebanon Sunday, hours after Israel said all indications are that Hizbullah launched a drone that was downed inside Israel on Saturday, according to the Arabic language Nahar newspaper.

Israel previously has carried out surveillance flights over southern Lebanon, which is under control of the Hizbullah terrorist organization. Sunday’s flights, which have not been confirmed by Israel, apparently were a response to the drone.

A Lebanese television station stated that Hizbullah was responsible for the drone infiltration into Israel’s air space, while Iran’s propaganda machine tried to divert attention from Hizbullah and claim the drone Israel downed was mistakenly launched by the United States.

Hizbullah has not officially commented on the drone, which was destroyed by Israeli Air Force F-16 jets Saturday morning over a relatively unpopulated area.

However, Al-Mayadeen television, linked with Hizbullah, said the terrorist group launched the drone, which “traveled 100 kilometers deep inside Israel and sparked tensions.”

Iran’s government-controlled Press TV told Iranians that a former Lebanese general said that drone actually was mistakenly fired by the United States. The Ahmadinejad regime frequently tried to take the focus off accusations against Iran or its allies by blaming others for terrorist attacks.

“[The drone must have come] from an American aircraft carrier or from [air force and military bases in] Saudi Arabia, also American bases. That’s the only possibility so far until we know after investigation,” said retired Lebanese major general Hisham Jaber in an interview with the Iranian media outlet.

“Jaber maintained that although the Tel Aviv regime might accuse an Arab state, it was unlikely that the drone belonged to an Arab country,” Press TV reported.

“Considering the good relationship between the Israeli regime and Jordan, the analyst went on to say that he did not think the drone could have been operated from Jordan, adding that it is ‘impossible’ that the drone came from Lebanon,” it added.

“If Israel after investigation will remain silent and will close the file that means like we said it came from friendly side (mistakenly sent by the Americans) and it is not in their interest to talk about it,” Jaber concluded.

Netanyahu and Barak discuss response to UAV overflight

October 7, 2012

Netanyahu and Barak discuss response to UAV overflight.

DEBKAfile October 6, 2012, 9:42 PM (GMT+02:00)

Their recent political differences set aside, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak conferred urgently Saturday night on how Israel should respond to the unidentified pilotless helicopter’s incursion into Israeli air space during the day. They and IDF chiefs know exactly who sent the aircraft by satellite guidance over southern Israel and for what purpose, but are withholding the information from the public out of three considerations:
1. So as not to tie themselves down to any particular option;
2. In case they decide inaction is the better course for now;
3. To wait for word from Washington after fully briefing the White House on the event.

‘Israel could act solo against Iran within 6 to 8 months,’ says Shoval

October 7, 2012

Israel Hayom | ‘Israel could act solo against Iran within 6 to 8 months,’ says Shoval.

Israel Hayom columnist and former Ambassador to Washington Zalman Shoval: Israel believes it can succeed in a “solo” mission • EU mulls broader trade embargo against Iran • Netanyahu to meet European leaders, press them to stiffen punitive measures.

News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff
Satellite image of Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran.

|

Photo credit: AP

Iran and Nuclear Weapons in our Historic Times

October 7, 2012

Iran and Nuclear Weapons in our Historic Times | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

Noah Beck

We live in a historic time during which a few key decisions will have monumental consequences. Everyone who cares about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran should do what they can to make their concerns heard.

I wrote a fictional story in the hope that it would never become fact. Authoring The Last Israelis was, as an ordinary American, my best grassroots effort to impact the public debate on Iranian nukes and promote the policy changes needed to avert a calamity.

The premise of my cautionary tale about the perils of a nuclear Iran appears to be leaving the realm of fiction. The story begins with the Mossad urgently warning the Israeli Prime Minister that there is little time left to stop Iranian nukes militarily.
I wrote the novel to try to wake the world up before force becomes necessary. But the Obama administration – by trying to minimize the chances of a pre-election military blowup – is actually increasing the odds that Israel will act alone to stave off an existential threat, and the results will be far messier than if the US resolves the crisis decisively, with much bigger carrots and sticks than those employed thus far.

Instead, the US has been publicly distancing itself from an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program, effectively abandoning its most reliable ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently sent a dangerously counterproductive signal to Iran when he said, referring to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”

His statement isolates Israel on an issue that requires international unity and inappropriately connotes criminality with the word “complicit.” Reports then emerged that the US, through diplomatic back channels, had asked Iran not to attack the US should Israel choose to strike unilaterally.
To make matters worse, Obama has categorically refused to state the “red lines” that the Iranian nuclear program will not be allowed to cross. As if that weren’t bad enough, Obama didn’t meet with Netanyahu in New York this month to discuss the issue — even as he expects Netanyahu to trust him to handle one of the most serious threats to Israel since the state was founded. Rather than instilling confidence in Israel and projecting unity and strength to Iran, Obama’s actions leave Israel feeling more vulnerable and signal division and weakness to Iran.

The Wall Street Journal recently offered an excellent explanation for Israeli mistrust of this administration, “It’s one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It’s quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years.”

So what can concerned US citizens do? There are presidential elections coming up soon, but November may be too late.

In addition to my new book, I published some editorials on the menace of Iran’s nuclear program, and would encourage others to do the same and otherwise keep public attention focused on the issue. There are also worthy non-profits that are active on the Iranian nuclear issue and they are in need of support.

Most importantly, people who are concerned need to make their voices heard.

How Iran’s Bomb is Being Built While Obama Meets Jay-Z

October 7, 2012

How Iran’s Bomb is Being Built While Obama Meets Jay-Z – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

With the current disclosed rate of UF6 20% growth, Iran will have enough 20% U235 stock for more than one nuclear bomb’s worth of 90% U235 by this coming April 2013. Here’s how they did it and why Bibi was right – yes, soon they will be unstoppable.
Bibi’s bomb graphic and scrawled red line did what Obama will never do: Draw a red line for Iran’s nuclear program.

And while the bomb graphic wasn’t perfect, it was damn good, and got people’s attention to the fact that, as of now, the world has not any Iranian nuke red line.

In order to understand the Iran nuke red line debate, one must understand a couple of easy-to-understand principles of chemistry and physics upon which the uranium enrichment process is based. Then, one will have a better idea of what Bibi’s bomb graphic really meant, and what has to be done next.

As I have explained in earlier essays, natural uranium is composed of two main isotopes, U235 and U238. The heavier isotope U238 is bad for nuclear bombs in that it has relatively unreactive nucleus compared to its isotope cousin extremely reactive U235’s nucleus which has the same number of protons and three less neutrons. That’s why its atomic weight number 235 is three less than 238.

Those extra three neutrons in U238 make the uranium atomic nucleus incapable of a chain reaction necessary for a nuclear bomb. So the key to the uranium enrichment process is to isolate the U235 atoms, separate the U235 atoms and concentrate them in an ever higher concentrations. A concentration of 90% of U235 (or 10% U238) is necessary for use in a nuclear bombs. That’s why 90% U235 is called “weapons grade” uranium.

One needs about 40-50 kilograms of 90% uranium in metal form for one nuclear gun-type bomb. Metallic uranium is just like any other metal like gold or platinum.

So how does one actually enrich uranium? The natural uranium metallic low percentage U235 uranium is mixed with the element fluorine and made into a gas called uranium hexafluoride UF6. This is just fancy name that means there are six fluorine atoms bonded to one uranium atom. This UF6 gas is then spun in high-speed centrifuge in a series of connected high-speed centrifuges to make ever higher concentrations of U235 at each centrifuge. The way this is done is the centrifuge spins out the heavier U238 UF6 gas into the rim of the centrifuge leaving the lighter U235 UF6 gas in the core of the centrifuge.

In sum, U238 gas spins out to rim, U235 gas stays in core, U238 gas spins out to rim, and so on.

This higher concentration U235 UF6 gas in the center of the centrifuge is then sucked out of the core by a pipe and piped into the next centrifuge which repeats the process. By stringing a thousand centrifuges together in a series one after another, in this way, the core U235 UF6 gas which gets sucked out of the previous centrifuge, gets a little more concentrated every time it gets sucked out of a centrifuge.

The higher concentrated U238 UF6 gas in the rim of the centrifuge gets re-fed and cycled back into the enrichment cycle at an earlier stage. Little by little, the cascaded siphoned-off uranium U235 UF6 gas gets a higher and higher concentration of U235 until the enrichment operator hits his concentration goal.

Here’s how it progresses:

,
Centrifuge #1: In U235 UF6 20.00%, out U235 UF6 20.03%
Centrifuge #2: in U235 UF6 20.03%, out U235 UF6 20.05%
. . .
Centrifuge #1000: in U235 UF6 89.96%, out U235 UF6 90.00%
Then, the uranium element is isolated and chemically extracted from the high concentration U235 uranium hexafluoride UF6 gas, and is turned into a metal discs just like a gold ingot.

Since the UF6 gas had 90% of U235, the isolated and metalized uranium from this enriched gas has the same enrichment level of 90% U235 weapons grade uranium.

In August 2012, Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA expert, estimated that it would take Iran about “a couple of months” to run an Iranian stockpile of 20% U235 UF6 stock of about ” 300 kilograms-an amount sufficient, with additional enrichment, for more than one nuclear weapon.” This 300 kilograms of 20% U235 UF6 will boil down to enough 90% U235 for one bomb worth of U235.

As of August 30, 2012, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared Iran in open disclosed possession of 189.4 kilograms of 20% UF6 gas which was 43.8 kg more than Iran disclosed to the IAEA and published in its May 25, 2912 report.

This rate of 20% UF6 Iran stockpile growth means about 15 kilograms of UF6 20% U235 per month. If this rate is maintained, this growth rate will hit the Heinonen 300 kilogram U235 stock target in 8 months from August 30, 2012 or April 30, 2012.

This, of course, assumes Iran is not hiding any UF6 stock, which a weak assumption. But, with the current disclosed rate of UF6 20% growth, Iran will have enough 20% U235 stock to spin down to “more than” one nuclear bomb worth of 90% U235 by this coming April 2013.

The confusion in Bibi’s bomb graphic was Bibi’s use of 70% and 90% labels which could be confused with 70% and 90% enriched uranium. The reason this is confusing is no one enriches past 90%, so the Iranians would never cross the Bibi’s red line even if they were building a nuke.

What Netanyahu probably meant was not the percentage of uranium enrichment, but just simply how close the Iranians were to actually building a final nuclear bomb. So, Bibi’s meant if the Iranians are only 10 percent away from the bomb, then that’s a red line.

Maybe a football analogy would have been a little more accurate. So, if the Iranians are “goal-to-go,” then it’s time to forcibly stop Iran.

But Netanyahu was the man who stood on the UN podium, faced down the world that thinks “football means “soccer,” and Bibi got everybody’s attention with his great bomb graphic, so that is great, in and of itself. Who am I, or anybody, to complain?

However, the real problem is once the uranium gas or uranium metal has been enriched to a high concentration of U235, no amount of bombing (either conventional or nuclear) will destroy the highly enriched U235 uranium contained in the UF6 gas centrifuges, or stop the Iranians from easily recovering the highly enriched U235 uranium from the debris of the bombed out centrifuging works.

For example, in a conventional attack on Fordow which houses thousands of gas centrifuges built into cascading centrifuges, the attacking bombs will (assuming they make it through the concrete) blow up the gas centrifuge containers containing highly pressured UF6 gas. But the uranium UF6 gas will interact with the immediate atmosphere and do two things:

1) at the pressure and temperature of the bombed out building UF6 will turn from UF6 gas phase directly to UF6 solid phase without going through UF6 liquid phase (this is called de-subliming) and ultimately all the UF6 gas will 2) chemically interact with the water vapor contained in the atmosphere, and chemically produce uranyl fluoride UO2F2 which is a bright orange color solid powder which becomes yellow on contact with water.

This uranium powder still will have the relatively high concentration of U235. And this uranyl fluoride solid powder will be easily extracted from the bombed out Iranian nuclear facility debris. So, the Iranians will be able to recollect and recover almost all their highly-enriched U235 uranium from the bombed-out facility. The only thing they have to do is just build a new cascade centrifuge facility.

The terrible consequence of all of this is that the longer Iran is allowed to enrich uranium and stockpile the enriched U235, the shorter time there will be after any possible attack on Iran in which Iran can actually recover their enriched uranium and actually build a bomb.

Therefore, while Bibi’s bomb graphic was a great first step towards educating people about the need for a red line for Iran’s nuke program, it should be followed up with a clearer definition of what exactly is the level of enrichment of U235 would constitute a “clear, and present danger” to the world.

A good benchmark and starting point would be: how many kilograms of 20% U235 in the hands of Adolf Hitler in 1938 would have represented a “clear and present” danger to Western civilization so as to require military intervention. And, if Adolf Hitler had openly disclosed 189.4 kilograms of 20% UF6 gas in December 1939 would President Roosevelt have rejected an urgently requested meeting with Winston Churchill in favor of a shout-out with Jay-Z?

For more information, visit www.marklangfan.com.

The Unspoken Alliance: Israel and the House of Saud – Part II

October 7, 2012

israel today | Israel News | The Unspoken Alliance: Israel and the House of Saud – Part II – israel today | Israel News.

This is part two of a two-part series on the growing possibility of cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia. If you have not done so already, we recommend first reading The Unspoken Alliance: Israel and the House of Saud – Part I

Experts say Saudi Arabia is not being entirely forthcoming when it comes to relations, or even just strategic cooperation, with Israel.

“On the one hand, Saudis feel threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and Tehran’s hostile rhetoric, so they might turn a blind eye to an Israeli strike [that uses Saudi airspace to reach Iran],” argued Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Caryle Murphy. “On the other hand, supporting an Israeli attack on a fellow Muslim nation would provoke an outcry among Muslims.”

Dr. F. Gregory Gause, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Doha Institute, discounted the possibility of overt cooperation, but added that “some in the Saudi top echelons would certainly be happy with an Israeli strike, [while] others are more cautious about the potential consequences for Saudi Arabia, with Iranian threats to retaliate against the Gulf states and American interests there”.

Gause was also skeptical of any meaningful cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia: “I don’t see any short-term possibilities here. [However,] it is possible that, in the wake of the fall of Bashar al-Assad (if that happens), there might be some covert communications about a campaign against Hezbollah,” which is widely viewed as Iran’s regional agent, one of whose missions is to undermine Saudi allies in Lebanon and further afield.

American analyst Mitchell Bard believes a reluctance to talk to Israel is dictated by Saudis’ general tendency to opt for cooperation only in matters that concern the regime’s survival. “The Saudis will side with Israel only if it helps them to stay in power. Communications on any other levels are very unlikely, due to the anti-Semitic nature of the kingdom,” he stated, noting that drawing closer to the Jewish state would only be feasible if the Saudi authorities were pressured by the US or in the case of a younger and more liberal administration coming to power.

Indeed, with a school curriculum that promulgates hatred towards Jews, normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel seems a distant hope.

In 2011, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom reported that Saudi schoolbooks continued to promote anti-Jewish sentiment and encouraged war against the so-called “pigs and apes”, a common Muslim reference to Jews.

The report found that the danger of such a curriculum was acute because of its global reach. “Five million Saudi students are exposed to [it] in Saudi classrooms each year. Moreover, as the controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam, Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials among the millions of Muslims making the hajj [Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca] each year… [Whereas the country’s] oil wealth… enables it to disseminate its textbooks far and wide”.

Radical religious materials are distributed by a vast Saudi-sponsored network to Muslim schools, mosques and libraries throughout the world. The curriculum “is followed by most of the 19 international academies founded in major world cities by the Saudi government, each of which is chaired by the local Saudi ambassador,” the report continued.

Saudi support for extremism, however, is deemed to be counter-productive.

“This [radical] approach backfired,” said Murphy, referring to terrorist activities against Saudi and foreign targets that began in the mid-1990s and intensified in the 2000s.

Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum, a leading expert on modern Middle Eastern history at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, agreed, saying that the government in Riyadh has since learned to be very cautious about support for extremists.

“The Saudis are against hardliners, because after seizing power, they always try to depose such totalitarian regimes like the Saudi royal family,” he argued.

Yet, despite changing its stance on Islamists, Saudi policy towards Israel remains intact. But Murphy rebuffed the claim, insisting that the kingdom was among the first Middle Eastern countries open to talk to Israel.

To back it up, the journalist referred to the peace plan promoted by then-Crown Prince Fahd bin Abd al Aziz (1981) and years later by the current leader Abdullah (2002).

The initiatives – both endorsed by the Arab League – stated that Saudi Arabia was willing to formalize relations with Israel (and even encourage other Arab states to follow suit), if Israel withdrew from the territories conquered in 1967 and established an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as its capital. The plans also called on the Jewish state to solve the issue of Palestinians who fled the country during the 1948 war (the so-called “Palestinian refugees”), as well as cease all settlement activity in what it called the “occupied territories”.

“Israel hasn’t done anything to address these issues,” argued Murphy. “For the past 60 years it has been the same problem, nothing has changed”.

Teitelbaum disagreed and stressed Saudi reluctance to negotiate. “The Saudis pushed for serious Israeli concessions. It was a take-it-or-leave-it plan. While Israel wanted to negotiate the terms, the Saudis were reluctant to do so,” he noted, charging that Saudi Arabia would probably be the last country to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

Teitelbaum’s comments are backed by several historical instances. In 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he would go to the Arab League summit to discuss the plan, but was never invited. The Saudis were also reluctant to visit Jerusalem despite multiple invitations from the Israeli side.

However, this posturing is nothing new. During Jimmy Carter’s tenure, the Saudis tried to sabotage the Israel-Egypt peace treaty after receiving the sought-after sophisticated aircraft from the US. A similar situation occurred during the debate over the sale of AWACS radar planes. Initially, the Saudis announced a peace plan and then, when the deal was sealed, some of the country’s clerics called for a jihad against Israel.

Analyzing the root of the problem, Gause pointed at Arab public opinion as a determining factor: “[Saudi Arabia and Israel] certainly share common enemies, and have a common great power ally.  But there are also lots of things standing in the way.  Saudi public opinion is as anti-Israeli as the public opinion in other Arab states.  There is no real up-side politically, in terms of the domestic scene, for any Saudi leader to move toward Israel publicly.  The one thing that could change that somewhat would be an Israeli-Palestinian final status agreement based on the two-state solution.  That might open the field for a Saudi embassy in Israel.  But that seems very far off right now.”

With no peace in sight and the Iranian nuclear threat constantly looming, Israel might soon confront another issue — Saudi Arabia’s atomic ambitions.

A senior Saudi defense official noted in January 2012 that “we cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don’t … If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit.”

Murphy sees this stance as driven by necessity, not choice. “Saudi Arabia doesn’t want a nuclear bomb and has been advocating a nuclear-free Middle East for quite a long time. The Saudi leaders prefer to invest their money in other more important fields but if Iranians end up obtaining a bomb, the kingdom will probably follow suit,” she stated, conceding that Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the necessary human resources (including scientists and engineers) to carry out such a project.

However, if the kingdom is so prone to panic attacks over Iran’s nuclear drive, why didn’t it pursue the nuclear arms race, given its money and influence?

“I think that the American connection is the answer,” said Gause. “Saudi proliferation might lead to a break between Washington and Riyadh, and the Saudis would think many times over before taking that course.  It might happen, if Iran does weaponize, but so far the Saudis do not seem to be taking any public steps to develop their own nuclear infrastructure”.

Bard shared Gause’s view, but added that the Saudis were also afraid to provoke the ire of Jerusalem.

But what if Israel does attack and even manages to eliminate Iran (at least temporarily) as a regional nuclear player? Would it untie Saudi hands, prompting them to pursue their own hegemonic ambitions more aggressively? Experts are divided.

Teitelbaum believed dis-empowering Iran would definitely bolster Saudi hegemony in the Gulf (something that the US and Israel would probably support). While Bard argued the kingdom was more interested in its own survival rather than hegemonic ambitions.

Whatever the case, the removal of the Iranian threat (if it does happen) might force Saudi leaders to look for another “punching bag”. This could be Israel.

But there is a ray of hope.

In April, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that a Saudi general “hesitatingly and conditionally” courted Israel in an article published in the American military magazine Joint Force Quarterly.

The prince-general Naef Bin-Ahmed Al-Saud “praised President Shimon Peres” and called for “encouraging Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs to get to know each other at least initially over the Internet while discussing sports, photography and other common interests – including peace prospects.”

The paper also quoted him as saying that “Saudi Arabia… wants very much to learn the lessons of last summer’s protests in Israel, as well as those of the riots in Britain in August… The Kingdom’s leadership has been observing developments in Israel as a test of social media’s effectiveness in organizing non-violent protest to create significant shifts in security and economic policy”.

Will it pave the way to any communication between Riyadh and Jerusalem? Time will tell…

Israeli planes trigger sonic booms over Lebanon in possible response to drone dispatch

October 7, 2012

Israeli planes trigger sonic booms over Lebanon in possible response to drone dispatch | The Times of Israel.

Hezbollah neither confirms nor denies it sent the unmanned aircraft downed over Israel

October 7, 2012, 10:56 am

Israeli planes flew into Lebanese air space and broke the sound barrier Sunday, causing sonic booms, Lebanese media reported.

 

The sortie appeared to be in response to the infiltration of Israeli air space Saturday by a drone Israeli officials suspect was launched by the Lebanon-based terror organization Hezbollah.

 

The booms were audible Sunday in several locations in Lebanon, according to the report from Lebanon’s official National News Agency.

 

Israel’s air force shot the drone down north of Beersheba. It had penetrated deep into Israeli airspace and flown for half an hour before it was intercepted.

 

After an initial investigation, military officials said the unmanned aerial vehicle did not come from the Gaza Strip, leading the army to consider the possibility that it originated in Lebanon. Hezbollah has flown drones into Israeli airspace a few times in the past, though not for several years. Hezbollah neither confirmed or denied responsibility.

 

IDF Spokesperson Yoav Mordechai said that Israel’s air force was able to identify the drone while it was flying over the Mediterranean, and tracked it throughout its flight over Israel until the decision was made to shoot it down over an unpopulated area.

 

Nobody was hurt in the incident.

 

Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, said Israeli systems on the ground alerted the air force to the drone Saturday morning. She said it flew over the Gaza Strip but did not originate from the Palestinian territory, adding that Israel did not know the drone’s starting point and an investigation was under way.

 

Leibovich did not give more details, but Israel media reported that it might have been an intelligence-gathering drone that was not carrying explosives.

 

Leibovich said the operation was successful and the military was in control throughout.

 

“We had monitoring contact from the ground and from the air. We alerted jet planes that escorted the unmanned aerial vehicle and due to some operational considerations we decided to intercept the unmanned aerial vehicle in the northern Negev area, which has no population,” Leibovich said.

 

Leibovich would not elaborate how the unmanned vehicle was brought down. She said troops were searching for debris.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the IDF for its successful interception. “We will continue to protect our land, sea and air borders on behalf of the citizens of Israel,” he said.

 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, meanwhile, commented on the gravity of the incident, saying that Israel’s leaders “view this incident of attempting to enter Israeli airspace very severely and we will consider our response later.”

 

Earlier unconfirmed Palestinian reports had stated that the drone came from the Gaza Strip. The IDF ruled this out.

 

The launch of a drone from Gaza would have been an unprecedented intrusion into Israel from the Hamas-controlled Strip. Hamas and other terrorist organizations have fired thousands of rockets into Israel in recent years, and Hamas constantly strives to improve its military capabilities, extending its rockets’ range, and seeking to acquire anti-aircraft capacities that would constrain the air force’s freedom of movement over Gaza.

 

Several Hezbollah drones have crossed over into Israeli airspace in recent years. In November 2004, the Islamist group flew a reconnaissance drone, the “Mirsad 1,” into Israel for the first time. It was not shot down by the IDF.

 

In April 2005, the group flew another “Mirsad” drone into Israel airspace. This one, too, was not intercepted.

 

In the 2006 war, Hezbollah launched an Iranian-made drone capable of carrying explosives into Israel, and it was shot down. Another one launched two years earlier crashed in the Mediterranean.