WarSclerotic

Articles: Some Tentative Achievements Israel Scored with Pillar of Defense.

By Dov Fischer

There is room for doubt regarding the “ceasefire” that has been announced in Israel’s effort to eradicate the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.  Israel may well have been better-served to have continued doing what it was doing, and the depiction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as peacemakers, while murderers dance in the streets of Gaza, is no cause for joy.  On the other hand, an Israeli ground incursion would have added peril for many of her boys, and we have no right sitting in America to criticize Israel for choosing not to imperil her boys.  Furthermore, the question — whose honest answer we never will know — is: “What were Israel’s military objectives in this battle?”

If the objective was to put Hamas out of business once and for all, then this operation was a failure for Israel.  Likewise, if the goal was to make it impossible for Hamas to continuing to launch rockets into Southern Israel, then this operation would seem to have been pointless.  Hamas will continue shooting rockets into Sderot.  They still are doing so, albeit sporadically, even at the time of this writing.  However, if Israel had other objectives, under a smokescreen of putting Hamas out of business, then Israel may have achieved its goals effectively.  To wit:

Israel may have succeeded in completely knocking out all long-range Fajr-5 missiles, capable of reaching Tel Aviv, that Hamas had smuggled in from Iran these past few years.  This would reduce the number of Israelis subject to missile fire from 3.5 million people to under 1 million.  It also would protect the nation’s most vital infrastructure from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

Israel may have succeeded completely in testing the effectiveness of her Iron Dome defensive batteries in actual wartime conditions for the purpose of upgrading perceived flaws, thereby better understanding how to protect cities in her south like Ashkelon and Ashdod and points north to Jerusalem.  In addition, Israel may have used this real-time combat testing to influence and augment how she further develops the “Chetz” (“Arrow”) and “David’s Sling” defense systems she now is refining and constructing to defend against middle-range and long-range rockets.  These systems parallel the Iron Dome’s efforts aimed at defending against shorter-range rockets.

Israel may have succeeded completely, in advance of a possible future attack against Iranian nuclear capabilities, in testing theories that (i) for all its bluster, Egypt will not join a military conflagration that could result in military disaster for Egypt and thereby in an outraged and humiliated Egyptian Army leadership conducting a coup to seize political control from the Muslim Brotherhood civilian leadership that supplanted them; and (ii) for all its bluster, Hezb’allah may not be poised presently to attack Israel.

Israel may have succeeded completely in sending a message to Iran that Israel is capable of striking and ready to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary, and — at least for the next two years — Iran no longer can rely on Hamas and Egypt on Israel’s western front to step up with sufficient support in a military conflict with Iran that would divert Israeli air power and defenses from focusing on Iran.

Israel may have cut a deal secretly with Clinton and Obama that includes our country now gaining access to strategic military lessons learned by Israel from this conflagration, and Israel gaining significant new funding towards (i) placing several more Iron Dome batteries into operation to blanket Israel’s skies more thoroughly, (ii) enhancing the research and development of “Chetz” and “David’s Sling,” and possibly (iii) offsetting some or much of Israel’s costs in prosecuting this eight-day “weed-cutting” operation, including the $50,000 that each Iron Dome surface-to-air interceptor missile costs.

By striking swiftly at some 1,500 pre-planned strategic targets and avoiding a subsequent extended ground incursion, thereby limiting Gaza “civilian” casualties and achieving some valuable goals before the anti-Israel lobby could gather political steam, Israel may have deterred certain European Union countries from voting in the United Nations at this time in favor of upgrading “Palestinian” status in the U.N.  There may have been a secret quid-pro-quo to the effect that Israel cease fire and the EU stand down.  Maybe.  What is certain is that, for the first time in decades, Israel has prosecuted a major weed-cutting operation before the political left could mount an international counter-propaganda effort aimed at delegitimizing Israel’s right to protect her citizens and national existence from murderers.  Hamas are based among a population that freely elected these murderers to lead them and be their surrogates, while stockpiling weapons and stationing rockets and launchers in hospitals, mosques, school buildings and playgrounds, and residential apartment buildings.  Despite the left’s knee-jerk tradition of siding with terrorists and murderers against civilized societies that fight back to protect themselves from annihilation, Israel eviscerated hundreds of strategic targets before the left could mobilize its haters to act.

The Netanyahu government may have succeeded completely in sending a message to those within Israel, and outside, who want to see Israel accept a “Two-State Solution” that would see an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) that would parallel Israel’s prior withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon.  The eight-day Operation Pillar of Defense has demonstrated that any Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will transform Tel Aviv and Jerusalem forevermore from exciting Western cities and repositories of culture and civilization to the equivalent of targets in a shooting arcade.  Thus, this operation may have proven that old political slogans and equations no longer make any sense, and that it no longer is conceivable for Israel to withdraw from post-1967 Judea and Samaria — even as it is unfathomable and utterly impracticable to uproot 350,000 Jews and more from their homes.

So maybe, in the final analysis, this was a successful, purposeful operation for Israel.

Dov Fischer, a legal affairs consultant and adjunct professor of the law of civil procedure and advanced torts, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County.  He was formerly chief articles editor of UCLA Law Review and writes extensively on political, cultural, and religious issues.  He is author of two books and blogs at http://www.rabbidov.com.

Articles: Some Tentative Achievements Israel Scored with Pillar of Defense.

Articles: Some Tentative Achievements Israel Scored with Pillar of Defense.

By Dov Fischer

There is room for doubt regarding the “ceasefire” that has been announced in Israel’s effort to eradicate the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.  Israel may well have been better-served to have continued doing what it was doing, and the depiction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as peacemakers, while murderers dance in the streets of Gaza, is no cause for joy.  On the other hand, an Israeli ground incursion would have added peril for many of her boys, and we have no right sitting in America to criticize Israel for choosing not to imperil her boys.  Furthermore, the question — whose honest answer we never will know — is: “What were Israel’s military objectives in this battle?”

If the objective was to put Hamas out of business once and for all, then this operation was a failure for Israel.  Likewise, if the goal was to make it impossible for Hamas to continuing to launch rockets into Southern Israel, then this operation would seem to have been pointless.  Hamas will continue shooting rockets into Sderot.  They still are doing so, albeit sporadically, even at the time of this writing.  However, if Israel had other objectives, under a smokescreen of putting Hamas out of business, then Israel may have achieved its goals effectively.  To wit:

Israel may have succeeded in completely knocking out all long-range Fajr-5 missiles, capable of reaching Tel Aviv, that Hamas had smuggled in from Iran these past few years.  This would reduce the number of Israelis subject to missile fire from 3.5 million people to under 1 million.  It also would protect the nation’s most vital infrastructure from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

Israel may have succeeded completely in testing the effectiveness of her Iron Dome defensive batteries in actual wartime conditions for the purpose of upgrading perceived flaws, thereby better understanding how to protect cities in her south like Ashkelon and Ashdod and points north to Jerusalem.  In addition, Israel may have used this real-time combat testing to influence and augment how she further develops the “Chetz” (“Arrow”) and “David’s Sling” defense systems she now is refining and constructing to defend against middle-range and long-range rockets.  These systems parallel the Iron Dome’s efforts aimed at defending against shorter-range rockets.

Israel may have succeeded completely, in advance of a possible future attack against Iranian nuclear capabilities, in testing theories that (i) for all its bluster, Egypt will not join a military conflagration that could result in military disaster for Egypt and thereby in an outraged and humiliated Egyptian Army leadership conducting a coup to seize political control from the Muslim Brotherhood civilian leadership that supplanted them; and (ii) for all its bluster, Hezb’allah may not be poised presently to attack Israel.

Israel may have succeeded completely in sending a message to Iran that Israel is capable of striking and ready to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary, and — at least for the next two years — Iran no longer can rely on Hamas and Egypt on Israel’s western front to step up with sufficient support in a military conflict with Iran that would divert Israeli air power and defenses from focusing on Iran.

Israel may have cut a deal secretly with Clinton and Obama that includes our country now gaining access to strategic military lessons learned by Israel from this conflagration, and Israel gaining significant new funding towards (i) placing several more Iron Dome batteries into operation to blanket Israel’s skies more thoroughly, (ii) enhancing the research and development of “Chetz” and “David’s Sling,” and possibly (iii) offsetting some or much of Israel’s costs in prosecuting this eight-day “weed-cutting” operation, including the $50,000 that each Iron Dome surface-to-air interceptor missile costs.

By striking swiftly at some 1,500 pre-planned strategic targets and avoiding a subsequent extended ground incursion, thereby limiting Gaza “civilian” casualties and achieving some valuable goals before the anti-Israel lobby could gather political steam, Israel may have deterred certain European Union countries from voting in the United Nations at this time in favor of upgrading “Palestinian” status in the U.N.  There may have been a secret quid-pro-quo to the effect that Israel cease fire and the EU stand down.  Maybe.  What is certain is that, for the first time in decades, Israel has prosecuted a major weed-cutting operation before the political left could mount an international counter-propaganda effort aimed at delegitimizing Israel’s right to protect her citizens and national existence from murderers.  Hamas are based among a population that freely elected these murderers to lead them and be their surrogates, while stockpiling weapons and stationing rockets and launchers in hospitals, mosques, school buildings and playgrounds, and residential apartment buildings.  Despite the left’s knee-jerk tradition of siding with terrorists and murderers against civilized societies that fight back to protect themselves from annihilation, Israel eviscerated hundreds of strategic targets before the left could mobilize its haters to act.

The Netanyahu government may have succeeded completely in sending a message to those within Israel, and outside, who want to see Israel accept a “Two-State Solution” that would see an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) that would parallel Israel’s prior withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon.  The eight-day Operation Pillar of Defense has demonstrated that any Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will transform Tel Aviv and Jerusalem forevermore from exciting Western cities and repositories of culture and civilization to the equivalent of targets in a shooting arcade.  Thus, this operation may have proven that old political slogans and equations no longer make any sense, and that it no longer is conceivable for Israel to withdraw from post-1967 Judea and Samaria — even as it is unfathomable and utterly impracticable to uproot 350,000 Jews and more from their homes.

So maybe, in the final analysis, this was a successful, purposeful operation for Israel.

Dov Fischer, a legal affairs consultant and adjunct professor of the law of civil procedure and advanced torts, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County.  He was formerly chief articles editor of UCLA Law Review and writes extensively on political, cultural, and religious issues.  He is author of two books and blogs at http://www.rabbidov.com.

‘Shame on Anyone Who Thought Morsi Was a Moderate’ – Jeffrey Goldberg – The Atlantic.

Strong words from Eric Trager, a Muslim Brotherhood expert:
Washington ought to have known by now that “democratic dialogue” is virtually impossible with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now mobilizing throughout Egypt to defend Morsi’s edict. The reason is that it is not a “democratic party” at all. Rather, it is a cultish organization that was never likely to moderate once it had grasped power.

‘(T)he process through which one becomes a Muslim Brother is designed to weed out moderates. It begins when specially designated Brotherhood recruiters, who work at mosques and universities across Egypt, identify pious young men and begin engaging them in social activities to assess their suitability for the organization. The Brotherhood’s ideological brainwashing begins a few months later, as new recruits are incorporated into Brotherhood cells (known as “families”) and introduced to the organization’s curriculum, which emphasizes Qur’anic memorization and the writings of founder Hassan al-Banna, among others. Then, over a five-to-eight-year period, a team of three senior Muslim Brothers monitors each recruit as he advances through five different ranks of Brotherhood membership–muhib, muayyad, muntasib, muntazim, and finally ach amal, or “active brother.”

Throughout this process, rising Muslim Brothers are continually vetted for their embrace of the Brotherhood’s ideology, commitment to its cause, and–most importantly–willingness to follow orders from the Brotherhood’s senior leadership. As a result, Muslim Brothers come to see themselves as foot soldiers in service of the organization’s theocratic credo: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” Meanwhile, those dissenting with the organization’s aims or tactics are eliminated at various stages during the five-to-eight-year vetting period.

Syrian rebels destroy Assad’s radar station facing Israel.

( Thank you, boys.  Take a while to rebuild that. Heh! – JW )

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 26, 2012, 9:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

Syrian rebels captured Marj al-Sultan miitary base

In a resounding blow to the combat capabilities of Bashar Assad’s army against external enemies, Syrian rebels destroyed their most important electronic warning radar station facing Israel – M-1 – Monday, Nov. 26, debkafile reports exclusively from its military sources.

This Russian-built station monitored Israeli warplanes’ takeoff and landing activities at air bases in the Negev and Hatzerim in the south and tracked them up to the Syrian border. The facility was designed to guide Syrian missiles targeting any point on the Israeli map, in sync with air defense facilities south of Damascus and on the Golan Heights. The radar’s range also covered naval movements in Mediterranean waters off the shores of Israel and Lebanon.
Western military sources told debkafile that the destruction of this vital facility has blinded the two eyes which Syrian air, air defense and missile forces had trained on Israel. It has therefore crippled, though not completely dismantled, Bashar Assad’s ability to got to war against Israel, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
M-1 radar also swept all parts of Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia where the important Tabuk air base is situated. Deployed there in addition to the Saudi Air Force are French fighter-bombers ready to go to war against Syria.
M-1 also relayed current data on Israeli military movements to Hizballah and would have been a vital source of intelligence in a potential Lebanese Shiites offensive against the Jewish state.
The Syrian ruler and his spokesmen have frequently threatened since the eruption of the popular insurrection that if Assad had his back to the wall, the entire Middle East would go up in flames, especially Israel.

In the last two days, the Syrian rebels have made additional gains: They were able to capture areas abutting on the Jordanian border, excepting only the Ramtha border crossing. They also seized the Marj al-Sultan military air field southeast of Damascus and adjoining Syrian Army 4^th Brigade bases.
Most of the men of the 82^nd Infantry Brigade guarding M-1 were killed in the fighting, fled or were taken prisoner.
Our military sources notes that after M-1, the Assad regime still retains two key radar stations: M-2 in Shanshar south of Homs, which covers central and northern Syria; and M-3 near Latakia which keeps an eye on the northern region up to the Turkish border and the eastern Mediterranean up to Cyprus.
All three radar stations were linked to the Syrian general staff, air force, air defense, missile and navy operations rooms and fed them the essential real-time intelligence data needed for decision-making at the highest level. However, the loss of M-1 seriously hampers the Syria army’s capacity to take on Israel or Jordan.

Charles Krauthammer: Why was there war in Gaza? | The Baxter Bulletin | baxterbulletin.com.

( I agree with just about every word in this article.  Krauthammer nailed it.  Why do only the far right understand ? – JW )

WASHINGTON — Why was there an Israel-Gaza war in the first place? Resistance to the occupation, say Hamas and many in the international media.

What occupation? Seven years ago, in front of the world, Israel pulled out of Gaza. It dismantled every settlement, withdrew every soldier, evacuated every Jew, leaving nothing and no one behind. Except for the greenhouses in which the settlers had grown fruit and flowers for export. These were left intact to help Gaza’s economy — only to be trashed when the Palestinians took over.

Israel then declared its border with Gaza to be an international frontier, meaning that it renounced any claim to the territory and considered it an independent entity. In effect, Israel had created the first Palestinian state ever, something never granted by fellow Muslims — neither the Ottoman Turks nor the Egyptians who brutally occupied Gaza for two decades before being driven out by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel wanted nothing more than to live in peace with this independent Palestinian entity. After all, the world had incessantly demanded that Israel give up land for peace.

It gave the land. It got no peace.

The Gaza Palestinians did not reciprocate. They voted in Hamas, who then took over in a military putsch and turned their newly freed Palestine into an armed camp from which to war against Israel. It has been war ever since.

Interrupted by the occasional truce, to be sure. But, for Hamas a truce — hudna — simply is a tactic for building strength for the next round. It is never meant to be enduring, never meant to offer peace.

But why, given that there is no occupation of Gaza anymore? Because Hamas considers all of Israel occupied, illegitimate, a cancer, a crime against humanity, to quote the leaders of Iran, Hamas’ chief patron and arms supplier. Hamas’ objective, openly declared, is to “liberate” — i.e. destroy — Tel Aviv and the rest of pre-1967 Israel. Indeed, it is Hamas’ raison d’etre.

Hamas first killed Jews with campaigns of suicide bombings. After Israel built a nearly impenetrable fence, it went to rockets fired indiscriminately at civilians in populated areas.

What did Hamas hope to gain from this latest round of fighting, which it started with a barrage of about 150 rockets into Israel? To formally translate Hamas’ recent strategic gains into a new, more favorable status quo with Israel. It works like this:

Hamas’ new strength comes from two sources. First, its new rocketry, especially the Fajr-5, smuggled in from Iran, that can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, putting 50 percent of Israel’s population under its guns.

Second, Hamas has gained strategic strength from changes in the regional environment. It has acquired the patronage and protection of important Middle Eastern states as a result of the Arab Spring and the Islamist reversal in Turkey.

For 60 years, non-Arab Turkey had been a reliable ally of Israel. The vicious turnaround instituted by its Islamist prime minister, Recep Erdogan, reached its apogee when he called Israel a terrorist state.

Egypt now is run by Hamas’ own mother organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas simply is the Palestinian wing. And the emir of Qatar recently visited Gaza, leaving behind a promise of a cool $400 million.

Hamas’ objective was to guarantee no further attacks on its leaders or on its weaponry, launch sites and other terror and rocket infrastructure. And the lifting of Israel’s military blockade, which would allow a flood of new and even more deadly weapons. In other words, immunity and inviolability during which time Hamas could build unmolested its arsenal of missiles — until it is ready to restart the war on more favorable terms.

Yet another hudna, this one brokered and guaranteed by Egypt and Turkey, regional powers Israel has to be careful not to offend. A respite for rebuilding, until Hamas’ Gaza becomes Hezbollah South, counterpart to the terror group to Israel’s north, with 50,000 Iranian- and Syrian-supplied rockets that effectively deter any Israeli pre-emptive attack.

With the declaration of a cease-fire on Nov. 21, Israel seems to have successfully resisted these demands, although there may be some cosmetic changes to the embargo. Which means that in any future fighting, Israel will retain the upper hand.

Israel once again has succeeded in defending itself. But, yet again, only until the next round, which, as the night follows the day, will come. Hamas will see to that.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Ehud Barak quits politics but stays in defense until elections.

DEBKAfile Special Report November 26, 2012, 12:47 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ehud Barak quits politics, stays in defense

In a surprise announcement Monday, Nov. 26, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he was quitting political life after 47 years and would not stand in the January 22, 2013 general election.

He would however stay on in defense until the incumbent government ends its term in three months. debkafile: This means that a sudden Middle East war eruption in the next three months forcing the postponement of voting would find him still holding down defense in the Netanyahu government.

But his words decisively debunked wide media speculation that he was planning to merge his small Independence Party with one of the left-of center opposition groups preparing to run against Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud.
Our military and Washington sources believe Barak’s action ties in closely with President Barack Obama’s decision to embark on direct US-Iranian nuclear talks in the next few days and the steps Israel and the US pursued for bringing Iran to the table in a suitably amenable frame of mind.
One of those steps was the just ended Israeli Gaza operation which aimed at signaling Iran before those talks opened that even combined Iranian-Hizballah missile might would not determine the outcome of a military confrontation. Above all, Tehran was given to understand that dragging out nuclear diplomacy inconclusively as heretofore would now work to its detriment: its allies would start dropping off and be weakened like the Palestinian Hamas in the Gaza Strip and most likely Jihad Islami in its wake.
The precursor to Israel’s eight-day Gaza operation which ended in a ceasefire on Nov. 21 was the Oct. 24 raid on the Yarmouk industrial complex near Khartoum and the destruction of its Iranian long-range missile manufacturing plant and a shipment of rockets destined for the Gaza Strip

The two operations were a foretaste for Tehran that if the US and Israel joined forces for a military strike, they would not only cripple its nuclear program but also the military and intelligence networks Iran has planted under cover across the Middle East – from Lebanon up to East Africa.

As seen from Washington and Jerusalem, Iran’s rulers are now confronted with a hard choice between serious negotiations that end in its giving up the option for building a nuclear bomb or facing all-out military confrontation across the region with the Americans and its Western allies, including Israel.
Ehud Barak’s decision to retire from politics frees him from the taxing burdens of  running election in January at the head of a small party in order to spend all his time leading the US-Israeli contest against Iran.
In answer to a reporter’s question about the Iranian issue, the defense minister said: “This is the most important and central issue on the agenda and it will occupy me until I retire in three months.”
He is taking a chance: If the combined strategy for bringing Iran to heel fails to reach its target or falls down, he will have to make good on his pledge to retire from politics. But if it goes forward according to plan, he will be in a position for a triumphant comeback.
After a brief lackluster stint as Labor prime minister in 2000-2001, Ehud Barak served as defense minister in three governments spanning seven and-a-half years. He shepherded the Israeli armed forces’ recovery from the 2006 Lebanon War, helped cement and expand security ties with the United States and upgraded Israel’s munitions, notably promoting the development of the Iron Dome which distinguished itself in the recent operation which was  triggered by Hamas’s missile blitz against the Israeli population.  He praised the Chief of Staff Benny Gantz for inculcating in the soldiers a spirit of quiet confidence without arrogance.
Barak offered the explanation frequently heard from retiring politicians of wanting to spend time with his family and make way for fresh talent – which often comes before a comeback.

Iran criticizes US over delayed Mideast atomic talks – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iranian nuclear envoy Soltanieh says Washington has taken Helsinki conference ‘hostage,’ wants to ‘support Israelis’ nuclear weapon capability’

Reuters

Iran criticized the United States on Monday for announcing that talks on banning atomic arms in the Middle East would not take place as planned this year, accusing it of causing a “serious setback” to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The US State Department said on Friday that the mid-December conference on creating a zone free of weapons of mass destruction would not occur and did not make clear when, or whether, it would take place.

Iran, which is accused by the West of developing a nuclear weapons capability, said this month it would participate in the meeting that had been due to take place in Helsinki, Finland.

Asked about the US announcement, Iranian nuclear envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told state broadcaster Press TV from Vienna:

“It is a serious setback to the NPT and this is a clear sign that the US is not committed to the obligation of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

Even if the talks eventually occur, Western diplomats and experts expect little progress any time soon due to the deep-rooted animosities in the region, notably the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad at nuclear plant (Archive photo: AP)

Washington feared the conference could be used as a forum to criticize its ally Israel – widely believed to be the volatile region’s only nuclear-armed state – a concern only likely to have increased after eight days of fierce Israeli-Palestinian fighting that ended with a ceasefire last week.

Israel, which says say Tehran is the Middle East’s main proliferation threat, had not said whether it would attend.

Iran and Arab states often say Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal poses a threat to Middle East peace and security.

The plan for a meeting to lay the groundwork for the possible creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction was agreed at a 2010 conference of 189 parties to the 1970 NPT, a treaty designed to prevent the spread of nuclear arms in the world.

Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms, is not a signatory.

US and Israeli officials have said a nuclear arms-free zone in the Middle East could not be a reality until there was broad Arab-Israeli peace and Iran curbed its nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful energy and research purposes.

Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the UNnuclear agency, said: “The US has taken hostage this Helsinki conference for the sake of Israel … they want to support the Israelis’ nuclear weapon capability.”

Some Western diplomats said they suspected that Tehran only agreed to attend the Helsinki talks once it had become clear they were likely to be postponed anyway.

The two other co-sponsors of the meeting together with the United States – Russia and Britain – signaled in separate statements at the weekend their hope for a delay to be as short as possible and that the talks could be held next year instead.

The US State Department said it would keep working to try to bring about a meeting, adding such a gathering must take into account the security of all the states in the region and operate on the basis of consensus.

A grave warning on Iran from ‘the decision maker’ – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

In the latest in a special series, a key figure in the security establishment tells Haaretz’s Ari Shavit that if Iran is allowed to develop an atomic bomb, the entire Middle East will go nuclear.

By Ari Shavit | Aug.11, 2012 | 9:11 AM

The decision maker is a controversial person. There was a time when he was regarded as a savior, but right afterward he was seen as a pariah. And again as a near-savior and again as a pariah. But even those who loathe the decision maker admits that he is exceptionally intelligent. Even his detractors are aware that he possesses unique strategic experience.

For half a century now, the decision maker has been hovering around Israel’s core security issues. And on a number of occasions, he himself was at the core. Late one night at the beginning of this week, the decision maker greets me at the door of his home wearing light summer clothes and black sandals.

When he sits down across from me in his favorite chair, he says that he’s read with great interest the words of the different strategists who were interviewed for this series. And that he respects those who support an operation in Iran as well as those who oppose it. But having given the matter even more consideration, he would not budge from his position and is absolutely convinced that he is right.

With a black grand piano behind him, the decision maker spends the next two and a half hours laying out his outlook.

“A nuclear Iran is one of the gravest things that could happen to Israel,” the decision maker begins. “If Iran goes nuclear, everything here will be different. Everything. We will shift into a different state of existence. If Iran goes nuclear, down the road Israel will face a threat of existential magnitude. The first aspect of the issue doesn’t only concern us but the international community and the regional alignment. I’m talking about the spread of nuclearization. Up to now the world has found a way to live with two recalcitrant countries: Pakistan and North Korea. If Iran goes nuclear, the world will just lose it. It won’t have any control over the nuclear demon. We know this as a virtual certainty because we’ve heard it straight from the horses’ mouths. If Iran detonates a nuclear device, Saudi Arabia will be nuclear. Within a few years Turkey will go nuclear. The new Egypt will acquire nuclear capability within less than a decade. People ask, what’s our rush? We’re not rushing at all. We waited for years. If Iran’s nuclearization is not halted now, before long we’ll find ourselves in a Middle East that has all gone nuclear.”

Threat to neighbors

The decision maker takes a sip from his cup and forges right ahead. “The second concern is the trickle of nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. Since so many countries that have such a low level of control will have nuclear capabilities, these capabilities could fall into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists cannot be deterred in the way that countries can exert deterrence against one another. The implications of such a development would be extremely grave.

“The third aspect is the threat to neighbors. When you speak with people from the Gulf Emirates these days, you see the fear in their eyes. Iran is a tremendous nation of 80 million people that was once a formidable empire. If it has nuclear weapons, no one will be able to stop it when it provokes neighbors and rivals. What happened in the Rhineland in 1936 will be child’s play compared to what happens with Iran. That will affect us, too.

“If we have to take action against Hezbollah and a nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is equivalent to an attack on Iran, what will we do? I’m not saying that we will definitely be deterred, but our situation will be different. Our situation will be totally different.

“The fourth aspect is political immunity,” he adds. “Let’s say that the Arab Spring skips over the Gulf and becomes the Persian Summer. If Iran is nuclear, the ayatollahs will be able to use unrestrained brutality against freedom-seeking Iranians. The world will stand aside, the regime will survive and it will endure even longer.

“So when we put all of these aspects together, we have to conclude that if Iran goes nuclear, all the moderate forces around us will be significantly weakened and heavy storm clouds will gather over the Middle East. The region will not be the same region and the world will not be the same world, and our lives will not be the same either. We will live under the shadow of a permanent storm.”

I’ve heard you and I understand, I say to the decision maker. I agree: A nuclear Iran would be a disaster and this disaster must be prevented. But why should Israel be so quick to take the lead? Why not let the Americans do the work for us, for them and for the world?

“The United States and Israel currently agree on the diagnosis,” says my interlocutor. “The intelligence assessments are the same and the rhetoric is practically the same. We and the Americans both know that Iran is determined to obtain nuclear weapons and that it is deceiving the whole world in order to do this. We and the Americans both say that we will not accept a nuclear Iran and that all options are on the table. But the gap between the two countries derives from the fact that the U.S. and Israel have different abilities.

“As the Iranians continue to fortify their nuclear sites and disperse them and accumulate uranium, the moment is approaching when Israel will not be able to do anything,” he warns. “For the Americans, the Iranians are not yet approaching the immunity zone − because the Americans have much larger bombers and bombs, and the ability to repeat the operation a whole number of times. But for us, Iran could soon enter the immunity zone. And when that happens, it means putting a matter that is vital to our survival in the hands of the United States. Israel cannot allow this to happen. It cannot place the responsibility for its security and future in the hands of even its best and most loyal friend.”

You’re describing a tragedy, I say to the decision maker. Iran’s immunity zone versus Israel begins a little sooner than its immunity zone versus the United States. In the interval between these two immunity zones, there is an election in the United States that is paralyzing its ability to act in 2012. And so, because of this gap of six to nine months, Israel could find itself going into a terrible war all on its own.

“I don’t see it as a tragedy, but it’s true that there is a built-in gap here. The Americans understand what we’re saying but they want more time. Some people here think this is a plot, but I don’t think so. In terms of sanctions and diplomacy, this administration has done more than any other administration. It has also prepared a military option at various levels. But where you sit is where you stand. And from the point of view of the American president, the moment has not yet come. The United States will be able to act next year, too. So the Americans are telling us that it would be a serious mistake to act now. After all, they could deal the Iranians a knockout blow, while they think all we can do is give them a black eye. So it would seem that it would be worth it for us, too, for them to be the ones to act and not us. But as a sovereign state, we’re saying that on issues vital to our security, we cannot place our fate in the hands of others.

“Five years ago,” the decision maker continues, “the Iranians had 800 kilograms of enriched uranium and today they have more than six and a half tons. If we wait until next spring, they’ll have enough 20-percent enriched uranium to manufacture a first bomb. And the more they advance, the greater the temptation they have to cross the line. To sneak across. So that for us is a real danger − that soon we will not be able to stop them. The problem will remain serious for the world and for us, but only the world will be able to deal with it. We will no longer be a player at that point. For us the question will shift from the realm of the decision makers to the realm of the analysts and historians. We cannot let this happen. So there is a genuine built-in gap between the Americans and us.

“Ostensibly the Americans could easily bridge this gap,” he believes. “They could say clearly that if by next spring the Iranians still have a nuclear program, they will destroy it. But the Americans are not making this simple statement because countries don’t make these kinds of statements to each other. In statesmanship there are no future contracts. The American president cannot commit now to a decision that he will or will not make six months from now.

“So the expectation of such a binding American assurance now is not serious. There is no such thing. Not to mention that President Obama doesn’t even know if he’ll still be sitting in the Oval Office come spring. And if Mitt Romney is elected, history shows that presidents do not undertake dramatic operations in their first year in office unless forced to. So the problem here is a serious one. Israel has to responsibly ask itself what a lack of action now would mean. Only a blind man or someone playing dumb would fail to see that the highly likely default is a nuclear Iran.

“I refer you to a speech that [former Iranian president] Akbar Rafsanjani gave a decade ago,” says the knowledgeable decision maker. “Rafsanjani is perceived in the West as an Iranian moderate. But anyone who reads the words of this Iranian moderate will lose all illusions. He will see that what we are facing is a unique rationality that could lead to an apocalypse. For what does Rafsanjani say? He says that between the Muslim world and Israel there is no balance, and therefore there will also be no balance of deterrence. Israel is not a superpower with a continent-wide territory.

It’s not even Japan, that absorbed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and within 15 years became a world power. Israel is a one-bomb state. After a single atom bomb, it will no longer be what it was or what it was meant to be. A single atom bomb is enough to finish off the Zionist story. In contrast, says Rafsanjani, the Muslim world has a billion and a half people and dozens of countries. Even if Israel strikes back hard at the country that dispatched the bomb, Islam will remain intact. A nuclear war will not make the Muslim world disappear, but it will do irreparable damage to Israel.

“Rafsanjani did not mention any other possibilities. But we know that there are other possibilities. If a bomb arrives at the Ashdod port in a container, it will be a bomb without an address. We won’t know which country sent it. We won’t know if it was sent by some terrorist organization that is not a state. This thing is not simple. A situation could arise in which we cannot exercise absolute deterrence. Therefore, there is nothing that frees us today from the need for cold, hard thinking about the implications of taking action against Iran, but also about the implications of nonaction. It’s a lot easier not to do anything. Doing is much harder. The doer bears a heavy burden of responsibility. But there are moments in the life of a nation in which the imperative to live is the imperative to act. So it was on the eve of the Six-Day War. So it was in 1948. And it may be so now, too.”

But what’s the point of acting, I ask the decision maker, if all our action will achieve is a very brief delay. The cost of an Israel attack would be extremely high: a terrible blow to the home front, with hundreds or thousands killed, the collapse of the sanctions regime, the bolstering of the regime in Iran, international denunciation of Israel. If all we get in return for all that is a two-year delay in Iran’s inevitable nuclearization, we come out the loser. Rather than improve our strategic situation, we’ll make it much worse.

The decision maker looks me fiercely in the eye: “The question you have to ask is what is the objective of the operation. We’re not fooling ourselves. Our objective is not to wipe out the Iranian nuclear program. But it must be understood that the real story is the contest between Iran’s nuclearization and the fall of the current regime of the ayatollahs in Iran. If we succeed in pushing off the nuclear program by six or eight or 10 years, there’s a good chance that the regime will not survive until the critical moment. So the objective is delay. Even if you’re right and the delay achieved by an Israeli operation is only two years, the story doesn’t end there. The sanctions regime may be hurt for a time but afterward it will recover. As will the diplomatic pressure on Iran. As will the intelligence battle against Iran. This is because the basic interests of the international community regarding Iran will not change. In the end, the combination of all of these elements together will achieve the desired aim. It will greatly increase the odds that the regime will fall before Iran goes nuclear.”

But some argue that just the opposite will happen, I challenge him. Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, Kobi Richter and Giora Eiland, too, told me that the danger is that bombing Iran will not stop Iran from getting a bomb but actually hasten its building of a bomb. The Iranians will gain more legitimacy and be more determined than ever to quickly achieve their goal.

“Iran has waited 4,000 years for a nuclear bomb,” replies the decision maker. “It has spent the last 20 years creating its nuclear program. In the past four years, this program has made significant progress. But all along the way the Iranians have shown caution and patience. No one knows what they will do if attacked. But based on their past behavior, it’s reasonable to assume that they would opt to protect themselves even more and progress with even more caution. They will also be very fearful of American intervention. While Israel can only execute a surgical operation to delay the nuclear program, the United States can take action that would threaten the regime’s stability. And in the event of an open sprint to the bomb, the United States would be obliged to act. So I think that the argument of the distinguished people you quote is serious but does not fit the Iranian history of action or the Iranian strategic reasoning.”

But you haven’t answered my main question. Even you admit that Iranian nuclearization is inevitable, the counterargument is that Iran’s nuclearization will be much more dangerous to Israel if we bomb Iran than if we don’t. Even Yehezkel Dror warned about a vengeful, nuclear Iran. Better an Iranian nuclear bomb with no Israeli bombing in 2015 than an Iranian nuclear bomb after an Israeli bombing in 2020.

The decision maker does not like the question. He grows impatient: “There’s a logical fallacy here. People presume that if we do not act, Iran will not go nuclear. But that’s not the situation. If we do not act, it’s almost certain that Iran will go nuclear. If we do act, there’s a good chance that Iran will not go nuclear for a long while. Iran will react and a certain resentment will remain. There will be terrorism. But the main power through which Iran can hurt us is Hezbollah. Hezbollah can operate against us even with no attack on Iran. It might do so even if we act to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or sophisticated materials from Syria to Lebanon. The public should not be subjected to scare tactics.

“Israel is a strong nation,” he continues. “We have good capabilities. The number of dead to be expected on the home front in the event of war with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is less than the number of casualties in the Fourth Battalion of the Harel Brigade in 1948. But in 1948 it was clear to all that there was no choice. And that gave us national strength and resilience. If it turns out that now, too, there is no choice, we will also need that national strength. Remember that in any dimension − including in terms of preserving human life − dealing with a nuclear Iran in a few years’ time will be much more complicated than dealing with preventing a nuclear Iran now. We mustn’t listen to those who in every situation prefer nonaction to action.”

But Israel mustn’t go to war without the backing of a superpower, I say. We take the risk of people charging that we’re trying to force America to join the war. We take the risk of America turning its back and obliging us to deal alone with the consequences of the action we took without coordination with it.

The hour is late and the decision maker is very direct and crystal clear: “We will absolutely not deliberately drag the United States into war. If we decide to undertake an operation, it must be an independent act that justifies itself without igniting some large chain reaction. A country does not go to war in the hope or expectation that another country will join it. Such an act is an irresponsible gamble. But the question is how you define backing. Was there backing in the Six-Day War? Do you think that in 1967 the Americans told Foreign Minister Abba Eban and Mossad chief Meir Amit anything different than what they’re telling us now? But then Eban saw difficulty in the opportunity and Amit saw an opportunity in the difficulty, and the Eshkol government made a decision. And what was that all about? About the closure of the Strait of Tiran? The sword hanging over our neck today is a lot sharper than the sword that hung over our neck before the Six-Day War.

“I promise you: This issue is being dealt with here with the utmost seriousness. And our allies have known for some time what our position is. If the Americans decide that they are going to take action soon − excellent. We won’t stand in their way and we won’t insist on a blue-and-white operation. But let me remind you that Ronald Reagan did not want to see a nuclear Pakistan but Pakistan did go nuclear. Bill Clinton did not want to see a nuclear North Korea, but North Korea went nuclear.

“If Israel forgoes the chance to act and it becomes clear that it no longer has the power to act, the likelihood of an American action will decrease. So we cannot wait a year to find out who was right: the one who said that the likelihood of an American action is high or the one who said the likelihood of an American action is low. We can’t wait to find out one morning that we relied on the Americans but were fooled because the Americans didn’t act in the end. We need to look at the reality right now with total clarity. Even a cruel reality must be looked at with total clarity. Israel is strong and Israel is responsible, and Israel will do what it has to do.”

Three Iranian missile experts in Gaza from Lebanon after ceasefire.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 26, 2012, 8:38 AM (GMT+02:00)

A Hamas multiple rocket battery

“Israel will do all it can to prevent Iran from re-arming Hamas after its losses in our Gaza operation,” said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz when he met new armored corps conscripts Sunday, Nov. 25.
But debkafile intelligence sources have learned that Saturday, Nov. 24, just three days after the Gaza ceasefire halted Israel’s eight-day operation to stop the latest Palestinian missile blitz, three Iranian missile engineers managed to steal into the Gaza Strip. Another three are on the way.
They are the first Iranian military personnel to land in the Gaza Strip, arriving from their regular base n Lebanon and entering Egypt on false passports.

Bedouin guides led the Iranians through secret smuggling trails in Sinai up to the Gaza Strip undetected by Egyptian surveillance. They entered Palestinian territory through one of the tunnels for smuggling arms and people which Israel bombers had blasted 72 hours before the ceasefire. Hamas carried out a rush job to make it fit for use.
The Iranian missile experts came to assess the performance of the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 supplied by Tehran which Hamas fired against the Israeli population up to and during the Israeli operation. It is important for the Iranian arms industry to learn the accuracy of their products’ aim and trajectory in battle conditions and how efficiently they functioned against the defensive wall set up by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-rocket system.
The Iranian engineers had an important finding to work with: On Tuesday, Nov. 20, the day before the ceasefire, Hamas rocket teams carried out an experiment against Israel’s wonder weapon: They fired a 16-rocket Grad salvo at Beersheba. Iron Dome blew up 8 in mid-air, 4 landed outside built-up areas but 4 made it into the heart of the town. A few minutes later Hamas started shooting 14 Grades in volley after volley just a few minutes apart – altogether 30 rockets at the same target in the space of two hours.
The score was 8 to 22 in favor of the Hamas tactic.  The experiment was designed to assess the Iron Dome teams’ post-operation reloading speed – information which is a close IDF secret.
What the Palestinians learned from the Beersheba experiment was that their strength against the Israeli defense system lies in numbers: the bigger the multiple missile barrage, the greater its chances of penetrating Iron Dome cover and reaching urban targets. They accordingly put together large batteries of 6 to 8 rockets each side by side and fired them all at the same time from underground silos.
The launchers were then folded back underground for concealment.
debkafile’s military sources confirm that, like the Palestinians and Iranian missile engineers, the team which developed Iron Dome likewise used the Gaza operation as a testing ground. Certain improvements were introduced on the spot in the course of the hostilities. This process continues apace.
The Iranian missile experts arrived in Gaza from their regular duties with Hizballah rocket units in Lebanon, which are to see to the proper maintenance of Lebanese militia’s store of Iran-made weaponry and train its men in their use.
While there, the Iranians learned Arabic and so have no difficulty in communicating with Tehran’s Palestinian protégés, Hamas an Jihad Islami in Gaza.

Canadians, Americans say world can’t tolerate nuclear-capable Iran: Poll.

Canadians seems to believe that the Iranian regime shouldn’t be allowed to acquire nuclear capabilities, according to a new poll. This file photo shows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility in 2008 south of Tehran.

Photograph by: Reuters , Postmedia News

The vast majority of Canadians and Americans think that the world can’t accept a nuclear-armed Iran, according to a new poll.

Nine out of ten people polled in both countries said they agreed with the statement “the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability,” according to an Ipsos Reid survey conducted on behalf of The Munk Debates. Just over 2,000 Canadians and Americans were polled.

The results, 92 per cent of people in agreement with the statement, were the same for respondents both north and south of the border.

The degree to which Canada’s views on Iran mirrored those polled in the United States surprised Rudyard Griffiths, co-organizer and moderator for The Munk Debates — a semi-annual contest of debates on issues facing the world and Canada.

Canada’s role in past governments has always been to try to be a broker between conflicting sides in the Middle East, Griffiths said.

“Since Harper was elected as Prime Minister, foreign policy has shifted to be very much supportive of Israel’s position…and I think it brought public opinion with them,” said Griffiths.

“Many people I think were assuming that this government was somehow out of step with public opinion when it comes to its very hawkish, hard-line stance on Iran. When in fact, I think they’re both shifting public opinion but they’re also being led by public opinion.”

Just 8 per cent of Americans and 9 per cent of Canadians said they disagreed with the statement posed to them.

In Canada, while the results were pretty even across the provinces, British Columbians and Albertans were most strongly opposed to tolerating a nuclear-capable Iran, with 94 per cent of respondents in those provinces saying they agreed with the statement. Quebecers were the next most strongly opposed at 93 per cent, followed by Atlantic Canadians at 91 per cent, and Ontarians at 90 per cent.

Support for the statement “the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability” was weakest in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with 87 per cent saying they agreed.

One argument is that logic would follow that if people can’t tolerate a nuclear-capable Iran, then they would also support a pre-emptive strike – or a series of them over a number of years – to permanently degrade Iran’s enrichment capacity, Griffiths said.

“You could then ask ‘What’s that going to do to the Arab Spring? What’s that going to do to the price of oil? What’s that going to do to any kind of hope of a rapprochement between the West and the Islamic world?’” Griffiths said.

“I think those are pretty compelling arguments for people to maybe take a second look at this.”

The level of agreement with the statement in the United States, split geographically into four regions, was almost uniform between the northeast (93 per cent), the Midwest (93 per cent) the South (92 per cent) and the West (90 per cent).

The poll was released in advance of Monday evening’s Munk Debate on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The online poll of 1,007 Canadians and 1,007 Americans was conducted between Nov. 12 and 18 and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points of the total Canadian and American populations.