Mr. Hagel and the Jews | The Weekly Standard.

Fight this !

( I implore all my American readers to contact their Senators and ask them to oppose this catastrophic nomination. – JW )

During the hearings on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense, it’s clear that the views of gay rights organizations will be heard. There the issue seems to be whether Hagel’s apology for previous remarks and beliefs was sincere, or motivated solely by self-interest. He had years to apologize publicly, but did so only when opposition from gay rights groups threatened his nomination.

But in the case of allegations of anti-Semitism, Hagel has not even apologized. He has remained silent, though one can expect the usual “perhaps I didn’t word that sentence as best I might have” excuse to emerge at his hearings. The question is, what might he have to apologize for? Why would anyone think he was an anti-Semite?

Here the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged: Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none—including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists—have come forward to counter that allegation.

The flavor of the accounts is given in a headline in one Jewish website: “Nebraska Jews Recall Senator Chuck Hagel as ‘Unfriendly’ and ‘Unmovable’ on Israel, ‘Didn’t Give a Damn About the Jewish Community.’” The former editor of the Omaha Jewish Press recalled that “Hagel was the only one we have had in Nebraska, who basically showed the Jewish community that he didn’t give a damn about the Jewish community or any of our concerns.” Another community leader commented that  “During his last year in office, we knew he was not going to run again, he never returned any of our calls.”

Hagel seems to have a thing about “the Jews,” as the story of the USO in Haifa also shows. During the 1980s, U.S. Navy ships began to dock in Haifa, ultimately reaching 40 to 50 ships and 45,000 sailors a year visiting there.  The Sixth Fleet asked for a USO facility and got one in 1984, and when ships were in port 400-500 sailors a day would visit the USO there. When USO budget problems risked the closure of the facility, the Sixth Fleet fought back and kept it open—until ship visits declined sharply in the 1990s and the facility was shuttered.

Haifa was in many ways an ideal port for U.S. Navy visitors, as a 1986 USO newsletter reflected:

Commander Edward  Simmons  of  the [USS] Eisenhower attributes “the remarkable  absence  of incidents”  to “the response  of the people here in Haifa. It’s so sincere. Everything has been superb.  I’ve never seen a more coordinated and hospitable port anywhere.  The fleet  landing  service  and  the other services  provided  by the Israeli navy were flawless. But what I feel most strongly about is the hospitality, not just of the Israeli navy. The people here have been the warmest and most welcoming  I’ve  ever seen.” Captain Philip Olson  of the  [USS] Mississippi agreed,  adding  that  “being  able  to  walk down the street  and  converse  with  anyone and to feel the response  of friendliness  and the desire to help and a genuine  interest in your  well-being  – the  best  way  to sum  it up is the  warmth of the people.” Informal remarks  made  by  blue-jacketed  sailors  with  their  distinctive  white caps  confirmed  the  opinions  expressed  at higher levels. An  18-year-old sailor from “somewhere in  Alabama”  grins.  “Compared  to  other countries’?  There’s no  comparison. This is heaven.”

The Israeli who headed the USO site, Gila Gerson, was later given a prize by the U.S. Navy for her work. There seems little doubt that USO Haifa was immensely successful and valued.

It’s in that context that Hagel’s 1989 effort to shut it down, and his comments when doing so, become problematic.  A meeting with officials of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which sought to keep USO Haifa open, was described by Marsha Halteman of JINSA to the Washington Free Beacon.

“He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it.’ He essentially told us that if we wanted to keep the USO [in Haifa] open—and when I say ‘we,’ he meant ‘the Jews’—he said the Jews could pay for it. I told him at the time that I found his comments to be anti-Semitic.”

That’s precisely what the Senate Armed Services Committee should be wondering, too. They ought to call as witnesses some of the Nebraska Jewish leaders who recall Hagel as a man hostile to their community and ask why they formed that conclusion. They ought to call those who attended the USO meeting where Hagel said, “Let the Jews pay for it,” and ask about his demeanor at that session. That the USO had budget problems is clear, but what other locations did Hagel seek to close? Did he ever suggest that the Japanese or Germans or Emiratis or Italians pay for a USO site? Did he ever suggest that Italian-Americans or Japanese-Americans pay for USO facilities overseas? Did he ever try, in good faith and without bigotry, to work with the American Jewish community and the government of Israel to see if, in fact, additional private support could be found for the immensely popular Haifa site—or did he just say, “Let the Jews pay for it,” with the hostility recalled by Nebraskan Jews?

Perhaps there are answers, and perhaps Mr. Hagel actually has no problem with “the Jews.” But one purpose of confirmation hearings should be to find out.

The Associated Press: US Senator calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel.

(AP) – 34 minutes ago

JERUSALEM (AP) — In his first visit to Israel, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is calling for a gradual reduction of American foreign aid.

It’s an unlikely place to deliver the message, since Israel is among the largest recipients of American assistance. But Paul said in a Monday meeting with reporters that the U.S. can’t afford to keep sending money overseas, even to allies like Israel. He says it would be “harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money.”

The Kentucky Republican, a longtime opponent of foreign aid, acknowledges he’s expressing a “minority opinion” and doubts Congress will cut aid. He insists Washington should first cut aid to countries with strained ties to America, such as Pakistan and Egypt.

Israel gets about $3 billion a year in military aid.

Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Israel to build 43-mile security fence in Golan Heights – Telegraph.

Israel is to build a 43-mile security fence along the armistice line of the occupied Golan Heights to prevent incursions by Islamist militants currently fighting against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Israeli troops during military maneuvers on the Golan Heights Photo: EPA

Iran welcomes Assad’s ‘comprehensive’ Syri… JPost – Middle East.

The Shoval UAV Flies Around the Clock.

Arie Egozi

6/1/2013

The Israeli Air Force’s UAV squadron operates the Heron-1 (Shoval) UAVs by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) around the clock. This advanced IAI UAV has an endurance of 30 hours.

“The number of users constantly increases,” says Major S., first deputy to the squadron commander. “Every day, additional IDF commanders discover the capabilities of the UAVs, and ask for the squadron’s services. The ‘permanent’ UAVs are often not enough, so another UAV is diverted from a training mission to assist and satisfy the hunger of the various units for real-time information.”

The people of the squadron are proud of the fact that theirs was the first UAV squadron in the IAF. At the entrance to the squadron HQ, on a raised pedestal, stands a Scout (Zehavan) UAV – one of the earliest models flown by the IAF. It reminds everyone that this squadron has a tradition of more than 40 years’ experience in the employment of UAVs.

The UAVs carry either a night/day payload or a night-only payload and have the ability to designate targets using a laser designator.

UAV technology is developing rapidly, and the squadron does not have a single UAV that still retains all of the components it contained on the day it rolled off the assembly line at IAI. When we went out on the runway at the Palmachim airbase, the external operator was preparing to launch a Shoval UAV. I asked Major S. why they still needed an external operator when there are systems capable of fully automatic take-off and landing.

“This ability does exist, but no executive decision to use it has been made yet,” says S. This reminded me of the situation where passenger aircraft pilots still prefer to land their aircraft manually, although the system in most modern aircraft models can carry out a fully automatic landing. Apparently, the people who drive aircraft have a hard time relinquishing their ability to command the vehicle and allowing the computer to do all the work.

The task of the external operator was accomplished the moment the UAV left the runway. As of this moment, command of the flight was handed over to an air-conditioned trailer manned by the mission commander and payload operator. The entire mission is commanded from the trailer, with the UAV enslaved to the camera so as to enable it to take the best possible shots, as required by the mission.

The squadron also operates, in cooperation with the Israeli Navy, the maritime Shoval, a UAV that carries, a maritime surveillance radar system by ELTA, a subsidiary of IAI in addition to the optical payload. Despite its relatively small dimensions, this radar is fully capable of picking up targets even when sea conditions are not favorable.

The massive UAV carries both systems without difficulty. The problem of supplying power to both systems has been resolved as well. According to major S., because of its size (the UAV has a wing span of about 16 meters),the Shoval UAV is a flexible platform that easily accommodates additional loads. Some of these additional loads are still confidential, but this UAV is definitely an “airborne truck” with a highly impressive ability.

Around the world, long-endurance UAVs are fitted with communication systems. The squadron commander’s first deputy says that it is an excellent capability that enables the UAV to transmit from long distances, but would not comment on whether this capability is available to his squadron.

Anyone who ever doubted the position of UAVs in the IAF should just look at the Palmachim airbase. Helicopter squadrons are closed down and their missions are performed by UAVs, with great success. For example, the Shoval UAV has already replaced some of the IAF’s maritime patrol aircraft. Originally manufactured as executive jets, these aircraft, which were converted many years ago to perform military missions, are costly to operate and have a limited endurance.

“You launch a maritime surveillance UAV and it can stay over the area of interest for many hours, longer than any manned platform,” says the squadron’s first deputy. This process is actually happening. More and more UAVs are employed for maritime patrol missions. In these missions, the ground control station is manned by Navy personnel. They are familiar with the needs and remotely control the payloads mounted on the UAV. The squadron’s UAVs, as well as the heavier Heron-TP UAVs are also replacing the Beechcraft B-200 King Air intelligence aircraft of the IAF.

The activity on the apron around which the UAV hangars are arranged is intensive. Additional UAVs are being prepared for flight. Mechanics in blue coveralls hook the UAVs to power supply sockets and check the various systems. It looks like any fighter squadron, but the dimensions of the aircraft are smaller – that is the only difference. There is an atmosphere of ‘action’ in the air, a tangible desire to perform every mission in the best and most effective manner possible.
Everyone realizes how critical the squadron’s UAVs are to the routine missions of the IDF and other security agencies.

The UAV Operators
Like the other UAV squadrons of the IDF, the squadron “spots” potential UAV operators long before they are actually recruited. The two civilian-attired gentlemen standing near the landing strip in Rishon LeZion last year looked around them with interest. They focused their attention on two youngsters who were busy flying their radio-controlled model aircraft, demonstrating amazing control of the miniature models. Deftly manipulating the remote control devices they were holding in their hands, they made the flying models execute breathtaking maneuvers in the sky.

This is how the military service of these two youngsters began. After more than a year, they became UAV operators in the IAF. The transition from flying sophisticated toys to flying UAVs worth about $10 million each is a unique process that is typical of Israel as a global UAV superpower. All of the IAF UAV operators were keen radio-controlled flying model enthusiasts a few years ago. The IAF realized that this was its natural pool of candidates for the UAV operator course, and since then it has been sending its people to spot the prominent talents in the field.

The squadron is extremely busy these days. The events taking place in Israel’s southern and northern regions provide it with both routine and irregular missions at an ever-increasing rate.

Major S. wishes to satisfy all of the squadron’s “clients”, so he would like to have additional capabilities. Of particular importance, he says, are an extended operating range that may be provided through the use of advanced satellite communication systems, and multiple-sensor payloads. He says it is important that the squadron be provided with an improved radar capability possibly through SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) systems, which eliminate all of the problems caused by bad weather and haze.

Are the UAVs you operate capable of performing electronic warfare missions as well?

Major S. says that generally, the UAV can perform almost any mission, owing to its substantial load carrying capacity.

Then considering the price of a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft like the F-35 and its missions, which constitute primarily of jamming the enemy’s surveillance layouts, the question that arises is whether UAVs like the Shoval can perform the mission equally successfully. Major S. says that the Shoval UAV can perform even these missions, given the appropriate systems.
When you consider an even bigger UAV, like the Heron-TP, the Shoval’s big brother, then the question is probably being pondered by many fine minds within the Israeli defense establishment.

The squadron currently works around the clock. While UAVs were once regarded as an auxiliary tool for manned aircraft, a brief visit to the squadron demonstrates that it is by no means the current situation. These are first-rate operational systems, to which additional missions are assigned every day.

Op-Ed: Israeli hospitals make preparations for chemical weapons attack.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340608#ixzz2HGlRSTok

Obama Expected to Pick Chuck Hagel for Defense Post – NYTimes.com.

By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — When President Obama nominates Chuck Hagel, the maverick Republican and former senator from Nebraska, to be his next secretary of defense, he will be turning to a trusted ally whose willingness to defy party loyalty and conventional wisdom won his admiration both in the Senate and on a 2008 tour of war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The choice of Mr. Hagel, the first Vietnam veteran to be nominated for the post, would add a prominent Republican to Mr. Obama’s cabinet, providing some political cover for the president’s plans to exit Afghanistan and make cuts to a military budget that has roughly doubled since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

But Republicans made clear on Sunday that they would give Mr. Hagel a rough ride on his path to the Pentagon, questioning his support for Israel, his seriousness about the Iranian nuclear threat and his commitment to an adequate defense budget. And Mr. Obama may also face difficulties from some Democrats who are wary of negative comments that Mr. Hagel made more than a decade ago about gays.

Some Obama aides had doubts about the wisdom of the choice, given Mr. Hagel’s frosty relationship with members of his own party, but officials said they were confident that they could corral enough votes from both sides of the aisle to win confirmation in the Senate. White House officials confirmed on Sunday that Mr. Hagel was Mr. Obama’s pick for the job and said the announcement would come as early as Monday.

Rather than turning to a defense technocrat, Mr. Obama decided on an independent politician whose service in Vietnam gave him a lifelong skepticism about the commitment of American lives in overseas conflicts. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Hagel supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the troop surge in Iraq under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Hagel, 66, served as an enlisted man in Vietnam, won two Purple Hearts and still carries bits of shrapnel in his chest. He was the co-founder of a cellular telephone company and headed an investment banking firm before being elected to the Senate in 1996. He retired in 2009 and now teaches at Georgetown University and serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council, a centrist foreign policy group.

In July 2008, during the presidential campaign, Mr. Hagel accompanied Mr. Obama, who was then in the Senate, on a six-day trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait. When Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee that year, asserted that Mr. Obama’s motive for the trip was political, Mr. Hagel strongly defended Mr. Obama, saying in a television interview that Mr. McCain was “on thin ground” in trying to impugn Mr. Obama’s patriotism.

In the Senate, Mr. Hagel voted in favor of the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to take military action in Iraq, which passed overwhelmingly in October 2002. But he soured on the effort early, and became an advocate of the view that America had lost sight of what it was trying to accomplish and that it was overestimating its ability to change Iraqi society.

In some ways, Mr. Hagel bears a similarity to Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations and Mr. Obama’s first choice for secretary of state. She withdrew her name from consideration, making way for the selection of Senator John F. Kerry. Ms. Rice, like Mr. Hagel, is a trusted Obama ally who spoke up for him during the 2008 presidential campaign and became a lightning rod for Republican attacks.

“The president wants someone whose judgment he respects on the big questions of war and peace,” said Philip D. Zelikow, a senior State Department official under Mr. Bush and now a member of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Mr. Hagel is co-chairman of the board.

The White House is calculating that opposition to Mr. Hagel may be loud but not broad and that in end the Senate will confirm him. Administration officials argued that voting against a Republican war hero to run the Defense Department would not be easy for fellow Republicans, and they are confident that disgruntled Democrats will ultimately not deny their president his choice.

“At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues,” said an administration official who requested anonymity to discuss a nomination before it was announced. “It would be hard to explain a no vote just because he bucked his party on Iraq, a war most Americans think was a disaster.”

When he took office in 2009, Mr. Obama asked Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary during Mr. Bush’s last two years in office, to remain in his job. Mr. Gates, a former C.I.A. chief and deputy national security adviser, belonged to the mainstream of Republican defense orthodoxy. Mr. Hagel does not, as was evident in harsh comments from Republicans on Sunday.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he personally liked Mr. Hagel but considered him “out of the mainstream of thinking on most issues regarding foreign policy.”

“This is an in-your-face nomination of the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel,” Mr. Graham said on the CNN program “State of the Union.” “I don’t know what his management experience is regarding the Pentagon — little, if any — so I think it’s an incredibly controversial choice.”

The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” “I think there will be a lot of tough questions for Senator Hagel, but he will be treated fairly by Republicans in the Senate.”

For weeks, some Jewish groups sought to dissuade Mr. Obama from choosing Mr. Hagel, who once referred to advocates of Israel as “the Jewish lobby.” Having failed, opponents over the weekend shifted to trying to block Mr. Hagel’s confirmation.

Regional chapters of the American Jewish Committee, which has bipartisan bona fides, began circulating letters to their Democratic senators, urging them to oppose Mr. Hagel.

One such letter, obtained by The New York Times, said: “While AJC recognizes Senator Hagel’s record of service to our country and the people of Nebraska, his opinions on a range of core U.S. national security priorities run counter to what AJC advocates and what President Obama has articulated — notably, on the efficacy of Iran sanctions, on a credible military option against Iran, on branding Hezbollah as terrorist organization, and on the special nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

Mr. Hagel and his supporters have dismissed criticism of his views on Israel, noting that he voted on several occasions to provide billions of dollars in military aid to the country. He also was a sponsor of legislation that urged the international community to avoid contact with Hamas until it recognized Israel’s sovereignty.

On one of the biggest security challenges the administration faces — how to slow or stop Iran’s progress toward a nuclear capability — Mr. Hagel’s views appear somewhat at odds with the president’s. White House aides have been seeking to minimize the differences in advance of the expected nomination.

Mr. Hagel has long been an opponent of unilateral American sanctions against Iran — among other American adversaries — viewing them as counterproductive. Notably, he was one of only two senators to vote against the Iran-Libya sanctions act in 2001, arguing that it would undercut efforts to engage with Tehran.

But today, the administration describes the policy of tough sanctions against Tehran as the key to its strategy for forcing the country’s leadership to reverse course on its nuclear program.

As secretary of defense, Mr. Hagel would not be directly involved in designing or enforcing those sanctions; that is the work of the Treasury and State Departments. But he would be in charge of one of the other major elements of pressure: the huge buildup of American naval might, antimissile capability and special operations in the Persian Gulf. That force is intended not only to keep the Strait of Hormuz open but also to make credible Mr. Obama’s threat to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“So far, Obama’s big problem is that the threat to use force has not seemed credible,” a former official who has worked on Iran issues with Mr. Hagel and frequently advises the administration on Iran said last week. “The question is whether if Chuck is defense secretary, the Iranians would take seriously the thought that he is willing to use force if it comes to that.”

In efforts to spur liberals to oppose the nomination, Mr. Hagel’s critics have also focused on a comment he made in the late 1990s, opposing a Clinton administration ambassadorial nominee for being “openly, aggressively gay,” and his past stances on gay rights issues.

Mr. Hagel has since apologized for the remark and in a recent statement said he supported the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Gay rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign that tend to lean Democratic have not yet taken a position on Mr. Hagel’s nomination. But another gay group, the Log Cabin Republicans, has been vocal in its opposition to Mr. Hagel.

White House officials noted that Mr. Hagel apologized for comments offending Israel backers and said opposing him because of his Iraq stance would not help war hawks since Mr. Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start, would simply pick another like-minded nominee. As for his opposition to a gay nominee, officials said it would be hard to imagine a Nebraska Republican whose views had not evolved in the last decade.

Israel Hayom | ‘Global jihad forces have replaced Syrian army across border’.

Bolstered by 16 Russian warships, Assad nixes dialogue with “Western puppets”.

DEBKAfile Special Report January 6, 2013, 3:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

Bashar Assad is upbeat after 60,000 Syrian deaths

With a buildup of 16 Russian warships carrying thousands of marines on the Syrian coast “to deter the West from deploying ground forces in Syria,” Syrian Bashar Assad could afford to brazen it out in his first public speech in seven months. Speaking at the Damascus opera house, Sunday, Jan. 6, Assad said Syria no longer takes dictation from anyone and called on Syrian citizens to defend the country against “a war fought by only a handful of Syrians and many foreigners.”
He rejected dialogue with the opposition which he referred to as “puppets fabricated by the West.”

DEBKA-Net-Weekly, in its latest issue of Jan. 4, revealed that both Washington and Moscow may be encouraging the rush to Syria of al Qaeda and other radical Islamist fighters so as to put them in harm’s way on the Syrian battlefield instead of their staying home to make trouble in Asian, European and other Middle East countries.

On this point, Assad remarked: “The West tried to get rid of these terrorists by drawing them into conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, but were unsuccessful. Now they are sending them to Syria. “

The Syrian ruler went on to maintain that it would not be too hard to get rid of them, if “all citizens are mobilized against these outside forces.” It was important, too, he said, to fight the terrorists’ ideas, before they permeated Syrian society. He vowed to fight terror “so long as a single terrorist remains in the country” and to combat the rebels fighting to overthrow his regime, whom he called “terrorists” and “criminals” who “harbor al Qaeda’s extremist ideology.”
debkafile: Assad’s emphasis on this point indicates he counts on his war against Islamist terrorism as a long-term insurance policy for bolstering his regime’s survival.

In Moscow, a senior military spokesman announced that Russian vessels, including battleships and landing craft carrying marines and military vehicles, would remain in Syrian waters until Easter. He said quite candidly that the presence of Russian marines near Syrian waters “will deter the West from deploying ground forces in Syria.” The Russian flotilla and marines are intended to be the counterweight to the six NATO Patriot missile interceptors, the US, Germany and Holland have installed on the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia along with Iran  is providing Assad with a strong military shield, which is supplemented by Chinese diplomatic support.
The Syrian ruler’s speech Sunday was therefore far more upbeat than his last address in June. Then, he defended himself against pressing international demands to step down by vowing to “live and die in Syria.” In this speech, he makes no mention of resigning or throwing in the towel.  In contrast to current predictions of his downfall, to be found in Western and Israeli media, Assad felt secure enough to set out his blueprint for ending the Syrian conflict.

The first stage of a political solution would require that “the regional powers stop funding and arming the opposition” – a reference to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Western powers.

He then invited “those who have not betrayed Syria” to a conference of reconciliation, followed by a referendum on a new constitution, the formation of a government and an amnesty.
He rejected the Syrian opposition movement as “puppets fabricated by the West,” and said that Syria wanted to negotiate with the “master not the servants.”

Fleet of Russian warships reportedly en route to Syria to head off a Western attack | The Times of Israel.

Israel and the US said to be mulling a military campaign to secure chemical weapons held by Moscow’s civil war-ravaged ally

The Russian warship Varyag (photo credit: CC BY randychiu, Flickr)

A flotilla of five Russian warships laden with hundreds of troops, which is headed toward Syria, is a show of force meant to deter Western armies from intervening in the war-torn nation, the London-based Sunday Times reported.

Previous reports cited Russian diplomats to the effect that the vessels were being put in place in order to evacuate thousands of Russians who still remain in Syria if the situation in the country called for it.

However, a Russian intelligence source was quoted on Sunday as saying that the presence of over 300 marines on the ships was meant as a deterrent to keep countries hostile to the Bashar Assad regime — a key ally of the Kremlin — from landing special forces in the country.

“Russia should be prepared for any developments, as it believes the situation in Syria might reach its peak before Easter,” a Russian diplomatic source was quoted as saying.

The ships are headed to the port of Tartus, where Russia has been operating a naval facility since signing an agreement with Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez, in 1971.

In a statement, the Russian Defense Ministry said the ships were preparing for a large naval maneuver whose aim was to “improve the management, maintenance and testing of the interaction of naval forces.”

The Times quoted an Israeli source who said that it was conceivable that a Russian ground force would step in “to defend the Alawite corridor stretched between the Lebanese border in the south and the Turkish border in the north.”

Nato’s recent deployment of Patriot anti-missile batteries in Turkey has raised concerns in Moscow about its ability to maintain a strategic foothold in the country, the report said, .

There have also been increasing indications that Israel and the US are mulling a military move in Syria to secure the country’s sizable stockpile of chemical weapons, which decision-makers fear could be turned against Israel, as well as on Syrian rebels, should Assad come to the conclusion that his days are numbered.

In late December it was revealed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had held clandestine talks in Jordan regarding possible methods for destroying the weapons, including airstrikes or a ground assault, but that Amman was reluctant to put its weight behind such action.

According to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Israel had twice requested “permission” from Jordan to bomb Syria, but was denied the go-ahead. Mossad officials who traveled to Jordan to discuss the matter were reportedly told that Amman felt “the time was not right.”

The Times of London reported that the US, along with several key allies, was prepared to launch a military intervention in Syria should the Assad government turn its chemical weapons against the rebels.

A military source told the Times that US forces could be ready “rapidly, within days,” and implied that the necessary forces were already in the region.

“The Russians will not tolerate Western ground intervention and stay idle,” an Israeli defense source was quoted as saying. “Syria is too important for Russia.”