WarSclerotic

Israel’s strike on Syria as a dress rehearsal for conflict with Iran.

© The Washington Post Company

The Islamic world is currently self-destructing through internecine conflict pretty much everywhere. Iran managed to hold back the greens last time, but after the “Arab Spring” how much longer can they hold on?

Remember the Iran/Iraq war? The US flowed arms to which ever side was losing at the time and managed to keep our two worst opponents in the region busy destroying their military capabilities for eight years!

Whether intended or not, Obama’s “isolationism” seems to be having a similar effect.

In contradistinction to the “woe is us” media stories, I’m quite happy with whats happening both in Egypt and in Syria.

I hope the Iranians become even more deeply involved in Syria. It’s a “tar baby” special that will bleed them of men and resources until they finally are forced to leave, either because of defeat there or a collapse of the regime in Teheran.

– JW

News from The Associated Press.

BEIRUT (AP) — An Israeli air attack staged in Syria this week may be a sign of things to come.

Israeli military officials appear to have concluded that the risks of attacking Syria are worth taking when compared to the dangers of allowing sophisticated weapons to reach Hezbollah guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon.

With Syrian President Bashar Assad’s grip on power weakening, Israeli officials fear he could soon lose control over his substantial arsenal of chemical and advanced weapons, which could slip into the hands of Hezbollah or other hostile groups. These concerns, combined with Hezbollah’s own domestic problems, mean further military action could be likely.

Tzachi Hanegbi, an incoming lawmaker in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party and a former chairman of parliament’s influential foreign affairs and defense committee, signaled Thursday that Israel could be compelled to act on its own. While Israel’s preference is for Western powers to gain control over Syria’s arms stockpile, he said there are no signs of that happening.

“Israel finds itself, like it has many times in the past, facing a dilemma that only it knows how to respond to. And it could well be that we will reach a stage where we will have to make decisions,” Hanegbi told Israel’s Army Radio Thursday. Hanegbi, like other Israeli officials, would not confirm Israeli involvement in the airstrike.

In this week’s incident, Israeli warplanes conducted a rare airstrike inside Syria, according to U.S. officials who said the target was a convoy carrying anti-aircraft weapons bound for Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese militant group allied with Syria and Iran.

The Syrian military has denied the existence of any weapons shipment and said a military research facility outside Damascus was hit.

On Thursday, Syria threatened to retaliate, while Hezbollah condemned the attack as “barbaric aggression.” Iran, which supplies arms to Syria, Hezbollah and the Hamas militant group in Gaza, said the airstrike would have significant implications for Israel. Syrian ally Russia said it appeared to be an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

Syria’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdul-Karim Ali, said Damascus “has the option and the capacity to surprise in retaliation.” He told Hezbollah’s al-Ahd news website that it was up to the relevant authorities to choose the time and place.

For now, Israeli officials seem to be playing down the threats.

“Israel took a big gamble out of the belief that Iran and Hezbollah won’t retaliate. The question is, `Are they right or not?'” said Moshe Maoz, a professor emeritus at Hebrew University who specializes in Syria.

Officials believe that Assad’s position in Syria is so precarious that he cannot risk opening a new front with Israel. With an estimated 60,000 Syrians killed in the civil war, Israeli officials also think it’s too late for Assad to rally his bitterly divided nation behind him.

“Syria is in such a bad state right now that an Israeli retaliation to a Syrian action would be harsh and could topple the regime. Therefore Syria is not responding,” Maoz said.

Israel is far more worried about the threat of sophisticated weapons reaching Hezbollah. In a monthlong 2006 war, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets and missiles into Israel before the conflict ended in a stalemate. Israeli officials believe the guerrilla group has restocked its arsenal with tens of thousands of missiles, some capable of striking deep inside the Jewish state.

Resigned to this fact, Israel has set a number of “red lines” for Hezbollah that it says are unacceptable, in particular the acquisition of new weapons that it believes would change the balance of power in the region. These include chemical weapons and sophisticated anti-aircraft and surface-to-sea missiles.

This week’s airstrike targeted trucks containing Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, according to a U.S. official. The trucks were next to the military research facility identified by the Syrians, and the strike hit both the trucks and the facility, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the operation.

If the SA-17s were to have reached Hezbollah, they would have greatly inhibited the Israeli air force’s ability to operate in Lebanon. Israel has frequently flown sorties over Lebanese skies since 2006.

The airstrike is part of an Israeli strategy known to military planners as “the policy of prevention,” or the “war between wars.” In recent years, Israel is believed to have launched a number of covert missions, including airstrikes in Sudan and assassinations of key Hezbollah and Hamas militants, aimed at disrupting the flow of weapons to its Iranian-backed enemies. Israel has never acknowledged involvement.

Israeli security officials believe that Hezbollah, despite its claims of victory, is still deterred by the experience of the 2006 war, in which it lost hundreds of fighters. Instead of a direct war, Israel fears Hezbollah might try to strike Israeli or Jewish targets around the world. Israel has accused Hezbollah of a string of attacks on Israeli targets in recent years, including a deadly attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last July.

The Israeli airstrike comes at a particularly sensitive and vulnerable time for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite its formidable weapons arsenal and political clout in the country, the group’s credibility and maneuvering space has been significantly reduced in the past few years.

Hezbollah still suffers from the fallout of the 2006 war, which many in Lebanon accused it of provoking by kidnapping soldiers from the border area. Since then, the group has come under increasing pressure at home to disarm, leading to sectarian tensions between its Shiite supporters and Sunnis from the opposing camp that have often spilled into deadly street fighting.

When Hezbollah sent an Iranian-made reconnaissance drone over Israel in November, the group boasted of its capabilities – but critics in Lebanon slammed it for embarking on a unilateral adventure that could provoke Israel.

Despite persistent reports and accusations that Hezbollah members are fighting alongside the military in Syria, Hezbollah has largely approached the Syria conflict with caution, mindful that any action it takes could backfire.

“In different times, Hezbollah would have reacted to Israel’s surgical strike, but not today,” said Bilal Saab, director of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, North America. “This is a time for hunkering down and weathering the storm.”

The uprising in Syria, the main transit point of weapons brought from Iran to Hezbollah, presents the group with its toughest challenge since its inception in 1982.

The group could still get weapons, but would struggle to get them as easily without the Syria supply route. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah’s public support for the Assad regime has proved costly and the group’s reputation has taken a severe beating. Former champions of the group now describe it as hypocritical for supporting Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, but not in Syria.

As for Israel and Syria, although they are bitter enemies, they have avoided direct conflict for most of the past 40 years. Israel has been careful to stay out of Syria’s civil war, not wanting to be seen as supporting any side in the conflict.

While the attack overnight Tuesday, believed to be the first by Israel on Syrian soil since 2007, appeared to come out of nowhere, signs of impending action were evident in recent days.

On Jan. 23, the day after national elections, Netanyahu convened top security officials for an emergency meeting to discuss the situation in Syria.

One of the meeting participants, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, warned this week that Israel could be forced to carry out a pre-emptive attack under certain circumstances. The same day, Israel suddenly moved a new, state-of-the-art rocket-defense system to the northern city of Haifa, which was hit hard by Hezbollah rocket fire during a 2006 war.

Uzi Rabi, a military analyst at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center, said the attack was a “kind of message” sent by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah.

“It says we do have capabilities when it comes to intelligence gathering … and this would serve as kind of a warning sign to Hezbollah not to transfer chemical weaponry from Syria to Hezbollah,” he said.

Hezbollah doesn’t want war with Israel if Syria is weakened – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

It seems that Hezbollah, which has still not responded to the attack, is not interested in opening a front against Israel out of fear of a massive Israeli retaliation, without getting Syrian aid.

By Zvi Bar’el | Jan.31, 2013 | 8:13 AM | 3

A masked Free Syrian Army fighter stands in front of a burning barricade during heavy fighting in the Ain Tarma neighbourhood of Damascus January 30, 2013. Photo by Reuters

By Amos Harel | Jan.31,2013 | 8:13 AM | 8

While Lebanon insists that Israeli planes may have overflown the country on Wednesday four times, they still ardently deny that an attack took place in its territory. And the Syrian media took a long time to relate the event at all. In the evening, Syrian television finally reported that Israeli planes had attacked a research center in a move that it said was designed “to strengthen the opposition” in Jamraya in the Damascus area. Syrian television went on to say that this was proof of cooperation between Syrian terrorists and Israel, but denied that Israeli planes had attacked a convoy moving from Syria to Lebanon.

The website of the Syrian opposition has details and even a map showing that the attack was on a missile convoy on its way from the Yafour complex near the border with Lebanon, near the base of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The official Syrian response, however, which ignored the bombing of the convoy and which denied any attack in Lebanon, may be evidence of the huge difficulties the Syrian regime is facing. According to reports from Lebanon, the Syrians didn’t even fire at the Israeli planes.

About a year ago, there was a widespread sense that Hezbollah and Syria could open a new front against Israel to deflect world attention from what was going on inside Syria, and perhaps to recruit rebels to a joint national battle. Now it appears that even the Israeli strike in Syria would not bring about a change in the opposition’s position toward the Assad regime.

The location of the attack is not clear. One assessment from Lebanon is that the convoy that was attacked included long-range missiles as well as anti-aircraft missiles − all belonging to Hezbollah. These missiles were given to the Syrians for safekeeping so that Israel would not attack them inside Lebanon. As the Syrian regime lost control, Hezbollah decided to return the missiles to Lebanese territory to prevent them from falling into rebel hands. It seems that Hezbollah, which has still not responded to the attack, is not interested in opening a front against Israel out of fear of a massive Israeli retaliation, without getting Syrian aid. This is the reason for the “quiet” and the Lebanese denial that the attack took place within Lebanese territory − if it indeed took place there. As for Syria, even if the attack took place within its territory, the Assad regime will find it difficult to open a new front against Israel.

Until now Israel has avoided becoming involved in events in Syria. But if indeed an attack took place Wednesday it could hint to other countries, like Turkey and the United States, that a military attack on Syria to topple the regime may be an option. It is interesting that Russia, which fiercely objects to military intervention in Syria, has also yet to respond to the attack. Russia’s response, if one comes, could hint to Assad and also other nations, the extent to which Moscow is willing to tolerate a military attack on Syria.

Despite Wednesday’s attack, if such an attack took place, it seems the efforts to move weapons from Syria to Lebanon will continue, and may well drag Israel deeper and deeper into the Syrian campaign. Additional Israeli attacks will put the policy of Western nations to a test. The dilemma is that if Israel is allowed to strike Syria or Lebanon to prevent the transfer of weapons, and if Western nations have already agreed that any use of chemical weapons will be met with a military response, then why not attack Syria to save thousands of people and bring down the Assad regime?

Why did Israel attack Syria now, and why did the Syrians admit it? Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The alleged Israeli attack came one day after an Iranian announcement that Tehran will view any attack on Syrian territory as an attack against Iran itself.

By Amos Harel | Feb.01, 2013 | 2:53 AM | 8

Approximate path of alleged Israeli strike on Syria’s border with Lebanon, Jan. 30, 2013, according to foreign reports.

By Haaretz | Feb.01,2013 | 2:53 AM | 36

Two days before the night when Israeli planes attacked a weapons convoy or “Scientific Research Center” in Syria – according to reports in the foreign press – Iran sent Israel an explicit warning message. Tehran, said the Iranian announcement, will view any attack on Syrian territory as an attack against Iran itself.

The warning came immediately after a wave of reports in the Israeli media about heightened tensions on the northern border; and along with remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting in which he directly addresses the fears that advanced Syrian weaponry would slip into the hands of others.

Now after the reported attack in Syria, the Iranians have repeated their warnings strongly. Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi condemned the airstrike on state television, criticizing the “Zionist regime” for a clear violation of Syria’s sovereignty. The semi-official Fars news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian as saying the raid on Syria would have significant implications for Tel Aviv.

Israel has been agonizing for years over the question of whether or not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. So why did Israel this time – once again based on foreign sources – decide to take a risk and act inside Syria despite the clear warning from Iran (if it did, of course )? It can be assumed that there were urgent operational reasons, such as the need to prevent specific weapons from being transferred from Syria to Hezbollah. It also seems that Israel is not particularly impressed by Iranian threats.

The combination of strategic circumstances in the region at the moment makes the chance of a direct Iranian response unlikely. A Syrian military response seems even less likely, though neither possibility can be ruled out.

The most worrying unknown since Tuesday night concerns Hezbollah’s reaction. The electronic media is filled with commentators talking about the Shi’ite organization’s internal distress, as its declared support for President Bashar Assad in the Syrian civil war has brought down on Hezbollah the fury of all the other groups in Lebanese society. But Hezbollah is a sophisticated enemy operating in a tough environment. Complete restraint over the long term to Israel’s actions could be considered weakness by Hezbollah, so we should expect some form of response, even if not immediately and not necessarily a broad rocket and missile attack on Israel.

In the past year Hezbollah has acted at least three times against Israel: Firing Katyusha rockets at the Galilee – an act that was originally credited to a Sunni organization – blowing up a bus of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria and launching a pilotless aircraft that entered Israeli airspace over the Negev. In the first two cases Hezbollah declined to take responsibility for its operations, but in the third case of the UAV Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah took pride – even if the Lebanese only provided the logistical and operational framework for the public relations operation, while behind the operation stood Iranian experts.

Hezbollah’s actions point to the use of a wide range of methods and capabilities, all under a single strategy: Extracting a price from Israel, whether real or in terms of public relations, without crossing the line that would force the IDF to counterattack – which would extract an even more serious price from Lebanon.

But a different Hezbollah operation is even more worrying, even though it has mostly been forgotten. In August 2012 it was revealed that the police and Shin Bet security service had arrested 14 Israeli Arabs suspected of smuggling 24 explosive devices from Lebanon into Israel via the village of Ghajar. The devices used standard C-4 explosives, which is much more powerful than the improvised explosives used by Palestinians in the terror attacks of the second intifada. What these explosives were meant for and who was supposed to collect them from their hiding place in Nazareth has never been revealed.

It is possible that Hezbollah is preparing “sleeper cells” of Palestinians from the West Bank who are waiting for instructions to act – and it is possible the organization has succeeded in smuggling in other explosives that have not been uncovered.

The Syrian announcement on Wednesday evening somewhat surprised Israeli officials. After almost a full day of the Syrian regime’s ignoring and denying the attack, it confirmed that a “scientific research center” north of Damascus had been attacked. Even more surprising than the announcement itself, an exceptional step compared to the previous Syrian policy concerning Israel, were the details. The wording of the Syrian announcement along with the geographic location pointed to a site well-known to Western intelligence organizations: One of Syria’s centers for the manufacture of nonconventional weapons.

Damascus released information that it generally prefers to keep secret. Moreover, as opposed to previous attacks ascribed to Israel and which both sides kept quiet about, this time it seems the Assad regime was willing to publicly expose the damage to its national honor.

Why did the Syrians choose to abandon the chance to deny that Israel allowed them? This time it seems they want to exploit the attack for their own purposes. The announcement yesterday said the bombing was proof that Israel is behind the opposition groups fighting the government.

This, of course, is a big lie, but in Assad’s condition he needs all the diplomatic ammunition he can get. The Syrian dictator can no longer win the favor of the Arab world after a civil war in which over 50,000 of his people have been killed. But it is possible he is hoping to rally support, even the most minimal, from his new position as the victim of a Zionist plot.

Israel will be similarly blamed by Syria many more times – as well as such condemnation from the Arab world, even if only for show – if another attack on Syria occurs.

There is a contradiction between the media reports on the attack in Syria and the Syrians’ own admission. The news agencies said Israel attacked a convoy of SA-17 anti-aircraft missile batteries near the Lebanese border. Even if Israel knows the truth, it is not volunteering information to clear up the confusion. But despite the distance of dozens of kilometers between the two locations, both are at the center of interest for Western intelligence organizations: This is exactly the area the Syrians used for years to hide problematic weapons, and was also used as a base for smuggling weapons into Lebanon.

It seems we are at the beginning of the story – and not the end.

What is the Attacked Syrian Facility?.

F-16s ‘Fired Bunker-Buster, 8 Missiles’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

An Israeli F-16i

flash 90

The site allegedly attacked by Israel in Syria manufactured chemical and biological weapons, according to a report in Iraqi newspaper Azzaman that appears in London.

The newspaper quoted Western diplomats who are close to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. It says that the classified installation, which is located just 12 kilometers (7 miles) from the presidential palace, was guarded by a large contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, many of whom died in the attack.

A diplomatic source interviewed by the newspaper said that the attack took place 48 hours before it was first reported. He said that initial reports regarding a convoy that was attacked were meant to disguise the true target of the attack. However, the newspaper reported, some trucks were also destroyed in the attack.

The diplomatic source said that Israeli F-16 jets carried out two sorties over the installation, firing at least eight guided missiles at it as well as at least one bunker busting bomb. The installation was badly damaged and there were numerous casualties. He said that about 3,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were stationed at the installation, as well as several Russian experts.

He added that the operation must also have relied on good intelligence obtained by Israel within Iran.

In Iran, the government-run PressTV quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian Thursday as saying the raid on Syria will have significant implications for Israel.

He called upon United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to take operative steps against Israel following the attack, and suggested to the Israeli leadership “not to place too much trust on the Patriot batteries that are stationed in the area.”

Syria’s Ambassador in Lebanon, Ali Abdul-Karim Ali, told Hizbullah’s al-Ahd news website that Damascus ‘‘has the option and the capacity to surprise in retaliation.”

The White House meanwhile warned Syria not to “further destabilize the region” by transferring weaponry to Hizbullah.

Syria strike may be the shape of things to come | The Times of Israel.

A formation of IAF Lockheed Martin F-16s (photo credit: Tsahi Ben-Ami/Flash90)

An alleged Israeli air attack staged in Syria this week may be a sign of things to come.

Israeli military officials appear to have concluded that the risks of attacking Syria are worth taking when compared to the dangers of allowing sophisticated weapons to reach Hezbollah guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon.

With Syrian President Bashar Assad’s grip on power weakening, Israeli officials fear he could soon lose control over his substantial arsenal of chemical and advanced weapons, which could slip into the hands of Hezbollah or other hostile groups. These concerns, combined with Hezbollah’s own domestic problems, mean further military action could be likely.

Tzachi Hanegbi, an incoming lawmaker in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party and a former chairman of parliament’s influential foreign affairs and defense committee, signaled Thursday that Israel could be compelled to act on its own. While Israel’s preference is for Western powers to gain control over Syria’s arms stockpile, he said there are no signs of that happening.

“Israel finds itself, like it has many times in the past, facing a dilemma that only it knows how to respond to. And it could well be that we will reach a stage where we will have to make decisions,” Hanegbi told Israel’s Army Radio Thursday. Hanegbi, like other Israeli officials, would not confirm Israeli involvement in the airstrike.

In this week’s incident, Israeli warplanes conducted a rare airstrike inside Syria, according to US officials who said the target was a convoy believed to be carrying anti-aircraft weapons bound for Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese militant group allied with Syria and Iran. The trucks were next to the military research facility identified by the Syrians, and the strike hit both the trucks and the facility, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the operation.

The Syrian military has denied the existence of any weapons shipment and said a military research facility outside Damascus was hit.

Syrian sources told London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi on Friday that the objective of the alleged Israeli airstrike was to test Damascus’s preparedness and air defense abilities rather than deal significant damage to its military infrastructure. They further claimed that the labs in the facility were not destroyed in the attack.

On Thursday, Syria threatened to retaliate, while Hezbollah condemned the attack as “barbaric aggression.” Iran, which supplies arms to Syria, Hezbollah and the Hamas militant group in Gaza, said the airstrike would have significant implications for Israel. Syrian ally Russia said it appeared to be an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

Syrian chief of staff General Ali Abdullah Ayoub said Thursday that the war with Israel is ongoing and will never end, Syria state media reported.

Ayoub visited Syrian Army troops Thursday and charged that Israel was backing rebel groups conducting “organized terrorism against the Syrian people.”

Syria’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdul-Karim Ali, said Damascus “has the option and the capacity to surprise in retaliation.” He told Hezbollah’s al-Ahd news website that it was up to the relevant authorities to choose the time and place.

For now, Israeli officials seem to be playing down the threats.

“Israel took a big gamble out of the belief that Iran and Hezbollah won’t retaliate. The question is, ‘Are they right or not?’” said Moshe Maoz, a professor emeritus at Hebrew University who specializes in Syria.

Officials believe that Assad’s position in Syria is so precarious that he cannot risk opening a new front with Israel. With an estimated 60,000 Syrians killed in the civil war, Israeli officials also think it’s too late for Assad to rally his bitterly divided nation behind him.

“Syria is in such a bad state right now that an Israeli retaliation to a Syrian action would be harsh and could topple the regime. Therefore Syria is not responding,” Maoz said.

Israel is far more worried about the threat of sophisticated weapons reaching Hezbollah. In a monthlong 2006 war, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets and missiles into Israel before the conflict ended in a stalemate. Israeli officials believe the guerrilla group has restocked its arsenal with tens of thousands of missiles, some capable of striking deep inside the Jewish state.

Resigned to this fact, Israel has set a number of “red lines” for Hezbollah that it says are unacceptable, in particular the acquisition of new weapons that it believes would change the balance of power in the region. These include chemical weapons and sophisticated anti-aircraft and surface-to-sea missiles.

This week’s airstrike is believed to have targeted Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles that Syria recently obtained. If they were to reach Hezbollah, the SA-17s would greatly inhibit the Israeli air force’s ability to operate in Lebanon. Israel has frequently flown sorties over Lebanese skies since 2006.

The airstrike is part of an Israeli strategy known to military planners as “the policy of prevention,” or the “war between wars.” In recent years, Israel is believed to have launched a number of covert missions, including airstrikes in Sudan and assassinations of key Hezbollah and Hamas militants, aimed at disrupting the flow of weapons to its Iranian-backed enemies. Israel has never acknowledged involvement.

Israeli security officials believe that Hezbollah, despite its claims of victory, is still deterred by the experience of the 2006 war, in which it lost hundreds of fighters. Instead of a direct war, Israel fears Hezbollah might try to strike Israeli or Jewish targets around the world. Israel has accused Hezbollah of a string of attacks on Israeli targets in recent years, including a deadly attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last July.

The Israeli airstrike comes at a particularly sensitive and vulnerable time for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite its formidable weapons arsenal and political clout in the country, the group’s credibility and maneuvering space has been significantly reduced in the past few years.

Hezbollah still suffers from the fallout of the 2006 war, which many in Lebanon accused it of provoking by kidnapping soldiers from the border area. Since then, the group has come under increasing pressure at home to disarm, leading to sectarian tensions between its Shiite supporters and Sunnis from the opposing camp that have often spilled into deadly street fighting.

When Hezbollah sent an Iranian-made reconnaissance drone over Israel in November, the group boasted of its capabilities — but critics in Lebanon slammed it for embarking on a unilateral adventure that could provoke Israel.

Despite persistent reports and accusations that Hezbollah members are fighting alongside the military in Syria, Hezbollah has largely approached the Syria conflict with caution, mindful that any action it takes could backfire.

“In different times, Hezbollah would have reacted to Israel’s surgical strike, but not today,” said Bilal Saab, director of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, North America. “This is a time for hunkering down and weathering the storm.”

The uprising in Syria, the main transit point of weapons brought from Iran to Hezbollah, presents the group with its toughest challenge since its inception in 1982.

The group could still get weapons, but would struggle to get them as easily without the Syria supply route. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah’s public support for the Assad regime has proved costly and the group’s reputation has taken a severe beating. Former champions of the group now describe it as hypocritical for supporting Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, but not in Syria.

As for Israel and Syria, although they are bitter enemies, they have avoided direct conflict for most of the past 40 years. Israel has been careful to stay out of Syria’s civil war, not wanting to be seen as supporting any side in the conflict.

While the attack overnight Tuesday, believed to be the first by Israel on Syrian soil since 2007, appeared to come out of nowhere, signs of impending action were evident in recent days.

On Jan. 23, the day after national elections, Netanyahu convened top security officials for an emergency meeting to discuss the situation in Syria.

One of the meeting participants, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, warned this week that Israel could be forced to carry out a pre-emptive attack under certain circumstances. The same day, Israel suddenly moved a new, state-of-the-art rocket-defense system to the northern city of Haifa, which was hit hard by Hezbollah rocket fire during a 2006 war.

Uzi Rabi, a military analyst at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center, said the attack was a “kind of message” sent by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah.

“It says we do have capabilities when it comes to intelligence gathering … and this would serve as kind of a warning sign to Hezbollah not to transfer chemical weaponry from Syria to Hezbollah,” he said.

White House: Iran’s centrifuge upgrade represents ‘further escalation’ | The Times of Israel.

‘While the world is discussing where and when the next meeting with Iran will be, Iran is rapidly advancing toward a nuclear bomb,’ says Israeli official

An anti-aircraft gun guarding the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in Iran in 2007. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian, File)

The White House on Thursday warned that Iran’s plan to upgrade its uranium enrichment centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear plant was a “further escalation” in the showdown over its atomic program.

“The installation of new advanced centrifuges is a further escalation and a continuing violation … of Iran’s obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council and IAEA board resolutions,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

In a defiant move ahead of nuclear talks, Iran has announced plans to vastly increase its pace of uranium enrichment, which can make both reactor fuel and the fissile core of warheads. Eager to avoid scuttling those negotiations, world powers are keeping their response low-key.

Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intentions last week, and the IAEA informed member nations in an internal note seen by The Associated Press on Thursday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz enrichment facility in 2008 (photo credit: http://www.president.ir)

The brief note quoted Iran as saying new-generation IR2m “centrifuge machines …will be used” to populate a new “unit” — a technical term for an assembly that can consist of as many as 3,132 centrifuges.

It gave no timeframe. A senior diplomat familiar with the issue said work had not started, adding that it would take weeks, if not months, to have the new machines running once technicians started putting them in. He demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to divulge confidential information.

The Iranian plan was condemned by Israel, which sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and has said it would use all means to stop it from reaching weapons capability.

“While the world is discussing where and when the next meeting with Iran will be, Iran is rapidly advancing toward obtaining a nuclear bomb,” said a senior official from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. “The international community cannot allow Iran to arm itself with a nuclear weapon.”

Mark Fitzpatrick, a non-proliferation expert and former senior official at the US State Department, described the planned upgrade as a potential “game-changer.”

“If thousands of the more efficient machines are introduced, the timeline for being able to produce a weapon’s worth of fissile material will significantly shorten,” said Fitzpatrick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“This won’t change the several months it would take to make actual weapons out of the fissile material or the two years or more that it would take to be able to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile, so there is no need to start beating the war drums,” he said. “But it will certainly escalate concerns.”

The planned upgrade could burden international efforts to coax Tehran into scaling back its nuclear activities and cooperating with the agency’s attempts to investigate its suspicions of secret weapons work. Talks are tentatively set for next month with a date and venue still open.

Iran insists it does not want nuclear arms and argues it has a right to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear power program. But suspicion persists that the real aim is nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic hid much of its nuclear program until it was revealed from the outside more than a decade ago. A deadlock in the IAEA’s probe of Iran’s nuclear program has furthered suspicions of a clandestine pursuit of atomic weapons.

Defying U.N. Security Council demands that it halt uranium enrichment, Iran has instead expanded it. Experts say Tehran already has enough enriched uranium to be able to turn it into weapons-grade material for several nuclear weapons.

Phone calls seeking comment from Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s chief IAEA delegate, went to his voicemail.

The envisaged centrifuge upgrade potentially complicates planned talks next month during which the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are expected to press Tehran to cut back on uranium enrichment, and Iran is likely to seek relief from sanctions cutting into its oil sales and financial transactions.

Iran may be hoping that its tough line on enrichment will force further concessions from the six, which over the past year have scaled down their demands from a total enrichment freeze. More recently, after a series of inconclusive meetings, they’ve asked merely for a halt to Iran’s higher-enrichment program.

Yousaf Butt, a consultant to the Federation of American Scientists who supports Iran’s right to enrich, said Tehran was “using the only leverage it has — its enrichment program — as a means to coax some sanctions relief.”

There was no indication late Thursday that the six powers were ready to go that way. But moderate reactions from some suggested they were eager to keep negotiation channels open.

The British Foreign Office confirmed that Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of its plan, and described it as “a cause for concern,” noting it breached both U.N. Security Council and IAEA board resolutions urging Iran to curb enrichment.

But it avoided linking the move to the next round of talks. Instead the statement expressed hope that Iran would soon respond to the six powers on a time and place for a meeting, adding: “We hope that Iran will agree to talks quickly and come to the table ready to engage and negotiate seriously.”

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted Thursday that Moscow and its fellow U.N. Security Council members “have called on Iran to freeze enrichment operations during the negotiations.” But he too avoided any direct suggestion that the planned Iranian centrifuge update would upend such talks.

The White House said the move by Iran did not come as a surprise, describing it as a further escalation and continuing violation of Iran’s international obligations.

“It would mark yet another provocative step by Iran, and will only invite further isolation by the international community,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney. “We continue to believe that there is time and space for diplomacy to work, but actions like this only undercut the efforts of the international community to resolve its concerns.”

The European Union’s top foreign policy official, Catherine Ashton, said she is confident negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program will resume soon. Ashton has convened past meetings, and her spokesman had suggested last week that Iran was delaying by setting new preconditions and not agreeing to a venue.

A Western diplomat accredited to the U.N. agency said IAEA delegation heads from the U.S. and its allies exchanged views over Iran’s plans Thursday and agreed to await further developments. He also demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the issue.

While acknowledging that the Iranian plan was of concern, he noted that Tehran had set no date for installing the new centrifuges. That, he said, gave the international community breathing space.

Iran says it is enriching only to power reactors and for scientific and medical purposes. But because of its nuclear secrecy, many countries fear that Iran may break out from its present production that is below the weapons-grade threshold and start enriching uranium to levels of over 90 percent, used to arm nuclear weapons.

Tehran now has more than 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium at its main plant at Natanz, 225 kilometers (140 miles) southeast of Tehran, to fuel grade at below 4 percent. Its separate Fordo facility, southwest of Tehran, has close to 3,000 centrifuges — most of them active and producing material enriched to 20 percent, which can be turned into weapons-grade uranium much more quickly.

Iran has depended on domestically made and breakdown-prone IR-1 centrifuges whose design is decades-old at both locations up to now, but started testing more sophisticated prototypes in the summer of 2010.

David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Technology serves as a resource for some U.S. government branches, estimated in a 2011 report that 1,000 of the advanced machines “would be equivalent to about 4,000-5,000 IR-1 centrifuges” in production speed.

Separately from the talks between Iran and the six powers, IAEA experts are scheduled to visit Tehran on Feb. 13 in their more-than-yearlong effort to restart the probe of the weapons allegations.

The British statement urged Iran to “take serious practical steps to cooperate with the IAEA on all matters of substance relating to the possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

Syria warns: Air defense on high alert – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Syrian sources claim alleged Israel strike on ‘research center’ was meant to test country’s air-defense capabilities, failed to damage military labs. Syrian army chief: Battle with Zionists will never end

Roi Kais

Syria continues to insist that Israel attacked a “research center” on its soil, despite Western and Mideast diplomats’ claims that the alleged airstrike targeted a shipment of SA-17 missiles bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The war-torn Arab country further claims that the “attack” on the research center was aimed at testing its aerial defense systems, the Al Quds Al Arabi reported Thursday, citing Syrian sources.

The sources told the pan-Arab newspaper that since the “attack” numerous air-defense battalions – particularly those deployed in the area between Damascus and the Lebanese border – are on high alert.

“Israel knows that a strike on a scientific research center that belongs to the military cannot cause damage, and that the production of Syrian weapons will continue at the site,” one of the sources said.

“Israel has other goals. One of them is to test Damascus’ defense and rocket capabilities.” However, the source added, “the Syrian Army will not provide Israel with an answer on this matter so easily.”

Syrian army chief visits troops (Photo: AFP)

The sources repeated the claim that the alleged Israeli air strike targeted a research facility near Damascus, but insisted the attack did not damage underground military labs at the site.

According to the sources, only administrative structures were hit. They estimated that the fighter jets did not fly directly over the target, but bombed it from afar immediately after penetrating Syria’s airspace.

Earlier, the White House warned Syria not to transfer weapons to Hezbollah, thus supporting the reports claiming the target of the air strike was a weapons convoy that was heading to Lebanon.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency reported Thursday that Defense Minister Fahd al-Freij briefed the Cabinet on the nature of the “terrorist attack by the warplanes of the Israeli enemy” at dawn on Wednesday.

According to the report, al-Freij said that the “heinous attack” caused damage to the research center, claimed the lives of two “martyrs” and wounded five others.

The minister, SANA reported, linked between the attack and the “aggressions of the armed groups, denying allegations of the Israeli foe that the reason of its raid was striking equipment and weapons prepared to be transformed to another place.”

Ynet’s military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai said Syria’s version is apparently meant to conceal the fact that, according to foreign reports, Syria transferred to Hezbollah advanced surface-to-air missiles it had recently received from Russia.

The complex allegedly attacked is located 15 kilometers from the border with Lebanon, and it is safe to assume that the actual attack targeted the weapons convoy as it was passing nearby.

On Wednesday Syrian rebels said President Bashar Assad’s government was lying and that they were behind the attack on the research center. This is entirely possible.

The chief of staff of the Syrian Army, Gen. Ali Abdullah Ayub, toured various army units on Thursday and assessed the preparedness of troops on the ground. Ayub spoke to the soldiers and said “we will not abandon our posts, even if the enemy will attempt aggressive actions.”

“Anyone who thinks he can test our armed forces is wrong. The battle with the Zionist enemy continues, and will never end,” he said.

According to Ben-Yishai, Syria and Russia have an interest in denying the attack on the convoy because Moscow recently guaranteed Israel that the advanced weapons it sells to Syria – particularly anti-aircraft systems – would not reach Hezbollah.

Assad, for his part, does not want the Russians to know he breached his agreement with them by transferring arms to Hezbollah. Moscow also fears the attack would open the door to additional attacks on Syria – this time by NATO forces.

The question is whether the attack will deter Syria and Hezbollah and stop the transfer of arms to Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Jerusalem has instructed its missions abroad to raise their level of alertness. However, at this point security around Israeli interests overseas will not be boosted.