WarSclerotic

Letting the genie out of the bottle – Opinion – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Israel is closely following U.S. activity regarding Syria after the regime there crossed a red line. If the U.S. fails to act, it will be hard for Israel to believe that it will follow through on its commitment to thwart Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

American Secretary of State John Kerry’s rapid response to allegations that Syria had used chemical weapons, made Tuesday by the head of the research division at Military Intelligence, attests to the U.S. administration’s concerns that Israel won’t stop at embarrassing President Barack Obama over this issue. Instead, it will continue challenging the American president’s position regarding Iran.

The U.S. administration previously stated that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad would “cross a red line” and could lead to American intervention in the Syrian civil war. Brig. Gen. Itai Brun’s public announcement − that the Syrians used lethal chemical ordnance on a number of occasions − could be perceived as a blunt Israeli challenge to the U.S. president: You declared that the U.S. would take action if Assad crossed that line, and we are presenting you with evidence that he did. What are you going to do about it?

The Obama administration clearly understands that Israel is presenting it with a challenge, and that Obama’s conduct on this issue will indicate his determination to abide by the commitment he also made to act with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. Israel could have been satisfied with simply delivering the information it had regarding Assad’s use of chemical weapons to U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in private discussions, but it opted to make a public declaration by a senior intelligence official.

No one in the U.S. administration believes that Brig. Gen. Brun made this declaration of his own volition. And if that were not enough, Brun − in response to a question by a former head of Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin − added that this was a worrisome development, and met with an inadequate international response.

The message is clear. Israel is closely following U.S. activity regarding Syria after the regime there crossed a red line. If the U.S. fails to act, it will be hard for Israel to believe that it will follow through on its commitment to thwart Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Taking action in Syria is much simpler and less dangerous than preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Brun’s declaration exposed the U.S.-Israel disagreement over Syria’s chemical arsenal, and the Israeli decision to try to accelerate the Americans’ decision on Iran. Sarin, the poisonous-nerve gas allegedly used by the Syrian army against rebels, is only the tip of the iceberg.

The crux of the matter is the enriched uranium in Iran. The clock is ticking, Israel is signaling to the U.S., and we won’t be able to rely on you when it comes to this existential issue affecting us. If we see that you are unwilling to take action even in Syria, we may have no option other than to take action in Iran on our own.

This position was bluntly stated by Yadlin at the same event where Brun made his declaration. Yadlin said that, for all intents and purposes, Iran has already crossed the red line drawn by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech last September at the United Nations. Yadlin also directed sarcastic remarks at the international community, including the U.S., saying that what seems to be of more interest to them is to stop Israel from attacking, rather than stopping Iran from going nuclear.

Even though Yadlin is an officer in the reserves and not an official Israeli representative, his words will reverberate in Washington as another public Israeli challenge to Obama − especially as the Prime Minister’s Office has not expressed any reservations about the remarks.

Secretary of State Kerry rushed to clarify that he spoke with Netanyahu, who “could not confirm the statements made by Israel’s Intelligence officer.” However, this officer has let the genie out of the bottle, transforming the confrontation between Israel and the U.S. over Iran from a behind-the-scenes discussion into a public dispute.

Iran likely behind drone that Israel intercepted opposite Haifa coast – Diplomacy & Defense – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Netanyahu and the IDF Spokesman were fast to condemn the launch of the drone from Lebanon, but chose not to name Hezbollah as the culprit.

By Amos Harel | Apr.26, 2013 | 7:01 PM | 1

A screenshot taken from video released by the IDF Spokesman, showing an unidentified drone being downed, October 6, 2012.

A reexamination of Israeli declarations after the interception of the unmanned aircraft sent from Lebanon on Thursday reveals an interesting fact: All Israeli statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, whether on camera or written, omit one important issue – who actually launched the drone. The media added the names of the usual suspects: Hezbollah, and in some of the reports, Iran.

The omission of those responsible for the launch of the drone from the official statements on Thursday is probably not coincidental. Netanyahu and the IDF spokesperson talked of “an unmanned aircraft launched from Lebanon,” without naming the guilty party. The prime minister even deviated from his usual custom of threatening an Israeli response to the breach of its sovereignty (the drone was shot down above Israeli territorial waters, ten kilometers west of Haifa and the prime minister’s helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing in the north of Israel, until the threat passed). This time, Netanyahu saw it fit to say only that that Israel “views the attempt to breach our borders as very grave.”

Despite the lack of official explanations to the wording of Thursday’s statements, it seems that those responsible for the launching of the drone were the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon. Iran has a long list of grievances with Israel: not only does it consider Israel to be behind the assassinations of the nuclear scientists in Tehran and the cyber attacks on their nuclear program, it has added a relatively new accusation concerning the assassination of the commander of the al-Quds regiment of the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, near the Syrian border last month. The reliability of this accusation is yet unclear; some reports attributed the assassination to the Syrian opposition.

The launching of the last drone from Lebanon, in October 2012, was eventually believed to be an act by the Revolutionary Guards with Hezbollah as the host, in Lebanon. In that operation, which was defined as a success by Hezbollah and Iran, the drone was intercepted in the north of the Negev after flying in Israeli skies for nearly half an hour. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah claimed responsibility for the launch, but admitted it was an Iranian-produced drone. One can assume Hezbollah filled the same role this time as well. Still, since the drone was shot down in an early stage, before it actually flew over Israeli territory, Hezbollah and Iran remained silent in the aftermath. Sources in Lebanon on Thursday even went as far as to deny involvement in the operation.

Apart from the unsettled score with Israel, it seems that Iran wished to openly demonstrate its potential ability to damage essential facilities in Israel, in a time when they are feeling the pressure of international sanctions surrounding their nuclear program, and when international cooperation is being considered in a move against its ally in Syria, Bashar Assad.

Nonetheless, one cannot be certain that the goal was necessarily the Israeli gas drilling facilities in the Mediterranean. If the drone was indeed intended to fly above the Tamar facility which was recently inaugurated, why did it fly south to the Haifa area, instead of taking a shorter south-western route, and avoid the risk of being shot down?

Obama’s Silence on Syria’s Refugee Crisis Is Telling | New Republic.

Even before chemical weapons were used, there was a refugee crisis. Why won’t the president act?

BY CAMERON ABADI

Israel Hayom | General Brun puts Obama to the test.

Boaz Bismuth

Israel Hayom | Israel urges US action over Syrian chemical weapons.

Israel to U.S.: Act on Syria Chemical Weapons – The Daily Beast.

UK downplays chance of military action in Syria | JPost | Israel News.

( “So are they all, all honorable men…” – JW )

‘Iran, not Israel, faces an existential threat’ | The Times of Israel.

Top US analyst says all of Islamic Republic’s population centers now within range of Israeli missiles with hydrogen warheads

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu draws a red line for Iran’s nuclear program during his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2012. (photo credit: AP/Seth Wenig)

Iran, not Israel, faces an existential threat, according to a top US analyst who is considered one of the world’s leading scholars on the Iranian nuclear issue.

In a research paper published earlier this week, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that in preparation for a nuclear Iran, Israel had been working in recent years to extend the range of its missiles, and that it now poses a real threat to all of the Islamic Republic’s major population centers.

Cordesman, a former national security aide to Senator John McCain, said Iran is now within the range of Israeli missiles carrying hydrogen warheads, which are far more powerful than standard atomic warheads. According to the report, each bomb with a hydrogen warhead has about a hundred times more power than a conventional nuclear bomb.

Israel has never admitted to having hydrogen warheads, much like it has never admitted to holding any nuclear weapons.

According to Cordesman’s report, Iran will not have the ability to threaten Israel with a long-range nuclear warhead for several years. Today, the Islamic Republic can attack Israel with small bombs from the sea, or with long-range non-nuclear missiles, he noted.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and has no military component, a claim that Israel and Western powers reject.

Deputy FM: Action on Syria red line sends message to Iran | JPost | Israel News.

Elkin says now that US, int’l community understand that Assad crossed chemical weapons red line, failure to act will send message to Iran that it can continue to develop nuclear weapons program with impunity.

Exiled Muslim Brotherhood plans return to Syria – FT.com.

©AFP

The Muslim Brotherhood is set to open offices inside Syria for the first time since the organisation was crushed there decades ago, in an apparent effort to capitalise on the increasingly Islamised rebellion.

Riad al-Shaqfa, the movement’s exiled leader, said in an interview with the Financial Times that a decision was recently taken to revive organisational structures inside Syria and followers have been asked to start opening party offices in rebel-held areas.

“In the beginning we said this is a time for revolution, not ideology. Now there are many groups inside so we feel we should reorganise,” he said, adding that the Brotherhood – a similar movement to its Egyptian counterpart – was hoping to promote a more moderate brand of Islamist thinking at a time of growing radicalisation.

The decision comes amid heated controversy over the Brotherhood’s behind-the-scenes influence on the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, and it is likely to be treated with suspicion by many of the group’s secular and liberal critics. At the same time, some in the opposition fear the Brotherhood’s efficiency, strong organisation and superior fundraising networks could enable them to dominate a fractured Syrian opposition.

The opening of the offices follows the launch of a twice-monthly newspaper that the group says is now distributing 10,000 copies in liberated areas of the country.

Speaking at the Brotherhood’s offices in Istanbul, a Syrian revolution flag wrapped around his neck, Mr Shaqfa denounced what he said was a campaign against the group backed by “outside” forces. He countered widespread accusations that his organisation, which has existed only in exile since a bloody 1980s crackdown by Mr Assad’s father Hafez, has been trying to control the fractious Syrian opposition.

“Those who attack us have no influence on the ground – they are media personalities and are trying through their attacks to create influence for themselves,” he said.

The regional context, and the questions raised over the commitment to democracy of its sister organisations which have taken power elsewhere in the region is not helping the Syrian Brotherhood’s case. “The fact that the Brotherhood won in Egypt and Tunisia raised fears about the Brotherhood in Syria,” said Mr Shaqfa.

The Brotherhood is not thought to have significant support on the ground, where membership in the organisation has been a capital offence under the Assad regime.

It is difficult to gauge the extent to which it will be able to reassert itself, especially at a time when armed groups and not political parties hold sway. Many of the rebel groups are puritanical Salafis, espousing a stricter interpretation of Islam than the Brotherhood.

Perhaps in an attempt to pave the way for a more official political comeback, the Brotherhood now has armed rebels affiliated with it. Dozens of small brigades calling themselves shields of the revolution emerged over the past year and are supported by the organisation.

Mr Shaqfa said these groups were formed not by members but by people with a political leaning close to the Brotherhood. They came together in a meeting in Istanbul last May and are now part of the supreme military command, the nominal rebel leadership backed by western and Arab governments. “These groups have their own commands and agreed to give back their weapons after the revolution,” he claimed.

Although the Brotherhood is believed to be backed by Qatar and Turkey, Mr Shaqfa insisted that all the help it has given on the ground, including the humanitarian support it has provided, comes from exiled members, many of them working in the Gulf.

Within the political opposition, which is based outside Syria, the Brotherhood has operated through the Syrian National Council, the first opposition front formed after the eruption of the revolt in 2011.

Accusations that it was imposing its will on the SNC, however, drove other opposition groups and western states to promote the creation of a broader body, the Syrian National Coalition, which is now recognised as the representative of Syrians.

This, however, did not put an end to the controversy over the Brotherhood’s dominance. The infighting escalated last month when the Brotherhood backed the formation of an interim opposition government and its choice for prime minister won the internal Coalition election.

Secular activists in the Coalition were livid, some suspended their membership and stepped up their denunciations of the Brotherhood. Discussions are under way between various factions to contain the quarrel and the Coalition might be expanded to bring in more liberal and minority voices.

Mr Shaqfa said the Brotherhood has only 10 per cent of the seats on the Syrian National Council, which is now part of the Coalition, and had followed others, rather than led, in the election of Ghassan Hitto as interim prime minister. Though Mr Shaqfa is not opposed to expanding the Coalition, he said: “There is a group outside the coalition which wants to get in and so they say we control the coalition which isn’t true.”

The Brotherhood, however, is more organised than others, and it is also flexible in its positions, which creates suspicion over its motives. “If we haven’t pushed to form the Syrian National Council it would not have been formed, because there were no other parties. Others were not organised or strong,” said Mr Shaqfa.