WarSclerotic

Israel Bombs Syria as the U.S. Weighs Its Own Options – NYTimes.com.

( The rebel report was correct.  Israel DID hit the airport! – JW )

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JODI RUDOREN

WASHINGTON — The airstrike that Israeli warplanes carried out in Syria was directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese organization, American officials said Saturday.

It was the second time in four months that Israel had carried out an attack in foreign territory aimed at disrupting the pipeline of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. The missiles, known as Fateh-110s, had been sent to Syria by Iran and were being stored at an airport in Damascus when they were struck in the attack, according to an American official.

Syrians with knowledge of security and military matters confirmed the strike, which took place overnight Thursday, saying that Iran had sent arms and rockets to Damascus International Airport intending to resend them to Hezbollah.

Israel officials have declined to publicly discuss the operation. But Israel has repeatedly said it is prepared to take military action to stop the shipment of advanced arms or chemical weapons to Hezbollah. If transferred to Hezbollah, the missiles would extend the organization’s ability to strike targets deep inside Israel.

Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have used Fateh-110 missiles against the Syrian opposition, and some American officials are unsure whether the new shipment was intended for use by Hezbollah or by the Assad government, which is believed to be running low on missiles in its bloody civil war with Syrian rebels, now in its third year.

But one American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing intelligence reports, said the warehouse that was struck in the Israeli attack was believed to be under the control of operatives from Hezbollah and Iran’s paramilitary Quds force.

Details of the Israeli airstrike are sketchy. Israeli warplanes did not fly over the Damascus airport during the raid. Instead, they fired air-to-ground weapons, apparently using the airspace of neighboring Lebanon.

The Lebanese Army said in a statement that Israeli military aircraft “violated the Lebanese airport” on Thursday night and early Friday morning and were flying in circles over several areas of the country.

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined on Friday night to comment on the airstrike, saying only in a statement, “Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, specially to Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

The Fateh-110 is a mobile, solid-fueled missile that is more accurate and represents a considerable improvement over the liquid-fueled Scud missile. Several variants have been produced, and American officials have said it has the range to strike Tel Aviv and much of Israel from southern Lebanon. A Pentagon official said in 2010 that Hezbollah was believed to already have a small supply of Fateh-110s.

In late January, Israel carried out similar airstrikes in Syria against a convoy carrying SA-17 antiaircraft weapons. The transfer of those weapons to Hezbollah would have jeopardized the Israeli Air Force’s ability to operate in Lebanese airspace.

Israeli officials have also refused to publicly confirm the January attack. But in a February security conference in Munich, a former Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, appeared to refer to it as “another proof that when we say something we mean it.”

Israel’s official silence reveals the broader dilemma it faces in how to handle Syria’s upheaval. After 40 years of quiet on its northeastern border, Israel is now deeply worried about violence spilling over into its territory and about a post-Assad Syria being a vast, ungoverned area controlled by Islamist or jihadist groups, with no central authority to control militant activity.

But leaders in Jerusalem believe that they have few options beyond the targeted attacks on convoys or warehouses to affect the situation in Syria, seeing any direct action by Israel as likely to backfire by bolstering or uniting anti-Israel forces.

Jonathan Spyer, an expert on Syria and Hezbollah at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, called Thursday’s strike “extremely significant,” and predicted more such attempts to transfer weapons — and Israeli efforts to stop them — in the coming weeks and months.

“Clearly Hezbollah is hoping to benefit from its engagement in Syria, and clearly Israel is committed to preventing that,” he said. Mr. Spyer said that in striking the warehouse, Israel was taking a “calculated risk” that its limited intervention would provoke a limited response, if any.

The Israeli attack came days after Hezbollah’s leader,Hassan Nasrallah, issued some of his strongest statements yet of support for Mr. Assad, edging closer to confirming that Hezbollah is backing him militarily, not merely tolerating border crossings by some of its members to defend Lebanese citizens in Syria, as Hezbollah has long maintained.

He said Hezbollah — using the word “we” — would not allow Syria to fall to an armed assault that he said was backed by America and Israel, and added that the party was defending civilians of all sects in Qusayr, a city in Homs Province near the Lebanese border, where rebels say Hezbollah has led recent battles against them.

U.S. officials say alleged Israeli strike on Syria targeted missiles from Iran, NYT reports – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The surface-to-surface Fateh-110 missiles were being stored at a Damascus airport and believed to be intended for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, report says.

A third generation of Fateh 110 (Conqueror) surface-to-surface missile being launched during a test from an unknown location in Iran. Photo by Reuters

American officials say the alleged Israeli strike on Syria targeted Iranian missiles that Israel thought were headed for Hezbollah, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

A batch of surface-to-surface Fateh-110 missiles were being stored at a Damascus airport when they were struck in the attack, a U.S. official told the newspaper.

The Fateh-110 is a medium-range missile capable of hitting targets at a range of up to 300 kilometers.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one official told the New York Times that the warehouse where the missiles were stored, which was hit in the attack, was most likely controlled by Hezbollah and the Iranian paramilitary Quds Force.

On Saturday morning, anonymous officials told the Associated Press that the Israeli Air Force carried out a strike against Syria that targeted a shipment of advanced missiles bound for the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group. They said the airstrike was early Friday, but did not say where it took place.

Later Saturday, Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad denied the reports. Gilad, who heads the diplomatic security bureau of the Defense Ministry, said that the words of sources who speak under conditions of anonymity cannot be regarded as Israel’s official confirmation, according to an Army Radio report.

According to a Syrian opposition website, a senior source in the Syrian Ministry of Transport claims that the target of the alleged Israeli attack was an airport, where aircraft fuel tanks, Syrian army ammunition storerooms, the army’s runway and a civilian cargo plane that had arrived from Iran to Damascus were destroyed.

Attacking from Lebanese airspace

The attack was carried out from Lebanese airspace, U.S. officials told CNN on Saturday. Israel’s previous airstrike in Syria (against a convoy supposedly carrying SA-17 anti-aircraft weapons) some three months ago was not carried out over Syrian airspace either, for fear of anti-aircraft fire, the Wall Street Journal reported last week.

In late January, an Israeli airstrike targeted a suspected SA-17 anti-aircraft missile shipment intended for Hezbollah, the Wall Street Journal reported. Israel has not confirmed the January attack officially.

Citing Pentagon officials, the newspaper said the Israeli warplanes never entered Syria’s airspace but carried out the strike from the “relative safety” of Lebanon’s airspace.

The attack was executed “in a ‘lofting’ maneuver, using a sudden burst of speed and altitude to catapult a bomb across the border to the target about 10 miles inside Syria,” Wall Street Journal said, citing a previously undisclosed U.S. account of the operation.

It also cited Israeli officials who said it was decided to strike from Lebanon not only for the relative safety of its airspace for example, the absence of anti-aircraft missiles but for diplomatic reasons as well.

In recent years defense sources have expressed fears of losing Israel’s aerial supremacy. The defense establishment said that giving advanced anti-aircraft weapons to terror organizations constituted a red line, as far as Israel was concerned. The sources said Syria has an advanced antiaircraft system, including SA-22 antiaircraft missiles and other weapons bought from Russia.

Former air force commander, Brig. Gen. Ido Nechushtan said about a year ago the advanced weapons in the Middle East constitute a challenge to Israel’s aerial supremacy.

Attack into Syria – message to Iran – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Obama using Israel to show Assad supporters that US is serious when it says ‘all options are on the table’

Every Western intelligence agency estimated it would happen soon, and now, according to all indications, it has: Bashar Assad tried to reward Nasrallah and his men – who are fighting and dying for him – by transferring modern, surface-to-surface missiles that would alter the balance of power between the Lebanese Shiite group and Israel. The Jewish state, it was reported, intervened and thwarted, just as the prime minister, defense minister and IDF chief had promised it would. It is safe to assume that the arms convoy was about to leave the storage facility at the Syrian army base toward the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon when it was hit.

The attacked storage facility is apparently located in an isolated base used for training Hezbollah terrorists in the use of “deterrence-breaking” weapons and also serves as a transit station for Nasrallah’s organization on the way to Lebanon. Syria has a number of such facilities in the Damascus area and in the coastal region, where most of the Alawite and Shiite-Lebanese population is located. Israeli aircraft flew over Lebanon in the past few days – mainly over south Lebanon, and even carried out simulated attacks. These flyovers were most likely meant to signal to Hezbollah and Syria: We are aware of your intentions and we will not sit idly by – as Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon warned. It seems, at least according to the American media, that the warning signals were ignored, forcing an attack on the arms convoy.

The attack itself, one can assume, was not carried out from within Lebanese territory, but from a long distance. Perhaps even from over the sea. It is known that Israel has lethal long-range weapons systems – such as the Popeye air-to-surface missile manufactured by Rafael – which allows for very accurate hits from a range of over 100 kilometers (62 miles), maybe even much more. Just so you know, Mr. Khamenei.

Among the strategic and modern weapons systems Israel said it would not allow to be transferred to Lebanon are the Scud D ballistic missiles – based on the original Russian Scud – which Syria developed with Iran‘s funding. These missiles can carry chemical warheads containing the advanced chemical warfare agent VX to a distance of up to 680 kilometers (423 miles). It is important to stress that according to the relatively credible reports from the Pentagon, the attacked weapons systems did not contain chemical warfare agents – but potentially they could have.

Site of Israeli attack, according to Lebanese reports (Photo: Goggle Maps)

The accurate long-range missiles Assad is trying to transfer to Hezbollah present two problems for Israel: They endanger military facilities and civilians from the north almost all the way to Eilat; and they can be activated far from the border – for instance, from the Hezbollah-controlled area in Lebanon’s northern Bekaa Valley – in a manner which would make it difficult for Israeli warplanes to reach them quickly and thwart the launching. The good news is that the “Arrow” system is capable of intercepting – if the number of missiles fired does not exceed a certain amount. Therefore, Hezbollah has an interest in receiving from Syria the largest amount possible of ballistic missiles and long-range rockets of all types –mainly Scud missiles.

According to foreign sources, the Assad regime had already succeeded – even before the civil war broke out – to transfer to Hezbollah in Lebanon a small number of Scud D missiles. Israel was aware but refrained from acting due to Washington’s objection. It happened roughly two-and-a-half years ago: The American administration feared an Israeli attack would undermine stability in the Middle East, and the fighter jets, which were already in the air, returned to base. It is safe to assume that since then the Obama administration has changed its position on the issue.

From left: IDF chief Gantz, IAF chief Eshel and Defense Minister Ya’alon (Photo: Alon Basson, Defense Ministry)

The advanced Scud is not the only weapon capable of breaking the balance of deterrence. Other weapons systems are capable of limiting the IDF’s ability to operate deep inside Lebanon should Hezbollah decide to launch a missile and rocket attack. These systems mostly include mobile, “stealth,” and accurate anti-aircraft missile batteries and radar facilities which are difficult to locate – particularly the SA-17 surface-to-air missiles, which Russia recently supplied to Syria. The request for the SA-17 was made in the aftermath of the strike on Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007. Now Russia is transferring these missiles to deter NATO from operating as it did in Libya. Assad, for his part, is trying to reward Nasrallah and make things difficult for the Israeli Air Force. This is why an SA-17 battery was attacked last January as it was being transferred to from western Damascus to the Lebanese border.

Hezbollah is also after the anti-ship cruise missiles Russia sold Syria, particularly the “Yakhont” missile. Hezbollah already has in its possession obsolete Iranian-made land-to-sea missiles, such as the one that struck the Israeli missile boat “Hanit” during the Second Lebanon War. But the “Yakhont” is much more advanced and dangerous. It has a 300-kilometer (186 miles) range, it flies at a very high altitude and is equipped with the most advanced systems. The “Yakhont” can serve as a very accurate and devastating missile against targets along Israel’s coastline if launched from the Syrian or Lebanese coast.

According to military journals in Russia, the “Yakhont” has the ability to zero in on a target very accurately with a GPS system. The missile has the unique ability of being able to cruise several meters above the water surface, making it difficult to detect and intercept. In short, no gas field is safe from this missile, and, should Hezbollah obtain the “Yakhont,” it would make it risky for Navy vessels to sail off Lebanon’s coast. Just so you know, Mr. Putin.

‘Yakhont’ missiles pose a threat. Offshore Israeli gas field (Photo: Reuters)

It is safe to assume that the recent attack targeted surface-to-surface missiles, mostly because Assad and his army do not need these missiles to fight the rebels and can therefore afford to transfer them to Nasrallah, so he could use them against Israel when the opportunity arises (from Nasrallah and Iran’s standpoint). If such an opportunity does not arise, Hezbollah will be asked to return the missiles to the Syrian army, in the event that Assad’s regime survives.

In addition, the Syrian regime fears that after it used nerve gas against its citizens the West and NATO may launch a military operation. Obama has already said that such an operation would not be conducted on the ground, meaning it would mostly likely be launched from the air, from bases in Turkey, for instance, as well as from the sea – from aircraft carriers and destroyers. One of the plans is to attack missiles that can be used to launch chemical weapons. In order to fend off such an attack the Syrian army would need all its modern surface-to-air batteries and every “Yakhont” launcher it currently has or can obtain from Russia. Therefore, it is unlikely that Assad will transfer vital weapons systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon at this time.

It is interesting that the reports of the recent attack came from Washington and not from sources in the region. During the attack on the SA-17 battery a few months ago, the US remained silent, but gave the impression that it was not against the operation and that it was justified, because Israel is entitled to defend itself. Obama reaffirmed this position during his visit in March. The US made it very clear it does not want “game-changing” advanced weapons to be transferred from Syria to terror elements – particularly Hezbollah. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reiterated this position during his meeting with Ya’alon last month.

Now Washington is making sure to leak to all American media outlets that Israel attacked and what the target was. It is safe to assume that this tactic was employed because Assad’s regime tried to “save face” and conceal the blow it had received, and also because the Obama administration, in accordance with its new agreements with Israel, it trying to show Syria and its supporters – Iran, Russia and China – that the US is serious when it says that “all options are on the table.” The message: We stand by Israel when it protects itself.

Report: Syria strike conducted from Lebanon – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Source in rebel unit says F-16 jets carried out three strikes as details on Israeli strike in Syria continue to emerge. Meanwhile, US sources estimate warplanes didn’t enter Syrian airspace

Yoav Zitun, Roi Kais

Hours after the first reports of an Israeli strike in Syria, details about the mysterious attack continue to emerge.

A source at a rebel intelligence unit in Damascus said that F-16 jets carried out three strikes on the road connecting Damascus and Beirut.

One of the strikes, he said, hit a site near the Syrian army’s fourth armored division in the city of al-Saboura. According to foreign sources, the jets carried out the attacks from Lebanese airspace.

The rebel source said that the attack targeted a Hezbollah -bound anti-aircraft missile convoy but according to recent estimates they were ground-to-ground missiles.

Earlier on Saturday, an Israeli official told the Associated Press that the shipment was not of chemical arms, but of “game changing” weapons bound for Hezbollah.

Another Israeli source who spoke with the New York Times said that while chemical weapons draw much attention, Israel is far more concerned about advanced conventional weapons.

Additionally, Qasim Saad al-Din, a commander in the Free Syrian Army, said he does not believe the target was anti-aircraft missiles and noted that the group has yet to confirm the exact location of the strike.

IDF tanks on Syrian border (Photo: AFP)

“We estimate they were long range missiles of some sort with the ability to carry chemical substances,” he said.

Another question that arose Saturday was whether Israeli jets had invaded Syrian airspace.

Based on initial indications, US officials told CNN they do not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes. It was estimated the strike was carried out from Lebanon.

According to Reuters, Israel’s air force possesses so-called “standoff” bombs that coast dozens of kilometers (miles) across ground to their targets once fired. That could, in theory, allow Israel to attack Syria from its own turf or from adjacent Lebanon.

Ynet’s defense analyst Ron Ben-Yishai estimates the assault was not conducted from Lebanese airspace but from greater distance, possibly from over the sea. Israel’s Rafael-manufactured “Popeye” system is capable of carrying out such strikes.

Last January, it was reported that the IAF attacked a weapons convoy en route to the Syria-Lebanon border. Damascus later admitted that a military research center in the Jamraya region had been bombed.

Some believe that Syria lied about the target to disguise the fact that it supplied Hezbollah with Russian weapons and SA-17 advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

Meanwhile, the IDF ‘s Northern Command raised its alert level in response to battles in the Syrian Golan area. Syrian opposition sources in Quneitra reported loud blasts caused by shelling in the demilitarized buffer zone. According to the sources, mortar shells hit several houses in the area.

Next Iranian president likely to have gentler touch | The Times of Israel.

An anti-Ahmadinejad referendum is shaping up in Tehran as election date approaches

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and Brian Murphy May 4, 2013, 8:43 pm

Iranian presidential hopeful, Ali Akbar Velayati, adviser to the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left, talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (photo credit: AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — For eight years, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has played the role of global provocateur-in-chief: questioning the Holocaust, saying Israel should be erased from the map and painting UN resolutions as worthless. His provocative style grated inside Iran as well — angering the country’s supreme leader to the point of warning the presidency could be abolished.

Now, a race is beginning to choose his successor and it looks like an anti-Ahmadinejad referendum is shaping up. Candidate registration starts Tuesday for the June 14 vote.

Leading candidates assert that they will be responsible stewards, unlike the firebrand Ahmadinejad, who cannot run again because he is limited to two terms. One criticized Ahmadinejad for “controversial but useless” statements. Others even say the country should have a less hostile relationship with the United States.

Comments from the presumed front-runners lean toward less bombast and more diplomacy. They are apparently backed by a leadership that wants to rehabilitate Iran’s renegade image and possibly stabilize relations with the West.

The result however may be more a new tone rather than sweeping policy change. Under Iran’s theocratic system, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wields supreme power, making final decisions on nuclear and military questions. However, the president acts as the public face of the country, traveling the world. A new president might embark on an international image makeover and open the door to less antagonistic relations with Iran’s Arab neighbors and the West.

The vote comes at a critical time in Iran, a regional powerhouse with about 75 million people and some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Nuclear talks between Iran and world powers are at an impasse while the Islamic Republic barrels ahead with a uranium enrichment program that many are convinced is intended for atomic weapons. Iran also serves as the key ally of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, a mainstay so far helping keep him in power as rebels fight to oust him.

It is also in the middle of an apparent shadow war with Israel. Tehran has blamed Israel for deadly attacks on its nuclear scientists. Israel in turn has alleged Iranian attack plots on its diplomats or citizens around the world, including one where two Iranians were convicted of planning to attack Israeli, American and other targets in Kenya on Thursday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned repeatedly that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, through use of force if need be.

While polls in Iran are unreliable, the tenor of the candidates’ speeches reflects a sense among the public that Ahmadinejad’s belligerent stance toward the rest of the world has not helped.

“Ahmadinejad has followed a policy of confrontation. He made a lot of enemies for Iran. What were the results?” asked Tehran taxi driver Namdar Rezaei, 40. “The next government should pursue a policy of easing tensions with the outside world.”

All the main candidates — including a top adviser and a former nuclear negotiator — are closely linked to the ruling clerics, since opposition groups have mostly been crushed. They reflect the mood of Khamenei, himself a former president, who wants nothing more than to end the internal political rifts opened by Ahmadinejad.

On Wednesday, Khamenei told prominent clerics to avoid “divisive” comments during the election. It is the clerics who will select a small group of hopefuls, probably no more than six, for the ballot.

The ultimate goal is to find ways to ease painful Western sanctions that have evicted Iran from international banking networks, brought public complaints over rising prices and cut vital oil exports by more than half. But what still stands in the way is a complicated dance: Maintaining uranium enrichment while addressing Western fears that Iran could move toward atomic weapons — a charge it denies.

For more than two years, Ahmadinejad has openly defied Khamenei in an attempt to expand the authorities of the presidency. The disputes reached a meltdown point in late 2011, when Khamenei’s loyalists mounted an impeachment campaign. Khamenei stepped in to call it off, but warned that Iran could one day eliminate the presidency for a system where the parliament picks a prime minister instead.

“This is a chance for Iran to bring a new tone after eight years of Ahmadinejad,” said Ehsan Ahrari, a Virginia-based strategic affairs analyst. “There seems to be a real interest in the ruling system to quiet things down.”

Of course, Ahmadinejad is not likely sit on the sidelines after he leaves office. He still carries significant populist support across Iran, particularly in rural areas that benefited from aid from his government. Whichever candidate he backs could get an Election Day bump.

He is now trying to push his top adviser and in-law, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, onto the ballot, but will likely be rejected by the Guardian Council, the group that vets all candidates. Ahmadinejad has been traveling around Iran for weeks, sometimes along with Mashaei.

After the internal political upheavals he triggered, the clerics are expected to stick with safe and loyal candidates, and the candidates know it and are playing to that dynamic.

Tehran’s mayor, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, chided Ahmadinejad for “controversial but useless” statements that undermined Iran’s international standing.

“Where did the case of the Holocaust take us? We were never against Judaism. It’s a religion. … No one could accuse us of being anti-Semitic,” he told Iran’s Tasnim news agency last month. “But suddenly, without consideration for the results and implications, the issue of the Holocaust was raised. How did this benefit Iran or the Palestinians?”

Another prominent candidate, Ali Akbar Velayati, took a clear shot at Ahmadinejad by saying Iran needs a “principlist” as the next president — meaning a conservative who will not question the authority of Khamenei or the ruling clerics.

Velayati, a senior adviser to Khamenei, has joined in an unusual three-way alliance with Qalibaf and parliament member Gholam Ali Haddad Adel. Each has promised to give key posts to the two others should he win the presidency.

“If we do not succeed, we have to try for another eight years in order to take back the country’s management,” Velayati said in a February speech in the seminary city of Qom.

Velayati has deferred to Khamenei on any possible overtures to the US But Qalibaf and others suggest they would urge the leadership to remain open for direct talks.

“Confrontation with the US is not a value by itself,” Qalibaf said. “At the same time, an alliance with or bowing to the US won’t meet our interests, too. These are two extremist views. We should follow a realistic approach. Dialogue (with the US) is not a taboo.”

Mohsen Rezaei, a former chief of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard chief who is seeking another chance at the presidency after losing four years ago, says only that he favors a “win-win dialogue.”

“That means we won’t lose and they (West) won’t think Iran is a threat to the world,” he said.

And candidate Hasan Rowhani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and Khamenei’s top national security representative, also disparaged Ahmadinejad’s grandstanding style, saying Iran needs a “government of prudence.”

Another candidate, former Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi, said even restoring diplomatic ties with Washington is not out of the question as long as Iranian “interests are ensured.”

“I believe there is no need for Iran to be at war with the US forever,” he said. “Iran has the capacity to protect and ensure its national interests while having ties with the U.S.”

Ahmadinejad foe Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, appears unlikely to make one last presidential run, despite speculation to the contrary. The official IRNA news agency quoted Rowhani on Wednesday saying the 78-year-old Rafsanjani “will definitely not” be a candidate.

However, Rafsanjani still wields considerable clout, and his endorsement will carry weight. Earlier this week, Rafsanjani urged his nation to lower tensions with Iran’s archenemy Israel, which is considering military action over Tehran’s nuclear program.

“We are not at war with Israel,” Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by several Iranian newspapers, including the pro-reform Shargh daily. He said Iran would not initiate war against Israel, but “if Arab nations wage a war, then we would help.”

Ahmadindejad’s role in this election stands in sharp contrast to the last, where he was front and center and backed by the clerics. Accusations that his re-election was clumsily rigged by a clerical establishment panicked by the possibility of reformers coming to power led to massive demonstrations and reprisals spanning weeks, the most serious unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself.

The election was so contentious that the two main opposition leaders of 2009, Mir Hossein Mousavi and cleric Mahdi Karroubi, remain under house arrest. The remnants of the opposition appear increasingly unlikely to persuade their one major hope, former President Mohammad Khatami, not to seek a comeback run. That leaves them with the choice of boycotting the vote or picking from an establishment-friendly lineup.

While this election is unlikely to spark the same fireworks, a desire for change remains.

“Why shouldn’t we be in good terms with the outside world? Why tensions at home and abroad?” asked 35-year-old real estate agent Shahram Rashidi in Tehran. “That’s why we really need a totally different president this time.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

Readying new Syria push, US feels out Russia again | The Times of Israel.

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Moscow in order to discuss President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons

President Barack Obama responds to a question about the ongoing situation in Syria during a news conference in San Jose, Costa Rica. May 3, 2013, (photo credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is trying to leverage new evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons, and make a fresh diplomatic and possible military push with allies to end the country’s civil war.

This renewed effort starts with Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Moscow this coming week for talks with leaders in Russia, the Syrian government’s most powerful international friend.

Russia, alongside China, has blocked US-led efforts three times at the United Nations to pressure Assad into stepping down. The US hopes to change Moscow’s thinking with two new arguments, officials said: the evidence of chemical weapons attacks and, with the war now in its third year, American threats to arm the Syrian rebels.

Russia represents the most difficult diplomatic test as the US tries to assemble a global coalition to halt a war that has claimed more than 70,000 lives.

Washington wants a peaceful resolution and sees UN-imposed sanctions against Syria as an effective tool for pressuring Assad into negotiations. With Assad’s government unwilling to talk with the opposition, and Russia providing military and diplomatic backing, hopes of a negotiated transition are all but dead for now.

The stalemate and the risk of greater chemical weapons usage are driving President Barack Obama to explore new options, including military ones. But, he made clear Friday during a visit to Costa Rica, “I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground, would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria.”

Obama said at a Washington news conference earlier in the week that any new U.S. action should be taken prudently and in concert with international partners. Two days later, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said arming the Syrian opposition was a policy consideration.

Kerry’s departure Monday for Russia sets the stage for some critical discussions.

In Moscow, officials said Kerry will attempt to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to support, or at least not veto, a fresh effort to impose U.N. penalties on Syria if Assad doesn’t begin political transition talks with the opposition.

To make his case, Kerry will present the Russians with evidence of chemical weapons use and relay the Obama administration’s readiness to give weapons to the Syrian rebels, according to the officials, who demanded anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the confidential diplomacy.

Although the US is prepared to act with or without the Russians’ help, officials say a coordinated effort to end the war would be much easier with Moscow on board.

China is seen as largely following Russia’s lead.

The US also wants Russia, which maintains a naval base in Syria, to stop honoring existing contracts with the Assad government for defense hardware and to refrain from doing anything else to bolster his forces.

Unlike with Afghanistan and Iraq, several of America’s Western and Arab allies are significantly ahead of the United States in their readiness to intervene in Syria.

Just on Friday, an Israeli airstrike against Syria targeted a shipment of advanced missiles believed bound for the Lebanese military group Hezbollah, Israeli officials said Saturday. The officials said the attack was aimed at sophisticated “game-changing” weapons, but not chemical arms.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided the rebels with advanced weaponry. Turkey has given the opposition leadership a home base and significant logistical support. Britain and France have ramped up support ahead of the US at almost every step.

Somewhat similar to the Libya intervention two years ago, Washington is being pulled by several of its closest partners into an ambivalent escalation in Syria.

As the US extricates itself from a decade of fighting in the Muslim world, it has been reluctant to get involved in a new conflict colored by sectarian warfare and terrorist groups engaged on both sides of the battle.

The US also notes that the Syrian government has far greater defensive capacities than those of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, whose military was easily eliminated in 2011.

But the rising death toll, increased international clamoring for greater American leadership and the threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation in the heart of the Middle East, between Iraq and Lebanon and bordering Israel, have led Obama to reassess his options.

Obama this past week reaffirmed his view that the “only way to bring stability and peace to Syria is going to be for Assad to step down.” Even before the reports of chemical weapons use, he said, the US sought to strengthen Syria’s opposition. Now, however, “some options that we might not otherwise exercise … we would strongly consider.”

“The use of chemical weapons would be a game changer,” Obama told reporters. “When you use these kinds of weapons, you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don’t want that genie out of the bottle.”

But the administration also has said the intelligence reports citing physical evidence of chemical weapons use were not certain enough to cross Obama’s stated “red line,” which he said last summer would have “enormous consequences.”

Obama said Friday in Costa Rica that “we have evidence that chemical weapons have been used. We don’t know when, where, or how they were used.” A US investigation, he said, will help “get a better handle on the facts.”

“When it comes to using chemical weapons, the entire world should be concerned,” he added.

Arming the rebels is the most likely escalation, officials said. Even the most ardent advocates of U.S. intervention don’t want American military boots on the ground. A no-fly zone would demand an intensive operation to neutralize Syria’s Russian-supplied air defenses. Officials said targeted strikes are likely to be considered only after uncontested proof emerges of chemical weapons use or the intelligence suggests repeat attacks may be imminent.

Any US military action, including arming the rebels, would be weeks away, officials said. They stressed that a strategy would first have to be coordinated with several important allies to ensure that the right weapons get to the right forces and that donors aren’t duplicating efforts. The U.S. also would try to secure contributions from more Arab and European partners, they said, while continuing to check rebel brigades that are untainted by al-Qaida or other extremists who’ve joined the anti-Assad fight.

The range of reservations to direct military intervention explains why the administration is putting great stock in a unified international approach. Swaying Russia would remove an important consideration for many potential coalition partners and leave Assad with only Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah as reliable allies.

It would eliminate the possibility of a Russian veto to any future request for UN authorization to directly intervene in Syria.

Obama never has said he must have a UN mandate to act, but US officials repeatedly have cited it as one explanation for why the American response in Syria hasn’t been more forceful. Also, no one in the United States wants a repeat of the diplomatic humiliation suffered by President George W. Bush in the runup to the 2003 Iraq war.

The chances for a Russian shift are unclear. US-Russian relations are mired in disputes from missile defense in Europe to adoptions and new Russian laws against political dissent. Arguments outlining the costs of increased international criticism for remaining steadfast in support of the Assad government have repeatedly failed to move Moscow.

Officials say Kerry is optimistic he can sway Putin; others are more skeptical.

At a minimum, officials said, reaching out to Russia could pre-empt arguments that the US is moving toward military options in Syria without giving diplomacy a final chance.

Gaining even Russia’s grudging acquiescence in private to greater American involvement in Syria, as with NATO’s Kosovo intervention in the 1990s, could be viewed as a critical if silent diplomatic victory for the United States.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

Syrian opposition claims Israel attacked Damascus airport – Diplomacy & Defense – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

( Sounds bogus…. But there may be something to it.  One of the more frequent comments I read in the reporting on the airport attack was that it was the first time Assad had publicized an attack on the airport, which have happened before.  Assad does not want to have to respond to Israel or be called a “chicken.”  Ehud Yaari said as much tonight on Ch 2. – JW )

A Syrian rebel website says that the alleged Israeli strike in Syria targeted aircraft fuel tanks, Syrian army ammunition storerooms, the army’s runway and a civilian cargo plane that had arrived from Iran.

An Israel Air Force F-15 taking off. Photo by Daniel Bar-On-

By The Associated Press and Reuters

May.04,2013 | 1:10 PM

The target of the alleged Israeli attack in Syria was Damascus airport, where aircraft fuel tanks, Syrian army ammunition storerooms, the army’s runway and a civilian cargo plane that had arrived from Iran to Damascus were destroyed, according to a Syrian opposition website.

The website that published this information cited a senior source in the Syrian Ministry of Transport, which is responsible for airport operations, amongst other things.

According to the same source, the attack was carried out on five sites in the airport area. Some were close to each other, while the civilian aircraft was a kilometer away from the other targets. The source explained that the number of targets and the distance between them refutes the Syrian government’s claim that Syrian Free Army forces attacked the fuel tanks, as these factors mean that they must have been attacked from the air rather than by mortars. The website also reports that nearby “noises were heard of aircraft breaking the sound barrier.”

On Friday, the Assad regime government reported that rebels hit the airport’s fuel tanks. It denied that there had been an aerial strike in Syrian territory. Official sources in the Syrian opposition have refrained from addressing the alleged Israeli attack, but according to foreign reports the United States is seeking to establish ties between Israel and the Syrian opposition in order to make arrangements to protect the Syrian-Israeli border, in the short term – preventing accidental fire into Israeli territory – as well as long term security measures that are to be determined between the new regime and Israel. Israel and the opposition leadership (alongside the U.S.) have a shared interest in preventing the arming of Hezbollah and obstructing its involvement in fighting the rebels in Syrian territory.

The Free Syrian Army Chief of Staff, General Salim Idris, also has a shared interest with the U.S. and Israel to neutralize the activities of the Jabhat al-Nusra (the radical Sunni organization that numbers around 3,000, is affiliated with Al-Qaida and which the U.S. administration designates as a terrorist organization). The participation of Jabhat al-Nusra in the war in Syria is one of the main factors that are currently delaying the U.S.’s decision regarding the transfer of weapons to the rebels. They fear that they may fall into the hands of extremists, and later on be deployed in internal battles.

At this stage, the U.S. is providing the rebels with non-lethal assistance. This week, a large shipment of night-vision equipment, uniforms, radios and other logistical equipment arrived. But these are not sufficient for the rebels, who also demand heavy weaponry, anti-aircraft missiles and tanks. The U.S. is also training the rebels in Jordan and simultaneously supporting the training of Syrian Kurdish rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan. According to reports in the Arab press, Israel is in close contact with the administration in Iraqi Kurdistan, and is apparently also involved in training the Kurdish rebels.

In light of the alleged Israeli attack in Damascus and the refusal of Western countries to intervene in the Syrian campaign, the question arises whether Israel will be able, or will be required to expand its activities in Syrian airspace, under the guise of preventing weapons from reaching Hezbollah or other organizations and also as an aerial umbrella to protect rebel forces. Such a solution is likely to be comfortable for the U.S., other Arab countries and Turkey, who are not prepared for military intervention on their part without extensive international agreement.

In this way, Israel is likely to accustom the Syrian government and the opposition to the idea that it sees Syria as a legitimate area of activity, as it does in Lebanon. On the other hand, the Syrian opposition is publically distancing itself from all contact with Israel, as it will be seen as relying on the national enemy in order to defeat the government. Such Israeli involvement is likely to provide legitimization for Iran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the fighting in Syria, as well as to the opening-up of another front in Lebanon.

Hezbollah: We won’t let Israel, US take over Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Amid reports of Israeli attack on Hezbollah-bound weapons shipment, head of terror group’s political bureau says Hezbollah ‘ready to prevent Syria from falling into Tel Aviv and Washington’s hands’

Roi Kais

In the wake of reports that Israel attacked a shipment of “game changing” long range, ground-to-ground missiles intended for Hezbollah in Syria Friday night, Ibrahim Amin al-Sayed, head of Hezbollah’s political bureau, said that his organization “is ready to prevent Syria from falling into Tel Aviv and Washington’s hands”.

Al-Sayaed even admitted that Hezbollah operatives were active in Syria to protect Lebanese citizens “from the Israeli-American cooperation.”

In a memorial service held in honor of one of the groups members in Baalbek, al-Sayed said that “this is our strategy, this is not interference in Syria. It is an intervention in the conflict against America and Israel.”

He admitted that Hezbollah fighters were active in battling the rebels as part of the Syrian civil war. He said “We are involved in Syria, and we say clearly why we are involved, because we will not allow that this (Israel-US) axis will control us to protect Lebanese citizens “from the Israeli-American cooperation.”

It has been widely reported that Hezbollah operatives aided Bashar Assad‘s regime in fighting the rebels. Syria on its part has provide the terrorist group with weapons.

Earlier on Saturday, an Israeli official told AP that Israeli warplanes had targeted a shipment of missiles in Syria believed to be en route to Hezbollah operatives in neighboring Lebanon.

The air strike took place on Friday after it was approved in a secret meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s security cabinet on Thursday night, the official said on condition of anonymity.

He added the shipment was not of chemical arms, but of “game changing” weapons bound for Hezbollah.

Syria: air strike hints at change in how far Israel will involve itself in conflict – Telegraph.

The attack on a Syria-Hizbollah weapons transfer was the second this year by the Israelis. But Richard Spencer says the way the news was confirmed makes this strike very different.

Escalation in Syria coming out of the shadows.

Israeli-Iranian proxy war in Syria is coming out of the shadows during this weekend as Israel bombs Hezbollah targets in Syria, set to mobilize ground forces confronting the recent Iranian deployment near the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian border triangle, following Obama’s declaration that US boots on the ground in Syria are unlikely.

The Shadow war in greater Syria we described yesterday continues to escalate by the hour during this weekend of early May 2013. According to American sources the Israeli air force carried out strikes against a number of targets in Syria. allegedly this was done remotely using standoff weapons from Lebanese air space starting Friday and continuing up until early Saturday, May 3. Israeli officials confirmed the attack during Saturday, May 4, and claimed the target was a convoy of advanced missiles meant to be shipped over to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This repeats the pattern of the previous raid in late January on the Jamaria biochemical complex near Damascus, when the raid on a Hezbollah missile convoy was used as a distraction for the more important raid on the high value fixed target in Jamaria.

Rumors continued to surface regarding the use of chemical weapons by either side of the Syrian civil (war which is in fact a proxy war between NATO and the SCO), which has become a hot potato recently due to purely political reasons emanating from the foolish ‘murky red lines’ policy of both the American and Israeli governments who publicly committed themselves to actions they knew would be very difficult to implement if push comes to shove regarding Either Iran’s nuclear program or Syria’s chemical stockpiles. This explains the bizarre skirmish between the Israeli military Intelligence and senior US officials regarding the alleged use of chemical agents in Syria following defense secretary Hagel’s visit in Israel recently (which according to some sources was meant to dissuade the Israelis from a unilateral strike on Iran).

Obama’s recent declaration that he has no serious intention to invade Syria conforms with his policies so far of using regional proxies as cannon fodder , thus all the speculations about a repeat of the Iraqi scenario seem detached from reality, as this would contradict the modus operandi of the Trilateral faction which controls Obama till date. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Obama is interested in letting the particular fractal of this war, namely the Iranian-Israeli one, come out of the shadows at this point in time, while the wider context of the American-Russian power play in the Levant is pushed aside for the moment.

Lebanese sources continued to report during Saturday about IDF ground movements in the vicinity of the border triangle, confronting the recent deployment of several brigades of Iranian Basij troops in the area (the Basij is an ideologically motivated elite militia of the Ayatollah regime, roughly comparable to the Nazi SS or the Soviet NKVD during WWII). This is done under the cover of the current division level reservist mobilization drill which should expand to live fire maneuvers in the beginning of the coming week. Further to these developments, the IDF has recently reactivated deserted outposts in the Golan front, following a long overhaul of the fortifications in that front and the installation of a new and improved border fence. While the Golan deployment seems defensive in nature (supposedly vs. further attempts by FSA to drag Israel into a direct ground war against the Syrian army by conducting border provocations), actual ground skirmishes are more likely to happen either in Southern Lebanon or in the border triangle, which might escalate to a direct confrontation between IDF and Basij troops.

Another possibility which can’t be ruled out is a chemical attack by Hezbollah on Israel (either real or staged by a “mysterious” third party (like the drone incident last week), compounded by the failure of Israel to defend itself that would lead to a rigged ‘invitation’ for further western military intervention, i.e. extending the French presence in the Lebanon towards its re-occupation by France, likewise NATO’s naval presence in the vicinity of Lebanon’s offshore gas fields which was jump started by the rigged Israeli defeat in Lebanon in summer 2006.

It’s not clear at this point why the Israeli defense establishment agrees to be used as cannon fodder by the American strategists. Perhaps this is based on the vain hope that eventually this will lead to an American attack on Iran or at least to a green light for an Israeli raid with American back-up. However this seems to go against the developing American trend of engaging the Mullah regime in prolonged diplomatic tango (probably a covert backroom deal) of allowing them to push forward with the nuclear program undisturbed so as long as they don’t conduct a nuclear test and don’t declare themselves to be a military nuclear power(by the way, this is precisely how the Nixon administration dealt with the Israeli nuclear program back at the time). This shouldn’t matter much to the Mullahs because these functions are already taken care of on their behalf by North Korea. Further developments in this highly volatile sector remain to be seen during the coming days and weeks.