WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Assad is playing with fire.

Dan Margalit

Israel Hayom | S-300 deal not necessarily a tiebreaker.

Dr. Gabi Avital

Israel Warns of Attack if Syria Regime Falls – Forward.com.

General Says Wider War Looming To Block Hezbollah

getty images

By Reuters

Israel is prepared to attack Syria to prevent advanced weapons reaching jihadi rebels or Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon if President Bashar al-Assad is toppled, Israel’s air force chief said on Wednesday.

Major-General Amir Eshel also said Israelis should brace for a protracted and painful conflict should their forces engage in combat with Hezbollah or its main backer, Iran.

“If Syria collapses tomorrow, we will need to take action to prevent a strategic looting of advanced weaponry,” he told the Fisher Institute for Air & Space Studies near Tel Aviv.

“We have to be ready for any scenario, at a few hours’ notice,” Eshel said.

He assumed fighting could escalate on to three fronts at once and require the Israeli air force to employ “the full spectrum of its might”.

Israeli warplanes have attacked Syria at least three times this year to destroy what intelligence sources described as advanced anti-aircraft and ground-to-ground missile caches in transit to Hezbollah. The Israelis also worry that Assad may lose control of Syria’s chemical warheads stocks.

Beset by the more than two-year-old insurgency, Assad has not retaliated for the air strikes. But some Israeli experts worry his forbearance could wear out – especially if he believes new Russian-supplied air defences will let him fend off his militarily superior foe.

Eshel said the most formidable of the Russian systems, the S-300, was “on its way” to Syria and that Israel could not afford to see its air superiority dented given what he predicted would be the need to hit the other side intensively.

“If we want to prevail within a few days, we need to use a lot of firepower, and quickly,” he said. “Air superiority is critical, and we must contend with a new generation of capabilities.”

Israelis would be mistaken to anticipate a repeat of their lopsided recent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas in Gaza, or their 2006 war with Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Eshel told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.

“People are looking for a knock-out, for things to be surgical and sterile, but they won’t be. The homefront will be hit, no matter how much we defend it,” he said, referring to possible missile attacks on the Israeli interior from Syria, Hezbollah and Iran.

“If we go to war in the north, we can win, without a doubt, but it will be something entirely new. No one should say, ‘Guys, we are fighting without pressure, so we will finish this story in two months.’ It’s far more delicate than that.”

Iran ups uranium enrichment capabilities, diplomats say | The Times of Israel.

Increase of about 100 centrifuges since mid-April, when envoys first claimed the Islamic Republic was rapidly building new nuclear equipment

Herman Nackaerts, deputy director general of the IAEA, left, and Iran’s Ambassador to the international atomic agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, speak to media after their talks at the permanent mission of Iran in Vienna, Austria on Wednesday. (photo credit: AP/Ronald Zak)

VIENNA (AP) — Iran is moving ahead to update a program the West fears could be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Wednesday, despite high-level diplomacy aimed at stopping it from doing so.

Three diplomats said Tehran now has installed close to 700 high-tech centrifuges in an upgrade of its uranium enrichment program since the start of the year. That represents an increase of about 100 since mid-April, when diplomats first told The Associated Press that Iran was rapidly installing the equipment.

Tehran says it is enriching uranium only for peaceful uses. But the US and its allies fear it may enrich to levels used for nuclear bombs. The Islamic Republic is under UN Security Council and other sanctions for refusing to stop enrichment and the International Atomic Energy Agency is attempting to probe suspicions it may have worked on nuclear weapons.

But other countries say there is no proof that Iran intends to use the technology for weapons, and they support Iran’s claim that Security Council sanctions because of its refusal to stop enriching are illegal.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report on the centrifuge installations Wednesday. The diplomats, all from IAEA member nations, demanded anonymity because they are not authorized to divulge confidential IAEA information. Two are from countries critical of Tehran’s nuclear program while the third is considered neutral.

The new IR-2m centrifuges are believed to be able to enrich two to five times faster than the old machines. For nations fearing that Iran may want to make nuclear arms, that would mean a quicker way of getting there.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s chief IAEA representative, said he would not comment ahead of the IAEA report. IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said the agency would not comment.

The IAEA first reported initial installations in February. It said then that agency inspectors counted 180 of the advanced IR-2m centrifuges at Natanz, Tehran’s main enrichment site, less than a month after Iran’s Jan. 23 announcement that it would start installing them.

The diplomats said none of the machines appeared to be operating and some may only be partially set up. But the rapid pace of installations indicates that Iran possesses the technology and materials to mass-produce centrifuges that can enrich much faster than its present machines.

Iranian nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi said earlier this year that more than 3,000 high-tech centrifuges have already been produced and will soon phase out the more than 12,000 older-generation enriching machines at Natanz, south of Tehran. The IAEA report also is expected to mention that Tehran has put in hundreds more of those old machines even as it expands its upgrade with new centrifuges.

The diplomats said the agency will also note Iran’s decision to keep its stockpile of uranium enriched to a level just a technical step away from weapons-grade to below the amount needed for a bomb.

Two of the diplomats also said that Iran has begun converting a small reactor to test fuel for a bigger reactor now being built that the US and its allies say will yield enough plutonium for several bombs a year.

The large reactor is being built at Arak, southwest of Tehran, while the tests are being planned at the nuclear research facility at Isfahan, in central Iran. Tehran says the Arak facility will go on line early next year, but experts say the earliest they expect that to happen is 2015.

Iran says the Arak reactor will be used only for research and other peaceful purposes, adding it has no intention of reprocessing plutonium for weapons use.

More than six years of international negotiations have failed to persuade Tehran to stop enrichment and mothball the Arak reactor.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Syrian opposition urges rebel fighters to ‘rush to rescue’ of Qusayr – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

( The internecine butchery occurring in Syria should be “off topic” for this site.  Sadly, because Iran is so deeply involved in keeping Assad in power so as to maintain it’s threat to Israel via Hezbollah, it is very much “on topic.”  It sickens me to have to post these articles, but they are relevant regardless of their seeming distance from Israel’s  direct interest. – JW )

Leaks from Sinai – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

The treacherous operation that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers in Sinai in the holy month of Ramadan last year was not surprising to some prominent authority officials, as was said back then.

Before the incident, there were leaks that reached high-ranking officials within the authority at least two weeks before the operation was carried out. These leaks said an operation on the borders was being planned. According to the leaks, the operation will kill a number of Egyptians, and a “limited” Israeli response will follow but it will be overlooked by Egypt.

The leaks added that this incident will be exploited to embarrass the army and push it out of the circle of political action. Two weeks following this information, the operation that killed our soldiers was carried out. The incident was exploited as we saw and the army command was gotten rid of. After this move, the Brotherhood launched its continuous attempts to control the army. However, the Brotherhood failed to do so because of the armed forces’ new command’s firm stance. So far, the new command has confronted the Brotherhood’s attempts with great patriotism and wit.

The army’s political influence

After the soldiers were killed in Ramadan, the first thing the government did was push the army towards the battle in Sinai. Back then, some analyzed this move as one aiming to deprive the army of political influence and push it towards a clash with groups that were once allied with the Brotherhood. But it’s okay to get rid of these groups – if possible – through the army. This at least guarantees involving the army in the swamp of fighting terrorism. This is similar to previous attempts aiming to alter the army’s combat doctrine and priorities, in which fighting terrorism falls first.

So, after the incident in Ramadan, the military operation in Sinai began. It seems that the army command realized the risks it was being pushed towards and that contradict with the military institution’s stances. So, the army command’s operation focused on besieging the terrorists, arresting them and handing them over to the political authority to perform its duties. Army forces made sure to carry out the operation with the least number of victims. It seems that this was not met by the Brotherhood’s satisfaction. The ruling party realized that this embarrasses it in front of its allies. The result was that the operation was halted. The presidency institution began marketing ideas of dialogue and reconciliation with these “terrorist” groups. Allow me to note that the term “terrorist” is my own description. The institutions of the Brotherhood’s state never described these groups as terrorist. The presidency institution, which is linked to the Brotherhood, did not describe the incident in which soldiers were killed as a terrorist act. It described it as a “criminal” act.

Therefore, what was issued by the presidency after soldiers were recently kidnapped was not surprising. The statement said that President Mursi made emphasized that efforts are underway to release the soldiers and maintain the lives of both, the kidnapped and the kidnappers. Yes, maintain the lives of the kidnappers. A presidential spokesperson tried to explain the latter statement two days after the statement was made. One of his friends asked him about it. He responded with: “This statement must be clearly (understood) that a hostage cannot be (treated equally) like a kidnapper.”

Political efforts

The result of political efforts has not appeared yet by the time of writing this article. But whatever the situation is after this article is published, there are clear present facts despite all attempts to conceal them. One of the most important of facts is that what happened and what may happen is a series of attempts to involve the army in trouble and engage it in a crisis that allows the Brotherhood to control it, rehabilitate it and alter its combat doctrine according to what suits its goals. The least the Brotherhood wants is to place the army in a tense bloody relation with an important segment of the Egyptian people. This is tantamount to keeping the army busy and neutralizing it when it comes to the aspect of it being a power capable of altering the political formula in any suitable moment.

Another important point is that the Brotherhood and the presidency have not until now issued a clear statement that condemns these groups and describes them as terrorists. On the contrary, the Brotherhood members and followers insist to call them as jihadists. I don’t recall that Mursi or other Brotherhood official ever described these groups with what they really are. There is rather a clear extent of hypocrisy reigning over the relation between them. What can also be noticed is that the Brotherhood and its people in different state institutions said they “did not mind” that the army launches a military operation. Their entire statements have always been void of a clear condemnation of the terrorist act. The man who used to make a record number speeches and statements kept silent and even deprived us of his tweets.

It is also acceptable to exploit this incident to request “uniting” behind the political leadership. Those affiliated with the Brotherhood attempted to market and exploit the situation to achieve political aims that serve the Brotherhood’s interests. We thus have the right to ask: Who made Sinai a refuge for terrorists? Isn’t it the leadership that welcomed them to violate Egypt’s sanctity? And today, the leadership does not even dare describe what they really are!

It does not seem that there is any concern other than the concern to place the army in an embarrassing situation – a situation that is not dissimilar than the incident of the murder of soldiers and an incident which a number of leaders knew may happen. It is also similar to the state of complete disregard of the Egyptians’ desire to know who killed our soldiers and similar to the state’s and the Brotherhood’s concern to conceal the results of the investigation. This allowed news to spread on several websites stating that some of the Brotherhood youths are involved in the abduction. Some of this news specified that three of the abductors are Brotherhood members. But ignoring this type of news has always been the case!

*This article was written hours before the release of the kidnapped security personnel, however my opinion still stands on the situation in Sinai.

________
Abdel Latif el-Menawy is an author, columnist and multimedia journalist who has covered conflicts around the world. He is the author of “Tahrir: the last 18 days of Mubarak,” a book he wrote as an eyewitness to events during the 18 days before the stepping down of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Menawy’s most recent public position was head of Egypt’s News Center. He is a member of the National Union of Journalists in the United Kingdom, and the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate. He can be found on Twitter @ALMenawy

Iran, Hezbollah are ‘propping up’ Assad, says Britain’s Hague – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

“30 Bombs could be Produced in a Year”.

IDF Chief of Staff Gantz and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Steinitz spoke today at the IsraelDefense C5I Conference. Steinitz: “Iran could attain enrichment with 54,000 centrifuges.” Gantz: “Not a day goes by where we aren’t in a decision-making situation that could cause regional deterioration”

Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s Minister of Strategy, Intelligence and International Relations Affairs spoke today at the IsraelDefense C5I Conference, held in cooperation with the Israeli Signal Corps Association and the Israeli Electronics and Software Industries Union. The conference is held with the participation of the IDF C4I Branch, the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the leading Israeli defense industries. Steinitz discussed the topic of the Iranian threat, and said among other things that “the events and the situation in Syria, the Sinai and Gaza should not distract from the most critical issue, which is the prospect of a nuclear Iran.”

“The Iranian nuclear program is a ‘game changer’, a ‘black swan of sorts, or a ‘black vulture’ and it will change Israel’s situation, the situation in the Middle East and perhaps even the situation around the world. Iran’s ambition is to change the global balance of power from end to end, between Islam and the West.

“Iran is not North Korea or Pakistan – its nuclear industry is several dozen times bigger than that of those two countries. There is an extensive nuclear industry which was not built to produce several bombs, but to produce sufficient fissile material for dozens and even hundreds of nuclear bombs. The issue is not of a nuclear country, but the possibility of the creation of a nuclear power. Iran is presently enriching 12,000 centrifuges in its Natanz facility, and it plans to reach the enrichment of 54,000 centrifuges. It will be able to enrich enough uranium to produce 20-30 nuclear bombs each year. In addition, it is already enriching tens of thousands of centrifuges at the facility in Qom.

“Within a decade, it could reach more than 100 nuclear bombs. This is not about the risk of ayatollahs with a few bombs stored in the basement, but a genuine danger to the well being of the world.

“Even if it takes Iran more time to produce hydrogen bombs, it will make up for it by producing tens of bombs per year. It already has missiles aimed at Israel, missiles that cover a considerable portion of the European continent, and it is doing its best to develop satellite launchers – which are really a cover for intercontinental ballistic missiles.” According to Minister Steinitz, Iran could possess such missiles within a period of three to four years.

Small, equipped, flexible and lethal ORBAT
Speaking at the start of the International C5I Conference in Israel, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz discussed the current situation in the Middle East. “We are currently living in a defensive strategic environment where the most obvious thing is the absence of stability.” According to Gantz, the absence of stability is the only sure thing for the time being. “While the past 40 years were characterized by large-scale, broad and stable threats, this has been replaced by long-range fire capabilities and terrorism, and this is the current reality. Not a day goes by where we are not dealing with a decision-making situation that could result in comprehensive regional deterioration. We are in a combat environment that is more complex than before and a multi-arena dimension against targets looking to vanish, targets against which we have to act quickly and precisely.

“We require many tanks, aircraft, infantry forces and collection systems, but the era of ORBAT masses no longer exists. We must now utilize the technological developments and manpower. A small ORBAT that is equipped, quick, flexible, shielded, lethal and ready. Qualitative intelligence and a systemic, multi-branched and tactical network is what will enable us to do this.

“The nature of war has not changed, and it remains a combat area of friction and uncertainty, and what is most important is the leadership – we cannot rely on just the technologies. Even in the future battlefield, someone eventually charges forward.

“Today, in light of the budgetary cuts, it is not enough that the product be good – it must also be operationally suitable so that it will improve effectiveness and combat capabilities in a maximal manner, and the industries must also adapt themselves with regards to the budgetary constraints.”

Israel’s dithering over Golan strikes gives Assad go-ahead for war of attrition.

Lt. Gen.Benny Gantz inspects Syrian Golan positions

The Syrian army in more than two years of fighting a civil war has proved to be highly professional, steadfast under pressure and above all disciplined. Not once in this brutal conflict were there instances of lone initiatives by a local unit or commander. Every move was directed by the presidential palace via the general staff in Damascus. Even when Syrian troops faced setbacks, they retreated in orderly fashion. For some months, nothing more has been heard of mass desertions, whose scale turned out to be highly inflated by the opposition.

Therefore, the proposition, which unnamed Israeli defense quarters fed military correspondents Wednesday, May 22, that more time was needed to tell whether Monday’s Syrian shooting attack on the Golan was ordered by Assad or a local initiative was not just way off track but harmful: It conveyed the impression of dithering among Israel’s decision-makers in the face of the Syrian ruler’s firm resolve, backed by Iran and Hizballah, to turn the divided Golan into the next “resistance front” against Israel.

Ignored was the Syrian government’s first direct claim of responsibility for the latest Golan attack. In fact, Assad has made his intentions plain more than once in the two weeks since Israel’s air strike over Damascus – and so has Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah, Tehran’s proxy.

Their plan is to begin with a trickle of small-scale military strikes against Israeli military and civilian targets starting from the Golan – and expanding to other fronts, the Lebanese-Israeli border, in particular. Hizballah, whose troops are deeply committed to the Syrian conflict, will at the same time extend its military effort to the war of “resistance” against Israel.

In case their message was missed, on Monday, May 20, Assad and Nasrallah told their henchman Ibrahim al-Amin, senior editor of the Hizballah publication Al Akhbar, to write the following: “The rope is taut to the limit… If anyone at either end flexes a finger, the big confrontation will start… This is the situation on the enemy’s northern front. Now means today; it means this hour.”

And indeed, the next day, Syria flexed its military finger three times by firing three shots at an IDF military patrol jeep on the Golan – and then got in first to the UN Security Council Wednesday morning with an accusation that an Israeli military jeep had trespassed Syrian territory and was destroyed.
Israel’s defense minister and chief of staff firmly denied that any IDF vehicle had been destroyed. But when the attack occurred, they ordered the Israel position to fire back with a Tamuz rocket and destroy the Syrian position, only after the third round of Syrian fire.

Caution and a measured response are undoubtedly prudent in the face of the war of attrition Assad has declared. But hiding their heads in the sand is not – and this is exactly what members of the Israeli defense establishment have been doing in the last few hours.

By trying to toss off the Golan attack as a local initiative, for which it was unnecessary to rethink the approach to border security at the end of 29 years of unbroken ceasefire, those officials were also contradicting the grave warnings issued to Damascus Tuesday by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. Someone here was trying to backtrack on their firm statements.
Because of this mixed message, the Israeli government sounded as though it was stammering in the face of am unequivocal menace issuing from Damascus.

This uncertain, divided posture let the Palestinians fire rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip for a decade. Today, it emboldens Israel’s enemies, Syria and Hizballah, to launch an escalating campaign of aggression across its borders.

Some of Israel’s leading strategists have erred in the first place by refusing to accept Syrian President Assad’s durability in defiance of their predictions of his imminent fall. Most of all, they are still turning their eyes away from the unfolding reality that Assad, Nasrallah and Iran’s Khamenei are coming out of the Syrian civil war as victors, contrary to Israeli hopes that defeat would snap the bonds of their implacably hostile alliance.
The Syrian ruler, conscious that he is riding high in the ferocious campaign against is own people, feels he can safely move on to a war of attrition against Israel.
By holding back and wavering in their responses, the Israeli defense establishment, possibly under the guidance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is making Assad and Nasrallah the gift of the initiative, a major advantage in any conflict.

U.S. Senate panel backs arming Syrian rebels fighting Assad – Middle East – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

As Washington struggles with Syria policy, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes 15-3 for legislation to arm moderate opposition groups.

By Reuters | May.22, 2013 | 2:23 AM | 3

A Free Syrian Army fighter holding his weapon in Raqqa, Syria. Photo by Reuters

A U.S. Senate panel voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to send weapons to rebels fighting Syria‘s government, but it was not clear who would get the arms even if the bill succeeds, as Washington struggles to deal with its response to the conflict.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 for legislation that would send arms to “vetted” moderate members of the Syrian opposition, the first time U.S. lawmakers have approved such military action in the two-year-old civil war.

The measure will now be considered by the full Senate, where a vocal group of legislators has been pushing for President Barack Obama to do more to help the rebels waging a war in which at least 80,000 people have died.

Only three senators on the committee – Republican Ron Paul and Democrats Tom Udall and Chris Murphy – opposed the bill. But lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns about whether sending arms risked putting powerful weapons into the wrong hands, including fighters with ties to al Qaida.

“I don’t think we know who we’re arming. And the truth is, it changes every day. Sometimes resistance fighters are fighting each other,” Udall said.

Even backers of the bill said they believed that the United States had to act largely to mitigate the risks of not doing anything.

“The situation in Syria is critical for Syria, for the region and for U.S. efforts to counter extremism,” said Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, the panel’s chairman and a co-author of the bill.

There is less enthusiasm for arming the rebels in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, so it is not clear whether the Senate bill would ever get through Congress and reach Obama and be signed into law.

In Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and Syrian soldiers, backed by air strikes, renewed an offensive aimed at driving rebels from a town near the Lebanese border, raising fears about the conflict spreading in the region.

Republican Senator James Risch, who eventually voted yes to the weapons bill, expressed concerns about the prospects in Syria if President Bashar Assad were ousted.

“I’m not sure that the people we help here are going to be particularly grateful once the deed is done,” he said.

Americans oppose intervention

As the United States moves to end more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans oppose getting involved in Syria. A Reuters/Ipsos online poll on Tuesday showed that 60 percent of Americans believe the country should not intervene, compared with only 12 percent who think it should.

The Obama administration has been resisting sending lethal military aid to the Syrian rebels, despite intelligence this month that Assad’s forces likely used chemical weapons against the rebels – something Obama had called a “red line.”

The U.S. president said last week he would consider both diplomatic and military options to pressure Assad, but that does not satisfy his critics.

Republican Senator John McCain, one of the loudest voices calling for military aid, dismissed concerns that the United States may not be able to properly vet rebels in an increasingly chaotic Syria, and scoffed at plans for a peace conference in Geneva next month.

“There’s plenty of people that we can work with and set up a legitimate government, and to say that we can’t is baloney. It’s just not true. It’s another cop-out and so is this, quote, ‘conference’ a cop-out because we’re not going to do anything until we have the conference,” he told reporters before the hearing.

“Meanwhile, people are being slaughtered. Meanwhile, Assad is gaining the initiative,” he said.

Analysts say Washington could pick the right people to arm, citing success doing so in previous wars in Libya, Kosovo and Bosnia and noting that Washington has been facilitating the provision of arms to the rebels by allies for much of the Syrian conflict.

“This is a feasible prospect,” said Gregory Koblentz, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on the Middle East.

But he said it will not be easy, explaining that the United States would have to increase its military presence in the region to be successful. “Clearly one of the lessons learned from Afghanistan is to do it yourself to make sure that you have your own assessment,” Koblentz said.