WarSclerotic

IDF Restricts Airspace.

Or Heller

29/8/2013

IDF authorities decided to restrict the airspace over all of Israel’s northern region to civilian flights, in anticipation of the US attack in Syria. For the last two weeks, only flights by the Israeli aviation companies ‘Arkia’ and ‘Israir’ have been landing at and departing from the airport in Haifa.

Today (Thursday), owners of private aircraft parked at the northern airport were ordered to transfer their aircraft. So far, eight private aircraft have been transferred.

At the same time, IDF Northern Command HQ had all leaves and furloughs cancelled until Sunday.

Adrift: The United States and the Middle East | FrontPage Magazine.

( Bottom line: It’s up to our tiny country to save the West from itself. – JW )

John Bolton and Michael Ledeen presented a disturbing picture of Obama Administration national security policy adrift amidst a continually crisis-laden Middle East on August 28, 2013. 

In particular, these two leading foreign policy experts foresaw no truly effective international policy to stop Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation, leaving Israel to confront this existential danger unilaterally.

Bolton and Ledeen appeared at the briefing “Who is the Real Rouhani?” at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), described by its advisory board member Sarah Stern as “unabashedly pro-American and pro-Israeli,” sponsored the event.  Stern introduced Bolton and Ledeen by discussing how Hassan Rouhani had appeared to American media as a “great moderate” following his June 14, 2003, election to the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Yet Ledeen described the “big difference” between Rouhani and his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being “exactly the same as the difference between Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.”  In contrast to Ahmadinejad, Rouhani “is more charming,” his “face is prettier,” and “he knows the West” due to his Western education.  Such attributes, though, simply reminded Ledeen of how some Western observers had expectantly noted Yuri Andropov as a “jazz fan” after this KGB chief succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as the Soviet Union’s leader in 1982.  Rouhani’s exposure to the West, rather than moderating his views, seems to have instilled anti-Western vitriol in Rouhani, just as other Islamist leaders like the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) ideologue Sayyid Qutb “learned to hate America in America.”

Ledeen also rejected speculation of Rouhani being part of a “cunning scheme” to present an “apparent moderate.” Ledeen believed that Rouhani’s election was a “surprise” in an “honest vote” within the Iranian theocracy.  Here again the difference between Rouhani’s “moderation” and Ahmadinejad was minimal, for the latter could also “buy endless time” in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

In such dictatorships “you are dealing with a regime” that has “core policies,” Ledeen argued.  “It doesn’t matter who the person is.” Rouhani, moreover, has personally been “fully committed…fully engaged” during his career in Iran’s terrorism and nuclear programs, central concerns for the international community. Citing the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, Ledeen considered a dictatorship’s domestic behavior indicative of foreign policy.  “The way they treat their own people is the way they want to treat us.”

Bolton as well saw no moderation in Rouhani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator during 2003-2005.  This background meant that “Rouhani could not be a better public face” for Iran now.  Reflecting upon his negotiating experience, Rouhani had subsequently often “boasted” of his success in shielding Iran’s nuclear program from interference.

Bolton attributed the origins of these negotiations to a European desire in 2003 for “showing up the United States”  after its Iraq invasion.  With the controversial Iraqi regime change as a backdrop, “we suave and sophisticated Europeans” sought to tame the Iranian nuclear program.  The European concept then was a “macro-solution” following an Iranian enrichment freeze and today “they are still pursuing the same elusive goal.”

Iranian stalling tactics in the following negotiations recognized, Bolton observed that weapons proliferators “need time and they need legitimacy.”  Iran, moreover, was “scared to death” after American invasions not only in Iraq but Afghanistan as well brought American troops to Iranian borders on opposing sides.  Thus Iran has had no hesitation in suspending enrichment in the past, especially when temporary technical difficulties made the issue moot.  Looking to the future, Bolton considered it “clear beyond dispute that the Europeans are getting ready to be suckered again.”

Bolton predicted that the Iranians would make diplomatic overtures to the American diplomats as well.  Iranian officials would claim that their nuclear program was peaceful and transparent, while sanctions hurt the Iranian people.  In response, American officials might well offer phased plans of reciprocal Iranian-international actions.  “When you hear sequencing” from diplomats, Bolton warned, “you know they are talking about surrender.”  With sanctions “once dialed back,” it will be “almost impossible to torque them back up again.”  “What we don’t know cannot be good news,” Bolton meanwhile speculated about the progress of the Iranian nuclear program in light of past intelligence failures in Iraq.

In contrast to the Iranian regime, Ledeen believed that the Iranian people sought to emulate the Egyptian overthrow of the MB.  Ledeen attributed to Iranian opposition leaders under house arrest a “huge following” such that the regime dared not execute them.  Additionally, the “Iranian opposition is fundamentally pro-Western and anti-Islamist.” Speaking of senior Iranian ayatollahs in opposition to the Iranian regime as well as Muslim opposition to the MB in Egypt, Ledeen also warned “don’t write off all Muslims” as allies against Islamism.  Ledeen lamented, however, that the United States had done nothing to foment this internal Iranian opposition, something not requiring American military force.  Yet “Iran is the key to international terror,” while Iraq in 2003 was only a secondary terrorism supporter.

“We would have to have an Iran policy,” Ledeen argued, for regime change in Syria, a country under “virtual Iranian control” in the guise of the Lebanese Hezbollah (“that’s Teheran”) and Iran’s Al-Quds Force.  The “road to Damascus starts in Teheran,” Ledeen said.  The “problem in Syria is Iran,” Bolton agreed; focusing on Syria was “defining the problem much too narrowly.”

In particular, if the Assad regime perpetrated the latest chemical attack in Syria, then Ledeen saw “no way that that happened at a minimum without Iranian approval.”  The Iranians might have even provided “know-how.”  Syria regime change would be a terrible Iranian loss, thus in their view “Assad must be preserved.”

Contemplating a pending strike in Syria under the Obama Administration, Bolton foresaw this involving “some number of cruise missiles used against some number of empty buildings.”  The response of the Assad regime and its Iranian supporters will be “that’s it” with no effect upon chemical weapon use.

For deterrence, by contrast, a response must be “absolutely punishing.”  Opposed to a Syrian intervention, Bolton nonetheless criticized British Prime Minister David Cameron’s suggestion of a “proportionate response” to the Syrian gas attack.  “Why respond proportionately?” Bolton asked.  “You have to act decisively,” Ledeen concurred, proportionate response is “for little countries.  Otherwise, why be a superpower.”

The “worst outcome is that we do something and it has no effect,” Ledeen worried, merely making a “moral demonstration.”  Bolton as well warned that an ineffective “tank-plinking kind of raid”  will have an “immeasurable effect” on American credibility.  President Barack Obama’s personal “credibility has already been shredded” by earlier chemical attacks in Syria following his ill-conceived “ad lib” of a chemical attacks “redline.” Ledeen assessed the Obama Administration as now “leading with the behind.”

With respect to the critical question of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, Bolton thought that the “prospects are grim.”  The Iranians “are going to get nuclear weapons,” Bolton predicted, setting off Middle East regional proliferation as a result.  This is the most possible outcome “by a long shot.” Current sanctions against Iran merely “give the illusion of doing something” and thereby cover the reluctance of congressional leaders and the Obama Administration to intervene in Iran.  “The Iranians are convinced that they are dealing with an American administration that does not have the will to fight,” Ledeen likewise assessed.

In the end, the crisis of Iranian nuclear proliferation, “for well or ill…is going to be Israel’s to solve,” according to Bolton.  Bolton criticized the past Israeli “mistake” of having allowed the first operational nuclear reactor in a “hostile state” in Bushehr, Iran.  Now, though, he considered an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities the last viable nonproliferation option in the face of American inaction.

The “Israelis won’t talk to us about” an Iranian strike, Ledeen predicted.  “We’ll know about it when the attack begins,” Bolton seconded.  As with past Middle East nuclear dangers in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, the pair foresaw Israel decisively acting alone for its own freedom and survival. Yet the interests of a wider but more timid free world, however ungrateful, would also hang in the balance.

Obama to Assad: It’s Labor Day Weekend – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

It’s really just a cultural thing.  We have to respect Syria’s cultural diversity.

Syria, likely, doesn’t celebrate “Labor” Day as we real Yankees do in Martha’s Vineyard.  You see, for if Assad and his chemo-genocidal partners-in-chemo-genocidal-war-crimes, Hezbollah and Iran, properly celebrated a “Vineyard” Labor Day, then Obama could have, on Friday August 30, 2013, easily ordered a few Tomahawk missiles to crash into the barracks of the units that the CIA recorded as having murdered hundreds of Sunni women and children with Sarin Gas.

Everybody on the Vineyard starts the Labor Weekend on Thursday.  That way, not a single genocidal murderer would have been harmed.  They would all be on the beach.

But unfortunately, Syria doesn’t observe America’s Labor Day, so there might be some chemo-genocidal Iranian soldiers in their Syrian barracks.  To be safe, Obama has, seven ways to Sunday, telegraphed the time and places of his possible Labor Day Syrian faux barrage.  That way, none of the chemo-genocidal murderers will be harmed.  After all, this is “not regime change.”  This is a “proportional” response to “deter” future mass chemo-genocidal murderers.

Now, let’s stop and ask ourselves, what exactly did US Sec State Kerry mean when he said the Sarin attack was a “moral obscenity”?  He actually didn’t say anything. This Yale graduate knew that “moral obscenity” is an oxymoron.  “Moral” and “obscenity” are total opposites, and cancel each other out.  It’s just a lawyerly way of saying absolutely nothing, and sounding good.  Kerry didn’t say “Assad’s use of Sarin gas use against Sunnis, or any ethic, or religious group is a Geneva war crime,” and the United States going to The Hague to prosecute Assad and Khamenei.  Kerry said nothing.

But the Tomahawk-for-Sarin attack isn’t even a done deal yet.  America needs “legal justification” to attack Syria.  But if the US needs “legal justification” to attack Assad and the thousands of his Hezbollah and Iranian Syria-based handlers when they have jointly and severally murdered 700 civilians with Sarin gas (let us assume this is proven), then what will be the “legal justification” for attacking Iran over its nuclear program?

Iran’s nuclear program is not in legal violation of anything.  Read the IAEA’s actual motions on Iran. Iran is not in violation of a single IAEA iota.  So, if there is “legal justification” needed for reacting to actual Sarin use with hundreds dead, there will be no legal justification for Iran tomorrow, or ever.

Iran has threatened “thousands” of counter-attacking rockets will strike Israel.  Has America publicly stated “Israel has nothing to do with Syria/Iran’s chemo-genocide of 700 Sunnis”?  has the US said “any Syrian/Iranian counter-attack on Israel will be deemed an attack on the  continental United States.”?  No.  There’s dead silence from Obama. “Israel has nothing to do with Syria/Iran’s chemo-genocide of 700 Sunnis”? has the US said “any Syrian/Iranian counter-attack on Israel will be deemed an attack on the continental United States.”?

And if the threat of “thousands” of rockets hitting Israel stops a US attack on Syria, how will the US and/ or Israel ever hope to attack Iran in the future?  For, if attacking Syria brings “thousands,” surely attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will bring “tens of thousands” of rockets to Israel.

Here is where it gets truly ugly. Last September then-Sec Def Panetta stated that the U.S. had lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons.  At a Pentagon Press briefing, Sec-Def Panetta stated “There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place. Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.” That means Hezbollah, Syria, and/or Iran could fire chemical weapons at Israel.

That’s not the only ugly “legalistic” part.  Under the 8 April 2010 Obama “START Treaty” with Russia ratified by the full US Senate, the United States legally obligated itself to the then-existing “nuclear postures” under the preamble of the START treaty which stated:

“Desiring to bring their respective nuclear postures into alignment with this new relationship, and endeavoring to reduce further the role and importance of nuclear weapons,” and “Guided by the principle of indivisible security”. Page 1.

These START Treaty clauses obligated the US (but not Russia) to abide by the then existing 6 April 2010 US Nuclear Posture “negative assurance” statement that:

“In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response – and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable.” Page viii.

And again, on page 16 in the body of the Posture Statement: “In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses CBW against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response—and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable.”

That’s why Obama had to issue the US Nuclear Posture 2 days before START was to be signed.  That way START incorporated by reference the then-existing US Posture promises under the “principle of indivisible security” statement.

This “negative assurance” by the US unilaterally promised Russia (and then was incorporated into an NPT conference) that the US would never, ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries like Syria and/or Iran in response to a chemical or biological attack by Syria and/ or Iran  against the US or any ally, or partner.

Obama drafted and promised, and the US Senate ratified, that the US could only use “conventional” weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack.  So, Iran could fire a barrage of chemical scuds against Israel, and Obama would sit there twiddling his “conventional” thumbs.  Obama wouldn’t violate a Nuclear Arms Treaty, not for Israel.

The bottom line is Obama doesn’t have Israel’s back.  Obama has a serrated knife in Israel’s back, and might twist it home into its heart.

Fears over Israel influenced MPs in Syria vote | The Jewish Chronicle.

( Our British “friends” are actually worried that if attacked by Iran, Israel might use it “as an excuse” to take out Iran’s nukes.  Says it all… – JW }

Parliament’s rejection last night of possible British military action in Syria followed hours of debate on the use of chemical weapons.

MPs defeated a government motion and led Prime Minister David Cameron to rule out British involvement in potential US-led strikes.

Among the contributors to the earlier debate was Labour’s Manchester Gorton MP Gerald Kaufman, who said Israel’s past actions should be taken into account.

Sir Gerald, whose comments were echoed by fellow Labour member Paul Flynn, said: “Israel used white phosphorous in its attack in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead – I saw the consequences for myself when I went there – but Israel gets away with it because it is on the right side of what is regarded as civilised opinion. There is selectivity right the way through.”

Many MPs considered the possibility of Israel being drawn into the Syrian conflict if military strikes were taken against President Assad’s regime.

Labour’s Preston MP Mark Hendrick said: “The Israelis will be looking, at some point short of Iran’s having developed nuclear weapons, to possibly take matters into their own hands.

“Indeed, if the situation kicks off with the western intervention in Syria, and Iran responds, and if Syria responds with an attack on Israel, that could be the perfect excuse for the Israelis to try and deal, not only with the WMD question and Syria, but also the nuclear question and Iran. We need to take these things into consideration before we decide.”

There was a “unique duty” for Britain to protect Israel, Ben Gummer, Conservative MP for Ipswich, told the House of Commons.

Bob Blackman, the Tory Harrow East MP, warned of the potential damage to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks if the conflict escalated.

Hendon MP Matthew Offord intervened as Respect MP George Galloway spoke. Mr Offord asked about comments made by Mr Galloway on Press TV.

“One constituent claims that he said that Israel supplied the chemical for the attacks in Syria,” said the Conservative MP. “I find it very hard to believe that [he] said that.

“Would he like to take this opportunity to refute that claim or to provide the evidence to satisfy my constituent?”

Mr Galloway had said last week, on the programme he hosts on Press TV, that his theory was that Israel could have supplied the gas used in the attack in Damascus last week that left hundreds dead.

In response to Mr Offord he told Parliament: “That just shows the unreliability of green-ink letters, whether they come in the post or by e-mail. I said no such thing.”

The Bradford West MP later took to Twitter and wrote: “I see that malignant tub of lard [Adam Boulton, Sky News political editor] has joined the Hendon-Israel brigade.”

A number of Twitter users claimed Mr Galloway had lied to the Commons and called for action to be taken by Parliamentary authorities.

White House ready for solo strike on Syria as US allies and influence fade.

( Debka: With the collapse of the West, no choice for Israel but a preemptive strike on Iran ASAP. – JW )

Barack Obama faces Syrian crisis

The shock Thursday, Aug. 29, of Britain’s David Cameron parliamentary defeat – thereby knocking America’s foremost partner out of the coming strike against Syria – highlighted public opposition to the operation in America and criticism in the top US military command.

The White House hastened to stress that America, while still interested in engaging allies, was ready to act unilaterally without UN or allied support.
Nonetheless, the Syrian conflict after nearly three years continues to be covered in confusion, much of it generated by the Obama administration’s conflicting policies.

After resolute condemnation of the Assad regime’s “heinous crime” of using chemical weapons against its people, the president opted for a low-key, practically painless military strike against Syria. The Syria ruler would be able to wave his hands in a gesture of victory, followed by Vladmir Putin. Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would say, I told you so, the United States is a paper tiger and will never attack our nuclear program.
By voting for opposition Labor’s motion against UK involvement in military action in Syria, the British parliament not only shattered Obama’s multinational coalition for Syria; it struck at the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), the historic bulwark of Western security since the last world war.

The alliance’s fortunes have faded progressively under the vacillating foreign and security polices of President Barack Obama.

In 2009, the US president announced a new policy direction that would henceforth hinge on a “tilt to the East.” It was followed by America’s untidy military exit from Iraq and fumbles in Afghanistan leaving both countries prey to the havoc of bloody sectarian warfare.

His refusal to acknowledge the menacing spread of al Qaeda was compounded by his muddled approach to the Arab Revolt : While endorsing the overthrow of two autocrats, Mubarak and Qadafi, he conducted a hands-off policy for the most bloodthirsty tyrant of the Arab world, Bashar Assad, and Iran’s hired terrorist chief, Hassan Nasrallah.
In the Middle East, Obama insisted that the US and the West stay out of the region’s affairs. While advising its leaders, including Israel’s, not to depend on America, he demanded their obedience at the same time.

In the Syrian crisis, Obama is reaping the harvest of his inconsistent foreign policies, which can no longer be papered over with fine speeches.  The fall of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which he championed as the epitome of Islamic moderation, shattered US influence in the region and placed it at a hazardous crossroads, while his tepid military plans for Bashar Assad have resulted in the sounding NATO’s death knell.

The half-hearted military operation against Syria, due to be launched in the coming days, and its muddled objectives, may finally close the book on the current chapter of US history in the Middle East – even if it successful.

The world will be left rubbing its eyes in amazement at the achievement of one individual, president Barack Obama of the USA, in smashing American influence in this sensitive region and Europe in the space of a few short years.

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s political future is in grave doubt after the House of Commons withheld endorsement from the government’s policy of participation in a US-led strike on Syria. Parliament voted 285 in favor to 272 against, with 30 members of his own Conservative party and 9 of his coalition partner, the Liberals, crossing the line and voting with the Labor opposition against the government.

Cameron may be just the first victim among Western and Middle East leaders who opted to toe Obama’s wavering line and continually shift around their national interests.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is fond of saying his policies are “responsible and balanced.” This mostly translates into inaction or procrastination on such vital issues as Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Hizballah’s massive buildup of rockets.
But now, Khamenei, Assad and Nasrallah will be buoyed up by America’s loss of allied support and more likely than not make good on their threats, heard repeatedly in the past week, to destroy Israel once and for all. It won’t be enough to keep on intoning solemnly that Israel is not involved in the Syrian conflict – which no one believes anyway. Netanyahu will have to start looking squarely at the perils just around the corner and move proactively.

Perfidious Albion hands murderous Assad a spectacular victory | The Times of Israel.

How a perfect storm of British ineptitude and gutlessness sent the wrong message to the butcher of Damascus, and left Israel more certain than ever that it can only rely on itself

By David Horovitz August 30, 2013, 11:39 am

Barack Obama, right, welcomes British Prime Minister David Cameron in the Oval Office in May. (photo credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

It was a perfect storm of political ineptitude, short-sighted expediency, and gutlessness, with just a modicum of genuine, albeit misplaced, principle.

It involved an unimpressive Labor opposition leader, Ed Miliband, who has failed to connect to the British electorate and is unloved by his own party, and who saw an opportunity for political gain. He seized a chance to distance himself from his unloved predecessor Tony Blair, and no doubt harbored some genuine reservations about an over-hasty resort to force.

It starred an arrogant and earnest prime minister, David Cameron, whose gut told him that the international community simply could not allow President Bashar Assad to get away with gassing his people, but who dismally underestimated the reluctance of the British public, and their parliament, to rush headlong into unpredictable military conflict. Rather than waiting, with just a little patience, for UN inspectors to report back from the scene of the alleged Assad crime, for the UN Security Council to inevitably fail to agree on concerted action, and for the British people and public to internalize that there would be no response to Assad if Russia’s assent were needed, and thus to prepare the ground for a reluctant but morally crucial resort to force against the use of chemical weapons, Cameron tried to steamroll parliament into rubber-stamping a yes to whatever Washington might be planning.

Feeling that it had been similarly steamrolled by Blair into what it regards as the disastrous and immoral Iraq war, on the basis of what proved to be false information about Saddam Hussein’s purported weapons of mass destruction, the British Parliament on Thursday night simply said “no.” Or rather, it thought it said “not for now,” but the impetuous Cameron, like a spoiled child denied approval, bizarrely then immediately stood up and misrepresented the vote as a firm no to any UK role in intervention in Syria — handing his opponents an even bigger victory than the one they thought they had achieved.

Blair himself was a supporting player in the dismal affair, having declared that international intervention in Syria was called for. He has still failed to internalize, six years after his ouster from 10 Downing Street, that he is so unloved in the UK that any cause he supports — unfortunately including Israel’s — tends to suffer, not benefit, from his endorsement.

As a consequence of Cameron’s absolutely staggering defeat in the House of Commons on Thursday night, an already hesitant US administration — which has been wobbling for days about how to make plain to Assad that he can’t massacre his people with weapons of mass destruction, but to do so without embroiling the US in another muddy, bloody, all but unwinnable Middle East conflict — has lost its key ally in the unenviable, vital task of reining in the murderous tendencies of global, and especially Middle Eastern, despots.

In Syria, needless to say, Assad must be delightedly flabbergasted, even as he braces for still likely American intervention, having witnessed in Westminster how spectacularly wary the once mighty Britain has become of utilizing force to uphold even the highest moral imperatives. The nuances of quite how and why the vote played out the way it did may be lost on him, and why wouldn’t they be? Why would he care that Britain opted out of the challenge of opposing him because of a curious combination of political expediency, prime ministerial foolishness, recent Middle East traumas, and more. The bottom line is that the UK, asked by its leader to fight against the use of WMD in distant Syria, said no.

In Iran, a regime which has always had a withering estimation of western moral purpose, the anti-Cameron opposition’s dramatic victory may have come as less of a surprise, and it can only reinforce Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s confidence that he, like North Korea before him, can safely lie and dissemble his way to a nuclear weapons capability, ignoring the empty rhetoric of the craven West.

And in Israel? In an Israel beset by threats and challenges in almost every direction, an Israel whose northern border is just an hour’s drive from Assad’s toxic Damascus, in an Israel being urged by the international community to take territorial risks for peace in a vicious, WMD-using, spectacularly unstable Middle East — in that Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be feeling a further bitter vindication of his long-held and oft-stated conviction that, ultimately, against all dangers, Israel needs to be able to take care of itself, by itself. At the very least, he might be reflecting, perfidious Albion could not be relied upon to rally to the rescue.

Hezbollah reportedly mobilizes forces in south Lebanon | The Times of Israel.

Shiite group, allied with Assad, said unlikely to attack Israel unless West tries to topple Damascus regime

By Gavriel Fiske August 29, 2013, 11:34 pm

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah addresses supporters via satellite link during a rally in the southern Lebanese border village of Aita (photo credit: AP/Mohammed Zaatari)

Hezbollah was reported to be mobilizing its forces in southern Lebanon on Thursday night in preparation for a possible US-led strike on Syria, and was said to be considering various retaliatory options against Israel should such an attack take place.

The top leadership of the Shiite terror group, which is closely aligned with the Bashar Assad government in Syria, was holding intensive discussions about the possible consequences of an attack on Syria and the appropriate response against Israel, Channel 10 reported, citing reports in the Lebanese media.

Hezbollah has raised its alert level and has begun deploying forces in south Lebanon in response to the current international debate over a possible attack on Syria in response to last week’s alleged chemical weapons use by Syrian forces, the report said.

Hezbollah is unlikely to attack Israel unless a Western assault on Syria aims to topple Assad or seriously damage the Syrian army’s capabilities, a senior source with ties to Hezbollah told the Daily Star on Wednesday.

“If the Western attack is limited to certain targets in Syria, then, Hezbollah will not intervene,” the source said.

However, “in the event of a qualitative [Western military] strike that aims to change the balance of power in Syria, Hezbollah will fight on various fronts,” he added, an event that “will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel.”

The entry of Hezbollah troops into the Syrian civil war several months ago is credited as being a major factor in the Syrian government’s recent gains against the opposition, but has caused the terrorist group to face severe criticism in Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah last fought directly in 2006, after Hezbollah kidnapped two IDF soldiers patrolling the northern border, leading to the Second Lebanon War, characterized by intense rocket fire into Israeli territory and an IAF air campaign over Lebanon.

Hezbollah is understood to have several thousand rockets trained at Israel at all times, which, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said last month, have been largely provided by the Syrian government.

Report: Assad moving inmates to military targets – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Buses filled with prisoners moved to military targets to be used as human shields against Western airstrikes, British paper reports

Roi Kais

Thousands of Syrian prisoners have been moved to military targets to be used as human shields against Western air strikes, Britain’s Daily Mirror reported Friday.

According to the report, Damascus residents said they saw buses filled with inmates being taken from their cells to sites the regime believes could be targets.

The opposition Syrian National Coalition said: “Assad’s fascist regime is amassing activists and civilians in prisons in military locations that may be targets for foreign forces.

Residents in Damascus Photo: Reuters)

 Thousands of protesters, rebels and dissidents have been held since the start of the 2011 uprising, the report said.

“Using civilians as human shields is a breach of international humanitarian law, and those responsible must be held accountable for crimes against humanity.”

One woman said: “People are scared the US will attack places where the prisoners are held.

“They are afraid as military bases are in built-up areas so civilians may be caught in attacks. “They have seen the civilians killed by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Amid Syria tensions, IDF deploys Iron Dome battery in greater Tel Aviv area | JPost | Israel News.

Iron Dome battery deployed in Tel Aviv area – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Anti-missile system heads to central Israel as part of preparations for possible Syrian retaliation to US strike

Yoav Zitun

An Iron Dome battery was deployed in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan on Friday as part of preparations for possible Syrian retaliation to a US strike. Other Iron Dome and Patriot batteries were deployed earlier this week.

The battery is facing north this time, and not south as was the case during Operation Pillar of Defense.

Battery in Tel Aviv area (Photo: Motti Kimchi)

On Wednesday, security officials held a situation assessment and decided to deploy two anti-missile batteries in northern Israel.

The Air Force, operating the Hetz 2 battery, has raised its alert level. Hetz 2 was designed to intercept long-range missiles such as Syria’s Scud D and Iran‘s Shahab 3 and Sejjil missiles.

Preparations are also underway in Syria. President Bashar Assad‘s forces removed several Scud missiles and dozens of launchers from a base north of Damascus, possibly to protect the weapons from a Western attack, opposition sources said on Thursday.

The move from the position in the foothills of the Qalamoun mountains, one of Syria’s most heavily militarized districts, appears part of a precautionary but limited redeployment of armaments in areas of central Syria still held by Assad’s forces, diplomats based in the Middle East told Reuters.

They said rebel raids and fighting near key roads had blocked a wider evacuation of the hundreds of security and army bases that dot the country of 22 million, where Assad’s late father imposed his autocratic dynasty four decades ago.