Israel, the United States, and the Military Option against Iran,.

Gaps between Israel and the American administration and their implications from Israel’s perspective

Rick Moran
Is President Obama preparing for a massive strike on the Iranian nuclear program?

The Times of India is reporting that a British company has contracted with the US Navy to deliver 300 “bunker busting” bombs to the British base in Diego Garcia – a staging area for strikes against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

Along with other signs of increased activity, one analyst who has been tracking US preparations believes that at the very least, President Obama will have the option of striking Iran:

“US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” Plesch, who is the co-author of a recent study on the US preparations for an attack on Iran, stressed.

The final decision on whether to launch an attack would be in the hands of US president Barack Obama. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,”Plesch said, adding, “The US is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

Diego Garcia is a British territory about 1,000 miles south of India and Sri Lanka but is used as a US military base as part of an agreement reached in 1971.

No comment from the Pentagon with regards to these moves.

These moves make sense for two reasons; first, it is better for the US to hit Iran than Israel. This has been plain for years since the possibility of precipitating a wider war if Israel were to act has always been the biggest worry for US defense and foreign policy planners. With a US unilateral strike, it is much less likely that Iran would strike Israel and Syria join in. We are also in a better position to defend our assets in the region than Israel is in defending its territory against the increasingly sophisticated missile arsenal in Iran.

Secondly, while there would no doubt be resistance from China and Russia, there has been a definite hardening of opinion among our European allies against Iran. Getting everything ready for a strike gives the president the option of going to war if it appears Iran is on the cusp of getting the bomb or, more probable, demonstrating the ability to quickly construct one.

Would he do it? Presidents in political trouble are not above waving the big stick if it would rally the country to them. Despite his pacifist inclinations, don’t put it past Obama to bomb Iran if the combination of low approval ratings and declining re-election numbers were to happen. He’s already demonstrated an ability to thumb his nose at his liberal base. And besides, a GOP opponent who ran in 2012 accusing the president of “allowing” Iran to get the bomb would be making a potent argument.

Any action would be a “last resort” scenario and Iran is not done trying to stall the west into forgoing sanctions against it while it tries to build the capability to construct a bomb. The dance at the UN has yet to play itself completely out, but when it does, it will be decision time for the president and the west.

American Thinker Blog: A bluff? Or are we prepping an Iran strike?.

Rick Moran
Is President Obama preparing for a massive strike on the Iranian nuclear program?

The Times of India is reporting that a British company has contracted with the US Navy to deliver 300 “bunker busting” bombs to the British base in Diego Garcia – a staging area for strikes against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

Along with other signs of increased activity, one analyst who has been tracking US preparations believes that at the very least, President Obama will have the option of striking Iran:

“US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” Plesch, who is the co-author of a recent study on the US preparations for an attack on Iran, stressed.

The final decision on whether to launch an attack would be in the hands of US president Barack Obama. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,”Plesch said, adding, “The US is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

Diego Garcia is a British territory about 1,000 miles south of India and Sri Lanka but is used as a US military base as part of an agreement reached in 1971.

No comment from the Pentagon with regards to these moves.

These moves make sense for two reasons; first, it is better for the US to hit Iran than Israel. This has been plain for years since the possibility of precipitating a wider war if Israel were to act has always been the biggest worry for US defense and foreign policy planners. With a US unilateral strike, it is much less likely that Iran would strike Israel and Syria join in. We are also in a better position to defend our assets in the region than Israel is in defending its territory against the increasingly sophisticated missile arsenal in Iran.

Secondly, while there would no doubt be resistance from China and Russia, there has been a definite hardening of opinion among our European allies against Iran. Getting everything ready for a strike gives the president the option of going to war if it appears Iran is on the cusp of getting the bomb or, more probable, demonstrating the ability to quickly construct one.

Would he do it? Presidents in political trouble are not above waving the big stick if it would rally the country to them. Despite his pacifist inclinations, don’t put it past Obama to bomb Iran if the combination of low approval ratings and declining re-election numbers were to happen. He’s already demonstrated an ability to thumb his nose at his liberal base. And besides, a GOP opponent who ran in 2012 accusing the president of “allowing” Iran to get the bomb would be making a potent argument.

Any action would be a “last resort” scenario and Iran is not done trying to stall the west into forgoing sanctions against it while it tries to build the capability to construct a bomb. The dance at the UN has yet to play itself completely out, but when it does, it will be decision time for the president and the west.

Deterrence tested in Gaza – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Deterrence tested in Gaza

Ron Ben-Yishai offers analysis following first lethal Qassam attack since Operation Cast Lead

Ron Ben-Yishai

The other threat to Israel | The Call.

Posted By Ian Bremmer Thursday, March 18, 2010 – 11:58 AM Share

To the long list of Israel’s vulnerabilities, add the risk that the country won’t be able to attract as much foreign investment in coming years and that the most talented Israelis will leave the country.

A generation ago, Western companies looked at the rest of the Middle East as an oil play. Israel’s world-class education standards, its durable political institutions, its capable bureaucrats, and its strong rule of law earned the confidence of those looking to set up shop in other sectors.

Today, other countries in the region offer attractive opportunities for retail, tourism, health care, light-medium manufacture, and a host of other investments, and Israel’s small size and political isolation are becoming real weaknesses. Persian Gulf and other Middle Eastern governments are letting would-be investors know that companies with a large-scale presence in Israel aren’t going to fare as well inside their borders. Over time, this subtle (in some cases, not-so-subtle) pressure could have an impact.

Israel has outlasted many such threats in the past. The country’s comparative excellence in advanced technology — an area requiring limited long-term capital exposure and where the Israelis have little competition in the region — will offer lasting advantages. Second, Iran’s nuclear program provides a seriously destabilizing element to the politics of the region, but it doesn’t pose much direct threat to Israel’s economic development. Israel’s military capabilities, including its own nuclear weapons program, make direct conflict with Iran highly unlikely.

Other threats are more serious. One day soon, Hezbollah will have access to missiles with the range and accuracy to effectively target Tel Aviv from anywhere inside Lebanon. That will be a game-changer for Israel’s security, its economy, and its politics. More than half of Israel’s population and the heart of its economy are centered in and around Tel Aviv. As the city becomes more vulnerable to the threat of precision-guided missile attacks, those Israelis most directly involved in the country’s economic and financial life will be the most vulnerable to attack — and some may well leave the country.

Tel Aviv’s vulnerabilities to ballistic missile attack will strike at the heart of Israel’s technology and pharmaceutical industries. Consider the recent history of Armenia. Once the best educated of Soviet republics, a steadily deteriorating security environment, better opportunities elsewhere, and a strong Armenian diaspora presence in Russia, France, the United States and other countries made it easy and attractive for the best educated Armenians to leave. And leave they did — about a third of the population emigrated within 15 years of the Soviet collapse. The exodus hollowed Armenia out, and the country has yet to recover its economic dynamism. With an almost certain-to-deteriorate security environment, Israel’s greatest long-term risk may be a serious brain drain, just as its Arab neighbors are opening for business in so many non-energy-related sectors.

That’s a lot more dangerous for Israel’s future than a surprise attack from Tehran.

Iran shakes up guards, U.S. ‘ships bombs’ – UPI.com.

Make the Democrats Pay for Appeasement | First Things.

Softer tone coming from Washington.

By HERB KEINON
16/03/2010 20:18

Clinton reaffirms “unshakable bond” in first public sign crisis winding down.
Talkbacks (178)

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who blasted Israel on Friday and kept alive a crisis in relations triggered by last week’s announcement of new housing in Ramat Shlomo, reiterated US support for Israel on Tuesday in the first public signs that the crisis was winding down.

Asked at a Washington press conference with Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin whether this was the worst Israeli-US relations had been in 35 years, Clinton said, “I don’t buy that. We have an absolute commitment to Israel’s security. We have a close, unshakable bond between the United States and Israel and between the American and Israeli people, who share common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world.”

Clinton said that both countries were also committed to a two-state solution.

“But that doesn’t mean that we are going to agree. We don’t agree with any of our international partners on everything,” she said.

Just four days after a blistering phone conversation with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, followed by television appearances in which she said the announcement of plans to build in Ramat Shlomo while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel was an insult not only to Biden but to the US, Clinton reiterated US “dismay and disappointment” at that announcement.

She also said the US was “engaged in very active consultations with the Israelis over steps that we think would demonstrate the requisite commitment to the process.”

Clinton, in Friday’s conversation with Netanyahu, reportedly asked that he cancel the Ramat Shlomo project, make gestures to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to get him to agree again to enter proximity talks, and agree that the “core” issues be discussed during those talks.

Israel’s position before this was that these talks should only deal with technical matters needed to get into direct negotiations, not core issues such as borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees.

Netanyahu is widely expected to agree to parts of these demands, but not all of them. A likely scenario is that he would make an announcement that there would be no more “surprises” like the one that greeted Biden last week, and that Israel would agree that all the core issues be discussed in the proximity talks.

The Prime Minister’s Office, eager to put an end to the public spat with the US, jumped on Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, issuing a statement saying it appreciated Clinton’s “warm words.”

The statement went on to address questions about Israel’s commitment to peace, saying Israel had proved its commitment over the last year through both words – such as Netanyahu’s speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he accepted a two-state solution – and actions, such as the housing-start moratorium in the West bank.

The statements then blamed the Palestinians for holding up the diplomatic process, saying the PA had placed unprecedented preconditions on starting talks, had led the campaign of delegitimizing Israel around the world, and had continued to incite hatred and violence.

Clinton, meanwhile, said that Middle East envoy George Mitchell – who postponed a visit this week – would return soon to the region.

“We’ll see what the next days hold, and we’re looking forward to Sen. Mitchell returning to the region and beginning the proximity talks,” she said.

The US Embassy in Tel Aviv said that Mitchell, who was originally slated to meet Netanyahu on Wednesday, had postponed his visit because of “logistical reasons” and the need to hold meetings in Washington before going to a meeting of the Quartet Thursday in Moscow.

Netanyahu hopes to have meetings next week with senior US administration officials, either Clinton or Biden. Netanyahu is scheduled to speak Monday evening at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington during a brief stopover in the US.

He is also expected to stop on the way home in Brussels for meetings with key EU officials.

One of those officials, EU foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton, is scheduled to arrive in Israel Wednesday for a one-day visit. Her trip comes just days after she sharply criticized Israel for the Ramat Shlomo announcement, and then later hinted broadly that the EU could use the prospects of an upgrade with Israel as leverage.

Ashton is scheduled to travel to the Gaza Strip, making her the highest-level international official to go there from Israel in months. Ashton – along with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is scheduled to arrive on Friday – received permission to visit Gaza from Israel, but pledged not to meet Hamas representatives.

Ashton will be accompanied by UN officials on her visit, which will be her first to Israel since taking over her post in December. Officials in Jerusalem view this as an important opportunity to present the Israeli perspective to someone who has little in the way of diplomatic experience or a track record with the country.

In addition to going to Gaza, Ashton – on a regional tour that has also taken her to Egypt, Lebanon and Syria – is scheduled to meet Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

On the Israeli side, she will meet Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres.

Peres, meanwhile, voiced muted criticism of Netanyahu on Tuesday, saying at a memorial ceremony in honor of late prime ministers and presidents of Israel that “we cannot afford to unravel the delicate fabric of friendship with the United States.”

“We must develop friendships with other nations, especially with the United States, to ensure political backing in our hour of need and military support against the dangers that face us,” he said. “We must make our supreme efforts not to stand alone; to recruit the good in people, and to extract the best in them.”

NTI: Global Security Newswire – Gaps Seen in Israeli Missile Defenses.

Potential gaps in Israel’s layered missile and rocket defenses could leave the nation’s civilian population vulnerable during an attack, United Press International reported Monday (see GSN, July 16, 2009).

The U.S.-backed Arrow 2 long-range missile interceptor system has never been tried in conflict while “David’s Sling” technology for use against medium-range threats could need another two years to become operational.

A combined missile and rocket strike by Iran and maybe Syria, along with the organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, could be too much for the Israeli air force to handle, according to some analysts.

The Lebanon-based Hezbollah launched roughly 4,000 rockets into Israel during their 2006 conflict. The group is now believed to hold about 45,000 rockets, which could reach much of the country, including Tel Aviv and the Dimona nuclear reactor.

Meanwhile, recent information from Rafael Advanced Weapons Systems has also suggested Jerusalem’s new Iron Dome system, developed to combat rockets launched by rival entities, could take 30 seconds to respond to a incoming short-range rocket with an travel time of 15 seconds.

These potential flaws in the missile and rocket shield could permit an estimated 8,000 civilian casualties if Israel is under attack, according to one analysis (United Press International, March 15).

Judith Miller: Stop the clash between U.S. and Israel | Washington Examiner.

By: Judith Miller
Manhattan Moment
March 17, 2010

There’s never a good time for a crisis between allies as close as the United States and Israel. But this is a particularly unfortunate moment for such a clash.

The long-anticipated “proximity” talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority were scheduled to start within days. Now they’re on hold. Israel’s American lobby group, AIPAC, is set to open its annual meeting in Washington this Sunday. Now who knows who’ll show up?

President Mubarak of Egypt, a critical player in the moderate Arab camp which has made peace with Israel, was photographed today from a hospital in Germany having undergone ostensible gall bladder surgery, looking awful. Could Egypt be on the verge of a destabilizing change of regimes? And the Obama administration is struggling to persuade its allies to support tougher sanctions against Iran to thwart Teheran’s nuclear ambitions.

Message to all sides: Enough already. Everyone needs to calm down, push the pause button, and diffuse a potentially explosive situation.

Much is at stake. “Spoilers” on all sides seem determined to make a bad situation worse. Consider the Palestinians. Ignoring the potentially incendiary consequences, they staged on Monday a “day of rage.” as militant Hamas called it.

Thousands turned out in Gaza to protest the rededication of a synagogue not far from the Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site. Even the Palestine Authority on the West Bank condemned the re-opening of the Hurva synagogue, twice-destroyed in Arab-Israeli violence.

Daniel C Kurtzer, a vocal critic of continued Israeli settlement activity on occupied Arab land, called the Palestinian condemnation “ridiculous.” “Holy places are holy and should be respected by all sides,” he said.

Ditto the Palestine Authority’s decision last week to dedicate a square in the West Bank town of El Bireh in the name of Dalal Mughrabi, a 19-year old woman who killed 38 people, 13 of them children, in a 1978 terrorist attack. “The veneration of terrorists says something unsettling about Palestinian society,” wrote Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post.

Israel, too, needs to make amends for its ill-timed, ill-conceived decision to build 1600 new housing units, even if they are meant to be built in the Jewish part of East Jerusalem. According to the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listed several initiatives that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could take to repair the damage and stop trying to “dance at two weddings,” as an Israeli commentator put it.

First, plans for the housing can at the very least be put on hold. Israel, moreover, could agree to permit the proximity talks to deal with substantive, rather than just procedural issues, which Israel has been resisting. At finally, as Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman suggested in an op-ed in his paper, Bibi could fire the Interior Minister who announced the new housing, either an act of incompetence or that of a spoiler.

This latest “crisis” needs perspective. This is not the first or only moment of tension between Israel and the U.S. Consider President Eisenhower’s pressure on Israel in 1957 to withdraw from territory captured in the Suez campaign, or the “reassessment” of U.S.-Israeli relations after the 1973 war when Israel resisted American demands, or the 1991 show-down when James Baker publicly gave then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir the White House telephone number, saying he should call when he was “serious about peace.”

President Obama, too, needs to do far more to allay Israel’s widespread, intense suspicion of him and his motives. Israelis simply do not trust him, and that bodes ill for peace with the Arabs. They note that he has never spoken as harshly to an Iranian or Syrian leader as he has to an ostensible friend.

They deeply resent his speech in Cairo which likened Palestinian suffering to that of Jews in the Holocaust, and they note that a president who has traveled the globe since his inauguration has still not found time to visit Israel. When he wanted to repair the coldness that had set in, he sent Joe Biden.

Judith Miller is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and a City Journal contributing editor.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Manhattan-Moment/Judith-Miller-Stop-the-clash-between-US-and-Israel-88157232.html#ixzz0iRadbMJD

Report: Saudis may allow Israel’s use of air space.

Western security sources believe Saudi Arabia will readily let Israel use the country’s airspace to strike neighboring Iran if a war breaks out between the archenemies.

Prominent German news magazine SPIEGEL claimed in a Tuesday article that there exists a strong unity between Israel and Persian Gulf’s Arab states against Iran.

The periodical noted that Riyadh has gone so far with the idea as to speak openly to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the potential need for a military option against the Islamic Republic.

SPIEGEl also cited Western intelligence agencies who believe that the Saudis would even open up their air space to Israeli jets for an attack on Iran.

This is while the United States has been reported intent on not allowing Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraq, it added.

The report also referred to an Arab League ministerial summit where they unanimously called on the Palestinians to start a new round of US-sponsored “proximity talks” with Israel.

Observers reiterate that SPIEGEl is greatly influenced by the Israeli regime and has previously published reports that were meant to serve as an Israeli propaganda campaign ore psychological warfare against the Islamic Republic.