WarSclerotic

Israel will respond to Iran’s & Hezbollah’s missiles with catastrophic weapons – International Analyst Network.\

07 Jan 2010

This analysis was eritten by Hamid Ghoriafi, Middle East Analyst & Journalist,
Published on 07/01/10 by the Kuwaiti Daily Al-Seyassah,
Translated from Arabic by Elias Bejjani, LCCC Chairman

*Israel is providing her 4.5 million citizens with anti-weapons of mass destruction masks.
*Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is expecting a war with Hezbollah and Iran by the end of next March.
*The Israeli army fears that Hezbollah might launch missiles with biological and chemical warheads.
*Israel confirmed that its response would include southern Lebanon, the suburbs of Beirut, the Bekaa valley and the heart of the Gaza strip.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, Israel will carry the most extensive training exercise in its history. The aim is to prepare the country for the potential threat of biological and chemical warfare missiles which her military and political experts fear Iran or Hezbollah might launch on the Jewish state, or through a series of local terrorist attacks by weapons of mass destruction targeting Tel Aviv or other major Israeli cities.

The “Orange Flame” is the name that was given to the campaign according to an Israeli media agency. The training is expected to cover Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Holon. It will focus on procedures and tactics required to rescue those injured by biological and chemical weapons. This exercise is going to be carried despite the fact that the state’s “Interior Front Command,” is working on the distribution of anti-biological and -chemical masks for the entire Israeli population of 4.5 million.

Hundreds of medical and rescue teams, municipal authorities, hospitals, special army and internal security services units, will all jointly participate in this biggest and most extensive exercise that aims to address potential biological disasters that could hit the country.

The training will involve vital ministries e.g., health, interior, defense, and public affairs. All staff in these institutions will be trained on how to face a catastrophic biological warfare in which thousands of citizens could be exposed to deadly gases. Meanwhile, hospitals in Tel Aviv and other regions like Ichilov, Tel Hashomer and Beersheba, in addition to health organizations and portable clinics will all be ready to receive more than a thousand volunteers who supposedly will be hit with biological gases.

According to the Israeli Haaretz newspaper there will be three major centers in Tel Aviv to accommodate the injured: the House of Danny, the Ramat Gan sports stadium and the Holon club. The training will also include thousands of citizens, civil servants, army and civil defense elements, in addition to doctors and nurses who were trained during the past few months in dealing with internal (terrorist acts) or external (missiles from outside the border) biological and chemical attacks.

Gen. Zeev Snir, who is assigned to represent the Israeli Defense Ministry in supervising the exercises, told the media that: “Our first challenge will focus on containing the damages caused by terrorist acts and biological or chemical attacks, and then identify the type of biological or chemical agent used in a bid that life returns to normal as quickly as possible”.

European diplomatic reports have quoted Israeli high ranking officials saying that the Netanyahu government and the Israeli army command are expecting an imminent war against their country waged either jointly by Iran, Hezbollah and the Hamas movement, or by one of these three bodies after next March. They also stated that Israel might find herself having no other option but to carry out a preemptive attack against Iran or Lebanon or the Gaza Strip or against all the three together in case she feels any kind of danger threatening the safety of her citizens or the country’s infrastructure.

The Haaretz Israeli Daily reported that for years, and especially since the 1991 western coalition war against Iraq, Israeli authorities have been providing only 60% of its population with anti-biological and -chemical masks, with certain exceptions for those residing in vulnerable and dangerous regions in the north neighboring Lebanon and Syria. The daily added that because of the current dramatic developments that are unfolding since the 2006 war with Hezbollah and the escalation of the Iranian nuclear conflict, the Netanyahu government has decided last week to expand the distribution of masks to cover the entire population, without exception, especially those living in densely populated areas in the second largest city, Tel Aviv, including cities and villages around it, which may be among the first targets of any biological and chemical warfare missile attack.

It is worth mentioning that Hezbollah’s General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah has made it very clear in his last speeches that his missiles this time will reach Tel Aviv and beyond Tel Aviv, a blatant reference to Israel’s nuclear reactors in the Negev desert (Dimona).

According to statements made by Israeli officials that were circulated in European diplomatic and intelligence reports, the Israeli army will not hesitate for one moment to respond to any biological or chemical attacks targeting its cities and villages. It will strongly hit the bombing sources of the missiles with similar devastating weapons that could kill, injure, handicap and disfigure thousands of citizens in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa valley, the Beirut suburbs and the heart of the Gaza Strip and its surrounding areas. These reports described this upcoming war as disastrous to all parties.

The same reports stated that in case Iran strikes Israel with long-range missiles carrying chemical and biological warheads, Israel will respond by devastating air strikes and lethal extremely advanced weapons to target the capital Tehran and other major Iranian cities that are not equipped or trained to handle such a disastrous war like the Israeli cities.
The Haaretz said that the “Israeli National Post” and the “National Post Services” companies have lately won tenders from the Ministry of defense to provide around 4.5 million Israelis (i.e. the entire Israeli population) with anti weapons of mass destruction masks before the end of next February with a cost of three billion shekels.

The newspaper confirmed that Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Director of Internal Front, Matan Mellnaii, have taken this decision on an emergency basis due to the deterioration of the situation in the region and the increasing external pressure on Israel. An impending war is on the horizon because both the Iranians and the Syrians have been setting up tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon and Syria (on the borders with Israel), as well as in Iranian long range missile bases.

Ready – or not – Haaretz – Israel News.

The defense establishment has reported that, based on a series of tests carried out in recent days on the Iron Dome short-range missile defense system, it will be possible to supply the Israel Defense Forces (and, more important, the town of Sderot) with an initial, operational battery as early as this May. Also, Haaretz reported a few days ago on last week’s decision by the cabinet to increase funding for the provision of protective kits (gas masks) to every citizen in the country, beginning at the end of next month.

These are important steps toward improving the protection Israel gives its citizens. However, it will probably take another year, at least, to deploy a meaningful number of intercept systems in the Negev and along the northern border. And according to the planned rate of gas-mask distribution, it will take three years to complete that undertaking. If Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas will only agree to wait politely, we will go into a war three years down the road in much better shape.

The first signs of a change in the enemy’s combat strategy were apparent as early as the first Gulf War, in 1991, when 39 Scud missiles launched from Iraq over the course of more than a month sent Israelis scurrying for their sealed rooms. Hezbollah continued the shelling – by means of short-range Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon – during Israel’s Operation Accountability (1993) and Operation Grapes of Wrath (1996). The enemy’s use of rockets and missiles was aimed at bypassing a confrontation with Israel’s definitive superiority in air power, intelligence capability and technology.

	Advertisement

In the first years of the second intifada, which began in late 2000, the Palestinians still resorted to terrorism in the form of suicide bombers. But when the IDF and the Shin Bet security service came up with reasonable responses to this, Hamas copied Hezbollah by firing rockets from the Gaza Strip, particularly after Israel’s disengagement in 2005.

The IDF, quite logically, will continue to rely in large measure on a combination of aerial attacks and ground maneuvers, including conquest of territory. However, in the face of a possible onslaught involving thousands of missiles and tens of thousands of rockets, this will not be enough. In such a scenario, Israel will have to rely on four main interconnected elements: intelligence (evaluation and prevention); an offensive operational plan; an active defense (the multilayered missile interception system – consisting of the Arrow, the Magic Wand, which is still being developed, and the Iron Dome); and passive defense (air-raid sirens, fortified security rooms in homes, gas masks). But the IDF’s combat doctrine vis-a-vis these different elements is still only in the development stages. The state comptroller warned about this state of affairs in a recent report.

A key question that arises in this context concerns the division of resources between defense and offense. A report on the country’s security conception, drawn up by the Meridor Committee in 2006, notes the importance of defense against missiles. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has also referred to this repeatedly, since taking up his portfolio again two and a half years ago. At that time, he said that in light of the bad experience following the Gaza evacuation, Israel will have to postpone additional withdrawals from the West Bank until an effective antimissile system can be developed. Surprisingly, the National Security Council, for example, barely devoted time to this subject.

Even in an optimistic scenario – in which Israel develops all the necessary intercept systems and allocates sufficient funding to their acquisition and deployment – a critical time gap has developed in the face of a militant Iranian approach. Tehran’s approach is based on attacking Israel “from far and from near” by means of Qassams and Katyushas from Gaza and Lebanon, and in the extreme case, also with Shihab missiles launched from Iran itself. In such a case, the result would be that the Arabs (and the Iranians) will be one step ahead of Israel in the campaign.

Unless the IDF has an unknown ace up its sleeve, every future clash will entail a massive assault on the home front, in a war that will be hard to win, or in which it will be difficult to achieve a decisive “image of victory.” This will necessitate precise planning in regard to the Israeli public’s stamina and to the logical distribution of resources, in which offense does not always come at the cost of defense.

Progress on the home front

Thorough work has been carried out with respect to the home front in the three and a half years since the end of the Second Lebanon War; Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai is involved and knowledgeable in every phase of this process. Home Front Command has changed its conception radically: In contrast to the period of the war in the north, its focus is now on the needs of the civilian population. Coordination with local governments has also improved greatly, and the establishment of the National Emergency Authority is likely to be a positive development, despite its problematic infringement on powers now held by the National Emergency Economy.

Nevertheless, problems remain with equipment procurement, with the command-and-control capability of the rescue forces and in the municipalities’ preparedness. After the rocket attacks on the Negev during Operation Cast Lead last year, the GOC Home Front Command, Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, declared that the campaign had been carried out in “deluxe” conditions. Home Front Command will not be able to devote the same concentrated efforts and resources in an all-out, multi-front war.

End to zigzags

It is against this background that the decision of the cabinet last week about the gas masks should be seen. It was a logical decision following a six-year series of zigzags, from the collection of the gas masks, to their storage, to their partial redistribution and to the new decision on full distribution. According to the IDF, this will necessitate the doubling of the budget for the project: from NIS 1 billion to NIS 2 billion. Barak, Vilnai, Maj. Gen. Golan and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi have long recommended such a step. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not persuaded of its necessity until last week. Golan put forward the plan to distribute the protective kits to 60 percent of the population within three years, with the many attendant problems of such a move: the bureaucratic unwieldiness, the difficulty of supervising the implementation, the inequality between different regions of the country, and the possibilities that would open up for petitions to the High Court of Justice by those who would not be included among the 60 percent.

Netanyahu thus decided there would be no “levels of distribution”: Everyone would get a gas mask. Barak undertook to find the money for half of the additional budget, NIS 500 million, by means of internal juggling of the defense budget. Netanyahu promised to come up with the other half.

This is good news for Israel Post, which won the tender to distribute the protective kits, and for their manufacturers, Shalon in Kiryat Gat and Supergum in Barkan, which will embark on a massive production process. In addition, a precedent was set: Veterans of Home Front Command maintain that they never saw the army spend a shekel of the defense budget on protective equipment. The money always came from external budgets.

The cabinet’s decision was an essential move, says a senior defense source who has been following developments in Home Front Command for years.

“The decision simultaneously informs the country’s citizens that the threat is being handled seriously and shows the enemy that we are prepared. Regarding the rate of development of the elements involved in our response to the threat,” said the source, “widespread distribution of the masks is the only realistic option – particularly if there is a reasonable possibility that we will see escalation here in the years ahead.”

One contributing factor here was undoubtedly the impact of the Winograd Committee, which investigated the management of the Second Lebanon War. After the severe criticism leveled at the Olmert government and the General Staff by the committee (and by the state comptroller, Micha Lindenstrauss, in reports on the home front) – neither the politicians nor the generals have much stomach today for assuming unnecessary risks. Equipping the public is therefore the default option, though it also attests to the scale of the past failure. Owing to the delay in developing a response to the rockets, protection will probably still focus, initially, on gas masks and sealed rooms, even if their effectiveness is limited in the case of attack with conventional, as opposed to chemical, rockets.

In fact, the question of the distribution budget is far from resolved. A simple clarification with sources in the Finance Ministry reveals that it has not been apprised of the protective-kits decision, and is unaware of a budget source that has been earmarked to underwrite the extra half-a-billion shekels promised by the prime minister for this purpose. In general, treasury sources are amazed at the changing assessments of the defense establishment concerning the cost of the distribution project.

What will happen in the case of an emergency that necessitates immediate distribution of the masks? The Defense Ministry’s agreement with Israel Post includes a clause that allows Home Front Command to take over this process should there be any urgency, and to distribute them itself via hundreds of stations across the country. In the last round of discussions, four years ago, about storing the masks in depots, the army made two promises to the political echelon: that Military Intelligence would provide sufficient warning before there is a concrete risk that chemical missiles will be fired, and that it would possible to distribute gas masks to the entire population within a few days.

The state comptroller was severely critical of this forecast. Now Home Front Command is promising that in an emergency, it will be possible to complete full distribution of the gas masks within a few weeks.

Three years ago, Israel surprised itself by not anticipating that its sharp response to the abduction of reserve soldiers would lead to a protracted war with Hezbollah. According to surveys provided to the U.S. Congress, the nuclear facility that North Korea built for the Syrians – which Israel bombed in 2007 – was unknown to Western intelligence until a late stage. Israel will have to take into account the limitations of its intelligence in providing an early warning.

Summer 2010 is the defense establishment’s target date for completing home front preparedness, but a review of the threats shows that such preparedness, however much improved it will be in comparison to summer 2006, will still be only partial.

FT.com / Comment / Analysis – Middle East: Atomic agitation.

For all that, the moment of decision long dreaded by Washington has finally arrived. Mr Obama campaigned for the presidency on the idea of “engagement” with Tehran, and took office emphasising his willingness to negotiate without conditions over the nuclear programme and other issues. But he also said he would judge the effectiveness of his policy by the end of 2009. That time is now past: today the president is left contemplating the failure of his outreach and looking for a Plan B.

Today, while western fears mount about Iran’s intentions and condemnation grows of its internal repression, Tehran is closer to becoming a nuclear state. Direct talks have failed to produce results. Washington is nervous that any military attack – such as has been sporadically threatened by Israel – would be a catastrophe for the region.

As a result, officials throughout the Obama administration and its allies now agree: the time has come to put greater emphasis on sanctions, in an effort to make Tehran think again about its nuclear programme. “We want to keep the door to dialogue open,” Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, said this week. But she added: “We can’t continue to wait and we cannot continue to stand by.”

Published: January 7 2010 20:50 | Last updated: January 7 2010 20:50

// 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[0]);}}}}]]>

Just over a month ago, a group of veteran US and Israeli diplomats met at Harvard to play out scenarios for one of the most momentous issues facing the world this year – Iran’s nuclear programme.

In the simulation, as in real life, the stakes were high. If Iran comes within reach of a nuclear weapon – as Washington and its allies fear – the power map of the Middle East will alter, the rules that have held back atomic proliferation for decades may be damaged beyond repair and the US and Israel will see a bitter foe empowered as never before. Not least, US President Barack Obama will also have failed on a key foreign policy objective.

The result of the Harvard simulation was not promising for the White House. Tehran emerged the victor, ending 2010 closer to the bomb, with a western push for sanctions backfiring, and Russia and China talking to Iran behind their partners’ backs.

As Robert Gates, US defence secretary, caustically remarked recently: “There are no good options” on Iran.

As the push to enact sanctions intensifies, the problems are clear. The US is far from certain of attaining even the limited sanctions it and its allies seek, and is well aware that historically such measures have often failed to bring results.

Even now, Washington is trying to rein in far-reaching sanctions legislation already backed by the House of Representatives that it fears will do more to irritate allies – by threatening penalties on international companies – than it will hurt Iran.

Indeed the Islamic Republic is currently in turmoil, convulsed by fervent opposition demonstrations and the resulting bloody crackdowns. The nuclear programme is widely depicted as a symbol of national sovereignty. Both the government and the opposition insist that Iran is fully entitled to enrich uranium – the process that can yield both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material.

Dismissing calls for concessions, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, recently said that if the west did not “correct” its attitude, “we will demand from them the Iranian nation’s historic rights”. Tehran does not look like it is is preparing to sit down at the negotiating table.

But with such big issues at stake the sanctions drive is becoming the focus of international policy.

Already Mr Obama’s Iran and national security teams are meeting to decide on “next steps”. At the United Nations, ambassadors from the permanent five security council members are preparing to negotiate a new round of sanctions, with the debate set to reach a head next month.

It is familiar territory. Three UN sanctions resolutions have been passed in recent years with little discernible impact on Iran’s nuclear progress. Russia and China, two veto-wielding security council members with significant economic interests in Iran, remain highly reluctant to agreeing punitive measures.

Zhang Yesui, China’s ambassador to the UN, said this week, that it was “not the right time or right moment” for sanctions, as diplomatic efforts were still under way. His comments underline the difficulties for the sanctions drive – not least because Beijing is chairing the Security Council this month. Western diplomats complain that Beijing prioritises its mercantilist interests, rooted in its growing trade with Iran, over efforts to restrain Tehran’s nuclear programme.

At the UN over the next few weeks, the US will ask other states to explore alternative measures that could hit Iran’s energy, financial and transport sectors. The European Union will also this month begin discussing how to reinforce UN action.

T op of the list of possible sanctions would be hitting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum. Although Iran sits on the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, it has to import 40 per cent of refined petrol and 11 per cent of diesel for domestic use because of a historic lack of investment in its antiquated refinery infrastructure.

But China, which has investments in the Iranian energy sector, appears determined to stop measures that would affect the sale of refined petroleum to Iran, say diplomats. “Without Chinese support you can’t make any progress,” says a European diplomat. “Our own oil companies would simply come to us and say, ‘It won’t work – the Chinese are selling petrol to Iran by the back door’.”

A second possible area could be arms sales to Iran. Here, however, the problem is with Russia, which accounts for some 85 per cent of Iran’s arms imports according to European diplomats, and would oppose measures. “Russia exported $2bn in weapons to Iran between 2000 and 2007,” says the same European diplomat. “These are the kinds of figures that would make the Kremlin very reluctant to curb arms exports.”

The US and its EU allies are thus likely to look at a third series of possible measures, both at UN and at EU level. These would aim at targets such as investment in Iran’s petroleum sector, its shipping companies and the insurers that underwrite them.

As was the case with previous resolutions, sanctions could also hit banks connected to Iran’s missile and nuclear programmes, the increasingly powerful Revolutionary Guard, and goods and technologies that can have a dual military and civilian use.

Washington maintains that Iran’s financial isolation is now greater than at any point over the past 15 years. This is partly because of an informal US campaign to lobby companies against doing business with Tehran and partly because of tougher US rules against transactions with Iran, which contributed in December to a $536m fine on Credit Suisse, the Swiss bank.

US officials also take heart in the fact that Dmitry Medvedev, president of Russia, has appeared particularly irritated recently at the way Tehran has rejected Moscow’s attempts to broker a deal on uranium enrichment.

Yet privately, there are doubts about what sanctions can achieve. Some diplomats wonder what the impact on international policy might be of the recent round of demonstrations against the Iranian leadership that have seen eight people killed. “There will be those who argue that at this very moment – just as Ahmadi-Nejad faces acute internal political pressures – the US and the west should not boost the regime’s allegations that they are the enemy,” says a European diplomat.

Iranian analysts also maintain that a fresh round of UN sanctions restricting travel on individuals and limiting purchases of nuclear- and military-related commodities would have little impact on the country’s nuclearpolicies.

Iranian businessmen say they have proven success in mitigating the effects of previous sanctions by re-arranging the way they do business. Israel has long warned the US that Iran uses Dubai as a channel through which it can bypass the international sanctions regime. As Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation in Washington puts it: “The sanctions path has more to do with providing a focus for American frustration and emotion than achieving a successful course of correction by Iran.”

F or the US, the problem is that it cannot afford to be ineffective. The past few months have brought a string of worrying developments, despite Tehran’s insistence that its purposes are purely peaceful.

Iran has now accumulated more than 1.5 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, more than enough, if further enhanced, for one nuclear bomb. It is pressing ahead with tests of ballistic missiles that could one day convey a nuclear warhead. Western intelligence agencies, meanwhile, are now robustly rejecting a US intelligence assessment that Iran stopped work on warhead design back in 2003.

Exactly when Iran could test a bomb is debated between intelligence agencies, although some experts say the programme is constrained by the out-of-date Pakistani nuclear technology obtained on the black market. Some western diplomats also argue that Tehran may hold back from going all the way for nuclear weapons – since it could lose out in any subsequent regional arms race in which neighbours, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, sought to catch up.

Still, US officials say they believe Iran is seeking, at the very least, to shorten the “lead time” for a bomb even if it has not yet made the final, high-risk decision to build a weapon.

There is also uncertainty over how Israel will respond if Iran’s nuclear ambitions fail to be contained in the next year or two. The assumption in some western capitals is that an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations remains highly unlikely. The Obama administration has repeatedly warned Israel against such an action – which, Mr Gates says, “would only buy some time, maybe two or three years” at the risk of inflaming the region.

“Iran would be able to inflict a heavy retaliatory strike on population centres inside Israel,” says a European diplomat. “That is the issue that weighs on Israeli thinking.” Still, Israel has never ruled out a sudden strike on what many Israelis see as an existential threat to their state.

As they enter a new phase of diplomacy on Iran, US officials recognise big problems ahead. “The dysfunctionality of the regime is a real problem,” says a senior US official, referring to Iran’s reluctance to accept a proposal in October that would have swapped most of its enriched uranium stockpile for isotopes for medical use. “They haven’t even been prepared to accept a proposal that everyone considers balanced. Whether they are unwilling or unable, the result is that they haven’t been prepared to engage.”

Back in June 2008, in the course of his presidential campaign, Mr Obama said he would “do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – everything.”

The problem for him – and the world – is that “everything in his power” may not be enough.

ANALYSIS-Iran unlikely to risk blocking Strait of Hormuz.

Published: 07 Jan 2010 18:11:35 PST

* Iran cannot afford prolonged blockade of strait

* Oil could rise to $100 a barrel if waterway blocked

LONDON, Jan 7 – Iran is unlikely to risk blocking or mining the Strait of Hormuz if tension with the West rises, because it stands to lose vital oil revenues from closing the strategic waterway and lacks the military capability.

Iran has threatened to close the strait a vital route for world oil supplies, if it is attacked over its nuclear ambitions.

Some Iran watchers say Tehran could opt to block the strait if more severe sanctions are imposed. Western powers suspect Iran’s nuclear activities are aimed at developing atomic weapons, not generating electricity as Tehran insists.

Analysts believe the threat itself is enough to raise oil prices to well above $100 a barrel, potentially damaging a still fragile global economic recovery.

“Oil prices rose by around $12 a barrel when Israel went into Lebanon in 2006 and neither of those countries are even involved in oil production,” said Paul Harris, head of natural resources risk management at Bank of Ireland.

“You’d be looking at least double that kind of jump from an event on that scale in the region.”

Many analysts say Tehran cannot afford to risk a prolonged disruption of the narrow waterway, which borders Iran’s coastline at the mouth of the Gulf, and through which 40 percent of all seaborne oil trade, about 17 million barrels, passes daily.

Iran itself exports around 2.4 million barrels daily — most of it via the Strait of Hormuz.

“They would cut their own throats because two-thirds of the Iranian government‘s budget comes from exports from the same strait,” said J. Peter Pham, an adviser on strategic matters to U.S. and foreign governments.

“Iran gains more from the threat of closing the strait than actually closing it.”

“FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS”

The strait, just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, lies between Oman and Iran. Neighbouring oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude oil exporter, are dependent on its shipping lanes.

“Closing the strait would reduce Iran’s leverage in the region as it would put Persian Gulf countries squarely in the camp of America,” Iran analyst Meir Javedanfar said, adding that it could tempt them into financing Iranian opposition movements.

Many analysts believe that, if Iran retaliated, it would choose to mine the strait’s sea lanes as it did during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Military analysts believe Iran has three mine-laying ships and three mine-laying helicopters, plus three Russian-built Kilo class submarines.

“Military operations on the offence are fraught with problems,” said Eugene Gholz, professor of national security policy at the University of Texas.

“The Iranians would have to do it over and over again every day to maintain the disruption.”

Global intelligence company Stratfor said the strait’s cramped, shallow waters made submarine activity difficult.

“In any event, the Iranian navy does not have enough Kilos to have any confidence in its ability to sustain submarine operations for any meaningful period after hostilities began,” it said in a study.

REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS

Some analysts said double-hulled oil tankers were able to withstand damage from mines more than their single-hulled predecessors, which were targeted in the 1980s when Iran and Iraq fired on each other’s vessels during the “tanker war”.

John Dalby, chief executive of the maritime security company MRM which provides risk assessments and supplies former military personnel to ships in the region, said mines did not represent a real risk to tankers.

“Bearing in mind mines detonate under water, there is little risk of a spark-induced explosion,” he said.

Pham said Iran would have to sink three or four very large crude carriers daily, each holding up to 2 million barrels of oil, to have a significant effect on supply.

“This is nearly impossible,” he said. “They can cause a shock, they can cause psychological panic, but their actual capacity to do something is not there.”

Military analysts have not ruled out Iran using speedboats to attack tanker traffic.

The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence said in a study last year Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had control of smaller and faster boats which had “serious firepower” including torpedoes and the Iranian-made Kowsar anti-ship cruise missiles.

However, few believe Iran will take that course because of fears of severe retaliation by the West, given that the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in the region.

“That would be far too provocative. It would unleash hell,” MRM’s Dalby said.

Israel and Iran: The gathering storm | The Economist.

Jan 7th 2010 | JERUSALEM AND TEL AVIV
From The Economist print edition

As Israel pushes for sanctions against Iran, it also mulls options for war

Getty ImagesRaiders of Osiraq

SHORTLY after four in the afternoon on June 7th 1981, the late King Hussein of Jordan looked up from his yacht off the port of Aqaba and saw eight Israeli F-16 jets, laden with weapons and external fuel tanks, streaking eastward. He called his military staff, but could not find out what was going on. An hour or so later, the answer became clear. After a ground-hugging infiltration through Saudi Arabia, the jets climbed up near Baghdad and bombed Saddam Hussein’s Osiraq nuclear reactor.

Zeev Raz, the squadron’s leader (pictured bottom right), still recalls every phase of “Operation Opera”: his constant worries about running out of fuel; the risky move to jettison tanks, while the bombs were still attached to the wings, to reduce drag; and the loss of a key navigational marker. He overshot his target and had to loop back. He later discovered that his deputy, Amos Yadlin (now Israel’s military-intelligence chief), had slipped ahead and, annoyingly, dropped the first bombs. Somehow the Iraqis were surprised. King Hussein’s tip had not been passed on. And even though Iraq was then at war with Iran, there were no air patrols or active surface-to-air missile batteries. The Israelis encountered only brief anti-aircraft fire. In the cockpit video of the last and most exposed plane, Ilan Ramon (top left), who later died in the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003, is heard grunting nervously. Their mission completed, the jets flew home brazenly on the direct route over Jordan.

The Osiraq raid, condemned at the time, is often seen these days as the model for “preventive” military action against nuclear threats. It set back Iraq’s nuclear programme and, after America’s two wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, Saddam never built nuclear weapons. Such methods were repeated in September 2007, when Israeli jets destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor under construction in Syria. Now that Iran is moving inexorably closer to an atomic bomb, will the Israeli air force be sent to destroy its nuclear sites?

// <![CDATA[
document.write('’);
]]>

By Israel’s reckoning, Iran will have the know-how to make nuclear weapons within months and, thereafter, could build atomic bombs within a year. Even if Iran does not seek to realise its dreams of wiping out the Jewish state, Israeli officials say a nuclear-armed Iran would lead to “cataclysmic” changes in the Middle East. America would be weakened and Iran become dominant; pro-Western regimes would become embattled, and radical armed groups such as Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza would feel emboldened.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others could, in turn, seek their own nuclear arms. In a multi-nuclear Middle East, Israel’s nuclear arms may not ensure a stabilising, cold-war-style deterrent. “If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Middle East will look like hell,” says one senior Israeli official. “I cannot imagine that we can live with a nuclear Iran.” For Israel, 2010 is the year of decision. Yet its ability to destroy the nuclear sites is questionable, and such a strike may precipitate a regional war, or worse.

Mr Raz, for one, thinks Israel cannot repeat the Osiraq feat. Iran’s nuclear sites are farther away; they are dispersed, and many are buried. The disclosure last year of a secret enrichment facility being dug into a mountain near Qom suggests that there are others undiscovered. “The Iranians are clever. They learnt well from Osiraq,” says Mr Raz. “There is no single target that you can bomb with eight aircraft.”

For Mr Raz, Israeli air power could, at most, set the Iranian nuclear programme back by a year or two—not enough to be worth the inevitable Iranian retaliation, which might include rockets fired at Israeli cities by Iran and its allies, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A more thorough action would require ground troops in Iran, but nobody is contemplating that.

Though he now works for a defence-electronics contractor and lives comfortably in a flat with a commanding view over Israel’s narrow coastal plain, Mr Raz exudes gloom. His four children, all adults, are applying for foreign passports—German ones, of all things. His eldest daughter, a mother of two, “does not think Israel is safe any more”—not just because of the prospect of a nuclear Iran, but because years of suicide-bombings and rockets have sapped belief in peace. Her siblings, he says, were persuaded to apply too.

This is a surprising admission, particularly from a kibbutz-bred former fighter pilot. Most Israelis still believe in the mystique of their air force. And for much of the past year Israel has been unusually calm. Palestinian suicide-bombings are very rare, and the morale-sapping showers of rockets have all but stopped.

In Israel’s view this is thanks to the tough security measures it has taken, among them the contentious security barrier in the West Bank, and its willingness to go to war against Hizbullah in 2006 and against Hamas a year ago. “Deterrence is working wonderfully,” says one defence official. But both militias are rearming, partly thanks to help from Iran, with missiles of even greater range that could reach the crowded Tel Aviv region from either Gaza or Lebanon. And the lull has been bought at a serious cost to Israel’s diplomatic standing. An inquiry commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council and headed by a South African judge, Richard Goldstone, found that Israel (and to a lesser extent Hamas) may be guilty of war crimes in Gaza. Europe is regarded as increasingly hostile, a region where Israeli government and military officials travel warily to avoid war-crimes lawsuits.

There are doubts even about Israel’s great ally, America, after a spat over Jewish settlements in the West Bank. President Barack Obama may be clever, Israelis say, but he lacks the empathy with Israel shown by his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George Bush. One minister, Limor Livnat, recently said that Israel had “fallen into the hands of a horrible American administration”.

Israel thus finds itself in a paradoxical state: more secure for now, but acutely anxious about the future; closer than ever to some Arab regimes because of a perceived common threat from Iran and its radical allies, yet more demonised by its Western friends. Israelis see a global campaign of “delegitimisation” akin to efforts to isolate white-ruled South Africa. “I’m sure the Afrikaners felt like we feel now,” says Mr Raz.

For many Israeli strategists, the decision over whether to bomb Iran is the most important in decades—some say since the birth of the Jewish state in 1948. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu—the son of a staunchly nationalist professor of Jewish history, and the younger brother of Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu, who died leading the famed rescue of hostages from Entebbe in 1976—is said to feel the weight of history. His office is adorned with portraits of two of his political idols. One is Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism. But the other, Winston Churchill, is unusual in a country that regards Britain as having betrayed the Zionist cause when it ruled Palestine.

Bibi as Winston

Mr Netanyahu draws inspiration from the British wartime leader for reasons both tactical and strategic. Political courage in Israel is often deemed to mean willingness to surrender, after decades of colonisation, the territories captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; to act like Charles de Gaulle, who gave up Algeria. By holding up Churchill, Mr Netanyahu is saying that courage consists of holding tenaciously to one’s beliefs, regardless of popularity.

This model carried special force on the question of Iran. As opposition leader, Mr Netanyahu recalled Churchill’s efforts to awaken the world to the danger of Nazi Germany. “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany,” he said in 2006. Now that he is in power, pundits ask, might Bibi see himself as the Churchill of the Battle of Britain, fighting alone against Hitler and desperately trying to draw America into the war?

Iran is central to Mr Netanyahu’s thinking. It helps explain his surprisingly strong partnership with Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labour Party (and a former army chief of staff and prime minister), trusted as the only man able to handle the big security issues. It helps that he served in Sayeret Matkal, the elite commando unit once led by Mr Barak—and by brother Yoni.

Iran affects Mr Netanyahu’s calculations on the Palestinian issue too. He came to office convinced that tackling Iran was a bigger priority than peacemaking with Palestinians. This may have been a convenient argument for a sceptic of the “peace process”. In truth, a peace deal has been difficult ever since the Palestinian movement split violently in 2006 between the Islamists of Hamas who seized Gaza, and the more secular Fatah faction that clings on to bits of the West Bank (with Israeli and American help) under President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr Netanyahu argued that even if a deal were possible, a nuclear-armed Iran would unravel any agreements. But in the view of prominent Palestinians such as Ghassan Khatib, a former planning minister, peacefully resolving the nuclear stand-off would help push Hamas into more moderate positions.

Under pressure from Mr Obama, who argued that progress on the Palestinian issue would help galvanise an Arab coalition to confront Iran, Mr Netanyahu has since adjusted his positions. He belatedly accepted the idea of a Palestinian “state”, albeit a demilitarised one. And having upset the Obama administration by rejecting its demand for a complete halt to settlement-building, he later announced a unilateral, partial, ten-month suspension.

Something is now stirring. During a recent trip to Cairo, Mr Netanyahu seems to have offered enough to win praise from Egypt and start a new flurry of diplomacy that may yet lead to new peace talks. Mr Netanyahu’s aides now speak in Labour-like aphorisms: “We must make progress with Palestinians as if there is no Iran, and confront Iran as if there is no Palestinian issue,” says one. Perhaps there is a bit of de Gaulle in Mr Netanyahu after all. Or perhaps, as one Haaretz columnist, Aluf Benn, noted, the parallel is that Churchill brought America into the war, but lost the empire.

Mr Netanyahu has gone along with the Obama administration’s decision to talk directly to Iran. In contrast with the threats issued by the government of his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, his cabinet has been told to keep quiet about military planning, saying only: “All options are on the table”. As one aide puts it: “Those who know will not speak; and those who speak do not know.”

Clues in the wind

The few public signals seem contradictory. Mr Netanyahu has boosted the defence budget, and the army is planning to distribute gas masks to all citizens next month. Joint missile-defence exercises were held with America in October, and a simulated biological attack is to be rehearsed this month. Despite all this, Mr Barak seemed to recognise the difficulty of curbing Iran’s nuclear programme last month when he told a closed meeting with members of parliament that the Qom site “cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack”.

Two war games run recently by academics add to the despondency. In one, played out at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, America was ready to live with a nuclear Iran through containment and nuclear deterrence, and exerted strong pressure on Israel not to take military action. In another war game, held at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies and designed to explore diplomatic options, Iran continued to build up its stock of enriched uranium—even after a simulated Israeli commando raid on one facility under construction.

All this suggests that Israel is drawing up military options to attack Iran, but none of them is very appealing. This may explain Israel’s enthusiasm for sanctions. The emergence of an Iranian protest movement raises hopes that the regime could be restrained, perhaps even toppled, by stoking internal pressure.

America is rethinking the wisdom of targeting Iran’s most obvious vulnerability: its dependence, because of inefficient refining capacity, on imports of petrol and other fuels. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, now says America will seek to impose penalties on the increasingly powerful Revolutionary Guard, “without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary [Iranians], who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.”

Mr Netanyahu’s lieutenants seem inclined the other way. They say ordinary Iranians will blame their government, not the outside world, for any sanctions; so the embargo should be as crushing as possible. Domestic instability should be encouraged. Only a direct threat to the survival of the regime, they believe, will make it think again about seeking nuclear weapons. It is a harsh view, but for Israel the alternatives are even worse.

NTI: Global Security Newswire – China Rejects Call for More U.N. Sanctions on Iran.

Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010

Israel completes testing a high-tech defense system that intercepts incoming rockets – baltimoresun.com.

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel has successfully completed testing a high-tech rocket defense system designed to protect its civilians from attacks by militants in Gaza and Lebanon, the Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

The Iron Dome system successfully “intercepted multiple threats at the same time,” the ministry said in a statement. “All the (rockets) were shot down by the system with total success.”

It said the system will be delivered to an anti-aircraft regiment in the air force soon, but did not give a date for when it becomes operational. Channel 10 TV said the first battery would be deployed in May.

The system is effective against short-range rockets like those used by Gaza and Lebanese militants.

The Iron Dome system uses cameras and radar to track incoming rockets and shoot them down within seconds of their launch, according to the Defense Ministry. The system can change its calculations to account for weather or other conditions in fractions of a second. It then fires a hailstorm of projectiles that home in on the rockets, detonating them in the sky.

Gaza militants have fired thousands of rockets into southern Israel over the years and the Iran-backed militia Hezbollah bombed northern cities with rocket barrages from Lebanon during fierce fighting in the summer of 2006.

Millions of Israeli civilians are within range of the Hamas and Hezbollah rockets, and the Israeli military have been unable to stop the attacks up to now.

Israel has been looking at anti-rocket systems since 2003 but intensified the search after the 2006 war.

Developed at a cost of more than $200 million, the Iron Dome system is intended to eventually be integrated into a multilayered defense umbrella to meet all missile threats.

To defend against long-range threats, like an Iranian attack, Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. and Chicago-based Boeing Co. are producing the Arrow missile, which has been successfully tested and deployed.

The most advanced version, the Arrow II, was specifically designed to counter Iran’s Shahab ballistic missile, which may be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The Shahab-3 is said to have a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel well within striking distance.

Israel views Iran as its biggest threat because of its nuclear program and long-range missiles. Those fears have deepened by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s repeated references to the destruction of the Jewish state.

via Vail Valley Voices: Russia the fly in the ointment with Iran | VailDaily.com.

I’m not a foreign relations expert, but I can recognize a serious diplomatic problem when I see one. And the Iran nuclear crisis is a dangerous situation.

Russia has, for all intents and purposes, vetoed any serious sanctions by the United Nations against Iran. President Obama had hoped these sanctions would temper Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The reason for Russia’s seemingly inane response to Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb is historically motivated. The most significant American diplomatic achievement since World War II occurred during the Cold War when Ronald Reagan effectively caused the Soviet Union to dismantle itself.

Russia’s ultimate ruler, Vladimir Putin, a one-time KBG chief and die-hard nationalist, has been dreaming about the old days when his country regularly interfered with American global leadership.

Spurred economically by a spike in oil prices, Putin decided to assert Russian influence even while pretending to be an ally of George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama. Higher oil prices filled Russian foreign exchange coffers, giving Putin a false sense of economic prowess. He responded by causing problems in nearby former Soviet provinces.

But now, Russia is ready for prime time. Even after serious conversations with American diplomats about a proposed anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe and assorted other less important issues, Russia has openly defied an effort by Obama to build a consensus against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The illogic of this decision is overwhelming. Why would Russia condone the development of a nuclear weapon by one of its most unstable neighbors, which happens to be ruled by a maniac who is responsible to a group of religious zealots intent on destroying Israel?

Some have said the reason is economic in that Russia has several important projects under way in Iran. That may be partially true, but Iran’s proximity to former Soviet provinces and Russia should be the most important consideration. If a war breaks out, bombs will be exploding dangerously close to Russian soil.

Is Putin prepared to look the other way just because he wants to take on the U.S. diplomatically? What are the odds that Iran ultimately produces a nuclear weapon? I put them at zero, but not because the U.S. will invade Iran (Americans wouldn’t support another war in the region).

Rather, Israel won’t allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Israel’s leaders look at this situation as a matter of life and death for their country. The reaction to an Israeli strike wouldn’t be what some might think. Not one Arab country really believes that a nuclear Iran is in its best interests.

Superficial outrage to an Israeli strike would be prevalent, but I believe most Arabs would be relieved if Iran were to be neutered. And keep in mind that Iran stands ready to use its might and influence against Sunni Arab regimes.

So you can just imagine how Saudi Arabia (a Sunni regime) feels about this situation. Israel will attack because it has no choice. Its intelligence is second to none (so it will know when a deliverable bomb has been developed); it has the conventional firepower to destabilize Iran’s nuclear program; and no country will act against Israel, not even Russia.

Russia is playing a dangerous diplomatic game by not supporting the U.S. effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. All nations should work together for a peaceful settlement of this crisis.

But Russia, for glory’s sake, may make a peaceful reconciliation impossible.

Sal Bommarito is a novelist and frequent visitor to Vail over the past 20 years.

Underground Tunnels Connect-Iran-Lebanon-Gaza – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

// <![CDATA[if (sLinkData != "") document.write("Edit
“);]]>

(IsraelNN.com) The Iranian-Hizbullah-Hamas axis is connected through a common use of deep underground tunnels that hide Tehran’s nuclear facilities, where enriched uranium can be used to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

Iran recently admitted that it has been building a previously unknown reactor in the area of Qom, a confession that was made only after foreign intelligence experts reported on the new facility. The discovery that the plant is located inside a mountain duplicates Iran’s use of a network of tunnels to hide other parts of its growing nuclear infrastructure, according to The New York Times.

// <![CDATA[if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}]]>

The American policy of threatening sanctions and leaving open the diplomatic option has given Iran enough time to build the tunnel system, leaving behind the near-impossibility for the Western world, including Israel, to know the exact location of the nuclear plants and then be able to bomb them through underground rock and thick man-made concrete.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak last month implied that the Western world has put itself in a tight corner. He told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee that the Qom plant is “located in bunkers that cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack.”

One possible offensive weapon for the Western world is a tunnel-busting bomb, which still is in the development stage in the United States as the race against the nuclear clock counts down to zero. The American government has ordered a speed-up for delivery of the huge bomb, which contains more than two tons of explosives and weighs around 15 tons.

Iran’s of using a complex web of tunnels goes back more than a decade and may be the source for the construction of a similar network by Hizbullah in southern Lebanon and by Hamas under the border between Egypt and Gaza.

Underground bunkers and tunnels gave Hizbullah a decisive edge over the IDF in the Second Lebanon War, when soldiers were surprised to discover that bushes in southern Lebanon began to move. The vegetation was a camouflage that stood over the entrances to huge tunnels, which hid rocket launchers, missiles and full-fledged communications headquarters and escape routes.

Underground tunnels may have been used by Hizbullah in the kidnapping of soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev while the Israeli Air Force conducted aerial bombings in an effort to cut off above-ground escape routes.

The tunnel system was built since 2000, when Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who then was Prime Minister, ordered a sudden withdrawal of the IDF from the security zone in southern Lebanon, leaving Israel without an intelligence system to report on the terrorist organization’s massive preparations for war.

In southern Israel, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and the Hamas terrorist faction which succeeded it in elections nearly three years ago, have used hundreds of tunnels to smuggle into Gaza hundreds of tons of explosives as well as advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, many of them made in Iran.

The technical knowledge and advances for building tunnels was advanced by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is a former transportation engineer and who has been personally involved in developing the tunneling industry in Iran. He has brought into the country huge machines that can quickly dig through hard rock, some times for civilian purposes, such as subways, and often for military purposes, such as nuclear reactors.

Some of the tunnels also may be bogus, a tactic to confuse would-be attacks on the nuclear reactors.

Report: Syria will support Hizbullah if Israel attacks | Middle East.

If Israel were to attack Hizbullah in Lebanon, Syria would respond and not sit idly by, the Katari Al Watan newspaper quoted Syrian sources as saying in a report published Wednesday.

A Hizbullah supporter holds a poster of Nasrallah during a rally to mark the third anniversary of the Second Lebanon War in a southern suburb of Beirut.
Photo: AP

The sources reportedly added that Damascus considered any threat to Lebanon’s security and stability as a threat to Syria’s security.

The paper reported that Damascus was worriedly taking notice of “Israeli deployment and maneuvers along the northern border,” and that Syrian leadership assessed Israel was planning a military operation in Lebanon in May.

US officials have notified the Lebanese government that if it does not manage to unarm Hizbullah, “Israel plans to invade the country all the way to Beirut,” the Syrian sources told the newspaper.

According to Al Watan, the sources said that “this is a message to both Syria and Lebanon.”

On Sunday, a senior Beirut-based Hamas official that his group would work side-by-side with Hizbullah in the next war against Israel, Army Radio reported.

“Israel should know that if it decides to attack, we won’t be able to sit on our hands, and we will assist our brothers against Israeli brutality,” the official said.

He was speaking at a memorial ceremony for two Hamas operatives who were killed in a Beirut explosion some two weeks ago.