Sic Semper Tyrannis

Syria, the Levant, and the Real Domino Effect

*

Adam L. Silverman, PhD**

 

As the Syrian Civil War continues into its third year, there are several potential outcomes that we need to look out for and be concerned with.  These are not just limited to Syria, but to the entire Levant, and even to Iran.  So lets run the board in order:

Syria

There are really two key potential outcomes and one sequel for Syria itself: stalemate driven insurgency, the fall of the Assads leading to a Sunni majority takeover, and the withdrawl of the Alawites to Latakia.

It is, in some respects, both surprising and not surprising that the Assad government has held on for as long as it has.  In many ways the Syrian Civil War is both an Assad and Alawite existential fight. which partially explains just how hard the government has responded and how far it is willing to go to survive.  One of the two most likely outcomes to the dispute is that the government is strong enough to survive, but not strong enough to completely put down the rebellion and that the rebellion is not strong enough to overthrow the government, but just strong enough to survive.  If this happens, then we will see a classic insurgency along the lines of what the Philippines has endured with the Moros on Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago and similar to what Columbia has faced with the FARC.  In this situation Syria essentially gets carved up into two or more statelets - with government control in some areas and rebel control in others. 

The second potential outcome is that the Assad government does fall and the Sunni majority, or some faction of it takes over.  And it is this latter concept of faction that is important.  There is clearly no good cohesion among the rebel groups, both the domestic Syrian and the foreign fighters/jihadis, as well as between them.  While it may ultimately be a good thing for the region if Assad goes, it will not be a simple transition.  The various factions are likely to try to consolidate power, claim and then establish legitimacy, and will come to blows with each other over who will take control.  This possible outcome has the potential to turn into a Syrian version of the Thirty Years War, where different factions try to and/or actually seize power, seek to consolidate, face challenges to their legitimacy, and then the cycle of violent succession starts all over again.  This would, unlike the actual Thirty Years War, not end in the creation of a secular state, as the Syrian Sunni majority is conservative and devout even though it is not Salafist.  So do not expect a secular Sunni majority Syria to emerge.

In both of these two potential outcomes their is a sequel: the fallback of the Alawites, with or without the Assads, to their traditional lands in Latakia.  Latakia is the mountainous strip of Syria below Turkey on the coast of the Mediterranean.  While it is not completely fortifiable, it is certainly good ground - to paraphrase MG Buford - for digging in and trying to make a stand.  Not only would this prolong the dispute, but it would complicate Syria's claims to their portions of the recently discovered Leviathan petroleum and natural gas field in the eastern Mediterranean.

Benny Gantz says that Israel may do Iran alone.

"Gantz addressed a laundry list of regional security issues, including Iran, Gazan rockets, Hezbollah, Syria, Sinai and developments in the West Bank. He also apologized over the recent flag controversy at a ceremony ahead of Remembrance Day, and blasted proposed budget cuts to the Defense Ministry. Gantz told Israel Radio that Israel had the capabilities to strike Iranian nuclear targets on its own if no country came to its aid, and that intense, thorough discussions between the military and political leadership on the matter were ongoing. "  Times of Israel

----------------------------------

Benny Gantz has had an interesting career.  He has had a variety of Ground and Air force assignments but seems to be basically a highly educated "grunt."  That's good.  He was the Israeli Defence Attache in Washington.  In that job he would have had a great deal of association with US military and political people.  I see that we gave him the Legion of Merit when he left, so he wasn't a lot of trouble while he was here.  Gantz doesn't appear to be a pilot and is therefore probably immune from the Douhet Syndrome.

A knowledgeable Israeli told me recently that the IDF knows very well that it lacks the strength to make a thorough job of a set of destructive attacks on Iran's nuclear program.  US reluctance to participate in such an effort is a big planning problem for them.

The difficulty for the Israelis lies in the judgment by US intelligence that there is no Iranian weapons program at present.  This judgment has been clearly expressed by the DNI, James Clapper at public hearings.  He probably does not like making such statements since they expose him to the kind of hostility that will undoubtedly be expressed here, but the collective judgment of the analysts cannot be ignored unless we want to re-impose Cheney's Rules.

Something to remember is that Israel's knowledge of such matters is largely based on what the US tells and shows them.  They obviously draw different conclusions from the material.  pl 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-can-strike-iran-nuclear-targets-alone-idf-head-says/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Gantz

 

 

Top Ten Myths About Iran by Dr. Christopher Bolan

 

International negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program have resumed this week in Kazakhstan.  Initial reporting suggests that Iran will be offered some limited sanctions relief in return for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities.  However, these talks have a troubled history and experienced observers are quick to tamp down any expectations of a major breakthrough.  As any number of foreign policy pundits will be debating the significance of these outcomes over the next several days, it would be prudent to dispel some of the most popular (and misguided) myths surrounding the Iran policy debate.

Myth 1:  Iran is an irrational actor.  This myth is especially popular among those pushing the case for immediate military action to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  Their argument is that Iranian leaders are crazed, hot-headed, and messianic actors who do not respond to logic or reason and therefore cannot be trusted with such destructive weapons.  These claims are based on cultural ignorance and prejudices that would be routinely dismissed as out of bounds in just about any context outside of US policy debates on Iran.  Fortunately, senior US and Israeli officials have publicly dismissed this myth as false.  America’s senior military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey asserted in a television interview that “we are of the opinion that the [Iranian] regime is a rational actor.”  Israel’s retired Mossad director Meir Dagan similarly opined that “the regime in Iran is a very rational one.”  Moreover, Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister, elaborated on this basic point saying that “I don’t think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, [would] drop it in the neighborhood…They are radical but not totally crazy…They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality.” 

Will "iron dome" work against ballistic missiles?

The "iron dome" anti-rocket defense system appears to have functioned well in the recent Gaza crisis.  There remain questions as to whether saturation of the system defense by Hizbullah's massive rocket and missile inventories  could occur, and more importantly, does this system work against ballistic missiles.  pl  

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Nov-22/195872-hezbollah-missiles-would-be-test-for-iron-dome.ashx#axzz2CzMQp5d5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_domestic_weapons_production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missiles 

 

"Israeli Defense Chief Says Iran Postponed Nuclear Ambitions" NY Times

"Asked why Iran would have decided on such a conversion, Mr. Barak said it might have taken Israeli and American warnings seriously, might have wished to delay a confrontation with Israel until after the American presidential elections, or might have been seeking to convince the agency of the sincerity of its peaceful intent. Iran has consistently denied it intends to build a nuclear weapon and has denounced Israel’s assertions as warmongering."  NY Times

----------------------------------

The Israeli/AIPAC insistence that MAD will not work against Iran has been based on the notion that the Iranian leadership is made up of religiously fanatic madmen who seek martyrdom for their country and who do not think logically.  Both the Iranian action in this instance and the Israeli acceptance of it deny the reality of the Israeli/AIPAC opinion.  pl  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/world/middleeast/israel-says-iran-has-postponed-nuclear-ambitions.html?ref=world&_r=0

 

An Expert Artisan's View: Ephraim Halevy on Iran and the Foreign Policy Stakes in the US Presidential Election

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

On Sunday, the Al-Monitor published a very in depth and timely interview between reporter Laura Rozen and former Mossad Director and Israeli National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy.**  The interview covers many important foreign policy issues, specifically dealing with Iran, how to approach one's adverseries, and the impact of Israel's concerns with Iran on the US presidential campaign and US foreign policy.

Some of the most important take aways were his remarks about how one should deal with one's adversaries:

    " Therefore, I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to     lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them But by not     talking to them, you don't de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all     have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. [...]

    Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try. If you fail 10 times,     and succeed once, the success outweighs the failures.

    What happened: In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the US governments     have tied our own hands. There is a law [...] which prohibits US officials from talking     to Hamas [...] In the end, you create an inherent disadvantage for yourself."

He also has some really important thoughts in regards to leadership at the strategic level in regards to operations, such as the one to kill/capture bin Laden:

     "I think nobody who has been involved in ordering the use of force can forget the     angst, the days and nights of concern, as to what and how it can be done.

    Romney has said, Anybody could have decided to finish bin Laden. Even [Jimmy]     Carter. This again  was a mistaken concept. President Obama didn’t just decide [one     day to kill bin Laden]. The operation to end the life of bin Laden necessitated     multiple points of decision by him. I know from operations I have been involved with     on a smaller scale.

    They are very intricate. You don’t just give the order and wait in your office for     commanders to come three months later and say it’s done. No. This kind of operation,     which is accident prone, hands on operation, one has to make one decision after the     other […] It took courage and cool headedness and leadership. Anyone who says it     was an easy thing to decide, doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. [Such     comments] show a total lack of understanding of what this kind of operation means.

    Once I was in charge of an operation and Netanyahu was Prime Minister. One day,     because of the intricacy of what we were doing, I talked to him 10 times on the phone     […] Ten times. It was a Friday, a day I will not forget.

    This kind of operation, every minute, an issue comes up, that sometimes requires a     decision on the political level.

    The Libya story, the way it’s being used, is a sordid manipulation. […]"

And he discusses something near and dear to my heart, which is trying to understand the identities of those we have to engage with - allies, competitors, and especially adversaries:

    "Over the years, both because of personal contact with some key figures on the other         side […] I realized, in order to be effective with one’s enemies, you have to have two     essential capabilities: To overcome by force if necessary — and/or to withstand their     force if necessary. And do everything you can to get into their minds and try to     understand how they see things, what their concerns are — their dreams,     aspirations, hopes, feelings are. And where if at all there is room for common ground     of one kind or another.

    I think that what we have had over the years is an abundance of one side, and a dearth     of the other.     There has been a big emphasis, and rightly so, [on overcoming     adversaries by force]. But we have paid little attention [to understanding one’s     enemies.] And I have always had the feeling to look for ways and means of creating     channels for dialogue. I was involved in channels of dialogue in one way or other,     in major and minor roles, as of 1973-1974, when I served here in Washington, D.C., as     Mossad station chief."

The whole interview is excellent.  Ms. Rozen did a great job, so click on over and read the whole thing!  It'll be far more informative on anything at the debate, in the Spin Room, or in the coverage over the next week...

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

** Hat tip to Tom Levenson over at Balloon Juice

October Surprise?

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Not sure if this is the October Surprise anyone was expecting, but since it involves Iran, there would be a certain symmetry to it.  The New York Times has reported that Iran and the US have agreed to direct negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.  Iran is insisting that these occur after the election so that they know who they are negotiating with.  This, of course, makes sense given the statements of Governor Romney, his campaign, and his advisors regarding Iran and its nuclear energy program.  The speculation in the article is that should Governor Romney get elected that neither the US nor Iran will want to actually have these talks.  This is an excellent example of how personalities and relationships matter.  The Times reports that this development is the result of very quiet, very low key diplomacy by the Obama Administration over the past three plus years coupled with the increases in economic sanctions.  That these efforts appear to be bearing fruit is a positive sign, but Iran's guarded response demonstrates that they have received the messages from the Romney campaign regarding potential, future policy towards Iran and the Middle East.  This too is an excellent example of how hard it is, given the nature of the US political system and the way it interacts with our news media (such as it is...) to use the information portion of national power.  It does not matter if an administration is disciplined and focused when there are over 500 other elected federal officials in Congress and often dozens of potential presidential candidates, given that we are now running two to four year presidential campaigns, hundreds of authoritative analysts and advisors and commentators (and I mean that loosely in both command of the facts and actual quality of analysis) all with their own messages being blasted out 24/7.  It seems like the Iranians have learned a lesson from President Reagan - "trust, but verify".

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Rice reveals that Hizbullah helps Syria

 

"U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told the U.N. Security Council's monthly meeting on the Mideast that Hezbollah leaders are also continuing to plot new measures with Iran to keep Assad in power.       

Rice's comments — and those of Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor — gave the clearest indication that Hezbollah, which fought a war against Israel in 2006 and is a major political and military force in Lebanon, is sending an increasing number of fighters to help the embattled Syrian regime.       

Syria's ruling Alawite minority is an offshoot of Shiite Islam and has had close ties to Iran and Hezbollah which are Shiite-dominated. Assad has long helped Iran aid Hezbollah and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, in destabilizing Lebanon and threatening Israel's security and U.S. interests in the Middle East. "  NY Times

-----------------------------------------

This is truly comic.  Susan "Meet the Press" Rice is still riding high.

Hizbullah is a major component of a stable government in Lebanon.  It was elected to the number of seats in parliament that give it that power a number of years ago and the political science seminar crowd that makes up the US foreign policy establishment has resolutely opposed the Lebanese government ever since.  BTW, when did Hizbullah last fire rockets or anything else into Israel?  If memory serves, it was in 2006.

In Syria the US seeks regime change without UN authority.   The allies of the US in this endeavor are; Turkey (Sunni ruled), Egypt (Sunni ruled), Saudi Arabia (Sunni ruled), Qatar (Sunni ruled) Al-Qa'ida (Sunni fanatics) and NATO.

On the other side, the government of Syria (Alawi, Druze, Shia, Sunni and Christian in orientation), Iran (Shia ruled), Iraq (Shia ruled) and now apparently Hizbullah (a Shia militia)

So, the US has become the ally of Al-Qa'ida and the Wahhabi Saudis against a multi-confessional government and its Shia allies.

How clever we are!  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/ap-un-un-mideast.html?ref=world&_r=0

Washpost soft-core propaganda on Iran

The Outlook section of today's ( 23 September, 2012) Washington Post contains a three part essay on what the Post wants the American people to believe would be likely to happen in the event of an unprovoked Israeli "maximum effort" attack on Iran.  This attack supposedly takes place before the US election in November.  The essay is written by three groups of authors and it seems to have been intended that such a device would make the assembled essay seem more plausibly to represent three different points of view.   They are all representative of the same point of view.  Amusingly, this conceit recalls three plays once seen on British TV that were set in an English suburban house and garden. In these plays characters make entrances and exits from one part of the same house to another or out into the garden.  Alfred Molina starred on television.  The actors go from one supposed play to another simultaneously in a literary creation that really is but one play.  A pretty device. it was better done than this collective sermon.

The three parts of the essay supposedly represent the action in Washington, Tel Aviv and Teheran in the event of this attack.  A general defect of the thing is the complete ignorance reflected of the actual limitations of distances, weapons, numbers of aircraft and missiles, Iranian air defenses, the lack of any recovery air fields between Israeli bases and the targets or SAR capability for the attacking Israeli force.  Basic military knowledge of the situation is ignored in the manner common in politico-military strategic war games.  In these "games" any reference to actual limitations are airily waved off as not germane.  In this essay it is suggested that one option is for the US to "shoot down' the attacking Israeli force before it passes beyond Iraq.  The Joe Biden character angrily says that this is not an option.  He is correct but not for the reason implied.  In fact, since the completion of the US withdrawal from Iraq the US has no ability to do such a thing and neither do the Iraqis.  The nearest USAF assets are in the Gulf or Turkey and the nearest US Navy assets are where the carriers may be.  Look at the distances.

The three essay parts can be somewhat summarized by capital:

- Tel Aviv.  Natanyahu is depicted as masterful, deeply insightful, profoundly wise and decisive.  He dominates the play and tells the president of the US that he expects the US to fully support Israel's action.  Israeli attacks are described as not fully but significantly effective against the Iranian facilities and Israel is said to have "misplaced" one aircraft.  There are many aspects of intelligence preparation of this battlefied that the Israelis could not do for themselves and that would not be done for them in the context of a unilateral attack.  Those aspects would cost them dearly, but the authors know nothing of that and do not mention it.

- Washington.  BHO is "drawn" as a "lightweight" ditherer who would rather have dinner with his family and counsel his children than focus on this world crisis.  His administration is depicted as deeply divided over a response to Israel's seizure of the initiative.  While he dithers, the Senate of the United States votes 99 t0 1 to support a war powers resolution.  The House would presumably be even more supportive of war.  Senor, the neocon voice of Romney, denounces the president of the United States for his disloyalty to Israel.

- Teheran.  Having been struck the mullahs decide to refrain from retaliation for fear of a "regional war."  This is a striking piece of cognitive dissonance.  In one part of the larger essay the Iranian leaders are said to be madmen intent on jihad.  In this part of the essay they are rational actors who decide against retaliation on a coldly calculating basis.  If they would do that, why attack them at all?

Economic effects are portrayed as minimal, the Arab states are depicted as favorable.

The general message is that such an Israeli attack would largely succeed in spite of the fecklessness of Obama.  The authors claim that costs of all kinds would be low.

The Washington Post chose to publish such a propaganda piece with the obvious goal of undermining the president of the United States and supportiing a foreign political leader.

I fear for October.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions

“The Easy Road to War with Iran” by Dr. Christopher Bolan

In Thursday’s Washington Post David Ignatius discusses the results of a war game simulation conducted at the Brookings Institution.  He observes that “the scariest aspect of a U.S.-Iran war game…was the way each side miscalculated the other’s responses – and moved toward war even as the players thought they were choosing restrained options.” 

In reading Jeffrey Record's “A War It Was Always Going to Lose:  Why Japan Attacked American in 1941” (2011) I was struck that the enduring historical lessons he draws in examining this case also underscore the relative ease with which the US and Iran could now easily drift toward war with dire consequences for both sides.    For those interested, a shorter version of Record’s book was published in 2009 as a U.S. Army War College publication available here. 

Allow me to briefly extend the ‘Top Five’ of Record’s historical lessons (within quotation marks below) to the situation with Iran today:

1. “Fear and honor, ‘rational’ or not, can motivate as much as interest”:   A war between the US and Iran is almost certainly not in the objective rational interest of either party.  Iran’s relatively anemic military forces could not hope to stop the inevitable onslaught from a massive, sustained, and technologically superior US air and naval campaign.  Iranian nuclear, military, and any associated facilities (both economic and political) would lay in absolute ruins. 

(irony alert) Natanyahu on Iranian fanatics

Why not "containment?"

David Gregory the MTP man asked Bibi that today.  Good question, why not?  The response was that the Iranian leaders hold their fanatical Shia Islamic beliefs to have much more importance than the national survival of their country.  One can only ask what the evidence is for that.  They supply Hizbullah in Lebanon?  I don't see a lot of shooting out of Lebanon into Israel since 2006.  They supply their Syrian ally?  Israel used to supply its Iranian ally.  That was the basis for the Iran-Contra Affair.  Bibi mentioned Iranian suicide bombs and said they were wide spread.  Where is that - exactly?

Why not "containment?"

Why should the US not have "containment" for its policy in regard to Iran?  Does the United States also believe that Iran is ruled by madmen?  Do Iranian naval units rush upon US vessels in the Gulf to blow themselves up?  Have the Iranians scuttled vessels in the Strait of Hormuz to block the oil trade?  Has Iran invaded Iraq since we left?  No, then why not "containment?"

Towards the end Gregory told Bibi that he (Bibi) was the "leader of the Jewish people."  Is that really true?  Is that what Gregory meant to say?  If it is, then one must ask if he is David Gregory's  leader?  pl

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/49047122#49047122

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/15reuters-iran-nuclear-israel.html?_r=1&ref=world

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-puzzled-by-a-red-line-demand/2012/09/14/d10a5474-fe88-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

 

Israel "counseled" on Iran by US and UK

"Tension between Israel and the United States over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program resurfaced Monday, as Washington rebuffed calls to set "red lines" for action. Both say they are determined to stop Iran developing nuclear arms but Tehran continues to defy international pressure and there are increasing signs of disagreement over tactics and timetables. US President Barack Obama has made preventing weapons proliferation the centerpiece of his foreign policy and has pledged that the United States will prevent Iran joining the nuclear club. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who regards the alleged Iranian bomb program as an existential threat to his country, fears Tehran may be on the brink of nuclear "break-out capacity."" The Australian

----------------------------------

I hear that Ehud Barak has changed his mind about Iran, and that is no longer "on board" with Bibi over the issue of whether or not to "go it alone" in an attack on Iran.  Bibi in his arrogance has believed that "America can be pushed."  It developed that BHO cannot be "pushed" on this and it looks like Obamna will be narrowly re-elected.  Martin Dempsey et all have been good at delivering that message while BHO denies the firmness of his true position.  Barak is a practical man.  He will adapt to the notion that the Iranians ARE rational enough for deterrence to work, deterrence backed by a conttinuing ability to transform Iran into a parking lot if a real threat develops against the US and its interests,  The existence of Israel is a self-assigned interest of the US.  Bibi or the next Israeli PM will have to live with that.  Israel's "red lines" mean little.  Israel lacks the capability to do sufficient damage to Iran's facilities to make a difference for the future of the ME.  pl

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-rebuffs-israel-over-iran-red-lines/story-e6frg6so-1226471882565

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/in-secret-visit-to-israel-u-k-officials-warn-netanyahu-against-unilateral-attack-on-iran.premium-1.464138

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-leader-escalates-feud-with-us-over-iranian-nuclear-program/2012/09/11/5c01890c-fc05-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

 

 

Iran supplies Syria via Iraqi airspace. - The Pilot

 

"American senators visiting Iraq warned the Baghdad government Wednesday that it risked damaging relations with the U.S. if it is allowing Iran to fly over its airspace to deliver weapons to Syria. An Iraqi government spokesman responded by saying Iran has told Baghdad the flights to Syria are only delivering humanitarian aid. He said the onus is on the U.S. to offer up proof that Tehran is shipping weapons. Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent from Connecticut, said Iraq's failure to stop the flights could threaten the long-term relationship with the U.S. as well as aid Iraq could receive as part of a 2008 strategic pact between the two nations. "Bottom line, this kind of problem with these Iranian overflights can make it more difficult to proceed with the Strategic Framework Agreement in the manner that the prime minister and we would like to see happen," Lieberman told reporters in Baghdad. "So I hope this is cleared up quickly." "  Pilotonline

----------------------------------------------------

So, "Deputy Dog" (Jon Stewart's pet name for him) "hopes this is cleared up quickly."  Do the fabulous threesome, (McCain, Lieberman and Graham) realize how foolish they look and how much they are being mocked by Maliki and Company?  Do they?  Have they no pride?  Have they no shame?  Perhaps they are taking lessons in foreign affairs from Bibi and the other Lieberman.  That pair have done so well with their BHO relationship.

Seriously, sort of,  IMO Iraq think the idea of a long term "strategic" relationssip with the USA to be a bad joke, a joke so bad that it cries out for mockery.

They are allowing the use of their airspace for re-supply?  Wait until they figure out a way to run convoys across northern Iraq to Syria.  The Syrian jihadi guerrillas should not prove an impenetrable obstacle to that.  And... the other end of that supply line can have a branch that runs to Russia...

Meanwhile, on HC's trip to China things did not go well.  The Chinese basically told her "NO!"  We run our policy about Syria, not you.  She would have been better off if she had gone to the convention.  pl  

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAQ_US?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-05-11-20-28

Israel looks for face saving over Iran

"Pointing to a possible way out, Netanyahu has since said that more explicit international warnings could prevent war, indicating he wanted the United States to provide Tehran with unambiguous options to halt its nuclear activity or face war. "The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we'll have conflict," he said on Monday. Positions are likely to be clarified at an expected meeting late this month between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu when the Israeli leader addresses the U.N. General Assembly in New York. "That will be a crucial encounter. They will have to reach an understanding there. At the end of the day, you do reach an understanding, always," said Eiland, who had numerous dealings with Washington during his time as national security adviser. Reuters

--------------------------------------

No,  the US does not have to give Israel anything that it does not want to give it.  What is revealed here is that Israel is a client of the United States and not the other way around.  All that is needed to make that "stick" is to continue to "discipline" the client.

General (Ret.) Michael Hayden, former director of CIA, has also told the Israelis that they lack the ability to successfully attack Iran.  This opinion seems to be universal in the US Government.

On the other hand, if the Israelis wish, let them show the US (us) that we are wrong and that they can pull this off by themselves.  Let them show us that they can do it ALONE.

It would be interesting to learn what sort of evolution in Iranian- Pakistani relations such an Israeli attack would provoke.  pl  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/04/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE8830QO20120904

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57505379-503543/ex-cia-chief-michael-hayden-only-the-u.s.-can-strike-iran-nuclear-sites-effectively/

Is there a US policy in the Islamic World?

I think that is a valid question:

- In Egypt we support consolidation of power by an obviously Muslim Brotherhood run government.  To that end, HC and her deputy, Bill Burns,  have traveled to Cairo to threaten and cajole the Egyptian military into accepting what the Egyptians know will become an Islamist state with all that promises for women, Christians, homosexuals, etc.

- In Afghanistan we are engaged in a very long, very costly war against an Islamist guerrilla army that has the support of many in that country.  It is claimed that the Afghan soldiers and police who are killing our men are merely "disaffected." Yes, but their disaffection is largely the result of their anti-kaffir xenophobia.  We are now in the process of abandoning the failed COIN strategy in favor of a CT based strategy that I advocated three years ago, but that was then.  This is now.  The time has probaby passed.

-In Iraq, we created a government that rejected any real strategic relationship with us and now conspires with Iran to halp Iran evade the sanctions regime.  But, we still say we love them.

- In Tunisia, the Islamist element in the new government is seeking to erase French culture in the country.  We look fondly upon them.

- In Yemen we directly assist the new Yemeni government in seeking the annhilation of the small Sunni Wahhabi insurgent movement.  In so doing we align ourselves with the Sunni majority of the former PDRY against the Fiver Shia population of the North who are thought to be somehow related to Iran.  They are not.

- Iran.  Well, I won't even try to deal with that here.  We await Israel's initiative.

- Saudi Arabia.  We await their desires as well.

- Syria.  We support a Sunni Wahhabi led, financed and armed insurgency against a government that has traditionally been hostile to Islamist groups.

What's the connecting thread here?

Don't embarrass yourself by saying oil and Israel.

"It is a tale told by an ifdiot."  pl

Iraq assisting Iran in avoiding sanctions.

 
"Iraqi government officials are turning a blind eye to the large financial flows, smuggling and other trade with Iran. In some cases, they say, government officials, including some close to Mr. Maliki, are directly profiting from the activities. “Maliki’s government is right in the middle of this,” said one former senior American intelligence official who now does business in Iraq. In announcing that he was “cutting off” Elaf Islamic Bank, Mr. Obama said it had “facilitated transactions worth millions of dollars on behalf of Iranian banks that are subject to sanctions for their links to Iran’s illicit proliferation activities.” But the treatment the bank has received in Baghdad since it was named by Mr. Obama suggests that the Iraqi government is not only allowing companies and individuals to circumvent the sanctions but also not enforcing penalties for noncompliance "  NY Times

--------------------------------

The instances of Iraqi defiance or indifference to American "guidance" are now so numoerous as to make any pretense that Iraq is a firend and ally of the US to be a total farce maintained as a political convenience.  pl 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/world/middleeast/us-says-iraqis-are-helping-iran-skirt-sanctions.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Supposed Israeli campaign plan for Iran

"... an Israeli strike on Iran will include a "barrage of tens of ballistic missiles" launched from Israeli territory towards Iran, as well as a barrage of "hundreds of cruise missiles" which will "pound command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. "Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields," according to the blogger. Silverstein says the attack will open with an unprecedented cyber-attack which will take the internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations—including underground missile bases at Khorramabad and Isfahan - out of action. "The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal. This would be a Sisyphean task in light of cluster munitions which would be dropped, some time-delayed and some remote-activated through the use of a satellite signal," the blogger claims. According to the document, the missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexaflouride. Others would explode under-ground, as at the Fordo facility. Following the first wave of attacks, Silverstein says, an Israeli radar satellite will pass over Iran and transfer information directly to war planes making their way covertly toward Iran. "  YNET

------------------------------------------

This strikes me as an enormous conceit, the fevered imaginings of a military power that has never attempted anything of this magniitude.  I judge such an operation to be beyond Israel's capacity.  They have no idea where all the Iranian nuclear facilities are located.   Do they imagine that the desired degree of damage will be accomplished in one set of attacks?  In the spirit of the YNET's comment on General Dempsey's Irish ancestry, I might observe that this level of grandiosity may be endemic in Israeli thinking.  pl

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269110,00.html

"... Don’t rely on us to finish the job in Iran" Baloney!

"Netanyahu is set to meet the president — in Washington, rather than as previously thought at the UN General Assembly in New York — between September 28 and October 1. The prime minister, Channel 10 News reported Monday, could not possibly order an Israeli strike on Iran prior to that meeting, where the Iranian threat would presumably be the main subject of discussion. Neither could he order an attack before his tentatively scheduled address to the General Assembly a few days earlier, on September 27 — his last appeal to the international community for firmer action to thwart Iran, according to Channel 10.

The timeframe for an Israeli attack, the report suggested, would thus be sometime between October 2 and the presidential elections on November 6. Immediately after the US elections, Israel could presumably not defy a newly elected president. And fairly soon after that, it might be too late for Israel to stop Iran because of the Iranians’ progress and the limitations of Israel’s military capacity."  Times of Israel

--------------------------------------------------

I see that Amnon Shahak, a former chief of staff of the IDF, has declared himself oppposed to an Israeli unilateral attack on Iran this autumn.   IMO he wa the best and most capable of all the chiefs of staff of the IDF.

After all the years of waiting for Israel to make up its mind about its intentions in regard to Iran, I am as weary as the rest of you concerning the possibility.

Nevertheless, it looks like this might really be the time if not yet the hour. 

Natanyahu and Barak (the odd couple of Israeli politics) seem to believe that they must act before the US presidential election or loose their (and Israel's) freedom of action perhaps forever.  They reason, as does this article, that both presidential candidates will be compelled by some magic force lurking in the water supply to be the first to urge or order the US armed forces into action essentially under Israeli operational control.  What else can you call it when the Israelis would dictate the time, place and nature of a war in which US forces would participate.

What would be the limits of US participation in such an air and naval war?  Are combined plans being written?  If they are not, then what would follow an Israeli attack would be a chaos of rushed actions against a substantial target set in a large country.  Israel's air and missile assets would soon have "shot their bolt' through combat casualties, mechanical attrition, exhaustion of air crews, etc.  The Iranian nuclear complex is not completely known to US intelligence.  If it is not known to us, it is certainly not known to the Israelis.  They derive much of their knowledge from US intelligence.  Israel's ability to generate sorties over Iran would decline rapidly after the first strikes.  Where would their emergency recovery airfields be?  The Caucasus?  This is a fantasy.  The Gulf?  Another fantasy.  Iraq would not allow the US to use its airfields for such a campaign.  All this would quickly leave the US in the situation of having to wage alone a protracted air war against Iran.  the US economy is still a mess.  We are still engaged in Afghanistan and bleeding money there.

If BHO finds himself faced with this menace by Bibi, he would be wise to refuse to accept Bibi's demands and if necessary leave the ensuing war to be fought by a Romney administration.  They and their AIPAC/neocon controllers relish the idea.  Let them enjoy it.  pl

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-message-to-israel-dont-rely-on-us-to-finish-the-job-in-iran/

Turkey-Iran Relations

In response to popular demand we are opening a thread on Turkish/Iranian relations.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Turkey_relations

Maybe October will be the cruelest month...

"Alon Ben-Meir, a professor of international relations at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, said Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used the American visits to send a message to Tehran that Israel won't hesitate to take unilateral action. Ben-Meir cautions U.S. and other officials against seeing the Israeli threats as mere posturing, pointing out the profound national security concerns that shape Israeli defense policy and the country's unshakable faith that Washington will come to its rescue if a strike against Iran triggers retaliation by Tehran or its well-armed allies in the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia. "I don’t think Israel is bluffing entirely. There is an element of exaggerating its readiness to act and likelihood of winning. But many advisors to Prime Minister Netanyahu are saying that if he waits six or eight months, they may end up unable to do anything significant in terms of damage" to nuclear facilities that Iran has been moving underground to protect them from airstrikes, Ben-Meir said." LA Times

------------------------------------

Once again.  Israel, go for it!  If you think that you can't live with technologically advanced Muslim countries then hit Iran.  You go girl, er, country... You show them wogs what their place is...  at your feet, right?  After all, aren't you God's chosen people?  The stupid Americans will come in and clean up after you by finishing off the enemies of God.  And you better do it before November, 'cause Obama might win and then, he might be harder to control with campaign money and the threat of losing the election in a few places like Florida.  Romney, well, if only you could be sure...  pl  

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/08/iran-not-yet-on-verge-of-obtaining-nuclear-weapons-experts-say.html

Scenarios flowing from a Syrian outcome

The civil war in Syria has a number of possible outcomes:

- The present Baath Alawi/Sunni secular goverment survives.  If that happens there will be widespread ethno-religious cleansing seeking to eliminate the chance of a renewal of a Saudi backed sectarian insurgency.  IMO, no outside power would intervene to prevent this cleansing.

- The civil war persists indefinitely.  Iran and Russia continue to support the Syrian gov.  Syria is torn to pieces, possible irreperably.  Western powers and Saudis continue to support rebels.  Lebanon my or may not be drawn into this continuing situation.  The Lebanese do not relish such a possibility.

- Syrian government falls.  A Sunni salafi government is installed with Saudi support and initial American support which turns to eventual embarassed silence as installation of a sharia law state occurs.  This new state becomes a haven for jihadi terrorists.  Massive repression of non-Sunnis occurs.  The Syrian salafi government seeks to "absorb" Lebanon.

Israel is seriously threatened by either of the outcmes in which the present government does not survive.

Chemical weapons are not a serious factor in any of these scenarios.   pl

Iraq is "coming of age"

"In the run-up to the war in Iraq, neoconservative hawks in and out of the Bush administration promised that the U.S. invasion would quickly transform that country into a strong ally, a model Arab democracy and a major oil producer that would lower world prices, even while paying for its own reconstruction.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," President George W. Bush told a crowd at the American Enterprise Institute in 2003, a few weeks before he launched the attack.

Ten bloody and grueling years later, Iraq is finally emerging from its ruins and establishing itself as a geopolitical player in the Middle East -- but not the way the neocons envisioned."  Froomkin

-----------------------------------

My correspondent writes that the final "denouement" will come when Iraq declares that Israel has no right to exist.  pl

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/iraq-iran-ties_n_1664728.html

Ignatius on the "Arab Spring"

"Most officials think that relations with the Arabs are gradually going to get
worse, perhaps for decades, before democracy really takes root and the Arab
public, perhaps, will be ready to accept the Jewish state. The challenge for
Israel is how to avoid inflaming Arab public opinion, a newly important factor,
while protecting the country. "  Ignatius

-------------------------------------

Ignatius' Israeli friends are right to be fearful of revolutions that seem to unleash Islamist forces that have as their "raison d'etre" the elimination of Israel as an insult to Islam and the 'Umma.  The game has not been played out in Libya but Libya is a special case in terms of smallness of population and percentage of people educated abroad.

Al-Ahram has a story on-line that government receipts will be much smaller this year than they were under Mubarak "the terrible."  Let's see, how does that relate to all the billions that the Mubaraks stole from Egypt?  Hmmm!  That's the way to cover the government deficit!  They could torture the Mubaraks to find the people's money.

The Israelis prefer Bashar Assad?  How can that be?  Perhaps HC can fly by Tel Aviv to explain why they are wrong. 

Now Mursi has reinstated the Islamist parliament.  There must be great satisfaction in Foggy Bottom about how well things are going in Cairo. pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-israels-arab-spring-problem/2012/07/05/gJQAV5JrRW_story.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/47075/Business/Economy/Egyptian-state-revenues-are-overestimated,-a-blast.aspx

 

"Iran and the Gulf Military Balance" CSIS

"In the wake of recent failed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, it seems
increasingly unlikely that a political solution will be reached regarding
Tehran’s increasing uranium enrichment. As a result, some form of military clash
between the US and Iran, while by no means certain, is becoming increasingly
likely. Such a clash can take many different forms, and each presents different
levels of risk."  CSIS

------------------------------------------------

IMO the premise of this paper is wrong.  The essential competitiion in the Middle East is between Israel and Iran, not Iran and the US.  If there is such a rivalry, it is largely created by a willingness on the part of the US to assume Israel's strategic liabilities as its own. 

Iran contributes to that willingness by making threatening noises and playing stupid diplomatc games but it is hard to conceal the fact that absent an Iranian attack on US assets or people or a serious threat to the US homeland the issue of hegemony in the Middle East, is a regional issue. 

Unless the US is, in fact, the policeman of the world, why should we concern ourselves with Iranian "assymetric capabilities?"  pl

http://csis.org/publication/iran-and-gulf-military-balance-i-conventional-and-asymmetric-dimensions-0?utm_source=Iran+%26+the+Gulf+Military+Balance+I%3A+The+Conventional+and+Asymmetric+Dimensions&utm_campaign=Iran+and+the+Gulf+Military+Balance+-+I%3A+The+Conventional+and+Asymmetric+Dimensions&utm_medium=email

Did the Obama WH declassify "Olympic Games?"

"WALLACE: But I do want to ask you, because you didn't answer
my direction question. Did the president or any other top official declassify
any of the information that appeared in these articles?

PLOUFFE: No, the president and his national security team --
first of all, these are the folks who waged just a relentless and effective
effort against al Qaeda and its leadership. We decimated most of the top
leadership including bin Laden. This national security information is so
critical for the president and his administration to make the right decision.
Nobody takes it more seriously than the president of the United States.

WALLACE: Forgive me, sir. It's a yes or no. Did the
president declassify any of this information?

PLOUFFE: No, of course, he didn't. Of course, he didn't.

WALLACE: He did not?

PLOUFFE: No."   FNS Transcript

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/06/17/david-plouffe-sen-joe-lieberman-and-gen-michael-hayden-talk-national-security-leaks?page=1#ixzz1y4XaQSF4

The president and his designated henchmen have the legal authority to do this but did they do it?  pl

Perspective on the Threat of Terrorism by Dr. Christopher Bolan

Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations observes that based on the most recent USG official statistics on global terrorism for 2011, "the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks [is comparable to those] crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year."  So the inert television and chairs sitting around your house are every bit as threatening to your physical safety as the sum total of all terrorist organizations actively operating world-wide.

In confronting this objectively miniscule but emotionally-compelling threat, the USG has undertaken the most extensive reorganization and expansion of its national security apparatus since WWII; conducted massive military interventions and enormous nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq at tremendous costs in American blood and treasure; and authorized ever-more intensive assassination campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen that include American citizens as 'legitimate' targets.

The 'global war on terrorism' was a flawed strategic framework from its inception appealing primarily to the appreciable fear of the American public in the wake of the horrific attacks of 9-11 and eschewing an objective assessment of the scale and nature of the threat.  Terrorism as a tactic of the weak will always be with us.  It will never be eliminated.  This report demonstrates that this threat has clearly been reduced to a manageable level.  The Al-Qa'ida organization that attacked us on 9-11 is a shadow of what it was.  Targeted attacks on its leadership and support networks wherever they operate can most effectively and efficiently be facilitated by close cooperation with local law enforcement, intelligence, and as needed, special operations forces.

In these times of fiscal constraints and 'tough choices', U.S. citizens and taxpayers should demand a reality-based discussion of the military, security, and intelligence forces needed to defend critical American national interests here and abroad.  Our political and military leaders should lead this rational debate.  Nevertheless, many politicians, defense lobbyists, and those working in the national security and foreign policymaking apparatus (both government and civilian) will be tempted to employ hyperbolic exaggeration of the threats confronting us as a justification for continued U.S. interventions across the globe.  The rise of China as a conventional military and economic competitor and the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons are prime candidates to replace terrorism as the next great  security 'threat' demanding exorbitant expenditures of America's treasure and resources.  Let's at least insist on a rational and fact-based debate over these issues.

The author is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Army War College.  The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army.

"‘No Progress’ in Iran Nuclear Talks, U.N. Inspectors Report" NY Times

"The warning came from President Ahmadinejad and the
office of Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief negotiator in the talks, even as Mr.
Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the I.A.E.A., cast further doubt over Tehran’s
intentions by accusing United Nations weapons inspectors of espionage."  NY Times

----------------------------------------

This sounds like the kind of overweening BS and false pride that lead to war.  "Inspectors." are supposed to inspect.  That means they gather data.  If Iran will not participate seriously in negotiations to come to an agreement over their enrichment program, then they should start nationwide civil defense and bomb shelter construction programs while rthere is still time.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/world/middleeast/nuclear-agency-resumes-talks-with-iran-on-site-access.html?ref=todayspaper

NY Times reveals STUXNET operation

"This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day."  David Sanger at the NY Times

-------------------------------------------

Either the "interviews" are a government program of controlled released of data to Sanger or the NY Times has set itself up for a massive confrontation with the US Government over official secrecy and the freedom of the press to pursue operational government data for the purpose of informing the public.  The Holder Justice Department has sometimes been willing to act over such matters and its reaction will tell us if the "interviews" were authorized.

I have presumed that a wide range of measures short of violence have been adopted against Iran's nuclear program and that Israel was probably in league with the US in such measures, so this is only mildly titillating news for me.

Was this an actof war?  You tell me.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html

 

Missing a Strategic Opportunity on Iran by Dr. Christopher Bolan

The broad outline for a negotiated deal over Iran’s nuclear program that would satisfy essential U.S. and Iranian national interests is fairly clear.  Iran would agree to limit its nuclear enrichment activities (to levels between 3-5 % seems to be a consensus figure) while allowing for rigorous international inspections designed to minimize prospects for the diversion of civilian nuclear materials and technologies to military programs.  In return for these Iranian concessions, U.S. and other international officials would agree to meaningfully ease and eventually lift (assuming continued Iranian cooperation) economic and financial sanctions.    

However, as rumors circulated earlier this week about the potential for a successful negotiated deal along these lines, two primary obstacles have re-emerged.  One of the main obstacles on the international stage is Israel.  Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has adopted an exceptionally tough position regarding international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program insisting that Iran “stop all enrichment, ship all its nuclear material outside the country, and dismantle its nuclear installation at Qom.”  Of course, each of these conditions would be a deal-breaker from the standpoint of Iranian officials.  After all, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (to which Tehran, unlike Israel, is a signatory) guarantees states the right to develop civilian nuclear programs which presumably include the ability to produce nuclear fuel. Israel, as a sovereign state, is free to pursue and advocate policies as it sees fit.  President Obama, however, is sworn to defend the interests of the American people and should be solely focused on taking those actions that advance American national interests.  No other country should divert the President from that single focus.

IMO, McCain wants war in Syria and Iran

I listened to McCain on FNS this Sunday.  He is obsessed with la gloire et le grandeur of the US.  He speaks of American leadership as if he is expressing a "sacred truth." 

Well, we don't the money to spare.  The country does not want war in Syria and Iran.  McCain seems to want these wars in order to show the world who is boss.  Maybe boxing is not a good thing in the curriculum of USNA.

In Syria, it remains true that the array of opposition groups includes a lot of people who are inherently anti- Western and anti-US.

The information we receive concerning events in Syria comes from the rebels or through newsmen sympathetic to the rebels and who are informed by the rebels.  There is no independent confirmation at all.  None.

People died in Hula.  The event there reminds me of Sabra and Shatila.  IMO this massacre was a sectarian genocide perpetrated by Alawi militias.

If that is true should we arm and train the rebels and provide them air support?  And what of the Turks?  What of them?

We may be forced into war against Iran.  The Iranians seem to be trying to "outplay" us.  This is a foolish thing to do.  Many have made the same mistake in the past.  Syria is not like that.  We are being pushed by propaganda towards intervention in Syria.   pl 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/28/world/meast/syria-diplomacy-deadlock/?hpt=wo_c1

"UN nuclear agency chief to visit Tehran" Fox News

"IAEA chief Yukiya Amano's visit could signal an agreement has been reached that would allow his organization to resume a probe of suspicions that Iran may have worked on developing nuclear weapons, according to the Associated Press."  Fox News

---------------------------------------------

It would be wise for the Iranians to reach such an agreement and confound the likes of Natanyahu.  The world and particularly the United States waits for an opportunity to judge that Iran follows the guidance of Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei in adopting a policy that abjures nuclear weapons as inherently ungodly.  pl

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/18/un-nuclear-agency-chief-to-visit-tehran/#ixzz1vEdqWLEP

 

"What Israeli and Other Western Officials Really Think About Iran" JFP

"Listening to many politicians and pundits in the US and Israel, you may be led to believe that there is a consensus around the ideas that Iran is irrational, that it poses an existential threat to Israel, that it's currently trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that a military strike can help buy time to prevent such an outcome. But what many former and current top Israeli and other Western security officials are saying is precisely the opposite. We've collected some quotes to show you what these officials really think.

1. Iran's leadership is rational.
2. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.
3. Iran has not made the decision to acquire a nuclear weapon.
4. Attacking Iran would make Iran more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon, not less so.
5. Attacking Iran would ignite a regional conflict.
6. Attacking Iran would not be in US or Israeli national interests.
7. There is time to pursue non-military options.
8. The West needs to talk to Iran.

---------------------

See the rest at link below/

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1205#1

"How Osama bin Laden is winning, even in death" Ignatius

"What we’re seeing now in Egypt is something that might be called electoral bin Ladenism. Take the group Gamaa Islamiya, which under its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, made the first unsuccessful attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Today, the organization has formed a Salafist political party with the benign name Building and Development Party. This organization, which like al-Qaeda traces its roots to the Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, has 13 seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

Syria will be a test of whether this post-bin Laden Islamist movement can continue to reject violence or will instead be radicalized by the jihadist magnet that is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The successor to bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has tried to use the anti-Assad battle to rehabilitate the al-Qaeda brand — even though it’s another fight that embodies the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that bin Laden came to abhor."  Ignatius

*******************************

"... a year of mostly nonviolent democratic revolution. But it has brought to power some Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood groups that share common theological roots with bin Laden. And the al-Qaeda goal of driving the “apostate,” pro-American President Hosni Mubarak from power has been achieved."  Ignatius

---------------------------------------

Truer words were never..., etc.  Islamic revivalism (especially in Sunni Islam) is a cyclical phenomenon.  Islam sees itself as a universal truth that should become a way of life for all.  All else is tactics.

 

Yuval Diskin's opinion

"The former head of Israel's Shin Bet security agency has accused the country's political leaders of exaggerating the effectiveness of a possible military attack on Iran, in a striking indication of Israel's turmoil over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Yuval Diskin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who have been saber-rattling for months — have their judgment clouded by "messianic feelings" and should not be trusted to lead policy on Iran. Diskin, who headed Shin Bet until last year, said a strike might actually accelerate the Iranian program.

Shin Bet addresses security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories only and is not involved in international affairs."  AP

--------------------------

We now have an interesting collection of former heads of Shin Bet (Shabak), Mossad, former DMIs, and the current chief of staff of the IDF who say that Bibi and his acolytes are endangering Israel by exaggerating the Iranian threat and Israel's ability to deal with it militarily.

A few weeks ago various AIPAC flunkies and 5th columnists were busy on TV and in print attacking the USIC and CJCS Martin Dempsey for saying the same things.  How will they deal with this?  Will they rally behind the hyper-nationalists or will they stop insulting and reviling American patriots who have the courage to speak the truth?

If Obama, Panetta and Clapper had not held the line against pro-Likud idiocy, these voices in Israel would not have felt empowered to speak.  Would Romney have dealt with this by anything other than submission to Bibi's foolishness?

Let us get on with negotiating a reasonable compromise with the Iranians over their nuclear electricity program and the mischief they have caused since the revolution in Iran.  If the Iranians are wise they will seek to reach a general agreement.

Can it be that we will see the beginning of a US/Israeli relationship not based on political manipulation and media deception?  One can only hope.  pl

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivS12Y7Ss0-wxAAn82KUCZaMcoRw?docId=a34a4340804641389ae05debdd7a268e

Cold Water Splashed Onto the War Feverish: A Bit More on Lt. General Gantz's Remarks

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Yesterday COL Lang wrote about Israeli Defense Force's Chief of Staff Lt. General Gantz's remarks pertaining to Iran.  I wanted to take a few lines and focus on some other portions of Lt. General Gantz's remarks, specifically those about Iranian strategic decision making.  Lt. General Gantz, told his interviewers from Haaretz, that "If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."  While he still sounded a cautious note in regards to potential Iranian nuclear ambitions -  "But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous", his caution was tempered by his evaluation of both the Iranian Supreme Religious Authority and leadership.

This is a very important point that we need to be cognizant of, just as the Haaretz reporter was, for two reasons.  The first is that Lt. General Gantz's remarks echo those made by GEN Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he was visiting Israel.  The second is that it starkly differentiates the professional views of Israel's senior military officer, as well as its past Intelligence Chief Meir Dagan, from that of Israel's leadership, as well as a number of elected American officials and pundits.  If, as GEN Demspey, Lt. General Gantz, and Director Dagan assert, that the Iranian leadership, and therefore its decision making, is rational (and we should caveat this as within the Iranian context), then normal incentives such as economic sanctions and diplomatic initiatives, may bring about the changes in Iranian behavior that most would like to see.  

The issue going forward is whether the professionals', both military and intelligence, assesments carry the policy arguments going forward or whether the war feverish among Israeli and American politicians and American pundits win the day.  It also sets up some very interesting potential Israeli Civil-Military (Civ-Mil) relations follow ons as things continue to develop.  Lt. General Gantz's remarks, unlike GEN Dempsey's which were in line with official US/Administration positions pertaining to Iran, place him at odds with the Israeli civilian leadership.  That too is a developing situation that bears watching.

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

 

A Letter From Yusuf al-Misry

"Pat,

This time it is not about Egypt, though I will get back to Egypt in the near future. It is about the GCC countries.

It is obvious that there is an unfavorable configuration developing rapidly.

The sense in the GCC Capitals is that the US may “sell” these countries in any moment. That the US is not a reliable “anchor” in the current violent storm in the region. And that the US is weak – at best – or that it will let these ruling monarchies down in any grand bargain with Iran.

Why this is a dangerous situation? Simply because it creates a psychological environment that can begets unneeded complications. The paranoia regarding the US led to the rejection of three US NGOs in the UAE, Riyadh ceasing to coordinate with its main alley regarding Egypt, the arrest of a royal Sheikh in RAK and many other incidents which reflect the general sentiment that could border panic.

IDF CofS and Iran Nucs

"... the normally reticent boss of the Israel Defense Forces has just poured cold water on this eventuality. Lt. Gen. Benny Grantz told Israeli newspaper Haaretz in an interview marking that nation's independence day that he doubts Iran is currently seeking a nuclear weapon or that they will eventually decide to pursue one.

To be sure, he insists that a theoretical nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be disastrous to Israel and its regional standing, and said he was preparing a credible military option, which he says is crucial for Israel's security."  Dan Murphy

-----------------------------

IMO the chance of Israel attacking Iran before the US election went to near 0% with this statement by General Gantz.

This means that IDF intelligence agrees with the USIC's estimate on Iranian capabilities and intentions.

To launch such an attack after this statement would completely "liberate" the US from any need to support such an attack or the ensuing war in the ME.

Gantz also acknowledges that a lot of Israel's concern over an Iranian nuclear capability is merely a desire to retain military hegemony in the region rather than a fear of an "exchange" of fires.

Given this context the opportunity is here for carrying through to a "detente" with Iran that would stabilize the ME situation.  pl

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0425/Israeli-army-chief-says-he-doubts-Iran-will-build-a-nuclear-weapon

An Israeli-Iran War: What Would It Look Like by Richard Sale

By Richard T. Sale, author of Clinton’s Secret Wars

For months, there have been rumors of a strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The propaganda build-up is very similar to that directed against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002. In both cases, an isolated state with limited military and physical resources is depicted as a horror threatens to end the survival of the world, except, of course, that Saddam Hussein's WMD didn’t exist.

According to several U.S. analysts like Steven Heydeman, a perceptive commentator for Foreign Affairs, the message emanating from Israel and its right-wing U.S. supporters, is that the road to Jerusalem and an Arab-Israeli peace leads through Iran. Prime Minister Benhamin Netanyahu contends that since Iran’s support of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza means permanent hostiity to Israel's existence,the only way to make  an Israeli-Palestinian peace possible is to use brute force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.  As a result, Iran is incessantly depicted by Israel’s right-wing as the seat of all the world’s evil and calls during the last few weeks for a joint U.S.-Israel strike against Iran have reached a crescendo of frantic anxiety.

Israel’s rationale for a strike is solidly rooted in its past.  Avner Cohen, a first rate analyst of Israel’s nuclear and defense programs, wrote recently that the day after the bombing of the Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin exclaimed that the Osirak attack meant installing a new strategic doctrine that said that “Israel would do its utmost, including risking starting a war, in order to prevent hostile states in the region from obtaining nuclear arms.” Behind this statement lurked Begin’s fear of new Holocaust of Israel’s Jews.

Israel adopted the so called Osirak doctrine, as if “it were holy writ,” said Cohen. But what the Israeli public in 1981 did not know was that throughout the operation, Begin hadn’t correctly understood his own intelligence, plus top Israeli security officials - including the heads of army intelligence, the Mossad and the director general of the atomic energy commission – had stridently opposed the attack. The obdurate Begin launched it anyway.

"The Time is Near" Times of Israel

They can do what they please.  As BHO said, they are a sovereign people, but there should be no assistance, no re-supply and no re-equipping if they do this without BHO's agreement.  pl

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/

"Massive cloud of suspicion gathering over AIPAC in DC Court of Appeals- IRmep

Update: The three-judge panel is still deliberating over the $20 million Rosen v. AIPAC et al defamation suit. 

AIPAC Fights Former Executive's $20 Million Defamation Suit by Grant F. Smith The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs March-April 2012 Full report at:  http://tinyurl.com/wrmea-aipac 

During Feb. 14, 2012 oral arguments before a three-judge panel in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, attorney David Shapiro argued passionately that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has a long history of obtaining and using classified U.S. government information. The fiery Shapiro clashed with AIPAC's legal team, headed by employment and labor law expert Thomas McCalley. The $20 million question before the judges was whether AIPAC defamed its former top lobbyist, Steven J. Rosen, after it fired him in 2005--but before Rosen, along with his colleague Keith Weissman, was indicted by the Department of Justice under the Espionage Act. AIPAC repeatedly told establishment media outlets that Rosen's "behavior did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees." 

"Iran Double Agents Implanted Stuxnet" by Richard Sale

The Stuxnet virus that damaged Iran’s nuclear program was implanted by an Israeli proxy, an Iranian, who probably used a corrupt “memory stick.32,” former and serving U.S. intelligence officials said. 

In the continuing battle to hold off the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian proxies have also been active in assassinating Iran’s nuclear scientists, these sources said. 

These sources, who requested anonymity because of their close proximity to investigations, said a saboteur at Natanz, probably a member of an Iranian dissident group, used a memory stick to infect the machines there. They said using a person on the ground would greatly increase the probability of computer infection, as opposed to passively waiting for the software to spread through the computer facility. “Iranian double agents” would have helped to target the most vulnerable spots in the system,” one source said. In October 2010, Iran’s intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi announced an unspecified number of “nuclear spies” were arrested in connection with Stuxnet.33 virus. 

 

"Israel’s battle plan" by Richard Sale

In the event of war with Iran, Israel is going to deploy a vast array of high tech weapons that would “take out” Iran’s air defense systems by rendering them deaf, dumb and blind, and then inserting and activating a new version of the Stuxnet virus to destroy its command centers, said serving and former U.S. intelligence officials.

Israel’s battle plan also calls for the destruction of all of Tehran’s communication and network surveillance including its electrical plants, radar sites and command centers, said officials who requested anonymity because of their close proximity to ongoing investigations.

A Deal with Iran

It appears from all I can learn that a deal with Iran over enrighment is likely next month.  What have others heard?  See Ignatius' piece in Washpost today as an example.  pl

Just remember - without us!

"Netanyahu's tough statement also appears to underline the growing rift between him and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the Iran issue. Barak, who will visit Washington for talks with his counterpart Leon Panetta and other senior officials, has said he believes the negotiations should be given a chance to succeed.

Also, Barak doesn't categorically oppose 20 percent enrichment of uranium by Iran under complete supervision. He is willing to accept 3.5 percent enrichment, under the terms set by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Netanyahu opposes any enrichment of uranium by Iran."  Haaretz

-------------------------------

Natanyahu's reaction indicates that these further discussions are making a mess of his desired date of attack.

Bqarak is acting more rationally?  This must be a reversion to type.

Some comgressman dummy was on the tube yesterday to say that people in Israel scoffed at the idea that the Iranians might be "rational actors" on the nuclear issue.  A similar question might be asked as to whether or not  Israelis are rational actors on the same subject.  pl

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-iran-received-gift-from-world-powers-with-further-nuclear-talks-1.424421

Sunday News - 8 April, 2012

Afghanistan -  "a newly formed national force — the Afghan Special Operations Unit — will have the authority to search houses and private compounds and arrest suspected insurgents, Afghanistan’s Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said Sunday. U.S. forces will provide support “only as required or requested,” according to the agreement, which was signed by Wardak and General John R. Allen, the commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan."  Washpost

----------------------------

Wardak (and his son) are reputed to be at the heart of Karzai government money corruption in Afghanistan.  They also maintain relations with the "opposition" that are good enough to clear the way for logistics convoys.   Surely General Allen knows that these operations will leak like a sieve when it is convenient to Wardak and company.  Another coffin nail for the US presence in Afghanistan.  pl

----------------------------

Egypt - Umar Suleiman knows he has little chance of becoming president of the degenerating mass that is post Mubarak Egypt.  Umar Suleiman is not on trial.  He was questioned and released without injury to his rights as a citizen.  Why?  He was head of the GID, the Egyptian EXTERNAL intelligence service, not the INTERNAL service.  He did not work for the Ministry of the Interior (Police Ministry)  Both of those are on trial or awaiting trial.  It was not US's job to oppress Egyptians.  It was theirs'.  He is known to be uninterested in money as a basis for existence on the Mubarak or Wall Street models.  He is a devout Muslim without taint of Islamist zealotry.  He likes the West, and the US?  Excuse me if I do not apologize on his behalf.  Israel?  Well, it was his duty.   Why has he done this foolish thing in deciding to run?  He is 75 years old.  If we were still in touch I would have advised him not to do this...  Amre Moussa will probably win.  pl

---------------------------

Yemen - Last year I tried to make the point on a number of occasions that the union of North and South Yemen is unstable and may not last.  That seems even clearer now.  The former North Yemen country (YAR) continues to be dominated by confederations of Zeidi Shia (Fivers) tribesmen.  These are highly self aware and heavily armed forces among which many have served in the Armed forces and were trained by the US, the UK, France and the USSR.  The Zeidi Shia are nothing like the Twelvers in Iraq and Iran but a connection is relentlessly sought by the ignorant.  The former South Yemen (PDRY) is overwhelmingly Sunni Arab, organized into largely de-racinated city swellers and sedentary villagers in the far flung wadis of the south.  The PDRY was a Marxist-Leninist state.  That set of ideas was taught in state schools for decades.  Ali Abdullah Saleh was no saint but he was also no Marxist.   Following his departure he was replaced with a "Sunni" general from the greater Aden area.  That man knows that to maintain power he must rid himself of the Zeidi tribesmen that fill the armed forces and security services.  Maliki understands the same thing in Iraq,  His situation is merely the mirror image.  The attempted purge of Zeidi officers that led to the airport seizure is the first act in this drama not the last.  AQ in Yemen watches on the sideline.  It knows that it would have far more running room in an independant South Yemen than it ever will have in the Zeidi country.  pl

-----------------------------------------

Israel - Ehud Bark was on Zakariya's GPS show today.  I knew him when he used to say that Israel could do anything with its bayonets but "sit on them."  I liked him better then even if he was closely linked to the Pollard Affair.  He told Zakariya today that  1-MAD is not possible with Iran and therefore containment is not possible, 2- He predicted that Iran will build ICBMs for its as yet non-existent weapons and therefore Israel is trying to save the world from its own stupidity, 3- He does not believe that sanctions will dissuade to Iranians from their putative nuclear weapons program.  IMO his vision of the true effect of the present sanctions is the reduction of Iran to a peasant and therefore harmless state.  He reiterated that there is a limit to Israel's patience.  IMO opinion this discourse makes the war or peace issue a question of American ability to deter Israel.

-----------------------------------------

US Intelligence - In what is clearly a government press release, the US published today an exposition of the quality of its information regarding Iranian programs.  Two staff journalists at the Washington Post wrote this up from rather complete interviews granted by what are described variously as former senior intelligence officials.  Let us not be coy.  If these were anything but recent former directors of the CIA the men in question would be headed for indictments.    The story reeks of of the CIA is its role as propagandist.  The subtle denigration of the rest of the IC is familiar.  Is this story a bad thing?  No! It is good!  The target audiences are; Israel, Iran and the Zionist 5th Column in the US Congress and media.  The message is clear.  The US will know well in advance if Iran decides to build weapons.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/united-states-and-afghanistan-sign-deal-on-night-raids/2012/04/08/gIQA3Sf13S_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/9193409/Hosni-Mubaraks-former-intelligence-chief-Omar-Suleiman-to-run-for-Egypt-presidency.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/yemen-airport-idUSL6E8F80LP20120408

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sees-intelligence-surge-as-boost-to-confidence/2012/04/07/gIQAlCha2S_story.html?hpid=z1

"What Has To Be Said" Gunter Grass

Download What has to be said - guenter grass

Günter Grass warns in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of a war against Iran. In his poem with the title „What has to be said“ the Nobel laureate in literature demands, that Israel shouldn't get the German submarines which have the capability to launch nuclear weapons.  LeAnder

 -------------------------------

"What has to be said

Why am I silent, silent for too long,
what is obvious and was practiced in
simulation games, at the end as survivors
we at most will be footnotes.

It is the asserted right for a preemptive strike
that could extinguish the Iranian people
steered to organized jubilation, enslaved
by a braggart, since in its realm of power
the creation of an atomic bomb is suspected.

But why do I deny myself
to name the other country by its name,
a country in which many years by now –although kept silent –
a growing nuclear potential is available,
but beyond control, since not accessible for inspection?

The general concealment of this fact,
to which my silence is subordinating itself,
feels to me like a burdening lie
and coercion, holding out punishment
as soon as it is ignored;
the verdict „antisemitism“ is well known.

But now, since from my land
that over and over again is caught up and confronted
with its very own crimes
that are without comparison,
but in turn businesslike, although with swift lip
declared as reparation
will soon deliver another submarine to Israel,
whose specialty consists in its ability to steer
all annihilating warheads to where the existence
of not one single atom bomb is even proven,
but as fearful apprehension wants to be evidence,
I say, what has to be said.

But why was I silent for so long?
Since I thought, my provenance
that is tainted with a stain that can never be erased
forbids to turn this fact into articulated truth,
since I cannot expect the country Israel, I feel tied to
and want to remain so, to put up with it.

Why do I only say it now,
aged and with my last ink.
Does the nuclear power of Israel
endanger the already delicate world peace?
Since what already tomorrow could be too late,
has to be said today;
but also since we –as Germans burdened enough-could
turn into suppliers for a new crime
that is foreseeable, why our partial guilt
couldn't be blotted out by any of
the usual excuses.

And I have to admit, I am silent no more,
because I am tired of the hypocrisy of the West,
as it is to be hoped many will unshackle themselves from silence,
call on the causal agent of this discernible danger
to abandon the use of force,
likewise demanding an unhindered and permanent control
of Israel's atomic potential
and the Iranian nuclear plants
by an international authority
admitted by both countries.

Only in this way Israelis and Palestinians,
more so, all people that live in this
region occupied by delusion,
close to each other and at enmity,
and finally also all of us can be helped."  Gunter Grass 

I understand that Bibi is not happy with this.  He moans of "ultimate anti-Semitism" and speaks of Grass's WW2 service in the Waffen SS.  pl

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/08/gunter_grass_and.html.

 

 

Jim Morin Cartoon

http://www.lobelog.com/jim-morins-bomb-iran-cartoon-is-simple-perfection/

pl

Israeli whining over Iran

"... this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.  

Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them.  this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.

 

 

Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them. "  ynetnews

---------------------------------

"Betraying an ally?"  What ally?  What has Israel EVER done for the US?  Come on, tell me!  Israel is a country that continuously seeks to illegally manipulate or political processes and media.  Does an ally do that?

Evidently the US is, with some skill, seeking to block an uncoordinated Israeli attack on Iran.  Good.  If we decide that Iran is weaponizing nuclear weapons, we will deal with them.  If the Israelis are silly enough to want to do this without our agreement.  tant pis pour eux.  pl

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209836,00.html

Goldberg on Israeli War with Iran

"After interviewing many people with direct knowledge of internal government thinking, however, I’m highly confident that Netanyahu isn’t bluffing -- that he is in fact counting down to the day when he will authorize a strike against a half-dozen or more Iranian nuclear sites.

One reason I’m now more convinced is that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are working hard to convince other members of the Israeli cabinet that a strike might soon be necessary.

But I also heard from Israeli national-security officials a number of best-case scenarios about the consequences of an attack, which suggested to me that they believe they have thought through all the risks -- and that they keep coming to the same conclusions."  Bloomberg

-------------------------------------

Goldberg ought to know.  He has good access.  He is a dual national and a reservist in the IDF.  I have the "gut" feeling that this time Natanyahu is going all the way.  His clock is running out and he knows that if BHO is re-elected Israel will suffer a massive loss of  leverage in its ability to force America into war with Iran.  Logic is logic.  pl

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/israelis-grow-confident-strike-on-iran-s-nukes-can-work.html

"Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran" By Aluf Ben in Haaretz

"Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama's tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: "I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel's right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved."

This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn't even a mechanic in the armored corps - but only on ourselves. "Difficult, daring, but possible," Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War - unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!"  Aluf Ben in Haaretz

----------------------------------

 There seem to be two views of this post Bibi in Washington situation.

- On the one hand the prevailing view (which I support) is that Bibi left Washington with nothing but vague promises and an overweening case of spiritual pride, firm in the belief that the American untermenschen can be pushed into compliance with anything he wants to do.

- On the other hand, a rumor level rumor has reached me that the Israelis are pushing a story that the US is presently engaged in transferring to Israel equipment needed for the coming death ride of the flying supermen.  (Catch the reference? )

Which is it?  Does anyone actually know anything abot this?  pl

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-is-preparing-israeli-public-opinion-for-a-war-on-iran-1.418869