The cut to the US-Israel cooperative programs has provoked criticism from some quarters.
“For an administration that tried to claim that it’s the best for Israel’s security, cutting critical funds for missile defense at a time when the threat from Iran has never been greater is extremely dangerous, worrisome and reckless,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
But Democrats on Capitol Hill defended the reduced missile defense funding as part of the Obama administration’s effort to rein in overall spending by the Pentagon, whose budget would be slashed by $487 billion across 10 years under Obama’s plan.
“It has nothing to do with the Israeli missile defense program and everything to do with curbing the defense budget in every way possible,” said one aide to a Democratic member on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.
He said Congress would be increasing the missile defense aid once it reviews the budget and determines its own funding levels. The administration budget serves as a blueprint, but it is Congress’s version that is voted on and signed into law.
“Funding for US-Israel missile defense will continue to rise despite the budget request,” he said.
Though the administration’s request for missile defense monies has dropped somewhat in recent years – from $121.7m. in 2011 to $106.1m. in 2012 to 2013’s $99.8m. – during each of those cycles, Congress has consistently increased the final allocation.
The aide predicted the 2013 figure would be in the neighborhood of the record $235.6m. slated for 2012, meaning Congress would be adding at least $100 million to the current figure.
And of course, President Obama will then turn around and tell us how 'his' aid to Israel for missile defense shows how Israel and the US are cooperating 'better than ever' under his administration. What could go wrong?
The budget plan also fully funds US military assistance to Israel as agreed under the 10-year Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two countries, and includes a $770m. “Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund.”
The allocation, of which officials said $700m. was new money, is aimed at allowing the US “to quickly respond to dramatic changes in the region and incentivize reforms,” according to a State Department budget fact sheet.
“We’re in a new world. The Arab Spring has come. We need to make sure we have the tools and the flexibility to fund these initiatives,” Nides said.
...
Israel, which is due to get $3.075 billion in 2012, would get $3.1 billion in 2013 should the plan be approved.
Tucked within Obama’s 2013 budget proposal is a request to reduce the amount of money Israel receives for its critical missile defense systems by $6.3 million relative to the 2012 budget proposal. Among these defense systems are Arrow and David’s Sling, both of which are jointly operated with the U.S.
Publicly, the president has referred to himself as a stalwart champion of the U.S.-Israel military alliance. But administration efforts to reduce the amount of missile defense aid that Israel receives appear to be a growing trend in the president’s budget proposals.
In fiscal year 2011, the administration requested $121.7 million in military aid for Israel’s key missile defense programs, according to the Defense Department. That number dropped to $106.1 million in the 2012 budget proposal, and plummeted again to $99.8 million in Obama’s newly released 2013 proposal.
...
“The continued downward slide in President Obama’s requests for critical US-Israel missile defense programs is troubling, and while Israel can continue to rely on close friends on Capitol Hill to make up the shortfall in funds needed, one is left wondering what President Obama would do if he becomes a lame duck President,” said a defense budget analyst who has tracked Israel funding for years, but was not authorized to speak on record.
The answer to that wondering is unfortunately obvious. Let's hope and pray we never have to find it out.
Iran developing low-flying cruise missile that can carry non-conventional weapons
At a conference in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Arieh Herzog, director of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, announced that Iran is developing a low-flying cruise missile (not necessarily connected to the picture), which can carry non-conventional weapons.
"The Iranians are developing a capability that within several years, they will have cruise missiles that can fly at low altitudes and carry non-conventional warheads," Herzog said.
Herzog said that Israel's missile defense capabilities were drawn from the Iranian's development of missiles.
Israel currently has three Iron Dome counter rocket defense batteries deployed throughout the country in additional to two Arrow batteries to defend against long-range ballistic missiles.
In 2012, the Air Force plans to begin deploying the David's Sling to protect against medium-range missiles. The David's Sling is being developed to also intercept cruise missiles.
Herzog also referred to the development of the Arrow-3 missile defense system which will serve as the upper tier of Israel's multi-layered missile defense program. The system is expected to become operational by 2015.
"The system is in an advanced development stage and due to its capabilities we will have a number of interception possibilities out of the atmosphere," Herzog said.
The Defense Ministry has confirmed that the IDF test fired a ballistic missile from the Palmachim airbase along the coast on Wednesday. The test had been previously scheduled and is not connected to the talk about Israel striking Iran.
Let's go to the videotape.
Previous similar missile tests included Hetz ("Arrow") missile tests. The Hetz aims to intercept mid-to-long range missiles. The Defense Ministry did not confirm whether Monday's test fire involved a Hetz system.
Foreign media reports suggested that Israel might have test-fired its surface-to-surface Jericho missiles. The report was neither confirmed nor denied by the Defense Ministry.
The white tail of smoke left across the sky by the rocket propellant system was seen across large parts of central Israel, sparking mass public interest.
Those of you who are long-time readers know that I have been a skeptic about Iron Dome from the get-go more than five years ago. Here's a good summary from former Congressional candidate Liz Berney of why Iron Dome does not resolve Israel's problems with incoming missiles and will not resolve them even if there are tens of Iron Dome batteries around the country.
Buultjens touted experimental Israeli missile shield technology as a probable panacea, while neglecting to mention escalating destructive rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. On April 7 (the day before the professor's Temple Emanuel talk), Hamas terrorists fired a rocket at an Israeli school bus, injuring the bus driver and mortally wounding a 16-year Israeli old boy, Daniel Viflic. (Sadly, the boy died 10 days later.)
This school bus attack followed weeks in which Gaza terrorists fired 120 rockets on Israeli civilians. On April 8, for the first time, an Israeli "Iron Dome" missile shield stopped one incoming rocket fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians. Buultjens touted the one rocket stopped by the missile shield, but never mentioned Hamas's deadly escalating attacks on Israeli school children.
It is of course wonderful that the missile shield stopped a rocket (and several more since the Professor's speech). Every life saved is a great gift, and every person injured or killed by Hamas terrorist rockets is a calamity. However, the missile shield is not a panacea - and Buultjens neglected to mention the shield's serious limitations.
Technion University aeronautics lecturer Nathan Faber, a former Israeli military rocket scientist, has sounded "alarm bells" about the Iron Dome system's weaknesses. The system has difficulty intercepting mortar shells and short-range rockets like Katyushas or Hamas' homemade Qassam rockets. The system has not been tested against large salvos of rockets, and may be completely unable to cope with them. [Actually, we can now say pretty definitely that Iron Dome cannot cope with a large volley of rockets. That's what happened in Beersheva on Saturday night. CiJ] In the next war, Israel is expected to face sustained periods when thousands of missiles and rockets rain on Israeli cities - far worse than during the terrible 2006 Hezbollah-Israel War, when 4,000 rockets fell on northern Israel in 34 days.
The July 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks killed 43 Israeli civilians (and many of the 120 Israeli soldiers killed in the war), injured 418 Israeli civilians, caused 875 Israeli citizens to go into severe shock requiring medical treatment, displaced 300,000 Israelis from their homes, destroyed 6,000 Israeli homes, caused over one million Israelis to have to live in bomb shelters, and completely disrupted normal life in Haifa and other northern cities.
Today, Hezbollah reportedly has 45,000 rockets and missiles, four times the number it had when the 2006 war erupted, and Hamas has another 12,000 or more missiles. If a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank, particularly along the 1967 borders that Obama has been demanding, tens of thousands of additional rockets will be placed along Israel's longest border, aimed at every square inch of Israel.
Israel currently has only two operational Iron Dome shields, which can only cover limited areas. The Israeli government has warned Israelis under fire from Gaza that they are not completely protected.
According to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel needs "tens of thousands of the short-range interceptors [Iron Dome], thousands of the David Sling [mid-range] interceptors and hundreds of the upper-layers (Arrow-2)." The cost of all this is astronomical. Barak estimated it at $7 billion to $8 billion.
It may run as high as $50 billion or more. Ha'aretz's Reuven Pedatzur calculated that one David's Sling system interception costs $1 million, and one Iron Dome interception costs about $100,000, while Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets only cost at most $200 apiece, enabling the Palestinians in the South and Hezbollah in the North to defeat Israel at the bank. Pedatzur also noted that "the stock of Iron Dome missiles is liable to run out way before the rocket barrages end."
Israel does not have $50 billion or even $7 to $8 billion in its budget for these systems. American aid to Israel is only a fraction of these costs ($3 billion per year), and most is already allocated for other purposes. Last year, representatives of Ashkelon Hospital spoke at Great Neck synagogues, seeking to raise the few million needed to harden the hospital facility against Hamas rocket attacks - funds not available from the government. And as mentioned in my recent article about the Mayor of Itamar's speech at Great Neck Synagogue, the mayor reported that the modest funds needed for sufficient cameras on the security fence to prevent terrorist attacks are not even available.
Read the whole thing. Those who argue that in the missile age Israel can afford to give away territory are clearly mistaken. We cannot and should not be giving away territory.
The JPost's Yaakov Katz interviews former US Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, who says that Israel doesn't need to attack Iran.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Herzliya Conference, Zakheim said in an interview that in his opinion, Israel did not have to attack Iran to stop its nuclear program. Israel, he said, has developed the Arrow 2 ballistic missile defense system, which, together with US Navy Aegis missile defense ships in the Mediterranean, would likely succeed in intercepting an Iranian missile fired at Israel.
“There is less than a 1-percent chance that an Iranian missile will get through these defenses,” Zakheim said. “Iran, however, is worried about Israel’s alleged nuclear program, and their fear is 100%, so why would they want to take a 1% chance if there is a 100% chance that they will be destroyed?” Zakheim also warned about the potential fallout Israel would face from such an attack. He said that on the one hand, Israel would turn the Iranian people into its “permanent enemy,” and on the other hand, an attack could lead to “terrible relations” with the US.
“The US will be attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, and this could turn the administration against Israel like never before,” he said.
First, I would not put it past Iran to take a 1% chance of getting a nuclear missile through. This is especially true given that Iran will assume (probably correctly) that Israel will not retaliate if Iran's missile fails to get through.
Second, the Arrow 2 is untested in battle. There is no way of knowing whether it will actually stop 99% of what is thrown at it. But even if it does, given that the 1% would be so totally catastrophic, is that a risk we ought to be taking?
Third, I don't believe the Iranian people would be our permanent enemies, although their government would be for as long as it is in power. I have heard too many Iranians say that the fear that they would unify around the regime if Iran's nuclear capability were attacked is nonsense. I don't believe that anymore.
Fourth, if Iran is able to do so, it will attack the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are we supposed to lay down our lives to make sure that doesn't happen? Is their blood redder than ours?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Congressional sources have told the Jerusalem Post that Congress is more than willing to make up President Obama's cuts in spending for Israel's missile defense program - and then some. 
