Expert: An Israeli strike against Iran is 'on the calendar'
Here's Dr. Mike Evans, an expert on the Middle East and a personal friend of Binyamin Netanyahu, talking with Radio America about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, the unlikelihood of success of the talks between Israel and the 'Palestinians,' and revolution in Egypt.
Let's go to the videotape.
Note: For Israel to stop Iran, there are about 1,100 targets that must be taken out.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Egyptian Revolution, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran, Middle East peace process, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian state
Former Military Intelligence chief: Iran has crossed the red line
Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin says that Iran has
crossed the red line in its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
"By the summer, Iran will be a month or two away from a decision about
the bomb," the current director of iNSS said at a conference in Tel
Aviv. According to Yadlin, a decision will made after the Iranian
presidential elections in June.
Once Iran reaches this stage, "it will be very hard to stop Iran,"
Yadlin said. "If the US, Iran and Israel all stand behind its
announcements, then we are on a course of collision towards the end of
the year," he added.
According to Yadlin, Tehran already has
enough 3.5% enriched uranium for six bombs and nearly enough 20%
enriched uranium for one bomb. "They have no problem reverting back what
they allegedly turned to nuclear fuel. Within a week it could be turned
into nuclear material for a bomb," he warned.
The Arak nuclear reactor would become operational by 2014, he said.
Yadlin stressed that without a drastic change in the sanctions placed
on the Islamic Republic, Iran would continue buying time and expanding
its nuclear program. "There will be no agreement if there is no
motivation to reaching an agreement," he said.
He added that the
credibility of the American military action is a condition to the
success of the negotiations. "This credibility will be achieved if the
US aims a precise strike to stop the Iranian nuclear program and show
that it can deal with the escalation that would follow this strike."
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Poll surprise: Most Israelis still don't trust Obama
A new Smith poll is out for the JPost (the results of some of the earlier polls can be seen above), and while President Obama is seen as 'pro-Israel' by more Israelis than at any other time in the last four years, a plurality still believe that
Hussein Obama favors the 'Palestinians.'
The poll of 500 Israelis representing a sample of the adult population
found that 36 percent considered the Obama administration more
pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, 26% said it was more pro-Israel than
pro- Palestinian, and 26% called it neutral. The percentage of people
who believed that Obama’s government leaned toward Israel was the
highest in Smith polls in nearly four years.
Israelis who voted
for right-wing parties were more likely to consider the Obama
administration more pro-Palestinian, with 46% saying this and 22%
calling it more pro-Israel. Voters of centrist and left-wing parties
were more likely to call the administration more pro-Israel.
Among
Yesh Atid, Hatnua and Kadima voters, 36% said the administration was
more pro-Israel, and 30% said more pro-Palestinian. Thirty-six percent
of voters for Labor, Meretz and Arab parties said Obama’s administration
was more pro- Israel, twice as many as the 18% who said it was more
pro- Palestinian.
And by the way, if Netanyahu decides to strike Iran, the poll says that he will have plenty of support.
Much of Obama’s visit is expected to be geared toward reassuring
Israelis that he will do everything possible to prevent Iran’s
nuclearization. The poll asked Israelis whether they would support an
Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations if sanctions did not work
and the US and Europe refused to attack.
Among the general
public, 55% said yes, 27% said no, and 18% did not have an opinion.
Support for a strike was higher among right-wingers (76%), than among
centrists (36%) and left-wingers (25%). The percentage of people
opposing a strike was 48% of centrists and 62% of left-wingers, but just
9% among voters of right-wing parties.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli polls, Israeli strike on Iran
Obama's top priority remains: Avoid attacking Iran
With President Obama due in Israel later this week (and likely to make a mess of pre-Passover traffic at week's end - including on Friday fellow Jerusalemites), one thing it's increasingly clear he's not going to do is to attack Iran. In fact, it's clear that Obama's main goal is to stop Prime Minister Netanyahu from attacking Iran. Obama is arriving with a new 'timetable' which
gives Iran even more time to develop a nuclear weapon.
But in setting a timeline for development of an Iranian nuclear
weapon that is longer than the more urgent one usually cited by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Obama appeared to be tamping down any
expectations for pre-emptive action against Iran while aiming to assure
its closest Mideast ally of U.S. support. It was the first time Mr.
Obama had himself publicly stated a timeline.
Mr. Obama told Channel 2 the U.S. commitment to Israel's security was "unbreakable."
Underlying the growing tensions over Iran's nuclear program, the
comments came as the Pentagon on Thursday disclosed details of an
encounter Tuesday between U.S. and Iranian fighter jets after an Iranian
plane approached a U.S. surveillance drone.
When two U.S. fighter planes escorting the drone flew toward the
Iranian plane, it broke off its pursuit, the Pentagon said. The Iranian
plane never got closer than 16 miles from the drone, the Pentagon said.
The U.S. fighters closed to within two miles of the Iranian plane.
U.S. officials wouldn't specify what kind of American planes were involved or precisely where the incident took place.
U.S. defense experts played down the encounter on Tuesday between the
U.S. and Iranian fighters, the latest confrontation involving American
surveillance aircraft and the Iranian military.
Iran has claimed to shoot down or capture a string of American
drones, and last November, an Iranian fighter plane fired at a drone,
missing.
"These incidents are far more common than are publicized," said
Christopher Harmer, senior Naval analyst at the Institute for the Study
of War. "Predator drones are not stealthy and there is no real secret of
where we are flying or what we are doing."
Mr. Obama's Thursday statements reflect U.S. military and
intelligence assessments that Tehran hasn't decided to build a bomb and
that it would take a year or more once ruling clerics decide to do so.
The competing time frames have split the U.S. and Israeli governments
since last year, when Mr. Netanyahu stood before the United Nations and
drew a thick red line across a drawing of a bomb. Mr. Netanyahu has
said world powers should be prepared for the prospect of military action
against Iran by this summer.
Israeli officials didn't immediately respond to Mr. Obama's comments.
Earlier on Thursday, the head of Israel's military intelligence, Maj.
Gen. Aviv Kochavi, said Iran's nuclear program was "advancing slower
than Iran had hoped, but it is progressing."
Mr. Obama's comments had yet to reach many of the Israel's staunch defenders in the U.S. on Thursday.
It's clear that Obama's priority is pushing out the timeline of a strike for as long as possible and probably also extracting the highest possible price from Israel in return for American assistance.
Curiously, the only 'pro-Israel' comment the Wall Street Journal got in response was from Jeremy Ben-Ami, whose organization is described as 'pro-Israel but less hawkish than the others.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Iran's nuclear win-win
This
analysis, from a senior US official quoted by Laura Rozen, appears to be spot-on.
To me, the most important/interesting aspects of the IAEA report are the following facts:
1. Iran is massively expanding its capacity at Fordow (2,100 of 3,000 centrifuges installed).
2. They have not expanded the number of machines spinning to 20% and have converted a bunch of 20% to fuel for the [Tehran Research Reactor] TRR, meaning no net increase of material they can use to rapidly produce bomb-grade material.
This is a brilliant combo, since #1 moves Iran closer to the zone of immunity (giving them a greater capacity Israel can’t destroy), approaching an Israeli red line. But #2 self-consciously avoids approaching a U.S. red line.
[For Iran], the very difference between pushing up against Israel’s red line while staying far short of Washington’s is a win-win: it guarantees Israeli-U.S. friction in the near-term (which we are seeing); and, if Israel attacks, it tees Iran up to play the victim on the back end and break-out of their isolation. The upshot: they are daring the Israelis to attack in a context where the strike would be viewed as premature by the U.S. (and everybody else).
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Roundtable discussion: Should Israel strike Iran?
Should Israel strike Iran? Or should it give sanctions and negotiations more time? Here's an
interesting symposium that discusses the issue. And it starts out with this fact which might surprise some of you:
Seven years ago, Professor Efraim Inbar wrote a document whose bottom line could be summed up as advocating for Israel to attack Iran to stop it from attaining a nuclear capability. This week, Inbar, a political scientist who currently serves as the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, is somewhat encouraged that more and more Israelis have now reached the same conclusion.
To bolster this line of thinking, a poll commissioned this week by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the think tank headed by Dore Gold, indicates that 60 percent of the Israeli public believes the only way to stop Iran is by means of a military strike.
I suspect that most of the rest of the world believes that last clause as well. The question is whether they are willing to do it, and if they do not, should we.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Obama's got Israel's back... with a knife
YNet reports that the Obama administration is hindering an Israeli strike on Iran by
leaking classified intelligence assessments that spoil the element of surprise.
To sum up, the American publications caused the following damage:
Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.
Needless to say, 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.
For a total of seven years, I served as Yedioth Ahronoth’s reporter in Washington, so I know very well that with a few exceptions, the US Administration knows how to prevent leaks to the media if it so wishes. This is the case even when dealing with former officials, and most certainly when dealing with current government officials. What we are seeing here is not a trickle of information, but rather, a powerful current, a true flood that leaves no doubt as to the existence of an orchestrated media campaign with clear aims.
There is another interesting aspect to this story from an American point of view: In 2002, when President George W. Bush sought to embark on war in Iraq, US intelligence agencies provided him with all the “evidence” that Saddam Hussein is developing large quantities of nuclear and chemical weapons. Following the war, when no traces of such weapons were discovered in Iraq, a Congress inquiry found that US intelligence officials were so eager to satisfy their president that they cut corners and relied on unsubstantiated information.
Given American media reports in recent days, one must wonder whether history is repeating itself. Could it be that the US intelligence community is providing President Obama with what he needs for political reasons – that is, information meant to curb an Israeli or American strike on Iran?
Waiting for someone on the Republican side of the aisle to expose this. Perhaps someone should send this to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen since we saw Wednesday night that
she has more you-know-what's than any of her party's Presidential candidates.
I guess now we know how
this got into Foreign Policy earlier today. I wonder whether Mark Perry feels dirty for having been used. Nah. He doesn't have a conscience.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Israel agrees to delay strike on Iran until after US elections?
The Sunday Times of London reported that
Israel has agreed to delay a strike until after the US elections (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Israel will only strike Iranian nuclear facilities in September or after the United States presidential elections in November, a White House official told the British Sunday Times newspaper after a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama last week.
According to the report, Obama has taken Israel's warnings about a possible strike in Iran very seriously. The Washington source added that the president “might visit in the summer to reassure the Israelis that the US commitment to defend Israel is unshakable and thus thwart a possible autumn attack.”
Note that I reported on Sunday that Obama
may visit in July, but that doesn't mean that Israel won't strike afterward if it feels the need to do so. In fact, even the Times says it could happen in September.
Obama insisted that any attack on Iran should be postponed until after the US presidential elections in November, possibly even until next spring. The source revealed that Netanyahu consented to delaying a strike, but wished to know until when. “The question is how much time,” he reportedly said.
The White House source added that Netanyahu presented a number of demands Iran must fulfill in order to avoid an Israeli attack, including transferring 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of enriched uranium to a third party, stopping the enrichment process at the Fordow site near Qom and ceasing any further enrichment beyond the 3.5% required for power generation.
The source reported that Israel's National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror presented US administration and military officials with new intelligence data about Iran's nuclear program. The findings included "Project 111," a project to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile warhead and conduct large-scale high-explosive experiments, the Sunday Times reported. Amidror also noted that a Russian expert in Tehran had been involved for the past six years in helping develop Iran's nuclear program.
In other words, if Israel agreed to delay a strike, it did so subject to a lot of conditions that will likely never be fulfilled. Netanyahu also tried to show Obama why a strike is an American interest.
I don't think this is as big a deal as it's being made out to be. Netanyahu has retained freedom of action. The question is whether he understands that Obama cannot be trusted.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
You're telling me we can't afford it?
Clal Finance warns on Thursday that an attack against Iran's nuclear program would be
too expensive.
A leading Israeli investment firm said on Thursday any military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would exact an economic price too high for the world to accept, and as a result, it would likely acquiesce to a nuclear Iran.
A sharp rise in the price of oil, the costs of war and the damage to global trade would be too great and deter world powers from taking any serious action, said Amir Kahanovich, chief economist at Clal Finance, one of Israel's largest brokerage houses.
The assessment differed sharply from Israel's official position that Tehran's nuclear aspirations are unacceptable and that all options are on the table in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, which it views as a threat to its existence.
In a report "The Iranian Issue through Economic Eyes," Kahanovich laid out courses of action - ranging from additional "light sanctions" to military strikes - and told investors the world would likely balk at taking the steps needed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Even for Israel the economic cost of a military confrontation that could include retaliatory missile attacks by Tehran and proxies in Gaza and Lebanon would be too high, Kahanovich wrote.
"Unfortunately, it appears that a nuclear Iran is the most reasonable scenario," he added.
And what does he think it will cost if Iran actually uses those nuclear weapons?
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli economy, Israeli strike on Iran
Haaretz: Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to authorize Iran strike
In an earlier post, I noted hints from Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Interior Minister Eli Yishai that a strike against Iran
might be imminent. But Haaretz comes right out and says it: Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to get the cabinet to approve an
Israeli strike on Iran (Hat Tip:
Mememorandum).
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a "small advantage" in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.
...
Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency's report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive effect on the decisions Israel makes.
The commotion regarding Iran was sparked by journalist Nahum Barnea's column in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday. Barnea's concerned tone and his editors' decision to run the column under the main headline ("Atomic Pressure" ) repositioned the debate on Iran from closed rooms to the media's front pages.
Reporters could suddenly ask the prime minister and defense minister whether they intend to attack Iran in the near future and the political scene went haywire.
Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn't made the decision yet ).
According to Western experts' analyses, an attack on Iran in winter is almost impossible, because the thick clouds would obstruct the Israel Air Force's performance.
Some cabinet members are complaining that public discussion of the possibility of a strike against Iran are
reckless.
Minister-without-Portfolio Benny Begin slammed the Israeli media's conduct surrounding talk of a possible IDF strike on Iran, in an interview with Army Radio Wednesday morning. "There has never been a breakdown of responsibility and a campaign of recklessness like there is today," Begin said.
...
The media attention, Begin said, "pales in comparison to the acts of Anat Kamm, for which she was sentenced to four and a half years in prison," echoing sentiments expressed by Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor Wednesday in a Ma'ariv op-ed.
Seemingly referring to former Mossad chief Meir Dagan's push in recent months to discredit the necessity of a military strike on Iran, Begin said that public servants "swore to guard state secrets forever, also after they leave their positions."
Making such discussions public, he added, "can present real damage to the government's abilities to make decisions."
But former National Security Council chief Giora Eiland regards such discussions as 'natural.'
"It's hard to take a topic that the prime minister declares to be the most important to the state of Israel and then prevent public debate about it," Eiland told Army Radio.
"It is only natural that the media took an interest in it," he added.
YNet reports that Begin had
much harsher words for Dagan than the previously linked article reported:
Begin hinted to former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's comments on a possible strike in Iran, saying that they constituted "a dangerous breach of trust, verging on megalomania. It's just despicable."
Civil servants, he added, "Are obligated to protect state secret they were privy to regardless of time. These kind of acts are very severe."
Clearly, something is going on. But if the weather is really an issue, the hit will have be soon or it will have to wait for the spring. And how do you maintain an element of surprise with all this discussion going on?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, Benny Begin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Eli Yishai, Giora Eiland, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran, Meir Dagan
Is a strike on Iran imminent?
Recently, there have been statements here in Israel that give the impression that a
strike against Iran may be imminent.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared to have made a veiled reference to the issue again on Tuesday, when he told the Knesset that Israel may have to protect its vital interests alone, while other reports focused on comments by Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who stated this week that difficult decisions were “keeping him up at nights,” without elaborating further.
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about Iran in his address to the opening session of the Knesset on Monday, the first time in quite a while that Iran has been given such prominence. Herb Keinon reports that Israel has the capabilities to carry out a strike.
Israel is believed to have a fully prepared plan to launch such a strike, which would likely involve at least several hundred aircraft.
Multiple aerial routes are theoretically available for Israeli aircraft to reach targets in Iran. In all those paths though, the jets would likely have to either neutralize or evade radar systems of other countries along the route, as well as face the potential fallout that could follow an intrusion of foreign airspace.
Israel also possesses the advanced midair refueling capabilities required for carrying out sorties over multiple Iranian targets situated between 1,500 and 2,000 km. away from home. Possible targets could include uranium- enrichment sites at Natanz and Qom, the uranium- conversion plant at Isfahan, and a heavy water reactor in Arak suspected of being used to pursue a plutonium-based nuclear arms program, as well as additional facilities.
But that's only part of the story:
The Air Force, which according to foreign reports has gone on dry runs to practice such an attack on previous occasions over the past decade, would first have to neutralize Iran’s aerial defense capabilities, blind Iran’s radars, destroy command and control centers and paralyze Iran’s own air force for a while, before overcoming fortifications and special aerial defense measures placed by the Iranians around their nuclear sites. The operational challenge is vast.
The Air Force would in effect have to take temporary control over sections of Iran’s airspace before being able to target nuclear facilities, some of which are hidden in mountains or deep underground.
The mission would require the use of powerful bunker-busting bombs, as well as possible repeated strikes to ensure success.
...
The attack would likely be coordinated with the assistance of Israeli intelligence satellites that could provide real time detailed images from the battle arena, as well as Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft.
It could also involve the use of a fleet of giant Heron 2 drones, which are the size of 737 commercial airliners.
These UAVs form the first line of defense against an expected Iranian counterstrike, involving the launch of long-range Shihab 3 missiles.
The Israeli drones can reportedly reach Iran and hover over missile launch sites. Israel’s Arrow missile defense shield would also come into play to intercept missiles heading into Israeli airspace.
And then there's Hezbullah....
Hmmm.
Labels: Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft, Heron TP unmanned aerial system, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli strike on Iran
Hmmm....
Another document dump from Wikileaks reports that Syria told an Iranian delegation to Damascus in December 2009 that
Syria will not retaliate for an Israeli strike on Iran - even if the Israelis get there through Syrian airspace.
Written by the United States Embassy in Damascus, the cable dated Dec. 20, 2009, summed up the visits earlier that month of Iranian National Security Advisor Saeed Jalili, Vice President and head of the Environmental Department Mahammed-Javad Mahamadzideh and Defense Minister Ahmad Ali Vahidi to Damascus.
The cable cited an unnamed Syrian official who claimed that in the talks the Syrians told the Iranians that they would not participate in an Iranian retaliation to an potential Israeli strike.
“We told them Iran is strong enough on its own to develop a nuclear program and to fight Israel,” the Syrian official was quoted as saying in the cable. “We’re too weak.”
According to the cable, Syria resisted Iranian entreaties to commit to joining Iran if fighting broke out between Iran, Hizbullah and Israel.
The unnamed source told the embassy officials that the Iranian delegation came to Syria “to round up allies” in anticipation of an Israeli military strike.
“It [an Israeli strike on Iran] is not a matter of if, but when,” the source was quoted as having heard from the Iranians.
The cable noted with interest that Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Al Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps – the force responsible for supporting Iranian proxies throughout the region – had accompanied the Iranian national security adviser Jalili on his visit to Damascus.
According to the cable, Jalili and Soleimani met with Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid Muallem, as well as unspecified members of Hizbullah.
“Suleimani represents the business end of the resistance,” the source said. Suleimani is reported to have played a key role in recent years in arming Hizbullah and Hamas with long-range rockets and missiles.
The source went on to tell the embassy officials that the Syrian military predicted that Israel would fly over Syria on its way to attack Iran and was conducting surveillance of Syrian radar stations with drones ahead of such an operation.
It's about time someone in this region looked out for their own self-interest. Heh.
Labels: Israeli strike on Iran, Qassem Suleimani, Saeed Jalili, Syrian self-interest, Walid Moallem, Wikileaks
