Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Israeli Attacks on Syria are a Message to Iran, "Obama Doctrine" Fades

Israel has attacked Syria twice in recent days.

Now what?

Israel is taking proactive steps to ensure its defense.  While there are two sides to every story, history shows that pre-emptive strikes by the Israelis have been defensive in nature.

The latest strikes against Syria don't appear to be related to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons  against its own people, even as devastating as those reports are.  

These Israeli strikes appear to be a preemptive move directed directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for the Islamic, militant (and decidedly anti-Israel) Hezbollah.

According to the New York Times, the most recent strike was "aimed at disrupting the arms pipeline that runs from Syria to Hezbollah . . . highlighting the mounting stakes for Hezbollah and Israel as Syria becomes more chaotic."

The Times argues that Iran and Hezbollah have a keen interest in delivering advanced weapons to Hezbollah.  This is true, the Times argues, because Syria has been an effective channel for funneling weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, and if Assad loses power, that channel will be lost.

The problem lies in the reaction to Israel's actions by other countries.  Syria has already declared the Israeli attacks as a Declaration of War.  

But, with a civil war raging, it appears unlikely that Syria itself would be so bold as to respond with an attack directly on Israel.  Assad knows the Israeli response would be devastating and could launch the entire region into a major conflict, possibly drawing the United States in as well.

The recent Israeli strikes on Syria are a strategic warning to Syria, but more so to Iran.  

This is a proxy statement delivered to Iran through Syria saying, "Israel will take military action if we believe our security is threatened, and we won't wait until hundreds or thousands of our people are killed before we do so."

Iranian leaders like to rattle their sabres, but do they really want to get into a shooting war with Israel, and by proxy, the United States?

When is a Red Line REALLY a Red Line?

In the U.S., President Obama said that using chemical weapons in Syria would be "crossing a red line."  That presumably means that the US would act if it could be proved that Assad used chemical weapons against its people.  

Is this the "Obama Doctrine?" or was it simply an off-the-cuff remark?  Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to President Obama has said "I'm not convinced [the President saying "red line"] was thought through."  Obama Doctrine or not, he's stuck with that position (unless he wishes to back-pedal, but that seems unlikely.

Obama has painted himself into a corner in regard to Syria, but Israel's preemptive strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah may shift world focus away from the "Obama Doctrine" to the real actions of Israel, which may end up doing Obama's work for him.

Israel Targets Iranian Missiles in Syria, Rocking Damascus


Syria Calls Attack, "Declaration of War"

Reprinted from Lebanon's "THE DAILY STAR"

BEIRUT: Israel carried out its second air strike in days on Syria early on Sunday, a Western intelligence source said, in an attack that shook Damascus with a series of powerful blasts and drove columns of fire into the night sky.

Israel declined comment but Syria accused the Jewish state of striking a military facility just north of the capital - one which its jets had first targeted three months ago. Iran, a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and an arch-enemy for Israel, urged states in the region to resist the Israeli attack.

People living near the Jamraya base spoke of explosions over several hours in various places near Damascus, including a town housing senior officials: "Night turned into day," one man said.

The Western intelligence source told Reuters the operation hit Iranian-supplied missiles headed for Lebanon's Hezbollah, a similar target to the two previous strikes this year, which have been defended as justifiable by Israel's ally the United States:

"In last night's attack, as in the previous one, what was attacked were stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah," the intelligence source said.
An Israeli official had confirmed a similar raid on Friday. In Lebanon, Hezbollah declined immediate comment.

Video footage uploaded onto the Internet by activists showed a series of explosions. One lit up the skyline of Damascus while another sent up a tower of flames and secondary blasts.

Syrian state media accused Israel of attacking in response to Assad's forces' recent successes against rebels who, with Western approval, have been trying to topple him for two years.

In 40 years since a war with a Syria then ruled by Assad's father, Israel has been locked in a cold standoff with Damascus, fought Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and is threatening to attack Iran, accusing Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

But it is wary of instability in Syria, has long viewed Hezbollah as the more immediate threat and has shown little enthusiasm for U.S. and European calls for Assad's overthrow.

The raid follows intense debate in the United States over whether the use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops might push President Barack Obama to intervene more forcefully on the rebel side, but Western powers remain concerned at the presence of anti-Western Islamist fighters among Assad's opponents.

It was unclear whether Israel sought U.S. approval for the action; in the past, officials have indicated that Israel sees a need only to inform Washington once a mission was under way.

At a routine public appearance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made no direct reference to the strikes but spoke pointedly of his responsibility to ensure Israel's future.

He maintained a plan to fly to China later in the day, suggesting a confidence that, as with the raid in January, Assad - and Hezbollah - would limit any reprisal. However, an Israeli military source said the army had deployed more anti-missile defence systems near the northern borders in recent days.

NIGHT OF EXPLOSIONS

"The sky was red all night. We didn't sleep a single second. The explosions started after midnight and continued through the night," one man told Reuters from Hameh, less than a mile from the Jamraya military research facility.

"There were explosions on all sides of my house," he added, saying people hid in basements during the events.

Another witness spoke of fire near Qura al-Assad, a town around 5 km (3 miles) west of Jamraya where many high-level government officials live. In the centre of Damascus, people said their first thought was that there was an earthquake.

Identified by Syrian media as the Jamraya military research centre, the target was also hit by Israel in another assault on Jan. 30. Jamraya, on the northern approaches to Damascus, is just 15 km (10 miles) from the Lebanese border.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the blasts hit Jamraya as well as a nearby ammunition depot.

Other activists said a missile brigade and two Republican Guard battalions may also have been targeted in the heavily militarised area just north of Damascus.

Reports by activists and state media are difficult to verify in Syria because of restrictions on journalists operating there.

People living in southern Lebanon said they heard frequent sounds of jets overhead and believed they were Israeli.

The streets of central Damascus were almost empty of pedestrians and traffic on Sunday morning, the start of the working week. Only a few shops were open. Checkpoints that have protected the government-controlled zone from rebel attack appeared to have been reinforced with additional men.

Syria's state television said the strikes were a response to recent military gains by Assad's forces against rebels: "The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army," it said.

Speaking shortly before Sunday's attack, President Obama said Israel had a right to act: "The Israelis justifiably have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organisations like Hezbollah," he said.

In Israel, a military spokeswoman said of the attack in Syria: "We don't respond to this kind of report."
Netanyahu appeared at the dedication of a highway junction in memory of his late father. He made no reference to raids but said his father "taught me that the greatest responsibility we have is to ensure Israel's security and guarantee its future."

MISSILE "BETTER THAN SCUD"

Israel has repeatedly made clear it is prepared to use force to prevent advanced weapons from Syria reaching Hezbollah, who fought a 34-day war with Israel seven years ago.
Uzi Rubin, an Israeli missile expert and former defence official said the Fateh-110 missile "is better than the Scud, it has a half-ton warhead". Iran has said it adapted the missile for anti-ship use by installing a guidance system, he added.

With Assad battling the revolt, Israelis also worry that Islamist rebels among the majority Sunni Muslim population could loot his arsenals and eventually hit the Jewish state, ending four decades of relative cross-border calm.

There was no immediate indication of how Syria would respond to Sunday's attack. After Israel's January raid, Damascus protested to the United Nations and the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon promised a "surprise decision", but no direct military retaliation followed.
Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying on Sunday: 

"The Zionist regime's attack on Syria, which occurred with the U.S.'s green light, revealed the relationship between mercenary terrorists and their supporters and the regime occupying Jerusalem ... 

The evil actions of the Zionist regime can threaten the security of the entire region."

The uprising against Assad began with street protests that were met with force and grew into a bloody civil war in which the United Nations says at least 70,000 people have been killed.
Assad has lost control of large areas of north and eastern Syria, and is battling rebels on the fringes of Damascus.

But his forces have launched counter-offensives in recent weeks against the rebels around the capital and near the city of Homs, which links Damascus with the Mediterranean heartland of Assad's minority Alawites, who have religious ties to the Shi'ite form of Islam practised in Iran.

Opposition activists said hundreds of Sunni families fled the coastal town of Banias on Saturday after fighters loyal to Assad killed at least 62 people and left bloodied and burned corpses piled in the streets. It was the second such alleged massacre in the area in the recent days.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Israel has conducted airstrike into Syria


REPRINTED FROM CNN.com


(CNN) -- Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials first told CNN, now confirmed by the Israeli government via Reuters. 
The attack was authorized in a secret Israeli security cabinet meeting.
Report, prior to confirmation:
U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.
Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.
The Lebanese army website listed 16 flights by Israeli warplanes penetrating Lebanon's airspace from Thursday evening through Friday afternoon local time.
The Israeli military had no comment. But a source in the Israeli defense establishment told CNN's Sara Sidner, "We will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past and we will do it if necessary the future."

Friday, May 11, 2012

US Fears Impending Israeli Attack on Iran over Nukes

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station.

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station, 

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to a story on the Arutz Sheva website (referencing the Channel 10 item) U.S. officials believe a Likud-Kadima government could make a quick decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment, even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The Americans have been operating under the assumption that early elections would be held in Israel which would likely postpone an Israeli attack of Iran at least until after the election. 

With Israeli politics stabilized and the current government likely to end its term as scheduled, the situation has changed and the US is worried.

It is generally accepted by the US, European and Gulf Arab states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, not simply peaceful, energy applications.

The position of the Israeli minister of defense remains that "as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table."

Defense Minster Ehud Barak recently said, "I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,"

"A military option is not a simple one," Barak added. "It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world."

Recent reports indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment which would allow five percent enrichment if Iran  takes other major steps to curb its ability to develop nuclear weapons.

(Summarized and excerpted from Arutz Sheva, Israel National News)

American Truism #15.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Experts Discuss the Dire Consequences of an Israeli or US Attack on Iran


As I've said in a previous blog post, I understand Israel's concern over Iran possibly acquiring nuclear weapons.  And, I understand why Israel (or other neighbors of Iran) might want to launch a "preemptive strike" in order to keep Iran from weaponizing its atomic energy program.

Yet, the ramifications of an Israeli (or US) attack on Iran could be devastating for many reasons.  Here are a few of the things that such an attack might prompt and the people who've talked about these possibilities:
  • Oil could skyrocket to $500 / barrel.
  • All-out war could break out in the region.
  • Iran, which hasn't weaponized it's nukes, might feel pressured to do so.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson 
Former Chief of Staff for US Secretary of State Colin Powell

  • Iran is prepared to launch 11,000 missiles on Israel and the United States.
Ghazanfar Roknabadi
Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon

  • Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, driving up the cost of oil.
  • Extensive conflict could break out between Israel and Hezbollah, or Israel and Hamas.
Mark Fitzpatrick
Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program,
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)



  • Iran and groups like Hezbollah might engage in terror attacks following an attack on Iran.
Daniel Byman
Counter-terrorism Expert, Brookings Institute

American Truism # 10.


Friday, March 9, 2012

Midnight Approaches: Israel Prepares for Attack on Iran with Bunker Buster Request


Following President Obama’s address to AIPAC in which he gave the “green light” to Israel for an attack on Iran, Israel has now requested advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes from the United States, according to a Reuters report.
These bunker buster bombs and planes would significantly improve Israel’s ability to carry out successful bombing attacks on Iran's underground nuclear sites.
That's not just MY opinion.  That supposition comes straight from an unnamed Israeli official.
As reported by Reuters, it appears that the US received the request for bunker busters and refueling planes during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.
Other reports claim the US might supply the hardware, but only under the condition that Israel promises not to attack Iran THIS YEAR.
JUST NOT THIS YEAR?  But, 2013 would be fine?  Sounds like a political calculation on the part of Team Obama.
I’m not making a judgment here.  When all is said and done, maybe Israel has no other choice.  I believe it’s possible for a rational person to come to that conclusion, yet recent events seem to indicate that Israel is hell bent on destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, WITH or WITHOUT the aid and comfort of the United States.
In a recent article musing upon the entire Israel / Iran / US relationship and likely outcomes, Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for THE ATLANTIC  noted, “I don't believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they've oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state."
A White House spokesman denied that requests for bunker busters and refueling planes were made during the Netanyahu / Obama meetings.  But, we all know that could simply be semantics and that back channel discussions could have already taken place.   This alternative channel may very well have been Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The White House wouldn’t confirm or deny a possible DOD possible role, saying only, "I would refer you to other officials.”
Unnamed sources on the US side confirm that these conversations DID take place between Netanyahu and Panetta.  The same source claims no deals were finalized.
While many agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech was indeed a “green light” to attack Iran and its nuclear capabilities, it still puts the Obama administration in a tight spot.
An Israeli-Iranian war would create tough political sledding for Obama in this US election year.  Such a conflict would almost certainly send oil and gas prices skyrocketing, a condition which hold great political peril for Obama.  Yet, being seen as weak on Iran and lukewarm in his support of Israel could be even worse for Obama.
None of the parties involved wants to see an Israeli-Iranian conflict.  And, while its neighbors are no great fans of Iran, a unilateral attack on the trouble-making nation might be all the excuse its neighbors need to unleash “attacks of solidarity” on Israel.
Pressure is growing on all sides, and no one appears to be willing to stand down or blink, which may make armed conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable.
While unlikely, one possibility is that taking recent events into account, Iran could decide to make a preemptive strike of its own against Israel.  This is unlikely because it would allow Israel to strike at Iran with practically no limits while giving Iran’s neighbors the cover they’d need to sit on the sidelines.  Still, the behavior of Iran’s political and religious leadership rarely follows conventional wisdom.
Obama is between a rock and a rockier place, unlikely to get any softer in the coming weeks.  He can’t be the president who allowed Iran to have a nuclear bomb.  He also can’t be the president that allowed Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran.  And the LAST thing he wants to do is commit American military power and lives into a new Middle East conflict.
American Truism #9.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Obama Gives Israel the Green Light to Attack Iran


In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , President Obama today gave Israel the green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to prevent the Iranians from fully developing their nuclear weapons capabilities.
On CNN, Obama's remarks were portrayed opposite this analysis, both by the CNN host and by her guests.  They characterized Obama’s remarks as too soft and non-committal and critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Here’s what Obama said to AIPAC:

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.  Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as
they should not doubt Israel’s sovreign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.
"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.  That includes all elements of American power . . . including a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.
"We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology, the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies.  Make no mistake, we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.  

Later in the same address, President Obama said, ""For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in. … Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

These remarks have been interpreted as meaning that Obama is loathe to use military action against Iran, and that he is at odds with the Israelis.

I disagree.

I believe this is Obama's way of creating "cover" for himself in the event that Israel decides it must attack Iran before it is nuclear capable.

According to CNN reports, earlier in the day at the AIPAC conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned "Iran will be stopped."  Israel "does not seek" war he said, adding: "Peace is always our first option. But, if we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail."
Speaking just before Obama, Peres said,"The United States and Israel share the same goal: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no space between us. Our message is clear: Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon."

"Iran is an evil, cruel, morally corrupt regime," Peres said. "It is based on destruction. It is an affront to human dignity. Iran is the center, the sponsor, the financier of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. It threatens Berlin as well as Madrid, Delhi as well as Bangkok." 

Israel and Iran are on an all-but-assured collision course.  The Israeli government will NOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but after his rhetorical attacks on the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq, Obama cannot afford to be seen as launching a possibly unnecessary attack on Iran, even in the defense of Israel.

However, as he has intimated today, Obama will not intervene if Israel determines that a preemptive strike against Iran is necessary.

Look for a strike within 90 days or less.

American Truism # 7.