How US Actions are Seen in the Middle East

Top notch, albeit unfortunately true, commentary. Worthy read. - R.O.

How US Actions are Seen in the Middle East - Gatestone Institute
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3965/syria-us-actions

Iran closer than ever to nuclear bomb

Will Israel be forced to take unilateral military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? With every passing day, this becomes more likely. The consequences of Israeli action against Iran -- or inaction -- will undoubtedly be global. Count on it. - R.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netanyahu: Iran closer than ever to nuclear bomb

Jerusalem Post - February 22, 2013

IAEA report: 180 centrifuges hooked up at Natanz, Iran's main uranium enrichment plant; PM calls findings "very grave."

Centrifuges unveiled in Natanz. Photo: REUTERS

Iran is closer today than ever before to obtaining the necessary enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday evening.

He was reacting to the publication of details of a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had begun installing advanced centrifuges at its main uranium enrichment plant.

The Prime Minister’s Office said that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be the first issue on the agenda when US President Barack Obama came to visit in less than a month’s time.Netanyahu termed the report “very grave,” and said it proved that Iran was moving swiftly toward the red line he had set out at the United Nations in September. He said during that address that Iran must be stopped before it crossed the line, something he said at the time could happen as early as the spring.

According to the report, 180 so-called IR-2m centrifuges and empty centrifuge casings had been hooked up at the plant near the central town of Natanz. They were not yet operating.

Such machines could enable Iran to significantly speed up its accumulation of material that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

It was not clear how many of the new centrifuges Iran aims to install at Natanz, which is designed for tens of thousands.

An IAEA note informing member states late last month about Iran’s plans implied that it could be up to 3,000 or so.

Iran has for years been trying to develop centrifuges more efficient than the erratic 1970s IR-1 model it now uses, but their introduction for full-scale production has been dogged by delays and technical hurdles, experts and diplomats say.

Iran has also started testing two new centrifuge models, the IR-6 and IR6s, at a research and development facility, the IAEA report said. Centrifuges spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope in uranium.

Iran’s defiance is likely to anger world powers ahead of a resumption of talks with Tehran next week. Six world powers and Iran are due to meet for the first time in eight months in Kazakhstan on Tuesday to try again to break the impasse, but analysts expect no real progress toward defusing suspicions that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in Washington Thursday that Iran's installation of new-generation centrifuges would be "yet another provocative step."

White House spokesman Jay Carney warned Iran that it would face further pressure and isolation if it fails to address international concerns about its nuclear program in the Feb. 26 talks with world powers in the Kazakh city of Almaty.

In a more encouraging sign for the powers, however, the IAEA report said Iran in December resumed converting some of its uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent to powder for the production of reactor fuel.

That helped restrain the growth of Iran’s higher-grade uranium stockpile since the previous report in November, a development that could buy more time for diplomacy and delay possible Israeli military action.

The report said Iran had increased to 167 kg. its stockpile of 20-percent uranium – a level it says it needs to make fuel for a Tehran research reactor but which also takes it much closer to weapons-grade material, which could be obtained if it were processed further.

‘Israel hit target on Syria-Lebanon border’

A significant development, and one that Israel had warned about repeatedly over the last few months. This is not necessarily an escalation, but a stark warning to Iran and it's Hezbollah terror proxy, that meddling in the Syria conflict and taking advantage of the chaos by procuring advanced weapons will not be tolerated. - R.O.

‘Israel hit target on Syria-Lebanon border’
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli forces attacked a convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border on Wednesday, sources told Reuters, after Israelis warned their Lebanese enemy Hezbollah against using chaos in Syria to acquire anti-aircraft missiles or chemical weapons.

"The target was a truck loaded with weapons, heading from Syria to Lebanon," said one Western diplomat, adding that the consignment seemed unlikely to have included chemical weapons.

A source among rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said an air strike around dawn (0430 GMT) blasted a convoy on a mountain track about 5 kilometers (3 miles) south of where the main Damascus-Beirut highway crosses the border. Its load probably included high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

"It attacked trucks carrying sophisticated weapons from the regime to Hezbollah," the source said, adding that it took place inside Syria, though the border is poorly defined in the area.

A security official in the region also placed the attack on the Syrian side. A Lebanese security official denied any strike in Lebanon. It was not clear whether special forces took part.

The Israeli government declined comment on the issue.

Such a strike would fit its existing policy of pre-emptive covert and overt action to curb Iranian-backed Hezbollah and does not necessarily indicate a major escalation of the war in Syria. It does, however, indicate how the erosion of Assad's family rule after 42 years is seen by Israel as posing a threat.

Some analysts suggested Hezbollah was moving its own arms caches from stores in Syria, fearing rebels would overrun them.

Though Israel this week echoed concerns in the United States about Syrian chemical weapons, officials say a more immediate worry is that the civil war could see weapons that are capable of denting its massive superiority in airpower and tanks from reaching Hezbollah; the group fought Israel in 2006 and remains a more pressing threat than its Syrian and Iranian sponsors.

Wednesday's strike could have been a rapid response to an opportunity. But a stream of Israeli comment on Syria in recent days was a reminder of a standing policy of pre-emptive strikes and may have been intended to limit surprise in world capitals.

The head of the Israeli air force said only hours before the strike that his corps, which has an array of the latest jet bombers, attack helicopters and unmanned drones at its disposal, was involved in a covert "campaign between wars".

"This campaign is 24/7, 365 days a year," Major-General Amir Eshel told a conference on Tuesday. "We are taking action to reduce the immediate threats, to create better conditions in which we will be able to win the wars, when they happen."

JETS OVER LEBANON
In Israel, where media operate under military censorship, broadcasters immediately relayed international reports of the strike. Channel Two television quoted what it called foreign sources saying the convoy was carrying anti-aircraft missiles.

In Lebanon, the army reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets over its territory throughout the night, following several days of increased incursions into Lebanese airspace. Israeli jets routinely fly and there have been unconfirmed reports in previous years of air strikes on Hezbollah arms shipments.

An Israeli attack inside Syria could be diplomatically provocative, particularly since Assad's Iranian ally said on Saturday that it would view such a strike as an attack on itself. Israel views Iran as its principal enemy and is engaged in a bitter confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is set for a new term after an election earlier this month, told his cabinet that both developments in Iran and turmoil in Arab states, notably Syria and Egypt, meant Israel must be strong.

"In the east, north and south, everything is in ferment, and we must be prepared, strong and determined in the face of all possible developments," he said.

The Israeli military confirmed this week that it had lately deployed two batteries of its Iron Dome rocket-interceptor system to around the northern city of Haifa, which came under heavy Hezbollah missile fire during a brief war in 2006.

Israel's refusal to comment on Wednesday is usual in such cases; it has, for example, never admitted a 2007 air strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear site despite U.S. confirmation of it.

By not confirming that raid, Israel may have ensured that Assad did not feel obliged to retaliate. For 40 years, Syria has offered little but bellicose words against Israel. A failing Assad administration, some Israelis fear, might be tempted into more action, while Syria's Islamist rebels are also hostile to Israel and could present a threat if they seize heavier weapons.

Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that the Syrian army's grip on its presumed chemical weapons stocks was slipping could trigger Israeli intervention.

But Israeli sources said on Tuesday that Syria's advanced conventional weapons, much of it Russian-built hardware able to destroy Israeli planes and tanks, would represent as much of a threat to Israel as chemical arms in the wrong hands.

Interviewed on Wednesday, Shalom would not be drawn on whether Israeli forces had been in action in the north, instead describing the country as part of an international coalition seeking to stop spillover from Syria's two-year-old insurgency.

Recalling that President Barack Obama had warned Assad of U.S. action if his forces use chemical weapons, Shalom told Israel Radio: "The world, led by President Obama, who has said this more than once, is taking all possibilities into account.

"Any development ... in a negative direction would be something that needs stopping and prevention."

LEBANON WAR
During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli aircraft faced little threat, though its navy was taken aback when a missile hit a ship. Israeli tanks suffered losses to rockets, and commanders are concerned Hezbollah may get better weaponry.

In what might have been a sign of seeking to reassure major powers, Israeli media reported this week that the country's national security adviser was dispatched to Russia and military intelligence chief to the United States for consultations.

Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London saw any strike on Wednesday as intended to deliver a signal rather than heralding a major escalation from Israel.

"I think the Israelis are sending a message not just to Hezbollah, but also to Assad's forces, that they have no wish to get dragged in, but chemical weapons and certain types of missiles are a red line for them, and that regime forces ought to signal, in turn, to Hezbollah that they should proceed with caution," he said.

Worries about Syria and Hezbollah have sent Israelis lining up for government-issued gas masks. According to the Israel post office, which is handling distribution of the kits, demand roughly trebled this week.

"It looks like every kind of discourse on this or that security matter contributes to public vigilance," its deputy director Haim Azaki told Israel's Army Radio. "We have really seen a very significant jump in demand."

(Additional reporting by Myra MacDonald in London; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Will Waterman)

Romney: Iranian nuke "capacity" is "unacceptable"

Mitt Romney backs Israel on Iran
"Romney would respect an Israeli decision to use military force to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Mr Romney will give a speech later on Sunday near Jerusalem's Old City in which he is expected to say it is "unacceptable" for Iran to have the "capacity" to develop nuclear weapons."

Your move, Obama: Upon which side of history will you fall? - R.O.

1948, 1967, 1973 ... 2012?

Israel Hayom | 1948, 1967, 1973 ... 2012?
The decision that will change everything

There are those who deem this critical argument that is being waged now as “the campaign of our lives,” and there are indeed various signs which attest to the fact that the moment in which a decision on the Iranian issue must be made is fast approaching.

Nadav Shragai

A ballistic missile is launched in a demonstration of Iranian military might. | Photo credit: Reuters

<< 1 2 >>

In a country where there is never a dull moment, the media this week pushed the really critical issue of Iran off the front pages.

The real debate is happening behind closed doors. In simple Hebrew, the dilemma comes down to three words: p’tzatza o’ haftzatza (“An [Iranian] A-bomb or an [Israeli] bombing campaign”) but the reality is not that simple. In fact, it is far more complex. Defense Minister Ehud Barak says that Israel is currently “at the point in which security challenges are likely to become no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the founding fathers at the establishment of the state; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the state’s leaders in the period leading to the start of the Six-Day War; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the decision-makers who were called upon to lead in the days leading up to and during the Yom Kippur War.”

There are those who deem the critical argument that is being waged now as “the campaign of our lives,” and there are indeed signs attesting to the fact that the moment in which a decision on the Iranian issue must be made is fast approaching.

It is possible that we are talking about a matter of months. The public is not well-versed in the details, and perhaps it should be this way, but a concise summary of this dilemma is testament to the difficulty of this issue.

On the one hand, we have the alarming signals that are ringing louder as the prospect of a nuclear Iran becomes more real. Iran currently possesses 7,000 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 3.5 percent and 160 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 20%. To manufacture an atomic bomb, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends need enriched uranium of up to at least 90%.

If the Iranians decide to make a sprint — which they have done in the last few months — they could enrich uranium up to 90% within a matter of months. Leon Panetta, the American secretary of defense, confided to Israeli officials his fear that this January could mark the Iranians’ “finish line” in their race to attain the bomb.

In the last three months, Iran has enriched 700 kilograms of uranium. Since the current government came to power, the number of centrifuges capable of enriching uranium in Iran has doubled from 5,000 to 10,000. The technological mishap which slowed down the centrifuges caused by the Stuxnet computer virus has already been rectified.

There is almost wall-to-wall agreement that a nuclear Iran would render our lives here a living hell while posing a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. The recent assessments even predict an arms race that would proliferate throughout the region. In response to Iran’s going nuclear, other Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would make every effort to get their own atomic weapons.

On the other hand, there is the price that Israel would pay — namely, an Iranian threat to retaliate against any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities — by launching rockets at Israeli cities. The projected number of casualties is vague, although it is expected to include “hundreds of deaths.”

There are also threats that a number of other fronts are liable to heat up as a result of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah, which is based in south Lebanon, possesses an arsenal of 60,000 rockets capable of hitting any point in the north. It also has a few thousand missiles that are capable of reaching the center of the country, and hundreds that can threaten towns in southern Israel.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas continues to grow stronger. It and other armed organizations possess some 8,000 rockets, a few of which could reach central Israel. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and, more importantly, the recent events in Syria, make the Iranian story even more complex. For Israel’s decision-makers, there are other factors that come into play. If Israel decides to strike Iran, it could find itself under assault on a number of fronts.

Attack as long as it’s possible

Over the past year, Israel and the West have developed a strategy that Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit calls “the third way” — a combination of economic sanctions and covert activity. The problem is that the third way does not eliminate the Iranian threat. It simply postpones it to a later date. There is a growing sense among members of the Israeli establishment that this option has been all but exhausted.

Professor Yehezkel Dror (83), a member of the Winograd Commission which probed the decision-making process up to and during the Second Lebanon War, had firsthand access to two Israeli prime ministers (Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres). His expertise lay in the planning and decision-making process in the diplomatic, security, and public spheres. Behind the scenes, he helped craft a number of strategic processes of great importance for the State of Israel.

A few weeks ago, Dror authored a policy paper on behalf of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. In short, Dror came out in favor of an attack on Iran, adding that he recommended combining a military offensive with a regional diplomatic overture for peace. The position articulated by Dror — who is renowned as one of the world’s foremost thinkers in the field of administrative science and policy doctrine thanks to many years of research which he devoted to the topic of decision-making processes, policy planning, statesmanship, defense doctrine, and Jewish policy — rocked the establishment.

Dror’s views, which have at times been critical of the manner in which sensitive decisions are made in Israel, carry great weight. Up to a year ago, Dror believed that Israel could live with a nuclear Iran. He thought Israel’s deterrent capability and the threat of a nuclear second strike was enough to make Iran think twice before attacking. Now he thinks differently.

“A sometimes expressed view is that initiating a preventive war is morally wrong, all the more so when one cannot be sure that without it a harsh war is sure to occur in the future,” Dror writes. “However, this view, though honorable, is primitive and should be rejected. It lacks understanding of the nature of policy as a tool that, by nature, must deal with the future, which is never certain; and it does not give any weight to the important value of preventing pain in the future. Furthermore, such a view clings to what is ‘certain,’ ignoring what ‘may come’ even when very likely or very significant, thus further negating every effort to influence the future, which is always contingent and uncertain.”

“The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran poses serious dangers to Israel because of the real possibility that the rulers of Iran may use them, directly or indirectly, against Israel,” he writes. “There also exists the likelihood that Iranian nuclear weapons will cause nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, further increasing the danger. Hopefully, international sanctions will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or the U.S. will launch a pre-emptive attack if necessary. But Israel cannot leave the future of its national security to the uncertain decision making of others. If Iranian advances towards construction of a nuclear weapon are not halted, Israel will have no choice but to attack Iranian nuclear and military facilities while they are still vulnerable.”

The professor acknowledges that while one can expect a violent reaction from Iran in the case of an Israeli attack, assessments of the damage should not be exaggerated. “Even pessimistic assumptions about the scope of Iranian retaliation make it clear that the expected damage to Israel will be less, by many orders of magnitude, than the destructive potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel,” he writes.

Dror’s arguments stirred up a firestorm, with many wondering whether it was possible to place the public’s faith in the hands of the current leadership. Just a few years ago, Dror said that Israel’s leaders were problematic and mediocre. Now, he posits: “If we cannot trust our leadership with regards to an attack against Iran, we cannot trust them also in the event that they refrain from taking a decision for such an attack.”

“The decision to refrain from attacking bears consequences and repercussions to the same extent as deciding to attack,” Dror told Israel Hayom. “Both of these decisions are far-reaching. So it’s irrelevant if I trust [the leadership] more or less. My personal tendency is to trust the current leadership. These are serious people who have plenty of experience. I don’t know, but I am convinced that they are doing very thorough staff work on this issue.”

In contrast with the criticism that others interviewed for this article have expressed regarding the public nature of the discussions surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue, Dror actually welcomes the debate. “On the one hand, as someone who filled a number of senior positions in the defense establishment, I told myself that once I left these positions I wouldn’t conceive of criticizing the government,” he said. “On the other hand, if those same people think that this is a dangerous decision, it is their duty to say so. As long as they don’t reveal classified information, it is their right.”

Still, Dror makes clear that public opinion is not a factor in his thinking. “The public knows nothing, and it has no factual basis to judge these things, and it is also impossible to present the public with all the facts on this issue,” he said. “So its opinion has no weight in my mind.”

Dror also doesn’t shy away from taking political considerations into account. “People at the time thought that taking action against the Iraqi nuclear reactor was motivated by electoral considerations,” he said. “I worked in Shamir’s office, and I also got to know Begin. I think that this is slanderous. On the Iranian issue, I believe that the aspects are weighed independent of political considerations, and the decision will be taken purely with the best interests of the future of the State of Israel in mind. Other factors, if they exist, will be particularly marginal, and they will not make the difference.”

Fact-checking and agreement

Dror is one of a number of public figures from whom we sought comment this week in an effort to examine the decision-making process during two other critical periods in Israel’s history — the days leading up to the Six-Day War and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor — and to compare them with the critical juncture in which Israel currently finds itself as it relates to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Yeshayahu Gavish served as GOC Southern Command in 1967. He remembers well the tremendous pressure that the generals placed on the government to start the war after the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran and essentially cut off Israeli shipping to Africa and the east. Gavish acknowledges that he is not privy to sensitive information today, though he does note that at the time the key question was gauging the risk.

“Under these circumstances, you have to take into account, among other things, if you go with a pre-emptive strike or if you absorb an enemy blow,” he said. “In the Yom Kippur War, we didn’t hit them with a pre-emptive strike. In the Six-Day War, we saw this as the right solution. The question is not just risk assessment, but who is doing the assessment. In 1967, the generational gaps between the ministers and the generals were especially significant. The generals were young, 40-year-old men who were experienced in warfare. The ministers, almost all of them, were not born in the country, and they were relatively older.”

“We had to convince the government that there was no other solution,” he said. “Ben-Gurion was adamantly against the war, and he really had a moderating effect on Yitzhak Rabin, who was chief of staff at the time. I remember the major fear among the ministers who kept asking me whether I was certain of victory, and how we could be so certain we would succeed. They had serious concerns, but the argument was not public. The awareness of the importance of guarding defense secrets was much higher in those days. Today the excessive preoccupation and discussion of the Iranian issue doesn’t contribute to a weighty, serious discussion, in my opinion. Another key factor which we had to deal with then — and I assume that this is the case today as well — is the position of the U.S. Abba Eban, who was foreign minister at the time, thought that the U.S. would oppose our plan. It was only after Meir Amit returned from abroad that it became clear this wasn’t exactly the case.”

Shlomo Nakdimon, a journalist and renowned researcher, chronicled the decision-making processes in his book about the Six-Day War (“Towards the Zero Hour”) and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (“Tammuz in Flames”). He, too, notes the importance of the debate that unfolded between the generals and the politicians in those days.

“One of the generals, Ezer Weizman, even threw his ranks down on the desk of the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office,” he said. “The other generals, among them Ariel Sharon and Avraham Yoffe, lobbied hard, while Levi Eshkol, who wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options, told them: ‘Patience, children.’”

As for “Tammuz,” as the Iraqi nuclear reactor was known, Begin oversaw the portfolio from the moment he received it from his predecessor, Rabin. It was Begin who personally handled the affairs of this issue from that moment all the way until the actual bombardment. Begin left no stone unturned, even going so far as to appoint an external committee of inquiry headed by Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv.

Coordination with the U.S., which the Israeli leadership sought to attain in each of the three cases, is certainly the common denominator. Today, Netanyahu naturally wishes to reach an accommodation with the U.S. to the greatest extent possible.

Nakdimon notes that the plan to bomb the Iraqi reactor was kept secret, while today the public freely discusses the consequences of an attack on Iran. “With regards to the Iraqi reactor, everything was under Begin’s control, and the key people who helped him were the commander of the air force, David Ivry, and the chief of staff, Raful (Rafael Eitan),” he said. “Today, Netanyahu is the minister responsible for the Mossad, and, with Ehud Barak, the defense minister, he is perfectly in synch. They are functioning flawlessly together, as if they were Siamese twins.”

“They have an outstanding group of seven ministers, three of whom have all the time in the world to devote to national security issues: Dan Meridor, Benny Begin, and Bogie Ya’alon,” he said. “They are also helped by the head of the National Security Council, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror.”

This is the spearhead that will accompany Netanyahu every step of the way toward the final decision on whether to bomb Iran. It is a group that includes the chief of staff, the head of military intelligence, and the head of the Mossad. Nakdimon views the many years during which the Iranian nuclear issue was examined, the run-up to the Six-Day War, and the “nearly six-year-long” period during which the authorities carefully weighed and examined the circumstances surrounding the Iraqi nuclear reactor as a necessary time of due diligence.

Col. (res.) Ami Gluska, the author of “Eshkol, Give the Order!,” filled a number of senior positions in the military and civilian leadership. He notes that in contrast to the Six-Day War, in which the civilians held back while the generals agitated, the situation today is different. The military is holding back, while the civilians are hawkish. “Nonetheless, it is clear to all that if the government makes the decision, the army will do the deed,” he said.

Enough public chatter

One of the key figures who closely followed Begin just prior to the decision on bombing Saddam’s nuclear reactor was former minister Moshe Nissim, who today works as a private attorney and who is also an advisory member of the committee that recommends senior appointments in the civil service. He notes that disagreements over the bombardment of the reactor crossed military-civilian lines.

“The head of the Mossad, Yitzhak Hofi, was completely against,” he said. “His deputy, Nachum Admoni, was in favor. The chief of staff, Raful, was in favor. The head of military intelligence, Yehoshua Sagi, fought bitterly against it. His deputy, a former Hashomer Hatzair youth movement member Aviezri Ya’ari, was in favor. Mottke Tzipori, the deputy defense minister, opposed. Simha Erlich, a political dove, was very much in favor. Shustak Hentz was opposed.”

“Back then, there were also fears as to how the Iraqis would respond,” Nissim said. “There was a fear that Iraq would retaliate by bombing the reactor in Dimona, or by launching missiles at the civilian population, or launch a regional war. Those who opposed the plan were also concerned that Egypt may abrogate the peace treaty with Israel or that the U.S. might impose sanctions on us. The supporters, chief among them Begin and myself as well, were of the opinion that the U.S. would ‘punish’ us lightly, and that the chances for successfully carrying out the mission were quite high, and that Iraq did not possess the capability to retaliate. Obviously, the factors that one needs to take into consideration today [with regards to Iran] are much weightier.”

Nissim is incapable of understanding how public figures take it upon themselves to openly discuss the Iranian issue. He is particularly furious with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin.

“What is going on today is an open-air market, and the statements made by Diskin and Dagan are irresponsible and they are causing immeasurable damage to Israel,” he said. “As people who occupied senior posts, they mustn’t be permitted to speak publicly.”

Deception as a tool

Gavish recalls that two hours before Israel’s opening salvo in the Six-Day War, then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan appeared on a radio broadcast and declared that Israel had no desire for war. Gavish does not rule out the possibility that the Israeli leadership is using a similar tactic today, assuming a bellicose posture while behind the scenes spurring the U.S. and the international community to take action. “Deception is one of the tools used in this game,” he said.

In a detailed paper entitled “For a Slightly Different Mode of Thinking,” Dror raises the possibility that “it would behoove the U.S. for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, a move which would minimize the damage to U.S. interests.”

“The U.S. will intervene after the fact in order to ‘restore the peace,’ and it will take preventative measures to ensure that Iran does not restart its nuclear program,” he wrote.

Dror adds: “Many who oppose an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations on moral grounds, preferring to avoid exacting casualties in the present over the possibility of preventing even more massive casualties in the future, are enthusiastic supporters of taking definitive security risks in the present for the sake of a peace that is uncertain.”

Nonetheless, he says: “Mapping out a responsible policy requires avoiding this flawed line of thinking, both on a moral and a practical level, certainly when the topic at hand is one involving the fate of the nation.”

Dror recommends that “we give great weight to preventing risks in the future, even at the price of taking risks in the present.”

Barak backed up this opinion recently, saying: “Refraining from action ensures that Iran goes nuclear, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more dangerous than stopping it today. In other words, whoever says ‘later’ may find that ‘later is too late.’”

Dangerously Doubting the IAEA Report on Iran

My op-ed published last week in Canada's National Post, was picked up and published today in the Windsor Star. I feel my op-ed is even more prescient now, given that the U.S., UK, and Canada went ahead with unilateral sanctions against Iran's central bank, just as Israel has conspicuously gone silent about the threat posed by Iran. The unwillingness of Russia and China to further sanction Iran, or contemplate additional Security Council resolutions, may ultimately force Israel to act alone. If you haven't read the full version of my article, check it out below here. -R.O.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/death+truth/5776603/story.html

"The Death of Truth"
By: Robert D. Onley
Published in the Windsor Star: November 28, 2011

Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 war in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive skepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran's now exposed nuclear weapons program.

Despite the wide-ranging report, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the U.K., France and U.S. will use sanctions as an "instrument for regime change in Iran." Major news outlets are similarly casting complete doubt on IAEA claims that Iran is actively working on nukes.

While the IAEA report was indeed preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, the supposed "leak" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's readiness to conduct unilateral airstrikes certainly was no accident.

Designed to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the report's release, the leaks underscored Netanyahu's long-standing fears about the truth of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Thus the sabre-rattling should not discredit the catastrophic implications of the report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran's nuke program.

Some skeptics dismissively claim that Iran's research into the design of nuclear weapons is not a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory state and internationally bound not to "manufacture" or otherwise "acquire" nuclear weapons. However, this suggestion completely misses the point, highlighting the dangerous naivety of reactive skepticism.

The indisputable facts about Iran's nuclear weapons research are as follows. Since 2003, Iran has:

. Conducted extensive research into bomb designs and detonators

. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles

. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility - built inside of a mountain, itself inside of a military base.

Iran did so while repeatedly claiming its nuclear program is "peaceful." This blatant stall tactic deliberately impeded progress during years of nuclear negotiations with the West.

Russia and China have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the IAEA head, as a pro-western dupe. Russian FM Sergei Lavrov obliquely warned the West that attacking Iran would be "a very serious mistake."

The tragic casualty in all of this misguided skepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA - the one global institution tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - can so blithely be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community's moral core.

A country - the Islamic Republic of Iran - with a president who openly and callously denies that the Holocaust occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.

In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the world's instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA's years of painstaking intelligence-gathering not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.

Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to greenlight another conflict in the region is wholly understandable and with merit.

However, for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country's obtaining nukes, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world's future to the enemies of peace, destroy the NPT and spark a nuclear arms race.

Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at its gravest geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.

If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the UN Security Council and reveal all of Israel's intelligence on Iranian nukes. Israel must irrefutably prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace of the world under UNSC Article 39.

The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth - about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran's theocratic Shia "Twelver" leadership - is Israel's only ally in the long-standing fight for its very survival as the world's sole, immovable, Jewish state.

Robert D. Onley is vice-chair of YouthCan for International Dialogue and president of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor's Law School.
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran

Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran - Haaretz.com, Jan. 22, 2011

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says what today's world leaders are too afraid to admit - that the West must be prepared to use force against Iran. As published by Ha'aretz, Blair "urged the West to be prepared to confront Iran with force in order to face the "looming and coming challenge" from the Islamic republic."

Blair continued, saying "[Iran] has to be confronted and changed. Iran is a looming challenge. It is negative and destabilizing. It supports terrorists," Blair, who currently serves as the Quartet envoy to the Middle East said at the Chilcot inquiry, the U.K. inquiry into the war in Iraq."

As yet another round of talks with Iran (predictably) stall and collapse in Istanbul, the West must ask itself: at what point will diplomacy be deemed to have failed? When will the line be drawn? When will Iran's leaders be held to account for their continued defiance of international law? These are grave questions that must be answered.

The United States recently deployed the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier into the Gulf off the coast of Iran, carrying over 6000 sailors and armed with 80 attack fighter jets. Certainly this is a sign that the U.S. is serious about its calls for Iran to come clean about its covert nuclear program, and Iran's likely ongoing production of nuclear weapons. But will U.S. defense planners match their words with action?

We may be about to find out.
- R.O.

Netanyahu's Warning

Writing in Jerusalem, the Washington Post's George F. Will provides a compelling examination of the threats to Israel's existence today as perceived by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his article "Netanyahu's Warning". Will takes readers on a very brief journey through Israel's tumultuous struggle for existence and concludes with a profoundly unnerving assessment that "If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned."

As Iran is set this week to launch its first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr power plant with the help of Russian engineers, Will's article is both timely and perceptive. It is unlikely that Israel would undertake air strikes to stop the launch, as the nuclear site itself is likely an entirely peaceful enterprise. Iran would not be so stupid as to hide any military applications of its nuclear technology inside this location, one which has undergone rigorous IAEA scrutiny.

Of course it is the numerous other nuclear research sites, scattered throughout Iran, many buried deep underground, which provide the substance for Will's ominous title, "Netanyahu's Warning", no doubt implicitly directed at the Iranian leadership.

One must not forget that the Washington Post is arguably one of the pre-eminent American newspapers internationally, alongside the New York Times. If there were any paper to be actively observed by the Iranian leadership, the Washington Post is certainly one of them.

Thus an article such as this, emerging likely from an interview with Netanyahu, serves two important purposes: First, is clearly to remind the Iranian Regime that Israel means what it says about stopping Iran's nuclear program. Second, is to send a strong signal to the Obama administration to ratchet up its own efforts to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, or else Israel will take the matter into its own hands, on its own watch.

Nothing could be more politically and internationally destabilizing for President Obama than for Israel to unilaterally bomb Iran's nuclear facilities some time before this November's mid-term Congressional elections. An Israeli strike could spin the sputtering global economy into a tail-slide on the back of skyrocketing oil prices. The American voter would likely blame Obama for both failing to press Iran hard enough and for failing to persuade Israel not to act alone.

So what might Obama do with Netanyahu's warning? Surely this warning is not the first iteration of the Israeli government's fears and intentions toward Iran. Obama is well aware of Israel's intensive pre-occupation with Iranian nukes. What is disturbing however, is that Obama appears unwilling to either publicly assuage Israel's fears, or to call Iran to heel for its international disobedience and dishonesty. Netanyahu is left to make his case in American newspapers so that the American populace at least tacitly understands what may soon transpire.

In what is an increasingly shrinking time frame, Will says that Netanyahu may decide to undertake targeted air strikes against Iran "within two years." Diplomatically, this does not leave much more time for Obama to bring Iran to the table, nail the Iranians to their seats, and force a peaceful resolution to this nuclear stand-off. For years the Iranians have been playing a deceitful game of diplomatic chess, both with the Americans and the rest of the P5+1, throughout negotiations over its nuclear program. But tiny Israel has not blinked for a second, it's eyes firmly fixated on Iran's growing stockpile of enriched uranium and ongoing construction of yet more underground nuclear military facilities.

The West long ago called the Islamic Republic's bluff when Iran's secret underground uranium enrichment at Qom was revealed last September. The West knows Iran is building nuclear weapons. The question is whether the West has the guts to do anything to stop Iran from completing the development of their very own Persian Bomb.

For Israel, and for Netanyahu, the question is not if they will stop Iran, but when. For Obama, this looming reality should keep him up at night.

"Netanyahu's Warning" : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304474.html

Is Israel about to unilaterally bomb Iran?

Two leading articles seem to suggest so.


The Atlantic Magazine has just published a long and detailed piece on the Iranian nuclear crisis, exploring in great depth exactly what an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might look like. Click here to read "The Point of No Return".

The very fact that a magazine is running such an article should be worrying. Israel's rumoured preparations for a strike suggest the Obama administration has (at some level) told the Israelis that the United States will not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or at the very least, that the U.S. will not conduct air strikes to do so.

It is tragic that Israel will potentially feel it necessary to undertake such an incredibly risk-fraught mission unilaterally. The United States has always been Israel's strongest ally. In the face of Iranian intransigence and blatant deception throughout the course of negotiations on their covert nuclear program, one would think President Obama would show resolve and stand with Israel given the threat of Iran going nuclear practically any day now.

Of course Israel's greatest fear is not that Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile at Israel, but that Iran might supply a crude nuclear device either to Hizbullah (it's proxy army in Lebanon) or Hamas (in Gaza), or even worse, to Iranian supported terrorists inside Israel. Such a crude nuke (think: pick-up truck dirty bomb) could obliterate Tel Aviv and create a nuclear wasteland with horrific consequences for both Israelis and Arabs.

But for Israel to decide to fly all the way to Iran and attempt to destroy nuclear facilities buried deep underground is arguably the single most significant decision the tiny nation will ever make. The international repercussions will be devastating for Israel, there is no question of that.

Israel's leaders are balancing two unbelievably fateful contingencies: do they allow Iran to go nuclear, hope that their deterrent capability keeps Iran at bay, and pray that Iran never supplies terrorists with dirty nuclear weapons? Or do they perform an incredibly dangerous, unpopular and globally-damaging unilateral mission to prevent Iran (and her terrorist proxies) from acquiring the very weapons that could literally wipe Israel off the map?

Today the Israeli paper Haaretz tackled this question in an excellent piece, "The Morning after the Attack on Iran". The article briefly summarizes the enormity of the present situation, the timing and the ramifications for Israel immediately after it attacks Iran.

These are perilous and incredible times, to say the least. We need to pray for Israeli and American leaders, that they will make the correct decision, that they will be wise and focused. We must also pray for the leaders of Iran, for the Islamic Regime to come clean about its nuclear weapons program, to return to sanity and join the rest of the international community in productive, transparent negotiations. Because the alternative is downright frightening - not just for Israel, but for the rest of the world.