To Whom Can Israel Turn?

By: Robert D. Onley

Israel has always been an isolated nation. Except for the United States, few countries openly allied themselves with the Jewish State after 1948, and even fewer nations are willing to do so today.

The reality in late 2009 is that an overwhelming majority of the world is openly hostile to Israel – or at least vehemently opposed to Israel’s policies concerning Palestine. This hostility was especially evident following Israel’s defensive actions during Operation Cast Lead.

However, today even Israel’s historic ties with the United States are in question. Recent polls show that just 4% of Israelis believe President Obama to be “pro-Israel,” a figure in stark contrast to the 88% of Israelis who felt President Bush was “pro-Israel.”

Much of Israeli pessimism centres on President Obama’s demand for a complete halt to settlement activity in the West Bank. At a surface level, Israeli distaste for Obama’s demand is understandable. This is true because a complete settlement halt represents an untenable strategic concession at a time when Israel’s enemies are aggressively gearing up for another war against Israel.

Consider recent high-stakes incidents to appreciate Israel’s sense of abject isolation. On November 3, Special Forces from the Israeli Navy peacefully boarded an Antiguan-flagged ship 100 miles off the coast of Israel. Upon inspection, the ship was found to contain over 400 tons of weapons, including guns, grenades, ammunition and over 2700 missiles, all bound for Hizbullah and Syria.

The ship’s documentation clearly indicated the weaponry originated in Iran, providing further indictment of the Iranian Islamic Republic’s unfettered support for terrorism across the Middle East. In this instance, the ship’s condemnable contents also gave visceral credibility to the literalness of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls for the destruction of Israel.

Israel’s weapons find is disturbing on its own. Compounding the virulent implications of the discovery was Hamas’ test of an advanced missile with a 35+ mile range just two days prior. That Hamas’ would brazenly test such a far-reaching instrument of terror sent tremors throughout the Israeli Defence establishment, as the missile proves Hamas has the ability to strike the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

The test also highlights how weapons smuggling is thriving despite Cast Lead and emphasizes that the IAF’s continuing efforts to destroy tunnels between Gaza and Egypt are not enough to permanently stop such malevolent activities. Further military action on the ground is clearly required.

Moreover, the discovery of such a massive arms shipment bound for both Hizbullah and Syria also underscores a disturbing new strategic reality for Israel, positioned so precariously in the heart of the Middle East.

General (ret.) Uzi Dayan, the former Head of Central Command and head of Israel’s National Security Council, noted recently that in Israel’s next war “all Israel will be one front.” Dayan’s statement reflects the probability that future battles will see missiles rain down across Israel, launched from all sides.

Mere days after General Dayan’s sobering warning, Syrian President Bashar Assad suggested Syria may return to “resistance” in order to regain the Golan Heights, should peace talks again fail. It is perplexing that Assad also declared it Syria’s “patriotic duty” to return to armed struggle – given his statement came less than one week after Israel’s discovery of the enormous Iranian munitions shipment bound for Syria. Rather than downplay the inference therein that Syria is gearing up for war with Israel, Assad instead openly announced Syria’s hostile intentions.

Perhaps these turbulent developments are unsurprising. Perpetual rumblings about an impending collapse in Israeli-Arab relations were given substance by the debacle over the Goldstone Report, Turkey’s rejection of Israel in favour of Iran and Syria, and the return of clashes and Palestinian conspiracies over the Temple Mount. The attempted Iranian weapons delivery will only further rock the Israeli-Arab peace boat.

While ostensibly still protected under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, Israel’s most vocal ally today is actually Canada. Under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada has steadfastly supported Israel since early 2006. Harper continues to actively denounce Ahmadinejad’s provocations, reinforce Israel’s right to exist at the UN’s assorted 'hate-fests' and lead the moral charge internationally in Israel’s defence.

Unfortunately Canada is in no position to militarily assist Israel should war break out soon. Thus Israel’s lack of well-armed and willing allies leaves many Jews consigned to fate, and clinging to faith in the One who promised safety, security and prosperity to Israel all along. As throughout her lonely history, Israel is today forced to look up and turn to God above.

Robert D. Onley

Whose Side is Russia On?

While Obama pursues a world free of nuclear weapons, Russia continues to deliver slaps in the face to American peace initiatives. In the world of international relations, it is no accident that as pressure builds against Iran, it is Iran's greatest ally - Russia - that is reminding the world of its powerful influence over the Middle East. This at the same time as Barack Obama painfully seeks an exit from the region after 8 long years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, rather than suggesting peaceful alternatives to a nuclear Iran, Russia is boldly declaring new military powers, including the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

Such a declaration is disturbing, if not surprising. A mere three weeks ago, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev agreed with Barack Obama and the rest of the United Nations Security Council members at the G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh, on the need for the pursuit of a world "free of nuclear weapons". As genuine as the initiative is, there is no mistaking that both Russia and the US will always possess nukes. Nonetheless, the "nuke-free world" idea at the very least offered hope for continued stability between the major powers and a reduction of tensions between the West and Russia.

Therefore, the report suggesting Russia's pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons -- which was released yesterday as negotiations with Iran resumed in Vienna -- comes across as a tremendously provocative move by the Kremlin. In as many words, Russian Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev is warning the Western powers against taking any further aggressive steps toward pressuring Iran to halt its nuclear program. Their words are also inherently destabilizing. What could possibly be gained from reminding the world of Russia's pre-emptive right to use nukes at such an uncertain time as this? While professing a nuke-free world, Russia is seen defending the world's sole nuclear-aspirant -- Iran -- by reinforcing Russia's right to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the defence of Russian interests.

Russia's pre-emptive reminder may as well have come from the public relations department inside Tehran. While Iran is perhaps still a few months away from physically possessing a nuclear weapon (some reports suggest a far shorter timeline), the fact that Russia delivered such a bold statement in the midst of negotiations serves as a "pre-emptive" rhetorical attack against Iran's enemies, namely Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. The Russo-Persian message is simple: mess with Iran and you will feel Russia's wrath. As a rebuke, it would be equally provocative to suggest that Russia might unleash tactical nukes against Israel, Iraq, or US troops in the region - but if such horror has not been contemplated by Putin and Medvedev, why would Russia remind the world as such?

There is one nation shuddering under this clammer among the major powers - Israel. The Jewish State is caught squarely in the middle of the Iranian nuclear question, threatened existentially by Iran's nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often reminding the world of his nation's willingness to take unilateral action against Iran's nuclear program should negotiations fail. But with the release of Russia's pre-emptive nuclear strike policy, the ultimate question for Israel becomes this: would Russia pre-emptively strike the Jewish State if Israel were to unilaterally bomb Iran? Perhaps more realistically, would Russia authorize its military, allied with Iran, to unleash counter-attacks against Israel in response to Israeli pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear sites?

Russia's policy indicates precisely this dystopian reality. The proposed doctrine would allow for the use of nuclear weapons "to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war," Patrushev was quoted as saying. He further stated that a government analysis of the threat of conflict in the world showed "a shift from large-scale conflicts to local wars and armed conflicts." Precisely which nations are likely to be the scene of local wars in the very near future? Both Israel and Iran. The probability of future conflict involving Israel is growing daily, as nations - including Turkey most recently - are aligning against Israel in an effort to squeeze the nation into making concessions in the peace process. At the same time, this strategic re-alignment also unites Arab militaries against Israel, encircling the Jewish State.

Waiting in the wings, and supplying many of the Middle East's armies with advanced missiles and weaponry, is Russia. These weapons deals mean that if Israel were to take defensive action against her enemies - be they in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, or most likely, Iran - the probability of a Russian response against Israel grows exponentially. At the furthest extreme is a nuclear attack against Israel by Russia, which - as incredibly preposterous as it sounds today - may not seem so extreme once Israel has delivered precision strikes against Russia's billion dollar investments inside Iran's assorted nuclear enrichment facilities. Even if Russia did not resort to pre-emptive nuclear strikes, their very doctrine of pre-emptive action suggests Russia is prepared for almost-as-lethal non-nuclear military alternatives.

These are dire circumstances for global stability. For a world that a mere decade ago seemed on a path toward peaceful globalized prosperity, the situations in the Middle East today are unequivocally dragging the world closer to conflagration than ever before. With Barack Obama at the helm of the world's preeminent military power, the likelihood of American military action against Iran, or the containment of Russia in the protection of Israel, is dramatically diminishing, if not yet non-existent. Thus the concurrent likelihood of unilateral Israeli military action on Iran is rapidly approaching. Russia has now declared her disturbing willingness and blatant intentions to protect Iran at all costs - even advocating nuclear warfare. How will the rest of the world respond when the Iranian nuclear crisis reaches its grand finale? The clock is ticking.

Robert D. Onley
---------------------------------------------------------------
Headlines to Track:
BreitBart - Report: Russia to allow pre-emptive nukes

Tensions Between Turkey And Israel Escalate

Iranian FM: We Won't Stop Uranium Enrichment

Iran Mourns Suicide Bomb Victims


Articles to Read:

A Lesson in Unintended Consequences for Our President

Why A Month Matters: Don't Let Iran Stall Even For A Month

Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

New Battle for Iraq

The Russia-Iran Paradox

By: Robert D. Onley

Intel leaks, defections and outright disinformation are dragging the Iranian nuclear crisis into an unprecedented stage of uncertainty, with growing concern in Israel about Russia’s role in provoking instability. A week after the Geneva summit, the ever furtive Russian Bear is practically directing the UNSC’s moves with increasing leverage over both the United States and Iran. This comes after the revelation that Russian scientists are assisting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and is made possible given President Obama’s intractable positions in a wobbly Iraq and a withering Afghanistan. Together this has given Russian Prime Minister Putin powerful sway over the Iranian nuclear crisis.

All of these emerging factors, delivered practically rapid-fire following the Oct. 1 Geneva summit, highlight what are obvious issues in Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear story. Indeed, however optimistic Iran’s recent good-will gestures may seem, this optimism is misguided and ignorantly damning. Put bluntly, Iran’s nuclear pursuit has been nothing but a convoluted concoction of deceit. To borrow a phrase from Netanyahu’s now famous speech at the UN on September 25^th, the belief that Iran’s nuclear program will be proven peaceful is wrong - “dead wrong.” The problem for Israel is that to casual international observers, Iran appears to have come to its senses and may even relinquish its uranium enrichment powers to a third-party nation.

Such a move has been deceptively calculated by the Iranians. Which nation immediately (and seemingly out of the blue) offered to enrich Iran’s uranium? Once again, it was Russia. Surely Iran would not permit a single inspection of its top-secret Qom enrichment facility if the underground complex was in fact engineered specifically for the weaponization of nuclear materials. Armed with yet more “peace” credibility found in the form of highly sensitive nuclear assistance by none other than Russian scientists, Iran has been allowed to perform another daring about-face on nuclear policy.

Israel must be critically aware of Russia’s meddling on both sides of this sordid nuclear tale. While professing to desire a nuclear-free Iran, the reports this week that Russian scientists are assisting Iran with the development of nuclear weapons proved otherwise. Whether these scientists were sent by the Kremlin or were simply private citizens taking jobs in Iran, the fact is that Russia was certainly aware of their presence in Iran. Russia was also crucially conscious of the highly contentious work the scientists were likely achieving in Iran.

This is perplexing, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cohorts have for years declared, unequivocally, that the Iranian nuclear program is for entirely peaceful purposes. When evidence to the contrary arose in light of the Qom revelation, suddenly Ahmadinejad is seen allowing inspections and denying allegations that the Iranian government had kept Qom a secret. Could it be that Russia’s offer to enrich uranium has given Iran a perception of blanket immunity from further international consternation? Little else explains Iran’s bold new “openness”. The Russian-Iranian paradox thus deepens.

The tragic reality that emerges from this Russian-Iranian set-up is that even the most thorough UN and IAEA “inspections” of Iranian nuclear facilities are unlikely to expose these glaring paradoxes in the Iranian nuclear story. After just one session of negotiations in Geneva, suddenly all of Ahmadinejad’s hateful pronouncements of his deadly intentions against Israel are brushed aside by the IAEA’s fantasy of somehow monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities – all with Russian support.

This plainly does not add up. Neither does Russia’s offer to enrich Iran’s uranium to 19.75%, a paltry quarter of a percent below the weakest weapons grade standards for high enriched uranium. An agreement like this would effectively provide a legal shortcut for Tehran to then pursue even higher enriched uranium back on Iranian soil after Russia has done the initial dirty work. Meanwhile the rest of the Middle East’s aspiring nuclear powers – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq – are being told to rest easy while Iran ‘goes nuclear’ under the ‘scrutinizing’ eyes of the IAEA.

The very fact that Iran just recently revealed its secret facility at Qom highlights another missing link in Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear story. For Iran to have designed, built and hid the Qom facility for so long implicates its very illegitimate, malevolent nature - this is self-evident. But for Iran to then declare, once more, that this top-secret, hardened, buried-deep-underground-uranium-enrichment facility is actually peaceful as well – dramatically showcases the overwhelmingly deceitful nature of the entire Iranian Islamic Republic. Put simply, Iran’s entire nuclear story doesn’t add up. The P5+1 must always contextualize this with any cooperative efforts that Iran may now be professing.

Nonetheless, compounding the Iranian nuclear crisis are the “unfettered” inspections of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment facility at Qom set to begin next week. With their announcement, the world body practically let out a collective sigh of relief, knowing Israel was blocked from potentially taking military action against Iran - at least in the interim. Meanwhile the IAEA could not be happier, with Director Mohamed El Baradei even callously shifting the world’s focus onto Israel by labelling the Jewish State the “number one threat to the Middle East.” This is a shamefully disturbing tactic of a supposedly apolitical international agency.

Intelligence agencies have known of Iran’s malicious intentions for years, if not decades. Iran’s covert efforts to procure highly sensitive nuclear and weapons materials – including, recently, possible navigation microchips designed for missile guidance systems, shipped from Canada – highlight the very fact that no matter what Iran professed to be the case about its nuclear program (and continues to profess), none of their statements were true, nor are true today. Quite the opposite, Iran is still pursuing the rapid development of both the world’s most lethal weapons technology in nuclear weapons, as well as the missiles to deliver them, all in flagrant defiance of the international community.

After making obvious attempts to deceive the rest of the world for nearly 30 years, why would Iran suddenly change tactics just before reaching the pinnacle of its nuclear program – ‘the Bomb’? Perhaps because Iran is aware that its relationship with Russia will almost certainly guarantee its success barring any US or Israeli attack on its facilities. It is shocking then, that despite entering negotiations with Iran and agreeing to inspections of the Qom site (there are certain to be others), US President Obama still holds some illusion of belief that somehow the Iranian nuclear program will be made peaceful, or that the West will be capable of containing Iran’s nuclear technology for peaceful ends.

This is simply fanciful on the part of Obama. Iran will never, under any circumstance, allow forces from the “Great Satan” to control any aspect of their most prized technological achievement. Even forces from the European Union will be viewed with highly skeptical Iranian eyes. Hence Iran’s reflexive and continued turn to Russia for logistical support for weaponization.

The world can have no illusions about Iran’s intentions. This author has repeatedly warned about the deadly seriousness of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. If the West backs off Iran and agrees to let the theocratic Islamic Republic ‘go nuclear’, the world must be made painfully aware of the impending consequences. Not only will Israel’s enemies Hamas and Hizbullah be protected under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, but so too will any future militant group which Iran supports.

Thus the final paradoxical pieces in the Iranian nuclear saga are this: if Iran is about to “peacefully” go nuclear, why be so hell-bent on propping up terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah? Why draw further negative international attention and condemnation if Iran is only pursuing peaceful nuclear energy? Clearly Iran’s “peace” story is a farce. So too is Russia’s relationship with Iran if Russia truly wants a nuke-free Iran. As a result, Israel may soon be forced to unilaterally stop Iran, and Russia will be very, very angry if Israel does so. The decision before Israel today is thus one of undeniably apocalyptic proportions.

"Netanyahu's Message to the World" published by the Israel National News!

I was just published for the 5th time by the Israel National News.

Click here to read "Netanyahu's Message to the World"

Thanks to everyone who reads my work and leaves feedback.

Special thanks to the Israel National News for publishing my work!

Cheers,

Robert D. Onley

Netanyahu's Message to the World

By: Robert D. Onley

In his “Quds Day” speech on Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sealed the fate of Iran’s nuclear program by proving to the world that he is a delusional leader bent on inducing an apocalyptic war in the Middle East. As if to impale negotiations set to start October 1^st, Ahmadinejad stated, “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to human dignity,” and continued by describing “the myth of the Holocaust”, all to cheers of “death to Israel.” By doing so yet again, Ahmadinejad leaves Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with no choice but to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

All of the major powers are furiously preparing contingency plans should talks with Iran drag on into oblivion, or more than likely, outright fail. Foremost among the nations making such plans is Israel, with Prime Minister Netanyahu carefully watching what will transpire while justifiably keeping one finger on the pre-emptive strike trigger. This precarious position means Netanyahu must prepare statements justifying Israel’s impending actions, albeit without revealing Israel’s hand. As unnecessary as such statements may seem given Ahmadinejad’s abhorrent behaviour, Israel’s intractable position requires bulletproof scrutiny and well-crafted presentation.

Thus far Netanyahu has openly and repeatedly stated Israel`s preparedness in forcibly stopping the Iranian nuclear program, however what he has not publicly discussed is the inevitable Iranian response to a unilateral Israeli attack. Given there exists a tremendous likelihood that Israel`s pre-emptive attack against Iranian nuclear facilities will precipitate an enormous wave of counter-attacks from both Hizbullah and Hamas, it is pertinent that Netanyahu make equally bold assertions of Israeli sovereignty in the face of such Iranian malevolence. The Goldstone Report highlighted the absurd standard to which Israel is held by the international community. As a result Israel cannot be caught committing further “war crimes” should the Jewish nation be forced to act defensively, as it soon will.

Therefore, Benjamin Netanyahu must state absolutely clearly to the world two critically interlinked realities: Foremost, Israel is ready to and will destroy Iran`s nuclear weapons program should negotiations with the West fail after October. Second, any group that seeks to retaliate against Israel for its pre-emptive actions against Iran -- be it al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, or any combination of the above -- will similarly experience a crushing, unflinching Israeli military response. Only by publicly addressing the reality and history of Iranian proxy counter-attacks will Israel preserve any sense of tactical legitimacy with the world community.

While this may seem like a fruitless effort to save face from the reflexively anti-Israeli United Nations, it is a necessary piece of statesmanship for what is inarguably a war-ready Netanyahu government. Recent history provides obvious examples of the battles Israel might soon be fighting once again following potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Second Lebanon War against Hizbullah and this year’s Operation Cast Lead with Hamas were separate, distinct wars of specified purpose and generally controllable length. However if Hizbullah and Hamas were to begin launching retaliatory rockets toward Israel on direct Iranian orders, or for ostensibly Iranian ends, then Israel will be compelled to respond just as it did in 2006 and 2009.

The timing of these missions against Hizbullah and Hamas, be they immediately following the Iranian nuclear mission or in the violent weeks that are sure to follow in Israel, are the determinable variables that Netanyahu must address publicly in coming weeks. Netanyahu must make logical connections between Israel’s undesirable geographical position – squashed between two terrorist entities both harbouring the goal of destroying Israel – and Iran’s blatant support of both terror groups combined with the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The reality of the utterly lethal relationship therein is what will give Netanyahu even the tiniest shred of credibility with a roiling world community following Israeli strikes on Iran.

It remains to be seen how exactly the UN will pin blame on Israel for a broader war, in the wake of clearly failed negotiations with Iran that result from a Russian veto at the Security Council, compounded by weak-kneed Obamian diplomacy. Netanyahu’s “secret” trip to Moscow last week highlighted how deep Israel’s distrust of Russia is, after Russia attempted to smuggle advanced S-300 anti-air missiles to Iran aboard the Arctic Sea. This high-stakes incident, stopped only by Israeli agents, dramatically emphasized Russia’s overt support of Iran’s nuclear program and Russia’s similar disregard for Israel’s existential security concerns. That Obama topped the week off by scrapping former President Bush’s eastern European missile shield also showcased Obama’s frightening lack of foresight and the likelihood that the US will not, under any circumstances, prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite all public pronouncements.

For all of the nonsense that Israel must put up with geopolitically, Netanyahu also has the never-blinking eye of the international media ready to spit back at him. What Netanyahu’s government cannot allow to happen - though the media is almost guaranteed to portray it as such - is for the predictable Hizbullah and Hamas counter-attacks against Israel to be somehow viewed by the world as equally legitimate, given Israel’s “attacks” on an “innocent” Iran. Yes, some Middle Eastern governments like Saudi Arabia will secretly cheer when they see Iran’s nuclear sites destroyed. But the mood on the streets will be much different, with protests against Israel sure to be ignited and promoted by those same governments across the region.

Netanyahu’s job today is thus to aggressively define the terms of future battles in order to recast the coming fight for what will be a very angry world community. These efforts will also instil fear inside the hearts and minds of Hizbullah and Hamas fighters who have certainly already received directions from Iran about what to do after Israel strikes. If these same fighters perceive Israel to be steadfastly engaging in deliberate, defensive action against her enemies despite their latent threats of retaliation, Netanyahu will have made an unequivocal statement about Israeli resolve, and will have effectively manifest the will of the Jewish people for self-preservation.

There can be no illusions about the total seriousness of this matter. It is not said lightly that Netanyahu must begin telling the world that Israel will take matters into its own hands, as a result of the abject failure of the world body. Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the vitriol emanating from Tehran is as pure of a manifestation of evil intentions as has been since the Holocaust that Ahmadinejad so callously denies. No other world leader but Ahmadinejad is addressing public crowds and delivering such shocking, backward and downright disturbing interpretations of history, all packed with lucid implications of worse events to come.

In order to thwart any chance of Ahmadinejad achieving his frighteningly Holocaust-like dreams, both the man and his nation’s covert nuclear weapons program must be resolutely destroyed. No nation on earth can declare surprise at Israel’s ensuing actions against Iran if talks fail and no other major power steps up to protect Israel. By addressing the outstanding concerns above, Netanyahu will be well prepared to adamantly defend his people from the Iranian threat – a threat which surpasses all others combined throughout the history of the Jewish State. It is nonetheless shameful but unsurprising that Israel is the nation forced to prevent a second Holocaust. History certainly has a peculiar way of repeating itself.

Robert D. Onley