The ongoing crisis over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is fast approaching its dramatic climax. With punitive sanctions only now being developed against the Islamic Republic, and the historic ineffectiveness of sanctioning, there remains but one serious option for immediately stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It is an option enshrined by a precedent few want to see repeated, but one that Israel appears ready to execute at a moment's notice.
On June 7, 1981, Israeli F-16's flew low across the Iraqi desert on a daring unilateral mission to destroy Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor. On that day, the Israelis were successful.
Saddam feigned protest, and barely a murmur was heard from the world powers.
Twenty-six years later, in September 2007, Israeli fighter jets once more snuck stealthily across the blazing desert sand, this time successfully bombing a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction with direct North Korean assistance. After its destruction, the Syrian regime curiously stayed completely silent. Not a word of protest, no rioting against Israel, not even a UN resolution condemning the attack -- just guilty silence.
Now, in 2010, a mere three years later, Israel -- the tiny, democratic Jewish State -- is making public noises about its willingness to take all steps necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Everywhere he travels, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminds audiences of the grave nuclear crossroads facing the international community. Netanyahu continually demands that the UN Security Council rapidly implement "crippling sanctions" in order to grind the Iranian economy to a halt and thus force the cessation of Iran's covert nuclear weapons program.
The glaring problem that Israel recognizes is that sanctions will take months to develop and potentially years to take effect. This is particularly so when the Security Council is as divided as it is now, with Russia and China continuing to intentionally slow progress on the sanctions front.
Russia is constructing Iran's nearly completed Bushehr nuclear power plant, at great profit, and would be furious to see Iranian payments stopped due to sanctions, or worse, to witness the plant's destruction.
Meanwhile China is blocking sanctions out of sheer economic self-interest -- billions of dollars in oil and natural gas deals with Iran provide needed lifeblood for China's economy. Israeli defence planners are agonizing at these delay tactics and are growing restless as Iran is being given free time to build nukes.
Moreover, U.S. President Obama, already mired in bloody conflicts on both of Iran's borders, feels backed into a corner on sanctions, seemingly unwilling to unilaterally escalate the situation further. Obama is also simply loath to incite further violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by conducting air strikes against Iran's nuclear sites.
And so as Iran continues its public and defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons, Israel's leaders are rightly beginning to feel desperate. But Israel is not alone in this desperation. One nation to apparently side with Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue is Saudi Arabia. Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal recently declared, "Sanctions are a long-term solution ... but we see the issue in the shorter term because we are closer to the threat. We need immediate resolution rather than gradual resolution."
Sitting across from Iran in the Gulf, the world's largest oil producer is undeniably as threatened by a nuclear Iran as Israel is. While Saudi Arabia may have an interest in the higher oil prices which would result from targeted air strikes on Iran's nuclear program, the Saudis also know they represent the chief guarantor of economic recovery for a battered global economy requiring cheap oil.
What Saudi Arabia is not, however, is the publicized target of Iran's soon-to-be-nuclear missile arsenal.
Israel knows that the window for stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is quickly closing. Action must be taken soon to prevent Iran's manic leaders from obtaining the world's most lethal weapon to achieve their goal of "wiping Israel off the map." Tragically, the international community appears feckless in stopping Iran -- even with widespread protests against an increasingly hated Iranian regime and growing unity in the Iranian opposition movement.
As one of Israel's few remaining vocal allies, Canada must support Israel. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated an "attack on Israel is attack on Canada." If Israel follows its historic precedent and conducts unilateral military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, Harper must stand up for Israel's right to self-defence against the world's most dangerous regime and largest state sponsor of terrorism -- the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Iran Instigating Proxy War Against Israel
Operation Cast Lead, a defensive war conducted by Israel in the brief period prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, was an effort to halt Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel. From Hamas' perspective, as a proxy militant group largely funded and armed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the war also had a secondary effect of blocking any attempt by Israel to undertake much speculated pre-emptive military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. It was Hamas after all who forcefully broke the ceasefire that preceded Israel’s defensive war, likely on Iran’s orders.
Now over a year later, Iran has made significant progress refining its nuclear weapons program, with various intelligence leaks implicating its non-peaceful nature. By any standard, the Islamic Republic is inching closer to their pernicious goal of covertly obtaining the ultimate weapon. Given this contentious reality, Iran today appears to be very close to instigating yet another proxy war against Israel. This time the war may take on a much larger scale, all to distract global attention from Iran’s nuclear program while Iranian scientists race head-long toward obtaining The Bomb. This volatile cocktail of circumstances could soon explode, and dramatically so.
Iran's tentacles of terror are growing, operating deep inside the Syrian regime, while practically running the terror groups Hamas and Hizbullah. In recent weeks, all three of these Iranian proxies began making military preparations which suggest that Iran has ordered the instigation of another war against the Jewish State. However, while Iranian President Ahmadinejad's vitriolic provocations directed at Israel are well known, what is less well understood is why exactly the Iranian regime would provoke a 'hot' war with Israel in 2010.
An Iranian missile test, September 2009.
The reason rests in a recent report published in the German newspaper Der Spiegel. The article quotes intelligence which suggests that Iran will be capable of producing a truck-sized nuclear bomb sometime this year. Israel, as the publicized target of such a devastating weapon, has every reason to believe these intelligence reports, and moreover likely has additional intelligence that makes the murky nuclear situation even more lethally grim. This past week, President Obama ordered additional missile defence platforms into the Gulf region, ostensibly to beef up the protection of America's Arab allies. The extra naval batteries are also in such dangerous waters to send a vigilant message to the Iranian regime prior to the implementation of punitive sanctions by the United States. Both of these arguments are of course true; but Obama's defensive build-up is also likely reflective of the increased military activity of both the Iranian regime and her proxy armies Hamas and Hizbullah.
Iran's recent ballistic missiles tests are obvious examples of such Iranian mischief. But the covert armament of her proxies is less-publicized. Since the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War with Israel, Hizbullah has been extensively rearmed by Iran and now possesses an estimated 42000+ new rockets - nearly three times the number that it possessed before hostilities with Israel in 2006. These same rockets were indiscriminately launched against Israel by Hizbullah throughout 2006 leading up to the war that July. Compounding the situation in northern Israel was the Israeli Navy's seizure this November of a ship loaded with weapons bound for Hizbullah and Syria, sent by Iran. The 400 tons of rockets, grenades and mortars found in that vessel only further implicated the Iranian regime in its proud and grotesque support of terror directed at Israel.
Hamas leader Khaled Mashal with Ahmadinejad
Moreover, Hamas, south of Israel in the Gaza Strip, continues to have weapons smuggled into the Strip through tunnels connected with Egypt. These subversive efforts persist despite both strategic air strikes by the Israeli Air Force to halt the smuggling, and despite efforts by the Americans and Egyptians to physically prevent the transfer of weapons through the construction of an enormous steel wall built deep into the ground between Egypt and the Strip. Hamas also continues sporadic rocket launches and missile tests, and now possesses strategic missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv. No longer is Hamas constrained with terrorizing the cities of Ashkelon and Sderot; Israel's largest and most populous city is within striking distance of Iran’s malicious and illicit arms.
Syrian President Bashir al-Assad with Ahmadinejad
Syria remains the most elusive and powerful of Iran’s allies and is the best armed of Israel’s closest enemies. While ruled by the Baathist Party, power rests with President Bashir al-Assad, an Alawi Shia Muslim. Accordingly, Iran's Shia leadership has facilitated a Syrian-Iranian alliance to emerge, which in recent years has developed into an enormous strategic military partnership. On Dec. 17, Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi signed a secret military pact with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib in Damascus, with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah appending his signature later. Prior to this, in 2006 the defence ministers from Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Recent months have brought an increased war of words between Israel and Syria, with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem warning Israel this week that a future war between the two countries would be a "comprehensive" clash that would "come to your cities."
With the obvious rearmament of its enemies surrounding her, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have remained defiant in the face of growing threats. However, Netanyahu certainly sees through the distractions being put on by Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria, and, while in no way ignoring those tangible threats, looks past the rumours of local war at the far greater nemesis headquartered in Tehran. The Israeli Prime Minister has made repeated gestures implying that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparing a pre-emptive, unilateral military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu's warnings to Iran cannot be overlooked; rarely has a leader struck such a historical, 'seize-the-moment' tone in international affairs. Everywhere he travels, Benjamin Netanyahu reminds his audiences of the unprecedented nuclear crossroads facing the global community. Either the major powers unite to prevent the globe's greatest state-sponsor of terrorism --the Iranian Islamic Republic-- from developing the ultimate weapon, or else tiny Israel --the very nation which is targeted by Iran's desired weapons-- will take unilateral, explosive action to change the very course of modern history. By destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in the pursuit of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel, of all nations, will do the world's dirty work. For all of Russia and China's public protestations, neither state wants to see Iran develop nukes. Make no mistake, a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran in 2010 will alter the course of events for the entire decade to come, and then some. There could be no greater collision of contentious circumstances than in this now highly likely scenario.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the
Holocaust Memorial at Auschwitz in January
The Obama administration has reiterated that a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would be unfavourable and potentially be devastating to international relations by dividing the major powers at the Security Council. For its part, the administration is correct. But as Prime Minister Netanyahu declared last week while standing on the grounds at Auschwitz, so long as he is Prime Minister, he will not allow a repeat of the Holocaust, no matter the short term consequences that result from bombing Iran. Netanyahu boldly declared, “Murderous hatred must be stopped in its tracks, stopped right from the beginning. All countries in the world must learn this lesson, just as we did after losing a third of our people in blood-soaked Europe. We learned that the only guarantee for the protection of our people is the State of Israel and its army, the IDF."
These are tremendously serious statements coming from the leader of the the Middle East's most despised nation - Israel. That Netanyahu would publicly imply his nation's preparedness in striking Iran, and as a result potentially send the staggering global economy into a tailspin on the back of skyrocketing oil prices, all dramatically and emphatically underscores the utter, abject seriousness of the situation right now between Israel, Iran and the rest of the world.
However all of this warmongering regarding a potential conflict between Israel and Iran masks what is the more likely battle set to soon emerge in the Middle East, and that is an armed conflict between Israel and her closest "neighbours", Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria. These neighbours each publicly seek the goal of eliminating the "Zionist Regime", Israel, and have shown their willingness to engage in asymmetrical warfare to do so. Is it possible they might engage Israel in battle all at the same time?
There is a serious likelihood that Iran will attempt to waylay Israel's plans for stopping the Iranian nuke, by instigating a proxy war between Israel, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - all at the same time. If Iran can successfully bog Israel down into yet another proxy battle throughout the rest of 2010, and if the United States and UN Security Council fails to take military action against Iran while an Iranian proxy war is transpiring in Israel, then Iran will buy further time to develop to their ballistic nuclear arsenal.
This prospect is more frightening than an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran. The same truck-sized Iranian nuclear bomb that Der Spiegel warned about, could potentially be introduced while Israel is fighting a four-front proxy war against Iran's proxy armies. Netanyahu knows that if the Jewish State has any chance of surviving in the future, it must stop the Iranian Bomb before the proxies tie down the Israeli military in a bloody conventional war on Israeli soil.
In essence, Israel has absolutely no good options, and thus the drums of war, always slowly thumping in the distance across Israel, can be heard banging at Israel's door. The question for the Iranian and Israeli governments is this: who will open that cursed door first?
Now over a year later, Iran has made significant progress refining its nuclear weapons program, with various intelligence leaks implicating its non-peaceful nature. By any standard, the Islamic Republic is inching closer to their pernicious goal of covertly obtaining the ultimate weapon. Given this contentious reality, Iran today appears to be very close to instigating yet another proxy war against Israel. This time the war may take on a much larger scale, all to distract global attention from Iran’s nuclear program while Iranian scientists race head-long toward obtaining The Bomb. This volatile cocktail of circumstances could soon explode, and dramatically so.
Iran's tentacles of terror are growing, operating deep inside the Syrian regime, while practically running the terror groups Hamas and Hizbullah. In recent weeks, all three of these Iranian proxies began making military preparations which suggest that Iran has ordered the instigation of another war against the Jewish State. However, while Iranian President Ahmadinejad's vitriolic provocations directed at Israel are well known, what is less well understood is why exactly the Iranian regime would provoke a 'hot' war with Israel in 2010.
An Iranian missile test, September 2009.Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah with Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Iran's recent ballistic missiles tests are obvious examples of such Iranian mischief. But the covert armament of her proxies is less-publicized. Since the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War with Israel, Hizbullah has been extensively rearmed by Iran and now possesses an estimated 42000+ new rockets - nearly three times the number that it possessed before hostilities with Israel in 2006. These same rockets were indiscriminately launched against Israel by Hizbullah throughout 2006 leading up to the war that July. Compounding the situation in northern Israel was the Israeli Navy's seizure this November of a ship loaded with weapons bound for Hizbullah and Syria, sent by Iran. The 400 tons of rockets, grenades and mortars found in that vessel only further implicated the Iranian regime in its proud and grotesque support of terror directed at Israel.
Hamas leader Khaled Mashal with Ahmadinejad
Moreover, Hamas, south of Israel in the Gaza Strip, continues to have weapons smuggled into the Strip through tunnels connected with Egypt. These subversive efforts persist despite both strategic air strikes by the Israeli Air Force to halt the smuggling, and despite efforts by the Americans and Egyptians to physically prevent the transfer of weapons through the construction of an enormous steel wall built deep into the ground between Egypt and the Strip. Hamas also continues sporadic rocket launches and missile tests, and now possesses strategic missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv. No longer is Hamas constrained with terrorizing the cities of Ashkelon and Sderot; Israel's largest and most populous city is within striking distance of Iran’s malicious and illicit arms.Syrian President Bashir al-Assad with Ahmadinejad
Syria remains the most elusive and powerful of Iran’s allies and is the best armed of Israel’s closest enemies. While ruled by the Baathist Party, power rests with President Bashir al-Assad, an Alawi Shia Muslim. Accordingly, Iran's Shia leadership has facilitated a Syrian-Iranian alliance to emerge, which in recent years has developed into an enormous strategic military partnership. On Dec. 17, Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi signed a secret military pact with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib in Damascus, with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah appending his signature later. Prior to this, in 2006 the defence ministers from Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Recent months have brought an increased war of words between Israel and Syria, with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem warning Israel this week that a future war between the two countries would be a "comprehensive" clash that would "come to your cities."With the obvious rearmament of its enemies surrounding her, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have remained defiant in the face of growing threats. However, Netanyahu certainly sees through the distractions being put on by Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria, and, while in no way ignoring those tangible threats, looks past the rumours of local war at the far greater nemesis headquartered in Tehran. The Israeli Prime Minister has made repeated gestures implying that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparing a pre-emptive, unilateral military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu's warnings to Iran cannot be overlooked; rarely has a leader struck such a historical, 'seize-the-moment' tone in international affairs. Everywhere he travels, Benjamin Netanyahu reminds his audiences of the unprecedented nuclear crossroads facing the global community. Either the major powers unite to prevent the globe's greatest state-sponsor of terrorism --the Iranian Islamic Republic-- from developing the ultimate weapon, or else tiny Israel --the very nation which is targeted by Iran's desired weapons-- will take unilateral, explosive action to change the very course of modern history. By destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in the pursuit of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel, of all nations, will do the world's dirty work. For all of Russia and China's public protestations, neither state wants to see Iran develop nukes. Make no mistake, a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran in 2010 will alter the course of events for the entire decade to come, and then some. There could be no greater collision of contentious circumstances than in this now highly likely scenario.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the
Holocaust Memorial at Auschwitz in January
The Obama administration has reiterated that a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would be unfavourable and potentially be devastating to international relations by dividing the major powers at the Security Council. For its part, the administration is correct. But as Prime Minister Netanyahu declared last week while standing on the grounds at Auschwitz, so long as he is Prime Minister, he will not allow a repeat of the Holocaust, no matter the short term consequences that result from bombing Iran. Netanyahu boldly declared, “Murderous hatred must be stopped in its tracks, stopped right from the beginning. All countries in the world must learn this lesson, just as we did after losing a third of our people in blood-soaked Europe. We learned that the only guarantee for the protection of our people is the State of Israel and its army, the IDF."These are tremendously serious statements coming from the leader of the the Middle East's most despised nation - Israel. That Netanyahu would publicly imply his nation's preparedness in striking Iran, and as a result potentially send the staggering global economy into a tailspin on the back of skyrocketing oil prices, all dramatically and emphatically underscores the utter, abject seriousness of the situation right now between Israel, Iran and the rest of the world.
However all of this warmongering regarding a potential conflict between Israel and Iran masks what is the more likely battle set to soon emerge in the Middle East, and that is an armed conflict between Israel and her closest "neighbours", Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria. These neighbours each publicly seek the goal of eliminating the "Zionist Regime", Israel, and have shown their willingness to engage in asymmetrical warfare to do so. Is it possible they might engage Israel in battle all at the same time?
There is a serious likelihood that Iran will attempt to waylay Israel's plans for stopping the Iranian nuke, by instigating a proxy war between Israel, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - all at the same time. If Iran can successfully bog Israel down into yet another proxy battle throughout the rest of 2010, and if the United States and UN Security Council fails to take military action against Iran while an Iranian proxy war is transpiring in Israel, then Iran will buy further time to develop to their ballistic nuclear arsenal.
This prospect is more frightening than an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran. The same truck-sized Iranian nuclear bomb that Der Spiegel warned about, could potentially be introduced while Israel is fighting a four-front proxy war against Iran's proxy armies. Netanyahu knows that if the Jewish State has any chance of surviving in the future, it must stop the Iranian Bomb before the proxies tie down the Israeli military in a bloody conventional war on Israeli soil.
In essence, Israel has absolutely no good options, and thus the drums of war, always slowly thumping in the distance across Israel, can be heard banging at Israel's door. The question for the Iranian and Israeli governments is this: who will open that cursed door first?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
"To whom can the State of Israel turn?" published in the Windsor Star!
My latest article was published today in the Windsor Star. This is the first time I have been published in a Canadian newspaper. I am very honoured to be published on the Windsor Star's pages!
Update: The original article is no longer hosted on the Windsor Star website, but can be read on World Assessor.com by clicking here.
Thank you to everyone for reading my work!
Update: The original article is no longer hosted on the Windsor Star website, but can be read on World Assessor.com by clicking here.
Thank you to everyone for reading my work!
Monday, November 9, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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:
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 MonthRights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast
New Battle for Iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)