Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria
3 September London Times - Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria by Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter.
Quote:
Threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.
The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say.
“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.
The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.
“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.”
A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. “It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hezbollah’s,” a military source said
There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria, which the Iranian defence minister described as a “mutual front against Israeli threats”. Israel has not had to fight against more than one army since 1973...
Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off
25 September Reuters - Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off by Dan Williams.
Quote:
In October 1973, with its forces battling to repel invasions by Egypt and Syria, Israel did what had previously been unthinkable: It briefly wheeled its nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles out of their secret silos.
That, historians believe, was picked up by U.S. spy satellites and stirred up fears in Washington of a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs. Message received, an urgent American shipment of conventional arms to Israel was quick to follow, and helped turn the war.
With Israel's current arch-foe Iran seen gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a few years, and preventive military options limited, some experts now anticipate another "lifting of the veil" on the assumed Israeli atomic arsenal.
Were that to happen, experts say, the objective would be to establish a more open military deterrence vis-a-vis Iran and perhaps win Israel's nuclear option formal legitimacy abroad...
U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft
27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.
Quote:
In another indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran, a Pentagon unit has drafted a report charging that U.S. international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime.
The report, a draft of which McClatchy News Service obtained this week, appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.
McClatchy obtained a copy of the report this week, and it also has circulated on Capitol Hill. It accuses the Voice of America's Persian TV service and Radio Farda, a U.S. government Farsi-language broadcast, of taking a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and not giving adequate time to government critics.
U.S. broadcasting officials and others who have read the report said it's riddled with errors.
They also see it as a thinly veiled attack on the independence of U.S. international broadcasting, which by law is supposed to represent a balanced view of the United States and provide objective news. ''The author of this report is as qualified to write a report on programming to Iran as I would be to write a report covering the operations of the 101st Airborne Division,'' Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said in a statement on Tuesday.
Larry Hart, a spokesman for the board, which oversees U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, said that the radio and TV operations have covered Iran's human rights abuses extensively and have featured appearances by dissidents -- who sometimes telephoned from Iranian jails.
Surveys have shown that Radio Farda is the most-listened-to international radio broadcast into Iran, Hart said...
Israel/Hizbollah/Lebanon: Avoiding Renewed Conflict
ICG, 1 Nov 06: Israel/Hizbollah/Lebanon: Avoiding Renewed Conflict
Quote:
UN Security Council Resolution 1701 halted the monthlong fighting between Israel and Hizbollah but did little to resolve the underlying conflict and, if poorly handled, could help reignite it. The resolution has held remarkably well, with only limited violations. However, the temptation by either party to overreach could trigger renewed fighting. The greatest threats would be attempts by Israel or UN forces (UNIFIL) to use 1701 as a blunt means of disarming Hizbollah in the south or by Hizbollah to test UNIFIL’s resolve. 1701 should be seen as a transitory instrument that can stabilise the border by containing both sides’ military impulses until bolder action is taken to address both domestic Lebanese matters (reforming and democratising the political and electoral systems; building a strong sovereign state and army; resolving the question of Hizbollah’s armaments) and, especially, regional issues (in particular re-launching the Syrian track and engaging Iran). In short the international community must be modest in implementing 1701 for as long as it is not prepared to be ambitious in its regional diplomatic efforts...
Israel Warns of Pre-emptive Strike Against Iran
10 November Voice of America - Senior Israeli Official Warns of Possible Pre-emptive Strike Against Iran by Robert Berger. Reposted here in full per USG guidelines.
Quote:
A senior Israeli official has suggested that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel wants tougher international action to stop Iran before it is too late.
Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh says Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In a newspaper interview, Sneh said he is not advocating a pre-emptive strike and sees it as a last resort. But sometimes, he said, "the last resort is the only resort."
It was the clearest threat yet by a senior official, and underscores Israel's growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. A year ago, the Iranian president threatened to "wipe the Jewish state off the map," and since then Israel has warned repeatedly that it cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb.
Miri Eisen is spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
"The Iranian issue is a core issue," she said. "The prime minister has defined it as an existential threat. This is a potential threat to the destruction of the state of Israel. This is an impossible situation."
Analysts here say Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike, because it believes the international community is moving too slowly to stop Iran. Europe has opted for negotiations and Russia and China oppose U.N. sanctions. And now, Israel fears that President Bush has been weakened by the Republican defeat in the U.S. elections.
"The president's ability to do anything military in terms of Iran has been somewhat diminished as a result of the Democratic victory, because the Democrats will be much more vigilant that the president does not do anything unilateral," said Israeli analyst Alon Pinkas.
Iran will top the agenda when Mr. Olmert meets with President Bush at the White House on Monday.
Engaging in Petrol diplomacy
This goes against many regional animosities, but I wonder how many Middle Eastern Governments really think Persian, Shiite Tehran having their finger on a nuclear button really benefits them? To accept Tehran's good will what will it cost them? How many think Tehran being the big man on campus is a good idea?
Israel is at least a known quantity. They are also subject to international opinion, financial ties, and generally have an understanding with their block after the last 40 years. They may not be the perfect neighbors, but they're not trying to convert the rest of the neighborhood either.
Since the problem with worthwhile sanctions seems to be China and Russia who both are more concerned with sealing good deals on short and long term energy needs vs. concerning themselves with enhancing the regional position of a radical Shiite Islamic state that has given birth to some leadership that seem to have the manifest destiny aspirations of Darius, perhaps the people we should be engaging on this are the petrol producing Arab states and the border states around Iran.
Iran alone cannot meet China's and Russia's energy needs for the long term. The Arab petrol producers need to consider how an Iran with regional primacy will affect them. Unless they wish to play to the tune of Tehran, they should act in their own best interests and assist in limiting Tehran's influence to something more manageable. A nuclear ICBM equipped Tehran is not manageable. If they threaten a reduction in exports to those states on the basis of protecting their security needs, Russia and China may reconsider their relationship with Iran as its Security Council pair of aces.
Unless something is done to thaw the progress on sanctions and help Iran see that they have to pursue other instruments of regional power such as economics, etc., Israel will act as we know they will. No one should feign surprise when it happens, and we should all have a plan that considers the fall out (no evil pun intended)