a ca.reuters.com article

A nuclear-armed Iran would blunt Israel’s military autonomy, a wargame involving former Israeli generals and diplomats has concluded, though some players predicted Tehran would also exercise restraint.

Sunday’s event at a campus north of Tel Aviv followed other high-profile Iran simulations in Israel and the United States in recent months. But it broke new ground by assuming the existence of what both countries have pledged to prevent: an Iranian bomb.

“Iranian deterrence proved dizzyingly effective,” Eitan Ben-Eliahu, a retired air force commander who played the Israeli defense minister, said in his summary of the 20-team meeting at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Lauder School of Government.

Though the wargame saw Iran declaring itself a nuclear power in 2011, the ensuing confrontations were by proxy, in Lebanon.

In one, emboldened Hezbollah guerrillas fired missiles at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. That was followed by U.S. and Israeli intelligence findings that Iran had slipped radioactive materials to its Lebanese cohort, to assemble a crude device.

Neither move drew Israeli attacks, though Ben-Eliahu said his delegation had received discreet encouragement from Arab rivals of Iran to “go all the way” in retaliating.

Instead, Israel conferred with the United States, which publicly supported its ally’s “right to self-defense” and mobilized military reinforcements for the region while quietly insisting the Israelis stand down to give crisis talks a chance.

“As far as the United States was concerned, Israel was trigger-happy. It sought to use the Hezbollah (missile) attack as justification for what the United States was told would be an all-out war,” said Dan Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who flew in to play President Barack Obama at the IDC.

Kurtzer voiced satisfaction with his team’s response to the “dirty bomb,” which entailed cajoling U.N. Security Council powers into mounting an armed intervention against Hezbollah.

“Countries like China and Russia have their own terrorists, and don’t want to see them getting nuclear weapons,” he said.

“In certain circumstances, agile U.S. diplomacy can actually work in this region, and it ends up not only leaving Israel in check but it also ends up (with Washington) leading a willing international coalition.”

STRATEGIC BALANCE

Those playing Iran and Hezbollah went as far as to question the very premise that Tehran would let the Lebanese guerrillas goad Israel into a potentially catastrophic fight, or give the nuclear know-how that would worry even sympathizers like Syria.

Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, a retired Israeli intelligence chief acting as Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, insisted Iran would regard its bomb as a means of “self-defense and strategic balance” — an allusion to Israel’s own, assumed atomic arsenal.

Such assessments are seldom voiced by Israel’s rightist government, which describes a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal danger. Where Israeli officials would once make veiled threats to strike Iran, now they often try to warn the West against accommodating their foe, which denies seeking atomic weapons.

In what appeared to signal government discomfort with the wargame, a senior Israeli defense official who had been due to attend withdrew at short notice. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said a written summary would be studied at government-level.

That left Tzipi Livni, the centrist head of Israel’s opposition, as the most prominent observer of the IDC event.

“As leader of the free world, the United States has the responsibility of leading more effective sanctions that can turn around, absolutely, this shift from a process of stopping (Iran’s nuclear aims) to a process of acceptance,” she said.

While the simulation found no immediate international drive to tackle Iran, Kurtzer attributed this to passive factors such as U.S. war-fatigue. He complained of a failure to address ramifications such as a nuclear arms race among Arab powers.

Some of the participants — including those playing Israel, the Palestinians and Syria — saw an opportunity for renewed Middle East peacemaking that might head off Iran’s ascendancy.

“This was tactical, but of course tactics can often serve real strategic interests, both for us and for the Americans,” said Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, after playing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

DAMASCUS, Syria — Russia’s president said Tuesday that Israeli-Arab tensions threaten to draw the Middle East into a new catastrophe, as he added Moscow’s weight to a diplomatic push to ease antagonism between Israel and Syria.

The Russian and Syrian presidents, meeting in Damascus, also affirmed ally Iran’s right to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, as world powers press for new economic sanctions to try to stop what they say is really a drive for an atomic weapons capability.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, whose country has been building up its influence as a Middle East mediator, pledged its assistance in pushing the region toward peace.

“Tensions in the Middle East threaten to lead to a new explosion or even a catastrophe,” he said.

Last month, Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and adding to an arsenal that the Iranian-backed Shiite militants say can reach all parts of the Jewish state. Syria denied the accusation and warned such talk seemed calculated to set the stage for military action.

Before Medvedev’s visit, Peres’ office said the Russian president agreed to deliver a message to Syrian President Bashar Assad seeking to ease the tensions.

At a joint news conference with Assad, Medvedev did not mention whether he had delivered a message.

Assad, addressing the reporters, leveled more accusations against Israel over its conflict with the Palestinians.

“Expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem, attacking holy sites and besieging Palestinians in Gaza are steps and measures that could completely derail the peace process,” he said.

U.S.-mediated indirect peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians began last week after 17 months of deadlock.

Syria had also been expected to use Medvedev’s two-day visit to lobby Moscow to block new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Russia, which has veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council, has been reluctant to back a fourth round of tougher penalties.

Assad said sanctions would be “useless and would complicate chances of reaching a solution.”

Diplomacy and sanctions have so far failed to persuade Iran to stop parts of its nuclear program that could serve as a possible pathway to weapons production. Iran insists its program is only geared toward peaceful uses like energy generation, but Tehran has not fully cooperated with an investigation by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

In a joint statement issued after their talks, Assad and Medvedev called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East and urged Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and open up its nuclear facilities to the U.N. monitoring agency.

Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal, though it does not acknowledge that.

On Monday Assad met with the leaders of two other Mideast mediators, Turkey and Qatar. Turkey, which mediated four rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008, offered to try to revive those efforts.

Associated Press Writer Zeina Karam contributed to this report from Beirut.

Source: The Associated Press.

haaretz.com article

The missiles are coming
A rational country would have done the arithmetic long ago and understood that by continuing to hold on to the Golan Heights, the chances of a confrontation would simply grow.

Here’s a bit of arithmetic. Take the number of Hezbollah’s Scud missiles and Katyusha rockets and add the number of Iranian-made Zelzal rockets and Shihab-3 missiles, and divide by 7.5 million. How many missiles are there for every Israeli?

And now for geometry. Draw three circles around Tel Aviv; the first will mark the Shihab’s range, the second the Scud’s and the third the Katyusha’s. Assuming that an attack on Israel would be coordinated between Iran, Hezbollah and Syria, would you advise Hezbollah to fire only Scuds and conserve its Katyushas? Or maybe you would advise Iran to fire Shahabs and let Hezbollah conserve its Katyushas? Justify your answers based on your place of residence and the missile range.

The fear rained down on us by Military Intelligence research chief Yossi Baidatz, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (“Hezbollah has more missiles than most governments” ), Jordan’s King Abdullah (“A war could break out this summer” ) and many military analysts leaves Israel with the all-too-familiar feeling that it has no choice but to launch a preemptive attack. Suddenly it turns out that it’s not the Iranian nuclear program that poses an existential threat, but rather the various kinds of missiles. And the terrified country is already preparing public opinion and the army for the next confrontation.

Indeed, there is a balance of terror between Israel and its neighbors, whose purpose is deterrence. That’s what every rational country does when it feels threatened and can’t find a nonmilitary alternative. No doubt, Israel is threatened, but so are Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It’s enough to listen to Israel’s threats to “take Syria back to the Stone Age,” “destroy Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure” or smash Hamas to understand that the style of the Israeli threat approaches that of Iran. If anyone should be waking up in the morning in a cold sweat, it’s the Lebanese, Syrians and Gazans, not the Israelis.

Nevertheless, even though Syria has suffered military blows from Israel, it continues to act “impudently,” and Lebanon, which was pounded in war, has stepped up its threats. Operation Cast Lead in Gaza did not stop Hamas from arming itself. And in the West Bank, the occupation forces have not completely neutralized the threat.

But unlike Israel, which sees the threat but forgets the catalyst, each of its neighbors has territory under Israeli occupation, each has a legitimate national claim to get its occupied land back. Anyone looking for a nonviolent alternative can find it well-packaged and waiting to be used, but it’s merely getting wet in the rain.

“[Syrian President Bashar] Assad wants peace but doesn’t believe [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Baidatz told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. But his words were lost in the alarming description of the number of missiles in Hezbollah’s hands. Because even though we understand weapons, and we consider Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah a household name, and we assemble and dismantle centrifuges every day, we lose our way when it comes to the peace process.

Baidatz didn’t explain how it’s possible to gain Assad’s confidence, and he wasn’t asked, just as he wasn’t asked whether returning the Golan Heights to Syria under agreed conditions could neutralize the Syrian-Lebanese-Hezbollah threat. These questions are too dangerous to ask to someone from the army – he just might propose a diplomatic solution.

But it’s possible to answer for him. Peace with Syria might neutralize the military threat from that country, stop Hezbollah from arming and put Iran in a confusing situation, even if it doesn’t break off its relations with Syria. Peace with Syria and the Palestinians would also change Turkey’s position and neutralize the hostility between Israel and the other Arab countries.

In short, the military threat would lose a great deal of its punch. A rational country, even one not seeking peace – and Israel, after all, is not one – would have done the arithmetic long ago and understood that by continuing to hold on to the Golan Heights, the chances of a confrontation would simply grow. It would have understood that the threat does not lie in the circles that mark the missile range but in those territories it continues to occupy.

JPost Article
Click here to read more

Top US senator says there is a high likelihood terror group has Scuds.

Following last week’s uncertainty surrounding a reported Syrian Scud missile delivery to Hizbullah, a senior US senator said Tuesday that the guerrilla group probably possessed the weapons and that its missiles posed a real danger to Israel.

“I believe there is a likelihood that there are Scuds that Hizbullah has in Lebanon. A high likelihood,” Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, told AFP.”The rockets and missiles in Lebanon are substantially increased and better technologically than they were and this is a real point of danger for Israel.”

Feinstein stressed that the tensions in the North would only subside with a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“There’s only one thing that’s going to solve it, and that’s a two-state solution,” she said.

Hizbullah sources confirmed last week that the group had received a shipment of Scud missiles from Syria, but Damascus denied the reports, saying Israel was trying to stoke tensions in the region

Zvi Bar’el / Let’s calm down on Syria and Hezbollah
By Zvi Bar’el, Haaretz Correspondent

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has visited Syria four times, twice during the past year. Bashar Assad has visited Tehran four times since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005. If reciprocal visits by the presidents of Iran and Syria are cause for panic, let’s calm down: the balance between the two has been preserved. Hamas leader Khaled Meshal has also visited Tehran many times, most recently in December, so his meeting with Ahmadinejad last week is not unusual. If Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are planning a war against Israel, they don’t need showcase meetings. But why not panic when you can panic? Why not see every meeting as a threat?

“Winds of war” was the headline Israeli newspapers used to describe these meetings, even though the Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence assessment was that no preparations are being made for war. All we need to get that pleasant war sensation is the arrival to the region of the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, or for Hassan Nasrallah to give one of his speeches about Tel Aviv, or for a Christian Lebanese politician to charge for the 100th time that Hezbollah seeks to draw Lebanon into a war, or for Ahmadinejad to return to Damascus and for the umpteenth time say the Zionist entity will disappear. Could anything be clearer proof that we are being pushed toward war, or at least that “something is happening”?

On the face of it, each of the leaders meeting in Damascus last week has his reason for war with Israel. Israel, too, has a reason to go to war against each of them, as a group or individually. But a reason for war is insufficient for war. The fact is, Israel is not going to war against Hezbollah, and Syria is not moving its tanks into the Golan Heights. Armed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah consider the menace they pose a strategic asset – not only against Israel.
Advertisement
Hezbollah is basing its control over Lebanon on that menace, but it realizes that war may destroy its political legitimacy. Hamas, cut off from Egypt and the West Bank, cannot allow itself to suffer a Cast Lead II while it is still trying to recover from the effects of Cast Lead I. Syria can attack Israel, but the price it will have to pay is likely to be much higher than what Hamas or Hezbollah will have to pay.

Moreover, Iran is not very keen for its allies to suffer a severe blow whose political implications will echo clearly in Tehran. As far as Iran is concerned, the threat of war is preferable to actual war. The balance of terror is its most effective restraint against an Israeli attack – a view shared by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

This balance can only be overturned by a peace agreement between Syria and Israel. It will not prevent Iran from going nuclear and will not sever the ties between Syria and Iran or Hezbollah. But it will remove an essential element from this four-pronged threat.

However, it appears that we get along much better with threats than wars or real “operations.” We’re thrilled when Assad ridicules U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s demand that he distance himself from Iran; proof that the axis of evil exists and the threat is alive and kicking. But when Assad repeatedly calls for the resumption of indirect negotiations with Israel, the list of preconditions is ready: The Golan Heights will not be returned, we will not agree to Turkish mediation, and we demand the dismantling of the Syria-Iran alliance.

When the United States tries to convince us that the talks with the Palestinians may weaken Iran’s influence in the region – regardless of whether this assessment is valid – we create new areas of friction with the Palestinians. There is little left of the freeze in settlement construction, and declaring the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb national heritage sites may lead to a third intifada. The fact that Hamas has not fired Qassam rockets for more than a year is perceived as obvious, but the blockade of the Gaza Strip has continued for more than three and a half years. In Israel’s eyes this is something natural that should have no effect on the Palestinians’ positions.

Israel cannot honestly talk about external threats when it does not pose an alternative to the public. President Shimon Peres may extend his hand of peace to Syria, but the Israeli government extends its finger in a lewd gesture.

To read more, click here
Let’s calm down on Syria and Hezbollah

The Israeli foreign minister has cautioned Syria against drawing his country into another war, saying the Syrian army would be defeated and its regime would collapse in any future conflict.

Avigdor Lieberman’s comments on Thursday followed accusations from the Syrian president a day earlier that Israel is “driving the region towards war, not peace”.

The Syrians “have crossed a red line that cannot be ignored,” Lieberman said in a speech at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.

“Our message must be clear to [Syrian president Bashar al-Assad]: “In the next war, not only will you lose but you and your family will lose power.”

Lieberman’s comments prompted Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to issue a statement reassuring Syria that Israel seeks peace.

‘No preconditions’

Nir Hefetz, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said the prime minister had discussed the Syria issue with Lieberman.

“The two clarify that the policy of the government is clear: Israel seeks peace and negotiations with Syria without preconditions. Having said that, Israel will continue to act aggressively and persistently to any threat toward it,” the statement from Hefetz said.

In another statement, the prime minister’s office said Netanyahu will ask his ministers to refrain from speaking out about the Syrian issue.

Lieberman, the head of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, has stirred controversy before with statements that Israeli-Arab parliamentarians who meet Palestinian fighters should be executed and that the president of Egypt could “go to hell”.

Eitan Cabel, a member of parliament from the Labor party, urged Netanyahu to get rid of Lieberman, calling the foreign minister a “warmonger who has no honour or wisdom.”

Golan Heights

In his speech on Thursday, Lieberman also advised Syria to abandon its dreams of recovering the Israeli-held Golan Heights.

“We must make Syria recognise that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon … it will have to relinquish its ultimate demand regarding the Golan Heights,” Lieberman said.
To read more click below..
Lieberman cautions Syria

Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Wednesday that Israel is not serious about its intentions to make peace with Damascus as evidenced by “its conduct which is leading the region to war.”

The Syrian leader made those statements during a meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Damascus on Wednesday.

According to a report on Syrian state television, Moratinos told Assad that the urgent diplomatic issues of the Middle East will be at the top of the European Union’s agenda. Spain assumed the rotating presidency of the EU.
Earlier on Wednesday, Assad’s foreign minister issued a strongly-worded warning to Israel that a future war between the two countries would be a “comprehensive” clash that would “come to your cities,” CBS News reported.
To read more click..
Syrian President Bashar Assad says Israel leading the Middle East to war

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Eric Cantor.
Photo: Courtesy: United States Congress

You are coming here, you will be speaking to all the Israeli leaders. What do you think Israel should do now to move the diplomatic process forward?

The congressional delegations that will be going over the next couple of weeks are not there to dictate to Israel what to do. Israel has a democratically elected government, it understands more than any how to protect its citizens, and that should be the first goal: that we should be there in support of our democratic ally in securing its population.

We, as members of Congress, and as those of us who believe very strongly in the US-Israel relationship, those of us who believe that Israel is a vital pillar in our national security strategy, are there to try and see how we can further and enhance that relationship.

Has the assessment that Israel is a “vital pillar” in the US national security strategy been eroded over the last few months?

I think there are certainly some signs to indicate that there could be a shift in the policy, which is why we are going to Israel. Those of us in the Republican delegation, and I believe we have many counterparts on the other side of the aisle, feel very strongly that there should not be a shift in the US-Israel relationship, and that is why we are going to demonstrate our commitment to continuing to strengthen the relationship.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Is there daylight between Israel and the US on Iran? There was speculation here that one of the reasons Gates was here this week was to rein Israel in on Iran. Are we on the same page, or are there big differences?

I’m hopeful we are on the same page. I know the vice president has made some comments that have indicated that he feels we should not dictate to Israel what it should do.

I definitely support that statement that it is not US policy to dictate to our democratic ally what it can and cannot do to defend itself, especially against an existential threat being posed by a country in the region. So I’m continuing to work with my colleagues on the Hill to make sure that we do not have any daylight between our two countries.

Can you envision any scenario where the US would take military action against Iran?

That is something that the administration is continuing to weigh. I’ve always been a proponent of making it clear that all options remain on the table. It is very important for us to make sure that is the case, especially as this administration has adopted a policy of engagement with Teheran.

Regarding Syria. What do you think of Washington’s policy of engagements there?

I clearly think that what we must keep our eyes focused on with Syria is that when moves are made in the hopes of trying to facilitate discussions between Syria and Israel, there is a clear understanding of what the expectations are, and that we are at least sensing that we are getting something in return. If we are going to allow for export of technology, if we are going to provide the regime in Syria with some confidence politically, we have to make sure that we are getting something – and that Damascus is giving up something – in return. The status quo is not acceptable as far as Syria is concerned.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

Has Israel made any effort of outreach to you or any other Republicans?

The new ambassador has visited me over the last week. He is obviously new here in Washington and in that capacity is making the rounds on both sides of the aisle.

Is there any link between Obama’s domestic difficulties, the difficulties getting support for his health care plan for example, and what seems to be here a bit of a softening in recent days of the tone toward Israel?

I think, looking form outside into the administration, there is always an awareness of the deep-rooted support for Israel that is present in the US population. I think there have been many of us who have been outspoken about reported pressure being focused on the Netanyahu administration and the Israeli government. So I would have to think that would factor in at some point into the administration’s tone and demeanor in its discussions with Israel.

Much has been made here about the J Street phenomenon, and how Obama has seemed to enlist that organization and say, “Look these are also voices in the Jewish community; it is not a monolithic community; they present an opinion, and that is one that I reflect.”

J Street is clearly outside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. Absolutely. Equally, there is not a monolithic position in any community, much less the American Jewish community, but I would definitely say that J Street is outside the mainstream of the America Jewish community in terms of its positions.

Then why is its profile so high?

I think obviously there are a lot of folks involved with J Street who are very supportive of the White House.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’