The Israeli Air Force’s Achilles’ heel - by Caroline Glick

...Israel’s strategic environment is rapidly changing. Technological, military and political developments in the region and worldwide must wake our leaders – including IAF commanders – to the fact that Israel cannot afford to maintain, let alone expand, its strategic dependence on the US.

Caroline Glick..
Column One/JPost..
11 February '16..

This week Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told government ministers that he may wait for the next US president before signing a new military assistance deal with America. Israel’s current military assistance package is set to expire in 2018 and the new package is supposed to include supplemental aid to compensate Israel for President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. But to date, the administration has rejected Israel’s requests for additional systems it could use to defend against Iran attacks.

Last October, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon asked US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to provide Israel with a new squadron of F-15s that Israel would outfit with its own electronics systems. Carter reportedly rejected that request as well as one for bunker buster bombs.

Carter instead insisted that Israel use the supplemental aid to purchase more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, US-made missile defense systems, and the Osprey V-22 helicopter, which Ya’alon didn’t want.

The fact that the administration wants Israel to buy more F-35s instead of F-15s is alarming both for what it tells us about America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge against Iran and for what it tells us about the F-35, which is set to become the IAF’s next generation combat fighter.

Before considering these issues, it is worth pointing out that the US is not the ally it once was.

This week Britain’s International Institute for Strategic Studies published a report warning that the West’s decades-long military technological superiority over Russia, China and other countries is eroding. The erosion of the West’s military technological advantage over the likes of China and Russia is deeply problematic for Israel. Given the IAF’s complete dependence on US defensive and offensive systems, absent other factors, Israel is imperiled simply by keeping its eggs in America’s basket.

But there are other factors that make continued dependence on the US problematic in the extreme. The erosion of the US’s military technological superiority is matched by its growing weakness internationally. This weakness is most glaring today in Syria.

Last November, Russia deployed an S-400 anti-aircraft system in Latakia. The system is capable of downing jets from a distance of 400 km. Half of Israel, including Ben-Gurion Airport, is within its range. Last December, a member of the IDF General Staff ruminated that never in their worst nightmares did Israeli military planners imagine that the S-400 would be deployed so close to us.

The S-400 ended Israel’s regional air superiority.

It also ended US air superiority.

In late December, Bloomberg reported that right after the Russians deployed the S-400, they began targeting with radar US planes providing air support to rebel forces in Syria.

US officials called Russia’s actions “a direct and dangerous provocation.”

Rather than respond forcefully to Russia’s aggressive move, the US ended all manned flights in the area. It stopped providing air support to rebel forces. There is a direct connection between the US’s docile acceptance of its loss of air superiority in December and the brutal Russian supported assault on Aleppo today.

This week, ambassador Dennis Ross and New York Times military correspondent David Sanger, who are both generally supportive of the Obama administration, published articles excoriating Obama’s policies in Syria.

Ross and Sanger both wrote that Obama was critically mistaken when he said that Russia’s deployment to Syria would not have any significant impact on the region, and that Russia would rue the day it decided to get directly involved.

Sanger noted that the administration’s constant refrain that “there is no military solution” to the war in Syria was wrong.

There is a military solution, it’s “just not our military solution,” a senior US security official admitted to Sanger. It’s Russian President Vladimir Putin’s solution.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Ross explained that in deploying his forces to Syria, “Putin aims to demonstrate that Russia, and not America, is the main power broker in the region and increasingly elsewhere.”

In other words, Putin’s involvement in Syria is simply a means to achieve his larger goal of replacing the US as the leading superpower.

This turn of events is dangerous for Israel, not least because the first parties Russia turned to in its anti-American gambit are Israel’s worst enemies – Iran and Hezbollah, along with the Assad regime. By acting in concert, and limiting their operations – as the Iranians have done as well in Iraq – to attacking forces backed by the US, while leaving Islamic State unharmed, the Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah and Bashar Assad make clear that their alliance is first and foremost geared toward reducing US power in the region.

Rather than act on this direct challenge to the US, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to talk emptily about peace conferences and cease-fires. In so doing their further destroy US credibility as an ally. As America’s primary ally and client in the region, Israel is imperiled by this behavior because it serves to hollow out its capacity to deter its enemies from attacking.

This then brings us to the F-35s and to the IAF’s procurement policies more generally.

Abbreviations for political ineptitude in the Middle East - UN, EU, US

...The US, UN and EU persistently ignore the fact that the Palestinian Arab leadership has repeatedly demonstrated its utter disregard for already ratified agreements. They also consistently ignore the fact that every single case of US training of Arab troops has failed abysmally to staunch the swift and ruthless spread of Islamist fanaticism.

Ilya Meyer..
Times of Israel..
12 June '14..





Yesterday, the fanatical Islamist terror group ISIS – the Islamic State in Syria also known as ISIL or the Islamic State in the Levant – overthrew large parts of the US-trained Iraqi army.

Back in 2007, the speed with which Hamas overran Fatah strongholds and executed PA officials took the world community by surprise.

Yesterday, the speed with which ISIS/ISIL overran Iraqi army strongholds and executed army officers took the world community by surprise.

Fast forward to the always contentious relationship between the sovereign Jewish state of Israel and the anti-Semitic, genocidal regime of Mahmud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority. Here too the US administration, strongly urged on by the UN and the EU and comprehensively financed by the world community, is training PA troops to “maintain security” following an eventual agreement with Israel.

The question of course is just how fast these US-trained troops too will fold in the face of an even more extremist, racist and genocidal regime than that of the new PA + Hamas unity government, which the US fully supports, as do the UN and the EU.

No less an intellectual powerhouse than Albert Einstein once pithily noted that The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

When Israel Finds Itself in the American Bazaar

...American "security guarantees," presume a) future conflict, and b) a steadfast American ally. Only the first is a sure bet; you have to go as far back as the cease-fire of the Korean War to find American security guarantees that have stood the test of time.

Shoshana Bryen..
American Thinker..
06 December '13..




Last week, in the context of the P5+1/Iran negotiations I wrote:

We're familiar with the rules for buying a rug in the souk. If you want the rug more than he wants the deal, you will overpay; if he wants the deal more than you want the rug, you win. But either way, money and rug will change hands. Alternatively, if you want to buy a rug and he wants to sell a camel, no matter how ardently you bargain there will be no deal. Unless you change your mind and take the camel.

The P5+1 was negotiating an end to Iran's nuclear program; Iran was negotiating the conditions under which it would continue to enrich uranium. Then the White House changed sides, agreeing with Iran on future enrichment and undermining the now P4+1.

Similarly, since Israel declared its independence in 1948, the U.S. has partnered with it to convince the regional neighbors to provide it sovereign legitimacy and the "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of war" that are the promise of UN Resolution 242. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are negotiating the establishment of an independent state without the "end of conflict, end of claims" that would be a convincing, authoritative expression of peaceful intent and adherence to Res. 242. The White House has jumped to the Palestinian side, ready to go with Palestinian independence while "Palestine" remains in a functional state of war with Israel.

This is the upshot of the plan Secretary of State Kerry and Gen. John Allen are bringing to Jerusalem. Gen. Allen has been working to meet what Israel calls its security bottom lines: military forces along the Jordan River for an extended period; an Israeli presence at the Jordan River border crossing; continued Israeli control of the air space over the West Bank; the stationing of Israeli early-warning stations at strategic points in the West Bank; and more.

These arrangements will be combined with "American security guarantees for Israel and proposed American military aid to the IDF," according to an anonymous source.

The first problem is the implicit admission by the U.S. that the "peace process" to which the administration is wedded clearly does not envision "peace," but rather an armed truce, as its best possible outcome. And a truce, like Iran's agreement to "suspend" uranium enrichment, or Ho Chi Minh's acceptance of South Vietnamese independence, is only good as long as the most aggressive party chooses to have it continue. Real peace emerges from a resolution of outstanding and competing claims. The American offer to increase the garrison for Israel presumes no resolution of competing claims, no friendlier -- and maybe less friendly -- relations with the Palestinians when they have an independent military and foreign policy.

Will Gen. Allen security plan project undermine Israel position?

...There is no telling what attempts will be made by the international community in general and the United States in particular to impose arrangements on the ground should the talks fail. General Allen’s security plan could very well serve as a critical reference for these arrangements. It isn’t going to be easy. It’s a very delicate matter as it involves interaction between American and Israeli security people. But in the absence of effective guidance, supervision and oversight, the outcome of General Allen’s project could very well be dangerously damaging to Israel’s interest and needs.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
06 December '13..




Archive Date: 8 August 2013 - distributed on 6 December 2013 a second time after US plan presented

There is a very good possibility that US Gen. John Allen, working together with top Israeli security people, will succeed in preparing a security plan, vetted by the Israeli security technicians, that can seriously undermine Israel’s negotiating position.

A reminder: Back in 2000 Israel's Senior Negotiator With Syria, Major General (Res.) Uri Saguy , who had served in the past as head of Military Intelligence, took the position that “peace will not eliminate the strategic threats to Israel, but will prevent their materialization”. Saguy believed that since Assad’s goal was to recover the Golan that once he had that Syria would not attack Israel. That belief served as the basis for his support for grossly unworkable security arrangements in the North as part of a plan to leave the Golan.

Saguy is in very good company. Most of the top people in Israel’s various security and defense systems share a similar ideologically driven optimism regarding the efficacy of “land for piece of paper”.

Time and again over the last two decades the embarrassingly naïve analysis of Israel’s security people led them to advocate reckless plans and arrangements – with many of those actually implemented literally blowing up in our faces.

Back to the present.

The key condition that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has set for the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state is that there are viable and effective security arrangements on the ground that do not rely on a third party.

Mr. Netanyahu’s condition might be termed an “if pigs can fly” requirement, given the fundamental inescapable fact that once a sovereign independent Palestinian is established that it retains that status even if it utterly and completely ignores – or even openly violates – the terms of the peace agreement that served as the platform for the creation of that sovereign independent state.

But while the above may very well be the driving perspective of Prime Minister Netanyahu, this most certainly is not the outlook of the people meeting with Gen. John Allen.

A “key target” for US intelligence? Israel

...The obsessive interest in Israel surely can’t be about the ‘peace process’. I mean, really, how important or potentially dangerous is this when compared to the aggressive spread of radical regimes in the Muslim world, the possible implosion of Egypt, or a Syrian civil war that has so far taken about 100,000 lives including children killed by Sarin gas?

Antenna of the US AN/TPY-2 X-band
radar system set up in the Negev.
It is ostensibly there to monitor Iranian
missile launches, but it can also see a small
aircraft taking off from anywhere in
Israel. Only American personnel are
allowed anywhere near it.

Fresnozionism.org..
30 August '13..

The Washington Post has a document that it says it obtained from Edward Snowden which it calls the ‘black budget’ of the various US intelligence services. It has published only a small part of the material “after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods.”

The Post notes the growth of the CIA budget to almost $15 billion in 2013, which I have to admit is a remarkable number, comparable to the GDP of Jamaica or Mozambique, and 50% more than that of the NSA — which, after all, has to read our email and listen to our phone calls. The total for all the intelligence agencies is $52.6 billion, close to the GDP of Croatia.

But naturally, the first thing I did was search for ‘Israel’ and here is what I found on pages 4-5:

Investments

Although the budget is declining, the mission is not. Prioritizing our requirements was a key element to produce a budget that meets customer needs, supports critical capabilities, addresses gaps, and helps to maintain a strategic advantage. In the FY 2013 NIP [National Intelligence Program] budget, the IC [Intelligence Community] makes targeted investments in:

…

o Counterintelligence (CI). To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community. In addition, we are investing in target surveillance and offensive CI against key targets, such as China, Russia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and Cuba. [my emphasis]

Wait, what?

We are making “targeted investments” (read: spending more money) in spying on these ‘targets’ and attempting to prevent them from spying on us — and Israel is a “key target” in the company of China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba!

Time to think about how to end the current patron-client relationship

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
08 March '13..

Shared values and democratic systems count for a lot in the political world -- and they can advance military cooperation -- but national security interests can evolve without them. No one would mistake Saudi Arabia or Bahrain for a country that shares American values, yet the U.S. Central Command works closely and cooperatively with both.

Israel shares American values in many ways, but a shared security outlook is something else, hinging on threat perceptions that may no longer be coincident.

Vice President Biden took to the stage at AIPAC this week to promote U.S.-Israel security relations. His emphasis on American support for Israel's missile defense program is the coin of the realm – first because it is true and second because Israel's enemies have missiles.

But security relations have undergone a subtle, negative change in the past four years.

The Obama administration has been willing to be Israel's protector, patron to a client, or parent to a child. This patronizing attitude is reflected in the President's assertion that Israel's democratically elected leaders "don't know what's in their own best interest" and Vice President Biden's comment that President Obama wants to hear from "regular Israelis" on his upcoming trip, suggesting that what he hears from Prime Minister Netanyahu would be disputed by Israel's citizenry. The administration is less willing to be Israel's partner in addressing common threats, including terrorism and the rise of radical Islam. And there has been a limit to consultation and cooperation on Iran. On occasion, the U.S. adds to Israel's problems by allowing Israel to bear the brunt of the world's disapprobation at the UN.

Caroline Glick on the limits of American power

...And consequently, if Romney defeats Obama on November 6, it is likely that on January 21, 2013, the US will adopt a different policy towards Iran. The question for Israel now is whether any of this matters. If Romney is elected and adopts a new policy towards Iran, what if any operational significance will this policy shift have for Israel? The short answer is very little.

Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
26 October '12..

Monday's US presidential debate on foreign policy came and went. And we are none the wiser for it.

Not surprisingly, at the height of the campaign season, neither US President Barack Obama nor his Republican challenger Gov. Mitt Romney was interested in revealing his plans for the next four years.

But from what was said, we can be fairly certain that a second Obama term will involve no departure from his foreign policy in his current term in office.

As far as Iran and its nuclear weapons program is concerned, that policy has involved a combination of occasional tough talk and a relentless attempt to appease the mullahs. While Obama denied The New York Times report from last weekend that he has agreed to carry out new bilateral negotiations with Iran after the US presidential elections, his administration has acknowledged that it would be happy to have such talks if they can be arranged.

As for Romney, his statements of support for tougher sanctions, including moving to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the crime of incitement of genocide were certainly welcome.

But they were also rather out of date, given the lateness of the hour.

If there was ever much to recommend it, the "sanction Iran into abandoning its nuclear weapons" policy is no longer a relevant option. The timetables are too short.

On the other hand, Romney's identification of Iran as the gravest national security threat facing the US made clear that he understands the severity of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program.

And consequently, if Romney defeats Obama on November 6, it is likely that on January 21, 2013, the US will adopt a different policy towards Iran.

The question for Israel now is whether any of this matters. If Romney is elected and adopts a new policy towards Iran, what if any operational significance will this policy shift have for Israel?

The short answer is very little.

To understand why this is the case we need to consider two issues: The time it would take for a new US policy to be implemented; and the time Iran requires to become a nuclear power.

The You-Tube Video as Dress Rehearsal

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
03 October '12..

The Obama administration's handling of the organized assaults on American Embassies and personnel on September 11, 2012 – and later the other organized protests across the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan – is a window into its possible reaction should Israel conclude that the cost of facing a nuclear-armed Iran outweighs the cost of a military strike against Iranian facilities.

It was a "dress rehearsal," so to speak, and frightening at many levels – not least of which is that there appears to be no understanding in the White House that there are those who need the United States as their enemy. President Obama said "the tide of war is receding," but our withdrawal from Iraq and impending withdrawal from Afghanistan are understood by Iran, the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and various Salafist groups as unilateral retreats in the fact of their continuing expansion. This is not only true of Islamic organizations and governments; Vladimir Putin threw out USAID last week, undoing yet another part of the administration's "reset" with Russia, and Hugo Chavez keeps "U.S. imperialism" on his teleprompter for every occasion.

The administration pedaled as hard and fast as it could from association with the junky YouTube that it claimed set off the massive demonstrations across the Muslim world.

- "Let me state very clearly and I hope it is obvious that the United States government had nothing to do with this video," Secretary Clinton said. "To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."

- In case she wasn't clear, she added, "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

- President Obama weighed in. "The United States has been a nation that respects all faiths… We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

- A "hateful video" triggered a "spontaneous protest … outside of our consulate in Benghazi," said Amb. Susan Rice. Rice and Jay Carney insisted that neither U.S. policy nor President Obama was the focus of the outburst.

- The FBI rousted an American citizen in the middle of the night and took from his home for "questioning," about a "parole violation," walking him right by a line of journalists camped outside.

- The administration asked YouTube to consider whether the clip "violates the terms of use" so it could be removed.

- The administration spent more than $70,000 to run ads in Pakistan denouncing the video and disclaiming responsibility.

There couldn't have been a stronger and more concerted effort to ask people not to blame President Obama & Company – time, money and relegation of the First (and maybe the Fifth) Amendment to an afterthought.

Can Israel Rely on US Intelligence?

Shoshana Bryen..
American Thinker..
09 September '12..

Jerusalem and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees disappeared from the Democratic Party platform; language that characterized Hamas as unacceptable to the United States -- not only to Israel -- disappeared. Jerusalem is back. But the crucial part of the Democratic Party Platform for Israel is related only tangentially to Israel. It is about Iran:

(The) window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options -- including military force -- remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime...

The crucial questions are:

 - How much time and how much space exist before the window slams on our fingers?

 - What is the U.S. track record on recognizing, assessing and timing an emerging threat?

 - What is the consequence to us and to others if we miss?

The answers are not comforting. There were important intelligence misses -- Pearl Harbor, the 9-11 attack, Saddam's WMD, the outbreak of the Korean War, the third stage of North Korea's rocket capability, and the Russian atomic bomb among them. We knew about India's nuclear program, yet were surprised by the 1998 Indian nuclear weapons test, followed by a surprise Pakistani test emerging from a program we had been watching.

In The Washington Post, intelligence officials said of Syria's nonconventional capabilities:

"We think we know everything, but we felt the same way about Libya. We had been on the ground in Libya, yet there were big surprises, both in terms of quantities and locations." The Post continues, "The stockpile appears to be larger and more widely distributed than originally suspected, according to two officials who have seen the intelligence reports."[1]

This is the central issue between the United States and Israel. They agree on what Iran is doing, they agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons poses an intolerable threat to Israel, the region and the world. And Israel may indeed be grateful that the President has announced himself a staunch defender of Israel. But even if Israel was willing to permit the President to assume responsibility for its security as he insists he will not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon -- and Israel is anything but willing to cede sovereign responsibility for the security of its citizens -- America's history makes it clear that we could fail as well as succeed.

US-Israel Strategic Cooperation - The End?

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
06 September '12..



"I don't want to be complicit if they (Israelis) choose to do it (attack Iran's nuclear program)," said Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey.

News flash, General Dempsey: You are complicit in the way that counts; you are trapped: the Iranian leadership does not care what we say -- or what we do -- about our military relations with Israel. The Iranian leadership needs the U.S. as its adversary and will not allow you deniability. If there is a strike on Iran, they will need for it to have been the U.S. – will need, General Dempsey, for it to have been you.

It is unlikely, General, that you spoke on your own hook as you are still wearing your stars. The last General who spoke to journalists out of turn and out of the country was Stanley McChrystal – and he lasted only as long as it took to arrive in the Oval Office. Your Commander in Chief appears to have used you to hammer another nail in the coffin of a relationship that had, until he got here, been remarkably productive for more than 30 years.

Since the Reagan administration, US-Israel military relations have generally been buffered from US-Israel political relations. They were not always smooth, but the military establishments were largely left to determine their interests together and separately. The late Caspar Weinberger was not enamored of Israel (certainly he was not enamored of the late Prime Minister Begin nor of the 1982 war in Lebanon), but the designation and early growth of "US-Israel Strategic Cooperation," and the designation of Israel for Major Non-NATO Ally status came in those years.[1] The Sixth Fleet came to Israel and the Haifa USO was built then to handle the enthusiastic crowds of American sailors and Marines.

Israel had the first wartime operational drones in 1982. The war that Weinberger opposed was a catalyst for U.S. thinking about remotely piloted vehicles. I took a small group of retired American military officers (including the former head of DIA, the former commander of US Air Forces Europe and the former commander of NATO's Southern Command) to Israel in September 1982 so they could put their hands on the drones that emerged from an Israeli model-airplane-flying club. The officers compared it to the US Army's then-unsuccessful drone program and the rest is history. U.S. conceived and built drones carry the weight of the Afghan war, but they also carry the history of 1982.

The Question - Do we ‘have Israel’s back’?

Fresnozionism.org..
02 September '12..

There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back. — Barack Obama, March 4, 2012

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is the top military adviser to the President (although he is not directly part of the chain of command). Last week in London he said,

[An Israeli attack would] clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme … I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.

One wonders what complicity would consist of. Using American forces to assist Israel in an attack? Striking back at Iran? Providing weapons or aircraft? Providing intelligence information? Even resupplying Israeli forces with ammunition or spare parts in the event of a protracted war? Dempsey didn’t say, but the message implicit in the statement is “if you start it, you will be on your own,” which is hardly consistent with the President’s remark about having Israel’s back.

Does this represent administration thinking? This weekend the White House had the opportunity to walk back Dempsey’s remark, but the best spokesman Jay Carney could do was this:

Israel and Uncle Sam's intentional ambiguity

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
02 September '12..

U.S. commitments to the security of Israel should enhance, not constrain, Israel’s independence of action. U.S. commitments to the security of Israel should upgrade Israel’s role as a national security producer for the U.S. — a major strategic ally. They should not relegate Israel to a national security-consumer — a client state.

Allowing U.S. security commitments to supersede Israel’s independence of action could subject Israel to a lethal cost, as experienced in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then Prime Minister Golda Meir was overly concerned about the White House attitude toward Israel. She refrained from pre-empting the Egypt-Syria military assault, thus afflicting Israel with near destruction, a trauma that still haunts the Jewish state.

Preferring U.S. security commitments over Israel’s independence of action would deny the U.S. major strategic benefits such as the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Israel’s defiant unilateral action relieved Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other pro-U.S. Persian Gulf States of Saddam's deadly threat. It spared the U.S. a nuclear confrontation with Iraq in 1991.

Subordinating Israel’s independence of action to U.S. security commitments would ignore recent lessons; would disregard the inherent limitations to U.S. security commitments; and could lead to an erosion of Israeli sovereignty and posture of deterrence and to Israel's eventual destruction.

For example, in 1954, the U.S. and Taiwan signed a mutual defense pact, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate. However, on Dec. 15, 1978, President Jimmy Carter announced that the treaty would be terminated unilaterally by the U.S. on Jan. 1, 1980. Carter was not challenged by the Senate. In 1973, the U.S. signed the Paris Peace Accord with South Vietnam and North Vietnam. However, in 1975, the U.S. refused to assist the collapsing South Vietnamese, thus dooming South Vietnam to oblivion.

From Israel - Where to Begin

Arlene Kushner..
21 August '12..

And the corollary to this is, "What to Include?" This part of the world is so turmoiled that it is impossible to write intelligently about more than a small portion of what is occurring.

But I would like to begin by turning back for just a moment to what I wrote about last with regard to nuances in the Egyptian situation.

I was not saying things were good in Egypt. Most certainly not. Matters are pretty grim. Nor was I claiming that it was a certainty that the military would at some point wrest control of the situation again. And I certainly was not saying that the pullback of the military represents some victory for "democracy" or civilian rule. The Brotherhood is the worst of possible alternatives and I not delude myself about the intentions of this group.

What I was saying, and will continue to say, is that I have information that the military is not finished, at least as of now.

My source, who is savvy, enormously well-connected and speaks Arabic, is telling me -- and I've double-checked with him and discovered similar thinking in opinion pieces in the Egyptian English press -- that at this moment the military still retains power but made a conscious decision not to wield it when Morsi flexed his muscles.

The army had slipped up and was actually looking pretty bad: Because their guard was down, terrorists in the Sinai were able to kill 16 soldiers and wound others. A military decision was then made, I'm being told, to assume a low profile and allow Morsi to struggle with a near impossible situation that may ultimately -- that they are hoping will! -- confound him. One Egyptian press opinion piece I read said that the military was regrouping, consolidating its strength.

What will follow from this point is not a sure thing. Is there truly a possibility of the military reasserting itself? Or will Morsi, from his current position, in time be able to undo it with finality? Tantawi's replacement, al-Sisi, is not Brotherhood but might he be replaced in time by someone who is? Factoring in nuances makes predictions more difficult.

~~~~~~~~~~

This situation perhaps reflects the condition of most of the Middle East, where nuances and complexities abound. It's probably wise to mistrust glib predictions and certainties. For example, some commentators, over-estimating the strength of rebels, were certain that Assad would be finished months ago.

About Iran, Beware of Conventional Wisdom.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
19 August '12..

As Israelis and their government continue to debate the merits of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the contempt for American foreign policy realists for the idea the Jewish state might decide to act in its own defense is considerable. Contempt for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be the primary motivation for the latest missive for James Traub, one of the realists leading writers, that appeared in Foreign Policy on Friday. Rather the focus on the “zone of immunity” that many Israelis and others worried about the nuclear threat believe Iran may be entering as its stockpiles get larger and are stored in invulnerable bunkers, Traub is more interested in what he calls, as the title of the piece puts it, the “zone of insanity.” As for as he is concerned Netanyahu and Barak are nuts to even think about acting without the permission of the United States.

But the answer to Traub’s points comes in his own column. Even the Obama administration now understands diplomacy and sanctions have failed. The only possible diplomatic solution is to agree to a compromise lauded by Traub that would leave Iran’s nuclear project intact. Under these circumstances, it is fair to ask who’s insane: The foreign policy realists who have been wrong about just about everything about the Middle East for decades and who now expect Israel to wait patiently for Iran to go nuclear or Netanyahu, who understands all too well that the Israel-hating ayatollahs mean what they say about eliminating Israel. If these purveyors of conventional wisdom are now counseling further inaction or more feckless diplomacy, that’s good reason for Israelis to think hard and long about attacking Iran soon.

Will America act against Iran? Prior precedent?

Dore Gold..
Israel Hayom..
17 August '12..

In the internal debate in Israel over the subject of Iran, it is generally assumed by many that at the end of the day the U.S. will destroy the nuclear infrastructure of Iran when it becomes clear that sanctions and negotiations have failed. But is that a reliable assumption? True, President Barack Obama made clear last March during his address at AIPAC that he would use "all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon." However, with the exception of the 2003 Iraq War, which was launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the historical precedents indicate that the U.S. has not used military force in the past to stop rogue states from developing nuclear weapons.

Writing in Haaretz on August 8, Israel's former ambassador to the U.S., Salai Meridor, warns that it cannot be assumed that Washington will act in the Iranian case as well. He correctly noted that in the past, the U.S. in fact condemned the 1981 attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor and it refused to take military action against the Syrian nuclear program. He doesn't completely rule out the possibility that the U.S. will act, but he points out that it is not at all certain, for when past administrations were faced with making a decision and the moment of truth was reached, they chose to accept the nuclearization of rogue states over starting a war.

The case of North Korea stands out as an instance in which the U.S. would not take action against a dangerous rogue state that was developing a nuclear weapons capability. In March 1994, North Korea blocked inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from inspecting its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. By June, it appeared that the North Koreans were about to take the spent fuel rods from the reactor and extract enough weapons-grade plutonium for five or six bombs.

The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on North Korea. President Clinton wrote in his memoirs that he was determined to stop North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, "even at the risk of war." The Pentagon planned to destroy the Yongbyon reactor, but ultimately pulled back from its threats. Just like today, high-level U.S. officials said that all options are on the table — but that was as far as they went. Negotiations were launched with North Korea that led to the signing of the "Agreed Framework," which the North Koreans violated within a few years. It would become clear that Washington had not pushed hard enough.

The weakness of the "Agreed Framework" was revealed in December 2002, when North Korea removed the IAEA seals from the containers with the spent fuel rods and began to produce plutonium from them. In the months that followed, the Bush administration took no firm action. North Korea then expelled the IAEA inspectors and announced early 2003 it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Four years later on Oct. 8, 2006, the North Koreans conducted their first underground test of an atomic bomb.

A Warning Perhaps Worth Taking Heed Of

Warning from Henry Kissinger: US has incentive to minimize evidence

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
11 August '12..




"Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant. Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action. Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous."
Henry Kissinger to President Richard Nixon, 1970
[Henry Kissinger “White House Years", page 587]

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
. 

Bryen - The Incredible Shrinking US-Israel Security Cooperation

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
27 June '12..

In light of increased sensitivity to intelligence leaks, it seemed innocuous – or even admirable – when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) asked the Senate to remove a few words from the US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act: the "sense of the Senate" part of the bill included the sentence, "Expand already close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with the Government of Israel;" ODNI wanted the words "including satellite intelligence" to go.

An ODNI spokesman said it was "simply a matter of clarifying the intelligence aspects of the bill and being sensitive to the level of specificity of the language…nothing nefarious here, just more clear language."

Yeah, right.

This is just the latest example of the Obama Administration making clear that it does not want to be seen as Israel's partner in regional affairs – several of them predicated on Turkish desires. Despite Israel's status as a Major Non-NATO ally, a NATO "partner" country, and a member of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, Turkey is increasingly insistent that Israel be isolated and cut out. This surrender to Turkey -- which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has for years been aggressively making ever more fundamentalist -- coincides nicely with the Administration's increasingly open courtship of Turkey's Islamist-leaning and virulently anti-Israel Prime Minister and what appears to be the desire of the Administration to enhance security relations in the Arab-Muslim world as it dials back visible cooperation with Israel.

This is no small matter. Israel's security is threatened -- above all by the refusal of the Arab States to accept that it is a legitimate, permanent part of the region in which it lives. For the U.S. or Turkey -- formerly a partner in regional security – to distance themselves from Israeli security is to raise hopes among enemies that they will ultimately be able to threaten Israel without fear of a U.S. or NATO-allied response.

The F-35 and the Israel-Obama Relationship

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
26 August '10

Commenting on Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s decision last week to buy 20 American-made F-35 fighter jets, Elliot Jager of Jewish Ideas Daily said it “illuminates Israel’s continuing, vital, and enduring — albeit dependent — relationship with the United States.” That is undoubtedly true: Washington has been Israel’s principal arms supplier for over four decades, and those arms are crucial for the country’s defense.

Ironically, however, the purchase also illuminates the nadir to which the relationship has fallen under the current administration. Barack Obama’s aides have tried to divert attention from their boss’s efforts to put “daylight” between America and Israel by insisting that on the all-important issue of security, “President Obama has taken what was already a strong U.S.-Israel defense relationship, and broadened and deepened it across the board,” as Dan Shapiro of the National Security Council told the Anti-Defamation League in May.

But in reality, Washington has attached unprecedented restrictions to the F-35 sale — restrictions so severe that Israel’s defense establishment agonized for months over whether to sign the deal, and ultimately opted to buy only 20 planes instead of the 75 the Israel Air Force originally sought.

First, as Haaretz reported last month, the U.S. refused to supply a test aircraft as part of the deal for the first time in 40 years. From the Phantom in 1969 through the F-16I six years ago, every previous American sale of fighters to Israel has included an experimental aircraft that Israel can use to test new systems or weapons it is considering installing in order to upgrade the planes or adapt them to particular missions. Effectively, the paper said, this refusal means “upgrades will not be implemented during the plane’s service in the IAF.”

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel Prepares for the Enemy It Faces

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
21 April '10

In contrast with the Obama administration, which perpetually talks down the potential for a military strike, Israeli officials are beginning to talk openly about such action. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Israeli security establishment is divided over whether it needs Washington’s blessing if Israel decides to attack Iran, Israeli officials say, as the U.S. campaign for sanctions drags on and Tehran steadily develops greater nuclear capability.

Some senior Israeli officials say in interviews that they see signs Washington may be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, an eventuality that Israel says it won’t accept. Compounding Israeli concerns were U.S. statements this past weekend that underscored U.S. resistance to a military option. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday discussed a memo to National Security Adviser James Jones warning that the U.S. needed new strategies, including how to contain a nuclear Iran—suggesting that Iran could reach nuclear capability without any foreign military force trying to stop it.

Until now Bibi has played along both with the Obama engagement gambit and the sanctions effort, but we now hear that “Israeli officials have increasingly voiced frustration over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts to get sanctions in place.” We are, after all, running out of time. The concern for the Israelis tells us much about the state of U.S.-Israel relations and the real weak link in going after Iranian nuclear capabilities:

Many Israeli military experts say Israel can easily cope with any military retaliation by Iran in response to a strike. Iran’s medium-range rockets would cause damage and casualties in Israel, but they aren’t very accurate, and Israel’s sophisticated missile-defense system would likely knock many out midflight.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

CENTCOM, Gen. Petraeus and Israel

JINSA Report #: 975
25 March '10

Sometimes it takes a while for a story to come full circle. Last week, we reported (JINSA Report #973) on a ForeignPolicy.com blog that said American military officers in CENTCOM blamed U.S. relations with Israel for American weakness in the region. The ForeignPolicy blog went viral on the web, attracting other "authoritative" statements blaming Israel for American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan-and attributing negative comments about Israel to CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus.

Our take was that American weakness in the region is attributable in some measure to the Saudi and Gulf State belief that the United States will not prevent Iran, their nemesis as well as Israel's, from acquiring nuclear weapons. Although the Saudis do frequently complain about what they call "the Israel problem," it is a way of deflecting their own inability to be strong partners. The rest, we said, was a lie, an opportunity to shred the U.S.-Israel security relationship and label Israel a liability rather than an asset to American military planners.

Speaking in New Hampshire this week, Gen. Petraeus addressed the controversy, beginning with the point that some statements attributed to him personally were, in fact, sentences lifted out of context from a 56-page CENTCOM Strategy Document.

"There's... a statement in [the document] that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate and among those we listed the Mideast peace process. We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean that is a perception; it is there, I don't think that's disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly." He noted other factors listed in the same section of the report, including "a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which, by the way, deny Israel's right to exist. There's a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place...So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all."

In response to a question, Gen. Petraeus said he had called Gen. Ashkenazi, the IDF Chief of Staff, and assured him that the web reports were inaccurate.

(Read full report)
.