THE IRANIAN THREAT: AS ISRAEL AND THE WEST CONSIDER OPTIONS-IRAN EXPANDS NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND ARMS HIZBULLAH

The Window of Opportunity: Boaz Ganor, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 3, 2013 — Here in the Middle East, we have long since become accustomed to the status quo being the good news – even the best news – and to any change in it bearing the seeds of imminent catastrophe.

Washington Must Strike Iran, Not Bargain With It: Prof. Efraim Inbar, Israel Hayom, Nov. 1, 2013— The Iranians have once again been successful in pushing the West into prolonged negotiations over their nuclear program. They have done so almost for two decades, and in the meantime have expanded their uranium enrichment program, worked on weaponization, and built long-range missiles. This indicates without a doubt that they are after a nuclear bomb.

Israel and Iran’s Game of Cat and Mouse in Syria: Michael Wilner, Jerusalem Post,  Nov. 3, 2013— Leaks from government officials in the US and Europe stating that Israel struck a Syrian military facility in Latakia last week indicate Western confidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad will not retaliate.

Will Israel Strike Iran? Iraq is No Precedent: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Oct. 22, 2013— A week after the administration first starting spinning the notion, the idea that the P5+1 talks with Iran made genuine progress toward a nuclear agreement has become conventional wisdom among the chattering classes.

On Topic Links

Rogue State: Uri Sadot, Foreign Policy, Oct. 21, 2013

Iran’s Terror Entity in Lebanon: Yaakov Lappin, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 28, 2013

Iran and the Jewish Lobby: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 3, 2013

THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

Boaz Ganor
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 3, 2013

Here in the Middle East, we have long since become accustomed to the status quo being the good news – even the best news – and to any change in it bearing the seeds of imminent catastrophe. The tectonic changes of the Arab Spring revolutions thus portend the danger that fundamentalist Islam might sweep the region, banishing any hint of Arab moderation, conciliation, or peacefulness. Yet if recent events are ominous, they also constitute a conjunction of rare opportunities with positive potential for Israel.

1. Regime change in Egypt.

The counter-revolution of the Egyptian military, which overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood regime, has strengthened the interests Egypt shares with Israel, leading to unprecedented cooperation between the two countries on stabilizing security in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, and on fighting the Islamist fundamentalists who threaten the Egyptian government and the fragile peace on Israel’s southern border. The Egyptian military’s actions in the Sinai Peninsula and its aggressive destruction of the underground tunnels between the Sinai and the Gaza Strip are weakening Hamas, and may even endanger its stability and continued rule in the Gaza Strip.

2. The geopolitical situation of Hamas.

The destruction of the underground tunnel system has choked Hamas’s “oxygen pipeline”; together with the collapse of its strategic backbone – the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt – this has brought Hamas to its lowest point since inception. Hamas’s geopolitical standing began to deteriorate with the outbreak of civil war in Syria, when Hamas chose to support the Islamist rebels and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in their struggle against the Assad regime. This was anathema to Assad and his Shi’ite allies, Iran and Hezbollah, and seriously jeopardized their relationship with Hamas. In turn, this led Hamas’s external leadership to depart Syria and decamp to certain Gulf states. Concomitantly, Hamas’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states weakened, leading to a severe economic crisis for Hamas and a deterioration in the status of its external leadership, headed by Khaled Mashal.

3. The geopolitical situation of Hezbollah.

Since the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah has been exposed to increasing criticism within Lebanon, where its opponents present it as an offshoot of Iran rather than as an authentic Lebanese movement. Hezbollah, which was indeed established by Iran to promote its interests in Lebanon, the Middle East and worldwide, and which has for years been Iran’s “terrorism subcontractor,” has been depicted as willing to sacrifice Lebanon’s interests to promote Iran’s. In fact, Hezbollah’s response to Iranian demands that it send military forces to Syria to save the Assad regime has only proven to Hezbollah’s detractors that Hezbollah is indeed willing to risk Lebanese interests – to risk civil war leaching into Lebanon, to sacrifice Lebanese fighters, and even to endanger the safety Lebanon’s citizens – to satisfy the ayatollahs from Teheran. Given its sensitive position, and with many of its forces still stationed in Syria, Hezbollah cannot now risk military involvement with Israel, without invoking the most destructive implications for itself.

4. The Syrian civil war and the neutralization of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

The US and the West remained largely indecisive in their response to the Assad regime’s massacre of Syria’s citizens, even after Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Nevertheless, recent weeks have seen the beginning of international surveillance of Syria’s use of chemical weapons, with the ultimate aim of neutralizing a significant portion of its chemical arsenal. This positive development was until very recently only a pipe dream for Israel. Even if it does not lead to the elimination of Syria’s entire chemical arsenal, it will significantly reduce the unconventional capabilities, and even the conventional military capabilities, of Syria – to date, the most dangerous of Israel’s enemies.

5. Political change in Iran and non-nuclear armament talks.

Even if Iranian President Hassan Rohani’s “onslaught of smiles” is no more than a fraudulent ruse, a calculated ambush by Iran’s new regime, it nevertheless bodes well for Israel on two counts. First, the regime change in Iran grew out of the real dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s leadership. Rohani knows this; he must consider it in his internal and international behavior. Second, Rohani must consider that the dynamic set in motion by the nascent talks with the West may lead to unwanted international surveillance, which will make it difficult for Iran to arm itself with atomic weapons. Thus, any act by the Iranian regime that would upset the fragile stability of the Middle East is liable to lead to a military imbroglio, damaging Iran’s strategic interests.

6. The opening of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ internal situation.

The head of the PA knows that the sand in his political hourglass is running out. Arab Spring revolutions signal a clear trend: traditional-secular regimes are being replaced by varieties of Islamist regime, whose fulcrum is local branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Palestine, as well, the writing is on the wall: Fatah, headed by Abbas, is the traditional-secular regime; the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is Hamas. Abbas realizes that only an immediate strategic move vis à vis Israel can affect his political and perhaps even personal fate.

7. Identity of interests between Israel and Sunni Arab states in the Middle East.

Never before has Israel shared so many interests with neighboring Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, certain Gulf states, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. All of these countries are concerned lest Iran become armed with atomic weapons; all of them are concerned about Shi’ite-Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. They all hope that the stability of the existing regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority will persist, and they all hope that Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon will diminish. Many Sunni Arab states have understood, perhaps for the first time, that Israel does not threaten them or their interests. Rather, the immediate, significant, real threat to their regimes emanates from Shi’ite and Sunni Islamist- fundamentalist entities.

[To read the full article, please click on the following link—ed.]                                                                        

                                                   Contents
                                       

          WASHINGTON MUST STRIKE IRAN, NOT BARGAIN WITH IT

Prof. Efraim Inbar

Israel Hayom, Nov. 1, 2013

The Iranians have once again been successful in pushing the West into prolonged negotiations over their nuclear program. They have done so almost for two decades, and in the meantime have expanded their uranium enrichment program, worked on weaponization, and built long-range missiles. This indicates without a doubt that they are after a nuclear bomb. The belief and hope that Iran has changed are pathetic. It is obviously interested in removing the economic sanctions imposed on it by the international community, but what Iran is really after is not an agreement, as its gullible interlocutors tend to believe, but rather time. Iran needs time, probably months, to present the world with a fait accompli: a nuclear break-out capability, i.e., the infrastructure to assemble a nuclear arsenal within weeks.

Unfortunately, much of the world, including the U.S., is going along with the Iranian procrastination, failing to realize that Iran is a strategic problem of no comparable regional or global significance. No other issue in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe can have as negative an impact on world affairs: nuclear proliferation, the prices of a strategic commodity like oil, international terrorism, and the global stature of the U.S.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear or acquire break-out capability will bring about nuclear proliferation at least in the immediate region. States such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are unlikely to stay behind, which will bring about a nuclear multipolar Middle East — a strategic nightmare in this volatile region. A nuclear Iran is very different from a nuclear North Korea, whose geopolitical environment already includes two nuclear states — China and Russia — to keep it in check. A nuclear Iran will unquestionably bring about the demise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a stabilizing factor on the international scene.

A nuclear Iran will affect the global political energy economy. Iran's location along the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea — the "energy ellipse" where about 75 percent of the oil reserves are situated — gives it a handle on the price of oil, a strategic commodity. The oil-producing states in the region will inevitably have to consider the desires of an intimidating, nuclear Iran. Iraq is already an Iranian satellite, and Azerbaijan and other Central Asian countries may follow suit. A nuclear Iran might also become more aggressive and take over the eastern province of Saudi Arabia that is mostly populated by Shiites and holds most of the kingdom's oil. While it is true that Iran and other oil-producing states cannot desist from selling oil, Tehran will be able to decide to whom to sell and at what price.

A nuclear Iran will be emboldened to be more active as a sponsor of international terror. Its terrorist infrastructure is global, with active and dormant cells in Latin American, North America, Europe, Asia, and of course the Middle East. Iranian tentacles have been observed activating terrorist activities all over the world.

An Iran in possession of long-range missiles armed with nuclear bombs could pose a real threat to many countries within a range of over 2,500 kilometers (1,600 miles). This radius includes Eastern Europe, the whole Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. Iran is working assiduously to extend the range of its missiles to hit North America, as well. Hoping for deterrence to be fully effective in the Iranian case is an irresponsible response.

Finally, Iran is the supreme test of American credibility in world affairs. After saying so many times that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, allowing the radical regime of the mullahs to acquire a nuclear bomb or develop a nuclear break-out capability will be a devastating blow to American prestige. Today the U.S. is probably at its lowest ebb in the region. Friends and foes alike are bewildered by the policies of the Obama administration, seeing an extremely weak president who seems to be clueless about Middle East international politics.

The American willingness to allow Iran enrichment capabilities and readiness to strike a bargain with Tehran is mind-boggling in this part of the world.

At this stage, after several years of confused and misguided American behavior, the only thing that can salvage U.S. influence in the region is an American military strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Without exception, Middle Eastern leaders have a power politics prism to international affairs, and have little patience towards the liberal-inspired speeches of U.S. President Barack Obama, who has become a laughingstock among Middle Easterners. Therefore, the only thing that can win their respect is a muscular response on Washington's part. This is what America's allies in the region need and want. They understand, much better than Washington, the current regional realities and dangers of a nuclear Iran.

A military strike is also needed to prevent a nuclear Iran from destabilizing international order. If Washington wants to prevent nuclear proliferation, preserve stability in the energy sector, minimize the risks of international terror, and reduce the nuclear threat from a fanatic regime, it must live up to its obligations as a superpower and the leader of the free world. Going along with the delaying tactics of Iran is dangerous and irresponsible.

Contents

ISRAEL AND IRAN’S GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE IN SYRIA

Michael Wilner

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 3, 2013

Leaks from government officials in the US and Europe stating that Israel struck a Syrian military facility in Latakia last week indicate Western confidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad will not retaliate. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the country’s red line when it comes to Syria is the transfer of heavy weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is operating extensively on behalf of Assad against rebels fighting for his ouster. The US has consistently stated support for this policy, under the principle that Israel has a right to defend itself by taking independent action. Classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, the US and now the EU condemn its acquisition of such weaponry.

But the revelation that Israel’s targets were Russian-made missiles is a reminder that, despite the deal brokered in September by Moscow to rid Assad of his chemical weapons, the Syrian civil war continues to pose significant strategic tensions for many parties with a vested interest in its outcome.

Last week’s military strike will likely further strain efforts to salvage negotiations in Geneva between Assad and the opposition. Iran still refuses to endorse the 2012 Geneva Communique, a UN document calling for a peaceful transition of power in Syria. It also continues efforts to smuggle anti-aircraft weapons through Syria to Hezbollah-controlled territory in Lebanon.

With Assad coming out of the August chemical weapons crisis intact – and with Washington, Moscow and Tehran generally satisfied with the resulting deal – no one will want to rock the boat with Israel by making an issue out of the fact that it follows through on its promises to defend itself.

These Israeli strikes will continue sporadically, and the results will be the same: a media blackout, tacit international acceptance, and quiet efforts by Iran to try, try again.

                                                                                                Contents

WILL ISRAEL STRIKE IRAN? IRAQ IS NO PRECEDENT

Jonathan S. Tobin

Commentary, Oct. 22, 2013

A week after the administration first starting spinning the notion, the idea that the P5+1 talks with Iran made genuine progress toward a nuclear agreement has become conventional wisdom among the chattering classes. Based on little more than atmospherics generated by the Iranian charm offensive, Tehran offered the West nothing new and there is little reason to believe they think they need to give up enriching uranium or shut down their nuclear plants that are bringing them closer to a weapon. If the Obama administration is determined to press ahead toward what will be, at best, an unsatisfactory deal that will, despite the president’s protestations that any accord would be verifiable, lead inevitably to Iranian deceptions and an eventual bomb, then that will leave Israel’s leaders with a terrible dilemma. Their choice would then be between accepting a policy that places their country under an existential threat or breaking with its sole superpower ally and attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities on their own.

To those who claim that Israel can’t or won’t defy the United States, the Council of Foreign Relations’ Uri Sadot answers, think again. In an article published today in Foreign Policy provocatively titled “Rogue State,” Sadot argues that not only is such an outcome thinkable, the precedents already exist for an Israeli decision to fly solo in the face of not only international consensus but American desires. Given the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been rattling his rhetorical sabers in the direction of Iran for years, it’s hard to argue with Sadot’s conclusion. As late as just a week ago during an address to the Knesset, Netanyahu once again warned the world that Israel isn’t afraid to act alone if its security is endangered. Should Jerusalem ever be convinced that the U.S. was about to sell it down the river, Netanyahu might well decide to strike Iran. But Sadot is wrong when he claims, as he did in his article, that Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak or the 2007 strike on the nuclear facility that Syria was building tells us much about Israel would or could do against Iran. There are simply no comparisons in terms of size or scale to the challenge awaiting the Israel Defense Forces in Iran or the diplomatic obstacles to such a decision by Netanyahu.

In terms of the Israeli mindset about enemy governments possessing such weapons of mass destruction, Sadot is right to assert that there is little difference between the thinking of Menachem Begin in 1981 and that of Netanyahu today. All the psychobabble thrown around about Begin’s experience of the Holocaust and the influence of Netanyahu’s ideologue father Benzion is mere gloss to the fact that these two men, just like Ehud Olmert in 2007, understand that their primary responsibility is to guard the existence of the State of Israel. Given the stated positions of the Iranian leadership as to their desire to eliminate Israel as well as their sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, no leader of any sovereign state could afford to take such threats lightly. At the very least, Iranian nuclear capability would destabilize the Middle East (a fact that makes Israel’s Arab neighbors, with the exception of Iranian ally Syria, just as anxious to prevent the ayatollahs from realizing their nuclear ambition).

But the idea that Iraq is a precedent for Iran as far as Israel is concerned is absurd. Iraq had one lone nuclear reactor. It was relatively defenseless and the Iraqis weren’t expecting an attack. The same applies to what happened in Syria in 2007. By contrast, the Iranians have multiple facilities spread throughout their country. Some are in hardened, mountainside bunkers that may be invulnerable to conventional bombs. All are heavily guarded and the Iranians have been on alert for an Israeli strike for years.

It is a matter of some debate as to whether Israel’s vaunted armed forces are even capable of doing significant damage to Iran’s nuclear plants or destroying its stockpile of enriched uranium. Some analysts have always believed that only the United States, with its air bases in the region and aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf, could do the job adequately. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that Israel can do it alone and that it could accomplish this task with air strikes alone rather than combining them with commando attacks, what would be required is a sustained campaign of strikes at multiple targets. At best this would strain Israel’s resources. That is especially true when you consider that Israel would also have to be prepared to engage Hezbollah’s terrorist enclave in southern Lebanon since most assume that Iran’s Shiite auxiliaries (who are also fighting for the ayatollahs in Syria) would attack Israel in support of Iran.

[To read the full article, please click on the following link—ed.]     

Rogue State: Uri Sadot, Foreign Policy, Oct. 21, 2013— As American and Iranian diplomats attempt to reach a rapprochement that would end the historical enmity between their two governments, Israel is weary of being sidelined by its most important ally.

Iran’s Terror Entity in Lebanon: Yaakov Lappin, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 28, 2013— In the chaotic Middle East, every day brings new strategic changes and brutal instances of violence, the one thing that has remained constant is Iran's continuing construction of a military-terrorist missile base in Lebanon.

Iran and the Jewish Lobby: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 3, 2013— Last Tuesday, the White House briefed officials from AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on its efforts to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

On Topic Links

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.