요즘 오바마와 네타냐후의 사이가 무척 나빠졌습니다.
이스라엘이 예루살렘에 거주 건물들을 건설하고 있기 때문입니다.
네타냐후가 오바마를 와싱턴에서 만나고 별 성과 없이 돌아갔습니다.
미국은 중단하라고 요구하고 있고 이스라엘은 거부하고 있습니다.
서방 나라들은 예루살렘을 나누어 팔리스타인에게 줄 계획을 세우고 있고
어떻게 하든지 평화조약을 이끌어 내려고 하지만 잘 되지 않고 있습니다.
지금 처럼 미국과 이스라엘의 관계가 나빠진적은 없습니다.
오바마가 당선되면서 부터 예견 되어 왔던 일이기는 합니다.
그런데 며칠전에 미국에서 이스라엘이 미국의 도움 없이 이란을 공격하는
시나리오를 연구한 사실이 발표 되었습니다.(이글의 맨 밑의 기사)
그 연구에 보면 이란의 지하에 설치된 핵시설을 공격하기 위하여는 딮 임팩트를 줄수 있는 지하벙커 폭탄이 필요합니다.
그러나 미국의 반대로 미국은 얼마전에 이스라엘로 향하던 지하벙커 폭탄을 싣은 배를 도중에 다른 곳으로 되돌려 버렸습니다.
그러므로 이스라엘에게 남은 수단은 오직 핵무기 밖에 없다는 것입니다.
만약에 이스라엘이 이란을 미국의 도움없이 공격한다면 핵 무기를 쓸 확률이 높아 졌습니다. 이 전쟁 시뮬레이션은 이 전쟁이 8일만에 끝날것으로 예측하고 있지만
그것은 쉽지 않을것입니다.
이란도 북한도 대화와 경제 조치등등을 가지고는 해결이 않됩니다.
결국 전쟁은 피할수가 없습니다.
이스라엘은 이미 공중 급유등의 연습을 하였고 준비를 마친상태입니다.
미국과의 관계가 나쁜 상태에서 어떤 돌발 상황을 전개하기가 어렵겠지만
돌발 상황이 생기면 미국은 거의 자동적으로 개입할수 밖에 없을 것입니다.
어떤 면에서 이스라엘 독자 행동으로 시작하고 미국은 나중에 개입하는 것이
국제 여론을 위하여 미국에게 필요한 상황일수도 있는 것입니다.
이 전쟁은 겔 38,39장의 전쟁으로 비화될 가능성이 크다는 데서 심각성이 있습니다.
핵전쟁이 나면 온 세상은 순식간에 아수라장이 될것입니다.
생각하기도 싫지만 성경예언의 말씀입니다.
주님 오시는 발자국 소리입니다.
다만 준비되어 있는자들, 깨어 있는 자들은 승리하고 믿음을 지키고 주님 앞에 서게 될것입니다.
하여간 그날은, 시각은 시시 때때로 찰칵 찰칵 다가 오고 있습니다.
언제까지 이란이 핵무기를 개발하여 완성하도록 방치할수는 없는 실정이기 때문입니다.
깨어 기도합시다.
사랑하시는 주님.
사모합니다.
갈망합니다.
마라나타!
More on the story
Israel can withstand Iranian missile strike - experts
A leading Israeli missile expert said this week that the damage Iranian...
Israel threatens new operation in Gaza
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the Jewish state may launch...
Israeli strike on Iran just a matter of time?
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version
Published 06 August, 2009, 14:44
Edited 10 January, 2010, 06:39
Despite all diplomatic efforts the US has undertaken to dissuade Israel from striking Iranian nuclear facilities, the attack now seems virtually inevitable.
Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller
In light of Israel’s recent military preparations, it can only be a matter of when.
The recent visit of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Jerusalem only proved Israel is determined to act, taking “no option” off the table regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
“This is our position. We mean it,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, pointing out at the same time that the current priority should be diplomacy.
When it comes to the US mediating role, diplomats appear to have used up their tools.
An Iranian long-range Shahab-3 missile is fired in desert terrain at an unspecified location in Iran (AFP Photo / Shaiegan / Fars News)
ArmsConflictMilitaryMiddle EastPolitics
Israel can withstand Iranian missile strike - experts
permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version
Published 18 December, 2009, 15:28
Edited 11 January, 2010, 16:13
A leading Israeli missile expert said this week that the damage Iranian missiles are capable of causing Israel is limited, whereas Israel is capable of setting back Iran’s nuclear program by several years.
Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller
Prof. Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, a retired general who headed the army’s weapons development branch, said that Iran at present had several hundred operational Shahab-3 missiles which can hit Israel, 1,300 kilometers distant.
Addressing a conference at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, he said that no more than about 80 Shahabs were likely to penetrate Israel’s anti-missile defenses, which are also being buttressed by American missile defense systems.
In the 1991 Gulf War, he noted, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, most of them at Tel Aviv. Some 3,300 apartments were damaged or destroyed, but only one person was killed. In part, the low casualty figure was because residents were in shelters and in part because many had left to small towns or places like Jerusalem, which Saddam was considered unlikely to hit because of Islamic holy places, and which he did not in fact hit.
The Iranian Shahabs, said Ben Yisrael, have the same size warheads as the Iraqi Scuds. If the damage caused by Iranian missiles with conventional warheads would thus be twice the damage caused by the Iraqi Scuds it would be unpleasant but sustainable, he said.
In order to guard against the warheads becoming nuclear, he suggested, Israel might feel the need to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. “We have the capacity to hit them and to delay their program by several years,” he said. For this, Ben Yisrael believes that Israel needs only to damage several key facilities, not the entire nuclear network. The question, he said, was whether the international community would utilize the time thus gained to good purpose. If not, he said, Israel could strike again in the future, but he expressed the hope that other solutions could be found.
The military scientist, who is currently chairman of the Israel Space Agency, said that the Iranians are likely to respond to an Israeli attack by striking at Israeli and Jewish targets around the world. "It would not be much different,” he said, than the attacks in Buenos Aires in the 1990s against the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center that Iran is accused of carrying out. More immediately, he said, the Iranians would unleash Hezbollah, which would resume firing rockets into Israel as it did in 2006, when it fired more than 4,000 in a month-long war. “We can do much to shorten the war next time,” he said.
That point was elaborated on at the conference by Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, a former head of the Israeli National Security Council. Given Hezbollah’s overt participation in the Lebanese government, he said, the next time its military wing attacks, Israel will consider itself at war not with Hezbollah but with Lebanon. “It will be a war between the state of Israel and the state of Lebanon. It won’t happen again that they’re sitting in cafes in Beirut while we’re in shelters in Haifa.” Israel for the most part spared Lebanon’s national infrastructure in the 2006 conflict, and in Beirut attacked only the Hezbollah quarter.
Although Israel has dropped broad hints in recent years that it would attack Iran if its nuclear program is not halted, these threats have subsided since President Barack Obama came to office and announced his intention to seek a dialogue with Tehran. Given the lack of substantive progress in negotiations, Washington has been threatening an imminent tightening of sanctions against Iran. The Tel Aviv daily Ha’aretz reported Thursday that Obama told Chinese President Hu Jintao during their talk in Beijing last month that the US would not be able much longer to keep Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear installations. His statement was reportedly part of his efforts to persuade China to support strict sanctions against Tehran. The newspaper cited Israeli officials who were briefed by American counterparts as the source.
By Abraham Rabinovich
How to save the Obama presidency - bomb Iran
BY DANIEL PIPES
02/02/2010 23:50
President needs dramatic gesture to change perception of him as lightweight ideologue.
Talkbacks (52)
I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear and whose policies I work against. But here is a way for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the US and its allies.
If Obama’s personality, identity and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.
This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.
He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge and where he can trump expectations.
Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can order the US military to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity.
Circumstances are propitious. First, US intelligence agencies have reversed the preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed with “high confidence” that Teheran had “halted its nuclear weapons program.” No one (other than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a nuclear arsenal.
Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Teheran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Or they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the US, devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to America’s friends and enemies.
THIRD, POLLING shows long-standing American backing for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
• A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in January 2006 found that 57% of Americans favored military intervention if Teheran pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.
• A Zogby International poll in October 2007 found that 52% of likely voters supported a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29% opposed such a step.
• McLaughlin & Associates in May 2009 asked whether people would support “using the [US] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon”; 58% of 600 likely voters supported the use of force and 30% opposed it.
• Fox News in September 2009 asked: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” Sixty-one percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28% opposed it.
• Pew Research Center in October 2009 asked which is more important, “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons”; of 1,500 respondents, 61% favored the first reply and 24% the second.
Not only does a strong majority – 57%, 52%, 58%, 61% and 61% – already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally around the flag, pushing that number much higher.
Fourth, were the US strike limited to taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities, and not aspiring to regime change, it would require few “boots on the ground” and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack politically more palatable.
Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on the Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make netroots squeal, independents reconsider and conservatives swoon.
But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is closing. The time to act is now or, on Obama’s watch, the world will soon become a much more dangerous place.
The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
China urges patience in Iran talks, Russia warns Teheran
ByASSOCIATED PRESS
05/02/2010 19:36
Chinese FM calls on all parties concerned to "adopt more flexible policy;" Lavrov: UN Security Council will discuss Iranian nuclear program if Iran fails to diplomatically resolve issue.
Talkbacks (1)
China's foreign minister on Friday urged the world to be patient and keep up diplomatic efforts with Iran to try and find a solution to Teheran's nuclear ambitions.
Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told a gathering of the world's top defense officials that negotiations with Iran's government have "entered a crucial stage" and called for another round of talks involving the UN Security Council and Germany with the hope that a "mutually acceptable proposal" can be reached with Teheran.
"The parties concerned should, with the overall and long-term interests in mind, step up diplomatic efforts, stay patient and adopt a more flexible, pragmatic and proactive policy," the Chinese diplomat said. "The purpose is to seek a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution through dialogue and negotiations."
Related articles:
Iran: Moscow gave missile reassurance
Europe skeptical over Iran nuclear offer
'Strike on Iran would not help Israel'
Analysis: Iran quickstep: 1 step forward, 2 steps back
Iran plans to build 7 refineries
The comments at the Munich Security Conference came after Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki decided to join the meeting at the last minute. It was not clear whether Mottaki would attend the entire three-day conference, but he was scheduled to hold late-night discussions with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week suggested he would at last agree to export a significant amount of uranium for processing. The UN is considering a fourth round of sanctions against the country for failing to rein in its nuclear ambitions.
Iran's moves appeared timed in part to defuse pressure by the US, Britain and France for more sanctions against Iran. UN Security Council members China and Russia are not convinced.
In Berlin on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle — both of whom are attending the Munich conference — said Iran must answer remaining questions about the nature of its nuclear program.
They stressed that they remained ready to continue negotiations toward a diplomatic solution. Westerwelle warned, however, that the international community's patience was "not infinite."
“For the past two years, Iran has repeatedly bluffed and played tricks … it has played for time,” Westerwelle said in a radio interview reported by Reuters, stressing that “we in the international community cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran.”
Lavrov said he planned to meet Mottaki in Munich and urge him to submit information on Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA.
"Under certain circumstances, if there is no other possible solution, then we will have to discuss it in the Security Council," Lavrov told reporters.
In Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made it clear that the Obama administration's position has not changed.
She said the Iranian government has been unclear in its intentions regarding the possibility of accepting international urgings to negotiate on the nuclear matter.
"The fact is we haven't really seen much in the way of response" from Iran, she told reporters in Washington. "Sometimes we see response from a part of the government that is then retracted from another part of the government."
She reiterated that the focus is now on sanctions.
"We have, in good faith, engaged in diplomacy with the Iranians," she said. "We've always had a two-track process, and we think it is important that we move now toward looking at what pressure, what sanctions, can be brought to bear on the Iranians. We're going to continue to reach out to all of our colleagues in this effort, including, of course, China."
JPost.com staff contributed to this report.
Analysis: Iranian quickstep: 1 step forward, 2 steps back
By JONATHAN SPYER
04/02/2010 03:10
Latest Ahmadinejad statement suggests that Teheran still believes it can find a few partners for the dance it has been performing since 2003.
Talkbacks (1)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week told Iranian state television that “we have no problem sending our enriched uranium abroad.”
In so doing, Ahmadinejad appeared to agree to the long-standing plan for the export of the greater part of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks.
Recent experience with the diplomatic methods of the Islamic Republic of Iran suggests that this statement is the latest instance of Teheran’s favored approach to diplomacy. The Iranian tendency is to seek to offset confrontation at the 11th hour by appearing to show flexibility. once crisis is averted, the regime relies on differences over the details to make sure that nothing actually happens. It is the diplomacy of one step forward, two steps back. Thus is further time bought for the Iranian nuclear program.
The hitherto seemingly inexhaustible international patience at Iranian maneuvering, meanwhile, has recently been showing signs of at last wearing thin. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the latest convert to the cause of renewed sanctions. Brown said on Tuesday that “What we now, I think, have to do is accept that if Iran will not make some indication that it will take action – we have got to proceed with sanctions.”
It remains to be seen if the latest Iranian move will revive the spirits of the advocates of “engagement.” Ahmadinejad’s statement relates to the IAEA proposal that Iran should ship its low-enriched uranium abroad, where it would be converted into fuel rods for an Iranian research reactor producing medical isotopes.
The purpose of the IAEA proposal was to call Iran’s bluff. Iran has long claimed that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes. Very well, then, said the IAEA – let other countries take charge of converting Iranian low-grade uranium into material fit only for domestic use. Of course, this proposal depends on the assumption that the Iranians have been entirely honest in revealing all their supplies of enriched uranium. If they have not, and if a substantial amount remains outside of the purview of international observers, then the exercise becomes meaningless. Still, let us assume in this regard that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s well-known tendency toward honesty and transparency has prevailed, and that as such the proposal to export a large percentage of Iran’s known supplies of low enriched uranium is not entirely devoid of content.
In considering the seriousness or otherwise of Ahmadinejad’s statement, it is worth looking back to October last year, when the export proposal was first tabled. The apparent Iranian flexibility at that time came two weeks after the revelation of a secret uranium enrichment plant in the town of Qom on September 21. At the time, there was international excitement as Iranian representatives in Geneva agreed “in principle” with the proposal for the export of uranium. It was agreed that the details would be worked out at a subsequent meeting in Vienna.
That was on October 2. At the meeting in Vienna on October 19, the proposal was further clarified. A draft proposal was formulated. At the end of that month, Iran began to retreat from its apparent acceptance of the proposal. on November 18, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki unambiguously rejected it in the following terms: “Definitely, Iran will not send its 3.5 percent-enriched fuel out.”
The tentative December “deadline” came and went. on January 20, Iran confirmed that it rejected the export proposal as formulated in Vienna.
In other words, a skeptic might conclude, the international anger resulting from the Qom revelation made a bit of momentary cooperation from Iran advisable. once the moment had passed, normal service could be resumed. The Iranian parliament and Guardian Council a week ago approved an Ahmadinejad endorsed bill to cut food and energy subsidies. The move, while significantly reducing government spending, stands to sharply increase prices and possibly lead to rising inflation. Political unrest is ongoing in Iran, and the regime is reported to be unnerved by the failure of its initial attempts at repression to douse the flame.
At such a moment, the last thing the regime needs is renewed sanctions. It is therefore an opportune moment for the reappearance of the reasonable Teheran of last October – to kick the ball down the road again for another few months.
Will the “international community” play ball? There are currently indications of a hardening US stance. A bill to target Iranian fuel imports is working its way through Congress. New sanctions may be discussed at the Security Council later this month. In the absence of renewed UNSC sanctions, the administration may set about trying to build a “coalition of the willing” for further moves against Iran.
But it is deeply questionable if any of this will prove sufficient to stop the Iranian nuclear drive.
In the meantime, the latest statement by the Iranian president suggests that Teheran still believes it can find a few partners for the dance it has been performing since 2003: one step forward, two steps back – all the way to a nuclear Iran.
The writer is senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
이란, 신형 미사일 생산공장 가동
이란이 6일 신형 미사일 생산공장 2곳에 대한 개장식을 열고 본격적인 생산에 들어갔다고 이란 국영TV가 보도했다.
아마드 바히디 이란 국방장관이 참석한 가운데 열린 이들 공장의 개장식은 이달 말로 다가온 이란의 이슬람혁명 31주년 기념행사 중 하나로 마련됐다.
이들 공장에서는 '카엠(떠오름)'으로 명명된 헬리콥터 요격용 지대공 미사일과 '투판(폭풍) 5호' 지대지 미사일이 생산된다.
특히 투판 5호는 2개의 탄두가 장착돼 있어 탱크와 장갑차 등을 제압하는데 위력을 발휘할 것이라고 국영TV는 전했다.
PROMOTION: Mamilla Hotel | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“이란 사정권” 이스라엘, 보잉737 크기 새 무인항공기 공개
작성일 2010-02-23 10:03:37 조회 28434
이스라엘 공군이 적대적 관계인 이란까지 날아가 작전을 수행한 후 귀환 할 수 있는 신형 무인항공기(UAV)를 21일 외국언론에 공개했다.
히브리어로 강하다는 뜻인 ‘에이탄(Eitan)’이라는 이름을 가진 신기종은 20시간 이상 연속비행이 가능해 이란 영해 페르시아만에서도 작전을 벌일 수 있다. 또 해발 약 1만 2000m 높이까지 올라갈 수 있다.
지상에서 조종하는 이 무인정찰기는 동체 길이 24m, 날개 길이 26m, 무게 4.5t으로 크기가 보잉737여객기와 비슷하며 이스라엘이 보유한 무인정찰기 중 가장 크다.
익명을 요구한 한 이스라엘 공군 관계자는 “주요 임무는 정보수집이지만 아직 밝힐 수 없는 다른 몇 가지 임무도 담당하게 될 것”이라고 밝혔다.
이와 관련해 AP등 외신은 레이더와 고성능 카메라, 지도 제작장치 등 최첨단 전자장치가 장착돼 앞으로 중동지역에서 적군에 대한 감시와 도청, 지상군과의 통신, 화물 운반 등의 임무를 담당하는 것은 물론 필요시 다양한 미사일을 적재할 수 있다고 전했다.
이스라엘군은‘에이탄’이 이란을 겨냥해 만든 것이라고 명시하지는 않았다. 하지만 이스라엘이 이란의 핵무기 개발 저지를 위해 필요할 경우 군사적 공격도 불사하겠다는 입장을 밝힌 후 양국간 전쟁 가능성도 제기되고 있다.
이스라엘은 1982년 레바논 침공 때 세계 최초로 무인 비행기를 본격적으로 실전 투입했다.
최근 무인 항공기를 가장 애용하는 국가는 미국. 특히 아프가니스탄과 파키스탄에서 군사작전을 펼치며 무인항공기를 폭넓게 활용하고 있다.
로이터·동아닷컴 특약=박해식 동아닷컴 기자 pistols@donga.com
Iran Approaches Nuclear "Breakout"
DEBKA-Net-Weekly #431 January 29, 2010
Tags: US-Iran nuclear bomb Israel
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Obama's engagement strategy against Tehran's nuclear armament has failed. From February, Tehran will be able to build a nuclear device if it so chooses. Israeli must decide by May whether or not to take up its military option for knocking out Iran's nuclear installations.
Arab Islamist and terror chiefs called to Tehran for anti-Israel war planning
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 25, 2010, 11:21 AM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iran
terrorist chiefs war conference
Iran will chop off the hands of attackers
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has summoned allied Islamist and terrorist chiefs to Tehran Saturday, Feb. 27, to finalize their roles in military operations against Israel in the event of a Middle East conflagration. It will be the sequel to the preliminary discussions Ahmadinejad held in Damascus with Syrian president Bashar Assad and Hizballah and Hamas chiefs Thursday, Feb. 25.
Share |
Last update - 06:48 03/03/2010
Who will blink first in Iran's nuclear poker game?
By Aluf Benn
Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu
"Do not strike" is what the Americans are telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Let's first try sanctions on Iran."
"Do not strike" is what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying to Netanyahu. "If you go crazy and go to war, it will be the end of the Zionist regime."
Netanyahu managed to convince the world that Israel is on the verge of a preemptive war to try to foil Iran's nuclear program. His speeches on a second Holocaust and Amalek, the acceleration of military preparations, the exercises on the Home Front, the distribution of gas masks and even the stockpiling of dollars by the Bank of Israel all suggest that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, as it did when it attacked the nuclear plants in Iraq and Syria.
Advertisement
The preparations for war give Israel unprecedented international significance. U.S. President Barack Obama, who kept his distance at the beginning of his tenure, is now airlifting senior officials to ask Netanyahu to hold back. When he wanted to deal with the Palestinian problem, Obama made do with a retiree without authority in the form of George Mitchell.
It turns out that the Israeli threat to spark a regional war is bothering the administration a lot more than the occupation and the West Bank settlements. Not only are the politicians troubled, representatives of global investment firms are curious to know "when they will attack," as a way of gambling on oil prices. It turns out that Israel's economic significance is buried in its ability to cause trouble - not in high tech, start-ups or the Bamba snacks the Israelis pride themselves in.
Netanyahu will certainly argue that his assertive stance is what convinced Obama to take a tougher line on Iran. But the prime minister's approach is risky: What will happen if diplomacy and sanctions fail, as they are expected to, and Ahmadinejad continues on his nuclear path? Will Netanyahu then be able to pull back from his heated statements and announce that the Iranian threat is not so bad? Or has he already burned the bridge for a withdrawal and will have to go to war?
Netanyahu is playing poker and hiding his most important card: the Israel Defense Forces' true capabilities to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. If he attacks, he is risking a war of attrition in which Tel Aviv will be hit by missiles and Ben-Gurion International Airport will be closed. And the longer the violence continues, the more international firms will leave the country; the talented and wealthy will abandon it, too.
Netanyahu sees the same danger, but from the other side. He believes that if Iran goes nuclear, the elites and high tech will leave and the economy will be destroyed, so an Iranian bomb must be prevented.
Ahmadinejad is also playing poker, and in recent weeks he upped the ante when he posed the destruction of the Zionist regime not merely as a religious-ideological ambition, but as a practical goal. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is functioning as a super-adviser to Netanyahu for national security affairs, said in response that "the clock for the Iranian regime's downfall is ticking."
Israel and Iran are gambling that only one of them will survive the confrontation. Is this threat serious? History suggests it is. In the Six-Day War and the War of Attrition, Israel defeated Nasserism, which, like Ahmadinejad today, preached the wiping of Israel off the map of the Middle East. The price was high and cost Israel the Yom Kippur War, but the Arabs became convinced that the Jewish state is not a passing phenomenon.
The third player, Obama, holds the weakest hand. This is so because of domestic political weakness and because he can't seriously threaten Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu. Obama doesn't want to attack Iran himself and will find it hard to restrain Israel at the moment of truth.
What will he do? Will he turn off the American early warning radar in the Negev and announce that there will be no airlift and no diplomatic support, and as far as he's concerned Tel Aviv can burn because Israel acted against his advice? It's hard to imagine that Obama will abandon Israel to its fate. He can only complain and signal to Netanyahu that American support is not guaranteed for any Israeli action.
Before war breaks out - if indeed it does - the real hands the leaders are holding will not be seen. But in the meantime the stakes are constantly rising with the expectations that one of the players will recognize his weakness, blink and leave the table.
US ponders denying Israel arms needed for conflict with Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 13, 2010, 9:53 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Israel Obama US arms for Israel
Ehud Barak meets Robert Gates in D.C.
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his inner cabinet Saturday night, March 12, to discuss the spiraling crisis with Washington and his first response.
debkafile's military and Washington sources report: The Obama administration is considering withholding from Israel military items urgently needed in case of a flare-up of hostilities with Iran and its allies. This would further ratchet up the row over the added 1,600 homes in ...
Clinton warns Netanyahu US-Israeli relations at risk
DEBKAfile Special Report
March 12, 2010, 11:39 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Hillary Clinton Jewish housing in E. Jerusalem Joe Biden Netanyahu
Hillary Clinton
The crisis in US-Israeli relations took a sharp turn for the worse Friday night, March 12, with a phone call from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the relationship was at risk. debkafile reports: He was given to understand that Israel must make sweeping concessions to prove its interest in renewed talks with the Palestinians, including in Jerusalem, and accept the Obama administration's line on Iran.
...
US researchers postulate Israeli tactical nuclear strike on Iran
DEBKAfile Special Report March 28, 2010, 11:30 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Israel US Iran nuclear
Tactical Nuclear Weapon
Scenarios of a potential Israeli attack on Iran - usually without Washington's assent - abound in leading US media in the last 24 hours. They contrast sharply with the impression Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been trying to convey to the public that he and President Barack Obama were of one mind on the Iranian question when they talked at the White House last Tuesday, March 23, but the president wanted more Israeli concessions to get talks restarted with the Palestinians.
debkafile's military sources point in particular to the work of two eminent experts on Iran's nuclear program, Anthony Cordesman and American-Jordanian Abdullah Toqan for the Washington Institute for Strategic Affairs, who report the belief in some American military circles that "…nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels…"
The quote was embodied in a 208-page report published Friday, March 26 under the heading: Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program.
They explain that because of the limited scale of its air and missile forces, Israel would resort to "using these [nuclear] warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons, given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie."
Our sources note that in July 2009, the two researchers (in a 114-page report) maintained that the Israeli Air Force possessed the aircraft and resources for striking Iran's nuclear facilities. This view disputed the estimates generally current Washington at the time. Then, too, Cordesman and Toqan were of the opinion that it was not necessary to hit scores of targets to cripple Iran's nuclear bomb program: Seven to nine sites would suffice.
Our Iranian sources report that Tehran ran off thousands of copies of that report for distribution among its intelligence and Revolutionary Guards commanders, who were told to study every word, photo and map. Iran's rulers took the work as seriously as though they had scooped a top-secret Israeli plan of operation.
In their latest work, the two researchers find that ""Ballistic missiles or submarine-launched cruise missiles [such as those with which Israeli Dolphin submarines are armed] could serve for Israeli tactical nuclear strikes without interference from Iranian air defenses."
Saturday, March 27, the day after the Cordesman-Toqan paper was published, The New York Times revealed:
"… international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build [two] more sites," six months after its secret enrichment plant was discovered in Qom.
The report goes on to say: "The most compelling circumstantial evidence… is that while Iran appears to be making new equipment to enrich uranium, that equipment is not showing up in the main plant that inspectors visit regularly [at Natanz or at Qom.]"
Small manufacturing factories spread around Iran to avoid detection and sabotage "are a particular target of American, Israeli and European intelligence agencies," some of which have been penetrated," the report says. Iran "has encountered difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges, the machines that spin at very high speeds to enrich uranium."
Then, Sunday, March 28, The New York Times followed up with proposed scenario, captioned: "Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran," based on a simulation exercise conducted last December by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Its main point is that if Israel goes ahead with this attack, using a refueling base set up in the Saudi desert without Saudi knowledge, Washington will essentially tell its leaders they have "made a mess," and instruct them "to sit in a corner while the United States tries to clean things up."
The exercise does not indicate how the US will clean things up, whether diplomatically or militarily - or both - or just concentrate on keeping the Gulf oil nations safe from Iranian retaliation.
Iran next defies warnings and fires missiles at Israel, including its nuclear center at Dimona, with minimal damage and casualties - the strategy being "to mount low-level attacks on Israel while portraying the United States as a paper tiger…"
debkafile's sources infer from this simulated war game that the Americans believe that, aside from the confrontation over Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel and Iran will try and use their conflict to manipulate US policy.
The next stage would be for Hizballah to fire up to 100 rockets a day into northern Israel, following which Israel would launch a 48-hour campaign by air and special forces against Lebanon to destroy Hizbalah's military strength.
The games simulators then predict an Iranian attack on the Saudi oil industry center at Dahran with conventional missiles, mining the Strait of Hormuz and damaging US oil shipping.
At that point, Washington will embark on a massive reinforcement of the Gulf region. It is clear that the US will then aim at destroying all Iranian, air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz to inflict a "significant defeat" on Iran's forces.
The game is projected to end eight days after the initial Israeli strike.
'종말을 생각함' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 베리칩 이야기 (0) | 2010.04.02 |
|---|---|
| 성전을 건축하라 (0) | 2010.03.31 |
| 미국 건강보험과 짐승의 표 (0) | 2010.03.26 |
| Goldstone 리포트 (0) | 2010.02.13 |
| 계시록 연구 (0) | 2010.02.11 |