Israel news from within Israel

[Shammu]

Israel to hold massive emergency drill
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST    Mar. 17, 2008

In the face of a possible escalation with Syria and Iran's efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon, parts of the country will shut down next month in what security officials say will be the largest emergency exercise in Israel's history.

The drill, which is being organized by the newly-established National Emergency Authority, will take place over five days starting on Sunday, April 6.

But first, on Tuesday, a first-of-its-kind hospital emergency exercise will take place to see how Ashkelon's Barzilai Medical Center would cope with a Grad missile hitting a five-story hospitalization building and an outpatient clinic's laboratory filled with toxic chemicals and a fire breaking out, requiring patients to be lowered from the roof. Around 100 firemen, 10 fire service vehicles and various other equipment, as well as doctors and nurses, will participate in the drill, to be held between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.

Preparations for the April exercise are being overseen by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i.

On the first day of the drill, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will convene the cabinet in Jerusalem in response to an "enemy attack" and to decide on an Israeli response.

Based on a lesson learned in the Second Lebanon War and in preparation for Iranian nuclear bombs and enemy use of chemical and biological weapons, the Israel Police, IDF Home Front Command and other military branches, all of the country's hospitals, the Fire and Rescue Service, Magen David Adom and other rescue services will all participate in the drill.

According to officials involved in the planning, sirens will blast throughout the country. The rescue services will drill mass evacuations from "hit zones" - including mock chemical and biological attacks - and hospitals will drill their ability to provide medical treatment to thousands of wounded.

One hospital that will practice dealing with a chemical attack will be Ha'emek Medical Center in Afula.

"This is the biggest exercise in Israel's history," said a high-ranking defense official involved in the planning, while stressing that the exercise was not being conducted due to intelligence that war was imminent but rather as part of the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War.

Last Thursday, Vilna'i convened a meeting of directors-general from government ministries as well as their spokesmen to prepare the public relations side of the drill, and Israeli public relations during a real war.

"This is not being done since we think there will be a war, but rather since we need to be prepared," the official said, adding that the government planned to hold such an exercise annually.

All government ministries will participate in the exercise and they will hold a drill on one day during which they will direct all of their personnel to enter bomb shelters. Civilians will be asked to locate the public bomb shelter closest to their homes.

Israel to hold massive emergency drill

[Shammu]

Right-wing Israelis storm Arab area in Jerusalem

Sun Mar 16, 1:25 PM ET

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Dozens of right-wing Jewish activists broke through an Israeli police barrier near an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem on Sunday and hurled stones at houses and cars, police and witnesses said.

The activists entered the neighborhood of Jabal Mukaber, which was home to a Palestinian gunmen who earlier this month killed eight students at a Jewish seminary, the deadliest Palestinian attack on Israelis in two years.

"A number of individuals attempted to make their way inside Jabal Mukaber. Stones were thrown and arrests were made," said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. No one was injured in the violence, he said.

Right-wing Israelis storm Arab area in Jerusalem

[Shammu]

Rabbi blasts his father for remaining in Israeli leader's coalition
Posted: March 17, 2008
9:52 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – In unprecedented criticism of his father, the son of the spiritual leader of a major coalition partner in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government demanded his father's party immediately bolt the government amid rampant media reports Jerusalem is up for negotiations.

Rabbi Jacob Yosef accused the ultra-Orthodox Shas party of "selling Jerusalem" for 478 million Israeli shekels, or $138 million. Yosef's father, Rabbi Ovadye Yosef, serves as the spiritual leader of Shas, where he is also considered the party's more important and revered figure.

Earlier this month, the Knesset's Finance Committee approved $138 million in government funds to Shas' educational institutions as part of the party's coalition agreement with Olmert.

If Shas bolts, Olmert's coalition government could fall apart, precipitating new elections.

"How dare you sell out Jerusalem for 478 million shekels. Jerusalem is worth more than all monies in the world," said Jacob Yosef, rabbi of the Givat Mordechai neighborhood in Jerusalem, addressing his father's party.

Jacob Yosef is also a member of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, a coalition of more than 350 Israeli rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis.

The Israeli Shas party has stated it would bolt the prime minister's coalition if it becomes clear the Israeli government is negotiating to cede of any part of Jerusalem.

Olmert repeatedly has insisted Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are not dealing with the status of Jerusalem, but Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abba, and many Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have said in recent weeks negotiations are covering all core issues, including Jerusalem.

Yosef accused his father's party of staying in the government until a formal announcement regarding dividing Jerusalem is made, by which time, the rabbi said, it will be too late.

"When someone brings a rope to hang your child, will you say 'oh, it's nothing, he only brought a rope?' Or if a killer is only sharpening the knife, will you say, 'it's nothing, he's only sharpening the knife?' You will stop him right at the beginning because by the time the knife is on the throat it will be too late. What is Shas waiting for? It must leave the government right now," Yosef exclaimed.

Shas denies Jerusalem is being discussed during weekly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which commenced after last November's U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit.

"Nobody is talking about Jerusalem. The moment Jerusalem is being discussed, Shas will leave the government – period," Shas Spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch told Israel National News.

A Rabbinical Congress for Peace statement issued earlier this month said: "Every novice journalist and anyone listening to the news in Israel knows that giving up large chunks of Jerusalem has been on the negotiating table for quite some time and is in its advanced stages. Only the representatives of Shas are burying their heads in the ground and pretend they know of nothing."

"They are lying to themselves and deceiving their electorate. The Shas ministers know that Olmert and Abbas have agreed not to make public any agreement on Jerusalem until after the final signature in order to keep Shas in the government," said the RCP statement.

The statement was signed by scores of prominent rabbinic leaders here.

Since the Annapolis summit, which aimed to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year, senior negotiating teams including Livni and chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia have been meeting weekly while Olmert and Abbas meet biweekly.

Unlike previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in which both sides attended with about a dozen advisors each, Livni's and Quereai's teams are small, usually consisting at most of five people each. Media leaks from the current negotiations have been rare. Some momentum is highly expected before a visit Bush has scheduled to Israel in May, his second trip since Annapolis.

Olmert's government has hinted a number of times it will divide Jerusalem and reportedly has halted all Jewish construction permits for eastern sections of the city.

In December, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said the country "must" give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem "to whatever they want."

"We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want," said Ramon during an interview.

Positions held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert's Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.

Olmert himself recently questioned whether it was "really necessary" to retain Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

About 231,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, and many reside in illegally constructed complexes. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000.

Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert's government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.

But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.

The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the "eternal and undivided capital" of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.

"He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank," said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert. She spoke on condition of anonymity, because she still works for the municipality.

One former municipal worker during Olmert's mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.

Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel's state comptroller for investigation.

King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.

"Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes," said King. "Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes, because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority."

King's report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.

Local media reports investigating King's charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.

The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.

"During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read.

King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.

"We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said.

[Shammu]

In war as in war

By Yoel Marcus
March 18, 2008

Israel's minister of defense has become a minister of war, says my colleague Gideon Levy. He condemns Ehud Barak's actions and expresses his bitter disappointment in the man. Sadly, Israel is not Switzerland. Its neighbors are not Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, and its defense minister is not a character from the opera dressed in a fancy uniform with a feather-plumed hat. As a country that has known nothing but war in every shape and form since the day it was born, Israel's defense minister is indeed a minister of war. This is not a derogatory term but a realistic job description.

Despite the fact that we have signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, thanks to courageous leaders on both sides, Israel remains a target for elimination. The Palestinian people, whose right to establish a state of their own was granted by the United Nations at the same time as it was granted to Israel, chose to turn down the offer. Instead of living alongside a pint-size sliver of a state called Israel, the Palestinians preferred to fight for all or nothing.

As a country forced to live by the sword for the last 60 years, Israel could have easily become a military dictatorship. But it retained its humanity and its democratic character, blossoming into a developed country admired by friends and foes alike.

Israel fell in love with the territories it captured in the Six-Day War, but over time, in the wake of wars and terror and global pressure, small windows of goodwill opened that allowed the signing of peace accords. Arguably the most dramatic of them, after the Yom Kippur War and peace with Egypt and Jordan, were the Oslo Accords, signed at a gala ceremony on the White House lawn, and later in Cairo.

Yasser Arafat proudly drove into Gaza in a black limousine, waving to the cheering, hope-filled crowds. But instead of words of peace, the chairman's maiden speech was a war cry against Israel.

In 2000, it was then prime minister Ehud Barak who presented Arafat and president Bill Clinton with a comprehensive agreement that included the option of dividing Jerusalem. Arafat turned white, Clinton wrote in his memoir. Soon after that, the second intifada erupted. The Palestinian leadership wrecked any opportunity for an agreement with its own two hands.

Barak pokes fun at the incredible amateurishness of the Palestinian leaders, with their fancy suits and scent of after-shave, who lost half their people to Hamas in Gaza. Our fight is not with the Palestinians in Gaza, says Barak, but with those who drove out, bumped off or incarcerated 17,000 Palestinian Authority security personnel. Our fight is with those who have been shooting rockets into Israel for the last seven years. It was no accident that Ariel Sharon insisted that the first stage of the road map should be halting terror and dismantling the terror organizations, although he himself evacuated Gush Katif unconditionally.

Hamas, boosted by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism now spreading like a plague in this part of the world, by Iran's threats to destroy Israel and support of terror, and most of all, by the exposure of Israel's soft underbelly - the home front - in the Second Lebanon War, is threatening to arm itself with long-range rockets that can reach the heart of Israel.

Barak denies that any kind of mutual cease-fire was declared between Hamas and Israel. There was an outside initiative (mainly from Egypt) to get Hamas to stop firing Qassams at Israel. And if they stopped shooting, Israel would stop retaliating. But Israel has not promised to end the war on terror in the West Bank, out of fear that Hamas is liable to gain control there, too, and topple the last vestiges of sane, albeit weak, leadership.

Seven years of rocket fire into urban centers is not something that any country can tolerate. Islamic Jihad claims its attacks are a response to Israel's targeted assassination of four wanted murderers in Bethlehem. Stop the targeted hits and we will stop firing rockets, says Jihad. But this equation, even if it is based on some sort of agreement, cannot and should not be accepted by Israel. A deal that prevents Israel from fighting terror but allows missiles to be lobbed into our cities is out of the question.

A government's primary commitment is to its citizens. Noble sentiments are all very well, but not when blood is being spilled. Creating a linkage between what is going on in Gaza and what is going on in Judea and Samaria will only invite attacks from the West Bank on Israel proper.

Ehud Barak is not talking about "victory" in Gaza, to use the populist rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu. All he wants is to end the rocket fire from Gaza. He is not keen on a "major offensive" in Gaza, but if a ground operation is necessary, our minister of war will not back down from what needs to be done. In war as in war, as they say.

In war as in war

[Shammu]

Israel: the Military Issues Related to Striking at Iran Nuclear Targets

In recent months Israel has become increasingly worried about Iran's nuclear program and the possibility that it might be geared towards warfare. The recent publication of a US intelligence report about Iran stopping its nuclear weapons research and development program in 2003 is a warning that the US might not be fully committed towards a military option, despite the report itself having been considered unreliable by both Israeli and British intelligence agencies. This encourages the idea that Israel could launch a strike at Iranian nuclear sites on its own, like it did in 1981 against the Osirak reactor in Iraq.Distance, lack of surprise, multiple targets involved, and the inability to avoid an Iranian missile counterstrike make such a plan very risky. Therefore Israel might decide to avoid this line of action unless in a desperate situation, and meanwhile use any diplomatic means to obtain the needed US military aid.

Lorenzo Nannetti

Equilibri.net (18 March 2008)

Tensions between Israel and its allies and Iran have been brewing for more than a year, but recently they have intensified. Both sides accuse the other of trying to provoke an incident that will spark war, and both continue to claim that they are ready to destroy the other if attacked. In addition, Iran's aggressive foreign policy and refusal to give up its nuclear program prompts Israel and western countries to believe that Teheran will try to produce nuclear weapons. As tensions grow, the possibility of a military strike to destroy the Iranian nuclear sites increases.

The recent publication of a US intelligence report that states Iran has stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003 has raised doubts about American willingness to really use military strength without direct provocation. Israel is therefore left in an uneasy situation where it has to consider the possibility that it will have to act alone against Teheran. Public opinion around the world believes that Israel has both the means and the willingness to carry out such an attack, and that its military superiority is enough to ensure victory.

Political Will vs Practical Capability
There is little doubt about the fact that successful precision strikes on Iranian nuclear sites would cancel Teheran's nuclear program or, at the very least, set it back several years.Even discarding the destruction of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the early 80's, the world has already received confirmation of the interest in carrying out such operations. The strike against the secret Syrian facility in September 2007 and the subsequent refurbishing of Israel missile ordnance stockpiles show Jerusalem's willingness and effectiveness to do so. This attack showcased the Israeli Air Force (IAF)'s proficiency and accuracy: Syrian anti-aircraft defences were either jammed or evaded, and the target successfully struck with pinpointed accuracy.

While any attack on Iran would be condemned if made without UN sanction, it is widely thought that many countries both in the West and in the Middle East would secretly approve of such an action: the diplomatic backlash would thus be minimal.It has to be said however that political will, past successes and diplomatic support aren't the only requirements for launching such a strike. There are important technical and tactical considerations that cannot be easily dismissed. It is necessary to look into these practical issues to understand if an attack is feasible or not. The same considerations will shape the Israeli decision to carry out the strikes alone or wait for US support instead. This paper aims to give some insight into an often neglected part of this decision-making process.

The Targets: Iranian Nuclear Fuel Processing Facilities
No report about a possible Israeli attack would be complete without understanding the targets involved and their importance related to Teheran's nuclear programme.Reports estimate that Iran's uranium reserves stand at about 3,000-4,000 tons, plus 20-30,000 tons of reserves that can be mined. The two main mines are located at Saghand in Yazd and Gchine near Bandar Abbas.The mines constitute the main source of native nuclear fuel, but they are hardly a viable target: uranium cannot be destroyed and collapsing the mines would not solve the long term problem, as the mineral would still be there. It is also difficult to determine if more unknown mines are currently active or under construction.Besides, raw material mined isn't directly employable because it has to be processed. In particular uranium oxide, U3O8, has to be extracted from the mined minerals, converted into gaseous uranium hexafluoride, UF6, and then enriched. It is later processed back into uranium dioxide, UO2, for use in the nuclear reactors.

Enrichment is the main cause of concern: only a small enrichment level (about 5%) is needed for civilian purposes. If the process is carried further to higher concentration levels instead, it can be used for the production of nuclear weapons.Without the chance of blocking Iran's supply of mineral, the only means to disrupt the full programme is to destroy the more vulnerable processing plants. There are several sites in Iran that house facilities relevant to Teheran's nuclear programme.

Isfahan: the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) is here. It is responsible for processing the raw material into U3O8 and later transformations into UF6 and UO2. The facility does not appear buried or in anyway heavily hardened. Nonetheless it would require the use of heavy weapons to ensure crippling damage.

Natanz: this is possibly the main target. The centrifuges for the enrichment of Uranium lie here. Iranian propaganda claims that there are about 3,000 working centrifuges. It is impossible to know the exact number, but there is no indication that the number is far from reality.

The Natanz facility is the single most vital target to attack because it is the only one that can be directly linked to the production of nuclear weapons. It is also the most fortified, andpossibly the best defended one. A sizeable part of it is underground, most probably divided in several hardened bunkers that would require the use of powerful bunker-busting bombs to be sufficiently damaged. Modern anti-aircraft defences are also likely to be deployed around it.

Busher: the nuclear reactor at Busher also seems to be a prime target, mainly judging by past Israeli behaviour of destroying the Osirak one. The facility is for civilian use, but Israeli policy has always been to avoid any other hostile Middle Eastern country from acquiring that technology. The time is short however, as according to Russian official sources two-three shipments of nuclear fuel have already been supplied. This makes a direct strike of the reactor less likely to avoid problems of nuclear fuel leakage into the countryside (something that would provoke serious diplomatic problems).

Arak: the existence of a heavy water production plant at Arak has been admitted by Iran since 2002. By itself it is not a "true" nuclear site, since its production only supports the normal functionality of other plants. However, a few years ago IAEA also discovered a project for two heavy water nuclear reactors. These can be used to produce plutonium both for civilian and/or weapon use. It is important to understand that plutonium is generally a product of nuclear reactor activity, not a source; hitting the heavy water production site is therefore enough to make the reactors useless.

What we can notice from the list of targets and their location is twofold. Foremost, the targets are numerous and most of them well protected. Secondly, by looking at any geographical map of the area we can see that they are spread apart from each other.

Cont'd next post

[Shammu]

Attack Routes
The first issue regarding the Israeli strike is how to get to the targets. There are three main routes available.
The Northern Route goes north from the Israeli airbases in Galilee to the Mediterranean Sea around the coast of Lebanon and Syria, then heads east towards Iran passing through Turkish airspace near the Syrian border. The advantage would be to allow airborne refueling over the sea in neutral space. The drawback is that this route is very similar to the one Israeli aircrafts used to strike at the Syrian facility in September 2007. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has stated that his country will not permit the IAF to use its airspace again for military missions, whatever the reason. Since going through Syrian territory is not an option (increased surveillance is to be expected in light of the September strike), this route does not seem available. However, hidden diplomacy between Jerusalem and Ankara might keep this option open depending on how much Turkey really despises Iran's nuclear adventurism.Even refueling over the sea might be a problem because of the presence of Russian naval units at Tartus on the Syrian Coast. It is unlikely they would directly intervene, but they might provide early warning to Syria and/or Iran if the strike force or the fuel tankers are detected. It is possible that this might be a part of their agreement for the use of the Syrian facilities. Still, the route is about 2,200 kms long, making refueling operations there unavoidable.

The Central Route is the most direct one. It passes through Jordan and Iraq to reach central Iran: about 1,750 kms from Hatzerim base in Israel to Natanz.A few years ago this route would look very difficult to employ because of the need to cross Jordan. Amman's recent anti-Iran attitude might make it feasible now, with both Israeli and US diplomacy working hard to get silent approval. The Hashemite Kingdom cannot afford to appear too supportive of Jerusalem however, least it risks an uprising from its own people. Therefore we might expect a lot of disinformation being spread to deny an eventual Jordanian cooperation.

The Southern Route goes south through the gulf of Aqaba, then near the Saudi/Jordanian and Saudi/ Iraqi borders, and finally through the Persian Gulf to reach Iran's southern regions. It is possibly the longest one (2,200-2,400 kms) and would require refueling on the Persian Gulf. Here, prior diplomacy would also play a big part in making sure Saudi Arabia does not try to intercept the IAF fighters and bombers. Again, the US might play an important role thanks to the recent batch of military deals it has signed with Riyhad.Iranian radars are probably monitoring the area heavily due to the presence of the US Navy, and this might spoil a surprise attack. At the same time however, that friendly presence might make the whole approach area more secure for the attacking aircrafts.

The northern route appears to be the less safe one at the moment, but even by excluding it, it is impossible to predict whether the southern or the central one will be used. Complex diplomatic behind-the-scenes deals will shape the plan: even if a decision has already been taken, a last-minute denial or permission might force the IAF to change its plans.

Approach mode will also be a factor: low altitude flight profile is ideal to avoid radar detection, but it also forces aircraft to expend more fuel due to the need to conform to the terrain. At the same time it makes them more vulnerable to stand-off anti-aircraft weapons. High altitude flight profile requires less fuel but makes the strike force easier to be detected and thus intercepted.Considering stealth is one of the main requisites due to the need to avoid a substantial Iranian response, a low altitude approach appears more probable.

Israeli Operational Issues
The long distances involved mean that only a limited part of the IAF would be able to participate in the mission. Recent reports state that about 40-50 aircrafts at the most would be available for the attack, mostly F-15I Ra'am and F-16I Soufa which are the only ones to have sufficient operational range. They are the Israeli version of the more common US F-15E and F-16, specially modified for long-range strike capability.

In theory, more could be used and IAF could even refit some shorter-range F-16D and F-15A/C to carry enough fuel. In practical terms however, a massive use of fighters would put heavy strain on the Israeli command and refueling capabilities. At the same time, such a course of action would jeopardise Israeli air superiority at home, especially if many casualties are suffered during the attack. It therefore looks reasonable that only the aforementioned amount of F-15I and F-16I might be employed.

Despite their capabilities, the payload for both kind of aircrafts would have to be finely tuned to allow maximum range (through additional conformal fuel pods) and sufficient weapon load to destroy the targets. Weight would become an issue. It has to be remembered that a fully-loaded bomber isn't very maneuverable. In particular it cannot respond quickly to threats such as enemy interceptors or defending SAM batteries, because its heavy weight puts a high strain on the aircraft structure and does not allow any rapid evasive maneuver. Dogfighting becomes impossible.When targeted, it is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to drop extra ammunition and fuel pods in order to get the extra thrust needed to avoid incoming missiles, but if too many crafts are forced to do so, not enough firepower would remain to strike the targets. It they don't and somehow survive the threat, we need to remember that combat maneuvers expend much more fuel than normal. The operational range would likely be reduced, perhaps making it impossible to reach the targets.

There are two ways to minimise this risk. Firstly, part of the attack force can be configured as escort fighters. Secondly, detection should be avoided for as much as possible, mainly through the use of Electronic Warfare (EW) assets. Neither of these is an optimal solution.Configuring some units as fighters would make them capable of shielding the bombers from enemy interceptors: the escorts would be able to attack and destroy enemy fighters before they can lock on the strike crafts. However, they would not be able to block the targeting and tracking systems of SAM batteries.EW aircrafts would be used to jam defending radars and mask the attackers. It worked perfectly in the September Syrian strike, when only a late and ineffective response was raised. However, that attack was a surprise run on a target that had been consciously left lightly defended to avoid raising too much unwanted attention. Even if a few radars could be blinded, it is debatable whether most of the Iranian Air Defence structure would be so easily made ineffective; we have to consider that real surprise would be hard to obtain due to actual tensions brewing and the small number of IAF units that could be devoted to this role.

It is a matter of trade-offs. The presence of escorts and EW units will inevitably lower the number of actual attack crafts. If too many are employed in this manner, the strike units become safer but also less likely to destroy all the targets. If too few, the bombers become more vulnerable, probably at the expense of success of the entire operation.

It has to be kept in mind that the whole situation is highly different from any other recent one. Operationally, a typical bombing campaign would first get air superiority by knocking-out the enemy air forces and air defence installations (radars, SAM sites, airbases,...). This ensures defences are unable to respond to the bombing of the targets. In this case however this is not possible, mainly due to the long distances involved: the lack of nearby bases and a generally reduced number of suitable strike aircrafts make sure IAF is not able to suppress Iranian air defences and then conduct a prolonged bombing operation. This means that any attack will only have one chance of success. The long range and the need to enter deeply into enemy territory will make it impossible to get out, rearm, refuel and attack again. Defences would be alerted and any second strike without US support would probably face overwhelming odds.

Cont'd next post

[Shammu]

The Missile Option
On 16th January 2008, Israel claimed to have tested a new ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran and carrying "unconventional warheads". The statement raised the possibility that Jerusalem might decide to employ long range ballistic missiles to destroy the targets, in addition or even as a substitute to the air strike in order to avoid the aforementioned issues.First of all, there is little doubt that the unconventional term used refers to nukes. Biological or chemical agents would be useless against the targets and would only cause human losses, with a high rate of civilian casualties. The diplomatic fallout would most likely turn the whole world against Israel, something the Jewish state does not want.

Israel is reputed to have around 200 nukes, even if the correct amount has always been classified info. Using a small portion of these would not critically diminish the stockpiles.However, some doubts exist regarding the missile claimed to have been tested. Israel is currently developing and testing the Jericho-3, a three-stage vector with a maximum range of about 4,800 kms. The tested missile has instead been described as longer range but only 2 stages.The development of a less-stage but longer range vector seems unlikely so there is the possibility that the test was actually made using the already operational Jericho-2. The latter is capable of hitting Iran and carrying a nuclear warhead, with a maximum range of about 3,000-3,500 kms depending on sources.Therefore, without a real need for a new missile, the experiment might have been made to test the existing vector's accuracy and reliability. These are both important aspects behind the decision to employ such weapons, especially if we think of the political backlash caused by hitting a wrong target. It is unlikely that the Israeli government will authorise employing such a tactic exactly for these reasons. Its claims seem to be a way to scare Teheran's leadership, forcing it to back off before a true nuclear confrontation occurs.Conventional explosives could be used instead, but the efficiency of such a package against hardened underground targets has never been fully proven. A more traditional air strike therefore remains the most likely option.

Narrowing the Target Set
Striking at all targets at once carries the minimum chance of success. The number of attack crafts is already limited and would have to be divided into 4-5 groups. Each of these would have to include both escorts and EW crafts, since distance between the various targets would probably mean that the groups cannot support each other continuously. This dilution of forces might jeopardise the success of the attack on some - if not all - targets, especially because some of them require the use of heavy penetrating bombs that cannot be carried in high quantity due to their weight.It therefore looks like Israel might decide to narrow the target set and attack only a few selected ones. This move is supported by the fact that only two sites are critical to the Iranian nuclear program: Isfahan and, in particular Natanz. Without the reprocessing facilities, mined uranium becomes almost useless; furthermore, without the centrifuges, weapon-grade uranium cannot be produced. Some concerns might be raised by the Arak project, but it has to be said that IAEA states that the two reactors will be operational no earlier than 2013-2014. Even assuming a certain degree of inaccuracy in this estimate, Mossad and most other international intel agencies believe Teheran will acquire nuclear weaponry before that date through its other facilities, even despite disagreements on the actual deadline year. For this reason striking at Arak is not vital to stop the Iranian program and can be left aside if needed.

It can be assumed that Natanz will be the priority target as it is the one most closely linked to nuclear weapon manufacture, with Isfahan as the secondary if the Israeli High Command believes it can afford to attack both. With less targets to care about, the attack force can be better tuned to meet needs. Moreover, the higher attack craft-per-target ratio will ensure that even if some bombers are shot down or forced to disengage earlier, enough should remain to fulfill the mission.

There are several works from various western institutes that debate just how many bombs would be needed to destroy each target. However, it is very hard to get more that a rough idea because there is no way to know just how extensive the subterranean tunnels and laboratories are, and how strongly hardened. Any detailed information about these is classified.Best estimates put weapons like the BLU-class of bunker-buster bombs as effective enough to break through and ensure destruction, but a lot will depend on actual bombing accuracy. The Natanz facility especially appears so fortified that multiple hits on the same locations could be needed to cause enough damage.

The Problem of Iranian Response
The problem of a possible Iranian response is considered so important in Israel that the media routinely asks experts about the possibility of such a counterattack and the means to avoid it.It has to be considered that the same problems Israel encounters in its planning will also exist for Iran if it decides to strike back. The Shiite air fleet is made up mainly of outdated models. Even the new native designs are actually little more than refits of old Western models like the F-5 Tiger or F-14 Tomcat. Long range reach is almost non-existant and Iran lacks experience in such operations. Intelligence reports state that Teheran has recently acquired a batch of modern Sukhoi long-range bombers and air tankers for refuel, but they are unlikely to enter into full service before autumn/winter of 2008 or even 2009.Adding the fact that Israel (and the US) retain a definite technological edge in ECCM, detection and targeting (especially thanks to the AWACs' electronic array), it is unlikely that any counterattack with air forces would have any chance of success. This aspect is well known by both sides, and this is why attention is drawn to the use of ballistic missiles.

A few months ago Iranian military leaders stated instead that they already have about 300 missiles pointed towards Israel. The number looks exaggerated, especially since only Shahab-3 and -4 (the latter only suspected to be in service, but whose final development was never confirmed) vectors have enough range to reach the Jewish state. They are only a fraction of Iran's missile arsenal and are very few in number. The statement thus looks like propaganda. However, these weapons cannot be dismissed, because the possibility of arming warheads with chemical or biological agents makes even one missile a serious threat.

There is also the chance that the Iranian leaders were referring to the total number of missiles and rocket launchers that Iran and its allies can field. If we include Hezbollah and maybe Hamas, the number increases significantly, even if a sizeable portion of these is of low power and even lower accuracy.Reading Israeli newspapers and opinion polls, it is easy to notice that a missile attack is considered the worst nightmare by the common people. Israel's relatively low population makes even moderate civilian casualties a serious threat to the nation's existence. To avoid this, the Ministry of Defence has commissioned the development of anti-missile systems that could replace the old and never reliable Patriot. The current defence system is the Arrow 2, and the improved David's Sling is currently under accelerated development.

The Arrow has been successfully tested several times against single or few incoming targets but it has to be said that it is far from perfect: it is believed that if facing a shower of missiles, it might not be able to engage all. This problem is even more troublesome when we think about the possibility that a few Shahab-3 launched from Iran might carry chemical or biological warheads. Israel has developed contingency plans to avoid excessive civilian casualties from a WMD attack that evades defences, and has even recently staged a series of tests simulating massive civilian deaths that might cause a breakdown of conventional communications and loss of key government personnel.The simulations have been claimed as highly successful, but propaganda aside, Israel cannot afford the price. In order to avoid being hit by the most powerful Iranian warheads, many think tanks such as the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies have stated that the only acceptable way is to avoid the missiles fired.

Cont'd next post

[Shammu]

The need to hit missile launching sites would increase the number of targets involved in the strike. The time needed to fire them in retaliation after the first attacks on the nuclear sites might be very short, assuming they are already in position and Iran's leadership doesn't wait for days before deciding to act. A counterattack could be launched in less than 24 hours. This means that the missiles would have to be destroyed during the main Israeli strike.It is believed that Israeli and US commandos and intel operatives are already scanning Iran to mark all launch sites and military bases, and this will probably give Jerusalem a clear view of where the missile launch platforms are. We have to remember that the vectors powerful enough to reach the Jewish state are quite big and cumbersome and cannot be easily hidden or quickly relocated.However, an increased number of targets will again pose a problem of diluting the Israeli attack strength into many groups. Moreover, if too many launch sites are detected there might even be the possibility that Israel simply cannot hit all of them at once. The result is an operation that even at its best cannot assure that Iran wouldn't be able to launch a counterattack: a very different situation from past occurrences. An Iranian response would then trigger a US intervention that will most probably cause severe damage both to the nuclear sites and the military apparatus, especially the Revolutionary Guards. However, unless all Israeli attacks are unsuccessful, this added threat is unlikely to stop Iran from trying to exact some kind of vengeance: appearing unable to respond would cause a serious loss of face and probably spoil Teheran's recent successes in expanding its influence throughout the region.

At the same time, Israel would probably find itself deeply involved with Hezbollah, which is reputed to have orders to strike south with rockets and short range missiles if Iran is attacked. For this reason IAF would have to keep a sizeable air force ready to deal with the Shiite militia. The situation would be even worse if Syria enters the fray due to its extensive missile arsenal and closeness to the Jewish state.The point is that IAF cannot afford to use too many assets - and risk losing many of these - in a strike against Iran, least it cannot cope with enemy threats from Israel's closer neighbours.

US Advantages
Many tactical problems would be solved if the US were the ones to launch the bombing campaign. The main advantage would be nearby bases (in Iraq and Gulf Arab states, as well as the aircraft carriers), and more effective command and control capabilities. This would ensure an increased number of aircrafts available, as well as the use of cruise missiles launched from warships.The whole operation would follow a more traditional sequence. First of all, air superiority would be reached through the destruction of the enemy air force and main anti-aircraft defences. Then the entire region would become an easier target with high altitude bombers executing precision strikes against nuclear and possibly Revolutionary Guards military sites. A massive use of Electronic Warfare would severely compromise Iran's chances of defence throughout the whole war.

The US military array already in place ensures that enough strength is available to hit the Shahab-3 launch sites in the early stages of the campaign. By destroying those and other Short Range Ballistic Missiles in Iran's arsenal, an important part of a counterattack against Israel or US bases in Iraq would be neutralised.We have to remember however that a direct US intervention will probably still force Hezbollah to attack Israel in retaliation. At the same time, Iraq might see a surge in violence if Shiite groups are ordered to attack Western forces there.

Conclusions - To Go or Not To Go
Israel's military and technological superiority in the Middle East is not enough to assure it can destroy the Iranian nuclear sites. Distance limits the actual strength Jerusalem can project so far from its bases, while enemy defences and possible response are all elements that make the attack plan very risky. Therefore Israel might not be able to reach its objectives alone, forcing it to convince the United States to act in its stead. Jerusalem might be aided in this by the fact that Iran is also a threat to western interests in the region, and the Jewish state might use particular concessions to the Palestinian Authority as a bargaining tool.

It has to be said that if Israel really believes that Iran is dangerously close to reaching the nuclear bomb and no one else is willing to act, it will attack anyway. A slim chance of success is considered much better than allowing a hostile power acquire nuclear capability. In addition, the closer Teheran gets to it the more radical Israel's response might be. We have to remember that the memory of the Holocaust is still deeply embedded inside every Israeli mind: the fear to have it happen again through nuclear fire would make their public opinion push for extreme actions, even at the cost of worldwide condemnation.This is why it is reasonable to think that Israel will act one way or another before the end of 2009, the date estimated by Mossad as the deadline for stopping Iran's nuclear program before it reaches completion. As a result, the Western world might have less than 2 years to increase its diplomatic and political pressure on Iran and its sponsors if it wants to avoid a military clash that might ignite the whole region.

Israel: the Military Issues Related to Striking at Iran Nuclear Targets

[Shammu]

Israel Braces for Revenge Attacks
By John Waage
CBN News - Jerusalem Bureau
March 18, 2008

CBNNews.com - JERUSALEM, Israel - Israel is bracing for a new round of possible terror attacks from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group. Forty days of mourning for their slain terrorist leader will soon end, and Hezbollah has vowed to take revenge against Israel for his assassination.

In recent weeks, Israel has had its hands full trying to deal with rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and riots in the West Bank. But the biggest worry for Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may be to the north in Lebanon, where Iran's proxy, the radical Hezbollah terror organization, is loaded with weapons and bent on revenge.

Hezbollah and Iran blame Israel for the February killing of one of the world's most-wanted terrorists, Imad Mughniyeh. The 40-day Muslim mourning period for him ends March 22, and Israel is on alert for possible reprisals -- not only in Israel itself, but at Israeli embassies and Jewish centers around the world.

At another funeral in Bethlehem last week, the bodies of Islamic Jihad leaders killed by Israel in a counter-terror operation were wrapped in Hezbollah flags, another sign of Iran's growing influence in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli intelligence estimates that Hezbollah has rebuilt its rocket arsenal from the Second Lebanon war in 2006 and now has 20,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

Iran's regime is almost certain to help Hezbollah avenge the death of its leader. And the goal will be a high casualty count. The questions of who, when and where they might attack is a concern not only in Israel, but for leaders on every continent.

It is a circumstance that best-selling author and geo-political analyst Joel Rosenberg is very well aware of.

His first book, The Last Jihad, (Which is a very good book. DW)  launched a series of novels centered in the Middle East whose storylines ended up in the headlines.

That prompted some to dub him a modern-day Nostradamus.

Such insights have made him a noted speaker and consultant to leaders around the world.

His latest book, released for sale today, is Dead Heat, a story that Rosenberg says he hopes does not end up in the headlines.

Israel Braces for Revenge Attacks

[Shammu]

Israel, US stage 4-day military training exercise

Drill involving participation of some 200 American, Israeli counterparts aimed at boosting 'interoperability, understanding and cooperation' between armies. IDF says exercise unrelated to actual events

Associated Press
Published: 03.20.08, 14:57
Israel News

The Israeli military said Thursday that around 200 US and Israeli officers had staged a computer-based battle simulation designed to improve coordination between the two countries' armed forces.

The four-day exercise, codenamed ''Juniper Falcon'' was part of a standing agreement between the two strategic allies to hold regular joint training to boost ''interoperability, understanding and cooperation'' a military statement released on Thursday said.

The statement stressed that the exercise, which ended on Wednesday, had been planned a year in advance and was not related to actual events.

Defense officials said that in addition the Israeli military's southern command held a separate simulation based on a scenario of an escalated conflict in Gaza.

They said that the drill, codenamed ''Coiled Spring'' should not be seen as a precursor to a real offensive into the Gaza Strip.

Israel, US stage 4-day military training exercise

[Shammu]

High terror alert during Jewish Purim holiday
Fear of massive Hezbollah 'retaliation' attacks in Israel, abroad
Posted: March 19, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – As Jews around the world celebrate the holiday of Purim, Israel today raised its statewide terror alert to the second highest level, fearing a massive revenge attack after the assassination last month of Hezbollah's arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyah.

The terror leader topped Israel's most wanted list and was responsible for a series of infamous deadly attacks against the U.S. and Israel, including involvement in the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied Israel was involved in the extermination, but Hezbollah directly blamed the Jewish state and threatened retaliation.

This Sunday marks the end of the Islamic 40-day mourning period for Mughniyah. Palestinian and other Islamic terror groups have several times carried out what the called revenge attacks following the mourning period for a killed terrorist leader.

Through the weekend Israelis will be celebrating Purim, a holiday that commemorates the deliverance of the Jewish people of the ancient Persian Empire from Haman's plot to annihilate them.

Israel traditionally goes on high alert for Purim, but this year, Israeli security officials say they have specific information indicating Hezbollah might be planning a large-scale attack either within Israel, abroad or both.

To that affect, Israeli forces imposed a complete closure of the West Bank and beefed up police forces throughout the country, particularly in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Sources in the Israel Defense Forces told WND the army reinforced units in the north of the country fearing a possible outbreak of hostilities with Hezbollah at the Lebanese border. According to Lebanese newspaper reports Hezbollah the past few days openly moved fighters close to the Israeli border.

The IDF also beefed up its presence along the Israel-Gaza border fearing a possible coordinated attack from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

According to Israeli media reports, the government here instructed all missions abroad to go on high alert for the possibility Hezbollah will target Israeli interests overseas.

Mughniyah was killed in a bombing in Damascus last month. He led Hezbollah's "international terror branch," orchestrating attacks against foreign targets, according to Israeli security officials.

Mughniyah was accused of helping to plan the 1983 Marine barracks attack in which 300 were killed and also the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut the same year, killing 63 people.

He was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA passenger jet and the murder of one of its passengers, a soldier in the U.S. Navy. Mughniyah was indicted for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. A warrant was issued for his arrest for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in which 29 people died. Argentinean officials have publicly pointed a finger at Iran for aiding in those attacks.

Also, serving as commander of Islamic Jihad in the 1980s, Mughniyah was accused of kidnapping dozens of Western hostages, including Americans, killing some of them, such as the CIA's Middle East station chief.

According to foreign press reports, the Mossad reportedly tried to assassinate Mughniyah in a complex operation in southern Beirut in the 1990s.

Mughniyah reportedly lived a secretive life, routinely switching between locations in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. He is thought to have undergone multiple plastic surgeries and changed identities numerous times.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Time Magazine: McCain's visit to Israel was aimed at gaining support from Evangelicals who believe the Jewish state fulfills Bible prophecy

According to an article in Time Magazine, John McCain's Holy Land pilgrimage during his trip to the Middle East was aimed at gaining support of the Jewish community in America, but more crucially, the support of Evangelical Christians who are a large part of the Republican party base and until now, have regarded the twice married McCain as too liberal and too hard to pigeonhole.

A recent Pew poll says that 65% of Evangelicals believe the state of Israel fulfills a Biblical prophecy about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and McCain's support of Israel may tip the balance in his favor.

The Pugh poll that reveals 65% of all Evangelical Christians believe that Israel today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is at best a mixed blessing in light of the prophetic truth that can be found in the Bible.

Time Magazine's coverage had an interesting twist. The story accused McCain of using the Israel visit to play to the Christians who believe that the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy in connection with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, thus McCain's stop in Israel could gain the support of the Evangelical Christian in the presidential election. That part of the story aside, my concern is that only 65% of Evangelical Christians see Israel today as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

The Bible reveals through the record of the covenants of God, promises by God to the Jewish people, that He has a plan for the Jews, His chosen people, that will be played out in the future. In Genesis 12 and 15, the Lord promised the Jews that they would have a nation forever and a piece of real estate in the Middle East and that forever. Ezekiel, the ancient Jewish prophet, said in chapters 34, 36 and 37 of his prophecy that the Jews would return from all over the world to the Middle East to a piece of real estate that He would give them and they indeed would build a nation among the nations of the world, all of this leading up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The truth be known, 100% of Evangelical Christians should know and believe that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

[nChrist]

Time Magazine's coverage had an interesting twist. The story accused McCain of using the Israel visit to play to the Christians who believe that the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy in connection with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, thus McCain's stop in Israel could gain the support of the Evangelical Christian in the presidential election. That part of the story aside, my concern is that only 65% of Evangelical Christians see Israel today as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

It's very sad that many Christians of today simply dismiss large portions of the Bible because they don't understand it or think it's just dreams for some other purpose.  BUT, many Christians of today also dismiss GOD'S Account of Creation. Things like this make it very difficult to witness to the lost when we don't believe large parts of GOD'S WORD. It's also true that the Bible isn't important enough for many Christians these days to spend any time with. So, we have a lot of self-professing Christians who barely know the basics about their own Salvation. We all need to prioritize our lives for CHRIST and remember this world IS NOT our home!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 1:18-23 NASB I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[Soldier4Christ]

We all need to prioritize our lives for CHRIST and remember this world IS NOT our home!

Brother, every time you say those words beautiful thoughts fill my heart and mind. It is just as that beautiful song says ... we are "just a-passing through" this world and there lays a more beautiful land that God has promised us. Until that time comes that He calls us home we must continue to endure and to do His wonderful work. Such a wondrous time that will be when that time does come!

PRAISE GOD FOR HIS WONDERFUL MERCY!

[nChrist]

AMEN!

Brother, your post made me think about a portion of Scripture I love and want to share:

Psalms 23:1-6 NASB
The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; My cup overflows. Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.