blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Only the Return of Messiah will not fail to bring True Peace!

January 11, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

There has never been any question in my mind that a false peace

must eventually come to Israel for a very brief period of time, just before she is viciously attacked from the north by a Jihad composed of 10 Islamic nations. I know it “must” occur because of several Scriptures in the Bible, which you have seen me use countless times in my books and on this Web Site. So, the question has never been “if” a false peace shall occur, for it will occur, but “how” and “when” is the problem.

The “how” to me has always been a question of four choices: Will it be by force (Unilateralism), negotiations, a formal hudna (truce), or simply the recognition by Israeli Declaration of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within the Security Barrier, which is scheduled to be completed in 2008?

I have been in favor of a “forced” peace from the beginning,

because it put the most heat on the terrorists. I have stated it as my preference of choice from the beginning. But I did not believe it would work other than to eventually get the terrorist countries and groups to realize they could not defeat Israel, except by the treachery of a sudden Jihad under a blanket of false peace. When they finally realize this, they will stop the terrorist attacks for a brief period, and the false peace will come in.

I have never believed anything other than a “false” peace of very short duration could be maintained with the Palestinians.

Only the Messiah can bring a forced lasting peace in the Middle East. I stated what I believed about the false peace in Archive Prophecy Update Number 3, January 2001, which follows the Haaretz Article by Aluf Benn, and that is still my position.

Begin Haaretz Article

Olmert: Unilateralism Has Been a Failure

Aluf Benn

In an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua prior to his departure Sunday for a three-day visit to China, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed his disappointment with the results of Israel’s two unilateral withdrawals, saying that the violence in both Lebanon and Gaza convinced him that there is no point in any future unilateral moves of this kind.

“A year ago, I believed that we would be able to do this unilaterally,” the prime minister said, referring to a withdrawal from the West Bank. “However, it should be said that our experience in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is not encouraging. We pulled out of Lebanon unilaterally, and see what happened. We pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely, to the international border, and every day they are firing Kassam rockets at Israelis.” Olmert’s conclusion was that “under the existing circumstances, it would be more practical to achieve a two-state solution through negotiations rather than [unilateral] withdrawal.” (Ha’aretz)

End Haaretz Article

Begin Quote of Archive Prophecy Update 3

PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 3

January, 2001

Each time a new election is held in Israel we get queries from Europe and Africa. Additionally, we get calls from across the United States because of the lecture series I have conducted for 21 years. The queries usually involve which candidate I think will win the election. It was not easy to predict the election when Benjamin Netanyahu won.

But it was easy to predict his defeat by Ehud Barak, as well as Barak’s recent defeat by Ariel Sharon. The polls were quite definite as to who would win the last two elections.

After an election we get even more queries as to whether or not the new leader can bring peace with the Palestinians.

I do not mind answering these queries, in fact I rather enjoy it when I have time to do it. But there is something far more important in the peace process than who is leader of Israel, and who is leader of the Palestinians.

I retired from the USAF/ National Security Agency as a synoptic analyst.

When one analyzes anything, it is imperative to advance from what controls the conclusion of the problem being examined.

Some problems do not have a definite controlling factor, and all the factors, both incidental and insignificant, must be given the appropriate weight in making a forecast of the outcome. However, this is not the case in making a determination of when peace will come between Israel and the Palestinians. The controlling factor which determines when a false peace will come to Israel, rests solely with the terrorist groups that plague her.

There can never be a period of peace, even false peace, without the approval of all the terrorist groups. Yassar Arafat cannot control the terrorist groups, nor

can any other single Arab leader.

The terrorist complex of Osama Bin Laden, the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hisbullah, and Fatah are really controlled by leaders in Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Until these leaders finally come to the conclusion that the only way Israel can be driven into the Negev is by being lulled into a false sense of security, the terrorist groups will continue to operate, and the killing will continue.

I believe these terrorist groups will soon realize that if they really want to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, and drive the rest into the Negev, they will have to lull Israel into a brief period of false peace.

When this happens, an agreement will be reached between Israel and the Palestinians. So my advice to those who want to get a feel of when the false peace will come is this: WATCH the terrorist groups. When their actions drop to zero, and stay there for a while, you may rest assured it has been as a result of meetings behind closed doors between the leaders of the aforementioned nations, and the leaders of the terrorist groups they sponsor.

I don’t pay much attention to any leader of Israel or the Palestinians. The terrorist groups are the key to a false peace in the Mid-East.

When they grasp that by appearing to cease their activities they will be able, at a later time, to kill many Jews, and drive the rest into the Negev, they will settle down

and wait for the surprise attack against Israel from

the north.

Ariel Sharon may try to put a “forced peace” on the Palestinians before the terrorist groups shut down. This was one of the options considered by his party in the past. But it will not work. Watch for a cessation of terrorism. Then, after a brief period of false peace look for a vicious surprise attack from the north out of Syria.

End Quote of Archive Prophecy Update 3

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

The Pa in

in Spain

has been mainly in Vain!

January 11, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but the pain and liquid tears from the eyes of the world were not restricted to the plains of Spain over the last 15 years, they have been falling in buckets across the landscape of the Middle East.

The following is a summary of the pain and tears that were very plain to the observers during the 15 years since the 1991 Madrid Conference.

1991, Madrid Conference

September 1993 signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (Oslo Accords)

May 1994, Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area

September 1995, Israel and PLO signed the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II)

January 1997, the parties concluded the Hebron Agreement

October 1998, Israel and the PLO signed the Wye River Memorandum

September 1999, the Israeli Government and the PLO signed the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum

March through June 2000, Intensive working-level talks between the Israeli Government and the PLO

July 2000 Camp David meeting. Despite unprecedented Israeli proposals, Arafat rejected all and walked out

January 2001 Taba Conference. Last gasp of the Oslo process after start of the al-Aqsa intifada

After 15 years of tears stretching through the Oslo Peace Accords into 2007, another straw to be grasped is now being made available in Spain.

Real peace in the Middle East will not occur until the return of Messiah, but until then we will keep grasping at straws in the hope one of them might be instrumental in at least bringing in a temporary period of false peace. The following article by Marion Fischel in the Jerusalem Post gives details of a meeting honoring the 1991 Madrid Conference, which led the way to attempts to obtain peace in Israel, and is currently under way in Spain.

Begin Jerusalem Post Article

Arab League, Israeli Reps.

set to Meet

MARION FISCHEL, THE JERUSALEM POST

January 9, 2007

Although the peace process appears to be stuck, representatives of the Arab League, including Syria, will meet with Israeli delegates starting Wednesday at a reunion honoring the 1991 Madrid Conference.

The three-day conference in Madrid, a civil initiative inspired by the need to create an international climate favorable to facilitating the peace process, is called Madrid +15: Madrid 15 Years Later.

Organized by the Toledo International Peace Center, Search for Common Ground and the Fundacion Tres Culturas del Mediterraneo, Madrid +15 aims to identify the expectations of the parties involved and find a platform from which to launch a sustainable end to the conflict.

Emilio Cassinello, director-general of the Toledo International Peace Center, said the “key objective” of the conference was “to impart a global message that even though the present distances between the positions of the parties involved in the Near East crisis are unbridgeable, they are not unsalvageable, and that the positions should and must be brought closer.”

The current conference will be attended by a team of eight representatives from the Palestinian Authority headed by Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan; 11 Israeli representatives including former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and former head of Military Intelligence Uri Saguy; a European contingent including the foreign ministers of Denmark, Norway and Sweden

and former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine, as well as former Spanish president Felipe Gonzalez and EU high representative for common and security policy, Javier Solana.

Russia, the UN, the Arab League, the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, Syria and Saudi Arabia will also be represented, as will the US, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

Cassinello will be one of the moderators at a Wednesday session entitled “How to Influence Policy.” Other working sessions on that day will concentrate individually on Lebanon-Israel, Palestine-Israel and Syria-Israel issues.

On Friday the four working sessions will report to a chair presided by Royal Counselor Andre Azoulay and Regional Minister of the Presidency of Andalucia Gaspar Zarrias – both members of the Fundacion Tres Culturas del Mediterraneo.

Following that, the “Middle East Working Session: A Regional Approach”, will be moderated by Marc Otte, EU special representative for the Middle East peace process, and will include Terje Roed-Larsen, president of the International Academy for Peace and former special coordinator to the Middle East peace process and Hans Blix, former Swedish foreign minister.

According to Cassinello, a peace initiative is to be found somewhere among all the previous attempts, including the Oslo Accords, the road map, Clinton’s parameters and the Saudi initiative supported by the Arab League.

“Recent initiatives and political proposals emphasize the need for a regional focus with international support in the spirit of the peace conference held in Madrid in 1991,” he said.

After an audience with Spanish King Juan Carlos I, the opening dinner of Madrid +15 will take place Wednesday evening at the Santa Cruz Palace, hosted by the governments of Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos will give the welcoming address.

End Jerusalem Post Article

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by

the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site

is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

2007 – A Year of Decision in the Middle East that will affect the World – PART 6

January 10, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

THE FALLOUT FROM ATTACKING IRAN’S NUKE SITES

This is the sixth in a series of BLOGS on the year 2007 as a Year of Decision for Israel on the Iranian Nuclear Threat. The major question of the series is simply “What is Israel going to do about it?” How Israel handles this problem, has, is, and will continue to, cause the world to hold its breath. As you know by now, my guesstimate for the time of an attack against Israel will occur on some day during the time period 2008 to 2012. I suspect the events of 2007 may well determ ine how early or late it will occur

in this time frame.

If Israel decides to blast the Iranian Nuclear Complex, what will be the fallout from the act– Number 6 in this series deals with some of the ramifications of that question.

Since the articles appeared in UK newspapers a few days ago, saying it looked like Israel was about to launch an attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities, queries and phone calls caused me to issue this six set series to provide as much information as possible on the subject, so that you could look at the information, and make your own guess.

Since this is the last article in the series, I am going to give you some answers to questions on the subject as they relate to the Middle East situation.

May I remind you that opinions are like noses, in that most people have one!

Do I think that nuclear missiles would be launched against Israel by any of the nations possessing them, if she were to attempt to knock out the Iranian missile complex? NO!

Do I think chemical and biological missiles would be launched against Israel by the Islamic nations if she were to use nuclear tactical weapons to knock out Iranian nuclear facilities? YES!

Do I think conventional weapons would be launched against Israel by the Islamic nations if she used conventional weapons against the Iranian nuclear complex

? YES!

Does Israel have all sorts of contingency plans for an attack to knock out the Iranian nuclear facilities

? YES

Has the IAF been practicing for an attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities? YES

Will Israel actually attack the Iranian nuclear facilities before a Jihad is launched against her? There are so many variables involved in trying to answer this question, and so many circumstances that could cause it to go either way, that I confess my answer is no better than a wild guess, or what we referred to as a “WAG” in the agency. I WOULD SAY, PROBABLY NOT.

If Israel does carry out a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities, will it unite 10 Arab nations in a Jihad against Israel

? YES

Do I believe it quite likely that a Jihad will be launched against Israel at some point in time between 2008 and 2012 regardless of whether or not a pre-emptive strike is made against the Iranian nuclear facilities? YES

Will the United States, Europe, Russia, and China immediately join in the war between Israel and the 10 Arab nations? NO

Will all the nations of the “old” world (Pre-Columbus) unite with the 10 Arab nations some three and one-half years after Islam initially attacks Israel, at what is known as the final battle, the battle of Armageddon? YES

Yaakov Katz, an excellent journalist, has an outstanding analysis of the pros and cons Israel faces in “to launch or not to launch,” from which I will draw in this and future BLOGS. It appears in the Jerusalem Post, and is titled “Decision Time.”

Decision Time

BY YAAKOV KATZ, THE JERUSALEM POST

Begin Excerpt 6 from Jerusalem Post

THE FALLOUT

During this summer’s war in Lebanon Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, head of Military Intelligence, warned one night during a press conference at military headquarters in Tel Aviv that Hizbullah sleeper cells abroad, directed and supported by Iran, had been “awakened” and were preparing plans to attack Jewish and Israeli sites

.

The assumption within Military Intelligence took into account Iran’s long-reaching terror arm. Iran is held responsible for the bomb ing of the Argent

ine Israelite Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires in 1994 in which 85 people were killed.

Hizbullah is also believed to be behind the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 in which 29 people were killed and 242 wounded.

“If Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, it will have to take in

to account a response in kind,” Brom wrote.

The Iranians would most probably utilize Hizbullah to ignite the Lebanese border like they did this past summer when 4,000 rockets pounded the North. While Hizbullah refrained from firing long-range Iranian-made Fajr and Zelzal missiles, it would most probably launch the missiles – which can reach south of Tel Aviv – following an attack on Iran.

Iran has also developed its own ballistic missile, the Shihab 3, which is said to have a range of 1,330 km. and gives Iran the capability to strike directly at targets in Israel. In mid-December 2005, it was also reported that Iran had acquired 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which have a range of 2,500 km. Iran is also said to be in the midst of developing missiles that would be capable of carrying heavier payloads for increased distances: 2,000 km., 2,500 km. and even 4,000 km.

No solid evidence of these advanced Shihabs is available, and it is unclear whether the Iranians have moved beyond the initial planning phase. But if they are being developed – and MI believes they are – then they indicate that Iran also has its sights on European countries – possibly even US military bases in Germany, one diplomatic official speculated.

While the Shihab is deadly when carrying a conventional warhead – its payload is up to 800 kg. – Brom warned that Israel would also have to take into account Iranian use of chemical weapons. For that purpose, the Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile defense system, which according to senior IAF officers is capable of intercepting all of Iran’s missiles, was developed.

“The fallout of a preemptive attack would be painful,” admits a high-ranking security official. “But we need to think of the trade-off: A nuclear bomb could destroy the State of Israel.”

An Uncontrollable Region

In April, following close to two years of work, Dan Meridor presented his report on Israel’s defense doctrine to then-defense minister Shaul Mofaz. The report, the first of its kind, made practical recommendations concerning defense strategy: Develop anti-missile systems, upgrade the National Security Council and prepare

the IDF for low-intensity conflicts.

An additional and no less important recommendation was: under no circumstances to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. According to Meridor’s report, success for Iran would set off a race to join the nuclear club throughout the Middle East.

“The region,” the report states, “would become uncontrollable.”

That day might not be too far away, With Iran plunging ahead with its program in defiance of the UN and the international community, Egypt, Algeria, S audi Ar

abia, Morocco, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates announced in early November that they intended to begin upgrading their nuclear energy programs. Of the six, the most advanced by far are Egypt and Algeria. Turkey is also reported to be toying with the idea of starting a nuclear program.

“To remain a player in the region, these Arab countries will have no choice but to quickly develop nuclear weapons,” says a senior government official responsible for formulating strategic policy.

The countries that would be most affected by Iranian success, Meridor’s report claims, are Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both heavily dependent on American military support and afraid to lose their place of dominance in the region. Saudi Arabia is a leading Sunni power while Iran is a Shiite-dominated country.

“The Saudis will not be able to stand by and let their archenemies overtake them militarily,” said the official. “Egypt is the same and will want to retain its military superiority in the region.”

This was actually pointed out three years ago in a report – “Saudi Arabia – a New Player on the Nuclear Scene?” – published in the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies’ Notes by Ephraim Asculi, a veteran of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.

Asculi claimed that a Sunni fear of a Shi’ite nuclear bomb prompted Saudi Arabia to strike a deal with Pakistan under which it would contribute to the Pakistani nuclear project and in return receive a commitment from Islamabad to provide it with a “nuclear umbrella.” Saudi Arabia can also launch the weapons; it purchased 36 CSS-2 missiles, with a range of 3,000 kilometers, from China in the late 1980s.

End Excerpt 6 from Jerusalem Post

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

2007 – A Year of Decision in the Middle East that will affect the World – PART 5

January 10, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

CAN THE IAF DESTROY IRAN’S NUCLEAR SITES?

This is the fifth in a series of BLOGS on the year 2007 as a Year of Decision for Israel on the Iranian Nuclear Threat. The major question of the series is simply “What is Israel going to do about it?” How Israel handles this problem, has, is, and will continue to, cause the world to hold its breath. As you know by now, my guesstimate for the time of an attack against Israel will occur on some day during the time period 2008 to 2012. I suspect the events of 2007 may well determine how early or late it will occur in this time frame.

Does the IAF have the capability of destroying the many sites that make up Iran’s nuclear complex? – Number 5 in this series deals with some of the ramifications of that question.

Yaakov Katz, an excellent journalist, has an outstanding analysis of the pros and cons Israel faces in “to launch or not to launch,” from which I will draw in this and future BLOGS. It appears in the Jerusalem Post, and is titled “Decision Time.”

Decision Time

BY YAAKOV KATZ, THE JERUSALEM POST

Begin Excerpt 5 from Jerusalem Post

ISRAELI MILITARY CAPABILITY

While diplomatic efforts have taken center stage over the past year, military commanders have been drawing up the plans that could be used if all else fails. Senior security officials predict that 2007 will be the crucial year of decision on whether to launch a strike.

But is Israel even capable of such an attack?

A former IAF head claims that Israel has the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program or at least set it back by several years. The time gained, he says, could be used to work to topple the Islamic regime or follow up the strike with tough sanctions that would make Iran abandon its atomic plans.

Not everyone agrees.

One former IAF brigadier-general says he is not certain the air force is capable of dealing Iran

the powerful blow necessary to delay the program. “If we send the air force there, we run the risk of losing a third of our fleet,” he says. “And if we return without fulfilling the mission, then what will we have achieved?”

With Iraq, Israel has certainly proven its willpower.

In 1981, a formation of eight F-16 fighter jets flew just over 2,000 kilometers and destroyed the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad. According to the former head of the IAF, prime minister Menachem Begin decided – together with the OC Air Force Maj.-Gen. David Ivry – that the moment the Iraqis put fuel into the reactor, Operation Opera would be given the green light.

“The government needs to decide what its red line is,” he says. “Once that line is crossed then we need to attack.”

Israel seems to be preparing for the possibility that it will have to “go it alone” against Iran. A recent escalation in rhetoric seems to indicate that the country is getting ready for such an option.

According to the intelligence assessment for 2007, the defense establishment does not foresee the US launching a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. The Democratic takeover of the US Congress and the Baker-Hamilton report, which calls for dialogue with Iran, led to the prediction that President George W. Bush will not order a military strike.

“The entire movement in the US is toward dialogue, not military action,” says one high-ranking intelligence official. “Countries are beginning to come to terms with the fact that there will be a nuclear Iran.”

ISRAEL IS NOT one of those countries.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told The Jerusalem Post in November that sanctions were unlikely to work and that Israel must be prepared to thwart Teheran’s drive for nuclear capability “at all costs,” even in a preemptive strike. Since then other leaders have added their voices, including Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres who recently declared: “Iran too can be destroyed.”

Military Intelligence, however, admits it works under the assumption that it is not aware of all Iran’s nuclear sites. According to senior officers, the assumption is that Iran has built secret installations for its covert military program.

There are additional complications. While Osirak was a distant target that required expert pilots who could maneuver at low altitude, it was only one facility and was above ground.

A number of Iran’s nuclear facilities are underground and are heavily fortified, some with steel reinforcements and others with layers of concrete.

According to a senior government official involved in security and strategic affairs, the military would need precise intelligence on every facility to be able to choose the most effective weapon.

“We would need to know all of the specifications,” he says. “Whether the bunker is fortified by steel or concrete and even how thick it is.”

So how would it be done? According to Jane’s Intelligence Review, the IAF can generate more than 300 long-range attack and fighter-cover sorties daily, supported by refueling tankers, electronic warfare, electronic intelligence and airborne warning and control systems planes, while maintaining a strong reserve against intervention by the Arab states.

Each attack sortie could include the use of Popeye or GBU-15 standoff missiles, laser or electro-optical guided bombs, and Joint Direct Attack Munition missiles with further protection provided by Samson decoys. Follow ing the war

in Lebanon, the IAF has ordered large numbers of JDAMs to refill stocks used against Hizbullah.

Israel is also buying 500 US BLU-109 “bunker buster” bombs that are reported to be capable of penetrating the concrete protection around some of Iran’s underground facilities, like the enrichment center at Natanz, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Israeli fighter jets have carried out other long-range missions in the past including the 1985 2,060-km strike on the Palestine Liberation Organization’s headquarters in Tunis in response to the murder of three Israelis on a yacht in Cyprus.

Today, the IAF’s 25 F-15Is (called “Ra’am” or “Thunder” in Hebrew) based in the Negev, with a combat range of close to 4,400 kilometers, are capable of striking Iran in a nonstop operation like that against Osirak.

By the end of the year, the IAF will also finish receiving the remainder of the 102 F-16Is (“Sufa” or “Storm” in Hebrew) it procured in the late 1990s. These too are capable of long-range missions, with a combat radius of closer to 2,200 km., extended by another 1,000 km. if conformal fuel tanks are used.

The combat radius on these aircraft could be increased by utilizing the IAF’s fleet of B-707 air- to-air refueling tankers that could nurse attack planes as they make the flight

to Iran and back.

According to foreign media, Israel can also utilize its Jericho 2 missiles, which according to Globalsecurity.org have a range of 1,500 km. and a payload of 1,000 kilograms. The Jericho 2, according to foreign reports, has enhanced accuracy and puts almost every Arab capital, including Teheran, within striking distance.

The navy also has three German-made Dolphin-class submarines which, according to foreign reports, may carry surface-to-surface Harpoon missiles capable of delivering a 227-kg. warhead to a range of 130 km. Some foreign reports suggest the subs might be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, which would enable second-strike capabilities.

Another issue of extreme importance is the route the air force would choose. The quickest and most convenient would be over Jordan and Iraq, but according to Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom of the Jaffee Center, it would be best to fly the longer route over the Indian Ocean with minimal penetration of other states’ air space. Asking Jordan or the US for permission prior to

the flights could jeopardize the entire mission.

“Flying through Jordan without the explicit or implicit permission of the Jordanians would hurt relations with a friendly Arab state,” Brom wrote in a recent article in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran. “Flying over Iraq without coordination with the United States would lead to a clash with US interceptors.”

In addition to the underground reinforcement at certain nuclear sites, the Iranians have also beefed up their air defenses in preparation for a possible air strike.

But the strong air defenses do not protect fixed Iranian targets against standoff precision-guided weapons fired from out of range of the anti-aircraft missiles.

According to a high-ranking IAF officer, “The Iranian air force is not a threat to the IAF. None of our neighbors pose an aerial threat that the air force would not be able to deal with.”

The Iranian Air Force is comprised of MiG-29 squadrons and other planes, some dating back 30 years. Air defense systems, which are currently heavily deployed near the various nuclear sites, feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 and shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles, according to the Military Balance prepared by the Jaffee Center. The Iranians also have aged US-made Hawk missiles and have been seeking to purchase the sophisticated S-300P from Russia.

“Israel can do it,” the former head of the Air Force says. “All you have to do is pick a number of essential targets and destroy them.

This way you postpone the process and wait to see what happens.”

End Excerpt 5 from Jerusalem Post

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

2007 – A Year of Decision in the Middle East that will affect the World – PART 4

GETTING RID OF NUKE SITES – Diplomacy or Military?

January 9, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

This is the fourth in a series of BLOGS on the ye

ar 2007

as a Year of Decision for Israel on the Iranian Nuclear Threat. The major question of the series is simply “What is Israel going to do about it?” How Israel handles this problem, has, is, and will continue to, cause the world to hold its breath. As you know by now, my guesstimate for the time of an attack against Israel will occur on some day during the time period 2008 to 2012. I suspect the events of 2007 may well determine how early or late it will occur in this time frame.

How will Israel finally decide to let the string play out

? Will it continue to let the diplomacy of the other nations of the world hopefully dissuade Iran from building a nuclear warhead, or will it use direct military force to blast Iran’s nuclear site

s? – Number 4 in this series deals with some of the ramifications of that question.

Yaakov Katz, an excellent journalist, has an outstanding analysis of the pros and cons Israel faces in “to launch or not to launch,” from which I will draw in this and future BLOGS. It appears in the Jerusalem Post, and is titled “Decision Time.”

Decision Time

BY YAAKOV KATZ, THE JERUSALEM POST

Begin Excerpt 4 from Jerusalem Post

DIPLOMACY VS. MILITARY

In 1992, Israeli Military Intelligence put Iranian nuclear efforts on the nation’s agenda as a potential existential threat. A few years later, reports began to surface regarding a covert Iranian missile project aimed at developing a rocket capable of reaching Israel called the Shihab. Israel’s course of action at the time was mostly waiting and watching.

By 1996, Amos Gilad, then head of the MI Research Division, began pointing to Iran as a growing threat. At the time, he recalls, the Americans were obsessed with Iraq and Israel was following suit. Saddam Hussein was perceived as the region’s most immediate threat. As a result, the shift in focus took time, possibly precious time.

By the end of the decade, however, MI and the Mossad began to see eye-to-eye, viewing their main task as tracking weapons of mass destruction in Iran.

Israel began investing in spy satellites – like the Eros B launched in April 2006 – in addition to making improvements to the Arrow 2 anti-missile system. The IAF purchased sophisticated long-range fighters – the US-made F-15I and F-16I – which IAF officers say can easily reach Iran.

Aware that a military strike on Iran would be far more difficult than the 1981 bombing of the Iraqi reactor in Osirak – its nuclear sites are scattered across the country and some are underground – Israel had to create an image that if necessary it has the will and the firepower.

At the same time, Israel has been warning from every available podium of the looming threat emanating from Iran. Ahmadinejad’s accession to power in August

2005 assisted Israel in grabbing the world’s attention. A denier of the Holocaust who calls persistently for Israel’s destruction, Ahmadinejad himself made Jerusalem’s case.

From the beginning, it has been a race against time, and the strategy chosen is to enlist the world against Iran. If not to stop Iran, then to at least slow it down enough so that if and when Teheran does go nuclear, the radical ayatollahs would have been toppled and

would not be the ones with their finger on the trigger.

The diplomatic work has partially paid off. The UN Security Council decision two weeks ago to impose sanctions was considered a major achievement. Russia had initially objected to sanctions but in the vote aligned itself with the US, possibly the result of a series of high-level recent visits to Moscow by National Security Council head Ilan Mizrahi, Gilad, now head of the Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau, and Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovich.

But while the decision was greeted as a “positive step,” the defense establishment does not believe that sanctions will be effective in stopping Iran from continuing with its nuclear program.

“There is no way to stop Iran anymore except with military action,” says one high-ranking officer.

“At this point, sanctions will only leave a dent, but they will not stop the program.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Foreign Ministry officials voice cautious predictions that the sanctions could eventually lead Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions.

One proponent of sanctions is Uri Lubrani, an adviser to the defense minister.

Lubrani, 80, has been in the Defense Ministry for decades and served as ambassador to the Shah’s Iran.

He follows events in Iran closely and while he ultimately believes the most effective way to stop the Islamic regime would be by overthrowing the mullahs, he also believes tough sanctions – not like the ones approved by the UN – can be effective.

In contrast to the regime led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Lubrani claims the people of Iran are interested in “staying a part of the world” and not being cut off as a result of the regime’s nuclear program.

“It is very late but we still need to try to impose sanctions, since they can be effective,” he says in an interview.

“There is no reason not to try. Iran is dependent on importing refined fuel. Why don’t we cut the amount they get by 90 percent?”

A close adviser to Olmert on security and diplomatic issues says that he too believes sanctions could be effective if not in stopping Iran’s nuclear program, then at least in delaying it. The official agrees with Lubrani that the Iranian people do not want to turn into a “leper state” like North Korea, which has also come under sanctions since announcing it tested a nuclear device in October.

Even if sanctions are escalated and begin to affect Iran’s oil production – the country’s main source of income – some Israeli experts are doubtful Teheran will completely abandon its nuclear program.

Ephraim Asculi, a 40-year veteran of the Atomic Energy Commission and currently an analyst with the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, wrote recently that Iran would be prepared to follow in North Korea’s footsteps. In face of major sanctions and international isolation, he predicted that Teheran would continue with its nuclear program clandestinely.

“It will be very difficult for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions,” Asculi wrote in the center’s Tel Aviv Notes in August. “The first [reason] is the need to deter several perceived threats: US armed forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf pose a danger from almost every direction; Iraq, though currently incapable of threatening any of its neighbors, could eventually reemerge as a regional force; and Israel is seen as a hostile nuclear-weapons state.”

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the same argument during his Senate confirmation hearing last month. Asked why he thought Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, Gates responded: “They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons – Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.”

Asculi also noted internal processes that play a role in Iran’s decision to press forward with its plan despite sanctions. “The current Iranian regime has been successful in rallying the nation around its nuclear program, which is perhaps the only policy uniting the population, and undoing this could help hasten its downfall,” he wrote.

But if the diplomatic track reaches a dead end, it will still be necessary to stop Iran’s atomic plan, even at a heavy price. Olmert has said numerous times in public that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

He has also said that “Iran has what to be afraid of.”

End Excerpt 4 from Jerusalem Post

FAIR USE NOTICE: Th is site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.