Joe Biden finds himself in middle of a kerfuffle with the Israelis. Ha’aretz has reported that Biden told Israeli leaders that it would have to get used to a nuclear Iran. Hot Air has more, including the possibility that this incident took place three years ago. (More here.)

Still what’s interesting is the campaign’s response:
Biden spox David Wade said the unsourced report is simply false.

“This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden,” said Wade, “and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden’s 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel. Joe Biden’s first trip as a Senator was to Israel, he has worked with every Israeli leader from Golda Meir to Prime Minister Olmert, and he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the relationship between Israel and the US.”

The source of Biden’s remarks would seem to be senior Israeli officials. So then instead of trying to smooth things over with officials of an ally and explaining that he was misunderstood, the Biden camp attacked.

Either it’s because there are elements in the Israeli government who are openly opposed to the Democratic ticket and Biden is addressing them or he is reflecting a general mistrust of Israel that is part of the Democratic team. This is not a good sign.

(via memeorandum)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

It’s an unsourced report, which makes it eminently deniable, and I don’t want to believe it’s true. But it’s big enough that you need to read about this. (H/T: Ed Morrisey.) According to this report, Biden told Israel that the Obama campaign won’t stop Iran from getting nukes.

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed “opening a additional military and diplomatic front.”

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama’s running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats’ strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

Army Radio said Israeli officials expressed “amazement” over the remarks attributed to him.

“Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran,” Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the unnamed officials.

“It’s doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”

If this report is true, then the Obama campaign’s stand on Iran getting nukes is: Suck it up.

Nice. Good to know that we can count on the Dems to defend America. Because if anyone thinks that Iran is going to stop at using nukes on the Little Satan, and ignore the Big Satan, they need to read up on what the Mad Mullahs are saying about America on a regular basis. When the top mullah reinforces his minion Ahmadinejad’s efforts and tells him to prepare for a second term, it doesn’t matter that he gets a little criticism here and there. Because Khameini just put a new puppet into place in the Iranian air force, and told him to upgrade it.

Ayatollah Khamenei on Sunday appointed Brigadier General Hassan Shah-Safi as the new chief commander of Iran’s Air Force, replacing Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani.

The Leader recommended the new commander to boost combat preparedness of the air force and proceed with programs in line with self-sufficiency and updating hardware of the air force, in response to Western threats of a military air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, press tv reported.

Good to know that the Obama campaign is going to be capitulating to Iran while it builds up its weapons and military.

I’ve got a new slogan for the election: The Democrats: Soft on defense. But we’re really good about talking about it.

Israel has evidently decided that she is alone on the world stage. Actually, she’s always known it, but not it’s been codified:

Israel will not agree to allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons and if the grains start running out in the proverbial egg timer, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, whether the United States and Western countries will succeed in toppling the ayatollah regime diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether an American strike on Iran will eventually be decided upon, Jerusalem has put preparations for a separate, independent military strike by Israel in high gear.

While this is the stuff that conspiracy nutjobs live on, and the fodder for the fever swamps that are the lefty blogs, it’s also the best thing I’ve read in quite some time:

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby those two states. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.

“Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel’s security doesn’t impress these guys,” Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly “it’s a shame, because Ido will light all this up.” He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed commander of the Israeli Air Force and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, should this become the necessity.

“Investing in Iran in 2008,” Sneh told his Austrian hosts, “is like investing in Krups Steelworks in 1938, it’s a high risk investment.” The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.

There’s a lot more at the link. Recommendation: Read in full.

“Swiss FM would talk to bin Laden“, the headline says.
But don’t get your knickers twisted, there is a purpose to this:

Switzerland’s foreign minister told top diplomats on Monday she favours direct talks with Osama Bin Laden to tackle the threat of terrorism.

I can imaging the forthcoming meeting - somewhere in a cave near Pakistan - Afghanistan border:

M: Good morning, dear Mr Bin Laden…
O: Oh, just call me Sammy, please, let’s dispense with formalities!
M: OK, fine, but only of you call me Micheline.
O: So, Micheline, how do you do? You look younger than the last time I’ve seen you.

[Embarrassed silence for a minute or two, one of Osama's bodyguards faints]

M: You too, Sammy, look quite good. I would say more attractive than ever…

[Osama faints. More embarrassed silence interrupted only by goat bleating]

O [recovering]: Do you know what, Micheline, let’s be done with the Oriental small talk. So what brings you here?
M [unperturbed]: Why, it’s that thing I always root for [Osama blanching]. I mean the threar of terrorism, of course. Er… eliminating it.
O [visibly perking up]: Oh, that… Sure, sure, why not? Do you want some goat cheese, figs and pita before you go?

Well, and more in that vein. Anyhow, I cannot even start guessing what the heck is there for Swiss FM to talk about with OBL. At least we know why she went out of her way to kiss and make up with this one:
(Even Mahmoud The Mad seems to be somewhat put off, but let’s write it off on cultural shock).

The aroma of natural gas permeated by a strong aftertaste of oil is surely a great stimulant. But what kind of gas does she expect to get from Osama?

Update: there is someone jealous of that Swiss one-upmanship.

Norway has joined Switzerland in opening up for talks with terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. That doesn’t mean Norway is going soft on the fight against terrorism, though, said the country’s deputy foreign minister.
…
He noted, though, that he has no illusions that bin Laden would sit down for negotiations. I don’t think Osama bin Laden or the forces around al-Qaida want dialogue,” Johansen said. “They prefer rather to take the lives of infidels.”

Go figure that diplomatic lingo. Does it mean “buzz off” from Norwegian FM to the Swiss FM?

But it’s hardly material. What is more intriguing still: what the heck these two would talk to Osama about, assuming he is available for such an eventuality?

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

Okay, so the Arab/Muslim conflict isn’t with Jews. It’s with Israel. Their proponents tell us so all the time, as do the media. So perhaps someone can explain to me how this relates to anti-Zionism:

Agents of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah have allegedly set up a special force to attempt to kidnap Jewish businesspeople in Latin America and spirit them away to Lebanon, according to the Western anti-terrorism official. Iranian and Hezbollah operatives traveling in and out of Venezuela have recruited Venezuelan informants working at the Caracas airport to gather intelligence on Jewish travelers as potential targets for abduction, the Western anti-terrorism official said.

See, not “Israeli” businesspeople. Jewish businesspeople. Like, say, my relatives the bookstore owners who decide to visit their relatives in Buenos Aires.

And if the kidnapping does occur, will the world make a peep? No, there will only be shrugs, unless Israel refuses to ransom the kidnap victims from the terrorists that are now part of the legitimate government of Lebanon.

South American Jews are in the crosshairs. And all roads lead back to Tehran, and the Jew-haters there.

Hezbollah operatives based there participated, along with Iranian spies, in the car bombings in Buenos Aires of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and a Jewish community center two years later that killed a total of 114 people, an Argentine indictment charges.

In the aftermath of that indictment, filed in 2006, Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors, chiefly the Revolutionary Guard, decided to shift from the increasingly scrutinized tri-border area to other countries, including Venezuela, Western anti-terrorism officials say.

“It preserves the capability of Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard to mount attacks inside Latin America. . . . It is very, very important to Iran and Hezbollah right now.”

Don’t tell me that the Iranian people are friends to the Jews. Because their leaders haven’t shown such friendship. And I have personally experienced the bigotry of Iranian students in America. One of these days, I’ll have to write about those experiences from my twenties. Because there’s nothing in Iran to prove to me that country has changed, and the students I met in the early 80s are now the ruling political class in Iran. Their hatred never went anywhere. It seems only to have deepened.

I told you the Iranians were lying when they announced that they could launch an air strike team on Israel. (H/T: Mike)

Fact is, the Iranian Air Force–or more correctly, Iran’s two Air Forces have serious training, equipment, airspace and logistical issues that make a successful strike on Israel almost impossible.

We’ll begin with the airspace problem. Getting to Israel from Iran means over-flying countries like Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Crossing Iraq and Jordan offers the most direct route, but that means a confrontation with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy jets–a battle the Iranians would certainly lose. Turkey and Saudi Arabia would also oppose transit by Iranian fighters headed for Israel, and both have better jets and pilots.

In fact, Iran’s most “viable” option for an airstrike against Israel would require a long, circuitous flight down the Persian Gulf, around the Arabian Peninsula, and up the Red Sea. That route would carry Iranian fighters through international airspace, but it would significantly increase flight time, in-flight refueling requirements and the probability of detection.

And, speaking of tankers, did we mention that Iran has only two–a KC-707 (similar to our own KC-135) and a modified Boeing 747. The older KC-707 flies on a periodic basis; as for the 747, there is some speculation that it has been converted for other missions, such as hauling cargo.

There’s much more. Read it all for an in-depth look at why the Iranians can barely muster enough fighter jets for an air show on “Death to the Infidels” Day.

Iran is launching a satellite, they say.

I say Israel should shoot it down.

Just a thought.

An Iranian minister made the mistake of declaring that he didn’t hate Israel.

He’s about to lose his job because of it.

More than 200 Iranian parliament members slammed Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashai for stating that Iranians are ‘friends of all people in the world — even Israelis.’

In a condemnation statement issued by the parliament members, they called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “deal with his deputy with severity” – in other words, to ensure that he is dismissed.

“Mr. Mashai has no right to make such shameful remarks, and is not at the position to take such responsibility,” the statement said. “It appears that Mr. Mashai is unaware of the fact that those who he refers to as a people are the ones occupying the homes of millions of Palestinians.”

The statement noted that “these people created the illegitimate Zionist regime. We do not recognize a country called Israel, let alone its people.”

Remember that the next time Ahmadinejad lies to a reporter and says he has no problem with Jews—that it’s only “Zionists.” And the realize that when he says “Zionists,” he doesn’t mean Israelis. He means Jews. And so do his people.

[...] “We do not recognize a country called Israel, and so we cannot recognize a nation called Israel,” the lawmakers said in their statement, according to Fars, the semiofficial Iranian news agency.

“If Mr. Mashai does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime, he has no right to hold such a position,” the statement added.

Funny, I can’t find an AP article on this. Only one on the statement of friendship three days ago.

Iranian media are quoting the country’s vice president as saying Iranians are “friends of all people in the world — even Israelis.”

It is a rare instance of official Iranian media carrying an expression of sympathy toward Israelis from such a high-level official.

Yes, that rare instance is now going to be the reason the man is fired. God forbid an Iranian minister not be an anti-Semitic nutjob. And let us not mistake the Iranian anti-Semitism. Its client terrorist group targeted Jews and Jewish insititutions in Buenos Aires—not the Israeli embassy, or The Zionist Club Of Buenos Aires. The Iranians used to be the friends of the Jews, but Alexander is long dead and gone. Shame on his descendants.

Last week I noted that Hamas and Hezbollah, both proxies of Iran, support the genocidal regime of Sudan.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Jonathan Schanzer gives the history behind the relationship. It started with:

The story begins in1989, when an Islamist-inspired coup brought Brigadier Omar al-Bashir to power. Within months, Islamists tied to the National Islamic Front (NIF) held key posts in the government, security services, and other important sectors. As journalist Judith Miller noted, Sudan became “the only Sunni Arab state to have embraced absolutist, militant Islamic rule.” Weapons and oil supplies began to arrive from Iran. The two states, despite the Sunni-Shiite divide, became fast allies.

It didn’t take long for those ties to expand:

In December 1991, Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani paid an official visit to Khartoum, accompanied by more than 150 Iranian officials. “The Islamic Revolution of Sudan,” he proclaimed, “alongside Iran’s pioneer revolution, can doubtless be the source of movement and revolution throughout the Islamic world.” Iran pledged $17 million in financial aid to Sudan, and arranged for an additional $300 million in Chinese weapons to be delivered there. Iran further pledged one million tons of oil each year.

Schanzer concludes:

The three-way ties over nearly two decades explains the current Hamas and Iranian support for Bashir, and why they ignore the incontrovertible evidence of genocide. This yields two key observations.

First, both Sunni and Shiite Islamists are hypocritical and inconsistent when they proclaim that they seek justice.

More broadly, the Islamist support for the Darfur genocide reveals much about the dangers of Islamism, and must not be ignored.

(h/t Smooth Stone at her new digs)

Perhaps when experts try to assure us that Iran has not thoughts of destroying Israel, they could explain why Iran and its allies have this love for the genocidal regime in Khartoum.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Without a trace of irony the NYT reports:

An Iranian vice president said in rare comments that Iran was a friend of Israeli people, newspapers reported on Monday. “I say for a thousandth time that we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans,” the daily newspaper Etemad quoted Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the vice president for tourism, as saying.

So why didn’t the Iranian swimmer compete against the Israeli?

However, IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said the IOC was satisfied that Alirezaei withdrew because of an illness.

“The athlete withdraw because of a sickness,” she said.

“He confirmed this in writing to the swimming federation. We also spoke to (Iranian association). And they have underlined to us that all athletes competing here are in the right spirit to compete against athletes of any nationalities.

“We take both the athletes and the NOC had their words on this.”

“Sickness?” My guess is cooties. Remember an Iranian had contact with an Israeli national at the games already.

I’m assuming that Mohammed Nikkhah came down with cooties after shaking David Blatt’s hand. Afterwards it couldn’t be assumed that it was safe for Iranians to be in close proximity to their good friends, the Israelis.

Just a hunch, of course.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Russia is not only arming Iran, and not only investing heavily in Iran, but also trying to make sure that the West can’t take out Iran’s nuclear sites.

Iran is set to receive an advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft system by year-end that could help fend off any preemptive strikes against its nuclear facilities, senior Israeli defense sources said on Wednesday.

First delivery of the S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, one source said, though it could take six to 12 months for them to be deployed and operable – a possible reprieve for Israeli and American military planners.

Of course, the good news in all of this is that Syria had supposedly the most modern Russian defenses—and the IAF swept right past them. Some reports indicated that Israel had hacked into the computer system that runs the defenses. And then there is this:

“There’s no doubt that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult,” one defense official said. “But there’s an answer for every counter-measure, and as far as we’re concerned, the sooner the Iranians get the new system, the more time we will have to inspect the deployments and tactical doctrines. There’s a learning curve.”

According to the official, it would take a year for Iran to deploy the S-300s and man them with trained operators. The US was also optimistic on this count. “Based on what I know, it’s highly unlikely that those air defence missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon,” U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said in a July 9 briefing.

Good to know. Better if they didn’t get them, well, ever.

Yes, he’s totally out of the closet. Now he’s accusing American Jews of being “Fifth columnists.” Gee, it’s like he’s not even trying to pretend he’s not an anti-Semite anymore. Because what’s the downside? When has anyone ever lost a job for making anti-Semitic remarks?

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad’s chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel’s armed forces.

Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you.

Yeah, like it’s not in America’s interest to stop Iran from gaining hegemony over the Middle East. Or from getting nuclear weapons. Note how Buchanan disingenuously quotes the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions:

Though the ex-head of Mossad, Shabtai Shavit, says Iran may be one year away from a bomb — and will use it on Israel — according to the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Everyone but Buchanan is backing away from that misstatement of what the NIE really said. It said that Iran could easily start the weapons program right back up. But it’s also true that you can create a nuclear weapon without working on a nuclear weapons program. The missiles are there, the technology to wed the bomb to the missile is there, and the technological know-how is there. And if it isn’t, well, there’s North Korea and the A.Q. Khan black market. Just ask Syria, Iran’s proxy, about how easy it is to build a nuke.

I think it’s time for the Yourish.com mantra: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already. And Pat—please, lead the queue.

John Bolton on Iran:

Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they’re not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran’s alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons.

Reliapundit thinks that possible consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities are overblown.

Were there any bad results when Israel destroyed Osirak - Saddam’s nuke plant?

* Nope. Privately, everyone else in the region was grateful.

Were there any bad results after Israel destroyed Syria’s nuke plant?

* Nope. Privately, everyone else in the region was grateful.

It will be the same after Israel destroys Iran’s nuke assets.

And as Bolton points out: if Israel acts the United States will be blamed anyway, so the U.S. should support Israel’s efforts.

via memeorandum

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

The Sunday Times is publishing proven fantasist Uzi Mahnaimi on yet another unsourced, headline-grabbing Israel story. This time, he says George Bush gave Israel the go-ahead to attack Iran. But don’t rush to reprint this story on your blog. The blogosphere is filled with deconstructions of his fantastic claims (one could even call them “lies,” particularly his most infamous lie, the claim that Israel was building a “genetic weapon” that would target only Arabs).

For instance: There was the “imminent” massive attack on Gaza we were promised … on June 17th, 2007.

ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.

According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.

More than a year later, that “imminent” attack has become a bit less imminent.

Here’s another one: Israel is going to attack Iran with nukes. Read Joe’s Dartblog for a deconstruction of that one. Joe points out that Uzi wrote the same story twice before. Israel Matzav says he wrote it three times.

Allison Kaplan Sommer, a real reporter, wrote:

One thing is clear: Mahnaimi makes a regular habit of reporting that Israel is about to attack Iran. If his reporting was accurate, Iranian nuclear facilities would already be a smoking ruin – not once, but multiple times.

Notice the Mahnaimi patterns: He quotes “senior” sources, yet never names them. If he does name a source, that source inevitably turns out to have no contact with the current military establishment. He says an attack is going to happen within days or weeks. He adds the element of nuclear weapons strikes. Most of those are in his latest fantasy:

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Guaranteed this will sweep across the blogosphere as a legitimate story. But before you write that post, read up on your source. I’d love to know if there even is such a thing as an “amber light” status, because it sounds like b.s. to me.

Mahnaimi’s reputation got so bad the Times gave him a co-author. But Sarah Baxter is a political reporter who seems to have been assigned to Mahnaimi’s stories to add respectability to his reputation. She has no foreign reporting chops, unless you count things like this interview with John Gibson on Madeleine McCann. Adding her byline to Mahnaimi’s stories isn’t getting the result the Times wants. It’s making me (and probably others) think less of her. And adding to the skepticism about Baxter are stories like this, where she quotes secondary sources quoting unnamed sources, saying that the Pentagon has a “three-day blitz” plan for Iran. Secondary sources, quoting unnamed sources: Now there’s a well-sourced article for you—in Bizarro World.

The questions about Mahnaimi’s facts are numerous. You can’t turn around without finding someone easily debunking a Mahnaimi story. Here’s an in-depth debunking of Mahnaimi and Baxter, translated from the French.

Remember that before you reflexively quote this Times story as true. So far, the record on this “reporter” has been the complete opposite. The Sunday Times of London is not the paper that it used to be. If it ever was. Perhaps my British readers could vouch for the Times’ reputation back in the day. Because right now, it’s the paper the keeps publishing a reporter who should be writing fiction—not getting front-page headlines in the Times.

Those moderate voices from Iran continue to reverberate throughout the world:

Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel are almost routine these days. But for a former official of the Islamic Republic to call for the destruction of the Jewish state in the city where the Holocaust was planned adds a repugnant twist – especially as the German government sponsored the event that gave the man from Tehran a Western stage.

At a conference on the Mideast in Berlin on Wednesday, Muhammad Javad Ardashir Larijani said the “Zionist project,” which has “created only violence and atrocities,” should be “canceled.” Mr. Larijani, a former deputy foreign minister, is the brother of Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and current parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani.

And it would appear that their words speak to their intent:

I believed then, as I do now, that the mullahs would never abandon their ambitions, and that after 29 years of negotiations by Europe and world powers, the world has yet to understand that the mullahs will not change direction or behavior. In the early ’90s, the senior Bush administration and the CIA finally realized they were being duped — the mullahs’ promises never materialized. The CIA asked me to look for an Iranian who could testify that Iran was in the process of making a nuclear bomb. That request was later withdrawn.

Iran remains the main sponsor of terrorism around the world. Iranian consulates, embassies, airlines, and shipping line offices are the main hub for terrorist activities. Money, arms, and explosives are transferred through these centers to fund terrorist groups and jihadists. Quds Force units of the Revolutionary Guards use the Iranian consulates as their command and control centers to plan and carry out assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist activities. The mullahs even transferred money and arms in state visits using their high-ranking officials, knowing full well that because of diplomatic immunity they would not be subject to search during such visits. As I reported to the CIA, these activities were closely coordinated through Iran’s foreign ministry, the ministry of intelligence, and the Revolutionary Guards.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Last week, Cheat Seeking Missiles went after Seymour Hersh for an recently written “expose” in the New Yorker. What troubled me is that CSM took everything Hersh wrote at face value. Hersh cherry picks some stuff, confuses some stuff, makes some stuff up and exaggerates the rest. It’s hard to know exactly what’s true in a Seymore Hersh story.

Max Boot read the same article and concluded that there’s probably a nugget of truth in the article but the rest is speculation.

For my part I am skeptical that there are a lot of Special Operations raids occurring in Iran. It’s probable that there are small penetrations of Iranian territory by CIA and Special Operations teams as part of the covert destabilization program to meet with Iranian “assets.” There may even have been a few operations carried out against the Quds Force, but, given the risk-averse culture of the U.S. government, I doubt that it amounts to very much.

I find David Ignatius’s analysis plausible. He writes:

In the new cold war between America and Iran, the U.S. appears to be running some limited covert operations across the Iranian border. But according to knowledgeable sources, this effort shares the defect of broader U.S. policy toward Iran–it is tentative and ill coordinated, and undermines diplomacy without bringing serious pressure on the regime.

He quotes “one Arab official familiar with the covert program” as saying, “There are attempts to cause mischief inside Iran and go after the Quds Force. Some things are being done, but not with the seriousness that’s needed.”

Boot adds:

He also perpetuates a myth that there is a major policy divide between the White House which supposedly favors a “military strike” on Iran and the armed forces which supposedly oppose such a move. It would be more accurate to say that there are some political appointees in the administration who favor a strike on Iran because they don’t think that any other action will stop or even significantly slow its nuclear program. But there are also political appointees who oppose such a move. A similar division exists in the military, but you would never know it from Hersh who paints a crude caricature of hawkish civilians and dovish soldiers. No doubt he is partly a victim of his anti-Bush worldview and partly a victim of his sources: Since it’s pretty obvious that no one who is reasonably hawkish or conservative will speak to a journalist with Hersh’s reputation, he must be reliant on those who favor a softer line.

Boot also attacks a major premise of Hersh:

The biggest misunderstanding, or outright deception, in the entire article is its very premise: that the covert action program that Hersh describes is a prelude to a larger military action against Iran—that it is, as the headline has it, “Preparing the Battlefield.” Actually it’s far more likely that such a program, if it exists, is designed to be a substitute for military action.

Hersh unfortunately isn’t the only writers engaging in such speculation. Tim Shipman of the Telegraph writes (via memeorandum):

American commanders worry that Israel will feel compelled to act within the next 12 months with no guarantee that they can do more than slow Iran’s development of a weapon capable of destroying the Jewish state.

Gaps in the intelligence on the precise location and vulnerabilities of Iran’s facilities emerged during recent talks between Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Israeli generals, according to an official familiar with the discussions who has briefed Iran experts in Washington and London.

The assessment emerged as Iran in effect thumbed its nose at proposals by the West to freeze its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for easing economic sanctions. In its reply, sent to the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate but only from a position of equality – and made no reference to the specific proposals.

Israel Matzav thinks that there is a gap between what Israeli and American intelligence know and that Israel may have better knowledge of where it needs to hit. Arthur Herman wrote that destroying the nuclear facilities may not be as important as crippling Iran economically and conventionally.

Still one gets the impression that Shipman cherry picks his sources to reach his conclusions and fills the rest in with speculation.

I wonder how much of the military threat against Iran is real and how much is Israeli or American disinformation. I can’t believe that planning of a potential attack on Iran is such an open book in either country.

Two years ago I speculated that Israel would have a difficult time carrying out a raid on Iran as it did on Iraq, if for no other reason because it couldn’t have the same secrecy that surrounded the attack on the Tamuz reactor.

All this speculation about what Israel might do, does nothing to alleviate my skepticism that Israel could pull off the same sort of attack again.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Add the Guardian to the list of Sunday papers that are featuring heavily the Israel/Iran issue. It apparently took four authors to slam Israel with the typical canards.

And while some of the messages amount to signalling, to warn Iran as well as the EU and the US that Israel does not intend its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East to be challenged, it is clear that Israel has launched an aggressive information campaign apparently designed to soften up public opinion for the case for war, reminiscent of the run-up to the war against Iraq. Indeed, some of the same cast are back on stage, not least the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who has loudly been making the case for an Israeli strike.

Interesting how they put the cause for war. Israel doesn’t want it’s “nuclear monopoly” to be challenged. It doesn’t happen to be that Israel is at risk of being destroyed by Iran, no. The article discounts utterly the proxy war that Iran has been waging for years via Hamas, PIJ and other terrorist groups, and Hezbullah.

Academics and journalists who have recently visited Israel have come back from meetings convinced the country is getting ready for war. The campaign has been assisted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in the US and the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre in the UK, two influential Jewish lobby groups who have brought over experts to brief the media.

And thus we see the true subtext of this story. Those crafty Jews are at it again: Doing what they have done for millennia, tricked the world into going to war. You think I’m reading into things? Read on.

Last week, Bicom invited journalists to meet Shmuel Bar, a former military intelligence officer and civil servant in the Prime Minister’s Office. Now an academic, Bar writes on Iranian defence doctrine. On Monday the same organisation will be hosting a member of Israel’s security cabinet, Isaac ‘Bouji’ Herzog, who once again will answer questions, among other issues, on the threat posed by Iran.

The Israel lobby is trying to convince the media that the war is right. But there’s even more blame for AIPAC to go around, and of course, the article is filled with references to “neocons.”

Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney and the remnants of the neoconservative lobby in Washington are believed to be sympathetic to the idea. However, there are also those in strong positions, such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates and some senior military chiefs, who are thought to be privately opposed to such a move. ‘If it were up to Bush and Cheney they would want to see this thing done,’ said Larry Johnson, a former top CIA analyst. ‘But they are now up against a lot of fundamental military realities that make it hard. The military has been pushing back against this.’

Larry Johnson is now a Democrat (he once even gave the Democratic response to Bush’s radio address) with, shall we say, an agenda. You may remember that the Air Force is currently restructuring its top brass due to some really awful mistakes made with the transportation of nuclear-armed missiles (among other things).

The Air Force continued handing out disciplinary actions in response to the six nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on a B-52 bomber from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The squadron commander in charge of Minot’s munitions crews was relieved of all duties pending the investigation.

[...] The original plan was to transport non-nuclear Advanced Cruise Missiles, mounted on the wings of a B-52, to Barksdale as part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. It was not discovered that the six missiles had nuclear warheads until the plane landed at Barksdale, leaving the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 and one-half hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

Here’s Johnson’s analysis of what happened—before the Air Force investigation came out.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

That’s some awesome analysis, Johnson. Why, it’s only 100% wrong regarding the nukes. No wonder the Guardian is quoting him. He says all the things they want to have “confirmed” by “experts” for their “readers.” (Sorry, got carried away with the scare quotes there.)

Right-wing think-tanks, however, such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, have been vocal in their advocation of confronting Iran. Indeed, the institute recently produced a report on a theoretical military attack on Iran authored by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, entitled ‘The Last Resort: Consquences of Preventive Military Action Against Iran’.

The study fell short of recommending such an attack but it did provide an exhaustive argument on why and how such an attack would work. That led critics to dub it a blueprint for war with Iran. It suggested that the possible best line of attack would in fact not be against Tehran’s nuclear programme but against its oil industry, thus cutting off the source of Iran’s current wealth. ‘The political shock of losing the oil income would cause Iran to rethink its stance,’ the report suggested.

Shyeah, because that’s exactly how stupid they think we are: Performing actions guaranteed to double (yet again) the price of oil.

It comes at a time when a resolution has been put forward in Congress calling for a naval blockade of Iran led by US warships. The proposal calls for the United States to lead an international effort to cut off the country by sea, something that would almost certainly by seen as an act of war by Iran. The resolution has got huge support from Israeli politicians and the country’s highly effective lobbying industry in Washington, led perhaps inevitably by Aipac, which has made the issue its legislative priority. ‘The war drums are beating. There is no doubt about that,’ said Johnson.

A naval blockade? Oh, they must be referring to this:

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on–

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program; and

That’s a bill in committee at the moment calling for tougher sanctions on Iran. So does this make the EU complicit in the war as well? They’re also calling for tougher sanctions on Iran.

Read the whole article. It’s Israel Wants A War Day in the British press. Know your enemy, as Frank J likes to say.

The Times of London found someone who is not proven liar Uzi Mahnaimi to get an Israeli official to say that Israel is going to attack Iran.

Israeli aircraft have conducted a long-range mission designed to prepare for a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and to send a message to the world that it is ready to take military action if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran’s atomic programme.

An Israeli political official familiar with the drill, held early this month, said that the Iranians should “read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their programme for nuclear weapons. If diplomacy does not yield results, Israel will take military steps to halt Tehran’s production of bomb-grade uranium.”

Here’s my problem with the Times of London: I don’t trust their sources after their willingness to publish Mahnaimi’s outright lies over the years (including one that Israel was working on a “genetic bomb” that would only target Arabs, a scientific impossibility, and a lie that refuses to go away, thanks to the Times’ article).

So while I know the IAF conducted a practice run that included flying the distance needed to fly to Iran, and I know that the IAF is preparing for the possibility of bombing Iran’s known nuclear reactor sites (and quite probably the ones the public doesn’t know about, as the Mossad has long infiltrated Iran), I am taking the above story with a shaker of salt. I don’t care that it’s a new reporter. The Times has proven itself to be an unreliable source of Israel news.

On the other hand, the “leak” could be the Israeli way of warning Iran that there will be action taken. Sometimes officials are tasked with leaks that are meant for precisely the people who react to them.

And Iran has reacted.

Iran called Israel a “dangerous regime” on Saturday after a US paper reported that the Air Force (IAF) had carried out a large military exercise, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because Israel isn’t anything at all like the country that funds and trains Hezbullah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Mahdi Army, and terrorists all over the world. And yes, that would be Iran—the world’s most dangerous regime. Projection. It’s the Arab/Islamic way.

Back in February, 2002, Thomas Friedman trumpeted the Saudi “peace plan” as proposed by then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah:

Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?

I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit — part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the ”big boys” — Saudi Arabia or Egypt — took the lead.

After I laid out this idea, the crown prince looked at me with mock astonishment and said, ”Have you broken into my desk?”

”No,” I said, wondering what he was talking about.

”The reason I ask is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind — full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations,” he said. ”I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level.

After this free publicity, Abdullah went around the Arab world to garner support for his initiative. On one of his stops he visited Syria and as the NY Times reports, President Bashar Assad gave his crucial support to the initiative.

Syria expressed its support today for a Saudi peace effort for the Middle East, while a bomb planted in an Arab schoolyard and crude rockets fired at an Israeli town fed the rapidly expanding blood feud between Israelis and Palestinians.

In its first statement on the plan proposed last month by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which pledges Arab countries to a full normalization of relations with Israel in return for full Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, Syria expressed its ‘’satisfaction with the position of Saudi Arabia.”

The statement followed a meeting between Prince Abdullah and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Riyadh. It said a comprehensive peace ”cannot be achieved except with Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab land, including the Syrian Golan.” The statement also called for the right of return for Palestinian refugees, a matter critical to Lebanon, where many of them live.

This report leaves out a critical point. Syria insisted that Abdullah include language demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. The communique from the Arab summit reflects this change:

Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

What’s remarkable about this demand is that Israel had already withdrawn beyond the accepted international border of Lebanon two years earlier!

The United Nations has confirmed that Israeli troops have completely withdrawn from south Lebanon. But the Lebanese Government rejected the UN verification, saying Israeli forces were still in control of some part of Lebanese territory.

The point of the dispute was the area known as the Shebaa farms.

A group of farms close to the poorly-defined border of Lebanon and Syria has emerged as a potential new flashpoint for conflict between Israel and Lebanese Muslim guerrillas.

The Syrian-backed guerrilla group, Hezbollah, says Israel must withdraw from the area of the Shebaa farms - which it says lies on Lebanese territory - or face continued attacks.

Israel says most of the area lies on the Syrian side of the Lebanon/Syria border and that it will only withdraw from the part marked as Lebanese territory on United Nations maps.

I suspect that the vagueness of the BBC’s reporting here is due to its pro-Arab bias, adding uncertainty to Israel’s claim, but later on it gets to the key point:

Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon.

However, Israel points out that it seized the territory from Syria, during the 1967 Middle East War.

This isn’t a small matter. After everyone claimed that Hezbollah would lay down arms or if they didn’t would be exposed as terrorists worthy of destruction. Here’s Thomas Friedman from his fantasy “How Bibi got re-elected”

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

But of course Hezbollah regularly violated the border between 2000 and 2006. In 2004 Friedman wrote:

Israel’s withdrawal is not a cure-all for this. Israel will still be despised. But if it withdraws to an internationally recognized border, it will have the moral high ground, the strategic high ground and the demographic high ground to protect itself. After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the Hezbollah militia, on the other side, went on hating Israel and harassing the border — but it never tried to launch an invasion. Why? Hezbollah knew it would have no legitimacy — in the world or in Lebanon — for breaching that U.N.-approved border. And if it tried, Israel would be able to use its full military weight to retaliate.

Friedman having been proved wrong that Hezbollah would at least respect the border and would devote its energies to building itself politically in Lebanon. So he comforted himself by raising the threshold: Hezbollah would never invade Israel. It was a standard that would be proven wrong in 2006.

And of course behind Hezbollah’s continued war against Israel was the false pretext that Israel still “occupied” Lebanese territory, Shebaa Farms. That is the reason that Syria actively promoted the idea that Shebaa Farms was Lebanese. It needed a justification for allowing Hezbollah to continue attacking Israel with impunity. Alan Makovsky put it like this:

Support for Hizballah and the Lebanese claim to Shebaa Farms
Syria not only endorsed an Arab League summit statement supporting Lebanon’s claim to Shebaa farms, but Syrian U.N. ambassador Mikha�il Wahbi also wrote in an October 24 letter, “Israel . . . has not completed the withdrawal from south Lebanon to the internationally recognized borders, including the Shebaa farms.” This stance, in effect, justifies ongoing Hizballah attacks on Israel, retaining for Syria a source of pressure on Israel, despite the “loss” of southern Lebanon. Syria has supported and has no doubt directed Lebanon�s refusal to deploy its troops to the border following the Israeli withdrawal.

And the more pernicious implication of the claim that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory, is that it shows that the Arab world will continually change the terms to which Israel must comply in order to earn an ill-defined “peace.” So it’s a mistake for Israel to accede to this demand. It’s also a mistake for the West - especially the United States - to promote this fiction. All it does is strengthen Iran and its proxies at the expense of Israel and the West.

I’ve provided you with this background so we can evaluate a few paragraphs from yesterday’s New York Times on the current effort to push Israel to negotiate with Lebanon over Shebaa farms:

When Israel withdrew from the occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, the United Nations Security Council stated that the withdrawal was complete even though Israel held onto the disputed area because Shebaa, the United Nations said, was part of the Syrian Golan Heights occupied by Israel.

But Lebanon and Hezbollah say the land is Lebanese, and Syria has not contradicted them. Moreover, Hezbollah has used Israel’s hold over Shebaa as a reason for keeping its men under arms despite United Nations resolutions calling for the disarming of all Lebanese militias.

Hezbollah says that as long as part of the Lebanese homeland is occupied, it needs its weapons because the national army is weak.

But the West, especially the United States and France, wants to reduce the power of Hezbollah, a client of both Syria and Iran, and has been looking for ways to strengthen the pro-Western government of Lebanon.

On Wednesday, Hezbollah officials made clear that they viewed Israel’s offer as part of an effort to disarm the group. “If they really want to give us back our land, they can withdraw and implement the Security Council resolutions,” said Nawar Sahili, a Hezbollah member of Lebanon’s Parliament, referring to a United Nations resolution that calls for the Shebaa issue to be resolved.

Saying that Syria “has not contradicted” Hezbollah on Shebaa farms is a vast understatement. Syria has promoted this idea for its client Hezbollah.

The assertion that Israel negotiating with Lebanon will somehow strengthen the “pro-Western government of Lebanon” is outright nonsense. It will strengthen Hezbollah at the expense of the nominally pro-Western government of Fuad Siniora.

Finally, quoting a member of Hezbollah mentioning Security Council resolutions without mentioning the various resolutions that Hezbollah is violating serves to give cover to the terrorist organization.

Resolution 425 which Israel fulfilled when it withdrew from Southern Lebanon, also called for the disarming of militias and the Lebanese army establishing control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s continued control over Southern Lebanon prior to 2006 stood in direct violation of that resolution. And its re-arming now - which the article notes - violates Resolution 1701 - which the article doesn’t note.

For Israel, the main concern in Lebanon is Hezbollah’s increasing power. Israeli military officials say that Hezbollah has many more rockets and much deadlier ones today than it had two years ago when the two fought a monthlong war after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the border to capture and kill Israeli soldiers.

Acceding to Syria’s and Hezbollah’s demands will only serve to strengthen them. If Israel gives in here, Hezbollah will make new demands. Better that Israel should be (unfairly) portrayed as unreasonable than that Iran’s proxies should be strengthened even further.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Griffe Witte reports in the Washington Post, As Israeli Siege Strangles Gaza Strip, Hamas, Smugglers Profit Off Tunnels.Despite the title, and some silliness in the beginning the article is, overall, rather informative. For all the talk of the “strangling” of Gaza, Elder of Ziyon has pointed out that Israel allows plenty of basic goods to pass through its borders with Gaza.

Early on Witte shows focuses on the smugglers who make their living by providing contraband for the population in Gaza. Then he explains Israel’s rationale in imposing the blockade.

But Israel also seems reluctant to try to stop the smuggling altogether because it would increase the pressure to allow more supplies through the official crossings.

“The best thing from our point of view is that there would be no smuggling of ammunition. We don’t care about the other things,” said Shlomo Dror, spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry.

Israel’s hope in imposing the siege was to employ economic pressure to weaken Hamas, forcing Gazans to turn against the group as their suffering made them long for better days under the rival Fatah party.

Dror’s comment is worrisome because Israel has no control over the tunnels. Allowing contraband to pass through the tunnels means that weapons and munitions can be smuggled and Israel can only rely on the good faith of Hamas to prevent that. Witte’s also wrong in his description of Israel’s “hope” in blockading Gaza.

Another reason was to stop the flow of materiel to Gaza. This is a reason that Witte dismisses as an “Israeli claim,” but it is a significant reason.

Then he quotes an Israeli who argues against the blockade:

“If you want to strengthen radicals and paralyze moderates, I can’t think of a better way to do it than by closing Gaza’s commercial crossings and depriving 1.5 million people of the right to earn a decent and legitimate living,” said Sari Bashi, executive director of the Israel-based human rights group Gisha.

It’s a nice soundbite, but much of the rest of Witte’s article shows that the siege has been effective in isolating Hamas and even reducing its popularity.

Israel’s hope in imposing the siege was to employ economic pressure to weaken Hamas, forcing Gazans to turn against the group as their suffering made them long for better days under the rival Fatah party.

There are indications that the strategy is working — to a point. In 2006, Hamas won legislative elections in a landslide. But a poll released this month found that Hamas’s popularity in Gaza had recently plummeted, with only 39 percent favoring the group’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh, compared with 56 percent for Fatah boss Mahmoud Abbas.

But if Hamas’s popularity is declining, its power seems to grow.

That last sentence is belied by the rest of the reporting. Hamas’s popularity is declining. It’s just making money in a new way now. The behavior of Hamas is awfully reminiscent of the corruption of Fatah. Not only is it taxing the smugglers excessively, it’s also raiding charities. That’s less a sign growing power than it is of desperation.

Meryl summarizes the costs of the last year of Hamas’s rule on Israel.

Elder of Ziyon shows that the last ceasefire with Hamas was little more than unilateral disarmament by Israel.

Israel Matzav has a video of Hamas’s preparations for the ceasefire.

Of course that means that the editors of the Washington Post think the ceasefire is a good thing, In they write:

ATRUCE between Israel and Hamas was to begin this morning in the Gaza Strip, ending daily barrages of rockets that have terrorized nearby Israeli towns as well as counterstrikes that have killed more than 350 Palestinians this year. In accepting the Egyptian-brokered deal, Israel embraced the least bad of the limited options it has for countering Hamas, which has been turning Gaza into a fortified base for advancing the cause of Islamist extremism in the region — a cause it shares with Iran. For a while, Israeli civilians will be relieved from having to duck into bomb shelters, and Gazans will be better supplied with food and other essential goods. How long the peace lasts, and whether it does more good than harm, will depend on how well Israel and Hamas’s moderate Palestinian rivals use the calm.

The “least bad option”? There’s a premise to this editorial that Hamas cannot be defeated. Of course it can. The problem would the cost of that defeat. But failing to keep Hamas on the defensive, will only increase the cost to Israel when war actually breaks out. (The Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon was a direct - though not immediate - cause of the Israel/Hezbollah war of 2006.) The concluding question of the paragraph shows that the editors of the Post aren’t even certain that the truce is likely to work out.

The editorial concludes:

At best, Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas would now press to complete a peace deal, so that the Palestinian president would have a tangible and attractive alternative to offer to Hamas’s promise of endless “resistance” to the Jewish state. Some hope that an accord between the two Palestinian factions could give Mr. Abbas leeway to close the deal for statehood. Yet Mr. Olmert, who has been badly weakened by scandals, appears more interested in brokering a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah and in conducting long-shot peace talks with Lebanon and Syria than in making tough decisions about matters such as the future of Jerusalem. Both Israel and its Iranian-backed enemies are maneuvering for tactical advantage, trying to bolster their positions as they await a new U.S. president. They have not averted the major conflict that has threatened the region for the last couple of years — only postponed it.

What exactly negotiations will accomplish is beyond me. But this isn’t just about relations between Israel and the Palestinians, it’s about Iran and its influence as the final sentence suggests. Israel’s ceasefire with Hamas is less about maneuvering for position than it is about giving Iran’s proxy a huge victory.

Michael Oren argues precisely that inIsrael’s Truce With Hamas Is a Victory for Iran:

Proponents of an Israeli-Palestinian accord are praising the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that went into effect this morning. Yet even if the agreement suspends violence temporarily — though dozens of Hamas rockets struck Israel yesterday — it represents a historic accomplishment for the jihadist forces most opposed to peace, and defeat for the Palestinians who might still have been Israel’s partners.

Oren writes that Israel by refusing the military’s recommendation to fight Hamas, has handed Hamas a victory. The ceasefire thus gives Hamas added credibility.

Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas’s move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel’s help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph.

As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire’s ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria — Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort.

These are obviously bad results and leads Oren to conclude:

The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war.

The naivete of those promoting this deal is astounding.

UPDATE: JoshuaPundit finds a silver lining:

A war with Hamas is just over the horizon, as sure as the sun rises. Costly as the delay will be, it would clearly be better for Israel to go to war with very different leadership than it has now.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

In People vs. Dinosaurs Thomas Friedman shows some surprising optimism about Israel.

Question: What do America’s premier investor, Warren Buffett, and Iran’s toxic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have in common? Answer: They’ve both made a bet about Israel’s future.

Ahmadinejad declared on Monday that Israel “has reached its final phase and will soon be wiped out from the geographic scene.”

By coincidence, I heard the Iranian leader’s statement on Israel Radio just as I was leaving the headquarters of Iscar, Israel’s famous precision tool company, headquartered in the Western Galilee, near the Lebanon border. Iscar is known for many things, most of all for being the first enterprise that Buffett bought overseas for his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway.

…So who would you put your money on? Buffett or Ahmadinejad? I’d short Ahmadinejad and go long Warren Buffett.

Whatever problems Israel has politically, economically it’s doing quite well. (Friedman actually argued this was a problem last week.)

Still, I’m not going to knock him. If Thomas Friedman wants to write something nice about Israel, I’m happy to read it (and promote it)!

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

A source says that Israel and Syria agree on 85% of the issues they need to agree on to give Syria back the Golan. What’s part of that 15%? Well, besides Syria trying to grab land it never had to begin with, a teeny, tiny problem: Syria’s support for terrorists.

The paper reported that according to the source, 85% of the issues standing between the two countries on the way to a peace deal have already been agreed. One of the issues which have yet to be discussed is Israel’s demand that Syria detach itself from Hamas and Hizbullah and break its strategic alliance with Iran.

“I am optimistic,” the source told the newspaper reporter. “This does not mean that Syria will have to sever its ties with Iran and its followers in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, but it will join those influencing them in a positive manner – in accordance with the peace relations between Israel and Syria.

“We have a clear example for that – the relations between Syria and Turkey, just like Damascus withdrew its support for the PKK (Kurdish militant organization fighting for independence from Turkish rule).”

Except that once again, let’s be clear: Syria has no intention of making peace with Israel.

Syrian President Bashar Assad dismissed on Tuesday Israeli demands for Syria to abandon an alliance with Iran as a requirement for a peace deal.

Assad told British MPs that the Baath Party government intended to maintain its “normal relations” with Iran while it conducts indirect talks with Israel to regain the Golan Heights, a source familiar with the meeting told Reuters.

[...] “The president said Syria has normal relations with Iran. He made it clear that any suggestion to drop them was not a reasonable request,” the source said.

“He said if Israel could question Syria’s relations with Iran then Syria could question Israel’s ties with other countries, particularly the United States,” the source added, referring to Israel’s main ally.

Yeah, because American is just like Iran. Oh, wait. We’re the polar opposite. My bad.

Thankfully, Olmert is going to fall soon, and these discussions will be moot.

Syria has no intention of giving up ties with Iran, no intention of giving up support of terrorist groups in and out of the Palestinian terrortories[sic], and therefore, no intention of the much-touted “land for peace” solution to the Golan Heights. Olmert is grasping at straws, trying to keep his miserable, corrupt political carcass in office just a little while longer for the most mystifying of reasons. Except, of course, selfish ones. Power. Money. Ego.

Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani said on Tuesday that his country was prepared to increase its military cooperation with Iran.

[...] “Iran and Syria share the same viewpoint regarding regional issues and efforts will be made to strengthen our shared interests and bilateral relations,” said Turkmani, who was dispatched to Tehran to reassure the outraged Iranian leadership following the resumption of negotiations with Israel.

The defense minister confirmed the statement released by the Iranian defense ministry regarding Syria’s intent to increase military cooperation with its chief ally.

The Iranian strategy of surrounding Israel with thousands of rockets continues unabated.

Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin said during the weekly government meeting on Sunday that since the breaching of the Philadelphi Route Hamas has succeeded in smuggling very advanced weapons into the Gaza Strip, and that there are certain indications that the organization now has rockets able to surpass Ashkelon, and possibly even to hit Ashdod and Kiryat Gat.

“There has been cooperation between Hamas and Iran, and the Shin Bet has already recognized Iranian-made rockets that have a range far greater than the Gaza Strip. Time favors Hamas and the rest of the terror organizations, and the threat on the State of Israel is steadily rising,” Diskin warned.

Some in Israel’s Military Intelligence thinks that Syria wants to move forward on the “peace process.”

The head of the research division of Military Intelligence, Brigadier-General Yossi Baidatz, attended the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting on Monday, and said that Syria was interested in advancing the peace process with Israel.

“It is our understanding that the Syrians are interested and want to see the diplomatic process move forward,” he told the committee members.

Baidatz noted, however, that Damascus was simultaneously working on bolstering the Hizbullah terror organization in Lebanon.

I’m sorry, but what? You do not want peace if you are simultaneously supplying Hizbullah with weapons to harm Israel. You only want to get your land back.

Ahmadinejad is predicting continued good relations with Syria, and the continued encirclement of Israel.

The FARS news agency reported that Ahmadinejad told Turkmani that he is “confident the Syrian leadership will handle the arena wisely and not desert the front line of the struggle until all the threats of the Zionist regime are completely removed.”

Iran is also promising to keep up its support of Hamas even if Syria were to stop as a result of the truce. (And by the way, how is it that Jimmy Carter can’t acknowledge that Hamas has no intention of ever living in peace with Israel, but he can give away classified information and betray an American ally?

Really, reading these, and all the other articles available, how can anyone pretend that Syria is willing to come to a peace agreement with Israel? There will be no peace, only another piece in the encirclement strategy. Once again, Israel will be fighting an all-front war, only this time, the civilian population will be under as much threat as it was in 1948. No, more. The rockets will make every inch of Israel unsafe.

And meantime, Olmert fiddles while Israel’s enemies build up their weapons.