Israel Sets Aside $2.8 Billion For Unilateral Iran Attack
Mar 24, 2014 23:40:16 GMT
shiloh likes this
Post by elizabeth on Mar 24, 2014 23:40:16 GMT
Israel Sets Aside $2.8 Billion For Unilateral Iran Attack After Defense Minister Says We Can't Depend On US
March 24, 2014 | Tom Olago
Share this article
Despite ongoing talks and negotiations between Iran and the West over the Iranian nuclear program, Israel is taking no chances. Based on recent statements by senior military officers, a whopping amount of at least 10 billion shekels ($2.89 billion) has been set aside by Israel for a potential unilateral military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in 2014.
These revelations reported by haaretz.com , quote three Knesset members who attended joint committee hearings on Israel Defense Forces plans held in January and February. This decision effectively retains the same budgetary allocation made in 2013 for the possible strike, and reflects the determination of the Israeli government not to be bound by the interim accord that was reached between Iran and the Western nations. And as second-round talks on a permanent accord resumed over the past few weeks in Vienna, Austria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to reiterate this viewpoint: “…letting Iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates…That must not happen. And we will make sure it does not happen.”
The Israeli government decision is based on the stated need to ensure its self defense, even as it becomes clearer that the U.S is not going to lead the campaign against Iran or to be a dependable ally for a military solution against Iran.
Excerpts from a recent report by cbn.com quotes Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon: “Israel will do what it must to defend itself…We thought that the one who needs to lead the campaign against Iran is the U.S…we (now) have to behave as if we can only rely on ourselves…Weakness certainly does not pay in the world, no one can replace the U.S. as the world's policeman. I hope the U.S. will come to its senses."
Ya'alon made these comments with reference to the crisis in the Ukraine as an example of declining U.S. influence globally, given that Russian President Vladimir Putin seems unimpressed with President Obama's warnings.
The latest round of talks involves the European Union, Iran and top diplomats of the six ‘P5+1’ powers(U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany) working towards brokering a permanent accord, thought by analysts and observers to have the potential to become a reality as soon as this July.
According to Haaretz.com, Iranian media reported that officials with the Iranian delegation said this round of talks will focus on how much uranium enrichment Iran will be permitted as part of a final accord, along with the future of the heavy water plant at Arak and the lifting of sanctions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Jawad Zarif reportedly wrote in the Financial Times that his country is not seeking nuclear weapons and said the West’s suspicions will threaten Iran’s national security. Zarif said Iran must convince the West that it is not seeking nuclear arms, based on an unpublicized fatwa ostensibly written by supreme leader Ali Khamenei forbidding production of nuclear weapons.
Why is the Israeli government now escalating its rhetoric on potentially striking Iranian nuclear facilities?
For one, indications are that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fears that a final deal will leave much of Iran’s nuclear capabilities intact. The Times of Israel reported that Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran have been largely ignored, and that a frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran.
The “wake-up” call from Israel also comes closely on the heels of evidence that Iran recently tried to facilitate a missile smuggling shipment to anti-Israel groups. The seizure of the shipment did not seem to have impacted the course of the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear facilities, with the placid Western reception effectively shrugging off the ships’ deadly cargo. The reaction must have been particularly alarming to Israel’s leadership.
According to the Associated Press, Netanyahu said the world’s indifference to the naval raid was “hypocritical,” and he lashed out at Western leaders for condemning Israeli settlement construction while ignoring Iran’s transgressions. “The greater the pressure on Iran,” he said in his speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), “the more credible the threat of force on Iran, the smaller the chance that force will ever have to be used.”
Another likely reason for the political sounding of the Israeli alarm bells over Iran is to further rally its citizenry’s support against the Iranian nuclear threat. In a poll 4 months ago reported by the Times of Israel, slightly fewer than half of Israelis backed the use of a military option against Iran’s nuclear program, with the number dropping even further should the US not lend support for such an action. Hardly an emphatic local endorsement that could encourage or embolden Israeli leadership.
Other observers believe that an Israeli strike in the midst of the ongoing diplomacy would be considered inappropriate and would be overwhelmingly unpopular, so by highlighting its concerns now, Israel is just drawing attention to the need for extra caution in just how far the non-Iranian parties go in allowing concessions to Iran in this matter.
The Associated Press recently reported that an Israeli military strike would be extremely difficult to pull off, both for logistical and political reasons. Any mission would likely require sending Israeli warplanes into hostile airspace, and it remains unclear how much damage Israel could inflict on a program that is scattered and hidden deep underground. In addition, it would likely set off an international uproar, derail the international negotiations and trigger retaliation on Israeli and US targets.
It therefore remains to be seen whether Israel will actually take the unilateral action to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. Current circumstances may not be conducive for that, but chances are that the timing of such an attack will never be conducive, especially with the lack of support from the U.S.
Ongoing diplomatic negotiations may well end up directly or indirectly boosting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if her capabilities are not adequately put in check. And should Iran at some point decide to use its developed nuclear arsenal against Israel, irrespective of any prior written agreements with the West, it will be too late to undo the damage or manage the consequences of the Israeli response.
Fair Use For Educational or Discussion Purposes Source: click here
March 24, 2014 | Tom Olago
Share this article
Despite ongoing talks and negotiations between Iran and the West over the Iranian nuclear program, Israel is taking no chances. Based on recent statements by senior military officers, a whopping amount of at least 10 billion shekels ($2.89 billion) has been set aside by Israel for a potential unilateral military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in 2014.
These revelations reported by haaretz.com , quote three Knesset members who attended joint committee hearings on Israel Defense Forces plans held in January and February. This decision effectively retains the same budgetary allocation made in 2013 for the possible strike, and reflects the determination of the Israeli government not to be bound by the interim accord that was reached between Iran and the Western nations. And as second-round talks on a permanent accord resumed over the past few weeks in Vienna, Austria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to reiterate this viewpoint: “…letting Iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates…That must not happen. And we will make sure it does not happen.”
The Israeli government decision is based on the stated need to ensure its self defense, even as it becomes clearer that the U.S is not going to lead the campaign against Iran or to be a dependable ally for a military solution against Iran.
Excerpts from a recent report by cbn.com quotes Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon: “Israel will do what it must to defend itself…We thought that the one who needs to lead the campaign against Iran is the U.S…we (now) have to behave as if we can only rely on ourselves…Weakness certainly does not pay in the world, no one can replace the U.S. as the world's policeman. I hope the U.S. will come to its senses."
Ya'alon made these comments with reference to the crisis in the Ukraine as an example of declining U.S. influence globally, given that Russian President Vladimir Putin seems unimpressed with President Obama's warnings.
The latest round of talks involves the European Union, Iran and top diplomats of the six ‘P5+1’ powers(U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China and Germany) working towards brokering a permanent accord, thought by analysts and observers to have the potential to become a reality as soon as this July.
According to Haaretz.com, Iranian media reported that officials with the Iranian delegation said this round of talks will focus on how much uranium enrichment Iran will be permitted as part of a final accord, along with the future of the heavy water plant at Arak and the lifting of sanctions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Jawad Zarif reportedly wrote in the Financial Times that his country is not seeking nuclear weapons and said the West’s suspicions will threaten Iran’s national security. Zarif said Iran must convince the West that it is not seeking nuclear arms, based on an unpublicized fatwa ostensibly written by supreme leader Ali Khamenei forbidding production of nuclear weapons.
Why is the Israeli government now escalating its rhetoric on potentially striking Iranian nuclear facilities?
For one, indications are that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fears that a final deal will leave much of Iran’s nuclear capabilities intact. The Times of Israel reported that Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran have been largely ignored, and that a frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran.
The “wake-up” call from Israel also comes closely on the heels of evidence that Iran recently tried to facilitate a missile smuggling shipment to anti-Israel groups. The seizure of the shipment did not seem to have impacted the course of the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear facilities, with the placid Western reception effectively shrugging off the ships’ deadly cargo. The reaction must have been particularly alarming to Israel’s leadership.
According to the Associated Press, Netanyahu said the world’s indifference to the naval raid was “hypocritical,” and he lashed out at Western leaders for condemning Israeli settlement construction while ignoring Iran’s transgressions. “The greater the pressure on Iran,” he said in his speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), “the more credible the threat of force on Iran, the smaller the chance that force will ever have to be used.”
Another likely reason for the political sounding of the Israeli alarm bells over Iran is to further rally its citizenry’s support against the Iranian nuclear threat. In a poll 4 months ago reported by the Times of Israel, slightly fewer than half of Israelis backed the use of a military option against Iran’s nuclear program, with the number dropping even further should the US not lend support for such an action. Hardly an emphatic local endorsement that could encourage or embolden Israeli leadership.
Other observers believe that an Israeli strike in the midst of the ongoing diplomacy would be considered inappropriate and would be overwhelmingly unpopular, so by highlighting its concerns now, Israel is just drawing attention to the need for extra caution in just how far the non-Iranian parties go in allowing concessions to Iran in this matter.
The Associated Press recently reported that an Israeli military strike would be extremely difficult to pull off, both for logistical and political reasons. Any mission would likely require sending Israeli warplanes into hostile airspace, and it remains unclear how much damage Israel could inflict on a program that is scattered and hidden deep underground. In addition, it would likely set off an international uproar, derail the international negotiations and trigger retaliation on Israeli and US targets.
It therefore remains to be seen whether Israel will actually take the unilateral action to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. Current circumstances may not be conducive for that, but chances are that the timing of such an attack will never be conducive, especially with the lack of support from the U.S.
Ongoing diplomatic negotiations may well end up directly or indirectly boosting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if her capabilities are not adequately put in check. And should Iran at some point decide to use its developed nuclear arsenal against Israel, irrespective of any prior written agreements with the West, it will be too late to undo the damage or manage the consequences of the Israeli response.
Fair Use For Educational or Discussion Purposes Source: click here
