Israel Puts World on Notice - Military Action If Iran Moves into Syria - By Yaakov Lappin -
Iran is expanding into Syria, converting the country into a military and weapons base, filling it with heavily armed Shi'a proxy forces, and earmarking it as a launchpad for future attacks on Israel.
Israel, in turn, has recently put the international community on notice, warning that a failure to stop the Iranian push into Syria will result in Israeli military action.
In this context, Israeli officials have traveled to the U.S. and Russia in recent weeks, to share information on Iran's military moves into Syria, and to sound out the alarm over what may come next.
Yet it remains far from clear that either Moscow or Washington can or will pressure the Iranians to stop. According to one report, Russia has placed its advanced S-400 air defense system near Iranian weapons factories in Syria.
The factories purportedly produce long-range guided missiles for the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah to use against Israel. Russia has not confirmed the report.
In August, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Sochi, Russia, where he met with President Vladimir Putin at his summer residence for an urgent meeting on Iran's activities in Syria.
Iran, which runs the ground war in Syria on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime, has become an important regional ally of Russia, which oversees air operations in support of the Iranian-led axis. Together, they have managed to turn the tide in the Syrian war against the Sunni rebel organizations.
The Assad regime has been regaining increasing amounts of territory, into which Iran and its agents pour in. Islamic State's collapse is also leaving behind a vacuum that is being filled by Iran.
Meanwhile, a senior Israeli defense delegation, made up of the head of the Mossad, Yossi Cohen, and the leader of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, landed in Washington in mid-August to discuss what Iran is doing in Syria with U.S. National Security Adviser, H. R. McMaster.
Israeli delegation members noted "a kind of embarrassment and lack of a clear position" among Trump administration officials regarding America's commitments in the Middle East, particularly in regards to preventing the spread of Iranian influence in Syria, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told The Jerusalem Post that "the Americans fully support the Israeli objectives...at least from a macro perspective, the Americans and Israelis are of the same mind."
Yet the newspaper reported that Friedman was "unwilling to discuss...how this objective of keeping Iran out of a post-civil war Syria can be reached."
According to Professor Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria from Tel Aviv University, the U.S. is prepared to hand off Syria to Russia. "As part of this package deal, which will free the Trump Administration from the burden of Syria, the U.S. is willing to accept the Russian willingness to grant Iran a grip on Syria," he added.
Zisser said that Russia is aware of Israel's concerns, and is willing to move Hezbollah and Iran back from the Israeli border by a few kilometers, but that ultimately, Moscow views Iran as a legitimate force.
Moscow also thinks that Israel has to come to accept Iran as such, so long as the Iranian presence does not turn into a missile attack on Israel.
"The bottom line is that neither Russia nor the US are accepting Israel's outcry, and are unwilling to push Iran out of Syria. They even view it as a stabilizing factor, and apparently they do not take Israel's threats very seriously," Zisser added.
Israel's diplomatic warning campaign is in full swing, but it is reasonable to believe that the real objective is to create legitimacy for future Israeli action, Israel's former National Security Adviser, Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror, told JNS.org.
"The Israeli warning regarding an intention to set red lines is important, not because the two powers (the U.S. and Russia) will act, but because when Israel acts, it will have much more legitimacy," said Amidror.
Col. (ret.) Reuven Erlich, director of Tel Aviv-based Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which has been monitoring events in Syria, said that America's goal is to dismantle Islamic State's control in areas of Syria--not to engage in nation-building there or prevent the buildup of Iranian-backed Shi'a forces.
"The U.S. policy in Syria is to destroy ISIS's territorial control," he said, explaining that other issues, like the Syrian regime's relations with others, are out of the range of American policy or capabilities in Syria.
"So if we suddenly see Shi'ite militias and Hezbollah in the Syrian Golan Heights, they (the Americans) will not be able to do much," Erlich said.
He added, "But the U.S. can activate pressure levers that it has with Russia, which is and will continue to be a strong player in Syria, and which can pressure the Syrian regime. The U.S. is not, however, building a position on the ground that would enable it to come to our assistance if we need it."
Russia does have a presence in Syria, and therefore, an ability to influence the Damascus regime and Iran, Erlich argued. Still, he said, "The Russians will not enter into a confrontation with Iran because of us. But if they realize that an Iranian presence in the Golan Heights will have a price, the Russians can be a restraining factor. That too, however, is in doubt."
Ultimately, Erlich said, Israel must rely on its own ability to defend itself. Quoting Hillel the Elder, he said, "There is a saying: If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman Aug. 24 released a statement that was both unusual and littered with clues about the seriousness of the latest developments.
"The fact that Iran is trying to turn the whole of Syrian territory into a forward outpost against the State of Israel, with military bases, with thousands of Shi'ite mercenaries that are brought in from all over the Middle East into Syria, with an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air force base, with an IRGC naval base, the attempt to manufacture precision weaponry in Lebanon--this is a reality that we do not intend to accept," he said.
Lieberman said Netanyahu's meeting in Sochi was part of an attempt to use every available diplomatic avenue, hinting heavily that military action would follow if diplomacy failed.
"All that we are trying to do right now is to use all of these avenues to solve the problem," he said.
In a clearly veiled warning, Lieberman added, "I hope that we can solve it through the diplomatic channels, through the international community, with vigorous activity in every direction. I hope we will not have to think otherwise."
Afghanistan: Our Most Costly War Goes On - Todd Strandberg -
The liberal media have trained themselves to exploit any misstep or inconsistency that President Trump makes. When he announced his plan to continue the Afghanistan war, it's very strange and ominous that the press gave little coverage to President Trump's previous twitter comments on the subject:
"It is time to get out of Afghanistan. We are building roads and schools for people that hate us. It is not in our national interests." (February 27, 2012)
"Afghanistan is a total disaster. We don't know what we are doing. They are, in addition to everything else, robbing us blind." (March 12, 2012)
"We should leave Afghanistan immediately. No more wasted lives. If we have to go back in, we go in hard and quick. Rebuild the U.S. first." (March 1, 2013)
President Trump freely admitted that he has changed his mind about our involvement in Afghanistan. The war will go on, but our focus will be on killing terrorists and not nation building. He promised to pressure Pakistan to crack down on terrorist cells along its border with Afghanistan. He called on the Afghan government to rein in corruption. President Trump also wants India to become more involved in the situation.
The war in Afghanistan is America's longest military conflict. Unlike earlier wars, most American families don't feel impacted by the Afghanistan War. Unlike the Vietnam War and World War II, there has not been a draft, and no ration cards have been issued for goods and services. There has not been a special tax imposed to pay for the war.
The 2,400 death toll from the Afghanistan War is very low. In the Civil War and World War II we lost half million people in each conflict. Our losses in Afghanistan are so light, every time a soldier dies his or her name is reported in the national news.
The problem I have with Afghanistan war is this: money. War is an expensive endeavor, and a military campaign cannot be sustained without bleeding a nation dry. The Cost of Wars Project at Brown University has estimated that total war spending in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001 is approaching $5 trillion. Of that, roughly $2 trillion is attributable to Afghanistan. This massive price tag will only keep rising, as President Trump has now vowed to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.
The cost of this Afghanistan War doesn't include future spending that will be needed for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because of the advances in medical science, we have been able to save soldiers who lost their limbs or have suffered profound brain injuries. The cost related to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans over the next 40 years will be more than $1 trillion.
The government can only think in the short term, so budget planners have no grasp of the long term cost of an endless war. Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government said, "The cost of caring for war veterans typically peaks 30 to 40 years or more after a conflict." But we are already at the point where we face a financial crisis every three or four months-which shows how much financial peril we are in.
World War II, in inflation-adjusted dollars cost $4.1 trillion. In the 1940s people were willing to pay that high price tag because they deemed it necessary to save the world from the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. I don't think our investment in Iraq and Afghanistan has been worth $5 trillion. After we pulled out of Iraq, the military that we had painstakingly built-up collapsed in spectacular fashion, and ISIS used "our weapons" to completely destroy dozens of cities.
Afghanistan has been a hopeless cause for any empire trying to colonize or tame it. The British and the Soviet Union tried and failed to subjugate that land of warring tribes. Our wishful goal of just making Afghanistan a peaceful place is delusional.
Our relationship with Afghanistan is so disorganized; we don't even have an ambassador to Kabul. A good reason why that post is empty is because every single year there has been at least one major attack against a Western embassy. Our troops operate from behind fortified compounds because the natives hate us.
I have to wonder if the reason why America is not clearly mentioned in Bible prophecy is because we will implode under the financial weight of our vast military complex. It might not be Afghanistan that breaks us, but someday the dollar is going to collapse and the reformed Roman Empire may just step in to take our place.
"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things" (Daniel 7:7-8).
US, Israel of 'same mind' on stopping Iran in Syria - By Yaakov Katz & Herb Keinon -
US envoy says Netanyahu and Trump enjoy a "phenomenal" relationship.
The US and Israel are "of the same mind" when it comes to opposition to any Iranian military presence in Syria, US Ambassador David Friedman told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview this week.
Friedman, in his first wide-ranging interview with the Israeli media since taking up his position in mid- May, said the US was "extraordinarily receptive" to Israel's concerns about Iranian penetration into Syria when a high-level security delegation led by Mossad head Yossi Cohen went to Washington to discuss the issue two weeks ago.
"They're obviously unanimously of the view that the vacuum created by the defeat of ISIS cannot result in the presence of Iranian military bases," Friedman said, adding that the issue of how to get "the right result" was still a work in progress that involves a number of other players, including the Russians, Jordanians and Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"I think that the Americans fully support the Israeli objectives," he said, unwilling to discuss, however, how this objective of keeping Iran out of a post-civil war Syria can be reached. "But at least from a macro perspective, the Americans and Israelis are of the same mind." Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process, Friedman said that the Trump administration was "trying very hard not to repeat the mistakes of the past."
Rather, Friedman said that the Trump administration was trying to approach the issue "from a forward- looking perspective, and we're just trying to create something that would be a win-win for Israel and the Palestinians.
"If it is not good for both, it's not going to get done, so we're trying to find ways to make sure that each side looks at the opportunity versus the present and concludes that the opportunity is better than the present," he said. "We're very sensitive to all the things that go into the calculus, and we're trying to find the right place where both sides can say, 'We're better off jumping into this pool than staying where we are.'"
Asked about the regional dimension that could be in play in reigniting a diplomatic process, Friedman said Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner "has established extraordinary relationships among the Gulf states and other Sunni countries. I think those relationships are extremely important to this process." He would not, however, delve into any more detail.
Friedman had harsh words for the Obama administration, saying that its enabling of the passage of anti-settlement UN Security Resolution 2334 last December was an "absolute betrayal of Israel," and as "sharp a betrayal" as any US president has ever inflicted on the Jewish state. He said that President Donald Trump's decision to name him ambassador to Israel was a signal that "America is going to be a better friend to Israel than it had been over the past eight years."
Part of this friendship starts at the top, and Friedman characterized as "phenomenal" the relationship between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The chemistry between the two men "is just excellent," said Friedman, who has sat in on a number of meetings between them.
"It's fun to be with them," he said. "It's not a formal meeting. They're not on edge. They're not sitting back in their chairs in a formal way. They're kind of talking like a couple of friends, and it's fun to be in the room with them, because the conversations are really pleasant. They're funny. They're cordial. As someone who cares so much about both countries, it's great to see the leaders of both countries getting along so well."
The two leaders are expected to meet in late September in New York when they travel there to address the UN General Assembly.
Asked about the recent events in Charlottesville and Trump's response to them, Friedman said the president has condemned the neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups "in the strongest terms on numerous occasions, and anyone who thinks the president is racist is either not paying attention or is willfully blind to the facts."
According to Friedman, the real "takeaway" from Charlottesville is that a few hundred neo-Nazis and white supremacist hit a jackpot they could never have dreamed of, "because the left-wing media is so obsessed with destroying the president that they are willing to elevate these fringe groups onto the front page day after day after day just to hurt the president. That to me is astonishing."
Iran in Syria - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Iran-in-Syria-503556
Israel has proven its readiness to act in Syria over the last five years. It may need to continue doing so.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is well aware that Iran's influence in Syria is a major concern in Jerusalem. The question is whether Putin can do anything about it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conveyed the extent of Israeli concerns to the Russian leader when he traveled to Putin's summer holiday resort in Sochi last week. He made it clear to Putin that Israel would not tolerate the establishment of a permanent and significant Iranian presence in Syria that includes military bases and missile launcher sites.
Unfortunately, a number of factors have come together to make the extraction of Iran from Syria particularly complicated.
The nuclear agreement implemented in 2016 between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers - the US, UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany - has made it more difficult to act against Iran. By negotiating and signing a pact with Iran the signatories were giving the Islamic Republic international legitimacy.
Too many countries have too much invested in ties with Iran to turn back the clock. Iran is abundantly aware of this and is leveraging its newfound legitimacy to maintain a strong presence in Syria as the civil war there gradually winds to an end. Russia is one of the countries that has enjoyed renewed economic ties with Iran.
Those who supported the deal and now voice concern over Iran's presence in Syria should have known that this would happen. The deal paved the way for Iran to do what it wants. It gave it money and legitimacy and Israel is now potentially going to pay the price.
Meanwhile, the foreign policy of the US is in disarray. Besides a single missile strike launched against the Assad regime for using chemical weapons, the Trump administration seems to have no desire to get involved in Syria, let alone bring to bear the military force needed to remove the Iranians.
In theory, Russia has an interest in the removal of Iran, which it sees as a competitor. In post-civil-war Syria, Russia would like to see a diplomatic solution that allows it to remove most of its troops from the area, while maintaining its military influence from the seaport it has established in Tartus. Russia also wants a piece in the lucrative deals to be made as part of the rebuilding of Syria. Continued Iranian influence in the country complicates matters for Russia. It increases chances of conflict with Israel and could eventually lead to turf wars between Tehran and Moscow.
In contrast, Iran has a cardinal interest in maintaining a presence in Syria. Iran's mullahs see an opportunity to expand Iranian influence in the region and take advantage of being on the winning side in the Syrian civil war. Iran paid a hefty price in lost Shi'ite lives, as well as destroyed equipment and arms, not to mention the enormous risks Tehran took in meddling in Syria's internal affairs and fighting Sunni forces there.
Now Iran has an opportunity to establish a new center of influence, not through proxies, as is the case in Gaza, Lebanon or Yemen, but directly by having Iranian forces on the ground. From there, it could establish air force bases, deploy tanks and divisions and amplify, in an unprecedented way, the threat it already poses to the State of Israel.
Under these circumstances, Netanyahu is smartly maneuvering between Washington and Moscow. It is still not clear if he can succeed in getting a commitment, from either party, that Iran will not be allowed to stay, but there are other goals that might be attainable.
Aware that a direct conflict between Israel and Iranian forces in Syria could endanger the Assad regime, Putin might be able to distance Iran from Syria's southern border with Israel and Jordan. There can also be a Russian-Iranian understanding limiting Iran's deployment of missiles in Syria. The Russians can justify this by claiming to be interested in maintaining stability and preventing Iran from endangering the Assad regime by opening a front with Israel.
The problem with any deal of this kind is that the Iranians are not a party that can be trusted. They see themselves on the cusp of a historic conquest and will fight to ensure it succeeds.
In the end and like in the past, this may be a case of Israel not being able to rely on anyone but itself. Israel has proven its readiness to act in Syria over the last five years. It may need to continue doing so.
Iran, Turkey and Russia Seek a New Triangle for the Region - Amir Taheri -
A high-level Turkish military-diplomatic delegation is expected to visit Tehran soon to "put final touches" to a strategic accord between Ankara and Tehran to help stabilize the Middle East, Iran's Chief of Staff General Muhamad Hussein Baqeri revealed on Monday.
Speaking at the end of a visit to the Iran Border Force headquarters, Baqeri said the Turkish team, to be headed by Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, will be a follow-up to Baqeri's "historic" visit to Ankara last week.
Almost at the same time, a spokesman for the Turkish military announced that Russia's Army Chief of Staff General Valery Gerasimov would soon lead a high-level delegation to Ankara to discuss tripartite cooperation with Iran, among other things.
Tehran sources said Baqeri may later visit Moscow to prepare the ground for a more formal level of military-security cooperation by the three nations.
Details of the preliminary accord reached between Iran and Turkey during Baqeri's Ankara visit have not been revealed, ostensibly at the demand of the Turkish side which may want to first inform its NATO allies.
Nevertheless, based on statements made by Baqeri on Monday, the Ankara accords cover three domains.
The first concerns the security of the sensitive triangle that forms the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran in a plateau were ethnic Kurds form a majority of the population.
At different times and on different levels all three nations have had to face the challenge of the Kurdish quest for identity, autonomy and, in some cases, even secession.
With brief periods of ceasefire, Turkey has been engaged in a war of attrition against the Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK) for almost three decades, a war that has claimed some 40,000 lives.
Iraq is currently facing the challenge of an independence referendum that the Kurdish autonomous government in Irbil wants to organize next month. For its part, Iran has experienced a rise in armed attacks by Kurdish groups based in Iraqi Kurdistan on Iranian security forces along the border.
Concern about Kurdish "hostile action" has risen in Iran as a result of a recent decision by the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, to publicly commit itself to fighting for regime change in Tehran. Hitherto, only smaller Kurdish groups such as Komalah, a Marxist outfit and PJAK, the Iranian branch of PKK, had pursued a policy of warmed struggle against the Islamic Republic.
Turkey is trying to apply three plans to deal with its Kurdish problem.
The first is the building of a 65-kilometer long wall along its borders in the Kurdish triangle with Iran and Iraq. Tehran strongly supports this because it also makes it more difficult for Iranians fleeing into exile to reach Turkey.
The second plan is to carve out a glacis inside Syrian and Iraqi territories to deprive the PKK from a fallback position in those countries. That plan, tacitly backed by the Iraqi autonomous Kurdish authorities and the remnants of President Bashar al-Assad's regime in Damascus, is opposed by the Syrian Kurds backed by the United States.
The third Turkish plan is to promote a regional alliance that could eventually include Iran, Russia and Iraq. The idea is that such an alliance, though limited in scope, would leave little space for the US-led Western powers and their regional Arab allies to regain the influence they had enjoyed in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire over a century ago.
That, in turn, would give Turkey a big voice in the Levant as a springboard for a greater projection of power across the Middle East.
It is not clear whether Ankara is seeking a formal alliance with Tehran or would only work for a more dynamic application of the existing accords.
Under the Shah of Iran and Turkey enjoyed close military relations that included joint staff conversations at a strategic level. Those relations were severed by the late Ayatollah Khomeini who accused Turkey of acting as "a lackey of the Americans." It now seems that the current "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants to revive at least part of those relations in a new context.
At a meeting in Ankara in 2014, Iran and Turkey reached a border security cooperation accord signed by the governors of Chaldaran and Maku in Iran and of Agri and Igdir provinces in Turkey. The accord envisaged three joint security meetings each year, plus a mechanism for exchange of information on the movements of terrorist groups and smuggling networks.
What the accord did not permit, reportedly to Turkey's chagrin, was the right of hot pursuit of armed terrorists, something that Turkey had obtained from Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Judging by the composition of the high-level team that accompanied Baqeri to Ankara, it is possible that the issue was part of the broader discussions. Deputy Foreign Minister for Asia and Oceania Affairs Ebrahim Rahimpour, chief of IRGC's Ground Forces Mohammad Khakpour, Deputy Chief of Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Gholam Reza Mehrabi, Deputy Minister of Defense for Education and Research of the Armed Forces Mohammed Hassan Bagheri, and several other high-ranking officials accompany Baqeri in the visit to Turkey.
The second domain covered during the Baqeri visit concerns the future of Syria which Tehran believes must be determined by Iran, Turkey and Russia to the exclusion of the US and its Arab allies.
According to Tehran sources the issue is still causing "some friction" with Turkey because President Recep Tayyip Erdogan still insists that Assad must at some point be scripted out of the equation to allow the "new Syria" to emerge.
A sign that Tehran may be flexible regarding Assad's future came on Monday when general Qassem Soleimani, the man in charge of running Iranian policy in Syria and Iraq, said in a speech in Tehran that Iran's interventions linked to "our own interests, and not any support for any particular person."
Don't be surprised if Iran presents the new informal alliance as Russia and Turkey joining "The Resistance Front" led from Tehran.
Baqeri's historic visit evoked a third plank of what Tehran hopes would be a credible plan to stabilize the Levant and exclude the US and its allies. That plank consists of "regional economic cooperation" to give the Iran-Turkey-Russia alliance some tangible moorings.
Last week, the Iranian Ghadir Investment Holding, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) signed a $7 billion deal with the Russian state-owned Zarubezhneft and the Turkish holding Unit International, controlled by people close to Erdogan, to develop new oil and gas fields in Iran for export to global markets.
Iran and Turkey are also engaged in talks to double transit by Turkey through Iran and aimed at markets in the GCC area, notably Qatar and the UAE.
Turkey which has the biggest construction firms in the region also hopes to secure the lion's share in future contracts to rebuild Syria and Iraq with the IRGC's Khatam al-Anbia conglomerate in tow. Turkish construction firms have sustained heavy losses, especially in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, as a result of the Arab Spring and regard the rebuilding of Syria and Iraq as a second life.
Preliminary talks have also taken place between Russia and Turkey to develop supply lines for the Caspian basin energy exports through Turkish ports.
Is an Iran-Turkey-Russia triangle really taking shape? Judging by noises made in Tehran, Ankara and Moscow the answer must be yes. However, the trio remains strange bedfellows with contradictory positions and conflicting interests. In other words, between the cup and the lip there may be many a slip.
Russia warns Israel not to attack Iran in Syria - by Joel Gehrke -
Russia warned Israel on Wednesday not to authorize an attack on Iranian military positions in Syria after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to prevent a buildup on his borders.
"If anyone in the Middle East or [an]other part of the world plans to violate international law by undermining any other country's sovereignty or territorial integrity, including any country in the Middle East or North Africa, this would be condemned," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters.
Netanyahu has warned that Iran is building military facilities in Syria. U.S. and Israeli officials have worried for years that Russia and Iran, by partnering to protect Syrian President Bashar Assad, would emerge from the conflict with long-term strategic advantages, and Lavrov's comment suggests Russia's support for Iran's consolidation of those gains.
"[R]egarding whatever area of cooperation between Iran and Syria, my position is that if their cooperation in whichever field does not violate the basic provisions of international law, it should not be cause for question," Lavrov said.
Netanyahu argued that Iran wants a "noose to tighten around Israel" through a military buildup on its borders.
"Iran is busy turning Syria into a base of military entrenchment and it wants to use Syria and Lebanon as war fronts [in] its declared goal to eradicate Israel," Netanyahu said Monday during a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. "It is also building sites to produce precision-guided missiles toward that end in both Syria and in Lebanon. This is something Israel cannot accept. This is something the U.N. should not accept."
Democratic and Republican lawmakers agree that Iran has shipped tens of thousands of rockets to Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon, including technology that could give them the precision-guided capability to hit major sites in Israel. "If they succeed in this, they can pick the tallest buildings in Tel Aviv, the main landmarks in Jerusalem, the airport, the ships in the harbor," House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in February.
Iran, with the help of Shia militias operating in Iraq and Syria, is poised to have effective control over a "land bridge" connecting the Persian Gulf power to their terrorist proxies in Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea. With a direct land connection, the Iranians may be able to threaten Israel even more directly.
"It definitely can lead to an immediate - probably in the near-term future conflict between Hezbollah and Israel," Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told the Washington Examiner in June. "We know that Hezbollah has a number of arms and rockets basically ready to launch against Israel and Israel's in a position now that they may have to act."
Iran/Hezbollah noose tightens around Israel -
Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, challenged the international community to hold Iran to account on Thursday, Aug. 31, after the Islamic Republic showed its "true colors" by restoring its ties with the Palestinian extremist Hamas. In her statement, she described as "stunning" the Hamas leader's boast that Tehran is again the biggest provider of money and arms. The breach between them followed the terrorist group's refusal to side with Bashar Assad in the Syrian civil war.
"Iran must decide whether it wants to be a member of the community of nations that can be expected to take its international obligations seriously, or whether it wants to be the leader of a jihadist terrorist movement. It cannot be both," Haley said in her statement
Islamic Iran has long made that decision, as the ambassador knows very well from the intelligence reports she sees. But her brave words were meant as a wakeup call for the rapid advances made by Iran and Hezbollah during August to impose their will on the Middle East, often with great stealth.
Haley will have learned about the Aug. 2 meeting in Beirut between Hamas's military chief Salah al-Arouri and Iranian officials, following which Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah confirmed that the Palestinian rulers of the Gaza Strip were worthy of restored military and financial aid.
That deal was clinched at the highest level in Tehran, after Arouri and a delegation from Gaza were received by top Iranian officials, including Revolutionary Guards General Qassem Soleimani. He is not only commander of Iran's Middle East warfronts, but also head of Al Qods, which runs Iran's intelligence, subversion and terror networks.
These events and their ramifications were itemized in the latest issue of DEBKA Weekly, out Friday, Sept. 1.
It was Soleimani who assigned Hamas and its military arm with its next tasks. Since both parties are dedicated to violent tactics (terror) to achieve their ends, one of which is the destruction of the State of Israel, all that remains to be seen is the precise form the Iranian-backed Hamas-Hezbollah partnership will take - and where. Those practicalities were aired at the secret sessions between Hamas and Al Qods in Tehran
Present at some of those sessions were also Soleimani's secret agents and heads of the terrorist networks he runs across the Middle East and in the Gulf emirates.
The inauguration ceremony for Hassan Rouhani's second term as Iran's president on Aug. 5 provided a convenient cover for these get-togethers.
Nikki Haley's warning to the international community was prompted by these dangerous events. Although her words were powerful, telling and timely, it is hard to see any sign of their being followed up by other parts of the Trump administration.
With the southern front against Israel in the bag, Iran and Hezbollah this week put together its northern front, just two or three kilometers from Israel's Golan border with Syria. This could not have happened without the Trump administration submitting to Russia's demand to revise their de-escalation zone project for the Syrian Golan, so that Iranian and Hezbollah forces are no longer required to distance themselves 40-50km from the zone, but only 8km.
Iran and Hezbollah in Syria have in consequence been quietly shortening their distance from the Israeli border. But this week, they made a major leap forward, when the Russian monitors brought a group of Iranian and Hezbollah officers all the way to Quneitra. There, they were given a base under Russian protection within sight of the Israeli Golan.
Tehran and its pawn therefore used the month of August to climb into position for drawing a noose around Israel and tightening it at will.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu this week boasted that his tenure was marked by relative calm. Israel, he said, had successfully avoided getting embroiled in any major war.
That is correct. However, his policy of preserving the calm and maintaining a purely defensive stance has carried a price. That price was totted up on Sept. 1. By then, Iran and Iran had been able to move unopposed into position on Israel's borders with Syria and Lebanon in the north and had crept up to the Gaza border in the south.
Seen from the strategic-military angle, Israel can be said to have regressed 11 years to 2006, when two foes were poised menacingly on its northern and southern borders. Israel was then compelled to fight a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. This time, the conflict could potentially flare up simultaneously on three fronts - Lebanon, Gaza and Syria.
|
PLEASE VISIT MY WIFES WEBSITE. SHE RUNS "YOUNG LIVING" WHICH PROVIDES ALL NATURAL OILS THAT CAN BE USED INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INCLUDING A DEFUSER WHICH PUTS AN AMAZING ODOR IN THE AIR. THIS PRODUCT IS SO AMAZING AND KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET YEARS OF ENJOYMENT FROM IT. GOTO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGLIVING.ORG/CDROSES
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.