Arlene from Israel

Last I posted, I thought it was time for some upbeat news. We all need that to sustain us. But there is precious little that is “upbeat” regarding what I’m about to write here. We are facing some very critical situations.

In due course I will write further about the election results and the development of the coalition, with its closed-door negotiations and inter-faction tensions. But right now, that seems “small potatoes.”

~~~~~~~~~~

You may have heard: “Something” has happened at Fordow, Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility, some 300 feet beneath a mountain, near the holy Shi’ite city of Qom.

Credit: actforaustralia

What occurred was an explosion of some sort, either this past Monday or some days before.

I was reluctant to write about this sooner, as information that had come out was conflicting and incomplete. But the time has come.

~~~~~~~~~~

This first major question is, how much damage has been done?

An early report — on the missingpeace.eu website — was by Dr. Ali Reza Nourizadeh, a senior researcher and director of the Centre for Arab & Iranian Studies in London. He maintains many contacts in Iran, and indicated that little damage was done to the enrichment facility, which houses some 3,000 centrifuges and uranium that has been enriched to 20%. Rather, the entrance was totally blocked, he said, trapping some 200 personnel inside.

A number of other reports, however, have cited one Reza Khalili — which is the pseudonym for an Iranian from the Revolutionary Guards who defected to the CIA and is now in the US. His source was Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer, who also defected but apparently maintains contacts in Iran.

According to the Khalili reports, damage has been major. (Was Nourizadeh reporting just what the Iranians wanted him to say?) The personnel who are trapped, including 14 North Koreans, have not been rescued, Khalili maintains, because of fear of releasing radioactive gases — thus exposing the extent of the damage and risking the surrounding population of several thousand (would the Iranian leaders care?).

~~~~~~~~~~

The latest report provides far more specificity, increasing the likelihood that it is legitimate. Apparently there has been verification from an additional Iranian source, as well. An updated description of the situation says, in part:

“…five explosions occurred concurrently in the centrifuge chambers, two explosions in the uranium reserve enclosures and a subsequent explosion in the main hallway close to the exit…At the time of the explosions, a very bright red and purple light distorted the [camera] image and an extremely loud noise could be heard. Before the explosions knocked out the cameras, interior walls could be seen coming down within the centrifuge chambers. All the explosions seemed to have been initiated from the ceilings

“Approximately two hours after the explosions, counterintelligence agents arrived and, after interviewing personnel and reviewing tapes, initially concluded that explosives may have been placed in ceiling lamps with some kind of trigger mechanism controlled by a power voltage frequency.”

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/29/wnd-adds-to-report-on-explosion-at-fordow-nuclear-plant-as-former-revolutionary-guard-member-confirms-incident-to-israeli-media/

So we’re probably looking at something very big indeed, with implications that may be enormous. We still need to know more, however, before we permit ourselves the luxury of feeling any hope that the Iranian nuclear development project has been stymied or badly set back.

On the one hand, if it’s true, for Israel to be free of the burden of having to take on Iran militarily before it reached that red line would be an immeasurable blessing. And yet, there are still implications and consequences to be dealt with.

~~~~~~~~~~

The next question, of course, is who? And all fingers point to Israel. Naturally. I can neither confirm nor deny this speculation, but will add something. IF Israel was involved, it was most likely in concert with Iranians operating in the resistance. (The other, admittedly more remote possibility, is that it was just a resistance operation.) For this was sabotage from inside, and almost certainly involved native Iranians on the ground.

Whatever the damage, imagine how the Iranian leaders feel right now, knowing that the sabotage took place in a facility that was touted as impenetrable. They are denying there has been an explosion, which is just what we might have expected. And they will maintain this fiction as long as they can.

~~~~~~~~~~

As to how Iran might respond, here, again, I’ve read conflicting reports: That Iran will not retaliate against Israel right now, that Iran will utilize Hezbollah to launch an attack on Israel, or that Iran has requested of Nasrallah of Hezbollah that some Lebanese villages in the south be vacated so that the Revolutionary Guard might move in to wage a rocket attack.

All I can do is report this, having no further information or insight. We are not in for an easy time, in any event.

~~~~~~~~~~

For the record, Israeli intelligence has reported the explosion in Fordow, although it has provided no details that I’ve seen. It wouldn’t.

But in the US, Jay Carney, White House Spokesperson, said yesterday: “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.” Of course they have information. This is an attempt to side step any suggestion of involvement so as to avoid reprisal attacks or complications in the US relationship with Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

What makes this all the more unsettling — disconcerting? terrifying? — is the concern, which I’ve written about before, that Syrian president Assad is about to collapse, so that his multiple caches of weapons of mass destruction may be seized by Hezbollah or other terrorist groups. There is one report that indicates Hezbollah has set up a camp near one of those caches, and, according to an unverified report in Lebanese news outlets, may already have their hands on some chemical weapons.

We are monitoring this very very carefully and with full intent to act as necessary. Hezbollah must not walk away with those weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said the policy choices we face here are between “bad, bad, and worse.”

Commenting on the situation, however, Obama has just said:

“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation.” It would appear that he has decided in the negative. In that situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are reports that Netanyahu has dispatched National Security Advisor Ya’akov Amidror to Russia for meetings on the issue of the Syrian weapons. Russia is deeply invested in Syria.

Two Iron Dome batteries have been positioned in the north, against possible rocket attacks there.

~~~~~~~~~~

Aside from the problems with Syria, we have increased violence occurring to our southwest — in Egypt. I will not deal with this in any detail here, but simply wish to note it. There is question as to whether Morsi can hold out, in the face of growing unrest in this country. There will be time to return to this. Egypt does not represent an immediate threat, as Syria/Hezbollah do.

~~~~~~~~~~

And to our east, Jordan’s King Abdullah continues to walk a tightrope. The king has worked towards a rapprochement with Hamas, in order to secure Hamas assistance in preventing the Muslim Brotherhood inside of Jordan from generating chaos. Abdullah has just played host to Hamas politburo head Khaled Mashaal. Time was that I thought of Jordan as moderate. But Abdullah has had to move with the times or face losing his throne.

Abdullah gave a speech in Davos, Switzerland, last week, in which he said that Hamas appeared to be ready to live in peace next to Israel. But on the “Palestine Today” website, a spokesman for Hamas shot this down, saying that “The only relationship with this enemy is the resistance.”

~~~~~~~~~~

In the last few days:

In Hevron, in Judea, Arab stone throwers attacked a Jewish kindergarten.

A bus travelling north from Jerusalem was attacked by stone-throwing Palestinian Arabs.

In the Givat Shaul neighborhood of Jerusalem, an Arab attacked a Jew, and the incident ended up as a riot with Jews and Arabs facing off.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23646/Default.aspx?hp=article_title

Border Police prevented a terror attack when they stopped three Arabs from the Balata refugee camp at the Tapuah junction in Samaria; searching their car, the police found eight pipe bombs a pistol and a knife.

~~~~~~~~~~

So what we need is the strongest possible government, with its members working together to keep the Jews of Israel safe. And may the Almighty give our leaders the strength and the wisdom to cope on many fronts.

~~~~~~~~~~

A glimmer of hope:

“A distinguished group of fourteen retired generals and admirals, representing all branches of the United States Armed Forces, has signed a letter opposing the nomination of Sen. Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

“The letter – addressed to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), respectively, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee – raises several concerns about the nomination of Sen. Hagel, including:

“Sen. Hagel’s support for further cuts to the defense budget…

“Sen. Hagel’s outlook towards Iran…”

For full article and list of those who signed:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p19191.xml

January 29, 2013

For Immediate Release

For more information, contact Ben Lerner
at (202) 835-9077 or [email protected]

MILITARY LEADERS OPPOSE CONFIRMATION OF SEN. CHUCK HAGEL FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

(Washington, D.C.): A distinguished group of fourteen retired generals and admirals, representing all branches of the United States Armed Forces, has signed a letter opposing the nomination of Sen. Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

The letter – addressed to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), respectively, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee – raises several concerns about the nomination of Sen. Hagel, including:

• Sen. Hagel’s support for further cuts to the defense budget. Sen. Hagel stated in late August 2011 that the Pentagon is “bloated” and needs to be “pared down”, contrary to Sec. Panetta’s and Chairman Dempsey’s views that sequestration – the additional hundreds of billions in across-the-board cuts to defense that go well beyond the $787 billion in cuts already sustained by the Department since Sec. Gates’ tenure – would be “disastrous for the defense budget” and “very high risk” to national security.
• Sen. Hagel’s support for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Sen. Hagel is a public supporter of the “Global Zero” Initiative, the goal of which is the “elimination of all nuclear weapons.” This stance is ill-advised for any Secretary of Defense, as Russia and China continue to modernize their nuclear capabilities while North Korea and Iran move closer to obtaining them.
• Sen. Hagel’s hostility towards Israel. Sen. Hagel has demonstrated an abiding hostility towards Israel, a view that would be detrimental to our national defense and perhaps perilous to our only stable, reliable ally in the Middle East were he to become Secretary.
• Sen. Hagel’s outlook towards Iran. Sen. Hagel repeatedly opposed sanctions against Iran while serving in the Senate, and in 2006 stated that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option” – an ill-advised statement that undercuts the effectiveness of both diplomatic and military policies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities.

The signers of the letter are:

Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.)

Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)

Rear Adm. H.E. Gerhard, USN (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Higginbotham, USMC (Ret.)

Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. Ronald K. Kerwood, USA (Ret.)

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, which facilitated this letter, stated: “These military leaders deserve our profound thanks for once again acting in service to our nation – in this instance, for the purpose of raising awareness of the risks associated with confirming Sen. Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. This group knows firsthand that the United States military requires leadership that recognizes the need for a defense budget commensurate with the threats we face; the need for a credible, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent; and the need to support our allies and not accommodate our adversaries. Sen. Hagel lacks these qualities, and hopefully the United States Senate will heed the concerns of these flag and general officers during the course of his confirmation process.”

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

The full text of the letter can be found below.

29 January, 2013

Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe:

As individuals who were privileged to serve our country as flag and general officers in the United States military, we write to you to express our deep concerns about the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as Secretary of Defense.

Our nation faces enormous national security challenges as we enter 2013. Addressing those challenges will require leadership at the Pentagon that recognizes the gravity of the threats we face and understands the requirement for a formidable military capable of deterring and, if necessary, overcoming them. Senator Hagel’s record on key issues indicates he is not such a leader.

First, Sen. Hagel stated on 29 August, 2011: “The Defense Department, I think in many ways has been bloated…I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.” This statement seems to ignore the fact that, the Budget Control Act of 2011 had already cut $487 billion from the defense budget over ten years — let alone that this round of reductions comes on top of the more than $300 billion in cuts that took place under then-Secretary Robert Gates.

Recall that Secretary Leon Panetta on 4 August, 2011 stated that hundreds of billions more in cuts over ten years that sequestration will bring about will be “disastrous to the defense budget.” JCS Chairman General Martin Dempsey has indicated that sequestration poses “very high risk” for national security. Consequently, Sen. Hagel’s assertion that still further cuts are warranted is at odds with the judgment of the Pentagon’s current civilian and military leadership. It suggests a disqualifying lack of understanding of the dire effects such reductions would have on our defense capabilities.

Second, Sen. Hagel is a signatory of the “Global Zero” Initiative, which describes itself as “the “international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.” At a time when Russia and China are increasing and modernizing their nuclear capabilities, North Korea is enhancing its long-range nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they will carry and Iran is moving ever closer to obtaining such arms, we cannot responsibly abandon our deterrent. It would be ill-advised and possibly very dangerous to have as a Secretary of Defense someone who believes otherwise.

Third, Sen. Hagel has demonstrated an abiding hostility towards Israel, a view that would be detrimental to our national defense and perhaps perilous to our ally were he to become Secretary. For example: In 2009, he urged President Obama to undertake direct negotiations with Hamas. In October 2000, he was one of just three Senators to refuse to sign a letter expressing support for Israel during the second Palestinian intifada. In 2002, following several deadly Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks in Israel, he authored a Washington Post op-ed asserting that “Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue.”

Israel is our only stable, reliable ally in an increasingly turbulent and hostile Middle East. Given Sen. Hagel’s record of hostility towards the Jewish State, his confirmation could signal to Israel’s enemies and ours that this important bilateral relationship is unraveling. That perception could invite aggression and perhaps another, otherwise avoidable regional war.

Another matter of profound concern is Sen. Hagel’s outlook towards Iran — a country that, among other acts of war against our country, employed its proxy, Hezbollah, to bomb the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, resulting in the deaths 241 American servicemen. Sen. Hagel has repeatedly refused to support sanctions against Iran while in the Senate, and in 2006, he stated that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” This ill-advised statement telegraphs to Tehran that it should not fear a U.S. military response to the continued pursuit of Iranian nuclear weapons. Whichever policies are pursued with the objective of preventing a nuclear Iran can only have hope of success if backed by a credible military deterrent. It would be unwise to confirm a nominee for Secretary of Defense who has already publicly taken that option off the table.

For all of these reasons, it is our professional assessment that confirmation of Sen. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense would be contrary to the United States’ vital national security interests.

Sincerely,

Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)
Rear Adm. H.E. Gerhard, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Higginbotham, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Ronald K. Kerwood, USA (Ret.)