War in The Middle East

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Bush Implies Iran, Syria Behind Assassination of Lebanese Lawmaker



September 20, 2007

President Bush condemned the assassination of an anti-Syrian Lebanese lawmaker and implied that Syria and Iran were involved in the attack.

Antoine Ghanem, a member of the Christian Phalange party, was killed along with six others when a booby-trapped car exploded in a primarily Christian neighborhood outside Beirut on Wednesday. His death comes less than a week before Lebanon's two-month presidential campaign begins on September 25. Parliament is expected to set the direction of the country, by choosing either a pro-Western or a pro-Syrian (and pro-Iranian) president. Ghanem was the eighth prominent critic of the Syrian government to be assassinated since 2005 and the fourth lawmaker from the ruling pro-Western coalition government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. His murder reduces the ruling majority's voting strength in parliament to 68 out of 128 seats. The opposition, which includes Hizballah, holds 59 seats.

President Bush strongly condemned the killing, saying there had been "a tragic pattern of political assassinations and attempted assassinations" intended to silence those who "courageously defend their vision of an independent and democratic Lebanon." Bush said the U.S. opposes attempts to intimidate the Lebanese, as they try to choose a president without "foreign interference." "We will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Lebanese people, as they resist attempts by the Syrian and Iranian regimes and their allies to destabilize Lebanon and undermine its sovereignty," Bush said in a statement.

Damascus, the former power-broker in Lebanon, has never recognized the sovereignty of its tiny neighbor. Syrian troops were forced to leave the country following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, an event that triggered an anti-Syrian backlash. Senior Syrian officials have been implicated in a United Nations-sponsored investigation of the murder but Damascus has refused to cooperate. Iran is the main backer of the radical Islamic Hizballah terrorist organization, whose political wing is leading the (pro-Syrian) opposition to the Lebanese government.

Following last summer's war between Israel and Hizballah, Washington accused Iran and Syria of backing Hizballah's efforts to topple the Lebanese government. Killing off anti-Syrian politicians is seen as a means to that end. Lebanon has been described a "microcosm of all the broader conflicts in the Middle East." It has become the staging ground for conflicts that involve Syria, the Palestinians, Israel and Iran, terrorism expert Dr. Mangus Ranstorp from the Swedish National Defense College told Cybercast News Service in an earlier interview. As such, it is also become a battleground for the conflict between the U.S. and West against Iran.

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20070920c.html

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

War on the Horizon?



The war drums are sounding louder in the Mideast and America could be drawn into the coming conflict. The Bush administration can either ignore the warnings and abandon the region or engage the antagonists. But America’s options and credibility are limited. The US military is stretched perilously thin and America is not viewed as an honest broker by many. But “We’re living under a volcano,” argues Mustata Alam, director of security studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. A study by his organization concludes that “an accidental war” that might escalate to include the US is “high.”

The US is ill-prepared militarily to participate in “an accidental war” if it requires ground forces beyond those already committed to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. US military action to support Israel against potential antagonists Syria, Iran or Iran’s proxy Hezbollah (Party of God) would be limited to air and naval forces. Given the nature of the threat, however, that may be inadequate.

Syria is beating the loudest war drums and appears to be the geographical lynchpin to any near-term conflict with Israel. Syrian President Bashar Assad says his military is preparing for that war. “We have begun preparations within the framework of our options,” Assad told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Anba. Syria has significant armed forces totaling more than 380,000 men, with another 130,000 troops in reserve. Its arsenal includes approximately 3,700 tanks and some 510 combat aircraft. Most of Assad’s military equipment, however, consists of relics from the former Soviet Union. Syria has recently taken some war-preparatory moves to include modernizing its military.

• On Sept 25, Syria practiced a nation-wide emergency drill to prepare its home front for possible states of emergency that could include a war with Israel.

• Syria added a division along the Golan Heights and positioned thousands of medium and long-range rockets capable of striking most of Israel.

• Syria is also preparing chemical weapons. On July 26, it was reported that Syrian and Iranian engineers had a deadly accident while trying to arm a Scud-C missile with a mustard gas warhead. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that Syria manufactures several hundred tons of chemical warfare agents like VX and Sarin annually.

• Syria is buying sophisticated Russian weapons. This year Syria took delivery of MIG-31E interceptors capable of simultaneously shooting several targets more than 110 miles away and the Pantsyr-S1E self-propelled anti-aircraft gun and missile system.

In addition, Syria’s relationship with rogues Iran and North Korea as well as Hezbollah have earned her special status as the newest member of the axis of evil. In 2005, Syria signed a mutual defense pact with Iran. Syria’s defense minister, Hassan Turkmani, explained “We can have a common front against Israel’s threats.” Iran assists Syria in developing chemical weapons and has been permitted to base long-range Shabab ballistic missiles on Syrian soil. Recently, an Iranian news web site boasted that "Iran will shoot 600 missiles at Israel if it is attacked."

Iran uses Syria as a conduit to resupply Hezbollah. After the 2006 34-day war, Tehran rearmed and financed Hezbollah through Syrian middlemen to prepare the terror group for the next battle with Israel. Those preparations appear to be nearing completion. An Iranian-funded Lebanese road has been built on the Litani River’s northern bank. The area south of the river to the Israeli border – 12 miles – is patrolled by United Nations peacekeeping forces sent there after the 2006 war, allegedly to disarm Hezbollah.

Most of the land north of the road has been purchased by Shia businessmen with Tehran’s help. Numerous small villages protected by guards toting AK-47s are being built along the road. It’s believed that these villages include extensive tunnels, fortifications and rocket launcher sites like those installed in the villages south of the Litani prior to the 2006 war. Hezbollah’s general secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah admits that Hezbollah is “transporting weapons to the front” and, he boasts “We have weapons of all kinds and quantities.” “We are certain that we can reach” Tel Aviv with these weapons, Nasrallah said. North Korea, Syria’s partner, helps by directing the construction of silos and tunnels near the cities of Hama and Aleppo, by selling Syria sophisticated rockets, providing chemical weapons know-how, and, possibly, selling nuclear technology to Syria.

On August 14, North Korean minister of foreign trade Rim Kyong Man signed a protocol with Syria on “cooperation in trade and science and technology.” Syrian rocket engineers have frequently visited Pyongyang reportedly to acquire missile technology such as the telemetry – i.e., targeting - -data to help Syria develop a sophisticated class of Scud missiles with sufficient range to reach all Israel. The US worries that North Korea may be transferring nuclear technologies to countries like Syria. On October 9, 2006, hours after the Kim Jong-il regime tested its first nuclear device, President Bush warned Pyongyang against the “transfer of nuclear weapons or material …. Such transfers would be considered a grave threat to the United States….” A May 2006 US report confirmed that Pakistani supplier A. Q. Khan had already “offered nuclear technology and hardware to Syria.”

Bush’s warning may explain Israel’s September 6 bombing of a Syrian facility north of Raqqa. Although no details are available, many governments confirm that Israeli fighters bombed the facility. One possible reason for the attack is that North Korea shipped nuclear equipment to Syria which was then transported to Raqqa. While the facts are unclear, the Washington Post reported the US knew about the attack beforehand and may have provided confirming intelligence. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave us a glimpse under the veil of secrecy surrounding the incident saying Israel did in fact attack targets in Syria. His top adviser, Mossad veteran Uzi Arad, said: "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone."

The Jerusalem Post confirmed that the raid was against a North Korean-supplied nuclear installation. Israel’s commander of military intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Vadlin claims the attack restored Israel’s deterrent posture which was weakened by the 2006 Lebanon war. It may be a bit optimistic to expect a single attack to turn back the clock to the days when Israel’s neighbors were spell-bound by Israel’s military might. That view was shattered by the inconclusive war with Hezbollah.

The Bush administration will host peace talks this fall to address the ongoing Palestinian issue and Syria is expected to participate. Those talks ought to extend beyond the Israeli-Palestinian crises to confront the deafening war drums shaking Mideast peace. Those talks should set security, diplomatic and economic courses of action that prevent the region from stumbling into “an accidental war” created by the Mideast’s new axis of evil.

Note: Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22611

[skhara]

Re: War in The Middle East

Armenian,

Any personal opinions/speculations on this "raid" by Israel on Syrian targets?

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Armenian,

Any personal opinions/speculations on this "raid" by Israel on Syrian targets?

I'm exposed to the same news information as anyone else. I don't have much to say about the issue other than I believe, more-or-less, what Washington and Tel Aviv are claiming about the incident in question. It is very conceivable that having received credible intelligence information regarding some sort of an arms shipment to Syria the Israelis wanted to teach Damascus a hard lesson. The lesson namely being: Geopolitically Syria is vulnerable, it is not Iran; Syria better not even attempt to think about nuclear weapons nor any other weapon that can threaten the military supremacy Israel enjoys; Israel can successfully attack Syria at will and destroy whatever it is that it needs to destroy; Syria's anti-aircraft systems will not be able to effectively stop Israeli and/or American air power; etc.

Thanks for your help here. I'm back.

[skhara]

Re: War in The Middle East

Here is the Syrian claim:

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2007/09/24/syria-more-details-about-the-israeli-warplanes/

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Here is the Syrian claim:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2007/09/2...eli-warplanes/

There are two official stories regarding the incident. It's just that having observed the Arab-Israeli conflict for many years I have seen Arabs make boastful, almost fantastic, statements about their military prowess every time they get humiliated. I guess it's a way of comforting their apprehensive population. I hope this time Syria is telling the truth, but we will not know what really happened there for some time. I have a feeling, however, that the IAF operation was either a training mission for the up-coming aggression against Iran or an attack against a strategic target in Syria.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Israel, Syria: Upgrades and an Unchanged Air Defense Dynamic



Summary

Russia reportedly has sent technicians to help Syria upgrade its air defense network following the Israeli air force (IAF)'s Sept. 6 use of a new electronic warfare system to penetrate Syrian airspace. While the existence of both the new Israeli system and the Russian assistance are quite possible, neither alters the fundamental dynamic between the IAF and the Syrian air defense network.

Analysis

The Israeli air force (IAF) employed a new electronic warfare system in its Sept. 6 raid on Syria, and Russia afterward sent technicians to help upgrade the Syrian air defense network, London daily The Times reported Oct. 2. Neither of these plausible possibilities would alter the fundamental dynamic between the IAF and the Syrian air defense command. With 60,000 troops, the Syrian air defense command is larger than the country's navy and air force combined. The country is covered by some 150 surface-to-air missile batteries, with the heaviest concentrations along the Israeli border, along the Mediterranean coast and at Damascus. Reportedly, minor reshuffling has occurred lately to improve coverage of Syria's borders with Turkey and Iraq. But despite its scale, the Syrian air defense system has largely faded to obsolescence. The bulk of Damascus' strategic defensive systems were delivered by the mid-80s, and the Arab nation's source of meaningful air defense assets evaporated with the Soviet Union.

The core of the Syrian air defense system remains the SA-2 and SA-3. The SA-2 was first fielded more than half a century ago, and the SA-3 just few years later. Syria's longest-range air defense asset is the SA-5 "Gammon" (a design that is more than 40 years old). This system was soundly defeated by U.S. electronic countermeasures (ECM) and anti-radiation missiles in Libya in 1986. But systems can be upgraded, of course. Russia offers all manner of hardware and software upgrades (some of which might now be under way) and even Ukraine and Serbia peddle equipment and upgrades relevant to the Syrians' network. Meanwhile, Syria has certainly not remained idle in the past decade. Damascus learned much not only from the devastating air campaign against Iraq in 1991 but also from the subsequent interactions of the remnants of Iraqi air defenses and U.S. and British enforcement of the two no-fly zones imposed on Iraq after Desert Storm.

Though there are certainly air defense lessons for Damascus to learn, Syrian air defense has nothing like the integration, sophistication, command and control, or readiness that Iraq demonstrated before Desert Storm, and the quality of personnel is just as important. The alertness of a Bosnian Serb SA-6 crew brought down a U.S. F-16 in 1995 and the ingenuity of a Serbian SA-3 crew in 1999 brought down the only F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter ever lost to hostile fire. Neither Syria's exercises nor its responsiveness to repeated IAF incursions exemplify this kind of training or readiness. Overall, the Syrian military is plagued by much more fundamental issues like nepotism, corruption and a garrison mentality.

Many of the weaknesses of the Syrian air defense network also inescapably are linked to the hardware itself. The SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 systems are either static or extremely difficult to move, making them easy to avoid, easy to target with electronic countermeasures and easy to kill. Both the radars and the missiles themselves are susceptible to modern ECM and decoys (and Israeli upgrades far outpace any upgrades Syria has been able to make). The missile batteries also must be in active mode and radiating to have any kind of lethality, but his is when they are most vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. The SA-6 -- which Syria also fields in great numbers -- is mobile, but it suffers from these other vulnerabilities. Syria has attempted to compensate for its air defense system's obsolescence through density, concentrating these systems in key areas with heavily overlapping coverage.

The sheer density of Syrian defenses in key locations means its air defenses cannot be dismissed out of hand. But density and other half-measures are crude counters in the era of GPS-guided and standoff munitions. Illustrating this point, the IAF repeatedly has overflown Latakia and might have penetrated the dense network along the Mediterranean coast twice Sept. 6. Syria probably could bring down a handful of Israeli warplanes in a full-scale IAF onslaught. But Syria lacks the equipment, integration and technology to oppose that onslaught effectively, meaning it does not act as a deterrent to an Israeli attack. Modern air defense does not come cheaply no matter how one approaches the matter. Both the United States and Israel ensure first and foremost through superior airpower. Neither country has been in a position where its air superiority has been challenged meaningfully in decades. Moreover, multiple successful campaigns of suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) have lent validity to -- if not credence to the superiority of -- the concept of airpower-based air defense.

Due to geopolitical realities, the Soviet Union was far more focused on land-based air defense for the entire Cold War. Moscow constructed a formidable air defense network that the United States and NATO took extremely seriously. But this system came at a massive cost. Syria's network was only possible through the sponsorship of the Soviets, who armed Syria to counter U.S. sponsorship of Israel. Following a humiliating defeat of Syria by the IAF in which the Israelis completely dominated the air and the electromagnetic spectrum in 1982, the Soviets shipped coveted long-range SA-5s to Damascus.

Today, Moscow is selling only multiple-launch equipment for the SA-18 man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and some 50 truck-mounted Panstyr-S1E close-in air defense systems (for which the United Arab Emirates is known to have spent nearly $750 million, or roughly half Syria's entire annual defense budget). Most other rumors concerning Syrian acquisitions involve this category of systems. While capable and dangerous, these systems have extremely limited range and cannot provide Damascus with a meaningful air defense capability. Even in the cramped Golan Heights, the threat they pose would be to low-flying close-air-support aircraft and helicopters. Syrian cannot win a war with that kind of coverage.

Today's equivalent to Soviet support in the early 1980s would be Moscow shipping modern S-300 batteries to Damascus in an immediate and unequivocal response to the Sept. 6 IAF incursion. Syria is desperate for the S-300 system, and rumors of its delivery have circulated for nearly a decade without corroboration, but it is unclear whether Syria can afford even a single battery, much less sufficient numbers for a systemic upgrade. This purchase would require both a seller and a generous financier. Instead, the most active role Russia is rumored to be playing involves sending some technicians to help upgrade the system.

The problem for Syria is that today's Kremlin differs from the Soviet Kremlin. If Russia had the resources the Soviets enjoyed, Moscow might consider it. But production is limited, and many considerations surround air defense exports. Ultimately, the neglect that Syrian air defense acquisition and modernization have suffered in the last decade cannot easily be undone. Russian technicians -- even exceptionally well-funded and well-equipped ones -- cannot fundamentally alter the dynamic between Syria's air defense network and the IAF. Syria occupies the unfortunate position of being the only military power openly hostile toward Israel and directly contiguous to the xxxish state -- which of course continues to enjoy U.S. sponsorship and all the technological advantages such sponsorship entails. Even with Soviet sponsorship, Syria repeatedly failed to hold up in the face of the IAF (even when its equipment was more current), and that is not a dynamic that will change soon.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre....php?id=296117

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Hezbollah Regains Strength in Lebanon



BAFLAY, Lebanon — When 30,000 U.N. and Lebanese troops deployed across southern Lebanon at the end of last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, the Islamic militant group's presence shrank in the zone bordering Israeli and its influence seemed likely to diminish as well. But more than a year later, Hezbollah appears to again be solidly entrenched across Lebanon's south — looking, in fact, as if its fighters never really left but merely went underground.

The Shiite militia's banners hang everywhere, boasting of the "divine victory" over Israel and thanking its chief sponsor, Shiite-majority Iran, for helping with post-war reconstruction. Villagers report the militia's recruitment of young men is booming and its popularity is firm. A few things are different. Hilltop posts near Israel once held by Hezbollah are now controlled by the Lebanese army. And U.N. peacekeepers are helping the army establish its authority and maintain a buffer zone between the Litani River and the border — from three to 18 miles deep at various points — that is supposedly free of Hezbollah fighters. But Hezbollah appears to be in a strong position north and south of the Litani, both politically and militarily. And the group — whose name means Party of God — says it would be ready to fight again should Israel attack.

It is unclear how much Hezbollah, which is labeled a terrorist group by the United States but not by the European Union, has been able to beef up its missiles pointed toward Israel and other weaponry. The Israeli government has complained arms have been smuggled from Syria, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Syria and Iran to cooperate with Lebanese authorities to prevent weapons shipments into the country. Villagers across the south point to various places they say are arms depots for Hezbollah, but it was not possible to verify their statements.

In the village of Barflay, about 10 miles north of the border, a middle-aged woman pointed to a low building nestled in trees and brush. "That one there is the party's warehouse for weapons," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used for her safety. Hezbollah boasts that it is both everywhere and nowhere, meaning it is hard to tell who is a civilian and who is a fighter. "Hezbollah is not from Mars. They are the people of this land," said Hussein Ayoub, a 40-year-old Shiite in the nearby village of Selaa. Ayoub said he lost six cousins last year when Israeli planes bombed two houses in Selaa.

"They are among us, even if we don't see them," interjected his uncle, Ahmed Ayoub. Last year's 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah ended on Aug. 14 with a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to help 15,000 Lebanese troops extend their authority throughout south Lebanon. Despite the resolution, Hezbollah remains the only force trusted by most of the majority Shiite population of the South, and respected — or feared — by most of the minority Christians and Sunni Muslims.

When six Spanish U.N. peacekeepers were killed in a June attack, the U.N. and Lebanese army had to rely on Hezbollah's cooperation to investigate. Their findings have not been released, but Lebanese intelligence officials believe the attackers were al-Qaida-inspired militants from a Palestinian refugee camp — and not Hezbollah fighters, as the U.N. first suspected. Villagers say Hezbollah is still recruiting men aged between 16 and 19. Those who agree to join receive basic training for about a month. Those who show resilience and have skills get more training and remain with the guerrilla group at an attractive salary — a big inducement in a place where many youths are unemployed.

Residents in southern Lebanon have been saying for years that rich Shiite supporters of Hezbollah — many who made money as traders in Africa — have been buying land from Christians and Sunnis near the Israeli border, boosting the guerrilla group's control. They say the purchases have accelerated recently. The chance of another war haunts the south. On the anniversary of the end of last year's war, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned of a "big surprise" should Israel attack again. Many took that to mean the militia had gotten a new delivery of anti-aircraft missiles.

The talk of Hezbollah recruitment and training also indicates the militia is preparing for another conflict, with both ordinary people and Hezbollah supporters saying the fighting will be initiated by Israel, not the Lebanese militiamen. The last war began on July 12, 2006, after Hezbollah fighters crossed into Israel, killing three soldiers and seizing two others. Israel then invaded southern Lebanon and bombarded the country. More than 1,000 Lebanese — mostly civilians_ were killed; 158 Israelis, 119 of them soldiers, also died. Hezbollah's yellow flags dominate southern Lebanon, as they did before the war. Posters and murals of its fallen fighters — set against a background of red tulips, a symbol of martyrdom — adorn walls and utility poles along the mountain roads.

A poster of Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei greets visitors to the main village square in Srifa, about six miles from Israel's border. Twelve Hezbollah fighters and 17 from allied groups were killed in Israeli airstrikes, along with seven civilians. One of the Hezbollah dead was Abbas Amin Dakroub who was hiding with about 70 relatives and neighbors in a bomb shelter near his home when Srifa was struck in the early days of the war. Dakroub's cousin, Hassan Ahmed, 23 — whose job is helping organize Hezbollah rallies — survived. "I'm with the resistance," he announced proudly. "I was in the same bomb shelter. It was the highest death toll of fighters in one attack."

He said none of the young Hezbollah men in Srifa fought last year because Israel only attacked with bombs and artillery, never sending ground forces into his town. "I was here, but not as a fighter," Ahmed said, speaking with a tinge of regret. In Marwaheen, a Sunni Muslim village along the border, a huge banner with the message "Death to Israel" covers the front of a two-story house belonging to the Abbas family. Twenty-three from the village were killed by an Israeli missile as they tried to flee in a pickup truck on July 15 after the Israelis warned villagers through loudspeakers to evacuate or face shelling.

Marwaheen, one of six Sunni villages along the border, sits on a mountain ridge, divided from Israel by a green valley. A military post on a nearby hill signals who is in charge of this embattled region. It was an Israeli position during Israel's occupation of south Lebanon, then Hezbollah held it, and today it's controlled by the Lebanese army. Although Marwaheen is now protected by the army, some Sunni villagers still speak of Hezbollah with admiration. "Hezbollah is a resistance movement, while Israel is the occupier and aggressor," said Hussein Ghannam, 58. Still, he said he favored a peace treaty with Israel provided it was not "tantamount to submission" but respected everyone's rights.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...16yAAD8S1VDJO1

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

I recently happened to come by a new book that is definitely worth reading. The seemly counterproductive and destructive policies of the Western world, specifically that of the United States, will only make better sense once those policies are placed within a proper political perspective. Many around the world today are utterly perplexed that the US government is pursing policies that are detrimental to the well being of the United States without taking into serious consideration the absolute clout that certain special interest groups have within the halls of power. Books such as the following will help you see American politics is a better light for it will help you will see the driving mechanisms behind the foreign policy making apparatus' of Washington DC.

Armenian

************************************************** ************

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy



The two authors are prominent political scientists with impeccable credentials, hailing from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the University of Chicago. Among other issues they try to prove that a small group of mostly xxxish intellectuals and government members succeeded, to push the U.S. into a disastrous war because they cared more about the security of Israel than the security of their homeland. Since their conclusions about Israel and its negative influence on American foreign policy are in some areas too academic and will awaken much anxiety, resentment and fury in certain quarters, Walt and Mearsheimer have a point.

The book is based on their article, "The Israel Lobby," and was originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory and provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. Their argument is not exactly new. It is well known in Washington that a "kosher nostra," consisting of the usual suspects like Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, defense expert Richard Perle (who just loves his nickname `Prince of Darkness'), and perhaps two dozens of other neocons, have been twisting facts to overthrow Saddam Hussein since years, reaching back to the Reagan administration.

The basic argument is that the extraordinarily high degree of economic, military and diplomatic support given to Israel by the United States cannot be explained or justified by the notion that Israel functions as a strategic asset to the U.S., or that Israel as the "only democracy" amidst a sea of authoritarian neighbors is deserving the special favors, particularly of gigantic military aid, for its "shared interests and values". In fact, the authors claim, Israel is more a liability than an asset.

There is no question that during the Cold War, there was logic behind the strategic-value argument. In a clever scheme, the Soviets had significantly increased their sea power in the Mediterranean during the Arab-Israeli conflict - the Six Day War in June 1967 - to show their support for the Arab states. During that crisis the Soviet Mediterranean "Eskadra" numbered up to about seventy units, some of which were in Port Said and Alexandria to prevent Israeli attacks. In my opinion (shared by a number of security professionals at the time), the entire war had been provoked by the Soviets in the first place to gain a strategic advantage over the West and to demonstrate on a grand scale their willingness and capability to influence major events in the area. After that war the "Eskadra" had rapidly expanded and in the late 1970s comprised of more than ninety ships, including over a dozen destroyers and nearly two dozen subs - outnumbering NATO's backbone, the American 6th fleet.

However, the Soviet menace has disappeared and the enemy which the U.S. supposedly needs Israel's help to combat, is Islamic terrorism. But the U.S. favor shown to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians only makes us more not less vulnerable to terrorism. So if neither "shared values" nor "strategic assets" can explain the overwhelming U.S. support of Israel, what else is there? The power of the Israel lobby has brought about a situation in which it is impossible for elected officials to question support for Israel. This has led the U.S. to make critical mistakes. The authors argue that the U.S. would not have attacked Iraq, were it not for the influence of the Israel lobby.

What is perhaps most significant and remarkable about this book is that it got published. Could it be that there is still hope for reasonable, open debate about the right courses of action in the Middle East? The authors have been and will continue to be vilified as anti-Semitic or worse. They are owed a debt of gratitude for having the courage to stand up and to refuse to be silenced.

"Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility, because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful." write Mearsheimer and Walt. Then they go on to credit the lobby with preventing talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, and inhibiting the United States from denouncing Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon.

"The Israel Lobby" is a brand new welcome addition to the ever increasing controversies of biased U.S. foreign policies. My only disappointment with this book is that the authors haven't interviewed the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying. Although I wouldn't question the meticulous research that has been presented, the fact that there is a missing piece suggests that you should read this book with a "grano salis".

Source: http://www.amazon.de/Israel-Lobby-U-...ews/0374177724

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Advanced Russian Air Defense Missile Cannot Protect Syrian and Iranian Skies



DEBKAfile’s military experts conclude from the way Damascus described the episode Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased from Russia to repel air assailants, failed to down the Israeli jets accused of penetrating northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean the night before. The new Pantsyr missiles therefore leave Syrian and Iranian airspace vulnerable to hostile intrusion.

The Israeli plane or planes were described by a Syrian military spokesman as “forced to leave by Syrian air defense fire after dropping ammunition over deserted areas without causing casualties.” He warned “the Israeli enemy against repeating its aggressive action” and said his government reserved the right to respond in an appropriate manner. Western intelligence circles stress that information on Russian missile consignments to Syria or Iran is vital to any US calculation of whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program. They assume that the “absolute jamming immunity” which the Russian manufactures promised for the improved Pantsyr missiles was immobilized by superior electronic capabilities exercised by the jets before they were “forced to leave.”

Syria took delivery in mid-August of 10 batteries of sophisticated Russian Pantsyr-S1E Air Defense Missile fire control systems with advanced radar, those sources report. They have just been installed in Syria. Understanding that the Pantsyr-S1E had failed in its mission to bring down trespassing aircraft, Moscow hastened Thursday, Sept 6, to officially deny selling these systems to Syria or Iran and called on Israel to respect international law. This was diplomatic-speak for a warning against attacking the Russian-made missiles batteries stations where Russian instructors are working alongside Syrian teams. Western intelligence circles maintain that it is vital for the US and Israel to establish the location and gauge the effectiveness of Pantsyr-S1E air defenses in Syrian and Iranian hands, as well as discovering how many each received.

They estimate that at least three or four batteries of the first batch of ten were shipped to Iran to boost its air defense arsenal; another 50 are thought to be on the way, of which Syria will keep 36. The purported Israeli air force flights over the Pantsyr-S1E site established that the new Russian missiles, activated for the first time in the Middle East, are effective and dangerous but can be disarmed. Western military sources attribute to those Israeli or other air force planes superior electronics for jamming the Russian missile systems, but stress nonetheless that they were extremely lucky to get away unharmed, or at worst, with damage minor enough for a safe return to base.

The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable. Washington like Jerusalem withheld comment in the immediate aftermath of the episode. After its original disclosure, Damascus too is holding silent. Western intelligence sources believe the Syrians in consultation with the Russians and Tehran are weighing action to gain further media mileage from the incident. They may decide to exhibit some of the “ammunition” dropped by the Israeli aircraft as proof of Israel’s contempt for international law. A military response may come next.

Pantsir-S1 or Panzir (“Shell" in English) is a short-range, mobile air defense system, combining two 30mm anti-aircraft guns and 12 surface-to-air missiles which can fire on the move. It can simultaneously engage two separate targets at 12 targets per minute, ranging from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, ballistic and cruise missiles, precision-guided munitions and unmanned air vehicles. It can also engage light-armored ground targets. The Pantsyr S1 short-range air defense system is designed to provide point defense of key military and industrial facilities and air defense support for military units during air and ground operations.

The integrated missile and gun armament creates an uninterrupted engagement zone of 18 to 20 km in range and of up to 10 km in altitude. Immunity to jamming is promised via a common multimode and multi-spectral radar and optical control system. The combined missile and artillery capability makes the Russian system the most advanced air defense system in the world. Syria and Iran believe it provides the best possible protection against American or Israeli air and missile attack. Stationed in al Hamma, at the meeting point of the Syrian-Jordanian and Israeli borders, the missile’s detection range of 30 km takes in all of Israel’s northern air force bases.

Source: http://www.debka.com/