Dangerous World for Obama: Five Places Obama Will Be Tested

The Five Obama Foreign Policy Tests:
Obama's Not Even Sworn In Yet But
Russia, Terrorists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran
Have Started the Testing of Obama

---

Americans were assured that the world couldn't wait until the election of a President Obama--and it was true. The world didn't wait until Obama officially takes office on January 20 to start testing the former junior senator from Illinois.

Joe Biden called it during the presidential campaign: Within six months, Barack Obama will be tested by countries around the globe if he won. [Joe Biden: Elect Obama and We’ll Have an International Crisis]

The Mainstream press didn't address Biden's comments much--other than feature numerous campaign spokesmen "clarifying" Biden's remarks. Obama's lack of experience or credentials wasn't a topic for polite MSM conversation: it was much more pleasant to write about what "Change" really meant.

Within hours of Barack Obama winning the 2008 election, Russia announced it was putting missiles next to NATO countries. This wasn't the only wake-up call for the new administration. There are other countries and groups seemingly lined up to see what the United States' response will be to global challenges.

We've picked out four of the earliest ones.

---

• Test #1: Russia and Europe
  
  From Obama's First Diplomatic Test:
  
  

  The day after Obama's election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev publicly threatened to deploy missiles near the borders of two NATO allies to counter the Bush Administration's plans to install antimissile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian announcement, rolled out during an elaborate ceremony, was timed to put one of the most contentious issues between Moscow and Washington on Obama's table right away. Obama and his advisers took it as an intentional provocation aimed at testing the President-elect.

  
  
  TIME then makes an amazing statement: "In fact, Obama's biggest challenge lies not in the tone he takes with the Russians but in the substantive policy choices he makes."
  
  What is this? Won't "acting presidential" pacify the Russians? It certainly worked on the American Mainstream Media during the election. It seems a little late in the game for TIME to talk "substantive policy choices" after the election.
  
  Unlike the MSM, Russia will not be swayed by a confident Obama style only. Like their invasion of Afghanistan during Jimmy Carter's term, the Russians will be watching U.S. responses and adjusting their policy accordingly.
  
  
  
• Test #2: Iraq and Afghanistan
  
  Obama ran a relentless campaign against George W. Bush--who wasn't a candidate. But Obama will find that it was Bush's surge policy--in stark contrast to Obama's plan to beat a hasty retreat--that carried the day in Iraq.
  
  From early indications, Obama will roughly follow the Bush agenda for Iraq; no doubt disturbing his anti-war supporters who helped him secure the Democrat nomination. It's been quiet in Iraq the last several months: some want to declare victory.
  
  But the incoming Obama administration may be tested by all parties in Iraq, including the Iraqi government.
  
  Al-Qaida seems detested, dejected and defeated, but they may be lying dormant. They will monitor developments and American policy and look for any openings to test the new president.
  
  Afghanistan is a different matter.
  
  The Afghan central government is corrupt; NATO allies--with the exception of Britain--are not much good once shooting starts; and, the Taliban appears to be getting stronger as the war wears on.
  
  It's promising that during the campaign, Obama did support the war in Afghanistan. So, cutting-and-running is probably not his first option from the opium capital of the world.
  
  Obama has also said that he recognizes the situation in Afghanistan is worsening. What actions will he take in response?
  
  
• Test #3: Biological and Nuclear Terror
  
  From Panel Fears Use of Unconventional Weapon:
  

  An independent commission has concluded that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that.
  
  In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.
  
  “America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.

  
  
  Pakistan is a particular area for concern, with terrorists with an eye toward causing death and destruction likely to come from that U.S. ally. It's suspected that the Mumbai terrorists came from Pakistan, where they likely trained and prepared.
  
  “Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States — possibly with weapons of mass destruction,” the report said.
  
  
• Test #4: India and Pakistan
  
  ABC News called Mumbai "Obama's first foreign policy test". From Mumbai: Obama's First Foreign Policy Test:
  

  American officials believe the terrorists may be Pakistani extremists bent on turning the disputed Kashmir region along the border with India into a separate Islamic state.
  ...
  As Obama continues to work with the current administration to prepare for a seamless transition, history shows that foreign policy and national security cannot be put on hold during presidential transitions.

  
  
  Mumbai was seen by some, including Melanie Phillips, as another battle in the worldwide Jihad now being fought.
  
  One wrong move and the world could witness the first nuclear war between the countries on the Indian subcontinent.
  
  
• Test #5: A nuclear armed Iran
  
  Iran is not going to change its headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons--or its reasons for acquiring them--because of pleasant talk, smiles and handshakes. The Islamic Republic respects one thing: power.
  
  What actions will a President Obama take?
  
  Hopefully, they'll be wiser than the policies of ex-president, Jimmy Carter.
  
  From Obama's First Foreign Policy Tests
  
  

  Successive, Democratic and Republican U.S. administrations have appeased the Islamists in Iran, starting with the catastrophic Carter administration, which secretly assisted the Islamist overthrow of the pro-U.S. Shah, a modernizing monarch, in a craven, cynical attempt to curry favor with the Ayatollah Khomeini.
  ...
  China Confidential analysts believe that Iran's Hitlerian maniac-in-chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whom President-elect Obama has offered to meet in face-to-face talks) is determined to announce a major nuclear breakthrough in time for this February's 30th anniversary celebrations of the Islamic Republic.

Five tests for President-elect Obama.

The world will be watching to see how he scores.

Americans hope he gets a passing grade.


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Barack Obama & Joe Biden
The Democrat Foreign Policy Team:
Their Judgment One Year Ago


“I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now."
--Barack Obama, September 12 2007

“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.”
--Joe Biden, September 11 2007



[Click images to enlarge]


September 11, 2007: General David Petraeus was in Washington, DC to present his report to a Democrat-controlled Congress on how the surge of troops in Iraq was working.

Democrats already knew: the war was lost, the surge was a hoax and Patraeus was "not believable". Democrat after Democrat attacked Petraeus before he spoke a word, both professionally and personally.

According to Kevin Mooney, CNS, "On Sept. 11th of last year, when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq was working, he was met by a hail of criticism from members of Congress who believed it was failing."

On September 10, MoveOn.org ran its infamous full-age "General Betray Us" ad in the New York Times. The NY Times cut the price of the ad 60%, in effect, co-sponsotomh this ad, in a blatant attempt to influence the political debate on the issue.

But then, that last item does not really qualify as "news".



Petraeus' report, and the notion that the surge was working, was attacked throughout the day by a Murderer's Row of Democrats: Hillary Clinton, Harry Ried, Rahm Emanuel and the Democrat presidential ticket of 2008, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

How have the Democrats' predictions of 'retreat and defeat' played out? Was General Petraeus the puppet or the prophet?

In the intervening year, according to a CNSNews.com database, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped to the lowest level since the start of the war six years ago. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, has made real, if faltering, progress toward political reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Just what did General Petraeus report that set off the Democrat Congressional policy poobahs?

What in his report was deceitful? It might be helpful to recall what Petraeus said one year ago today.

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena.

Though improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq, for example, has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks. During this time, ethnosectarian violence has also been reduced and the number of overall civilian deaths has declined, though both are clearly still at troubling levels.

The progress is a result of many factors. Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to al Qaeda-Iraq and have disrupted Shi'a militia extremists. Additionally in a very significant development, we and our Iraqi partners are being assisted by tribes and local citizens who are rejecting extremism and choosing to help secure Iraq.

Iraqi security forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks.

“Innumerable challenges lie ahead, however, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security.

The BBC noted the Democrat attacks: "Sen Obama - one of the Democratic nomination frontrunners - called the war a "disastrous foreign policy mistake" and said the impact of the surge had been modest given the resources."

According the CNS, "Passage of Year Makes Petraeus Look Good, Congressional Critics Look Bad":

“I opposed this war from the beginning,” Obama told the crowd in Clinton on Sept. 12, 2007. “I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now.

“The administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest level that we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels that they were 18 months ago or two years ago. Let me repeat that,” Obama said.

“Yesterday, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee pointing to this reduction in violence,” Obama added.

“We are at the same levels of violence now that we were back in June of 2006. That is the improvement that's been made after an additional 30,000 troops and billion dollars have been spent in Iraq,” he said.

Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, supposedly picked as vice-president for the 'foreign policy experience' he added to the Democrat ticket exhibited that experience one year ago.

“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.”
--Joe Biden, September 11 2007

What did John McCain say in September 2007? According to the BBC:

"Republican Senator John McCain, a contender for his party's presidential nomination, defended the US strategy in Iraq, saying: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we do not."

He said failure in Iraq would turn that country into a haven for terrorists and would let Iran come to dominate the Middle East."

Harry Reid, who had declared the war "lost" in April 2007, questioned General Petraeus' honesty before even hearing the General's report.

On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general's honesty.

"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said.

Harry Reid also led the charge to the rear for the Democrats, beginning in April.

“Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense – and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows – that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”
--Harry Reid, April 19, 2007 press conference.

Four days later, Reid was even more explicit about his mistrust of Patraeus and his report in a CNN interview with Dana Bash.

“No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening,” said Reid. “All you have to do is look at the facts. The factors are this has been going on for three months. American deaths are at the highest they've been in two years. We have – it's like a balloon. Things have quieted down a little in Baghdad, but just a little bit.

“They've even moved up in the Kurdish area now. Have tremendous explosions up there, killing two dozen people today. The situation in Iraq is not getting better, and it won't until we change course,” he said.

The other senator from Illinois, majority whip Richard Durbin, was even more insistent that he had a clue.

"President Bush is preparing to tell the nation, once again, that his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working."

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," he said. "Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."

Illinois had the honor of having a foreign policy three-fer: Rep. Rahm Emanuel joined Obama and Durbin in piling on Petraeus.

"We don't need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction."

"Time will tell" is the smart rejoinder when arguing about future events. It is one that the Democrats may have used to their advantage on September 11, 2007. It would have meant a lot less time spinning on September 11, 2008.

However, Congressional Democrats had their talking points already written before they had heard the Petraeus Report.

They chose to attack the man in charge of winning the war in Iraq, General Patraeus, because what he had to say did not support their own views and agendas.

One year later, time has told its tale.

To the exoneration of General Petraeus--and the chagrin of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The two Democrats now trying to convince the country, on September 11, 2008, that they have the foreign policy judgment to lead the USA forward through a dangerous world.

by Mondoreb
chart: cybercast news service

U.S. Missile Defense at Israeli Base Hands-off for Israelis

US & Israel Sign Murder-Suicide Pact
Babba Zee
Outraged Spleen of Zion




Allman Bros. ~ Whipping Post

American crews will control US FBX-band radar granted Israel

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

August 19, 2008, 12:43 PM (GMT+02:00)

In granting Israel the powerful FBX-T radar system to enhance its early warning resources against incoming missiles, Washington laid down a strict hands-off proviso. The system will be installed at a US base in the southern Israeli Negev. It will be off-limits to Israelis and managed exclusively by American personnel.

This discovery, revealed here for the first time by DEBKAfile's military sources, has aroused astonished rancor in senior Israel army circles. They questioned the judgment of prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, Shaul Mofaz, who leads the Israeli side of the twice-annual strategic dialogue with the US, and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi in accepting this proviso.

Even Poland, one officer commented, looked after its sovereignty and only signed its defense pact with the United States for the installation of missile interceptors on its Baltic coast after the Americans agreed to instruct Polish crews in their future operation.

Yet none of the Israeli officials involved in the radar transaction saw fit to carry this point. The FBX-T was requested to allow Israel's Arrow missile defense system to engage a Shehab-3 missile about halfway through its 11-minute flight from Iran, several times sooner than the Arrow's Green Pines radar is capable of doing.

The FBX-T can track objects in space such as a missile tipped with a chemical, germ or nuclear warhead.

When they swung the deal in Washington last month, Barak and Ashkenazi said the Israeli Defense Forces would acquire a major resource and Israel a valuable shield against enemy missiles.

But they erred badly in failing to demand its integration in Israel's national interceptor system for four reasons:

1. Israel will have no denied direct access to the data gathered by the system and can only hope the American operators will pass on the information as and when Israel needs it for self-defense rather than when it suits US interests.

2. The FBX-T will not only be able to track Iranian and Syrian missiles and aircraft but also keep watch on Israeli operations, giving the Washington a handle for stalling them. DEBKAfile's military sources point out that the Americans are suddenly in a hurry to have the system deployed in the Negev as soon as September. They will then be in position to forestall a possible Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations should one be decided in Jerusalem.

3. US experts say the FBX-T radar will lengthen the Israeli Arrow anti-missile system's range for detecting incoming Iranian missiles several times over. This is technically accurate, but in practice this enhanced capability is entirely contingent on a Pentagon order to the American crews in the Negev to activate a link between them.

4. Barak and Ashkenazi said on their return from Washington that they had procured US consent to links between Israel's early warning and missile interceptor systems, the X-band radar (which can pick up a missile 2,000 km from target) and also the American JTAGS satellites (which detects a missile launch).

This is not the case.

Any links between the IDF's radar and interceptors and the JATG satellites must be channeled through the X-band radar base in the Negev and are not direct. The data passed to Israel will be subject to pre-selection by American decision-makers.

Several billion dollars of US and Israeli funds have been sunk into developing the Arrow, which Israeli officials until recently claimed was a match for Iran's Shehab-3 ballistic missiles. It turns out now that the Arrow and its Green Pine radar pick up incoming missiles only when they are 800 km short of their target. Israel applied for the FBX-T radar to extend that range to 2,000 km from its territory. But as long as the system is operated exclusively by American personnel, its usefulness for shielding Israel against enemy missiles will circumscribed.

---

AUGUST 13, 2008:



U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities



By Aluf Benn


The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran. As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles. Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.


Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's. Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria. Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option.


Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace. The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing. Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so. U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests.


Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran. The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran. These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran. Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.


Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth. Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran.


However, the administration rejected this idea. In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion.


However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems. Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.


7/31/08: Olmert to Quit AFTER ELECTIONS IN SEPTEMBER


8/17/08: Israel to free 200 MORE prisoners as Rice visits Mideast




Ian Gillan ~ Gethsemane

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
~ Genesis 12:3

Want more Babba Zee and scenes from the Outraged Spleen? Try these recent posts: * Missing Links vs the Fall of Night & the Mares it Rides in on * 3 Wood: Dollars vs Euros * INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING UPDATE : GEORGIA

by Babba Zee
images: Outraged Spleen of Zion
Source: US & Israel Sign Murder-Suicide Pact

U.S. Missile Defense at Israeli Base Hands-off for Israelis

US & Israel Sign Murder-Suicide Pact
Babba Zee
Outraged Spleen of Zion




Allman Bros. ~ Whipping Post

American crews will control US FBX-band radar granted Israel

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

August 19, 2008, 12:43 PM (GMT+02:00)

In granting Israel the powerful FBX-T radar system to enhance its early warning resources against incoming missiles, Washington laid down a strict hands-off proviso. The system will be installed at a US base in the southern Israeli Negev. It will be off-limits to Israelis and managed exclusively by American personnel.

This discovery, revealed here for the first time by DEBKAfile's military sources, has aroused astonished rancor in senior Israel army circles. They questioned the judgment of prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, Shaul Mofaz, who leads the Israeli side of the twice-annual strategic dialogue with the US, and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi in accepting this proviso.

Even Poland, one officer commented, looked after its sovereignty and only signed its defense pact with the United States for the installation of missile interceptors on its Baltic coast after the Americans agreed to instruct Polish crews in their future operation.

Yet none of the Israeli officials involved in the radar transaction saw fit to carry this point. The FBX-T was requested to allow Israel's Arrow missile defense system to engage a Shehab-3 missile about halfway through its 11-minute flight from Iran, several times sooner than the Arrow's Green Pines radar is capable of doing.

The FBX-T can track objects in space such as a missile tipped with a chemical, germ or nuclear warhead.

When they swung the deal in Washington last month, Barak and Ashkenazi said the Israeli Defense Forces would acquire a major resource and Israel a valuable shield against enemy missiles.

But they erred badly in failing to demand its integration in Israel's national interceptor system for four reasons:

1. Israel will have no denied direct access to the data gathered by the system and can only hope the American operators will pass on the information as and when Israel needs it for self-defense rather than when it suits US interests.

2. The FBX-T will not only be able to track Iranian and Syrian missiles and aircraft but also keep watch on Israeli operations, giving the Washington a handle for stalling them. DEBKAfile's military sources point out that the Americans are suddenly in a hurry to have the system deployed in the Negev as soon as September. They will then be in position to forestall a possible Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations should one be decided in Jerusalem.

3. US experts say the FBX-T radar will lengthen the Israeli Arrow anti-missile system's range for detecting incoming Iranian missiles several times over. This is technically accurate, but in practice this enhanced capability is entirely contingent on a Pentagon order to the American crews in the Negev to activate a link between them.

4. Barak and Ashkenazi said on their return from Washington that they had procured US consent to links between Israel's early warning and missile interceptor systems, the X-band radar (which can pick up a missile 2,000 km from target) and also the American JTAGS satellites (which detects a missile launch).

This is not the case.

Any links between the IDF's radar and interceptors and the JATG satellites must be channeled through the X-band radar base in the Negev and are not direct. The data passed to Israel will be subject to pre-selection by American decision-makers.

Several billion dollars of US and Israeli funds have been sunk into developing the Arrow, which Israeli officials until recently claimed was a match for Iran's Shehab-3 ballistic missiles. It turns out now that the Arrow and its Green Pine radar pick up incoming missiles only when they are 800 km short of their target. Israel applied for the FBX-T radar to extend that range to 2,000 km from its territory. But as long as the system is operated exclusively by American personnel, its usefulness for shielding Israel against enemy missiles will circumscribed.

---

AUGUST 13, 2008:



U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities



By Aluf Benn


The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran. As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles. Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.


Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's. Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria. Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option.


Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace. The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing. Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so. U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests.


Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran. The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran. These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran. Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.


Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth. Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran.


However, the administration rejected this idea. In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion.


However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems. Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.


7/31/08: Olmert to Quit AFTER ELECTIONS IN SEPTEMBER


8/17/08: Israel to free 200 MORE prisoners as Rice visits Mideast




Ian Gillan ~ Gethsemane

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
~ Genesis 12:3

Want more Babba Zee and scenes from the Outraged Spleen? Try these recent posts: * Missing Links vs the Fall of Night & the Mares it Rides in on * 3 Wood: Dollars vs Euros * INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING UPDATE : GEORGIA

by Babba Zee
images: Outraged Spleen of Zion
Source: US & Israel Sign Murder-Suicide Pact