但是俄政要米特來范并不這樣了認為:“我認為俄對待(伊朗)就會像對待敘利亞一樣,在最後關頭會放棄。因為會信從美國的誘惑,就會像與美國人談定的準備將敘利亞交出,就像交出伊拉克就像交出米洛舍維奇,一切都會按這個模式。”

整合特種部隊為打伊朗做準備 以軍方成立“深度部隊”
2011年12月17日 09:22:34

    專家不排除一旦開戰俄對伊朗提供軍事援助的可能性,至少在軍事技術裝備方面。

國際線上專稿:據澳大利亞《每日電訊報》12月13日報道,以色列戰略事務部長日前對伊朗作出警告,稱其現在必須作出一個攸關生死存亡的關鍵性選擇:是要獲得核武器還是要繼續生存。

  以色列戰略事務部長摩西·亞龍(Moshe Yaalon)說:“我們相信,為了阻止伊朗軍事核計劃,只能給伊朗政權兩個選擇:是要擁有核彈還是要繼續生存。”

彭光謙少將:八重因素制約美戰略重心東移
http://www.chinareviewnews.com   2011-12-19 18:16:55  

  中評社北京12月19日電/當今世界處於大變革、大發展、大調整時期,國際局勢不確定性、模糊性和突發性的特點愈加鮮明。在即將過去的2011年,西亞北非地區持續動蕩,迫使人們重新審視國家治理的理念;世界經濟面臨二次探底風險,金融危機開始向政治和社會危機轉移;中國周邊環境出現新變化,形勢日益嚴峻。 

  為進一步了解和研判正在發生變化的國際局勢,繼去年舉辦首屆“縱論天下”國際形勢研討會後,12月16日新華網再次邀請專家學者們齊聚一堂,暢言2011年國際戰略格局出現的新變化,並展望未來發展的趨勢。新華網希望通過舉辦“縱論天下”系列研討會,傳遞各位專家學者的真知灼見,幫助網民消除對很多國際熱點問題“怎麼看”的困惑。 

  新華網推出數篇專家的精彩演講,本文是中國政策科學研究會國家安全政策委員會副秘書長,彭光謙少將題為《如何看待美國戰略重心轉移》演講的主要內容。 

  影響當前及未來一個時期國際戰略格局變化的有三件大事:一是以美國和歐洲主權債務危機為代表的持續的全球性金融危機,以及由此而引發的社會危機、價值觀危機;二是席捲西亞北非的歷史性政治大動蕩;三是美國全球戰略重心東移,就是美國全球戰略重心向亞洲地區轉移。一是大危機、二是大動蕩、三是大轉移,分別發生在經濟領域、政治領域和軍事領域。特點是立體動蕩,全球聯動,持續發酵,前景難料,表現出國際格局轉型期、過渡期的典型特征。 

  這是對2011年國際戰略格局產生重大影響的三件大事,同時這三件大事也與中國國家安全,國家生存發展息息相關。我想著重就“美國全球戰略重心東移”談點個人的看法。 

  美國全球戰略重心東移已基本到位 

  有一個地球物理學家曾經告訴我,整個地球有兩大地震帶,一個是環太平洋地震帶。另一個是歐亞地震帶。這兩個地震帶基本代表了美國的兩個戰略,美國在歐亞地震帶搞得差不多了,現在搞到環太平洋地震帶來了。 

  美國全球戰略重心東移,是冷戰結束以來,對當代國際戰略格局帶來重大衝擊的嚴重事態,也是冷戰後中國安全環境面臨的最嚴峻的確挑戰。所謂對國際格局的衝擊:即重塑國際體系、分裂國際社會、擾亂國際秩序。用美國專家的話講:美國已經吹響了21世紀新冷戰衝鋒號,揭開了新冷戰的序幕。美國巴德學院米德教授說,美國試圖要“將中國崛起的神話扼殺在搖籃裡”。用日本政治家的話說,美國“構築對華包圍網是已經射出槍口的子彈”。 

  實施上,蘇聯一解體,美國的全球戰略重心東移就開始了。至少科索沃戰爭結束後就開始了。到現在為止應該說這個轉移已經基本到位,當然還不算完全到位。 

  美國全球戰略重心東移包括四個方面,一是美國戰略遏制重心東移;二是戰略注意力重心東移;三是資源投放重心重心東移;四是戰略部署重心東移。 

美從六方面打造針對中國的戰略遏制體系 

  美國全球戰略重心東移不是單打一的問題,實際上美國正在構築一個綜合性或者說是整體性的戰略體系。美全力打造以中國為對手的戰略遏制體系,主要體現在六個方面: 

  第一,以中國為主要作戰對象,以西太平洋為主要戰場,以空海軍為主要作戰力量的“空海一體戰”戰役作戰體系。冷戰時期,美國準備在歐洲戰場和蘇聯打一場“空地一體戰”,美國認為現在這個仗已經打不起來了;未來的戰爭將主要是在西太平洋和中國打一場“空海一體戰”。美國人的原話是這麼說的:“空海一體戰”主要針對的是變化中的中國的反介入與區域拒止作戰,假如美國沒有意願也沒有能力在中國實施大規模陸地作戰的話,那麼西太平洋戰區將是空海軍主導的空中和海上戰區。同時還說在西太平洋能夠對美國影響力和力量投送構成嚴重挑戰的國家是中國。這個戰役作戰構想最早是美國國防部委托一個智庫搞的,現在已經為美國國防部正式采納,成為國家軍事政策了,而且在國防部成立了“空海一體戰”辦公室,這在蘇聯時期都是沒有過的。“空海一體戰”辦公室到底想幹什麼?這是一個很值得注意的嚴峻事態。 

  第二,以日本和澳大利亞為南北兩大戰略支點的軍事同盟體系。北邊是日本、南邊是澳大利亞,南北對中國進行鉗制。美國不僅要把美日、美韓同盟搞在一起,實現美日韓一體化,同打造包括印度、越南、菲律賓在內的“亞洲小北約”。美國人打仗歷來強調同盟戰略,不是單打獨鬥。海灣戰爭以來都力求拼凑多國部隊。現在它做的,就是為未來作戰做組織準備。 

  第三,以西太平洋島鏈為依托的軍事基地體系。美國在澳大利亞安全環境並沒有發生變化,並不面臨現實重大安全威脅的情況下,急於在達爾文港駐軍,為什麼?就是未來能夠快速前出南海地區。美國在西太平洋的基地體系大體上由 三線五群組成,三線即西太平洋第一、二、三島鏈,五群就是東北亞基地群、關島基地群、夏威夷基地群、澳新基地群、阿拉斯加基地群等五個基地群,美國60%的核潛艇、11艘核動力航空母艦中的6艘要部署在這裡。 

  第四,以西方價值觀為內核的政治滲透體系。包括利用網絡等新的傳播手段,宣揚西方價值觀,在中國培植代理人。正如洪博培公開演說時所聲稱的, 要在中國網羅80萬人,扳倒中國。 

  第五,以排斥與壓制中國,確立美國經濟主導權的經濟遏制體系。美國積極打造“跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴協定”(TPP),用意很明顯,就是要排除中國,重新奪回在亞洲的經濟主導權。 

  第六,以離間與挑撥中國與周邊國家友好關係為特色的所謂“前沿部署外交”體系。 

  上述動向表明什麼問題呢?首先表明中美結構性矛盾的深刻性,不是一個人可以改變的,不管是老布什、小布什還是奧巴馬,都是一致的,沒什麼大的區別;其次,表明美國霸權利益的根本性,表明美國維護霸權的決心和能量。我們不要低估;三是表現中國國安全環境的確十分嚴峻,決不能掉以輕心。 

八重因素制約美國全球戰略東移 

  美國全球戰略重心東移對我們國家安全究竟會成多大的危害呢?或者說美國能不能如願以償呢?現在還不能簡單作結論,還要看一看。人算不如天算。美國想幹什麼事,是一回事;能不能幹成,是另一回事。當前美國在全球陷入越來越多的戰略困境,面臨諸多制約因素,它要想集中精力,集中資源,全力對我,恐怕會有點困難。 

  一是伊朗的影響力日益擴展,已成美國的心腹之患。美國四處出擊,連年發動戰爭,最大的受益者是伊朗。伊朗日益坐大,要拔除這個釘子,談何容易。在把叙利亞、伊朗搞掉之前,美國恐怕沒有更多精力輕易在別處動手。 

  二是普京的回歸挑戰美國的神經。普京和梅德韋傑夫總統“二人轉”,又轉回來了。美國不願意接受這個事實。按照常理,為了緩和美俄關係,美國應該向普京說點好話,但是面對“王者歸來”的殘酷現實,美國深感絕望,按捺不住“破口大罵”,這勢必進一步激化美俄矛盾。普京的回歸對美國來說雖然不意味著絕對的對抗,但至少會給美增加很多的麻煩。 

  三是在南亞,巴基斯坦和美國的關係趨冷,裂痕日益擴大。失去巴基斯坦的有效配合,美國在阿富汗的反恐行動將更加困難,也使美國對南亞的滲透受挫。 

  四是恐怖主義威脅依然存在。本•拉登死了,但是恐怖主義仍然是美國的主要威脅,恐怖主義日益呈本土化、網絡化,美國並不能高枕入睡。 

  五是美國金融危機不是三兩天就可以走出來的。美國金融危機不是一般的頭痛腦熱,而是大面積心肌梗塞,是政治制度與經濟制度出了問題。貪得無厭的食利階層,無法無天、失去監管的美元,寅吃卯糧、無限透支的生活方式掏空了美國。沒有銀子,幹什麼事情都力不從心。 

  六是美國在東南亞挑撥離間未必能成功。東南亞和中國有著共同的歷史記憶,有傳統的友誼,不是幾句挑撥離間的話可以顛覆的。過去美國人到亞洲、到東南亞是撒錢的,那時候人家跟著跑。現在是到處伸手要錢,這樣的話人家跟不跟著它走就難說了。的確有人玩弄兩面派手法,想引進美國,平衡中國,但畢竟是少數國家,而且要他們充當美國的打手,和中國對抗也不符合他們的根本利益。 

  七是西亞北非的事態正朝著美國願望相反的方向發展。“茉莉花革命”的結果是美國支持的獨裁者被推翻,美國在西亞北非的“樁腳”一個個倒下去。穆斯林勢力全面復興,“阿拉伯之春”正在成為美國的“阿拉伯之冬”。美國投入許多感情與血淚,苦心經營的大中東計劃面臨前功盡棄的危險。 

  最後,最重要的一點就是中國人民站起來了,中國任人宰割的時代一去不複返了。今天沒有任何人可以任意欺淩中國而不受懲罰。沒有人能吃得下去中國。希特勒可以雙手抱住地球儀,但沒有人可以抱住占人類社會五分之一人口的中國。要想吃中國,吞不下去,即使吞下去,也消化不了。就象鐵扇公主一樣,把孫悟空吃進去,肚子是要疼的。 

對中美關係認識存在兩個誤區 

  當然,面對美國全球戰略東移,我們既不必驚慌失措,也不能麻木不仁。對局勢要有清醒的認識。目前應對複雜局面的戰略基點在內不在外。只要我們把自己事情辦好了,政治清明,上下團結、萬眾一心,就沒有任何人能夠整垮我們。如果自己的政治安全、經濟安全、文化安全搞不好,不用別人打你,你自己就垮了。所以最重要的是把自己的事情搞好。 

  現在有一種說法,說中美相互依存度越來越高,美國不會對中國怎麼樣。中美相互依存本身就有兩重性,如果我們倆人不認識,那麼沒矛盾,隨著關係越來越深,矛盾就多了。一戰也好、二戰也好,一些開戰國家之間貿易依存度並不比今天差,有依存度不等於就可以化解全部矛盾和風險,這是一個誤區。特別是在經濟危機條件下,製造軍事危機是歷史上某些國家轉嫁危機的慣用手段。 

  還有一種說法說:“中美關係好也好不到哪兒去、壞也壞不到哪兒去”,這一判斷在過去大體上是符合事實的。但在美國把中國定義為主要對手後,事情的性質就起了變化。總有某些政客希望以壓求變,讓中國自行解體。如果我們應對失據,出現內亂,也不排除有人裡應外合,內外夾擊,肢解中國的可能性。對此絕不能掉以輕心,自我麻痹。

Arabs may take Syria peace plan to United Nations

Photo
Sun, Dec 18 2011

By Dominic Evans

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Arab states may take their proposals for ending Syria’s crackdown on protests to the U.N. Security Council next week unless Damascus agrees to implement the initiative, Qatar’s foreign minister said on Saturday.

Expressing frustration that Syria had not carried out the plan, six weeks after it was first agreed, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said the window for an Arab solution to the crisis was closing.

“If this matter is not solved in the weeks ahead, or couple of months, it will no longer be in Arab control,” he told journalists after an Arab ministerial committee meeting in Qatar. “That is what we told the Syrians from the beginning”.

Arab ministers would vote on Wednesday on whether to ask the Security Council to approve the initiative. “I believe that December 21 will be decisive, and we hope that the brothers in Syria will sign (the deal) before this date,” Sheikh Hamad said.

Syria has conditionally approved a plan to send monitors to oversee implementation of the November 2 Arab League initiative, which calls on Assad to withdraw the army from urban areas, release political prisoners and hold talks with opponents.

But Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby said Damascus was objecting to the League’s call for protection of Syrian civilians, saying members of the security forces were also being killed in the turmoil.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For a graphic link.reuters.com/dup55s

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>

The United Nations says Assad’s crackdown on the protests, inspired by uprisings across the Arab world this year, has killed more than 5,000 people. Authorities blame armed gangs for the violence and say 1,100 soldiers and police have been killed.

The Arab League suspended Syria and declared economic sanctions against Damascus over its failure to implement the initiative, joining the United States, European Union and neighbouring Turkey who have also imposed sanctions.

Long-time Syrian ally and arms supplier Russia took a step closer to the Western position on Thursday when it presented a surprise draft resolution at the United Nations which stepped up its criticism of the bloodshed in Syria.

Sheikh Hamad said that, in response to Moscow’s move, the Arab League would meet on Wednesday to decide whether “to ask the Security Council to adopt the Arab initiative and Arab resolutions instead of resolutions from other states”.

“We are not talking about military action but we will ask the Security Council to adopt the Arab initiative,” Sheikh Hamad said, adding Syria should take heed of events in the Arab world where three leaders have been overthrown this year.

“Procrastination and banking on things quieting down or being controlled by security methods will not work,” he said.

Any referral of the Arab plan to the United Nations would be likely to anger Damascus, which has accused unnamed Arab countries of trying to set the stage for foreign intervention.

GROWING INSURGENCY

The unrest is the most serious challenge to the 11-year rule of Assad, 46, whose family is from the minority Alawite sect – an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam – and has dominated majority Sunni Muslim Syria since 1970.

An armed insurgency has begun to eclipse civilian protests, raising fears Syria could descend into civil war.

Two days ago army deserters killed 27 soldiers and security personnel in the southern province of Deraa, an activist group said. On Saturday at least 24 people were killed, half of them in the province of Homs, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

It said another eight people were killed in the southern province of Deraa after army deserters clashed with Assad’s forces carrying out raids in the region.

A delegation from Shi’ite-led Iraq, which opposed the Arab League sanctions and fears unrest in Syria will spill across the border and upset its own delicate sectarian balance, stopped in Damascus on Saturday before travelling on to Cairo.

Assad met the Iraqi delegation, which included National Security Adviser Faleh al-Fayad, and “affirmed that Syria dealt positively with all proposals submitted to it”, the official news agency SANA reported.

“The delegation will present details of the Iraqi initiative to League officials on solving the Syrian crisis after positive discussions which we had with President Bashar al-Assad during our visit to Syria,” a member of the team said on arrival in the Egyptian capital, the Arab League headquarters.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s media adviser, Ali al-Moussawi, earlier told Reuters in Baghdad that the meeting in Damascus was “very good”.

The main exile opposition Syrian National Council was meeting in Tunisia on the first anniversary of the self-immolation of a jobless Tunisian graduate Mohamed Bouazizi, the incident that set off a wave of revolts around the Arab world.

Syrian protesters have expressed growing frustration that the Arab League, which surprised many when it suspended Syria and subsequently announced sanctions against Damascus, has since then extended the deadline for Syrian compliance several times.

Hundreds of thousands demonstrated on Friday, according to the British-based Observatory, under the slogan of “The Arab League is killing us”.

(Additional reporting by Waleed Ibrahim in Baghdad and Sami Aboudi in Dubai; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Yaalon: Iran Has Choice To ‘Have Bomb Or Survive’ – OpEd

Written by: 

December 15, 2011

Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon gave a foreign press briefing two days ago hosted by the ultra-hawkish pro-Israel advocacy group, The Israel Project.  The former IDF general ranged over affairs in the entire Middle East. It was a deft, well-argued presentation that posited a region that would be in a state of perpetual conflict into the indefinite future. It presented Israel as a lone bastion of democracy in an enclave filled with radical Islamism that threatened not just his country, but virtually the entire world.

It was a briefing that was filled with lies, fantasies, with even a smidgen of fact thrown in. I found it fascinating. Fascinating, because it gives you entré into a certain strategic vision shared by Israel’s most hawkish, most delusional policymakers. But let’s be clear. Bogie Yaalon isn’t delusional in the way that the Hilltop Youth are. He’s not even delusional in the way that Avigdor Lieberman or Newt Gingrich is. He’s delusional in a stone-cold sober, cold-blooded way that could lead to tens of thousands of dead, blood running down the streets of Israel, Iran and numerous other Arab cities, and missiles bristling from bunkers and launch sites throughout the region.

A word on his background.  He was IDF chief of staff until called upon by Ariel Sharon to help evacuate settlers from Gaza.  When he refused, Sharon cashiered him unceremoniously, which left an incredibly bitter taste in his mouth.  He is not just a security hawk, but caters to most far-right fringes of the Likud.  I reported here on a visit he made to Australia in the company of Moshe Feiglin and members of Meir Kahane’s family, which is among the most extreme of the settlers.   Feiglin has been banned from the UK as a figure whose extremist views might disturb the public order.  He was promised the defense portfolio by Bibi Netanyahu before the last election, but the latter welched when he decided to bring Ehud Barak and Labor into the coalition government.  This has left Yaalon and Barak as sworn enemies.

Before you read this, the question all of us should consider is–is Bogie Yaalon a lone wolf spinning his own strategic vision of apocalyptic doom or does he have the power to implement this vision? Does he have Bibi’s ear?  Can he turn his views and theories into operational orders and boots on the ground? One way of answering this question is to note that Yaalon is within Bibi’s inner circle as a member of the Shminiya, the eight-member senior minister’s circle that votes on all major policy proposals such as an Iran attack. In that capacity, he has a huge platform to realize his views.

I would also argue that it’s known that both Bibi and Barak favor a military attack, while the leaders of the military-intelligence entities virtually unanimously oppose it. Given Yaalon’s impeccable IDF credentials as a former head of Aman and chief of staff, he would be a natural figure for Bibi to turn to, since he would reinforce views the prime minister already held.  Thus, I would judge that the views you’ll read below are central to current Israeli strategic thinking.  The only thing that is odd about all this is that Yaalon has been reported to oppose an Iran attack.  When you read the material below you’ll believe that either he’s the best poker player ever to have played the game, or that his opposition is purely tactical and based on his hatred of Barak.

There may be some of you as wonky as I who’d like to hear the entire briefing.  If anyone has any ideas on how to make the file publicly accessible without using up an incredible amount of bandwidth on my own site, let me know.  So far as I know, filesharing sites don’t allow free public access unless you specifically and individually approve someone for it.  If someone has a different solution let me know.

Yaalon began the briefing referring tellingly to what is commonly-known as the Arab Spring, as the “Islamist Winter.” He suggested that the liberal forces which began revolts in Tunisia and Egypt had been surpassed by radical Islamist forces who were exploiting democratic elections in order to attain power. The result, he predicted, would be the “collapse of the nation-state system” with a breakdown into “entities” dominated by Islamist ideology. This would happen in a way similar to Yugoslavia’s disintegration. At any rate, the future of the region would see Islam as the “glue” to both unify people and dominate them.

Calling the Arab Spring the beginning of a disintegration of the notion of statehood in the region is vastly premature.  In fact, it seems much more likely to see it as part of a transformation from autocracy to something much more akin to popular rule.  Now, we in the west may not like what popular rule may look like in the Arab world.  It may involve religious parties and it may be “messy,” at least in western terms.  But it looks like it will be vastly more democratic than what preceded it.

Keep in mind too that Yaalon prefers what preceded the Arab Spring.  While he claims to support democratization, what he really supports is strongman rule as long as the strongman is amenable to collaboration with Israeli interests.

Israel, Yaalon averred, “wants democracy around us.” But the Arab Spring is not real democratization, he said. If you watch the way the Islamists are using elections to come to power, it reminds you of the way Hamas came to power in 2006. It exploited elections to take control of the PA. Then it proceeded to revolt against Fatah and take over Gaza by force. This, Yaalon viewed as the future of Islamist regimes elsewhere.  Democratization “cannot begin by elections.” Rather, it must first start with “educating people to appreciate liberty, women’s rights and civil society.” This is not the case yet in any of the countries in which there have been revolts.

Yaalon completely distorts the history involving the 2006 elections by omitting the fact that U.S. envoy Elliot Abrams along with Israel pursuaded Abbas to initiate a coup that would topple Hamas and allow him to take power.  Hamas pre-empted the coup by turning on Fatah and ejecting it from Gaza, just as Fatah proceeded to eject Hamas from the West Bank.  Portraying the events as a cold, calculated will to power on Hamas’ behalf is false.

To prove his point, Yaalon quotes a Jordanian former foreign minister and World Bank officer, Marwan al-Muasher, who agrees, if Yaalon is to be believed, that Arabs are not ready for real democracy. The irony, of course, is that he served in the government of a state that was not itself democratic and whose king is in fact quite threatened by democracy, since it would mean the end of his dynasty. That irony seems to have been lost on Yaalon.

The upshot of Yaalon’s portrayal of the balance of power in the region is that Israel is a lone bastion of civilization amidst a swirling horde of Islamists lunatics baying for the blood of infidels. Instead of being beacons of hope for democratic change in the region, the Arab states whose autocratic leaders were toppled are stalking horses for radical Islamist religious theocracies.

This concept is so far-fetched, so completely bereft of any contact with political reality, that it leads me to conclude that if Yaalon’s strategic vision carries the day in Israeli policymaking circles, we could see a virtual repeat of the Crusades, in which competing religious forces battle for control of the region for decades, if not longer. The major difference being that Israel and the frontline states have massive amounts of firepower at their disposal.

The former Israeli general has a strategic vision that places Israel on a permanent war footing. It turns Israel not just into Sparta, but into Sparta in constant war with multiple neighboring states. Frankly, this is not a state of affairs that Israel can sustain over an extended period. There is no possible way Israel could fight an all-out war for eight years, suffering 1-million dead as Iran did against Iraq. That makes Yaalon’s vision deeply damaging, even pathological in terms of what Israel could actually sustain.

Moving on to Syria, the former IDF chief of staff sees Assad’s certain end signalling the decline of the Axis of Evil (note that Syria was never included in the original Axis of Evil), since in his view, without Assad acting as a middleman, neither Hezbollah nor Iran can continue their control over events in that part of the region. His view seems to be that whatever regime took his place, it would be so focussed on domestic issues that it would have little or no stomach for meddling in the affairs of Lebanon. This also presumes that even if this future regime dropped Hezbollah, the latter would become inert and lose its reason being, both of which seem unlikely.  Yaalon expects those Arab countries beset by revolutions to be subject to “tribal sectarian violence.”

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a central issue in the region, the strategic affairs minister insists, and the claim that it has exacerbated the Arab Spring or motivated greater violence or instability in the region is false. He informed the journalists that the PA has suspended its UN campaign for statehood until January.

He claimed that Palestinians were launching terror attacks from Sinai, another holdover-lie from the Eilat incident, in which Israel falsely claimed that members of the Gaza-based PRC had infiltrated southern Israel from Sinai. It was later proven that all the attackers were radical Sinai-based Islamists with no proven connection to Gaza at all. In answer to a reporter who referred to an Israeli TV news report that Hamas was using sites in Sinai as “rocket foundries” because Israel could not violate Egyptian sovereignty in attacking them, Yaalon didn’t specifically confirm the report.  But he noted that Israel expected Egypt to police its territory and pursue such activities.

The majority of the presentation and the true ambition of Yaalon’s vision became especially evident when he spoke about Iran. He painted a gloomy picture of the Islamist regime as an arch-conspirator in the region, responsible for the worst acts of terror and harboring a grand ambition to realize Islamist revolution not just in Iran or the region, but in the entire world. We see, he claimed, Iranian “fingerprints” in Afghanistan and Iraq too. The goal of the Ayatollahs is instability because stability is against Iranian interests. The country funds, he asserted, the Popular Resistance Committees, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, providing weapons and training. It also acts similarly in Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

As a sidebar, I’ve never heard any claim that Iran has provided arms or training inside Bahrain or Yemen. The claim that Iran is guilty of fomenting trouble in Afghanistan seems similarly built on sand. This seems to be a product of the former IDF chief of staff’s fevered imagination.

Then, Yaalon discussed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He called an Iranian bomb a “nightmare” for the “free world,” which must be stopped “one way or the other.” He stately baldly that the IAEA report confirmed Israel’s worst warnings about the Iranian nuclear program, when other observers, even those who found the report conclusive, haven’t made the claim that it endorsed Israel’s views of Iran. The Iranians are “years, perhaps even months” from nuclear capability. He said specifically it could be 24 months, it could be sooner. It now has enough uranium for “a couple of devices, five tons.” It has 20kg at 20% purity. It is only a matter of months before Iran has “weapons quality” uranium.

During the briefing, Yaalon referred to Iran having 10,000km missiles capable of reaching the U.S. He made it sound like Iran already had such weapons or threatened to. But I’ve never seen any reference to such a long-range missile in the country’s arsenal. The longest range I’ve heard of could reach Europe on a good day and with winds blowing in the right direction. So once again, Yaalon is guilty of a fever-dream of anti-Iran paranoia.

The money quote of the entire briefing was this: “Iran should be given the choice to have a bomb or survive.” The west must present this in the most aggressive and intrusive way possible as a dilemma the Iranians must answer, a stark choice, basically of life without a bomb or death. It wasn’t clear whether Yaalon was speaking of the death of the Iranian regime or the death of the country itself. Even if he only meant the former, it was truly a spine-shivering articulation of the goal of Israeli policy.

The ultra-hawkish Yaalon told the reporters that the west should “support the Iranian opposition morally.” In the typcial way you must read the Israeli political tea leaves, this means that not only should the west support the most radical elements of the opposition such as the MEK, but that Israel would support it far more than morally. In fact it’s well-known that George Bush appropriated somewhere between $300-400 million in 2007 for destabilizing Iran. A portion of this may be going into MEK coffers to fund the terror campaign I’ve reported being conducted by the Mossad with MEK muscle.

A reporter asked point-blank for Israel’s view of the MEK’s attempt to be delisted from the U.S. terror list. He also asked whether Israel made use of MEK to pursue its interests inside Iran. Yaalon denied this:

We don’t consider MEK [an Israeli asset]. We are not interfering in the internal affairs of Iran. The Green movement could play a significant role in Iran in the future. But Israel is not involved in this process.

Everyone both inside Israel and outside knows this is a flat-out lie. In fact, the very claim is enough to provoke the Iranians even more than they already have been.

Yaalon reinforced the “need for a credible military option.” At another point, he said:

A military strike [by Israel] cannot be excluded.

He added that the west should “hurry” to force Iran to face up to the dilemma he alluded to above, of having the bomb or surviving. Iran, he said, was the “core of instability” in the region. Stopping it was important both in terms of ending the nuclear threat and stopping the nations’ efforts to “promote regional instability.

In answer to a question about whether Israel was prepared to attack Iran alone, he answered that as the “Little Satan” Israel should not lead efforts against Iran by acting independently. But if the international community would not force this dilemma on the Iranians, then Israel should be ready to “defend itself.” The minister would not talk specifically about timetables or dates for action.

Here again we see the pathology of Yaalon’s point of view.  Attacking Iran would not be an act of aggression, but one of defense.  Because Iran is guilty of such grievous sins that stomping on it like a cockroach would only be doing the world a favor.

Iran, he reminded, is a rogue state and “enemy of the free world.” Note here the echoes of Cold War terminology and a return to the binary world of that era.  According to this notion, there are countries free and enslaved, and the latter are subject to whatever means necessary to stop them from enslaving others.

Another questioner asked, if Israel got its wish and Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program wouldn’t it remain as a severe threat to Israeli interests in the region, given the role he claimed it played in fomenting “revolution?” Interestingly, Yaalon didn’t answer, but rather fell back on the nuclear threat.  I would guess the reason for this is that Iran without a weapon would, in Israel’s view, be a power much easier to contain, since it would no longer have the ultimate threat, whether defensive or offensive.

At this point in the briefing, Yaalon entered into the land of fables and lies. He said:

We don’t consider Iran as an enemy. We don’t share a border with them nor have a border dispute. They consider us as an enemy.

The continuation of this thought led him into a direct contradiction. He then said that Israel “had a problem with the Iranian regime–its ideology, its strategy against the State of Israel.” Their goal is to:

Achieve hegemony in the region, to impose revolution, their vision of Islam, political Islam, in the region and beyond. Further, they seek to bring the End of Days by imposing Islam wherever they can [in the world].

A nuclear weapon is part of that strategy. This is the reason that once Israel succeeds in eliminating a nuclear Iran it would not stop there. Let’s be clear that Israel’s goal, at least in Yaalon’s eyes, is the elimination of the Iranian regime. Until it is eliminated, until the threat of Islamist domination is uprooted from the region, Israel can never rest. That is why I believe that this is a vision of total war between Israel and Iran, between Judaism (and the west if Christians are willing to join) and Islam.

This is little different from the vision of Anders Breivik. The difference being that Breivik was a homicidal lunatic and Yaalon is a highly influential member of the government of a nation possessing at least 200 nuclear weapons and the fourth most powerful military in the world. That’s a lot of bodies littering the streets of the region if Yaalon succeeds in imposing this strategic vision.

In answer to a question asking whether Israel told the U.S. that it would not inform it before an Iran strike, all Yaalon would say coyly is “that’s what I read in the newspapers.” In other words, “You bet.”

A reporter asked why Yaalon had such confidence an Israeli attack would substantially damage Iran’s nuclear program, when even Israeli military analysts say a strike would at most delay Iran’s attaining a nuclear weapon by two years, with some arguing it would delay them by six months.  In reply, he claimed that when Menachem Begin assaulted Saddam’s Osirak reactor, Israel estimated it would set him back by a year, and that the French would likely replace the reactor. None of these things happened, and in fact, Saddam gave up on Osirak and turned to other weapons programs. The same thing could happen regarding Iran, in Yaalon’s estimation.

For an otherwise intelligent military-intelligence operative not to understand the massive differences between Iraq circa 1980 and Iran circa 2011 leads one to conclude that he’s either a fabulist or deliberate fabricator. Iraq had a single reactor. Iran has multiple facilities and has hardened it’s program with multiple fail-safe provisions and redundancies to ensure that if one or more are taken down there are others to take their places.  Saddam ran a virtual dictatorship, a top down centralized state in which decision-making was controlled solely by him and a narrow band of loyalists. Iran, whatever may be said against it, is a much more formidable adversary.

When a journalist asked the former general if Israel was prepared to absorb the counter strikes Iran would send “the day after,” the latter simply refused to answer, as if this didn’t even factor into his strategic thinking. This too is another fatal flaw, as an autocratic nation may expend thousands of lives and not lose the will to fight, while a democratic one simply cannot make such a commitment. I maintain that it’s likely that Iran would inflict high casualties on Israel in revenge formats attacking Iran. This too is Meir Dagan’s view and the reason he’s opposed to a strike.

Moving on to discuss the issue of settlements, here Yaalon was at his most mendacious, saying:

We don’t allow any new illegal construction in the settlements. We demolish any illegal construction.

The minister, among Israel’s most hawkish senior cabinet officers, had an especially paternalistic view of democracy in the Arab world. He pointed out that Europe had taken “centuries” to develop democracy, while the Middle East “was only in its first century.” He views elections as fake democracy since, in his view, the Arabs are mired in backwards attitudes which don’t allow democracy to flourish. Before there is real democracy, there must be education about western values and they must be given long amounts of time to sink into the consciousness of Arab youth.

Islamists play the democratic game to win power, but they aren’t committed to true democratic principles.  Yaalon expressede Israeli apprehension about developments of the Arab Spring:

We’re afraid of it [this Islamist exploitation].

He compares the Islamist parties to Israel’s Kach party, which was banned from participating in Israeli elections. Like Kach, the former should be banned as well. He repeated that “you can’t reach democracy through elections.” It is a “long process which must be based first on education. Democratization is a process that requires preparing people over a long period of time.

Of course, there is absolutely no proof that the mostly moderate Islamist parties that stand on the cusp of taking power in Tunisia and Egypt have anywhere near the violent, intolerant, even fascist views that Kach did.

The Palestinians in particular do not have a civil society or capacity for democracy. Palestinian elections led to:

Hamas killing the opposition. For sure, this is not democracy.

Yaalon again during the briefing denied vociferously that there could be no linkage between either the Palestinian elections and Arab Spring or between the latter and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, the latter could not be seen as a cause of instability in the region.

He then quoted Bibi offering a particularly mendacious account of the Israeli-Palestinian disagreement:

Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. Rather it’s about the existence of a Jewish state.

The former IDF chief of staff claimed that Abu Mazen and other PA figures deny Israel as a Jewish state. Israel is ready to sit without preconditions, he said, but Abu Mazen “denies the existence of the Jewish people,” since he claims Judaism is a religion and not a nationality.

Keep in mind that this is the guy who just said he’d sit without preconditions.  Yaalon offered that when “we sit around a table, we will have three questions we will ask that aren’t preconditions: are you ready to recognize Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish people? Abu Mazen says “Never.” Second, will a settlement resolve all claims between the two parties. Abu Mazen has doubts about this since he won’t give up the Right of Return.

Returning to the notion of democracy beginning in education. Yaalon makes the false claim that in contrast to the Palestinians:

We don’t educate our kids to kill Palestinians.

What does he think that 17 and 18-year old Israeli teenagers are doing in the West Bank and Gaza?

周四,俄羅斯新聞網轉述俄國防官員對伊朗戰爭前景的評估。據軍方透露,俄已判研以色列在美國軍事力量的支持下,很快將對伊朗核設施采取精確的打擊行動。目前,俄軍駐亞美尼亞第102軍事基地已進入最高等級戰備,所有軍人家屬巳經撤離。

俄羅斯新聞網表示,俄羅斯正從全方位準備果斷介入遏制發生在伊朗的大戰,克里姆林宮已經并不指望從外交手段上得到效果,一年前,俄方就陸續撤回在伊朗布什爾核電站的工程工作人員,目前少量俄方專家均住在離布什爾核電廠250公里外的一個營地。俄駐地外交機構也專門對俄專家進行自救和逃生預案訓練。

俄軍方認為,伊朗全面戰爭不可避免,俄羅斯在高加索地區的主要基地-亞美尼亞第102軍事基地擔負遏制伊朗戰爭的主要任務,一年前俄軍對亞美尼亞基地進行全面優化,駐札在靠土耳其邊界的久姆里地區的俄軍配置了地對地導彈團,并將家屬撤離軍事基地。

今年12月1日,駐扎在外高加索的南奧塞梯和阿布哈茲軍事基地的俄羅斯軍隊也加強了戰備,同時俄黑海艦隊派出由兩艘現代級導彈驅逐和潛艘編隊也在與格魯吉亞海域機動。

在俄達吉斯坦與阿塞拜疆邊境處,俄軍從黑海艦隊調動岸艦、地空海際導彈營將130公里范圍內配置警戒。

在俄馬哈奇卡拉和阿斯特拉罕地區的所有里海艦隊導彈快艇都配置了射程達200公里的導彈系統。

俄專家表示,目前正準備進入地中海俄遠航艦隊受到北約密切監視,包括“庫茲涅佐夫海軍元帥”號航母和大型反潛艦“海軍上將恰巴年科”號將在敘利亞港口進行停靠。

但軍事專家判研,這是俄方對大馬士革的保護信號,俄海軍航母編隊作戰半徑包括伊朗境內。

俄軍事專家指出,俄軍加強了在阿塞拜疆方向的裝備更新,軍方從以色列購置的無人機和情報偵測等先進裝備都部署在駐地的山地旅。

俄軍事專家認為,多年來伊朗和阿塞拜疆爭奪石油資源,所以一旦伊朗戰爭爆發,巴庫會支持對伊朗的軍事行動。

俄軍事專家強調,伊朗的軍事沖突背景是復雜的,俄羅斯全面遏制伊朗戰爭的保障,主要是確保軍用物資通過格魯吉亞空域向亞美尼亞俄201軍事基地進行空運。

俄軍事專家指出,目前俄陸軍和海軍的佯動屬於戰略層面,莫斯科一直在準備軍事戰術手段,確保俄羅斯在伊朗的利益存在,這是莫斯科在中東最後一塊戰略土地之一。

但是俄政要米特來范并不這樣了認為:“我認為俄對待(伊朗)就會像對待敘利亞一樣,在最後關頭會放棄。因為會信從美國的誘惑,就會像與美國人談定的準備將敘利亞交出,就像交出伊拉克就像交出米洛舍維奇,一切都會按這個模式。”

更重要的是,西方絕不會允許伊朗完全封鎖海峽。美國列克星敦研究院曾向軍方提出過一個廉價有效的反制手段,即先發制人地啟動“攻勢水雷戰”,封鎖伊朗軍港,讓伊朗艦隊坐以待斃。列克星敦研究院指出,生產和布設一顆水雷的成本不及掃除成本的0.5%,掃除一片水雷需要的時間是布設水雷的200倍。

Advertisements

About usachinanukewar

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.