US' Middle East policies come home to haunt America and ally, Israel, against Iran and Russia. Next moves?

Amidst finger-pointing over who in Washington is most to blame for Russia and Iran's aggression against Syria and Israel, how will America and Israel adapt and respond?

Israeli UN Amb. Danny Danon claims that 80K troops loyal to Iran are

fighting in the Syrian War (graphic: AlMasdarNews, Lebanon)

CNN: "Israeli PM: Airstrikes dealt 'severe blows' to Iran, Syria"

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his nation dealt "severe blows" to Iranian and Syrian forces following the weekend downing of an Israeli fighter jet over northern Israel.

The Prime Minister said Israel would do so again if necessary.

. . . In retaliation for the downing of its jet, Israeli forces attacked 12 targets in Syria, including three aerial defense batteries and four targets described as Iranian, the IDF said.
An IDF statement described the four Iranian targets as "part of Iran's military establishment in Syria."

US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement Saturday that the US was "deeply concerned about today's escalation of violence over Israel's border."

"Iran's calculated escalation of threat, and its ambition to project its power and dominance, places all of the people of the region -- from Yemen to Lebanon -- at risk," Nauert said. "The US continues to push back on the totality of Iran's malign activities in the region and calls for an end to Iranian behavior that threatens peace and stability."

CNN's Ian Lee reports on an Israeli combat helicopter successfully intercepting an Iranian drone that was launched from Syria, according to Israel Defense Forces.

In U.S., Israel-Syria Border Clash Triggers New War Over Iran Nuclear Deal by Allison Kaplan Sommer in Ha'Aretz Feb 12, '18

Republicans and pro-Israel camp point finger at Obama for being soft on Iran and Syria, while Democrats blame Trump for decertifying Iran deal

Like every other issue in the United States these days, foreign policy discussion has become fiercely partisan. Every new problem or conflict around the globe triggers a flurry of finger-pointing and accusations as to whether the legacy of President Barack Obama or the current policies of the Trump White House are responsible.

... For Democrats, it is President Donald Trump’s decertification and weakening of the Iran deal that’s to blame, sending Iranian leaders a message that they have little to lose by thumbing their nose at the United States. They also point to Trump’s refusal to criticize or pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin’s support and protection of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would, presumably, put him in a position to rein in the Iranians.

“President Trump is obviously distracted by the Russian investigation and the White House staffing debacle,” ex-US Amb. to Israel, Dan Shapiro told the Daily Beast. “The State Department is generally sidelined from discussions with Israel. The U.S.-Israel relationship has generally been managed under Trump by only three or four people, which is just not a viable way to manage real time crises that require coordinated responses across the political, military, diplomatic and intelligence spheres.”

The staunchest opponents of the Iran deal are splitting the blame for Iran’s empowerment equally between Obama and Trump. They are critical both of Obama’s efforts over the Iran deal initially, and then Trump’s unwillingness to move against it more forcefully.

"Iran’s Stealth Drone that Penetrated Israel’s Border a Gift from the Obama Administration" in the Jewish Press, Feb 11, 2018

Several areas of concern emerged from Saturday’s short aerial war: the fact that an Israeli F-16’s deflection system was unable to avoid a dense barrage of some 25 S-300 Soviet-era anti-aircraft missiles, and, presumably, shrapnel from those missiles cut through; the fact that Iran today appears to be operating independently inside Syria; and the fact that Iran-proxy Shiite militias are so important to the Russians, serving as they do as gun fodder for the Russian army in its war against the Western-allied rebels, that Moscow is ready to endorse Iranian adventurism to secure their cooperation.

The fourth lesson from Saturday’s confrontation is that Iran has been able to take full advantage of the technological gift it received from the Obama Administration.

On December 4, 2011, an American stealth drone was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran. The Iranian government announced that the UAV was brought down by its cyberwarfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it. Meaning it wasn’t shot down, as earlier reported. President Obama acknowledged that the downed drone was his, and requested that Iran return it. We’re not kidding.

Turns out the Iranians refused to give it back. Instead, on December 10, 2011, Iran announced that it intended to carry out reverse engineering on the captured RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft. In April 2012, they announced they had succeeded in extracting the entire data collected by the drone and were in the process of building a replica of the aircraft. US officials were doubtful Iran could replicate the aircraft, because of a precautions that was installed to protect malfunctioning drones, nevertheless, in May 2014, Iranian state TV displayed a reverse engineered RQ-170, and in November 2014 Iran said it carried out a successful test flight on the drone clone.

Naturally, the fact that the supposedly stealth Iranian drone was detected way ahead of its crossing into Israeli airspace should suggest it isn’t so stealthy after all. But the symbolism of the new round of confrontations with Iran, a terrorist state cuddled by the Obama administration centering on that abandoned Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel should not be lost on Israel’s leadership. Nor should the Trump administration’s reluctance to act tough with Russia in Syria.

Iran hacked US drone, copied it, flew into Israel from Syria

Iran’s stealth drone used against Israel #ThanksObama
Knock-off of American drone brought down in Iran in December 2011, which Obama refused to destroy on the ground
before the Iranians got to it. Posted by William A. Jacobson in Legal Insurrection| Sunday, February 11

Despite Iranian claims, it remains a mystery how the Iranians brought down the American stealth drone, if indeed it wasn’t just an accident, Who Tracked, Hacked-N-Jacked, the Beast of Kandahar?

What is not a mystery is that Obama had a chance to destroy this technology on the ground after it was brought down in Iran. Instead, he let the Iranians have it, and now it’s being used against Israel, and sooner or later, will be used against American troops.

"Russian troops were involved in Iranian-Syrian clash with Israel" - DebkaFile

This situation underwent a fundamental strategic change when Iran sent a UAV over Israel from a Syrian base it shares also with the Russians. It may be assumed that the Russian command, which keeps a close eye on all Syria’s air facilities, was in the know about the Iranian operation and was not surprised when Israeli warplanes retaliated. One of those jets was shot down and its two pilots landed safely in northern Israel. One of them was badly injured.

Whether or not the Russians and Iranians discussed likely Israeli retaliation and decided to ambush one of the planes has yet to be investigated. But it is significant that the second, much broader wave of Israeli air strikes against a dozen Syrian and Iranian targets later Saturday morning, was also attacked by air defense missiles that were fired from Lebanon as well. This has brought Hizballah into the Syrian-Iranian-Russian equation, and even the Lebanese army. Civilian air traffic was consequently halted in northern Israel.

Iran Expert, Berman: Post-Obama/Kerry  nuclear deal, the emboldened Islamic republic seeks to expand global reach, build an anti-US axis in Latin America

The publisher's description of "Iran's Deadly Ambition: The Islamic Republic's Quest for Global Power" by Ilan Berman (published August, 2015).  In this sobering book, Ilan Berman illuminates the multiple dimensions of the Iranian threat and exposes the perils of lodging confidence in diplomacy with the Islamic Republic."

"There is ample reason for skepticism that the United States and its allies can truly curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions by diplomatic means. Moreover, the West’s current focus on Iran’s nuclear program is deeply dangerous insofar as it fails to recognize—let alone address—Iran’s other international activities or its foreign policy aims. Those objectives are global, and they continue to grow in scope and menace.

Ilan Berman, VP, American Foreign Policy Council interviews with Democracy Broadcasting on the then Democrat administration's enabling of Iran nuclear deal and how the then rival presidential candidates would handle it from 2017-2021. Recorded at the AIPAC Policy Conference, March 4, 2016.

Iran’s Saegheh drone in Syria – a worry for US as well as Israel in DebkaFile Feb 11,'18

Iran, by deploying a fleet of Saegheh drones in Syria, armed with missiles, has not only ramped up its threat to Israel, but also raised a tough regional challenge to America. If one of these drones can be used against Israel, why not against American forces in the Middle East or Saudi Arabia? The Revolutionary Guards' Dep Chief Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami made no bones about this on Saturday, when he declared that Iran had the military power “to destroy all American bases in the region.”

The Iranian stealth drone’s trajectory through Jordan on Saturday was revealing. It flew from Palmyra along Syria’s eastern frontier with Iraq undetected by American military surveillance. When it came over the US-Jordanian garrison of Al Tanf in the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian border triangle, it turned right to northern Jordan and then crossed the border to fly over Beit Shean. Ninety seconds later, Israeli Apaches conducted their interception – but not before the “Storm” had triggered the first direct military skirmish between Israel and Iran.

Iran lost a valuable armed drone, but it was in the air long enough to gather plenty of information on the American, Jordanian and Israeli air defense and radar systems on the Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi borders, as well as reporting on their anti-air missiles’ operational capabilities. The IDF announced Sunday the boosting of its air defense systems in the North.

"It’s time for Trump to attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guard" - Op/Ed in the New York Post by Richard Goldberg, senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Feb 12,'18

Now is the time for Trump to re-establish a robust military deterrent toward Iranian expansionism in close collaboration with regional allies.

His administration declared the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist entity in October, and he should target key Guards’ bases and weapons in Syria accordingly. Such an approach could help prevent a larger-scale conflict.

How Obama's bungled Middle-East agenda bodes for the future

"The Solution: How to Deal with Obama Middle-East Policy" by Barry Rubin 

It is likely that the efforts of the Obama Administration during its second term will fail, not only because of its lack of understanding of the region and its ideology, but also due to the specific agenda.

No Middle Eastern country (only hostile ones or movements) can depend on the United States.  And to clarify this further:  No country -- including Israel -- can depend on the Obama Administration.

But as I noted above, this U.S. policy of Obama’s second term will fail. For example, the main goals of the second term are four big issues:

--Israel-Palestinian peace

--Egypt government coalition with Muslim Brotherhood

--Syrian civil war resolution with rebel victory

--U.S.-Iran rapprochement resolving nuclear issue.

Yet because of irreconcilable differences, these may well be unresolvable. Due to such failures and hardline radical positions (Palestinians, Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian Islamists and regime, Iranian regime), the next administration would probably be forced back on recognition of extremism, support of allies, and U.S. interests.

Thus, regarding the “peace process,” we may well see the typical pattern in which the Palestinians wreck the peace process by rejecting or demanding even more concessions. Once again, it will only be necessary to wait until American negotiators learn better why their goals are impossible. Radicals will just raise their demands and demonstrate their anti-Americanism, and necessary priorities will shift.

"Russia-Iran Axis Gets Access" by Barry Rubin in PJ Media

The original supposed intent of this whole Syria exercise–punishing Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons–has achieved zero. In fact,  it has backfired.

“Russian credibility is not in question,”  my colleague Dr. Jonathan Spyer pointed out, American credibility is in question.

“The Russian weapons lifeline to the dictator is buzzing with increased activity,” Spyer continues.  ”The arms ships that make their way from the Ukrainian port of Oktabyrsk have increased in number in recent weeks, shipping analysts say. They are bringing the vital spare parts for Assad’s planes and tanks.”

But there’s more.

Was this a pay-off for the Putin-Syria deal to get Iran to agree? Was it an advantage that the Kremlin grabbed in order to show that Russia can do anything it wants now? If so, it was a heavy one indeed. Pay close attention.

Russian media reported Moscow is selling Iran five batteries of S-300 missiles for $700 million. The sale was frozen three years ago when the UN imposed sanctions. Russia will probably claim the weapons are for defense.

And of course, it is for defense, presuming Iran needs to defend a nuclear reactor or missile bases from Israel.

This step tightens the Iran-Russia alliance, presumably a way to make Iran feel more secure as it backs Syria. Russia may also have made an agreement to build a second nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

In other words, the Russia-Iran alliance is stronger; America is weaker; Syria is more secure, though it is still a very long way to win the civil war. But Iran—where the Obama Administration is cutting the sanctions—is more powerful and further away from any effective containment.

Here is Ammar Abdulhamid, who is an honorable and  sincere Syrian supporter of moderate rebels but knows he isn’t finding any:

“So the Russians have put on the table a plan whose implementation requires thousands of peacekeepers and experts working together over a period of several years to dismantle Assad’s chemical supplies and production capabilities. In practice, this requires cessation of all hostilities by all parties, in other words, an end to the civil war.”

 ”End the civil war and the Russian plan can work. But how do we end the civil war? Well, how about a limited strike against Assad’s military and security establishment to convince him to cease hostilities? There you go, we’re back where we started: in order to make Russia’s plan work we need to strike Assad, and in order to strike Assad, we need an American President who is willing to do it and does not go into convulsions each time we get to this point.”

I unfortunately don”t agree with Abdulhamid, but I would if he had received the moderate opposition he wanted.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth O’Bagy, who became famous overnight by being quoted as the rationale for saying Syrian rebels are moderates by Kerry, McCain, and the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, was fired by her pro-rebel lobbying group for faking her PhD.

 Turns out she DID lie about her PhD,  BUT they had to get rid of her without pointing to the real scandal that the Syrian rebels are not moderate.

Did anyone learn anything? Again, they really fired her for embarrassment, because it showed that State Department just bought intelligence it wanted–saying Syrian rebels are moderate–by Kerry, McCain, theWashington Post and Wall Street Journal. A few months later she said the opposite.

The real issue–they are lying and faking intelligence–became disguised as a technical issue. Read more

Syrian-Americans demonstrate in L.A. for and against U.S. involvement- but is the conflict actually about something other than chemical weapons of mass destruction?

What to do with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—the big question led to a big protest of about 300 Syrian Americans the Los Angeles Federal Building last month.

But the demonstrators were split. Supporters of Assad and protestors against his regime chanted, sang and danced, and accused the other side of lying. Both sides got into arguments, throwing derogatory terms at the opposition. Police were on hand to occassionally calm tensions.

The Anti-Assad demonstrators explained their movement and goals at counter-rally at Federal Building in Los Angeles.  Ms. Hadia Attar, Dr. Azzawi, and Hicham Alani explain why they condemn the Assad regime.

Many supporters of the Assad regime played patriotic music to dance with during the protest. They said they didn’t want American intervention in the conflict, a move they said would likely be in the interest of profit.

Johnny Achi, of Arab-Americans for Syria, said dialogue was the way to peace, and blamed terrorists armed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar for the massacre.

“Today in Syria, we have 50 Bin Ladens,” Achi said. “The suicide bombers are killing the policemen and minorities. We are all threatened.”

Achi said he thought his president had done well in trying to reach out to the opposition. “We are more democratic than other countries in the region." 

But the other side doesn’t agree. Anti-Assad protestors said the president was responsible for the mass killings.  Demonstrator Omar Attar said everything is monitored there, she said, including the Internet and phone calls. Neighbors disappear for no reason.

The world is confused about the real reasons for U.S. military action.  Obama's reneging on his Red-Line promise to act when chemical weapons would be used has Israel worried that she trusted his promise to take care of Iran's nuclear weapons if she laid-back before the 2012 election, which she did.  What is the Syrian issue all about? Michael Snyder puts forth an educated a theory in "Is the U.S. Going to War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?"

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. 

 Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. 

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. 

 Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.  Read more: 

Preparing for a strike
A limited Western attack on Syria will do more damage than good, claims one Arab columnist quoted in Ha'aretz.

Putin's Russian bear should be regarded as vicious, cautions Soviet-born, Elya Baskin, star of classic movie "2010"

The West should regard Russia as a ruthless competitor and subversive force, warns Latvian-American actor, Elya Baskin.  Russia's proxy battle with the U.S. for hegemony over the Middle East involves Russia's support for Iran, its nuclear (weapons) program, and Islamist terror networks in Palestine and Hezbollah (against U.S. ally-Israel).  Have Westerners, in their Iraq-war-fatigue, become complacent about the insidious rivalry from a disgruntled former-superpower?



Soviet-born star of Russia-U.S. suspense movies, Elya Baskin, explains Russia's rivalry with America, and the revived Kremlin leaders' intent to shift the balance of power by damaging America (in this DemoCast exclusive video interview). 

Twitter's network was by Iranian cyberterrorists on the same day that RIM's Blackberry network went down.  Twitter users encountered the following, hijacked home-page last night:

Iranian Cyber Army
THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED BY IRANIAN CYBER ARMY
iRANiAN.CYBER.ARMY@GMAIL.COM
U.S.A. Think They Controlling And Managing Internet By Their Access, But They Don’t, We Control And Manage Internet By Our Power, So Do Not Try To Stimulation Iranian Peoples To….
NOW WHICH COUNTRY IN EMBARGO LIST? IRAN? USA? WE PUSH THEM IN EMBARGO LIST  ;)



These cyberattacks pose a dilemma for the West: what is our threshold to retaliate defensively? And if attacked by proxies, such as independent terror groups, against whom do we retaliate? This applies both in cases of physical and virtual mischief.
Pentagon Preparing for War With The Enemy: Russia by Rick Rozoff in Global Research, May 2009

Last week the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Kevin Chilton, told reporters during a Defense Writers Group breakfast "that the White House retains the option to respond with physical force - potentially even using nuclear weapons - if a foreign entity conducts a disabling cyber-attack against U.S. computer networks...."

An account of his talk added "the general insisted that all strike options, including nuclear, would remain available to the commander in chief in defending the nation from cyber strikes." 

Chilton "said he could not rule out the possibility of a military salvo against a nation like China, even though Beijing has nuclear arms," though the likely first target of alleged retaliation against equally alleged cyber attacks would be another nation already identified by US military officials as such: Russia.

In late April and early May of 2007 the government of Estonia, which was inducted into NATO in 2004 and whose president was and remains Toomas Hendrik Ilves, born in Sweden and raised in the United States (where he worked for Radio Free Europe), reported attacks on websites in the country which were blamed on Russia.

Over two years later no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim that Russian hackers, much less the government itself, were behind the attacks, though it remains an article of faith among US and other Western officials and media that they were.

The response from American authorities in the first place was so sudden and severe, even before investigations were conducted, as to strongly suggest that if the attacks hadn't been staged they would need to be invented.

Right afterward Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne stated, "Russia, our Cold War nemesis, seems to have been the first to engage in cyber warfare."

The Real World Order

Russia rewrites the rules against NATO; US against Iran

Moscow’s blitzkrieg in Georgia is more than a military campaign. It is designed to empower Russia’s diplomatic strategy, which seeks to make the European Union (EU) the West’s chief representative in future negotiations with Russia. Quite naturally the Kremlin wants to escape the logic of U.S. and NATO policy, which is to contain Russia within her national borders. Meanwhile, the European Union is an entirely different animal: toothless, utopian and ready to please.   

In Russia's Concept for Dominating Europe, J.R. Nyquist writes:

The real purpose of this operation, the Russian president hinted, was to highlight the dangerous obsolescence of NATO and Europe’s unrealistic expectations with regard to Russia. The old treaties will not keep the peace, he said, because they are unfair. Russia is a great power and deserves greater influence.

Today the European Union confronts Russia in the same way Neville Chamberlain confronted Hitler in 1938; being outwitted and tricked in the ceasefire negotiations, there is no possible outcome other than appeasement. The Russians insist that their troops be accepted as peacekeepers in Georgia. The French mediators allow this. And so, the stipulated withdrawal of combatants therefore does not apply to the Russian troops. Under this ceasefire agreement Moscow can claim – in a strictly legal sense – that Russian troops can stay in Georgia indefinitely. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are laughing at the French while observing international law. Meanwhile, occupied Georgia is looted and burned; Georgian ships are sunk and the Georgian capital is strangled.

NATO has done nothing, even though NATO has promised to make Georgia a member of the alliance. NATO defers to the European Union. Bush also defers and sends his Secretary of State to Paris instead of Moscow. While all of Europe demanded a negotiated solution, only Poland and the Baltic States (along with Sweden and Denmark) denounced Russian military aggression. All of Europe should have denounced Russia with one voice. All of Europe should have eschewed “negotiations.” All of Europe should have demanded an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. All of Europe should have begun to mobilize troops and combat aircraft for the defense of Georgia. In that event, Russia would have retreated.

But the Kremlin knew, in advance, this wouldn’t happen. There is no “military confrontation” in Georgia. As President Medvedev said, “I am convinced that with the end of the Cold war … bloc discipline simply disappeared.”

Think-tank, Stratfor elaborates:  The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.

Will Americans now consider a Presidential candidate able to win in the hardball game that the big boys play?

US foreign policy shifts to favor Islamists, Iran & Saudi Arabia, away from Israel

The Bush administration, vying for American financial hegemony over the oil-rich Persian Gulf against Russia or China, is reported to have turned against democratic Israel in the hopes of appeasing Islamist-imperialists, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

DEBKAfile reports that "DEBKA-Net Weekly first revealed on Dec. 7 that a Washington-Tehran understanding is in the making, brokered by Saudi Arabia. According to Washington and intelligence sources, the first steps of the dialogue were made possible by the US National Intelligence Estimate of Dec. 3 affirming that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been put on hold in 2003. This public statement effectively took the US military option off the table, as stipulated by Riyadh and Tehran (and binding Israel).

Shortly thereafter (our) exclusive disclosure, the well-connected Saudi journalist Jihad El-Khazen gave his version of the course of events in the Arab newspaper Al-Hayat :

"Here is what happened: The rate of violent acts dropped in Iraq; therefore the American intelligence services discovered that Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003. This means that the resumption of violence will make American intelligence services find out that there is a secret military program that is different from the peaceful and famous one.

The Saudi reporter went on to ask: "Is there a deal between the Bush administration and Iran? I cannot categorically assert that a deal was concluded between the two parties through direct negotiations; however, there is an understanding resulting in the 2007 national intelligence report.”

Saudi and American sources told DEBKAfile that President George W. Bush used the Annapolis conference as a piece of theater, which presented a sham moderate Arab front against Iran to disguise the intense work underway on a Saudi-mediated accommodation between Washington and Tehran.

The Bush administration appears to be in the midst of developing a new foreign strategy. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint US Chiefs of Staff arrived in Israel for a one day visit. Admiral Mullen met with Chief of General Staff Lt.Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The Israelis announced they would provide the Americans their proof of Iran's nuclear weapons development, in contradiction to the U.S.' National Intelligence Estimate. Israeli leaders are appealing for America to take pre-emptive action against Iran so that Israel won't have to act unilaterally. The Americans may be there to explain that under the new terms of their relationship, Israel will not be tolerated to act unilaterally.

U.S. defense officials said they did not believe the briefings Mullen received would change America's stance on Iran, but they could help him understand the way Israel views the threat.

During their meetings, Mullen and Ashkenazi discussed the Iranian threat. Israel believes Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and will be ready to manufacture such a device as early as the end of 2009.

Mullen and Ashkenazi also discussed the Hizbullah and Hamas threats.

Mullen briefed the IDF generals on ongoing American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The IDF is concerned of the consequences a premature US withdrawal from Iraq could have on the region. Nehushtan presented Mullen with the IDF's multiyear plan that, for the first time in a decade, includes ways for dealing with a potential threat from Iraq if the US pulls out prematurely.

The radical Washington about-face has in the last ten days touched off a chain of repercussions:

1. DEBKAfile's sources disclose that Iran’s extremist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began purging the Iranian leadership of his opponents, emboldened by what he perceived as the victory of the intransigent nuclear policy he and the Revolutionary Guards had pursued.


2. Still in crowing mode, Iran’s oil minister Gholam Hossein Nozari announced Saturday, Dec. 8, the cessation of oil transactions in US dollars. He labeled the greenbacks an “unreliable” currency.


3. Less than 24 hours after the NIE was released, the Kremlin announced resumption of Russian work to finish Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr and the consignment of nuclear fuel.


4. In Lebanon, the Hizballah opened the door for the election of chief of staff Gen. Michel Suleiman as president. To buy a stable Beirut government, Washington accepted a pro-Syrian Hizballah sympathizer as president.


5. The prospects of tough UN sanctions against Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium dimmed dramatically. The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said there is no point in the light of the US intelligence reassessment. Saturday, the Iranian ambassador in Tokyo invited Japanese investors to put their money in Iranian oil production which he said could be expanded by 30 percent. Tehran has clearly lost its fear of international economic sanctions.


6. Moscow has dispatched war fleets to the Mediterranean and the northeast Atlantic.
   A flotilla of six Russian warships including an aircraft carrier will dock at Syria’s Tartous port for the first time.

President Vladimir Putin and defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov decided to send a sortie of six Russian warships, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and the Moskva guided missile cruiser, to the Mediterranean. This will be the first prolonged stay of a Russian carrier to the eastern Mediterranean vicinity of Israel’s shores and waters patrolled by the US Sixth Fleet. On its decks are 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The Moskva is the Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship.

According to our Moscow sources, the Kremlin is determined not to be left lagging behind the new Bush administration’s steps towards an accommodation with Iran, which were signaled by the US National Intelligence Estimate absolving Tehran of running a military nuclear program from 2003.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Russian fleet, which has already set out for its new mission from the North and Black Seas, will have the use of naval facilities at Syria’s Tartous port. Its presence for several months will be a complication for the Israel navy’s operations opposite the Lebanese and Syrian coasts, especially if the Russians are joined at Tartous by Iranian submarines or warships.

The Kremlin also decided to send a sortie of ships to the northeastern Atlantic.

Meanwhile, the AP reports that "Iranian and UN nuclear officials began a new round of talks in Teheran on Monday, this time to probe the source of traces of weapons-grade uranium that were found at a university in Teheran, the official IRNA news agency reported.

It was not clear from the report how or when the weapons-grade uranium contamination was discovered at the Technology Faculty of a state university."

How Israel Destroyed Nuclear Threat by the Axis of Evil

Video demonstration of how Israel discovered Syria's North Korean- supported, nuclear weapons facility; how Israel built the evidence to convince a reluctant Washington of the need to intervene; and how, upon the arrival of North Korean materiel and manpower to implement it, Israel executed a daring raid inside Syria to destroy the threat.