Earlier this week I participated in a tour of archaeological sites in Jerusalem. Among the places we visited was a newly revealed section of the Herodian stepped street. The street leads from the Siloam Pool to the Temple Mount.
In his "Wars of the Jews" renegade historian Josephus Flavius mentioned an event that followed the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 AD. Some of the Jews who managed to escape from Jerusalem were forced to leave their families behind. These women and children hid in the conduit alongside the stepped street. The conduit, designed to channel rain water away from the street is large enough to hide in. Eventually the fugitives were discovered by the Romans. Some of them were killed while others became slaves and most of them were exiled. For more than two thousand years the conduit and the street were buried under tons of rubble. During the excavation work at that site a part of the conduit was opened up. Inside it the archeologists found a number of earthenware cooking vessels untouched for two millennium . It seems the fugitives left them behind when the Roman soldiers forced them out of their hiding place.
Moving fast-forward to Tuesday this week when the Minister of Defence. Ehud Barak made a veiled reference to our arch-enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran. He reminded the assembled news media people that Israel is by far the strongest power in the region. The "don't mess with us" message was clear and unmistakable, intended for the Iranian government and our second league enemies. It was part of the latest round of sabre-rattling that came in the wake of a report published in the Guardian claiming that Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 missiles and upgrading its sea-based cruise missiles.
Israel has three submarines and two more are under construction in Germany. Israel and Germany are holding talks about the construction of a sixth submarine.
When commenting on sensitive defence related subjects news media people, analysts, politicians and public figures are careful to premise their remarks with the phrase “according to foreign media reports.”
I too, a rank and file citizen preface my comments likewise and say that according to foreign sources Israel's submarines are meant to give Israel a "second strike" nuclear option, meaning that Israel can strike back with nuclear weapons from submarines at hidden locations at sea even if its land based nuclear capability is impaired by an enemy nuclear strike.
If the reports of our upgrade programme are correct they are in line with a general upgrading. According to the same report in the Guardian, the world's nuclear states are planning to spend more than $800 billion in the coming years to modernise and upgrade their nuclear arsenals. The United States itself will spend $700 billion dollars on such projects. Other countries planning to invest in upgrading their nuclear arsenals are Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France and Britain.
In the past our governments’ verbal sabre-rattling was answered measure for measure by the Iranians. However, so far the Iranians only warned of dire consequences for the perpetrators of any attack on Iran.
Ehud Barak’s remarks sparked off a considerable internal debate involving the news media , fellow cabinet ministers and political opponents. Any comment on the Iranian topic is bound to have far-reaching repercussions in both Jerusalem and Teheran. Even Benny Begin’s angry retort that irresponsible government statements are dangerous and counterproductive aggravated the debate further. Ironically they swelled the volume of official declarations provoking a round of counter remarks.
I don’t know if the report in the Guardian really caused so much comment
MSNBC provided an interesting slant on this topic “An Israeli official(unnamed of course) said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program — a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.
It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to focus on the Iranian programme at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start cooperating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons programme.
The Guardian followed up with another Iran related report. This time the paper claimed that Britain's armed forces are considering contingency options to back up possible missile strikes by the U.S. on key Iranian facilities. Military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
Commenting on Israel’s much publicised debate on countering the Iranian threat MSNBC said, “Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians.
In a speech to parliament this week, Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a ‘dire threat’ to the world and ‘a grave, direct threat on us, too.’
His hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was dismissive of the reports but added: ‘We are keeping all the options on the table.’
The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, told The Associated Press that the option is now being debated at the highest levels.
The official confirmed a report Wednesday in Haaretz that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of Cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel's top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and the Mossad oppose military action.
It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a Cabinet decision. Israel's 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor was preceded by a Cabinet vote.”
Speculation regarding the attack option increased on Wednesday following the successful test of an advanced long-range Israeli missile, presumed to be the latest version of the Jericho missile. In addition news of a recent joint Israeli and Italian air force exercise conducted last week in Sardinia for the purpose of testing long range flights, tended to make the speculation more credible. The fact that both the missile test and the air force exercise had been planned months ago, were disregarded by the speculation mongers.
Clearly, attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is fraught with difficulties and dangers. A war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, (described as a center-left think tank,) appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge. The McClatchy Washington Bureau quoted a few conclusions from the war game. The given scenario is a go it alone pre-emptive Israeli attack. In the game the strike is successful, wiping out six of Iran's key sites and setting back its suspected quest for a bomb by years.
“ The U.S. president and his National Security Council try to keep the crisis from escalating. That sours U.S.-Israeli relations, already stressed by the fact that Israel didn't inform Washington in advance of the strike. The White House tries to open a channel for talks with Iran, but is rejected.
Instead, Iran attacks Israel, both directly and through its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It misinterprets U.S. actions as weakness and mines the Straits of Hormuz, the world's chief oil artery. That sparks a clash and a massive U.S. military reinforcement in the Persian Gulf.”
Some of the people who acted the sides in the game played late last year are quick to point out that war games are imperfect mirrors of reality. “How Iran's notoriously opaque and fractious leadership would react in a real crisis is particularly hard to divine,” admitted the Saban Center for Middle East Policy researchers.
Israel’s dilemma is unenviable. It can’t ignore Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe it off the map. Iran’s unrelenting efforts to develop nuclear weapons can’t be left unchallenged. On the other hand an attack that doesn’t destroy Iran’s ability to counter attack would be disastrous for Israel.
I mentioned the women and children hiding in the conduit by the Herodian stepped street because that was arguably the most devastating point in Jewish history. Admittedly there were survivors and another major revolt, but it marked a low point in our history. Their cooking bowls trapped in a time capsule are a tangible reminder of their plight. A plight that stands in sharp contrast to Israel’s present situation. We have plenty of problems, many of them of our own making. Nevertheless, Israel is a force to be reckoned with.
Even if it’s difficult to divine how Ahmadinejad will react, he too faces a similar dilemma.
No good news this week. Just the same, ignore the gloom and have a good weekend.
Beni 3rd of November, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment