On your next trip to Iran be sure to include the Alamut fortress in your itinerary. According to an Iranian ministry of tourism spokesman reconstruction work at the Alamut fortress in the country's southern Caspian province will make the site more accessible to tourists. This mountain fortress was conquered and destroyed by the Mongols in the thirteenth century. The Mongols took Alamut from the Ismaili Shia warriors ending the rule of these infamous Muslim The Alamut fortress
assassins. Apparently the word assassin is derived from the Farsi word Hashshashin, which shares its etymological roots with the word hashish. Founded by the Persian Hassan-i Sabbah, the Hashshashin were active in the fortress for about four hundred years. The group killed members of the Muslim Abbasis, Seljuk and Christian Crusader élite for political and religious reasons. Although it is commonly believed that the assassins were under the influence of hashish during their "missions," historians doubt if this is true. Ironically, modern Iran, the heir to mediaeval Persia, is currently plagued by a number of targeted killings. Iranian government spokesmen have accused the CIA, MI5 and the Mossad of assassinating a number of Iranian nuclear scientists. The latest victim was Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Eye witnesses reported that two men on a motorcycle affixed a magnetic bomb to Roshan's car while he was driving to work last week. So far the Iranian authorities haven't managed to exhibit a "smoking gun." Lack of tangible evidence hasn't bothered the commentators who were quick to assume the Mossad was responsible for the assassinations. To support their insinuations they quote remarks made separately by IDF chief of staff Lt-Gen Benny Gantz and Minister of Defence Ehud Barak, about the "unnatural" things happening in Iran. Just the same it's interesting to speculate why Mr. Barak's parents chose to name him Ehud. Presumably he was named after the biblical Ehud Ben Gera, the father of all assassins who slew Eglon King of Moab - Judges 3:20
In his Atlantic Magazine column Jeffrey Goldberg asks - “Does Israel, or whoever is assassinating Iranian scientists, believe that these killings will actually slow-down Iranian nuclear development? In other words, do the people behind the assassinations believe that Iranian nuclear knowledge is so concentrated in the minds of a few scientists that a limited series of assassinations can cripple the program?" Unwittingly, Yediot Ahronot military affairs analyst Ron Ben Yishai provided an answer to Goldberg’s question. “The most important aspect of the assassinations is the killing of people who constitute ‘knowledge bases.’ It is clear that any military strike on Iran would only thwart the nuclear and missile projects by a few years, but the elimination of key figures may extend the programs’ recovery period, if and when they’re attacked.” Ben Yishai too poses a question regarding the assassins’ identity – Mossad fingerprints? And follows by intimating, “All indications show that a state organ is behind the assassinations.” The US and Britain have flatly denied responsibility for the killings, whereas Israel has neither denied nor confirmed involvement in them. In an interview with Radio Free Europe, defence and security analyst Shashank Joshi said, “After the West -- the Western countries, the P5 countries [i.e. the five permanent members of the UN Security Council], and Germany -- have worked so hard to build this international coalition of sanctions against Iran, would they jeopardize that or would they provoke Iran even further at a time when they are trying to work very hard to get Iran back to the negotiating table? The suggestion, therefore, is that either this was a group not involved with those sanctions or a state that was impatient with those sanctions and didn't think they would work anyway." The interviewer also asked Joshi about the Mossad activity in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Perhaps this offers a clue regarding the identity of the assassins. Joshi believes the Kurdistan link is a red-herring. "However, in the murky world of assassinations and covert actions you can't rule out that possibility," he said.
Josh Mitnick Christian Science Monitor correspondent in Israel, also related to the efficacy of selective assassinations. “Few believe that the strikes will ultimately deny Iran of its goal of nuclear capability, but observers credit the covert campaign with slowing down Iran’s nuclear progress over years, giving more time for diplomats and pushing back the possibility of a military strike.” He goes on to quote Meir Elram, a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (TAU), "If anyone has a strategy to slow down the process, it’s a wise strategy,’’ Elram considers assassinations a legitimate tool in the fight against Iran. "If you weigh it against the risks, compared to an all-out assault on Iranian installations, it’s a much more measured and perhaps constructive tactic in the long run." Jeffrey Goldberg on the other hand points to the inherent danger of the assassination policy and argues that it doubles Iran’s determination to cross the nuclear threshold as fast as possible. “Once Ahmadinejad does that he is North Korea, or Pakistan: An untouchable country.”
Professor Avner Cohen author of “Israel and the Bomb” and "The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb," takes the moral high ground and asks, "Is it right to create a situation in which scientists (first nuclear scientists and then perhaps scientists in general and senior officials ) become pawns in a war of assassinations and counter-assassinations?" Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull wrote in the New York Times suggesting a way of "Preventing a Nuclear Iran, Peacefully." Relying on the findings of a public opinion poll conducted by the Israeli Dahaf Institute, they believe creating a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is the best way to defuse the present explosive situation. The findings were gleaned from a randomly selected group of 510 Israeli Jews canvassed by the Dahaf Institute. Not surprisingly the Dahaf poll barely raised a ripple of interest in Israel.
At this juncture it’s pertinent to add a comment on Israel’s nuclear ambiguity policy. In an article published in the Huffington Post, Daniel Wagner, managing director of Country Risk Solutions, a political risk consulting firm based in Connecticut,, provided an interesting analysis of our predicament . “Given the political upheaval in the region this year, it is only natural to wonder whether Israel's decades-old policy of nuclear ambiguity is likely to benefit Israel in the longer-term. From the perspective of prolonging the balance of power that still exists, maintaining the ambiguity will probably serve Israel well. As long as Israel's neighbors and enemies presume Israel has a substantial nuclear capability, Israel should remain secure from existential attack, but only until other regional powers themselves go nuclear. Then the calculus may change, and become more an issue of demonstrating that Israel's nuclear arsenal is larger than that of any other regional power. At that time, Israel will presumably have no choice but to formally declare its capability.” Wagner concludes, “Israel has been a net beneficiary of its policy of nuclear ambiguity, but whether Israel will be able to maintain a balance between its security and foreign policy objectives, and the ideals of transparency in a democratic society and a globalized world, remains to be seen. One thing is for certain - Israel cannot afford, and has no intention, of either admitting its capability or changing its geostrategic posture until and unless lasting peace is reached with the Palestinians and all of its neighbors. For that reason, it must be expected that Israel, and the world, will be waiting quite some time for Israel to either clarify its status or adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.)”
According to the usually reliable Jane's Defence Weekly in 2010 Israel had between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. Jane’s estimated that most of them are probably being kept in unassembled mode but can become fully functional in a matter of days.
Ron Ben Yishai explained the relatively restrained Iranian reaction to the attacks on its nuclear scientists. “Apparently the reason is Iran’s fear of Western retaliation. Any terror attack against Israel or another Western target – whether it is carried out directly by Iran or by Hezbollah – may prompt a Western response. Under such circumstances, Israel or a Western coalition (or both) will have an excellent pretext to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile sites. Moreover, Tehran fears that Israel will take advantage of an Iranian attack in order to strike the immense missile and rocket arsenals funded or built by Iran in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. The main aim of these arsenals is to serve as Iranian deterrence against a military strike. Hence, it is no wonder that Iran does not wish to jeopardize these strategic assets only to satisfy its hunger for revenge and restore the regime’s prestige. This is also the reason why the Iranians made sure in recent years that Hezbollah would not fire rockets at Israel, carry out attacks in Israeli territory, or avenge the assassination of the group’s military commander, Imad Mugniyah.”
Josh Mitnick quoted Haaretz columnist Yossi Melman, regarding the deterrent effect of the assassinations “The attacks are meant to strike fear among Iranian nuclear workers that they are risking their lives by working in the program – and deter potential recruits – while landing a blow to the prestige of the Iranian leadership. “ Mitnick himself said, “Many believe the repeated strikes against Iran are likely to ratchet up pressure on Iran to retaliate. Former Mossad director Danny Yatom told Israel Radio on Wednesday that Iranian reports of the assassination lays the groundwork to justify retaliation. Indeed, the chief editor of Iran's hard-line Kayhan newspaper, Hossein Shariatmadari, wrote a column pressing for just such a response. "Assassinations of Israeli military and officials are easily possible," he wrote.
“But because Israel refuses to confirm or deny the attacks,” says Mitnick,” Iran lacks an obvious smoking gun with which to justify escalating the conflict through an open strike on Israel. Instead, Iran is likely to look for a covert means of retaliation, which is more difficult to carry out.”
"The Iranian position is problematic; they threaten but don't act," Danny Yatom said. "They will have to do something if they want people to take them seriously and therefore I believe we are on an inevitable collision course."
Yaakov Katz, Jane’s Defence Weekly correspondent in Tel Aviv reported that the IDF and the Israeli Ministry of Defence are planning to establish a new aggregate corps that will specialise in carrying out long range military operations.
In other words preparing for the contingency of the “inevitable collision course,” Danny Yatom referred to.
Israel’s elite special forces are currently attached to various branches of the armed forces; “Shaldag” a target designation unit, is part of the Israel Air Force, Flotilla 13, the IDF equivalent to the US Navy SEALs, is part of the Israel Navy, and Sayeret Matkal, the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit, is part is part of the Military Intelligence Directorate. The new “Depth Corps” will oversee the operational activation of the three special forces, while the training and particular branch military doctrine will remain the responsibility of each parent military branch. Katz said, “Potentially, the Depth Corps could be involved in any Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, although such an operation would probably be conducted by the Israel Air Force unless ground troops were involved.”
Have a good weekend.
Beni 19th of January, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment