NEWS,26.03.2012.

Israel sees new advantage in Iron Dome anti-missile system

Israel's newest weapon sits squarely along the border of this southern Israeli town. The Iron Dome, a rocket interception system built by Israel, guards many of the cities that lie within the range of rockets fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. The system, considered among the most advanced in the world, fires a missile to intercept incoming rockets after it gauges whether a rocket will fall in an area where it can cause damage. It is, according to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a "game changer."When violence flared along the Israel-Gaza border earlier this month, the effectiveness of the Iron Dome was tested, and Israeli officials couldn't have been more pleased.Of the approximately 250 rockets and mortars fired at Israel from Gaza, 166 entered Israel's airspace, officials said. Of those, 74 would have struck civilian areas or buildings. The Iron Dome system intercepted 56 before they could land, a success rate of 75 percent. Israeli officials argue, however, that the Iron Dome also identified rockets that were headed for open areas, such as fields, and let them land harmlessly. Factoring those in, Israeli military officials argue that only 18 of the 166 landed anywhere on target, giving the system a success rate of nearly 90 percent.Israeli military officers and politicians said the success of the system gave Israel "diplomatic maneuverability" that it didn't have previously. Israel Defense Forces chief Benny Gantz described the Iron Dome's impact as a "serious and historical military change."Gantz said the ability to protect Israeli population centers from rocket attacks removed one of the key factors that the military had always seen as a limitation on its operations: what the likelihood was of reprisals.Now, Gantz added, the Israeli military can operate relatively undeterred without concern about rocket attacks. The barrage of rockets earlier this month was triggered by the targeted killing in a drone strike of Zuhair al Qaissi, a senior member of the Popular Resistance Committee, an umbrella group that includes militants from various Palestinian factions.Iron Dome is just the beginning, Gantz said. While it focuses on smaller rockets with a relatively short range, such as those from the Gaza Strip, Israel is installing other systems that are intended to stop larger missiles, fired from farther away.David's Sling, a system built in conjunction with the U.S. military, is designed to intercept medium- to long-range rockets and cruise missiles, such as those possessed by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Another system, the Arrow, also developed with the United States, would intercept ballistic missiles fired from hundreds of miles away.Israeli military officials said they hoped the systems would deter militants from firing rockets."If they know we have the ability to stop their rockets from hitting their targets, they might abandon this method," said one Israel Defense Forces officer, who spoke to reporters recently on the condition of anonymity. "In the long run we can hope for this."Already though, the impact on Israeli residents of the south has been felt. Writing in The Jerusalem Post, military analyst Yaakov Katz said that, "Israel's political leadership is under less pressure from the public that is under the rocket fire. As a result, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Defense Minister Ehud Barak feel a need to escalate the operation."Meira Cohanim, a 56-year-old resident of Ashkelon, said she felt comforted that the military was trying to intercept missiles from Gaza, even if the system wasn't 100 percent effective."Before, you had this feeling that the rockets were just pounding away," she said. "And they would land wherever they did and your home was hit or it wasn't. Now there is a feeling that something might be changing; we might be protected."Iron Dome, she said, might give the Israel Defense Forces more leeway to operate in Gaza, but she hoped that it wouldn't mean another war."The people in Gaza don't have Iron Dome or even bomb shelters. I know some people here think it's good for us to attack them, but there are innocents and children there, too," she said. "I hope Iron Dome brings peace, not one-sided war."

NEWS,03.01.2012.

U.S. anxiety grows over possible Israeli plans on Iran

European and U.S. diplomats say Obama administration worried about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program.

The Obama administration is increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program but does not have hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said. The U.S. uncertainty and lack of information about Israel's plans on Iran were behind an alarming assessment of the situation reportedly voiced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the officials said. David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who specializes in intelligence matters, reported that Panetta believed there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear program within the next six months - as early as April, Ignatius wrote. Three U.S. officials who follow the issue said their understanding was that the United States did not have concrete intelligence suggesting an attack by Israel on Iran in that time frame was likely or actively being prepared. The current U.S. assessment is that for months Israel had been making contingency plans and tentative preparations both for such an operation and for possible Iranian retaliation, two of the officials said. Nonetheless, said the officials, indications were that Israel's leadership had not made a final decision to attack Iran. Ken Pollack, a former White House and CIA official with expertise on the Gulf, said the sudden rise in public discussion of an Israeli strike on Iran's known nuclear sites - including increasingly dire warnings from Israel's leaders - were misleading. "If Israel has a good military option, they just take it, they don't talk about it, they don't give warnings," said Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "So the fact that they are talking about it, to me, is one tip-off that they don't have a good military option. "We should never rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike and the odds have probably increased in recent months as a result of a number of different factors. But ... there are a lot of disincentives that have prevented Israel from launching a strike for 10 years," Pollack said. Panetta was vague when asked by journalists to confirm what the Washington Post had reported. "Frankly, I'm not going to comment on that," he told reporters travelling with him in Europe. "David Ignatius, you know, can write what he will but, you know, with regards to what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else." When pressed further, Panetta said: "There really isn't that much to add except that, you know, that they're considering this and, you know, we have indicated our concerns." Asked about the background to Panetta's reported views, one of the U.S. officials noted that Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, had been "increasingly vocal" in expressing concern that Israel might be "running out of time" to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The official said that some Israelis have indicated their view that in the next three or four months the need for Israeli action could become critical. But the view of many career experts inside the U.S. government is that Iran's nuclear development program, which Tehran insists is for civilian nuclear purposes, is unlikely to pass the point of no return in that time. Earlier this week, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress and publicly re-stated the long-standing view of U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran's leaders have not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon. Many, if not most, Western experts believe it would take Iran at least a year to build a weapon once leaders decided to go ahead. But some Israel leaders and experts believe that an attack would have to be launched earlier if Iran's nuclear effort is to be set back seriously. Barak has warned that Iran's nuclear research could soon pass into what he called a "zone of immunity," protected from outside disruption. Barak recently was quoted telling a security conference in Israel, "Later is too late," one of the U.S. officials noted. The official said that U.S. policymakers had to be concerned about the possibility of an early Israeli attack "given that Barak and Netanyahu seem so determined to do it." In January an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by man who attached a bomb to his car - the fifth such attack in two years. Israel's military chief said Iran could expect more such incidents. One of the U.S. officials said that while Israel may have the military capability to delay Iran's nuclear effort for a period of time, to deal the Iranian program a serious and long-term setback would require additional military power, presumably from the United States. But Panetta's alleged remarks and other Obama administration's statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action - and distancing itself from an Israel strike if persuasion fails. A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election. Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel's actions. "The U.S. is not too excited about engaging with Israel or being part of anything at this point," one official said. A European defence analyst, who has access to classified all-source intelligence, said that while Iran's behaviour was relatively predictable, the greatest uncertainties facing the U.S and its allies stemmed from Israel's stance. Despite internal power squabbles, the analyst said, Iran has been "quite restrained and limited in its responses." Recent inflammatory comments by Iranian leaders, such as threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, were relatively low-intensity compared to other threats and physical confrontations in the Gulf of past years. "Israel is, practically speaking, the wild card in the pack," the analyst said. "We have no specific information on when or if they will attack but based on their past history and current stance, it is something we do expect at some point."