[imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1367 (10 messages)

imra Sun Apr 9 02:20:07 2006 Volume 2 : Issue 1367

In this issue of the imra daily Digest:

Excerpts : Conflict between Abbas and Hamas.
Worry about Iran.7 April 2006
Excerpts: Israel in joint NATO operation.
Jordanian journalists' freedom. 8 April 2006
PNA Criticizes European and US Suspension
of Assistance to Palestinian Government
US$5 billion development project to kick off in Aqaba
Jordan News Agency carries inciting article on
" Israeli Acts to Juadize the Al Aqsa Mosque"
New Yorker Article: Would President Bush go
to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
ISRAEL'S MILITARY PRESSES FOR GAZA INVASION
Text: Olmert Newsweek interview: retreat not
conditioned on recognition of retreat border,
vague on IDF presence
Column One: The rise of the Islamist axis
Officials: Work to protect villages from Qassams going slowly

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts : Conflict between Abbas and Hamas.
Worry about Iran.7 April 2006

Excerpts : Conflict between Abbas and Hamas.Worry about Iran.7 April 2006

+++THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon) 7 April'06: "Hamas to take control of security
forces" DS Staff
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"new [Hamas] government on a collision course with Abbas"

"Abbas' actions aimed at persuading the international community that he,
not Hamas, is in charge"

"[Hamas P.M.] there was no change in Hamas' policies [towards Israel]"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya said Thursday his Cabinet will
take control of the Palestinian security forces, putting his new government
on a collision course with President Mahmoud Abbas who is working to
consolidate his power. ... .
...Abbas ... installed a longtime ally as head of three security branches
that were nominally under Hamas' control and told the group that it had to
clear all foreign policy moves with him.
Abbas' actions appeared aimed at persuading the international community that
he, not Hamas, is in charge.
[Prime Minister] Haniyya told The Associated Press that he rejected any
attempts to take power away from Hamas.
. . .
Abbas already heads the National Security Council (NSC), which has the final
say over the Palestinian security forces, and he can issue wide-ranging
decrees that do not need parliamentary approval. ... .
. . .Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas heads, ordered the
Foreign Ministry to coordinate with it before making major pronouncements on
diplomatic policy. The PLO is technically in charge of the Palestinians'
foreign affairs.
. . ..
Abbas has said he wants to resume peace talks with Israel, and [Hamas P.M.]
Haniyya said he would not stand in the way of those talks.
. . .
When asked if he was a pragmatic man and would recognize Israel, he said:
... there was no change in Hamas' policies. . . .

+++JORDAN TIMES 7-8 April '06:"Arabs increasingly uneasy with Iran ways
",Jim Krane-Assoc.Press

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"United States, Israel and the Gulf Arab States ... are all focussed on
Iran"

"Arab states more nervous that there could be future menace in Terhan's
ways"

" ' [Iran} ready for a challenge and tehy are willing to take that
challenge as
far as possible' "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
DUBAI - It's not often the United States, Israel and the Gulf Arab states
worry about the same thing. But right now, they are all focused on Iran.
The country's spiralling militarism ... plus its influence in Iraq and its
controversial president, appear to be making some Arab states more nervous
that there could be future menace in Tehran's ways.
. . .
There is the feeling that attacking Iran at the moment plays into the hands
of Israel ... "But Tehran deserves a lot of this. Unfortunately, it's going
in a very worrying direction."
The Arab world has long had on-and-off tense relations with Iran. Many Arab
countries backed then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in his 1980s war against
Iran. They also have worried for decades that Iran's Shiite-majority Islamic
theocracy could spill over onto into their largely Sunni countries, all of
which have Shiite minorities.
But the relations have plummeted since the election last year of Iran's
firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Since then, Gulf Arab countries have offered quiet support for moves against
Iran's nuclear programme, which, despite Tehran's assurances to the
contrary, many fear is aimed at creating weapons, said Abdulla.
. . .
"If the Security Council imposes restrictions on Iran, these [Gulf Arab]
countries will be happy to join those sanctions or boycott against Iran,"
... .
... greatest worry is that the United States might launch military action
against Iran ... destabilise the region and draw retaliation against them.
Many here also blame the United States for empowering Iran by launching the
2003 invasion of Iraq. That war destroyed an Arab military, led by Saddam,
seen regionally as a bulwark against Iranian domination of the Gulf, while
leaving Baghdad open to Iranian political manipulation, Abdulla said.
Top intelligence officers from several Arab countries, including Egypt,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have been meeting secretly to
coordinate their governments' strategies in an attempt to block Iran's
interference in war-torn Iraq, ... .
... Ahmadinejad's war games were giving America "an excuse to start a
showdown." ... ."A future war will destroy everything Iran has achieved in
a matter of days, if not hours, as happened in the case of Saddam."
... Iran assured its neighbours that its manoeuvres and missile tests aren't
aimed at them. It made clear they were meant to impress the United States
and Israel.
Saudi Foreign Minister ... said ... the kingdom sees no threat in Iran's
military manoeuvres or its civilian nuclear power ambitions.... "No expert
in the region takes this backward technology seriously," ... "What is
frightening is the message the new Iranian administration is conveying: They
are ready for a challenge and they are willing to take that challenge as far
as possible."

Sue Lerner, Associate - IMRA

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Israel in joint NATO operation.
Jordanian journalists' freedom. 8 April 2006

Excerpts: Israel in joint NATO operation.Jordanian journalists' freedom. 8
April 2006

+++The Daily Star(Lebanon) 8 April 2006
"Algeria, Israel,Morocco to join NATO maritime operations"(AFP)

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"NATO has agreement in principle that the three countries should take part"

" 'based on three convictions: the independence on security matters ... the
political will to address questions on security and that dialogue is the
chosen means' "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT:

RABAT: NATO has accepted a proposal that Algeria, Israel and Morocco take
part in an alliance maritime operation, a senior official said Friday in
Rabat. "NATO has given its agreement in principle that the three countries
should take part" in an operation to monitor merchant shipping in the area
of the Strait of Gibraltar, NATO deputy general secretary Alessandro Minuto
Rizzo told reporters.
NATO launched the operation, called Active Endeavor, after the September 11,
2001, attacks in the United States.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its seven partner countries on
the Mediterranean rim opened talks Friday in Rabat aimed at reinforcing the
political and military cooperation initiated 11 years ago.
Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania and Tunisia are the other states concerned. It is
the first time that NATO has held a high-level meeting in an Arab country.
The participants have agreed to set up a "partnership cell" to make easier
cooperation between the alliance and the countries of the south, Rizzo said.
Rizzo chaired the talks as NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was unable to
attend the meeting due to illness.
"The Mediterranean dialogue is based on three convictions: the independence
on security matters of the countries in the region, the political will to
address questions of security, and that dialogue is the chosen means,"
Minuto Rizzo said at the opening of the conference.
The so-called Mediterranean dialogue program was set up in 1995, but has
never really taken off because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and some
countries' concerns about dealing with a U.S.-dominated military alliance.
Two years ago NATO, keen to bolster relations with the Arab world, agreed to
give it fresh impetus, and defense ministers convened in February in Sicily.
De Hoop Scheffer said then that NATO needed to improve its public image in
the Middle East and North Africa.
Algeria, Israel and Morocco are particularly interested in joining the
NATO-led anti-terror naval sweeps in the Mediterranean and around
Gibraltar. - AFP

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 8 April.'06:
"Jordan Journalists Who Visit Israel Will Be Punished "
Abdul Jalil Mustafa, Arab News -

QUOTE FROM TEXT:
" ' The Jordan Press Association council will take deterrent measures
against journalists who violate its decision that bans any form of
normalization (with Israel)' "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT:

AMMAN, 8 April 2006 - The Jordanian Press Association has threatened to
inflict "deterrent" punishment on member journalists who visit Israel in
violation of a previous decision that bars normalization with the Jewish
state. "The JPA council will take deterrent measures against journalists who
violate its decision that bans any form of normalization (with Israel)," the
syndicate said in a statement yesterday.

[IMRA: Islamist-led professional association. Exclusion means
unemployment.]

The JPA council was responding to local press reports that 40 Jordanian
journalists, who mainly worked for the state-run Radio and Television
Corporation, planned to travel to Israel to attend a three-week training
course at Haifa University, designed to spread the "peace culture" in the
region.
"We wonder about the feasibility of such a visit at a time when Israel
violates all agreements and practices daily acts of killings, annexation of
land, violation of human rights and cracking down on the Palestinian
people," the syndicate said. It reminded members that both the JPA and the
Arab Press Federation "prohibit all forms of normalization with the Zionist
entity."

Sue Lerner, Associate - IMRA

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: PNA Criticizes European and US Suspension
of Assistance to Palestinian Government

PNA Criticizes European and US Suspension of Assistance to Palestinian
Government
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=15141

GAZA, April 8, 2006 (IPC + Agencies) [Official PA website]- - President
Mahmoud Abbas announced his rejection to the European and American
declaration of suspending financial assistance of the new Palestinian
government, following a meeting with the Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and a
number of other ministers.

"Any punishment of the Palestinian people for his democratic choice is
refused by us," President Abbas said, adding that the government formed by
Hamas movement is one elected by the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).

Commenting on the reports that some countries wish to funnel their support
through the presidency establishment, the President said no one has
discussed this matter with him so far "and we only heard about it in the
media."

On his part, the government spokesman Ghazi Hamad asserted that this
decision is an extortion that harms the interests of civilians, criticizing
the punishment of the Palestinian people for voting Hamas in the last
parliamentary elections.

Hamad added that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is in need of
$60-80 million to cover the monthly salaries of employees that were not yet
paid, noting that the European Union had been offering $600 million every
year to the PNA.

In Brussels, the spokesperson for the European Commissioner for External
Relations Emma Udwin declared on Friday that Europe will suspend its
assistance "in the meantime" for the PNA after Hamas movement formed the
government.

"We will not offer in the current time any funds to or through the
Palestinian Authority," Udwin said, pointing out that this procedure will be
followed until a decision by the European foreign ministers is made.

Next Monday, the European foreign ministers will meet in Luxembourg in order
to discuss the suspension of direct financial assistance to the PNA..

A British official said yesterday that the European Commission will suspend
assistance to the Palestinian government because it didn't recognize Israel
or renounce violence, adding that these are the international community's
demands for Hamas to resume assistance.

The European Commission offers an annual amount of EUR250 million to the
Palestinians, half of them almost goes directly to the PNA. The EU member
states offer an additional EUR250 million each year.

At the same context, the spokesman for the United States Department of
State, Sean McCormack, said that the US government has also decided to
suspend its direct assistance to the Palestinian government, but increased
by 57 percent its humanitarian assistance offered through the United
Nations.

"Because the new Hamas-led Palestinian government has failed to accept the
Quartet principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel and respect for
previous agreements between the parties, the United States is suspending
assistance to the Palestinian government's cabinet and ministries,"
McCormack said, quoting a statement by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice.

He added that in return, the US will increase the humanitarian assistance it
offers in the Palestinian territories to $245 million, which will be
"administered through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and
non-Palestinian Authority actors, including local and international
nongovernmental organizations."

On the other hand, a committee in the US Senate retracted the imposition of
restrictions in the American assistance to the Hamas-led Palestinian
Authority, and approved a bill that could allow the US President George W.
Bush to find methods to offer limited assistance.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved a law to suspend indirect
humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian Authority and limit it to those
to Non-Governmental Organizations and restrict diplomatic communication with
representatives of Hamas movement, which is considered a terrorist
organization by Washington.

However, the law offers concessions and decreases the timeframe for
informing the Congress in order to give the administration more flexibility.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: US$5 billion development project to kick off in Aqaba

A 5bln development project to kick off in Aqaba
www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2006/Apr/08/58.htm

Aqaba, April 8 (Petra-Jordan News Agency) -- Under the patronage of His
Majesty King Abdullah II, a memorandum of understanding was signed between
Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA) and Horizon Holding company
for Development to launch a five-billion dollar project in Aqaba, deemed to
be one of the biggest developmental project in the region.

ASEZA Commissioner Nadir Dhabi signed the MoU and Chairman of Horizon
Holding corporate Board of Directors Sheikh Bahaa Edine Harriri.

The project seeks to enhance all sectors in Aqaba, mainly socio-economic
sector, which will transform ASEZA's economy into integrated one including
banks, light industries, services, public facilities, tourism and culture.

The main object of this project resides in enhancing the loyalty of citizens
to the city and catalyzes them to seek a permanent
home in Aqaba by providing them with basic services round the clock.

Harriri said the socio-economic results to develop this city were positive
and would contribute to reach the demanding growth Aqaba pursuits.

ASEZA's aim is to become an int'l tourist and investment hub, Dhabi said.

Wardat/Petra

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Jordan News Agency carries inciting article on
" Israeli Acts to Juadize the Al Aqsa Mosque"

[IMRA: "sound and light effects to show visitors of the site as if the Al
Aqsa Mosque is a Jewish synagogue" = sound and light show illustrating how
the Temple Mount appeared before the Second Temple was destroyed by the
Romans.]

Husseini Warns Against Israeli Acts to Juadize the Al Aqsa Mosque
www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2006/Apr/08/11.htm

Occupied Jerusalem, April 8 (Petra - Jordan News Agency)--Israel is carrying
out a plan through its departments, schools and religious societies to
control the Al Aqsa Mosque and juadize it," Director of Islamic Awqaf in
Jerusalem Adnan Husseini said.

In an interview with Jordan News Agency, Petra, he added that the
excavations Israel is carrying out under the mosque, is one of these methods
to juadize the area. "Israel has been taking measures since its occupation
of Jerusalem to control the Al Aqsa Mosque and turn it into a Jewish
synagogue," he added.

The Israeli excavations in the area began immediately after the occupation
of Jerusalem with erasing the Magharebah and Sharaf Neighborhoods, the area
of which is 116 dunms or 12% of Jerusalem's old city.

Al Husseini warned against the Israeli excavations, saying that, they are
designed to change the historical facts of Islamic buildings they try to
reach through these excavations. "What is happening is totally unfair
because Israel carries our excavations in an occupied city and without the
consent of its owners," he said.

The Islamic awqaf director said that excavations that been carried out so
far have shown that 80% of the discovered site are Islamic, while 20% were
date to the periods the Byzantines and the Romans.

Israel, he said, uses various techniques during tourism season like sound
and light effects to show visitors of the site as if the Al Aqsa Mosque is a
Jewish synagogue.

//Petra//om

08/04/2006 11:50:22

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: New Yorker Article: Would President Bush go
to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH - The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10
www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to
stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine
activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air
attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said
that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of
American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect
targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority
groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the
Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this
spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the
capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing
estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or
military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its
research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military,
and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in
the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said
that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House
view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official
said. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic
weapon and threaten another world war?' "

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the
Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get
the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he
must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would
have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the
Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a
belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the
religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the
government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself,
'What are they smoking?' "

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick
Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of
President Bush. "So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a
nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely," Clawson told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. "The key issue, therefore, is: How
long will the present Iranian regime last?"

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that "this Administration is putting
a lot of effort into diplomacy." However, he
added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America's demands or face
a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad "sees the
West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to
deal with Iran if the crisis escalates." Clawson said that he would prefer
to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as "industrial
accidents." But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war,
"given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade
Quebec."

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the
high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of
"coercion" aimed at Iran. "You have to be ready to go, and we'll see how
they respond," the officer said. "You have to really show a threat in order
to get Ahmadinejad to back down." He added, "People think Bush has been
focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11," but, "in my view, if you had to name
one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran." (In response
to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not
comment on military planning but added, "As the President has indicated, we
are pursuing a diplomatic solution"; the Defense Department also said that
Iran was being dealt with through "diplomatic channels" but wouldn't
elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were "inaccuracies" in this
account but would not specify them.)

"This is much more than a nuclear issue," one high-ranking diplomat told me
in Vienna. "That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it.
But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the
hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the
Middle East and its oil in the next ten years."

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view.
"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to
change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," he said. The
danger, he said, was that "it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that
the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability." A
military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk
of terror: "Hezbollah comes into play," the adviser said, referring to the
terror group that is considered one of the world's most successful, and
which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. "And here
comes Al Qaeda."

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on
plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at
least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee,
who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with
his colleagues, told me that there had been "no formal briefings," because
"they're reluctant to brief the minority. They're doing the Senate, somewhat
selectively."

The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to
the talk of war. "The people they're briefing are
the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How
are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep
enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There's no pressure
from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. "The
only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of
President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that
this guy has a messianic vision."

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already
under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the
Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery
missions-rapid ascending maneuvers known as "over the shoulder"
bombing-since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian
coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in
Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National
War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an
estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Working
from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that
at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don't think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran
probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would
want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been
moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft.
. . . We'd want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets
that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the
cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the
facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The
U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House
by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical
nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One
target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles
south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards,
reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges,
and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet
beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough
enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has
acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program
hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current
activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of
Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the
conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the
destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock,
especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with
nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence
community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground
complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was
designed for "continuity of government"-for the political and military
leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in
Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility
still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified.
"The 'tell' "-the giveaway-"was the ventilator shafts, some of which were
disguised," the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he
said, it was determined that "only nukes" could destroy the bunker. He added
that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped
the Iranians design their underground facility. "We see a similarity of
design," specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view,
even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to "go in there and do enough
damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure-it's feasible." The former
defense official said, "The Iranians don't have friends, and we can tell
them that, if necessary, we'll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The
United States should act like we're ready to go." He added, "We don't have
to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff
missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on
the ground, too, but it's difficult and very dangerous-put bad stuff in
ventilator shafts and put them to sleep."

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former
senior intelligence official, "say 'No way.' You've got to know what's
underneath-to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or
which are false. And there's a lot that we don't know." The lack of reliable
intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying
the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear
weapons. "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would
leave a gap," the former senior intelligence official said. " 'Decisive' is
the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made
it in Japan."

He went on, "Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the
technical details of damage and fallout-we're talking about mushroom clouds,
radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an
underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little
bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get
it out"-remove the nuclear option-"they're shouted down."

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings
inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added,
and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war
plans for Iran-without success, the former intelligence official said. "The
White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The option came from you. "

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the
Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a
resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians
and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped."
He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering
resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the
military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the
adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a
decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give
President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly
opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on
this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior
Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear
weapons, then it will never happen."

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons
in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an
advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld. "They're telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more
blast and less radiation," he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an
Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan
Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office,
Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the
National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel's
report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of
the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability "for those occasions when the
certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and
beyond the promise of conventional weapons." Several signers of the report
are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen
Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. "The Iranians have
distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some
of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country," he said. He
warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain
reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the
world: "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably
expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is
also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued
against an air attack on Iran, because "Iran is a much tougher target" than
Iraq. But, he added, "If you're going to do any bombing to stop the nukes,
you might as well improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training
camps, and clear up a lot of other problems."

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force
intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but
that "ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation.
There are people who believe it's the way to operate"-that the
Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign,
an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now
operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with
laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties.
As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties
to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority
groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the
southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops "are studying the
terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and
recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds," the consultant said. One
goal is to get "eyes on the ground"-quoting a line from "Othello," he said,
"Give me the ocular proof." The broader aim, the consultant said, is to
"encourage ethnic tensions" and undermine the regime.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld's long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in
covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon's
Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if
conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would
have to be reported to key members of Congress.

" 'Force protection' is the new buzzword," the former senior intelligence
official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon's position that
clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the
battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations,
and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. "The guys in the
Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran," he
said. "We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green
light to do everything we want."

The President's deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his
determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations
that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary
Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late
eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad's official biography in this
period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a
terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy
and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the
security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.'s list of most-wanted
terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for
two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues
in the Iranian government "are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and
launching it at Israel. They're apocalyptic Shiites. If you're sitting in
Tel Aviv and you believe they've got nukes and missiles-you've got to take
them out. These guys are nuts, and there's no reason to back off."

Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base
throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced
thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United
Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the
turnover as "a white coup," with ominous implications for the West.
"Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be
kicked out," he said. "We may be too late. These guys now believe that they
are stronger than ever since the revolution." He said that, particularly in
consideration of China's emergence as a superpower, Iran's attitude was "To
hell with the West. You can do as much as you like."

Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many
experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. "Ahmadinejad is not
in control," one European diplomat told me. "Power is diffuse in Iran. The
Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but,
ultimately, I don't think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has
the casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action
without his approval."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that "allowing Iran to have
the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to
a terror network. It's just too dangerous." He added, "The whole internal
debate is on which way to go"-in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It
is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its
nuclear plans-and forestall the American action. "God may smile on us, but I
don't think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons
state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a
nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is
going to happen."

While almost no one disputes Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is intense
debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that.
Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now
the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, "Based on
what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away" from developing a
deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, "If they had a covert nuclear
program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation,
diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I'd be in favor of taking it out. But
if you do it"-bomb Iran-"without being able to show there's a secret
program, you're in trouble."

Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, told the
Knesset last December that "Iran is one to two years away, at the latest,
from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their
nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter." In a conversation with me, a
senior Israeli intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran's
duplicity: "There are two parallel nuclear programs" inside Iran-the program
declared to the I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and
the Revolutionary Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this
argument, but Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard
Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term, told me, "I
think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program-I believe it, but I don't
know it."

In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to
A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani
atomic bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is
accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at least
one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In the most
recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran's weapons
design and its time line for building a bomb. "The picture is of
'unquestionable danger,' " the former senior intelligence official said.
(The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been "singing like a
canary.") The concern, the former senior official said, is that "Khan has
credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he's telling the
neoconservatives what they want to hear"-or what might be useful to Pakistan's
President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in
the war on terror.

"I think Khan's leading us on," the former intelligence official said. "I
don't know anybody who says, 'Here's the smoking gun.' But lights are
beginning to blink. He's feeding us information on the time line, and
targeting information is coming in from our own sources- sensors and the
covert teams. The C.I.A., which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to
the Pentagon and the Vice-President's office saying, 'It's all new stuff.'
People in the Administration are saying, 'We've got enough.' "

The Administration's case against Iran is compromised by its history of
promoting false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In a
recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled "Fool Me Twice,"
Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, wrote, "The unfolding administration
strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the
Iraq war." He noted several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the
threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East.
The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most
serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the
leading supporter of global terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration's claims about Iran
"questionable" or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, "What
do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?"
The answer, he said, "is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A." (In
August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive
National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from
being a nuclear power.)

Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it
said was new and alarming information about Iran's weapons program which had
been retrieved from an Iranian's laptop. The new data included more than a
thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post
reported that there were also designs for a small facility that could be
used in the uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the
focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were
generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but
also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be
legitimate. The headline in the Times' account read, "RELYING ON COMPUTER,
U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN'S NUCLEAR AIMS."

I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials,
however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had
been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited
by German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The
Americans eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the
Iranian was seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not
known where he is today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his
laptop and handed it over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a
classic "walk-in."

A European intelligence official said, "There was some hesitation on our
side" about what the materials really proved, "and we are still not
convinced." The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts
suggested, "but had the character of sketches," the European official said.
"It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun."

The threat of American military action has created dismay at the
headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency's officials believe that
Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an
inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran," the
high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.'s best estimate is that the
Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. "But, if the
United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a
bomb a matter of Iranian national pride," the diplomat said. "The whole
issue is America's risk assessment of Iran's future intentions, and they don't
trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy."

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year
between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.'s director-general, who won the
Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State
for Arms Control. Joseph's message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: "We
cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to
the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not
tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say
anything publicly that will undermine us. "

Joseph's heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the
I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. "All
of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think
the Iranian leadership are nutcases-one hundred per cent totally certified
nuts," the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei's overriding concern is
that the Iranian leaders "want confrontation, just like the neocons on the
other side"-in Washington. "At the end of the day, it will work only if the
United States agrees to talk to the Iranians."

The central question-whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to
enrich uranium-is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the
Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former
I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, "there's
nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome.
American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage
of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It's a dead end."

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, "Why would the West take the risk of
going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A.
to verify? We're low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran
to put its cards on the table." A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed
similar distress at the White House's dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, "If
you don't believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system-if
you don't trust them-you can only bomb."

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or
among its European allies. "We're quite frustrated with the
director-general," the European diplomat told me. "His basic approach has
been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It's
not. We're the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting
Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It's not
his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk."

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that
President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign
will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. "Everyone is on
the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime
change," a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, "The Europeans
have a role to play as long as they don't have to choose between going along
with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on
something they don't want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in
something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable."

"The Brits think this is a very bad idea," Flynt Leverett, a former National
Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution's Saban Center, told me, "but they're really worried we're going
to do it." The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British
Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, "short of a
smoking gun, it's going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on
Iran." He said that the British "are jumpy about the Americans going full
bore on the Iranians, with no compromise."

The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its
record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but "to the best of our
knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they could
successfully run centrifuges" to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for
pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran's essential pragmatism. "The regime
acts in its best interests," he said. Iran's leaders "take a hard-line
approach on the nuclear issue and they want to call the American bluff,"
believing that "the tougher they are the more likely the West will fold."
But, he said, "From what we've seen with Iran, they will appear
superconfident until the moment they back off."

The diplomat went on, "You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the
time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs
to bring the regime to its senses. It's going to be a close call, but I
think if there is unity in opposition and the price imposed"-in sanctions-"is
sufficient, they may back down. It's too early to give up on the U.N.
route." He added, "If the diplomatic process doesn't work, there is no
military 'solution.' There may be a military option, but the impact could be
catastrophic."

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush's most dependable
ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his
party have been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity
is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that
military action against Iran was "inconceivable." Blair has been more
circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the
table.

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an
American bombing campaign. "The Iranian
economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically," the
European intelligence official told me. "He will benefit politically from
American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse." An American
attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might
be sympathetic to the U.S. "Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and
the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love
it," he said. "If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would
be in trouble in the long run."

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington
wanted action. "It's always the same guys," he said, with a resigned shrug.
"There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is
short."

A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership
has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching
uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the
White House's interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country,
which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its
decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland
on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad's hostility toward Israel
as a "serious threat. It's a threat to world peace." He added, "I made it
clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect
our ally Israel."

Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to
consider the following questions: "What will happen in the other Islamic
countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us
globally-that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on
Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international
standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security
Council?"

Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not
have to cut off production to disrupt the world's oil markets. It could
blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage
through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the
recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of
such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by
conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. "It's
impossible to block passage," he said. The government consultant with ties
to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed,
pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep
America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I spoke
to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the price per
barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars
per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the duration and scope of the
conflict.

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet
minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed
on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United
Arab Emirates. "They would be at risk," he said, "and this could begin the
real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world."
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere,
with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that
the planning to counter such attacks "is consuming a lot of time" at U.S.
intelligence agencies. "The best terror network in the world has remained
neutral in the terror war for the past several years," the Pentagon adviser
on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. "This will mobilize them and put us
up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move
against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis
take them out, they will mobilize against us." (When I asked the government
consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets
into northern Israel, "Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish
them off.")

The adviser went on, "If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like
a candle." The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would
be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias
operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite,
has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star
general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the
region, "the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound
truck."
"If you attack," the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, "Ahmadinejad
will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility
and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians."

The diplomat went on, "There are people in Washington who would be unhappy
if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime
change. This is wishful thinking." He added, "The window of opportunity is
now."

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: ISRAEL'S MILITARY PRESSES FOR GAZA INVASION

ISRAEL'S MILITARY PRESSES FOR GAZA INVASION

TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military has been pressing for an invasion of
the Gaza Strip in an effort to reduce missile strikes on the Jewish state.

Officials said Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan
Halutz have been reviewing options for a ground attack on and the recapture
of the northern Gaza Strip. They said the military recommended the creation
of a buffer zone that would prevent Palestinian missiles from striking
strategic facilities near the Israeli city of Ashkelon.

"If God forbid a rocket falls on an oil terminal in one facility or another
that would ignite, this would lead to a much more complicated story and
perhaps a harsher [Israeli] response," [Res.] Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia,
former chief of the military's Southern Command, said.

Officials said military planners have conducted simulations of a rapid
takeover of northern Gaza. They said a combined task force of elite units --
backed by attack helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, main battle tanks
and surface naval vessels -- could control an area of some 40 square
kilometers within a day.
====
NOTE: The above is not the full item.
This service contains only a small portion of the information produced daily
by Middle East Newsline. For a subscription to the full service, please
contact Middle East Newsline at:
editor@menewsline.com for further details.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Text: Olmert Newsweek interview: retreat not
conditioned on recognition of retreat border,
vague on IDF presence

[IMRA: While acting PM Olmert said during his campaign that his retreat plan
is to retreat to "recognized final borders" - and he continues to say this
in Hebrew - in what is touted as his first English interview since the
elections, Mr. Olmert waters down the pre-condition that the retreat be to
"recognized final borders" (he will "seek" recognition) and takes a vague
stand on the possibility of an ongoing IDF presence in the area beyond the
retreat "border" (there not be "any Israeli presence" but
"I will keep all the military options to be able to combat terrorism
effectively everywhere") .

'We Are Ready to Change'
Israel's Ehud Olmert on his bold plan for a new border
By Lally Weymouth Newsweek April 17, 2006 issue
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12223150/site/newsweek/

Against the advice of his campaign managers, Ehud Olmert made a daring move.
In the midst of the recent elec�tion campaign, he decided to tell Israeli
voters that, if elected, he and his Kadima Party would pull Israeli settlers
out of most of the West Bank. The deci�sion may have cost him some support.
But Kadima still won more votes than any other party, and Olmert is now
putting together a governing coalition. He has one rule: those who join must
agree with
him on "convergence"-or withdrawal from much of the occupied territories.
Last week, in his first interview with a for�eign publication since the
election, Olmert sketched out his plans for NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth.
Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: You are forming your governing coalition.

OLMERT: The Labor Party is going to be a senior partner, but we will [also]
have a few more parties in the government.

Q: Will [Avigdor] Lieberman [leader of the right-wing party Yisrael
Beiteinu] join?

A: Lieberman will most likely be a member of the coalition government.

Q: And Shas?

A:And Shas, yes.

Q: So you will have a very broad coalition?

A: I hope so, yes. I think it would be good to try and form a national
consensus. [But] I declared before the elections what my plans are [for
withdrawing from the terri�tories] in a most explicit manner.

Q: I heard that your advisers warned you not to do this.

A: I was aware of the possibility that it would cost me some votes, but I
also knew that once I had made this statement and man�aged to win, I would
have a greater man�date to act. And I certainly intend now to go ahead and
not waste time.

Q: What do you mean by "convergence" as distinct from withdrawal?

A: The idea is that most of the settlements that would have to be removed .
will be converged into the blocs of settlements that will remain under
Israeli control.

Q: You're talking about [moving settlers to] Maale Adummim?

A: The blocs of settlements which include Maale Adummim, the Etzion bloc and
Ariel will be augmented by more settle�ments. The rest of the territories
will not have any Israeli presence and will allow territorial contiguity for
a future Palestin�ian state.

Q: Will the Army stay behind?

A: I will keep all the military options to be able to combat terrorism
effectively everywhere.

Q: Is the [separation] fence the basis of the border that you're thinking
about?

A: The fence will have to be adjusted to the makeup of these blocs of
settlements. No Israeli will live outside the fence-firstly for the sake of
security, and secondly for providing territorial congruity for the
Palestinians. The time has come for a change, and I am absolutely determined
to accomplish it. It's been discussed and debated and argued in Israel for
decades. I think that there is an opportunity now which never existed
before. This is a com�bination of the position of the public opinion of
Israel, my commitment, and the understanding and hopefully future support of
President George W. Bush.

Q: Would you want some kind of U.S. recogni�tion of the borders [you set
unilaterally]?

A: I will seek such recognition, yes.

Q: Do you expect some kind of a new alliance or new defensive pact from the
U.S.?

A: I understand that if this move will be accepted as a contribution to a
Middle East with less violence and terror, we will be able to reach an
understanding with the American government about some measures of support
that can be essential for the success of this move.

Q: Financial, military or both?

A: Everything that could be of assistance to the completion of such a huge
challenge will be on the agenda.

Q: You said you will give bilateral talks with the Palestinians a chance.

A: I will.

Q: How much time will you give the new Palestinian government?

A: I'm not expressing any ultimatum. If we reach the conclusion that the
Palestinians are not prepared to meet the requirements that lead to
negotiations, we will then move forward without a negotiating process. We
are ready to change. We are not pre�pared to wait forever.

Q: Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, is there a military option?

A: There is only one thing I can say: Israel will not tolerate a situation
in which Iran has effective control of non-conventional weapons that can be
used directly against the state of Israel.

Q: What did you learn from Ariel Sharon?

A: Perhaps the most important thing is the importance of remaining cool at a
time of crisis. I also learned from Sharon the merits of changing your
opinions and your mind.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Column One: The rise of the Islamist axis

Column One: The rise of the Islamist axis
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 6, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498814103&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

On Monday, Russia's Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported that part of Ukraine's
Soviet-era nuclear arsenal may well have found its way to Iran. With the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians agreed to transfer the Soviet
nuclear arsenal that remained in Ukraine after its independence to Russia.
According to Novaya Gazeta, some 250 nuclear warheads never made it to
Russia and are thought to have been sent to Iran instead. The report further
noted that the warheads will remain operational until 2010.

Responding to the report, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia's deputy defense
minister and the chief of General Staff said, "Russia's General Staff has no
information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or
not."

It is impossible to assess the accuracy of the report. The Ukrainian
government has dismissed its allegations. Russia may well have invented the
story to shift media attention away from the growing awareness that Russian
support for Teheran, Damascus and Hamas effectively places it in the enemy
camp in the US-led war against global jihad.

But whether this particular report is true or false, there is no doubt that
the danger to Israel and the rest of the Western world emanating from Iran
and its allies is growing by the day. In recent testimony before the US
Congress, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, said that the
danger that Teheran "will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to
integrate it with ballistic missiles that Iran already possesses" is a cause
"for immediate concern."

Also this week, as the Web site Regimechangeiran noted, the American Foreign
Policy Council published a report quoting Western intelligence sources
asserting that Iran is in the process of assembling intermediate range
ballistic missiles with a range of 4,500 km. The extended range will enable
Iran to hit almost all of Western Europe with nuclear warheads. The sources
further maintained that Iran is already in possession of at least one
nuclear bomb.

EVEN IF both Negroponte's testimony and the council's report are perceived
by some as alarmist, this week Iran itself continued to make every effort to
convince the world that assessments like these are grossly understated. Iran
conducted an enormous naval exercise called "Great Prophet" in the Persian
Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Almost every day of the exercise Iranian forces
demonstrated new radar-evading ballistic missile systems. While Western
defense establishments have had tepid responses to Iran's show of force, the
regime built on its provocations Wednesday when the supreme commander of its
Revolutionary Guards, Maj.-Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, issued a thinly veiled
threat to close the Straits of Hormuz - the narrow waterway through which 40
percent of the world's oil passes.

Iran's recent financial maneuverings also indicate general preparations for
global war. The Swiss newspaper Der Bund reported the Iranian regime
recently withdrew $31 billion of its gold reserves and foreign exchange from
European financial institutions. Additionally, this week Iran renewed its
gasoline rationing for the general public.

While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's poisonous and apocalyptic rhetoric has
caused the Western world to step away from him, Teheran is far from
isolated. To the contrary, today it perceives itself and is perceived by
others as the leader of a regional Islamist axis.

In February Canada's Globe and Mail published a report in which Hussein Hajj
Hassan, a Hizbullah member of the Lebanese parliament, declared that on
January 20 the Islamist axis was formally cemented in Damascus. The parley
which brought about the entente was led by Ahmadinejad and attended by axis
members Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah,
Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal, Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Abdullah Shalah and
the commanders of PLO breakaway front groups. Iraqi Shi'ite terror chief
Muqtada al-Sadr also pledged his allegiance to the axis. The jihad summit
took place five days before the Palestinian elections and on the same day a
suicide bomb exploded in Tel Aviv.

Damascus's response to the establishment of the axis and to Hamas's
electoral victory has been dramatic and disturbing. It has harshly curbed
all liberal political opposition to the Ba'athist regime. Voices of such
dissent were empowered by the firm international position taken against
Syria during the UN investigation of the assassination of former Lebanese
prime minister Rafik Hariri last year. Today many opponents of the regime
are in prison. At the same time, Assad's Alewite minority regime, that has
been radically secular since its establishment in the 1960s, is beginning to
open up to Islamist forces.

Michael Slackman, the New York Times correspondent in Damascus, reported the
change in the general atmosphere on Wednesday. He explained that current
situation reflects "at least in part a growing sense of confidence because
of shifts in the Middle East in recent months, especially the Hamas victory
in Palestinian elections, political paralysis in Lebanon and the intense
difficulties facing the United States in trying to stabilize Iraq and stymie
Iran's drive toward nuclear power." So in a nutshell, members of the Islamic
axis believe that they are on the march and that America and Israel are on
the retreat.

Although not present at the January jihad powwow in Damascus, al-Qaida is
intimately engaged in this Iran-led Islamist alliance. Britain's Sunday
Mirror reported that today al-Qaida forces operate within Iran's
Revolutionary Guards units in Iraq. Both the IDF and Palestinian Authority
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas admitted last month that al-Qaida units are operating
in Gaza. Also last month, Israel announced the arrest of two Palestinians
from Judea and Samaria who were planning to carry out attacks on Israel for
al-Qaida. Lebanon's government has also acknowledged a growing al-Qaida
presence in largely Palestinian enclaves. Al-Qaida has carried out attacks
against both Jordan and Israel from Jordan and against both Israel and Egypt
from its entrenched bases in the Sinai. Its commander in Iraq, Iranian ally
Abu Musab Zarqawi, has made it clear that al-Qaida has now made attacking
Israel one of its top priorities.

This week, the Daily Telegraph reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard
forces now control Hizbullah's posts along the border with northern Israel
and are developing an advanced intelligence gathering network for spying on
Israel. A senior IDF commander told the paper that Hizbullah posts built and
fortified by the Iranians just meters away from the international border are
"now Iran's frontline with Israel. The Iranians are using Hizbullah to spy
on us so that they can collect information for future attacks. And there is
very little we can do about it."

No doubt in an attempt to do something about it, this week Northern Command
conducted an enormous exercise which, according to the IDF Spokesman's
Office, tested "deployment of regular and reserve forces to the front,
establishment of bridgeheads, airlift of forces and supplies from the rear
to the front, deployment of forces on various missions, the operation of
logistics centers in the field and the provision of varied operational
responses to the activities of terrorist organizations on the Lebanese
front." By prominently posting a detailed report of the exercise on its
official Web site, the IDF was clearly attempting to signal Iran that Israel
is prepared for whatever awaits us.

Unfortunately - with all due respect to the IDF - Israel's enemies, who know
that the IDF is wholly subordinate to the political leadership, no longer
take its signals seriously. From Gaza to Teheran our enemies are acutely
aware of the weakness of our political leadership and its unwillingness to
contend with them. Today, the policy of the government is to take no account
of any events occurring beyond our indefensible pre-Six Day War boundaries
and to defame anyone who suggests they bear examination.

FOR MORE than two years, the Israeli government and media have told the
public that no matter how our enemies threaten us, they can do us no harm
because America is protecting us. Protected by America, Israelis are told
that we have no reason to fear the consequences of IDF retreats and the
transfer of vacated lands to Hamas.

Sadly, this promise is largely untrue. The Bush administration today is
bogged down in a swamp of strategic paralysis and political distress that
prevent it from designing clear policies regarding the war against global
jihad.

American policy towards the Palestinians is case in point: One day the Bush
administration announces that it is cutting its ties with the Hamas-led
Palestinian Authority and the next day it demands that Israel keep the
borders with Gaza open and promises to find a way to give direct aid to the
Palestinians that somehow will not strengthen Hamas.

As to Syria, the stubborn stance the administration maintained towards
Damascus during the months of Detlev Mehlis's investigation of Hariri's
murder has been replaced by no stance. Aside from finger pointing at
Damascus, Washington offers no plan for ending Syrian support for terrorists
in Lebanon, the PA and Iraq.

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal noted that during her weekend pit stop
in Baghdad, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came down publicly
against Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's bid to maintain his position in
the next government. Rice and her British counterpart, Jack Straw, announced
their governments' support for Finance Minister Adel Adul Mahdi, who serves
as the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which
is known to have strong relations with Teheran.

Rice's heavy-handed interference with Iraq's democratic processes goes hand
in hand with the administration's decision to open direct negotiations with
Iran for the first time since the Khomeini revolution in 1979. On Saturday,
direct US-Iranian negotiations on the stabilization of Iraq are scheduled to
begin. And as if the Bush administration's decision to legitimize Iran's
destabilizing position as a power broker in Iraq weren't enough, on Tuesday
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier met with Rice in Washington
and urged her to open a direct dialogue with Iran on its nuclear weapons
program.
All of these recent developments demonstrate that the members of the
Iran-led Islamist axis are actively pursuing and indeed progressing in their
quest to encircle Israel and entrap the US. This they accomplish - both
separately and together - while Israel and the US insist on doing everything
they can to prevent any possibility of effectively meeting the rising
threats. There is no doubt that the political leadership of at least one of
these states has to snap out of its policy fog immediately. Our enemies have
no consideration for our desire to ignore them.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Officials: Work to protect villages from Qassams going slowly

Officials: Work to protect villages from Qassams going slowly
By Yuval Azoulay Haaretz 9 April 2006
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/703984.html

Local officials say the work being done to brace communities targeted by
Qassams from the Gaza Strip is proceeding too slowly. A lack of budgets for
the work is being blamed for the situation.

At Kibbutz Zikim, which according Ashkelon Coast regional council data has
been hit by more than 50 Qassam rockets, the fortification work will be
completed only in a few months. Under the plan, all kibbutz homes will be
strengthened with a secure room attached to each. Kindergartens are still
undergoing fortification. An electronic perimeter fence will be put up, and
a new lighting system installed.

"Maybe the work will begin in the coming weeks. In any event, it's expected
to be a lengthy process," the regional council's security officer, Gideon
Sharabi, said this past weekend.

At adjacent Kibbutz Carmia, a neighborhood of 56 trailer homes was set up to
house people evacuated from the northern Gaza Strip in the disengagement.
About two months ago a baby was hit there by a Qassam that landed meters
from the family's trailer. Fortification work on the neighborhood has begun,
and each trailer will get a secure room. Meanwhile, 10 secure rooms have
been dispersed among the trailers. Sharabi says the fortification work will
be completed "within about two months."

Kibbutz residents, meanwhile, are feeling deprived. They are just as
vulnerable to attack, but the state is offering them only 30 secure rooms.

"A situation has been created in which the kibbutz has to decide which
residents will get protection and who won't," Sharabi said. "The kibbutz is
demanding that the defense establishment itself decide on the manner of
distributing secure room to residents. The kibbutz is demanding that every
house be fortified, and is prepared to cover 50 percent of the costs."

The five kindergartens at Carmia are also still in the process of being
fortified.

Moshav Netiv Ha'asara, smack up against the new border, seems
well-fortified: a secure room for each house, walls to protect residents
against light-weapons fire, a new perimeter fence, plentiful lighting and
reinforced posts at hitchhiking stops and playgrounds. However, the moshav's
greenhouses have not been fortified, and the farmers - particularly the Thai
workers employed there - are exposed to attack. A worried Sharabi said Thai
workers have begun leaving, which could result in damage to local
agriculture.

Kibbutz Yad Mordechai has no immediate plans for wide-scale fortification.
"It's simply that few rockets land there," Sharabi explained. "The kibbutz
was allocated 15 secure rooms, and the kindergartens are in the process of
being fortified." At the local high school, 13 mobile buildings will be
replaced with 13 fortified structures.

In Ashkelon, the "Red Dawn" early-warning system was installed months ago,
but the municipality and defense establishment decided not to operate it
throughout the city to avoid panic. Most of the rockets targeting Ashkelon
hit the southern industrial zone, which is also where strategic facilities
and the Rotenberg power station are located. Red Dawn is operated there when
needed, and fortification measures were recently installed, for example in
places where factory workers congregate.

"I don't want them to fortify the city. I want the Israel Defense Forces to
prevent the Palestinians, at any cost, from launching rockets at Ashkelon,"
says Ashkelon Mayor Roni Mehatzri.

In Sderot, all schools are supposed to be fortified, but so far work has
been completed only at seven kindergartens. "Everything is dragging on,"
says Mayor Eli Moyal."I understand it's all a matter of budget. It's cheaper
to stop the firing than to fortify."

At the kibbutzim Nir Am and Nahal Oz the kindergartens have been fortified,
and work on Nahal Oz homes is nearing completion.

The situation at the rest of the communities in the Sha'ar Hanegev region is
not encouraging: "Every community will get 10 secure rooms, but no budget
has been received to install them," Mayor Alon Schuster complained.

------------------------------

From: imra-owner@imra.org.il
Subject: IMRA Subscription Info

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe-digest@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For a copy of all reports distributed for a given day please send a
message to:

monday@imra.org.il tuesday@imra.org.il wednesday@imra.org.il
thursday@imra.org.il friday@imra.org.il
saturday@imra.org.il sunday@imra.org.il
--------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of [imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1367 (10 messages)
**********