Historic first: IDF operates unmanned APC in Gaza

IDF modifies old M113 APC, giving it ability to carry four tons of supplies to soldiers in the field without endangering lives • Vehicle is operated remotely, can travel up to 50 kilometers per hour • IDF officer: We really broke ground with this.

 

During Operation Protective Edge, the Israel Defense Forces used a unmanned armored personnel carrier, a first in history. The vehicle was used to deliver supplies to soldiers on the battlefield.

"This is history," Lt. Avidav Goldstein, the head of the IDF's unmanned vehicle unit, said. "I feel we really broke ground in this realm. This is the first time in history, throughout the world, that such a thing has been done."

The IDF modified an old M113 APC (the type of APC in which seven Golani Brigade soldiers were killed by an anti-tank missile in Shujaiyya), giving it the ability to carry several tons of supplies to soldiers in the field without endangering lives.

The unmanned APC can travel 50 kilometers per hour (31 miles per hour) and hold around four tons of equipment. It is operated remotely by soldiers in a control vehicle, located inside Israel, which has a steering wheel, pedals and a screen

US Ospreys and Air Tankers Put Iran in Israel's Reach

The United States plans to give Israel weapons that would enable it to send ground forces against Iranian nuclear facilities that it can’t penetrate from the air.

The deal includes air-refueling aircraft, advanced radars for F-15 fighter jets, and up to eight V-22 Ospreys, an aircraft that can land like a helicopter and carry two dozen special operations forces with their gear over long distances at aircraft speeds.

The Osprey “is the ideal platform for sending Israeli special forces into Iran,” says Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

The aircraft could help solve Israel’s inability to breach Iran’s uranium enrichment facility buried under a granite mountain at Fordow. It might be impregnable to even the heaviest conventional bunker-busting munitions in the U.S. arsenal, Pollack said. Israeli military planners have been brainstorming how to conduct an effective operation, Pollack said, citing conversations with senior Israeli military officers.

“One of the possibilities is (Israel) would use special forces to assault the Fordow facility and blow it up,” Pollack said.

The weapons deal would be part of a military aid package for Israel that includes $1 billion for up to eight V-22 tilt-rotors; $500 million to retrofit radars into F-15 fighters and another $1 billion for a variety of air-to-ground weapons. Additional details about the U.S.-financed deal were revealed during a visit to Washington by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon on June 15.

The State Department said discussions of the arms deal are ongoing.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday had a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem and will visit with Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian officials through Saturday, discussing broad regional issues and the peace process.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said the arms package was part of an Israeli wish list including some items that were not discussed publicly to help it keep amilitary edge over other nations in the region and for possible operations against Iran.

Israel’s air force would be hard-pressed to cause lasting damage to the Iranian nuclear program because it cannot sustain long-term bombardment and has limited bunker-busting capabilities and limited air-refueling capabilities, said Kenneth Katzman, who co-wrote the 2012 report “Israel: Possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities” for the Congressional Research Service.

When he first announced the deal during a visit to Israel in April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Ospreys would provide Israel with high-speed maritime search-and rescue-capabilities.

Yaalon said the arms sale would send a message to Israel’s chief adversary in the region.

“Without a credible military option, there’s no chance the Iranian regime will realize it has to stop the militarynuclear project,” Yaalon said.

Other parts of the arms package include Boeing’s KC-135 “Stratotanker,” which can refuel Ospreys and other aircraft while airborne and extend the tilt-rotor aircraft’s 426-mile range almost indefinitely. The deal also includes anti-radiation missiles that are used to target air defense systems, and advanced radars for Israel’s fleet of F-15 fighter jets, according to a Defense Department press release.

That equipment would increase Israel’s capabilities against Iran, said Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at The Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel.

The refueling equipment would extend the reach of Israeli special forces, which could be used against Iran as they were in Israel’s attack on a Syrian nuclear facility under construction in 2007, Karmon said.

In the 2007 attack, at least one Israeli team was on the ground to provide laser targeting of sophisticated airmunitions, Karmon said. “The same would be done for Iranian sites.”

The Osprey also could be used for search-and-rescue operations if Israeli aircraft involved in a complex airoperation are shot down and pilots endangered, Karmon said.

Michael Rubin, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, said senior U.S. and Israeli bombers would do significant damage to Iran’s hardened sites by targeting the entrances, and Israel could use the Ospreys for missions other than Iran’s nuclear sites. Israel may want the ability to send troops to secure chemical facilities in remote regions of Syria or to block Iranian shipments bound for terrorists in the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula or Lebanon, Rubin said.

“Sudan and Eritrea are floating the idea of building an Iranian naval base or shipping Iranian missiles to the Gaza Strip,” Rubin said, referring to the Palestinian territory controlled by the terrorist group Hamas. “If you wanted to disrupt such missiles in a convoy, you’d do it with an Osprey.”

The arms deal also sends a message to Iran and reassurance to Israel that the United States is serious about standing by the Jewish state, Karmon said.

Katzman said he doesn’t think the arms sale provides Israel with significant new capabilities that Israel did not already have. He said the overall defense package, which also includes advanced F-16 fighter jets for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rivals in the Persian Gulf, is more “a symbolic move to show (American) resolve to Iran,” Katzman said.

Israeli David's Sling anti-missile system unveiled in Paris

David's Sling, designed to protect Israel from midrange missiles, is expected to be operational within two years • It will become part of Israel's multilayered missile defense network, which also includes the Iron Dome and Arrow systems. 

David's Sling was co-developed by the Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the U.S. firm Raytheon. It is designed to protect Israel from midrange missiles. It has a range of more than 160 kilometers (around 100 miles).

The system is expected to be operational within two years. 

David's Sling will become part of Israel's multilayered missile defense network, which includes the already operational Iron Dome and Arrow 2 systems, as well as the Arrow 3, which is in development. 

The Iron Dome intercepts short-range threats while the Arrow shoots down long-range threats.

Will Israel destroy Russian missiles?

The main reason for the heightened tensions on the northern front is Iran and Syria's interest to intensify and hasten the arming of Hezbollah. Tehran apparently believes the West's patience is running out quickly and that by the end of the first half of 2013, or by the end of the year, Washington or Jerusalem – or both – will decide on a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Iranians want to deter Israel and the Western nations from making such a decision by threats of mass casualties and devastation in the Israeli home front. Tehran plans to realize this threat with the use of Hezbollah and Syria's huge missile and rocket arsenal. Particularly important for the Iranians is Hezbollah's arsenal, which is protected from a ground invasion and is deployed in the heart of a supportive population in south Lebanon.

 While Syria has a far larger amount of rockets and missiles, it is difficult to gauge how many of them will actually work when Iran will need them most. Therefore, Iran is looking to beef up Hezbollah's arsenal with as many accurate and devastating advanced long-term rockets as possible - rockets such as the Fateh-110, which are capable of reaching the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and even further south.

A significant amount of such rockets would allow Hezbollah to fire a relatively large number of them simultaneously. Assad does not possess any spare rockets or missiles to give Hezbollah so it may threaten Israel's cities. The Assad regime needs its missiles in the fight against Syrian citizens who are assisting the rebels.

However, Hezbollah would very much like to get its hands on Assad's Yakhont anti-ship cruise missiles, which pose a major threat to Israeli Navy vessels and gas fields located up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the coast. According to the New York Times, Russia has apparently transferred to Syria recently an improved version of the missile, outfitted with an advanced guidance system that makes them more accurate than the older version. 

Assad also has an interest in supplying Hezbollah with advanced, mobile anti-aircraft missile batteries that can protect the Lebanese Shiite group's surface-to-surface missiles and cause heavy casualties to the Israeli Air Force that will try to take them out. 

Therefore, Iran and Syria currently have a common goal: Bolster Hezbollah's rocket and missile arsenal while making it more resilient to Israeli airstrikes. 

Israel apparently has no intention of allowing Khamenei and Assad to intensify the threat already posed to the Israeli home front, and it does not plan on allowing Hezbollah to diminish the IDF's ability to quickly neutralize this threat if needed. 

This "red line," it has been reported, has been implemented by Israel three times as of late – when it bombed a convoy en route to Lebanon and when it attacked missiles stored in Syrian warehouses ahead of their transfer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah each had its own reasons not to respond to these attacks in the short term. 

The question is – what will happen next time? Assad has apparently not given up on his plan to supply Hezbollah with "deterrence diminishing" weapons as a reward for the Shiite group's assistance in his regime's battle for survival. Assad also wants Hezbollah to safeguard his strategic weapons systems so they will not fall into rebel hands.

This is why the West estimates Israel will apparently be forced to attack - perhaps in the near future - additional arms shipments making their way from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria. It is also estimated that Assad would have to respond, despite the fact that he has almost no effective retaliation options. The Syrian army, in its current state, cannot attack us on the ground, and if it fires missiles toward Israel's home front, Israel will destroy most of the Assad regime's military assets, and other assets, which are crucial for its continued survival.

Therefore, Assad will try to attack Israel indirectly in a way that will not draw a harsh Israeli response. One possibility is a terror attack against an Israeli target abroad. However, the preparations for such an attack, with the cooperation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah's special unit, may take a long time. 

In addition, such an attack would most likely be thwarted by Israeli intelligence. In any case, the effect of such a Syrian response would not be worth the effort. The other, more effective option is to shatter the calm that has prevailed in the Golan Heights for the past 40 years.

The Syrians realize that the calm in the Golan is a sensitive subject in Israeli politics and public opinion. The near hysteric reports in Israel that follow the landing in the area of every stray mortar shell fired by the Syrian army or the rebels, or the reports on the UN's plans to withdraw its forces from the territory - are a testament to this.

Assad, Khamenei and Nasrallah have apparently reached the conclusion that the Golan Heights is the soft spot which can be used to effectively deter Israel from thwarting arms transfers to Hezbollah. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have issued numerous threats clarifying that the response to additional Israeli strikes will be "strategic…in the Golan." The bottom line: Assad will allow Hezbollah to operate in the Golan, and should Israel attack the transfer of "deterrence diminishing" weapons in Syria or Lebanon, the lives of Israelis in the Golan will be similar to the lives of Israelis residing in communities bordering the Gaza Strip. 

Israel will not be able to respond with full force because the terror attack may not be on a large enough scale to justify confining Israel's citizens to shelters for a period of a few weeks or because the identity of those who carry it out will not be clear. This would make it difficult for Israel to garner international support for a forceful military response.

Assad and Hezbollah's threat on the Golan Heights puts the ball back in the Israeli court and makes the dilemma all the more difficult: How will Israel respond the next time a shipment of advanced weapons makes its way from Syria to Lebanon? For now, Jerusalem (which is coordinating its strategy with Washington) is not blinking. 

To make Israel's intentions clear, a senior official told the New York Times Israel does not plan on intervening in favor of the rebels, but it will not allow Syria and Iran to transfer "game-changing" weapons to Hezbollah. 

The Israeli official stressed that any Syrian retaliation to an Israeli attack will cause Israel to topple Assad's regime. How? By attacking what is left of his army and other assets that allow for the Alawite regime's continued survival. More importantly, Israel will destroy the assets the regime plans to use in order to create an Alawite enclave that will be connected to the Hezbollah-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. 

Such an enclave in the Mediterranean Basin is crucial not only for Assad and his sect, but also for the Iranians and the Russians, who want to preserve their interests in Syria. An Alawite enclave would serve this purpose well, and this is why the Iranians are setting up an international Shiite force that will fight alongside the Alawites in the enclave and outside of it and also help Assad maintain control over Damascus. The Russians, for their part, wish to hold on to facilities in the port of Tartus, which is situated at the center of the future Alawite enclave. 

Israel made it clear to Assad and his patrons that any attacks in the Golan will dash their hopes of creating a coastal sanctuary in the Alawite enclave. 

The Russians are reading the map well and are aware that in the current situation Assad does not have the means to deter Israel from attacking Hezbollah-bound arms convoys. This is why Putin's aides – in order to deter Israel and the Americans from attacking in Syria - leaked to the press that Moscow will finally transfer to Syria three S-300 missile batteries. The original agreement for the transfer of long-range (200 kilometers, or 124 miles) missiles was signed some three years ago –before the revolt against Assad erupted. Russia has already received some of the payments, but the missiles have not been transferred to Syria due to American and Israeli pressure on the Kremlin not to supply the Assad regime with these missiles, as they may fall into Hezbollah's hands and undermine regional balance - because the Israeli Air Force would be forced to act in Lebanon before these missiles hinder its ability to operate there. 

Medvedev, the Russian president at the time, was convinced, and he decided to freeze the agreement in 2010, but he did not cancel it. Nothing has changed since then, but Putin wants to use this arms deal to force Netanyahu to guarantee that Israel will not attack Syria and threaten the regime there. The Russian president apparently wants a similar commitment from Obama. It is safe to assume that Netanyahu did not give such a guarantee to Putin when the two met on the eve of the Shavuot holiday in Sochi. This is why Putin is refusing to promise that he will not transfer the advanced missiles to Syria. This impasse led to the vague statements made by Foreign Minister Lavrov and Putin's spokesman Peskov, from which we can understand that Russia plans to transfer the S-300 missiles to Syria, despite the fact that the two senior officials did not specifically say so. Based on Russia's conduct in recent years, it may very well delay the arms transfer.

 The Russians certainly do not want to see their rockets fall into the hands of Islamist Syria rebels or force Israel to attack and destroy the missiles in order to restore its freedom to operate in Lebanese and Syrian airspace.

This issue was discussed during the meeting between Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and CIA director John Brennan, who made a surprise visit to Israel. The two also discussed Iran.
In the meantime, it is safe to assume that Syria and Hezbollah will not rush to act against Israel in the Golan or along the Lebanese border, mainly because Iran has an interest in keeping Hezbollah and Syria's rocket and missile arsenals ready for action in order to deter Israel and the US from attacking its nuclear facilities. This interest will remain relevant for at least another six months, perhaps even more. Therefore, Iran will advise Assad to act with restraint, for now, even if Israel strikes Hezbollah-bound arms convoys.

New Israeli submarines can’t be ‘solely for defensive purposes’

The delivery of a fifth Dolphin-class submarine to Israel from Germany is a worrying “ratcheting up” of tensions in the Middle East, according to two leading anti-nuclear campaigners.

The deployment of INS Rahav, allegedly capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, to the Israeli navy has set off a number of worrying alarm bells, Jeremy Corbyn, the British MP and deputy head of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament tells RT.

“It’s very hard to see how these submarines that Germany is supplying to Israel can be solely for defensive purposes, because there is no sea-based threat to Israel and Israel needs to get on board with the rest of the region and talk peace and talk about the signature they’ve already given to the Mediterranean weapons of Mass Destruction free zone. The delivery of these submarines is yet one more ratcheting up of the danger.”

He explained that Israel already has the ability to launch nuclear weapons whether on missiles or from bombs on airplanes and these submarines could also be used – if converted – to deliver nuclear weapons.

Corbyn questioned why Germany is paying a very large amount of money to Israel’s defense costs by subsidizing the development and delivery of these submarines.

“One just wonders if this isn’t part of a wider European military involvement in North Africa and the Middle East region. It is a very bad day for the development of a peace process across the Middle East,” said Corbyn.

His thoughts were echoed by Bruce Gagnon, an anti-nuclear campaigner based in Maine in the US. 

 

He told RT that he fails to see how the fleet of new German submarines can be only for defensive purposes and believes they are for projecting power across the region and may be part of a larger global strategy to expand NATO.

He also believes that it will be impossible to make any advances on nuclear disarmament when Israel and the US refuse to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons.

“The international community must continue to shine a light on Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, something they don’t want to talk about, something the US doesn’t want to talk about,” said Gagnon.

As well as Israel flouting international opinion by developing 200 nuclear warheads, responsibility also lies with the officials who run and oversee the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, explained Corbyn.

“The NPT have been very dilatory in their behavior in setting up a nuclear weapons conference for the Middle East,” he said.

Israel launches massive airstrikes on Gaza after Tel Aviv bombing

Israeli forces have launched numerous missile attacks on Gaza, killing at least 6 after a bomb struck a bus in Tel Aviv, injuring 16. It is the eighth day of Israel’s ‘Pillar of Defense’ campaign, which has killed over 130 Palestinians so far.

Israeli war jets pummeled Gaza’s Al-Yarmouk football stadium with more than 10 consecutive attacks, Al Jazeera reports. Several casualties were reported following the assault.

The IDF claimed they are striking key Hamas targets, while the Palestinian Authority criticized the attacks for killing civilians.

The escalation of attacks comes off the back of a bomb attack on a Tel Aviv bus that left 16 people injured. Israel’s government called an emergency meeting in response to the first terrorist bombing in the city since 2006.

Israeli authorities have raised security in the area to a level 4 alert and have begun a manhunt for the two suspects.

Hamas spokesperson, Sami Abu Zuhri praised the Tel Aviv bus bombing to the press, but did not say Hamas was behind it. He said that Hamas viewed the explosion as “a natural response to the Israeli massacres…in Gaza.”

"Palestinian factions will resort to all means in order to protect our Palestinian civilians in the absence of a world effort to stop the Israeli aggression," Abu Zuhri said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Israel and the West Bank in order to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Gaza.

Clinton also met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on her diplomatic trip to the region, where she vowed that US support for Israel is “rock solid,” and that “the rocket attacks from terrorist organizations inside Gaza on Israeli cities and towns must end.”

The US blocked a UN Security Council proposal by Morocco for a ceasefire on Tuesday evening, calling it “unbalanced.” US officials argued that the proposal failed to identify “the root cause of the current escalation,” which they claim is the continuing barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza directed against Israel.

The statement would have been adopted automatically had the US not blocked it. Other members of the Security Council criticized America for blocking the statement, with Russia accusing Washington of attempting to “filibuster” negotiations.