by Marsha B. Cohen
Two celebrations brought Lockheed Martin’s CEO, Marilyn A. Hewson, to Israel on April 9.
Hewson officially opened Lockheed Martin’s office in Beersheba, the closest major city to where IDF technical units are being consolidated at new bases in the Negev Desert, which will be supporting the defense contractor’s ”growing [...]]]>
by Marsha B. Cohen
Two celebrations brought Lockheed Martin’s CEO, Marilyn A. Hewson, to Israel on April 9.
Hewson officially opened Lockheed Martin’s office in Beersheba, the closest major city to where IDF technical units are being consolidated at new bases in the Negev Desert, which will be supporting the defense contractor’s ”growing presence” in Israel. “By locating our new office in the capital of the Negev we are well positioned to work closely with our Israeli partners and stand ready to: accelerate project execution, reduce program risk and share our technical expertise by training and developing in-country talent,” Hewson said in her speech.
Then was the arrival of the first C-130J Super Hercules airlifter at Nevatim Air Base in Israel. The state of the art Super Hercules, fitted with “Israeli-specific, post-production modifications,” has been dubbed Shimshon (Samson) by the Israel Defense Forces, about which Hewson waxed rhapsodic:
This aircraft is worthy of its given name, Shimshon…[sic] a leader whose power was thought to be as mighty as the sun. Shimshon used his power to combat the enemies of Israel and perform heroic feats.In the same way, this aircraft will support the defense of Israel and the men and women who are the heroes of the Israeli Defense Force.
(Apparently Ms. Hewson is unaware that the biblical Samson/Shimshon (Judges 13:1-17:31), for all his strength, actually met a rather unenviable end — in Gaza — using his final surge strength to destroy himself along with the enemy. Yet the Philistines lived to fight another day and were still around a hundred years later.)
Much of the publicity heralding the Samson’s arrival emphasized the air transporter’s capabilities in carrying out humanitarian missions. According to Lockheed’s product description, “This rugged aircraft is regularly sent on missions in the harshest environments, and is often seen as the first aircraft ‘in,’ touching down on austere landing strips before any other transport to provide humanitarian relief after natural disasters.” Reuters notes that “In non-combat, but harsh, environments, C-130Js are often the first to carry out missions such as search and rescue, aerial firefighting in the United States and delivering relief supplies after earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons and tsunamis around the world.” A Haaretz article anticipating the Samson’s arrival said that earlier versions of the Hercules aircraft had been used in 1976 to rescue hijacked Air France passengers being held hostage in Entebbe, Uganda and to transport Ethiopian Jews to Israel as part of Operation Solomon in 1991.
The Israeli Air Force website, however, describes the C-130J Hercules as “a tactical transport plane that is mostly used in joint missions with ground forces: supply missions, equipment transfer, airdropping combat forces and special missions.” The long version of the Super Hercules C-130J can carry 92 paratroopers and their equipment, which exceeds the 64 paratroopers the short version can accommodate. Comments by Israeli defense officials quoted in the Times of Israel suggest that Israel isn’t purchasing “Samson” for humanitarian intervention. The IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, who also attended the arrival ceremony, declared that the C-130J, which can fly close to the ground and land and take-off on primitive airstrips, was of “decisive importance” and would allow Israel to execute “more complex missions, under any conditions, deeper [within enemy territory], faster and more clandestinely.” IAF Commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel said that the “diversity of capabilities that the plane represents borders on the imaginary” [sic].
Israel orders its C-130Js, including the Super Hercules, through a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) contract with the US government. Israel’s annual Foreign Military Funding grant from the US signed in 2007 for a ten year period amounts to $3.1 billion to Israel annually (minus about $155 million due to the US government-mandated sequester). Considering that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu budgeted $2.89 billion for an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities for 2013 and again for 2014, that doesn’t go very far, even when assuming that the Samson is being purchased with an eye toward war with Iran.
With Lockheed’s active involvement, Israel has been able to utilize a scheme called a deferred payment plan (DPP), in combination with a Pentagon process known as cash-flow financing, to make current purchases with deferred debt on favorable terms, to be paid with the FMS grants it is scheduled to receive in future years. Israel used this method to fund Pentagon-administered Foreign Military Sale purchases of Lockheed F-16I and F-35I fighters. Through this creative means of financing, Israel has already earmarked nearly all Foreign Military Funding through 2018 for F-35 fighter jets, heavy troop carriers, airlifters and other equipment.
Now Israel wants to buy — and the Pentagon wants to sell — half a dozen V-22 Ospreys, originally intended for the US Marine Corps serving in Afghanistan. What to do?
On March 20, during a visit to Israel, two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN), told Reuters that, in spite of belt-tightening in Washington, the US will continue providing Israel with military assistance after its current Foreign Military Financing package of $3.1 billion a year expires in 2017. Ayotte said that talks concerning the 2018-2028 package were already underway. Lockheed Martin is rated a “heavy hitter” among campaign donors by the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets website. Thus far in the 2014 election cycle, Lockheed has contributed over $1.6 million to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, about two thirds going to Republicans and the rest to Democrats.
Ten days later, Defense News reported that Israel had agreed to take on more than $2 billion in commercial debt for near-term buys of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft and other Pentagon-approved weaponry, trusting that the US will provide a 2018-2028 FMF package to foot the bill. Under a US-approved DPP, Israel would pay only interest and fees over the course of the current agreement set to expire in September 2018. The principal of the debt incurred to purchase the Ospreys would be covered by a new Obama-pledged package that would extend annual foreign military financing (FMF) aid through 2028. Lockheed loves the idea, even if the first purchase goes to a competitor. Why? Once the new means of proactive financing kicks in — Israel borrowing against an aid package it hasn’t even received yet, which, following approval, won’t go into effect for five years — Lockheed can expect benefits as well. According to Defense News, “Lockheed is expected to play a pivotal role in the new DPP scheme, which government and industry sources here say will facilitate follow-on procurement of Israel’s second squadron of F-35Is.”
Photo: Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon inspects the IAF’s newest recruit, the Samson Super Hercules. Credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Office
]]>by Marsha B. Cohen
At least two Israeli news sources reported on Thursday that Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, chief of staff of the US Air Force, recently wrapped up a one week visit to Israel where he was hosted by the chief of the Israel Air Force, Major General Amir Eshel. [...]]]>
by Marsha B. Cohen
At least two Israeli news sources reported on Thursday that Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, chief of staff of the US Air Force, recently wrapped up a one week visit to Israel where he was hosted by the chief of the Israel Air Force, Major General Amir Eshel. The visit was supposed to have been secret, according to Walla, the Hebrew language news site that first broke the news of Welsh’s visit. The Jerusalem Post, after independently verifying the story, published a summary of the Walla account in English, with very few details.
Walla claimed the US had asked that Welsh’s visit remain confidential, in light of Israeli threats to strike Iran, noting that the Israeli Air Force has been training for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities for at least ten years. Algemeiner, a hawkish American Jewish news site, inferred from the Walla report that the purpose of Welsh’s clandestine visit was to coordinate an attack on Iran by Israel and the US and headlined its story ”Head of U.S. Air Force Secretly Visited Israel to Discuss Iran Strike”. The revelation of Welsh’s stealthy Israel trip was also picked up by Press TV, a state-run Iranian news site.
Both Walla and the Jerusalem Post noted that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be arriving in Israel on Monday as the guest of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. The two are “expected to discuss developments in Iran, Syria and Egypt with Israeli leaders.” The JP suggested that Dempsey might use his visit as an opportunity to discern “Israeli intentions”, convince Israel to “refrain from dramatic decisions” and accord diplomacy a chance to succeed with Iran’s newly inaugurated President Hassan Rouhani.
According to the AFT, Welsh’s trip “was not a secret mission at all” despite being characterized as such by Israeli news sources. Although Israeli media has attributed the silence surrounding the trip to regional tensions and the ongoing crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, Air Force spokeswoman Megan Schafer said that Welsh simply didn’t talk to the press during his visit.
Welsh, who has served since 2012 as the most senior uniformed officer in the Air Force – a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who advises the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the President on military matters — waxed rhapsodic about his Israeli hosts and the glowing prospects for furthering U.S.-Israeli cooperation.
It was also a great privilege to visit with our partners from the Israeli Air Force. We had the chance to discuss mutual opportunities with these incredible airmen. We also had the unbelievable honor of meeting with the former Israeli Air Chiefs and hearing their remarkable stories of leadership and patriotism. I leave here reminded of what a strong partner we have in the Israeli Air Force, and what a great leader they have in my friend Amir Eshel. Partnership and cooperation will be critical in the future, and, together, our future is bright.
That sort of unabashed praise, along with the question of the “secrecy” of Welsh’s visit, raises some points worth pondering. Washington and Tel Aviv government officials and defense contractors are constantly traveling between the US and Israel. Members of Congress from both parties happily participate in AIPAC-sponsored “fact-finding” jaunts. Israeli politicians invited to the US regularly testify to Congress not only about Israel’s need for military assistance but also to make sure that the defense, intelligence and foreign policy establishments look at the world — particularly the Middle East — through Israeli eyes. Was Welsh’s visit just business as usual? Or was it really intended to be “secret”, and if so, why?
Finally, if Welsh’s consultation with his IAF counterpart was not a secret and the Israelis were given the impression that it was and broke the story anyway, what does that tell us about our most trusted — and perhaps our only — ally in the Middle East?
]]>Martin Dempsey is not a popular man in the halls of the Israeli Prime Minister’s office these days. The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff incurred the wrath of Benjamin Netanyahu by pointing out the obvious: an Israeli attack on Iran would have dire consequences.
[...]]]>Martin Dempsey is not a popular man in the halls of the Israeli Prime Minister’s office these days. The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff incurred the wrath of Benjamin Netanyahu by pointing out the obvious: an Israeli attack on Iran would have dire consequences.
Dempsey said “I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran…” and such a strike “would be destabilizing” and “not prudent.”
Well, Bibi can’t have any of that. Imagine a US military leader talking sense about the potential of a military operation that would have global consequences. How dare he? Israel must respond to such an outrage, lest it fail in its effort to have the United States carry out this foolish attack on Israel’s behalf.
Israeli officials rushed to the visiting US National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon with their complaints about Dempsey’s statements. According to Ha’aretz, a senior Israeli official told Donilon that “The Iranians see there’s controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object to a military act. That reduces the pressure on them.”
The objection is overstated by a wide margin, and there’s a lot more going on here than the Israelis are talking openly about.
The “pressure” reduction Israeli officials are concerned about is only significant if the US is clearly opposed to an attack. This is not the case, either in the White House or in Congress. It is true the President sees an immediate attack as premature, but the threat of attack remains, even if the US and Israel are debating the timing.
Iran may see that the US doesn’t interpret the situation exactly as Israel does. However, the pressure remains high despite this because the threat of force from both countries is unchanged. The Israeli response is another example of what has become typical hysteria from the Netanyahu government.
In his four months in office, Dempsey has not been inclined to make a great many public statements about strategy and tactics with regard to Iran. That he did so now was not an accident.
We’re all well aware of the intense amount of debate going on in both the US and Israel over the question of an attack on Iran. Lines have been drawn on this issue, and many different pieces have come into play.
One of those pieces, in Washington, is the concern that if the US doesn’t strike Iran, Israel will, and that an Israeli strike would have even greater consequences for regional stability than an American one. This is certainly the case made to Donilon, and it is one that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has reinforced again recently.
There is also a bill, introduced in the Senate last week, S.Res.380, which is intended to greatly increase the pressure on President Barack Obama to take military action.
These are coordinated actions, with Israel not only using the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a go-between, but with Bibi and Barak also directly mobilizing their friends on Capitol Hill.
S.Res.380 is being pushed hard by AIPAC, and it is a bill that is much more dramatic than it might seem at first blush.
The official description of the bill is telling: A resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
The idea here is to move the red line for US military action from imminent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear device to Iran’s capability to build such a device, a level of nuclear technology that has other uses and that nations are entitled to pursue under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. From reports about Iranian capabilities, that could well be a threshold that it has already passed.
Here is how the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) put it, in an excellent critique of the bill:
The Secretary of Defense stated in January 2012 that an Iranian attempt to actually build a nuclear weapon is the United States’ “red line” that Iran must not cross. But this resolution does not reflect or reinforce the “red line” articulated by the United States – it further confuses them. As currently drafted, the resolution blurs the critical distinction between nuclear weapons capability and nuclear weapons acquisition. Nuclear capable is an imprecise term with no clear definition. By some accounts, Iran could already be described as “nuclear capable,” as Iran already has the capability and expertise to build a nuclear weapon. It should continue to be the goal of the U.S and international community to use all non-military means at our disposal to put concrete constraints on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, with the ultimate objective of ensuring Iran does not actually acquire a nuclear weapon.
This, just as much as an independent Israeli strike, is what Dempsey was trying to counter.
Within the Israeli leadership as well, there is considerable opposition to an attack on Iran. Some reports indicate that a majority of the military leadership is opposed to an attack, and there are signals that evenNetanyahu is not convinced.
There had been speculation that Iran hawk Yohanan Locker would be appointed the head of the Israeli Air Forces. But Netanyahu chose Amir Eshel, who is considered to be more cautious about an attack on Iran, leading to speculation that Bibi is not yet convinced that Israel should take this initiative.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak is seen as leading the charge toward war,. However, both he and Netanyahu seem to be of one mind that the Obama Administration can and should be pushed toward a more aggressive stance against Iran.
The two-pronged attack, with Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, publicly attacking Dempsey while their friends on the Hill lead a charge toward making war harder to avoid, abetted by AIPAC pushing hard on potentially vulnerable senators in an election year, will not be an easy one for rationality and sober analysis to withstand.
These are considerable political pressure being brought to bear. Virtually none of it is based on US strategic interests (which do include preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, yes, but also include maintaining some stability in the Gulf region.) It is also not coincidental that the rhetoric and political jockeying are swelling noticeably just before the annual AIPAC convention, when Netanyahu will again be meeting with Obama and which will be a stage show for the push to war with Iran.
And, as is too often the case, Iran does opponents of war no favors with yet another episode just yesterday ofrefusing to cooperate with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and giving a double-talking excuse as to why.
Though I have never subscribed to the notion that the Israel Lobby was not a significant factor in policy formation, neither do I believe it is as decisive as some make it out to be. I found merit in the arguments of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, but absolutely and frequently disagreed with their charge that the invasion of Iraq was largely the work of the Lobby and was, in essence, a war for Israel.
I still disagree with them on that score. But if the US goes to war with Iran, that will indeed be a war for Israel, and one that Israel, and its Lobby here engineered, not through some nefarious means, but by playing the political game in Washington and the diplomatic game on the global stage very well.
And, folks, we’re just letting it happen.
As a Jew, as an American, as someone who cares deeply for Israel and who also cares about a better future for my child, I have to call this out. I hope you’ll join me.
]]>