IDF Takes Control of Israeli Spy Satellite that Watches Iran

 By United with Israel Staff

Three months after Israel successfully launched the Ofek 16 satellite into space, Israel’s Space Administration officially transferred operational control of the cutting-edge spacecraft to the nation’s military.

Ofek 16 helps Israel keep an eye on archenemy Iran, among other regional threats.

Just one week after the spy satellite’s launch, the Ministry of Defense turned on its super-sensitive observation camera and the first pictures were downloaded.

Israel is known as a world leader in advanced optics and the Ofek 16 is equipped with a super high-quality camera developed and manufactured in Israel by Elbit Systems. The in-orbit shakedown testing was finished recently, after which control of the operational satellite was transferred to the IDF’s Intelligence Corps.

“The significant advantage of Ofek is a route that allows greater repetition over Iran … that allows a high-frequency of photography, several times a day, which commercial satellites almost do not allow,” tweeted Dan Harel, an Israeli expert in remote sensing.

Ofek 16 gives the IDF unprecedented access to data about Iran, whose political and military leaders have repeated for years that their goal is the “total annihilation of Israel.”

Not only does the satellite give Israel’s military intelligence agents high resolution photos of Iranian sites including those associated with its illegal military nuclear weapons program, it also provides detailed views of the activities of terror groups supported by Iran around the region in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.

On Sunday, officials held a small ceremony handing the “keys” of the satellite to the IDF’s 9900 Intelligence Unit.

Iran and the Israel-UAE Deal

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,704, August 21, 2020

Full article at https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-israel-uae-deal/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates presents the Iranian regime with dilemmas on both the foreign and the domestic front. The regime fears the emergence of a new international alliance that will have greater power to contain its hegemonic regional aspirations, and there is a new urgency to the need to prove to the Iranian people that the government’s imperialist foreign policy works to their benefit.

 The condemnations in the Iranian media of the nascent Israel-UAE peace agreement are hardly surprising. The regime’s leadership is covering its embarrassment and apprehension with a stream of defamation and threats. Parliament Speaker Muhammad Bakr Qalibaf called the agreement “despicable and a betrayal of human and Islamic values,” while President Rouhani warned the UAE leaders “not to open their gates” to Israel. (An interesting exception to this pattern was the statement of former MP Ali Motahari, who tweeted, “Apart from the betrayal of UAE rulers, the blame was also on us for scaring the Arabs and pushing them into Israeli arms”.)

 Israel’s rapprochement with the Gulf state is raising concerns in Tehran for a number of reasons. First, the regime fears that an alliance comprising Israel, the Gulf States, and other countries, supported by Washington and Riyadh, would be a serious roadblock in the path of Iran’s goal of regional hegemony. A multinational system of that kind would strengthen its constituent members not only on the security level but also on the economic, commercial, and cultural levels—a worrisome prospect for Tehran.

The prospect of such an alliance is particularly troubling to the regime at a time when its regional status is declining. The deep crisis now engulfing Lebanon and the Hague’s conviction of a Hezbollah member for the assassination of PM Rafiq Hariri do not contribute to Iran’s prestige.

Another element of the Israel-UAE deal that is causing discomfort for the Islamist regime is the problem of how to control discourse on the subject among the Iranian general public. The leadership is finding it difficult to explain the emerging ties between Israel and Muslim countries to its citizens. It is defaulting to the traditional pattern of labeling those states traitors to Islamic values and the Palestinian cause.

This message is not getting the traction it once did among ordinary Iranians. The educated social stratum in Iran does not buy the argument that normalization with Israel is a betrayal by definition. Compounding this problem, more and more Iranians are expressing the view that the regime’s investment of resources in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza comes at their expense.

From the mullahs’ point of view, the Israel-UAE agreement is a painful blow because it sends a message that Muslim countries not only do not view Israel as an enemy that must be destroyed but view it as a potential partner for mutual prosperity and security. The Iranian people, unlike their leadership, do not believe Egypt, Jordan, and now the UAE are traitors to Islam.

The foreign policy of the Iranian leadership is designed to strengthen extremists at the expense of the welfare and prosperity of the country’s own citizens. The regime has no intention of altering this policy, and will continue to threaten other countries in the Persian Gulf that might be considering a similar rapprochement with Jerusalem. It is possible that Iran will now concentrate its efforts on harassing oil tankers anchored in UAE ports.

According to media reports, Bahrain is likely to be one of the next Gulf States to advance its ties with Israel. There too, Iran’s subversion of Bahrain served as a catalyst for the Khalifa family to establish ties with Israel.

Bahrain’s demographic structure is 70% Shiite, which rendered it, in the eyes of the Iranian regime, fertile ground for the advancement of its revolutionary worldview. As early as December 1981 the “Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain” tried and failed to overthrow the ruling monarchy and establish an Iran-backed theocratic regime, and in 1996 the Bahrain authorities uncovered another attempt by Tehran to overthrow the regime and replace it with a theocracy according to the Velayat-e Faqih model. Iran accompanied these subversive activities with “soft power” measures and support for opposition organizations, and it trained militants in the emirate.

The Iranian revolutionary model has been a threatening and destabilizing factor in the Middle East for decades. The greater Iran’s hostility toward the countries in the region, the greater the likelihood that they will eventually come together in some way to oppose it.

The formation of alliances among countries experiencing a common threat is not a new phenomenon in the Middle East. This was true six decades ago, when the Iranian monarchy felt threatened by the spread of Arab nationalism led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, and it is true today. The expression “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is as valid today as it ever was, despite attempts to throw that realpolitik model into the so-called dustbin of history.

 The Israel-UAE deal makes it much harder for the Iranian regime to justify an imperialist foreign policy that comes at the expense of the Iranian people.

 

What Will Netanyahu Reveal in the UN?

Mossad chief Yossi Cohen leaves for New York this week to brief senior UN officials and others about Iran's actions in the Middle East. The purpose of his trip is to reinforce the Prime Minister who flew to the United Nations General Assembly today.

The Prime Minister's Office hinted that Netanyahu would surprise the world in his speech as the he is preparing to deliver to the United Nations in 2 days time.

I hear that Iran is going to be the dominant subject and Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to reveal Iranian secrets that they do not want the world to know about.

Watch this space for ant earth shattering news 

Arabs see Iran, not Israel, as enemy, Liberman tells Persian radio

Israel does not object to diplomatic and commercial ties between Syria and Iran, but it will never allow Iran to turn Syria into a forward military base, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday in interview with Radio Farda.

Speaking to Iranian journalist Mehrdad Mirdamadi, Liberman told the Persian language network, which broadcasts to Iran from the Czech Republic, that Israel is not against “economic, diplomatic or other cooperation” between Syria and Iran, but it is completely opposed to Tehran establishing a “military presence and is opposed to its efforts to undermine the stability of the entire Middle East, the stability of our entire region.”

Liberman said that Tehran’s aggression in the region had led Arab nations to realize that Iran’s extremist regime was their enemy and not Israel.

“This may be the first time that moderate Arabs understand that their main enemy is not Israel and Jews and Zionism, but Iran’s radical and extreme regime,” Liberman said.

“This shift in attitude is because of the Iranian regime, and of course this is a step forward,” Liberman added.

The defense minister told Mirdamadi that Israel has no problem with the Iranian people. “Our problem with this regime is its dogma and every day we hear a speech that it seeks to destroy Israel and will never accept our existence.

“Iran’s access to nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to everyone’s stability,” he continued. “Iran’s political ambitions in combination with nuclear weapons will be problematic for everyone.

“Why does a country that has one of the largest oil reserves in the world spend so much on its nuclear program and on developing ballistic missiles?”

Liberman furthermore told Mirdamadi that “Iran invests in terror instead of employment for its young generation… It is a fanatical regime that in Syria alone has spent $13 billion and spends $2 billion every year in financing terrorism throughout the Middle East.”

Where Does the Iranian Money Go?

In the wake of Iran’s current severe economic crisis, many of the 

Iranians who took to the streets in protest are probably wondering: 

Where does all that money go?

Timeline for Saturdays attack in Northern Israel

1.       the Iranians launched an attack drone into Israel, which the 

Israelis tracked and shot down  

2 the Israelis sent jets into Syria to hit the Iranian command center 

that had sent the drone, at the Tiyas Airbase in Syria . 

3 forces backing Bashar al-Assad fired off "dozens" of anti-aircraft 

missiles, including into Israeli territory, which forced Israeli 

communities to go into lockdown and the pilots of one F-16 

to abandon the jet.  

4 the Israelis sent eight jets into Syria to target a dozen Syrian and 

Iranian military facilities (lists and descriptions of the targets: 

 5   Assad forces fired off another 15-20 anti-aircraft missiles, again 

forcing Israeli communities to go into lockdown .

The drone was similar to the advanced American UAV seized by Iran - The drone emulated Western technology.  The structure and sophistication were similar to the American UAV Iran seized in 2011, including a "low signature" aimed at avoiding detection 

The Iranian "Deal" is a Sell Out

The Lausanne agreement is evidence of just how hard - and successfully - the Iranians fought to preserve the essential components for creating nuclear weapons.
Alex Fishman    Ynet.co.il  5th April

"Just guard me from my friends; from my enemies, I'll guard myself". We are forced to learn this age-old lesson each time anew.


The document agreed upon and signed in Lausanne on Thursday by the best of our friends from around the world makes no mention of nuclear development for peaceful purposes. Nothing in the clauses outlined in the declaration of principles indicates that Iran's nuclear program for military purposes will be converted into a program designed to further civilian-scientific objectives.

On the contrary; the document is evidence of just how hard, and successfully too, the Iranians fought to preserve the essential components for creating nuclear weapons. And this is an indication of the strategic importance Iran attributes to its military nuclear program, and the price it is willing to pay to protect it.

The bottom line:

1.     Iran has agreed to restrict its number of uranium-enrichment facilities – or, in other words, not to build new ones.

2.     The existing facilities will continue to operate at a slower pace, under supervision: 5,100 centrifuges will be in operation in Natanz, and an additional 1,000 will turn at a facility in Fordow that will be classified as a research institute (Yeah, right!).

3.     The stockpiling of enriched material will also be restricted. But nowhere in the agreement is there anything about ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads or military R&D.

In return, the sanctions on Iran will be lifted gradually. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for dictating the pace of the lifting of the sanctions. The Iranians haven't manufactured a bomb until now; so they'll hold back a little longer, for as long as it is worth their while.

The second conclusion coming from the agreement achieved in Lausanne is supposed to offer some comfort. If the Iranian nuclear program does indeed remain under tight supervision throughout the term of the agreement, it's safe to assume that Iran will not be able to turn its nuclear capabilities into a nuclear weapon overnight.

All this is under the assumption that the Iranians play fairly and don't cheat; and that if they do decide to break the rules, we will have at least a one-year warning before they can produce a bomb. Anyone who believes that we can sleep soundly at night with this conclusion in mind must the simple of the Four Sons mentioned in the Passover Haggadah., the one who has no capacity to ask questions.

Further:-

4.     Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of 3.67-percent low-enriched uranium to just 300 kilograms;

5.     has agreed to allow inspectors access to the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program, from the mining of the uranium and through to the completion of the enrichment process;

6.     has agreed to dilute its surplus quantities of uranium – a lot of declarations that could give the impression that the Iranians really were squeezed.

But these declarations have to be backed up by particulars, which don't exist now and probably never will. There's a clause, for example, that restricts the use of new centrifuges over the next 10 years, but it says nothing about restricting the development and production of new and improved centrifuges that can be put into motion the moment the time comes.

Still unclear too is the nature of the IAEA's mechanism for that tight supervision that US President Barack Obama defined as "unprecedented," or if the UN Security Council can automatically reinstate the sanctions if Iran violates the agreement. One thing is clear: Once Iran returns to the family of nations, it will be very difficult to again enlist the world to impose sanctions on Tehran.

There is nothing surprising in the Lausanne agreement. The talks over the last few days were for show only. The Americans knew, just as Israel did, that the Iranians had been willing to sign the current version of the agreement, and an even-worse one from their perspective, already two months ago. And yes, the agreement restricts Iran's nuclear capabilities for a certain period of time. But it is a vague document that lacks numerous essential details, just like the Iranians wanted – a document they can hold up in triumph to their people.

The Iranian representatives conducted the negotiations like true professionals and ran rings around the American secretary of state. In his speech on Thursday, Obama gave Kerry a grade of "Excellent" for his persistence and patience. But anyone who was there knows he deserves a grade of "Unsatisfactory" in negotiation management. And this holds true not only with respect to Iran, but also vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our friends in Washington appear to have sold Israel out, along with their other allies in the Middle East, for a pittance. No prizes for guessing now about a nuclear race by other countries in the region who

a)     distrust the terms of the agreement

b)     distrust the intentions of the Iranians, and

c)     distrust the US claims to have our backs covered

Guess What? Tehran is not backing down

From a MEMRI report http://tinyurl.com/o3reht4 it seems clear that the U.S. is disregarding the speeches out of Tehran, and is attempting, without success, to force Iran into the two-stage process. Iran is refusing to sign any interim document, and for this reason Western foreign ministers involved in the negotiations, such as U.K. Foreign Minister Phillip Hammond, are saying that understandings which might be reached at this stage will only be oral ones.

It should be emphasized that Iran has not backed down in any way, at any stage, from the positions with which it began the talks:

1.  Tehran rejects the removal of its enriched uranium from Iran.

2.  Tehran rejects a gradual lifting of the sanctions.

3.  Tehran rejects restriction of the number of its centrifuges.

4.  Tehran rejects intrusive inspections and snap inspections.

5.  Tehran rejects any halt to its research and development activity.

6.  Tehran rejects any change to the nature of its heavy water reactor at Arak.

7.  Tehran rejects any closure of its secret enrichment site at Fordow.

8.  Tehran rejects all restrictions to its nuclear activity following the agreement's expiration.

9.  Tehran rejects the inclusion of its long-range missile program in the negotiations.

10.  Tehran rejects reporting on its previous clandestine military nuclear activity.

11.  Tehran rejects allowing inspections of military sites suspected of conducting nuclear activity.

Why should this be a surprise? This is the Middle East, have the #P5+1 not learnt anything? 

What France Really Thinks of U.S. Iran Policy

 International opinion condemned Israel over its attacks on the Iraqi and Syrian reactors only for those opinions to be reversed when it became clear the danger to world peace these reactors represented. Whilst many are deligitimising Netanyahu's warnings over Iran, it now appears that France (not a reputed friend of Israel), is seeing a lot of sense in Netanyahu's warnings to the American Congress - see below

Anne-Elisabeth Moutet March 17, 2015

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5391/france-iran-talks

French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously naïve on Iran's ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an "objective ally" in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin's Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and "amateurish."

When Claude Angéli says that both France's Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, and its President, François Hollande, have told friends that they rely on "the support of the US Congress" to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is the kind of quote you can take to the bank.

French diplomats worry that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club.

French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe that the Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as "like us," but others potentially as madmen.

The Quai d'Orsay (the French Foreign Ministry) may loathe, on principle, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: any briefing by French diplomats will, as a matter of course, explain how very wrong Israel is to alienate its "American ally." All the same, France's political stance on the projected U.S.-Iran deal is astonishingly close to that of the Israeli PM, as he outlined to the U.S. Congress on March 3.

Laurent Fabius -- once François Mitterrand's youngest Prime Minister; today's François Hollande's seasoned Foreign Minister -- is "fed up with Barack Obama's nuclear laxity" regarding Iran, a Quai senior diplomat told Le Canard Enchaîné's usually well-informed Claude Angéli, who can be relied on to give the unvarnished French view on matters foreign. "Just as in 2013, France will oppose any agreement too favorable to Iran if this turns out to be necessary. Fabius made this very clear to John Kerry when they met on Saturday March 7th."

This, Angéli points out, is far from the "soothing communiqué" issued at the end of the Kerry-Fabius meeting in which both men supposedly "shared" the same view of the Iran negotiations. The communiqué itself may have come as a surprise to a number of French MPs and Senators from their respective Foreign Affairs Committees. Fabius himself, in a meeting last week, made extremely clear his deep distrust ("contempt, really," one MP says) of both John Kerry and Barack Obama. Another of the group quotes Fabius as saying: "The United States was really ready to sign just about anything with the Iranians," before explaining that he himself had sent out, mid-February, a number of French 'counter-proposals' to the State Department and White House, in order to prevent an agreement too imbalanced in favor of Iran.

Le Canard Enchaîné ("The Manacled Mallard") is France's best-informed political gossip weekly. Long before the rest of the French press, away from General de Gaulle's paralyzing shadow, started investigative reports of their own, Le Canard, using a contact network second to none, used to break scoops only rarely picked up by the rest of a servile media pack.

We owe it the story of conservative President Giscard d'Estaing's ill-gotten gifts of diamonds (from Central Africa's self-styled Emperor Bokassa). An equal-opportunity hitter, Le Canardalso broke the story of the Socialist Mitterrand's wiretaps of some 5,000 journalists and 

personalities, only stopping short of explaining why: Mitterrand wanted to hide from the public the existence of his mistress and their daughter Mazarine. Newer brash French tabloids have only very recently started to examine the private lives of politicians, and Le Canard still doesn't care to do so. More recently, it revealed that the head of France's Communist union CGT had his new luxury apartment entirely refurbished at the ailing union's expense, complete with a home cinema: this cost him his job after an undignified couple of weeks of useless stonewalling.

So when Claude Angéli says that both Fabius and President François Hollande have told friends that they rely on "the support of the US Congress" to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's the kind of quote you can take to the bank. French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously "naïve" on Iran's ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an "objective ally" in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin's Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and amateurish.

The French are still smarting from the last-minute reprieve Obama granted Syria, as the French air force was about to bomb the Assad regime's military positions back in 2013, because the U.S. President had been convinced by Russia that they had succeeded in making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad give up on the use of his chemical weapons. "Our Rafale fighters were about to scramble," a French air force officer is quoted as saying; "Hollande was furious."

When Laurent Fabius briefed members of the French parliament last week, he was, according to Angéli, quite precise, mentioning as conditions necessary in any agreement a "reconfiguration" of the Arak nuclear site, where Iran enriches the heavy water necessary to produce plutonium bombs, as well as a sharp limit to the number of Iranian centrifuges, and complete access to all nuclear sites for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.

French diplomats are no angels, and they haven't suddenly turned 180 degrees from their usual attitude of reflexive dislike toward Israel. They worry, however, that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club. French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation.for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as "like us," but others potentially as madmen.