Israel ex-spy warns against ’messianic’ Iran war

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read >>

Israel develops new weapons for next war

Military Space News/

 Combat infantry battalions are equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Skylark I and Skylark II developed by Elbit Systems, for tactical surveillance.

Amid a flurry of warnings that Lebanon and Hezbollah will be hammered in any new conflict, the Israeli military unveiled a new 120mm tank shell said to be able to penetrate reinforced targets, including in populated areas.

"Such a capability -- to accurately target terrorists hiding inside homes -- is believed to be crucial for the army as it faces future conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas, both terrorist groups which embed themselves within civilian infrastructure," The Jerusalem Post reported.

In the same edition, the daily's military correspondent, Yaakov Katz, quoted senior defense officials as saying that "Israel will attack Lebanese government targets during a future war with Hezbollah."

This blitzkrieg, it says, would be triggered by retaliatory attacks on Israel by the heavily armed, Iranian-backed Shiite movement if Israel launches pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The report was headlined "Lebanese targets fair game in war with Hezbollah."

In 2006, the Israelis said they deliberately didn't target Lebanese facilities since the Beirut government didn't support Hezbollah. But now Hezbollah dominates the government, the Israelis say all bets are off.

"It was a mistake not to attack Lebanese government targets during the Second Lebanon War in 2006," one senior officer said. "We will not be able to hold back from doing so in a future war."

This is known as the "Dahiya Doctrine," after the Israeli air force's relentless bombing of the Dahiya district in south Beirut during that 34-day conflict. Only next time it will much, much worse.

Suburban Dahiya was considered to be the nerve center of the Hezbollah leadership and large areas were flattened.  More >>

Advanced Preparations of U.S.-Israel War Against Iran

Infowars.com/ Ben Schreiner

Following the highly scrutinized meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month in Washington, consensus held that Obama had managed to secure assurances from the war-hungry Netanyahu that Israel would delay a military strike against Iran till 2013.  That is, till after the November U.S. presidential election.

According to the Israeli daily Maariv, this commitment of Israeli “restraint” had been bought with the sale of U.S. “advanced bunker-busting bombs and long-range refueling planes” to the Israeli Defense Forces, as al-Akhbar (3/8) reported.  Needless to say, such advanced weaponry would be required in any Israeli attack on Iran. 

“You shall still have your war,” Obama thus seemingly sought to convey to Netanyahu, “but only in due time.”   

Since the Obama-Netanyahu summit, however, indications of such Israeli restraint have dissipated.  The Israeli dogs of war are not so easily tamed.  In fact, in his latest column for Bloomberg (3/19), the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reports that talk of striking Iran is once more convulsing through the Israeli political establishment.  And according to Goldberg, all such discussions have assumed a rather optimistic bent.     

“One conclusion key officials have reached,” Goldberg writes, “is that a strike on six or eight Iranian facilities will not lead, as is generally assumed, to all-out war.”

We learn further that Israeli officials interpret Obama’s claims of “having Israel’s back” as meaning that even in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran in the face of U.S. protest, “Obama would move immediately to help buttress Israel’s defenses against an Iranian counterstrike.”  

All this leaves Goldberg to assess that Israel shall ultimately strike Iran.  As he writes, “I’m highly confident that Netanyahu isn’t bluffing—that he is in fact counting down to the day when he will authorize a strike against a half-dozen or more Iranian nuclear sites.” More >>

La dignidad en las Cumbres de las Americas: Cuando Francisco Flores confronto a Fidel Castro

At the Poker Table with Bibi and Barack | FrontPage Magazine

FrontPage Magazine/ by Daniel Greenfield

As Netanyahu’s plane crossed the vast distance of the Atlantic Ocean, he must have thought that the oceanic gap was small compared to the diplomatic gap with the Obama administration. This time around there were no visible hostilities or outbursts. With an election coming up, Obama is less eager to humiliate Netanyahu, and Netanyahu does not seriously expect that a passionate appeal will get through to Obama.

Both men know the nature of the game they are playing, but neither of them expects much of the other.

Netanyahu does not believe that he can get Obama to set a firm “red line” that will trigger military action. For all the talk about “having Israel’s back”, the administration has not been willing to set such a “red line” in public or private, which makes all the assurances completely worthless. Without that “red line”, no actual commitments have been made, except a commitment to the Sisyphean diplomatic track.

And so Netanyahu has not bothered to seriously push for a “red line.” Any possibility of such a thing was off the table even before he arrived. More >>

Whitewashing Muslim Imperialism

FrontPage Magazine/ By Raymond Ibrahim

Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic (see here for example), it may be instructive to examine one of those aspects that are regularly distorted: the Muslim conquests.

Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time, with more after (e.g., the Ottoman conquests).

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema).

Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq’s (d. 767) Sira (“Life of Muhammad”), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi’s (d. circa. 820) Maghazi (“Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]“); Baladhuri’s (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan (“Conquests of the Nations”); and Tabari’s (d.923) multi-volumeTarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, (“History of Prophets and Kings”), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.

Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).

It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam’s authority, upon Muhammad’s death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the “Ridda Wars” (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.  More »

Israel shelves Iran military option

www.Sovereign-Investor.com

NEW YORK – Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations says Jerusalem believes diplomacy is the preferred course to resolve the current nuclear standoff with Iran.
“We should really pursue and focus on the sanctions and the diplomatic elements in trying to bring the regime in Tehran to reassess the way they want to go forward,” explained the Israeli diplomat.

The emphasis on the diplomatic option would appear to be a shift toward the position of the Obama administration which has stressed stepping up the diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We are very keen, very clear in saying there is still a lot to be done on the diplomatic front that is not being done. … It is a pity that this has taken so much time. … But, I think the sanctions, especially those on the central bank of Iran, can be very effective.  We have to pursue that,” said Prosor in an exclusive interview Friday.

Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are to meet and confer on a host of topics this week in Washington.

At the same time, AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the most influential lobbying bodies on Capitol Hill, holds its yearly convention in Washington.

Addressing the conference, Obama said:

“A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national-security interests of the United States.”

The Obama-Netanyahu meeting comes just ahead of “Super Tuesday” which is expected to narrow down the remaining candidates to challenge Obama’s bid for re-election in November.

Israel, Iran and Syria are just a few of the topics under debate and Prosor admitted U.S. presidential politics have impacted on the situation.

“Israel is a very vibrant democracy and is completely aware of the constraints of an election year. We know from our own experiences what can or cannot be done … but, the [U.S.-Israel] relationship is so deep and important that it will override anything else.”

Prosor’s comments came on the heels of recent proclamations by Tehran that it has accelerated its nuclear program by adding a new generation of centrifuges, used to enrich uranium, and raising its current uranium enrichment operation to 20 percent, just shy of the amount needed for nuclear weapons, according to the Pentagon. More >>

Obama to AIPAC: Diplomatic pressure will bring Tehran to the right decision

DEBKAfile Special Report

US President Barack Obama and Israeli President Shimon Peres in addressing the opening of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC convention in Washington, Sunday, March 4, condemned a nuclear Iran as a threat to the US, Israel and the world. President Obama urged the efficacy of diplomacy backed by pressure since “Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon” and there was still time for Iran’s leaders to make the right decision. debkafile: Iran has used this policy to accelerate its nuclear program as never before.

Obama won't hesitate to use force: wishtv.com

Read more >>

Striking Iran and the Myth of Regional War

Daniel Greenfield

In 2007, Israeli Air Force jets crossed into Syria and destroyed an Iranian-backed nuclear reactor. The operation had the backing of the United States and employed intelligence derived from an Iranian defector. There was no regional war afterward. Not even an exchange of fire at the Israeli-Syrian border.

In 1981, Israel struck deep inside Iraq, destroying Saddam’s Osirak reactor. The attack was universally condemned at the United Nations and even by Israel’s allies. Had Saddam used it as the basis for a war, Israel would have had no international support at all. But again no war followed.

Today, Iran and opponents of any attack on its nuclear program hold up the specter of a regional war that will drag in the United States, devastate the region and drive up oil prices. This is the only card in their deck until the mullahs have their own bomb, and it’s an effective card to play. But is any of that a serious risk?

Let’s start by looking at the current state of the Iranian regime. The regime is wildly unpopular at home. It had to use its Revolutionary Guard corps to violently suppress protests against the regime, it does not trust its own military and without troops loyal to it close to home, the regime would be gone faster than you can say Nicolai Ceausescu. (If you have trouble saying that, substitute the fallen dictator of your choice.)

Iran has repeatedly attacked American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; its terrorists have attacked Israel and Jews around the world, but those attacks amount to terrorism and guerrilla warfare mostly carried out by secondary actors. It’s quite different from committing to a major conflict, which will give the regime a choice between either keeping its loyalist Revolutionary Guard at home and sending unreliable conventional troops off to fight and possibly turn on it, or sending off its trusted troops and leaving its leaders naked to the people’s wrath. More >>

Fears grow of Israel-Iran missile shootout

By Robert Windrem
NBC News

With tensions between Israel and Iran running sky high over the latter’s nuclear program, U.S. officials and military analysts are growing increasingly concerned that Israel will launch a multi-phase air and missile attack that could trigger waves of retaliatory missile strikes from Tehran. 

Such a shootout could quickly spiral into a regional conflict that would potentially force the U.S. to intervene to protect its interests. 

The emerging consensus among current and former U.S. officials and other experts interviewed by NBC News is that that an Israeli attack would be a multi-faceted assault on key Iranian nuclear installations, involving strikes by both warplanes and missiles. It could also include targeted attacks by Israeli special operations forces and possibly even the use of massive explosives-laden drones, they say. 

The Iranian response to such an attack is uncertain, but many experts and officials believe it is likely to include retaliatory missile strikes. Iran has more missiles in its arsenal than Israel, according to some estimates, and has the capability of striking targets in most Israeli population centers. More >>

What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran

This article is part of a Foreign Affairs package: The Iran Debate -- To Strike or Not to Strike?

Since its birth in 1948, Israel has launched numerous preemptive military strikes against its foes. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, operations that did not lead to war. But now, Israelis are discussing the possibility of another preemptive attack -- against Iran -- that might result in a wider conflict.

(lrargerich / flickr)

The public debate in Israel about whether Jerusalem should order a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is surprisingly frank. Politicians and policymakers often discuss the merits of an attack in public; over the past year, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have sparred regularly and openly with former Mossad director Meir Dagan, the most prominent opponent of an Israeli operation. But much of the conversation is focused on whether Israel should strike, not on what might happen if it does -- in other words, the result on the “day after.”

Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term consequences of a strike.

Indeed, the analysis in Israel about the possible effects of a bombing campaign against Iran is limited to a small, professional elite, mostly in government and behind closed doors. This intimate circle that does consider scenarios of the “day after” concentrates almost exclusively on what an Iranian response, direct or through proxies, might look like. This is not surprising, given that Israel must worry first and foremost about the immediate military implications of an Iranian counterattack. But in doing so, Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term aspects of a strike: the preparedness of Israel’s home front; the contours of an Israeli exit strategy; the impact on U.S.-Israel relations; the global diplomatic fallout; the stability of world energy markets; and the outcome within Iran itself. Should Israel fail to openly debate and account for these factors in advance of an attack, it may end up with a strategic debacle, even if it achieves its narrow military goals.

Israeli officials have thought extensively about how the first moves of a military conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran might play out. Ephraim Kam, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and deputy head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), reflected the general consensus in the security establishment when he wrote in the Institute’s 2010 strategic assessment that Iran may respond in two possible ways to an Israeli operation: missile strikes on Israel, either directly or through allied organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas; or terror attacks, likely on Israeli targets abroad by Iranians or those proxy groups.

A direct Iranian response would involve a missile barrage from Iran onto Israeli territory, similar to the volley of rockets launched at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Only one Israeli citizen died then, and it seems that Israeli officials estimate that the damage of a similar Iranian strike would be greater, but still limited. This past November, Ehud Barak, referring to possible direct and proxy-based Iranian retaliation, said that “There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed -- and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.” Barak’s calm also reflects Israel’s previous experience in preempting nuclear threats. Iraq did not respond when Israel destroyed its nuclear facility in 1981, disproving the doomsday predictions made by several Israeli experts prior to the strike, and Syria remained silent when Israel bombed its nascent reactor in 2007.  More >>

North Korea: Ready to go to war with U.S., South Korea

This Just In/

North Korea said it's ready to fight a war with the United States and South Korea as the two allies kicked off their annual joint military drills Monday, according to state-run media.

"Hundreds of thousands of troops are poised for a war carrying nuclear war equipment," North Korea's KCNA news agency reported, saying Pyongyang considers the drills to be practice for a preemptive strike on the North.

The international community has been negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program for years.

The most recent talks between North Korea and the United States ended Friday with little visible progress. They were the first high-level talks since the death of North Korea's longtime leader, Kim Jong Il, in December and the subsequent transition of power to his youngest son, Kim Jong Un.   More >>

US, Britain urge Israel not to attack Iran

By JOSEF FEDERMAN

The U.S. and Britain on Sunday urged Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear program as the White House's national security adviser arrived in the region, reflecting growing international jitters that the Israelis are poised to strike.

In their warnings, both the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and British Foreign Minister William Hague said an Israeli attack on Iran would have grave consequences for the entire region and urged Israel to give international sanctions against Iran more time to work. Dempsey said an Israeli attack is "not prudent," and Hague said it would not be "a wise thing."

Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb — a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how to respond to the perceived threat.

The U.S. and the European Union have both imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran's oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. With the sanctions just beginning to bite, they have expressed optimism that Iran can be persuaded to curb its nuclear ambitions.

On Sunday, Iran's Oil Ministry said it has halted oil shipments to Britain and France in an apparent pre-emptive blow against the European Union. The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the National Iranian Oil Company has sent letters to some European refineries with an ultimatum to either sign long-term contracts of two to five years or be cut off. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 percent of Iran's oil exports.  More >>

Americans talk about an Israeli strike on Iran, but prepare own offensive

DEBKAfile/

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has been outspoken about a possible Israeli offensive being launched against Iran from April, but has not leveled about massive US war preparations. The question is no longer if armed hostilities are afoot, but when. Tehran too is gearing up with a new three-week "exercise" and calling allies to the flag, including Syria. There, the appalling bloodbath has reached a scale – 350 Saturday, Feb. 4 alone – which potentially rivals nuclear Iran as the trigger for a Middle East confrontation. Read more >>

The Point of No Return: 3 Reasons Israel will attack Iran

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold. 
The Atlantic/ By Jeffrey Goldberg

 

Alex Williamson

It is possible that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is also possible that Iran’s reform-minded Green Movement will somehow replace the mullah-led regime, or at least discover the means to temper the regime’s ideological extremism. It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way. It is also possible that President Obama, who has said on more than a few occasions that he finds the prospect of a nuclear Iran “unacceptable,” will order a military strike against the country’s main weapons and uranium-enrichment facilities.

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

More >>

Israeli official implies strike on Iran nukes program is near

By Joshua Mitnick

TEL AVIV  — Tensions between Israel and Iran are on the rise after a group of top Israeli leaders engaged in a round of saber-rattling on Thursday and Iran’s Supreme Leader answered on Friday with a pledge to "remove" Israel.

Speaking at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center's annual conference, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak compared the current standoff with Iran to the "fateful" period before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, when Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt.

At the same conference, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Aviv Kochavi said that Iran had enough nuclear material to make four bombs, and could construct a missile within three years. Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon warned that "an unconventional country can’t be allowed to have a nonconventional weapon" and that "a nuclear Iran would be the nightmare of the West."

Even though Israeli leaders have been heartened by international sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program, which Iran insists is for peaceful purposes only,  the chorus of warnings from Israel reflect growing anxiety among some leaders that Iran may still obtain a nuclear bomb.

"The temperature is rising in Israel," says Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst in Tel Aviv. He says that if the defense minister sees the current period as similar to the run-up to the [1967] Six-Day War, "that gives credibility to those who think Israel is going to launch an attack."

Israeli strike would be 'a gift' for Iran, says dissident Amid the rising anxiety, an Iranian dissident who lives in exile in the US, came to the Jewish state this week to warn leaders here that a preemptive strike on Iran would be counterproductive.

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, whose visit got significant attention in the Israeli media, says that Israelis are right to take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously. But he says he is telling Israeli leaders – among them officials at the Foreign ministry – that harsh economic sanctions like the oil embargo adopted by Europe have the potential to weaken the regime. An Israeli attack, on the other hand, would strengthen it.

Advertise | AdChoices

"This will be the worst scenario. It will be a gift from God for [embattled Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," he says. "After a limited military attack, they can act as a victim, go around the world, and get support and legitimacy from other little countries."

Mr. Fakhravar predicts that absent a strike economic sanctions will eventually bring down the Islamic regime and lead to a new government that would not seek nuclear weapons.

Fakhravar says that he spent five years in Iranian jails and was tortured for participating in student riots against the regime in 1999. He then fled in 2006 with the help of former US defense official Richard Perle. Reports in the US have questioned his credentials as an opposition leader. He was brought to Israel by an Israeli consulting group linked to Israel's opposition Kadima party, in cooperation with the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Netanyahu compares Iran to Nazi Germany But while Fakhravar's credibility may be questioned, his view on Iran is shared by numerous Israeli security chiefs who have publicly cast doubt about the effectiveness of an Israeli strike, and warned about widespread damage from a regional war. Among them is former Mossad chief Meir Dagan.

Israeli leaders, however, remain skeptical that sanctions would stop Iran’s government gaining such a capability.

Comparing Iran’s regime to Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said it is Israel’s right to act to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon.

Iran issues warning to U.S., Israel

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Panetta report fuels concerns that Israel will attack Iran

Jacquelyn Martin / Pool via Getty Images

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks with reporters Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, after the conclusion of a day of meetings with fellow NATO defense officials.

By Robert Windrem
NBC News/

Concerns that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons escalated Thursday when the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a “strong likelihood” that Tel Aviv will launch such an offensive in April, May or June. 

Panetta, who is attending a NATO meeting in Brussels, did not dispute the report by Post Op/Ed columnist David Ignatius. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More >>

NYT: 'Big war' if West helps rebels, Russia says

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama marks end of the Iraq war but successful?