SO WHAT IS THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO WITH IRAN / ISRAEL?

So, lets keep this as simple as possible.

Iran's possibilities:

The only way Iran takes offensive action against Israel is if Iran's leadership feels they have nothing to lose.

Nothing to lose based upon a pending assault on their Nuclear Program.

Nothing to lose based upon a pending Arab Spring type of event inside Iran.

Iran may utilize the Israeli option to word off a internal governmental conflict.

The relationship between the Persian Nationalist and the Muslim Zealot is only getting worse.

Attacking Israel without inflicting a crippling blow to the mainland of Iran is the most likely tactical course of action by them.

A proxy war that can be ratcheted up or down by Iranian leadership would be the objective.

Keeping Israel from declaring " total warfare" on Iran would have to be the strategy to national survival. 

Having Israel inflicting casualties on non Iranian actors such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese would be a goal of the Iranian government.

Limiting the destruction inside Iran, thus preventing internal criticism would be another consideration.

In short; Iran has very little to gain and a tremendous amount to lose by initiating hostilities with Israel.

If their survival as a nation is at stake, then logically all bets are off.

Israel:

Lets start with the most basic concept.

Israel is never going to allow Iran to obtain a working nuclear weapon!

The most logical course of action would be for Israel to scale their actions, but unlike Iran who has little to gain by initiating hostilities, Israel will have to base their survival by initiating action against Iran.

A limited First Strike  with the honest warning of what Israel is willing and able to do if follow on attacks are called for is the most logical event sequence.

Iran may have to " save face" to some degree, but they will not risk their national survival on  "saving face".

Israel will have some level of acceptance for " Quid Pro  Quo " and they will probably make that known to the Arab  League and the US.

How bad things become after Israel's Limited First Strike, is entirely up to the lack of support from the rest of the world towards Iran.

Words are just that.... words and Israel will accept damning words for their actions.

I truly believe the Arab League and the rest of the world understands this.

Most of all so does Iran...

Who are their "real friends"?

In reality, they don't have any and this... Israel knows or should know.

The preverbal "woods" of this issue are deep and the odds of getting out peacefully are not very good. 

ISRAEL'S TACTICAL REVIEW:

The combinations of what Israel could execute are so complex it would take a book just to begin to cover the issue.

As I did with Iran, I will stick to two major, tactical issues.

The tactics of a limited response:

The tactics of a total / fatal response:

Tactics / limited:

A " limited First Strike" option for Israel could be based on limiting civilian causalities and at the same time damaging the nuclear program in a significant manner. 

Avoiding the functional nuclear power plant, yet striking the facilities the IDF has identified as being part of the  nuclear weapons development would most likely be the most rational targeting concept.

This tactical targeting concept would allow Israel and honestly the rest of the world to control the escalation of the conflict while still giving  Israel the ability to take further action based upon Iran's response. Commonly known as a " Scalable response".

The danger and it's a real danger, of this concept is the " Near Target" reaction options of Iran's " Proxy" support.... Hezbollah... 

Even a limited strike by Israel on Iranian facilities could lead to an immediate retaliation by enemy forces virtually a mile away.

This " retaliation" might also be " limited" and that would be the challenge for Israel... to judge the acceptance level of a retaliation strike without ratcheting up the event uncontrollably.

The good news is, Israel has a great deal of experience in making this judgment call.  

Ok, the bottom line is this.... a " Limited First Strike" by Israel many not achieve the total destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, but that only matters if that is the real strategic goal!

If the Israel goal is to make Iran and the world realize Israel is willing to do whatever it takes to insure it's survival, yet it's actions allowed the world one last chance to bring about change.. then this goal could very well be successful!

Total Response / Unlimited / asymmetric  conflict:

Before I get started, even though I used the term, "Unlimited" in the title of this section, I will leave out the option we all understand Israel has that is never spoken of.  

Why?

The results of this action are two things:

1.  Easy to explain tactically .. Iran is destroyed as a functional nation.

2.  The historical course of the Middle East would be totally unpredictable.

So, let's look at the " other" option Israel has for a Total Response.

Tactically speaking, Israel would most likely start such an event with a ballistic missile assault on key targets... targets that may not be based on Iran's nuclear program, but more likely based on Iran's ability to strike back  at Israel.

Short answer.... Tactically limited Iran's ballistic missile response to Israel.

A crippling fist strike would not be limited by a strategic political goal of giving the world time to convince Iran to change their course.

Achieving Air Supremacy of Iran would be the near simultaneously next tactical goal.

If Israel has learned anything from US actions in the Middle East in the past twenty years, it's the concept of Air Supremacy.

Destroy Iran's Ballistic capabilities and achieve Air Dominance. 

Air Dominance would be required over not just Iran, but Lebanon, Sinai  and perhaps Syria..  Depending on Assad's wisdom of picking the right time to abandon Iranian leadership... Yep.. ... Something the Saudi's and Jordan and Egypt might very well influence.  that is if Assad is still in power by then.... 

Air Supremacy over Iran would allow follow on air strikes at the same time making the Iranian government realize the critical position they would be in.

Neutralizing ground threats from inside Lebanon and Gaza and perhaps Syria would be the job of the IDF ground forces.

This is something they know how to execute all too well...

Simply put, the IAF's job would be Iran and the ground forces would take on the mission of the ground threat.

These are complex, large scale operations that would be very... very.. .difficult to hide from Iranian observers.... and spies!

If Israel's intention was to do a modern day concept of a " no notice " attack, it  will have to have the art of mobilization timed to flawless levels.

The easier and more traditional way of achieving this readiness is what was commonly called " Wire Runs" in the Korean Area of Operation.

Standing up your forces... pushing them to the edge of the launch points and then standing them back down...

This concept is exhausting.. expensive .. and still leads to very nervous enemies who by the way can duplicate the tactic.

SUMMARY:

Israel can make ether of these concepts work... limited... unrestricted...

Their final decision will most likely be based upon how dire they feel the circumstances have become.

What are the odds of Iran or Israel attacking each other and what tactic is the most likely course the world could see?

That's a good discussion for Friday!

THE TACTICAL SIDE OF THE CONFLICT:

Tonight, I will go into detail as to the tactical issues Iran would face confronting Israel.

I will address both First Strike and Retaliation issues.

On Thursday, I will cover Israel's side of this topic.

IRAN'S TACTICS:

First Strike / Limited:

The blinding obvious would be the utilization of Hezbollah and other radical group's capabilities; thus reserving actual Iranian assets for counter actions or escalation activities.

Depending on the skill level of the unit members, a night operation would be the most dramatic and cause the highest level of anxiety in Israel.

As for the type of attacks, if Iran is wishing to build the event based upon the concept of Israel responding disproportionately, thus providing Arab Public sentiment behind the attacks, then  we would see the typical rocket, mortar actions but at a much higher level.

 Again, tactically speaking, this would allow Iran to develop an scaleable conflict while at the same time attempting to control the public support in the Arab world.

The attacking units have learned a great deal since the events of 2006 and 2008.

Israel's ability to overwhelm and neutralize the attacking units would be a difficult task for at least the initial phase of the conflict.

Mobile and disguised teams in numbers large than Israel is use to tracking, day to day, would pose a significant challenge.

The fact this attack could initiate at night would only make the response more difficult.

If Iran's goal was not based on civilian casualties, but simply winning the initial phase of the conflict with public opinion and perception, it would be a devastating start for Israel.

The memories of 2006 and 2008 would be topic number one for the media.

" Has Israel learned anything after the events of 2006 and 2008"?

That would be the core of what the media would ask.

The next real tactical advantage this scenario would have for Iran would be the issue of fighting from a defensive position.

This is not new to Hezbollah or other radical groups and when you stack " hit and run" tactics on top of the defensive concept, the initial phase of the conflict will almost assuredly go to Iran.

As I stated once before, the third tactic of this scenario could be temporarily neutralizing Israel Air Force Bases.

If the attacking units can place missiles onto the key airfields, just enough to interrupt runway operations, the IAF would be shaken badly.

Now, launching aircraft under attack is something any skilled air force can accomplish and I can assure you this would be the case in Israel.

The problem becomes if the runway takes damage.

Hezbollah and the Qud are easily skilled enough to understand the value of having these IAF sites under observation.

It is not out of the question these sites could come under ground attack from small tactical teams.

Actually, this concept would probably prove far more disruptive than simple Missile strikes.

An airfield under a special teams attack in the middle of the night would be a chaotic event to say the least.

Getting the penetration of such teams close enough to the IAF installations would be the hardest part of this concept, but the Qud an Hezbollah are skilled fighters and those chosen for such a mission would have planned in great detail.

So, the idea of a night operation that is scaleable based on missile, rocket, mortar attacks, probably as a diversion as specialized teams engage the IAF sites is a dangerous scenario for just about any military.

Starting a conflict without direct Iranian involvement, at least not until someone proves the Qud was part of the specialized units attacking the IAF, and yet putting Israel on their heels, for the first few hours, would be a tempting planning concept.

Here comes the problem with a " Limited" attack... the Israel response will most likely not be " Limited".

Israel has sworn never to go down the road of the 2006 2008 events again!

So, based on that, lets look at the next basic, tactical option for Iran.

The Tactics of First Strike / Asymmetric Operations:

Think of an attack that again takes place in the middle of the night... that has long range missiles and special tactics teams attacking all across the nation of Israel all at one time.

Getting the tactical teams into position would simply be a matter of overrunning typically lightly manned...outpost that are not configured for true "force on force" attacks.

Depending on when Iran decided to initiate this type of attack, lets say an attack from what is known as a " cold start"... no public warnings... no mobilization operations inside Iran. virtually no indication of pending hostilities, these outpost along the key border points would not be prepared for indirect and special operations assaults.

I'm not sure if anyone really has any idea of how many " Hostiles" are already inside the wire of Israel, but for the sake of argument, let's assume there are far more than what would be needed to add to the hysteria of a Missile, Rocket, force on force border attack in the middle of the night.

The concept of follow on attacks out of Lebanon and the Sinai by skilled Commando units, not just lightly trained kids who are ready to die for Allah in the middle of the night would be a nightmare come true for the people of Israel... it would be a nightmare come true for the rest of the civilized world.

Commando units with pre designated targets such as power stations.. rail yards.. and cell towers. would insure the panic in the country grew with each passing hour.

Long range Iranian missiles impacting inside Israel would be the first indication this event was unlike any in Israel's past!

Again, the issue of the IAF sites being temporarily neutralized would be devastating to the IDF.

The simple fact is, if properly executed, such an asymmetric attack would place Israel in a panic mode that would probably result in   Tehran becoming the first retaliatory target of the conflict.

The concept of striking Lebanon... Hezbollah locations along with other radical groups working out of Gaza would most likely fall to secondary... follow on targeting.

The first response, once the IDF confirmed long range Iranian missiles, would most likely lead to the destruction of key, pre designated strategic targets sites in Iran.

Tactically deescalating this type of an event would be virtually impossible.

Where this would lead in the next several hours would be almost as frightening as the event itself.

As I said the other day, I don't believe most people understand how dangerous a conflict between Iran and Israel could be for the entire region and the world economy.

Tomorrow, I will look at the Israel tactics of a First Strike..... limited and Fatal Blow..

PART TWO:   THE ISRAELI OPTIONS FOR IRAN

Yesterday I briefly outlined the possible Iranian, strategic concepts of a First Strike on Israel and the possible consequences of such actions.

Given the prevailing theory is Israel will strike first, let's go over what the strategic issues might be for Israel and what repercussions their actions may bring upon them and more importantly their Allies.

A LIMITED, SCALEABLE STRIKE:

First and foremost, I would be absolutely shocked to see Israel take this course of action given the fact they would be sacrificing the element of surprise,  yet limiting their impact on the Iranian nuclear facilities; it would almost seem self-defeating!

Targeting nuclear program areas that have low probability of civilian casualties, thus limiting public outcry is the main objective of a limited strike.

The ability to scale the follow on attacks after giving a warning that further attacks are ready for execution again gives Israel the option of controlling the severity  of the conflict.

The real danger with any nation contemplating such an option is suffering a disproportionate response.

Israel would have to truly gamble Iran would limit it's response based upon the "limited" attack from Israel.

In nation states where the survival of the country is not really in question, the theory of limited, scaleable attacks or counterattacks is a logical pattern.

In a nation the size of Israel, with limited abilities to survive a massive first round counterattack and yet still be able to win a decisive confrontation  this would is a dangerous gamble.

 I simply don't see this scenario taking place.

The Risk Assessment formulary will never pass the IDF's senior command.

Having said this, the one weighted factor that could influence the final decision could be the support of lack of support from Israel's Allies.

Simply put, if the US ask Israel, assuming the US would get the opportunity to ask, to limit it's attack or risk alienating it's strongest protector, Israel would have to think long and hard.

Would the US get the chance to weigh in on the issue?

At this point in time,  I don't think they will.

So, let's move on to a more plausible scenario.

A FATAL BLOW WITH A DIRE WARNING AFTERWARDS:

So much has been written about the high probability of Israel not being able to accomplish a complete destruction of the Iranian nuclear program that it's possible many in the world truly believe this statement.

I would be willing to bet you there is one nation that doesn't believe this theory to be true..... Israel!!!

Here is the technical problem with this all too common theory from the " talking heads" on TV.

Nuclear programs are incredibly expensive and complex and most of all fragile. 

The idea that every facility and every piece of equipment must be destroyed to prevent the program from being rebuilt is foolish.

What needs to be hit... what it needs to be hit with and what impact that will have to the overall program has been reviewed time and time again.

It is unrealistic to think Israel has not worked this part the attack scenario for several years now.

"Shock and Awe" is not a proprietary concept to the US.

The complex part of Israeli " Fatal Blow" First Strike is not just understanding what par

of the nuclear program must be attacked and what level of damage must be achieved.

Israel must also plan for the neutralization of Hezbollah and any other organization, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and this part of the attack must take place nearly simultaneously.

What resources will be used for what target is a detailed process.

Again, this is not news to Israel and you can rest assured they have this plan complete.

Stacked on top of the issues of nuclear facility targeting and neutralization operations, Israel must have a defendable... believable Public Information Operation plan ready to execute.

This message must be geared towards not just Israel's own public, but more importantly it must attempt to justify a First Strike to the rest of the world.

Now, Israeli government is realistic in it's expectations.

For a large segment of the Middle Eastern Population, the reasoning will not be heard!

What Israel must rely on is the known but seldom spoken hatred for the Iranian's by Arab Leadership.

Keeping the GCC and others limited to verbal ridicule is the real goal.

Keeping the common Arab / Muslim / populist calm is the challenge of the Arab Leadership.

Simply put, this attack will most likely explode the Arab Spring issue in places such as Egypt and Jordan.

Add to this the reaction to Hezbollah's neutralization mission that will have to take place on Lebanese soil and the issue of Second Order Effects..... Law of Unintended Consequences becomes the Delta that is simply too complex to anticipate.

Ok, lets simplfy this topic.

Israel can achieve a Fatal First Strike on the Iranian program.

The result will be an Iran that will not have the ability to rebuild a nuclear weapons program anytime in the distant future.

The Iranian Nuclear threat will be eliminated.

In the process... the Middle East will have social turmoil that could easily topple the Saudi and Jordanian governments.

The Israeli government may be tossed from power as a result as well; a possibility that I am sure has been factored into the plan.. a plan that could easily be understood by more than just one political party in Israel.

A regional war may be avoided simply because the Arabs and the Ottomans do not see value in destroying their countries over the Persians....  Somewhat the same fate the Palestinians have suffered for over 40 years.

SUMMARY:

What does Israel have to lose by going " limited"???  A lot ..perhaps too much....

What does Israel have to lose by striking a fatal blow?? 

Who is it that continues to say, "Israel's days as a nation are numbered"?

I think you get the picture.

Oh ya.. I called this option " A fatal blow with a dire warning".

In the history of Israel, the topic or recognition of it's nuclear weapons program has never been officially acknowledged. 

If this fatal blow plan somehow would go wrong.. if Hezbollah and others were able to deal a catastrophic blow to Israel... the warning of what price could be paid may very well be given.

I think that warning was given in 1973 and the two Super Powers at that time rushed to prevent a calamity.

Don't be foolish enough to think history can not repeat itself.

On Wednesday... I will look at what I consider the interesting part of this possible conflict... the tactics of how each side might execute their plan.

IRAN AND ISRAEL... HOW MIGHT IT HAPPEN?

The first thing worth saying is just how monumental the decision to go to war with each other truly is to both Iran and Israel.

The price both might pay, along with the rest of the region, is something they have both contemplated for years.

frankly, the fear of where such a conflict might leave both of the parties has been the best deterrence.

I've commented before Mutual Assured Destruction is not a strategic concept that Israel would base their survival on, yet their undeclared nuclear weapons program has in fact provided them with this option for years.

To paraphrase several past Israeli Statesmen and Women, ' Most of Israel was sand when they fought for it and most of Israel will be sand if they lose it.'

For the sake of looking at how this tragic event could take place, we need to accept the fact that MAD will not prevent the conflict.

How might it happen?

Let's take a look at two baseline scenarios; one with Iran starting the conflict and one with Israel initiating the event.

IRAN DECIDES TO STRIKE FIRST:

One particular lesson that may have been discovered  from the 2006 / 2008 " proxy wars" Iran experimented with is the strategic and tactical value of Israeli Air Force Bases.

Israel's ability to strike quickly and decisively is based upon it's Air Force.

the IAF is also the stopgap measure the IDF counts on to buy itself time for mobilization of it's grown forces.

To lose the IAF fields, even for a minimal amount of time, would prove to  be disastrous for Israel.

An Iranian  preemptive  missile strike on IAF airfields would be a logical strategic concept that would, at least temporarily, level the playing field.

What Iran would have to consider and do so very carefully, would be the classical " Law of Unintended Consequences".

To cripple the IAF as a first strike option would force Israel to escalate their response dramatically.

The classical, controlled exchange of conflict would not be an option if the IDF found itself without it's Air Force at the very beginning of the conflict.

Simply put, Israel would almost assuredly respond disproportionately knowing how wounded their defense had become.

If Iran was truly set on blunting Israel's ability to wage near-term warfare, it would have to gamble with the initial counter attack.

The short answer is, this scenario is an " all in" option with little room for limited exchanges.

This is the type of action Iran would take if it truly meant to attempt to defeat Israel in combat; something they will not achieve.

The Iranian ability to " control" the initial conflict would probably be based on the more classical " proxy" actions such as in 2006 and 2008.

Iran's use of Hezbollah and Hamas, although I think Hamas is no longer an option for Iranian planning purposes, would allow Iran to send the message, not just to Israel, but to the rest of the world, just how desperate the events had become.

Again, the Law of Unintended Consequences would come into play.

How Egypt and Turkey and the GCC would respond has changed dramatically after the impact of the Arab Spring.

Would the rest of the region sit on the sidelines and watch the two real enemies of the region duke it out?

Would the GCC come to the aid of the Persians?

Would the Muslim Brotherhood really care if Iran was dealt a crippling blow while most likely dealing one as well to Israel?

Would the Ottoman Empire risk conflict for the sake of the Persians?

Yes, the people of Palestine would suffer as well as the people of Lebanon, but does that equate into deaths for Egyptians or Turks?

I don't think so.

So, is this a good option for the Iranians?

Probably not and they most likely believe the same.

Ok, if the options for an Iranian first strike are " Limited... A proxy fight... or a Strategic blow .. the attack on the IAF.. .my bet is they go strategic.

The problem is, that leads us to a much more serious conflict than what the world is use to seeing in the Middle East.

How quickly things can get out of hand and how willing the rest of the world is to intervene will become the huge issue.

Before I end this discussion on how Iran may react, I want to make a point that has been talked about for several years now.

Would Iran truly target non Israeli targets in this conflict?

The short answer is... it depends.

It depends if Iran is convinced they are in a " use or lose" event... if they feel their current government is about to suffer the classical " regime change" conflict... then anything is possible.

But, if Iran executes a " First Strike" based on warning the world they will not tolerate further interference in their matters, such as an Arab Spring type events starting to happen in Iran, then they may limit the severity of the message.

Simply put, if they feel their national survival is at stake... yes they will attack " other targets.... If they are trying to send a desperate message.. then they will not.. at least not at first.

Tomorrow I will give my opinion of Israeli " First Strike" Options.

WILL THE IAEA's REPORT ON IRAN PUSH ISRAEL TO THE BRINK?

With all the talk and media coverage of the pending IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program, it's easy to see the spotlight will not be on Syria this week.

In a odd way, that is just what Iran is looking for, but this may not be the distraction they had planned on.

Israel's continuing up tick in media statements addressing Iran's nuclear program  have not gone unnoticed all over the world.

Let's ask a very simple question and try to answer with an easy answer.

Is Israel really.....really.... preparing the world for actions against Iran?

Now, the topic of Israel and Iran has been a classic " boy crying Wolf" for several years now.

If I had to guess, I would say the rumor they were about to come to blows has happened over six or seven times in the past five years; and that is only counting honest assessments by professional individuals.

I have published this next set of comments several times over the past six months, but lets do it again.

Lets look at why this could be closer than it has ever been in the past!

Both countries are in a much more dangerous position than they have been for some time now.

The threat of the Arab Spring to both Iran and Israel is more than real.. it is most likely imminent.

They both fear the same basic issue, Islamic Fundamentalist  Sunni Muslim Brootherhood/ and the civil unrest this movement can bring to their  countries.  

In both cases it's the youthful, educated movements that will start the fires, but the MB is in the background waiting to step in.

For Iran, this is a repeat of Iranian history.

Don't forget who started the " Revolution" in Iran that brought down the Shaw and who "hijacked " the movement once it was underway. ]

For Israel, the social disorder on the streets will come from the Palestinian statehood issue.

Again, to keep the answer to the question of could this attack really be about to happen, I will keep the answer simple.

Both countries very possibly see themselves in positions they have not experienced for decades.

They both are living on the edge of paranoia and both are looking for " plots" behind every event.. day by day.

In the past few months, I have looked at how this event may take place, but some critical issues have changed and tomorrow night I will update how I believe this event will take place if it does happen.

I will warn everyone.. I am very concerned most of the world is drastically underestimating how bad this event could get.

 http://www.debka.com/article/21453/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/06/us-nuclear-iran-idUSTRE7A50KE20111106

ISRAEL AND IRAN;  A DISCUSSION CONTINUED  

As the week draws to a close, I think it's important to simplify an important issue that received a great deal of discussion all week long.

It is no secret Israel sees itself in an increasing desperate position.

Iran's perception of its condition is not far behind.

This is an extremely dangerous combination right now.

Both nations potentially see themselves is national survival environment with
each other being the major threat.

Iran's potential loss of its most valuable proxy state, Syria and the fear of
the Arab Spring spreading to the Iranian youth, coupled with a internal power
struggle between a Persian Nationalist and a Muslim Fundamentalist has placed
itself on the edge of the cliff.

Israel faces the ever growing criticism from the majority of the modern world
over the Palestinian statehood issue, all the while knowing a reduced
landmass Israel will be virtually impossible to defend from modern day
weaponry.

Israel has a sworn enemy who as vowed to remove Israel from the face of the
earth who is also blatantly building a nuclear weapons program as the rest of
the world stands by.

Israel, just like the leaders of the GCC, fear the Arab Spring spreading to
the streets of Israel especially when it is exploited by Iran.

( Side Note: Interesting how Israel and Saudi have the same problem
right now.)

I am not sure what miracle form of diplomacy will prevent this collision form
taking place, but history tells us such attempts have almost always fallen
short.

If time is truly running out to prevent conflict between these two, then
hopefully there is enough time left to limit its impact and or hasten the
recovery.

I hope no one is foolish enough to believe the Israeli government will adopt
some form of "Mutual Destruction" Doctrine.

Again, that will be yet another example of "wishing the problem away".

What we should be working on:

Our effort must be on limiting the support Iran has planned for.

The support of Hamas and Hezbollah, if removed will limit the amount of
action Israel will be forced to take.

It will be the difference between this event being a Regional War or a
conflict between the two countries; luckily, the Arab's fear Iran more than
they hate Israel.

The danger will be Iran's ability to force other nations involvement .

Hamas cannot stand by and watch the destruction of Gaza based on Iran's
ability to manipulate organizations such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

If the " Sunni" based fringe organizations can be pulled away from Iran as
well, it could keep the entire Palestinian issue out of the conflict.

An Israel that is ready to address, truly address the Palestinian statehood
issue, post conflict with Iran is probably exactly what the Arabs are looking
for; at least for now.

The Billion dollar question is.. .are we ready for this event to take place
when we least expect it?

Has the public been prepared for what this event could mean or have the world
government's concerns over the world's fragile economy kept this nightmare
off the airways?

Israel's media campaign of the past week is no fluke.

Is it tea leaf reading or a last real warning of how danger out the situation
has become?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/11/2011113125630400402.html

I think we shall soon find out.