Israelis will get a real time drill next week, including how to act in a chemical weapons attack, in the annual Home Front national Emergency Preparedness drill.

Tensions on the northern border postponed the drill, which was supposed to take place three weeks ago.

“Our opponents hold long-range missiles with large warheads and a carrying capacity of hundreds of pounds,” and a “large volume of rocket fire” is a certainty in the event of an attack from the north, said Home Front Command Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg.

The last time Israel was under an aerial attack was last November, before the Pillar of Defense counterterrorist campaign ended Gaza terrorist missiles attacks that struck as far north as Tel Aviv and in the Jerusalem area.

In 2006, Hezbollah pounded the Galilee area, Haifa and Hadera with approximately 4,000 missiles and rockets that killed 44 civilians and more than 120 soldiers.

Since then, Hezbollah is estimate to have increased its stockpile of rockets to more than 60,000 missiles.

IDF officers have said it is only a matter of time until Hamas and/or Hezbollah put their missile stockpiles to work. “The question is no longer will rockets be fired at the large populated areas in Israel, the question is when it’ll happen,” according to Home Front Defense Minister Gilad Erdan.

Next week’s drill will test Israel’s preparedness, especially in urban areas such as metropolitan Tel Aviv.

Sirens will sound at 12:30 p.m. and 19:05 p.m. on Monday, and citizens will be instructed to enter bomb shelters or protected rooms for 10 minutes.

The annual drill is going high-tech this year and will include text messaging and social networks.

“Everyone will hear the siren,” the Home Front said in a preparatory message to Israelis. “There will be announcements on television and radio.  A ‘personal message’ will be sent to all those with cell phones that are capable of receiving them and cell phone providers that participate in the program.”

Russia is the only key to end the bloodshed in Syria and to neutralize the chemical weapons threat without a foreign military intervention, according to a former Israeli Dense Ministry chemist who is considered perhaps the country’s best expert on chemical weapons in Syria.

It is totally inconceivable to bomb the chemical and biological weapons because an attack could cause exactly the horrid result that everyone outside of Syria wants to prevent – a large scale humanitarian disaster, retired Lt. Col Dr. Dany Shoham told The Jewish Press Sunday. He is a former macro-biologist and chemist for the Defense Ministry and specialized in chemical and biological warfare in the Middle East.

There are two ways to make sure their chemical and biological weapons will not be used – either by foreign military intervention, which would entail getting rid of Assad and replacing him temporarily with a non-Syrian; or ending the bloody civil war by diplomacy, an approach that is virtually impossible without Russia’s cooperation, he said.

There is no doubt that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and it is “99 percent certain” that it is Assad and not the rebels who have committed a war crime by unleashing them, in violation of the Geneva Convention and all rules of war, Dr. Shoham stated. “In my opinion, there is only the slightest chance that rebels have used chemical weapons, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do so,” said the former macro-biologist for the Defense Ministry.

Syria is manufacturing the chemical and biological weapons within Syria, but Russia may be assisting Syria, he added.

As for the military option, he pointed out that the United States is “planning and practicing for an operation” in Jordan, using its own officers and soldiers as well as Jordanians.

“Whoever wants to prevent danger ideally should replace Syrian guards,” he said. Dr. Shoham  did not say what would happen next, but it is clear that any foreign invader would be stuck with local resentment far worse than what the United States faced in Iraq after its invasion. A foreign takeover also would likely plant the seeds for an eventual radical Muslim regime that could make the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood look like bleeding heart liberals.

However, the invading force at least would be able to confiscate the chemical and biologic weapons, according to Dr. Shoham. “We know where most, but not all, of them can be found,” he said.

The diplomatic option so far has not taken hold for the simple reason that without Russia, it can’t happen.

“The solution has to come from Russia. Russia has to force Syria diplomatically,” he said, and “America knows it.”

How and when they might happen is conjecture, but Dr. Shoham pointed out that President Barack Obama will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in five weeks.

The two leaders spoke by phone last week, and the White House stated, “President Obama and President Putin reviewed the situation in Syria, with President Obama underscoring concern over Syrian chemical weapons,” and they agreed to “stay in close consultation” by instructing their foreign ministers to continue discussions on Syria.

President Obama and Putin are due to meet in June during the Group of Eight industrialized nations meet in Northern Ireland.

Moscow is invested up to its neck in the Syria military arsenal, and if it does not want to see it boomerang on itself by letting it fall in the wrong hands, Putin will have the opportunity to play the role as world leader and twist Assad’s arm – if it is not too late.

Syrian President Bashar Assad visited a Damascus power station on May Day Wednesday in a rare public appearance, according to the regime’s television station.

The television station showed Assad speaking to workers and shaking their hands,

He has tried to show Syrians that all is “business as usual” despite the bloody civil war and charges that he has used chemical weapons against citizens.

Government media disseminate daily reports of Syrian army victories over “foreign terrorists,” whom the regime accuses of using chemical weapons.

The IDF has launched a surprise call-up of an entire division of 2,000 reserve soldiers for a week-long exercise in the north in the first such maneuver in many years as instability grows on the entire northern border, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Golan Heights.

“This is a special drill, the first of its kind, which simulates a broad-based call-up” to test the system’s capability and preparedness, a senior IDF source said.

The drill is a dry-run, and the mission of reserve officers is to come up with new combat procedures and update plans within 48 hours and prove their flexibility to respond to sudden changes in enemy threats.

The last massive sudden call-up of reserves was prior to last November’s Pillar of Defense counterterrorist campaign, when more than 50,000 reservists flooded the Western Negev and prepared for a ground invasion of Gaza. The IDF sent the soldiers back home without entering Gaza after the Air Force put a temporary end to rocket attacks, which have resumed in the past month.

The exercise coincides with reports that President Barack Obama already has given the go-ahead to the U.S. Armed forces to prepare for a military strike on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces once there is binding proof that he has used chemical weapons against rebels.

The president said at a press conference Tuesday, “We know chemical weapons are being used in Syria,” but he added their still is no confirmed evidence of which side is using them.

It is presumed by virtually all analysts that Assad is the war criminal who has begun to unleash one of the most ghastly weapons in the world, using chemicals to kill and disfigure Syrian civilians.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon tried to play down the entire call-up, but his comments may have been his way of explaining why he did not even know of the surprise exercise.

He said Israeli media were “making a big deal out of nothing” and that “not even a tank” was moved in the exercise.

That is true, but the maneuver is not to meant to move weapons, as was done in the Pillar of Defense call-up. It is meant to test the capability of the reservists to drop everything, report for duty and draw up battle plans.

One IDF officer also played down the significance of the call-up, saying it was planned for several months. That also may be true but only underlines its significance.

Like Obama, the IDF is not acting out of panic, but is preparing for the worst, and for good reason.

The Syrian civil war has spilled over into Jordan and into Lebanon. More than 1 million refugees have flooded Syrian’s neighboring countries.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has thrown thousands of its fighters into the civil war, where Al Qaeda is trying to establish a power base if and when Assad falls.

Lebanon has been a seething pot, one degree under the boiling point of another civil war. Hezbollah and pro-Assad parties dominate the government, which is an ongoing political earthquake.

The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper quoted Lebanese sources that Hezbollah is preparing for an “Israeli attack,” which could be its code word for an American strike on Syria.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly met this week with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov to coordinate a common position. Russia has a vested interest in Syria and has everything to worry about since it has been a prime supplier of chemical weapons.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu summed up the situation last week in understated language. “Israel watches with keen interest and concern the latest developments in Syria and Lebanon,”   ”Syria is breaking down and Lebanon is unstable. Both places pose considerable threats to Israel’s security,” he said.

In the background is Iran, Assad’s key ally.

The Islamic Republic has been huffing and puffing, but is not looking for war at least not without a nuclear weapon.

However, like all Arab wars, they have fueled themselves out of control, and it is highly unlikely that anyone is “making a big deal out of nothing” as 2,000 soldiers continue their exercise near the northern border.

Political metaphors may simplify or symbolize actual or anticipated events but take a toll on political responsibility and sincerity. Throughout history, including the “line in the dirt” challenge of Colonel William Travis in March 1836 at the Alamo, lines have been drawn in the sand as indicators of intentions or actions. Individuals since Julius Caesar, who in January 49 B.C. violated the rule that Roman generals were forbidden to bring their troops into the territory of the Roman Empire and invaded with his army from the area of Gaul, have taken decisive action and crossed the Rubicon.

The most recent metaphor in American politics is the “red line,” supposedly a stronger warning than these other metaphors that an action or behavior will not be tolerated. A “line” is more definite and durable than “sand” or the flowing Rubicon, and has an analogy with a geographical line. The present dilemma for President Barack Obama, and to a lesser extent for Hillary Clinton, who in August 2012 similarly spoke of a red line but now is no longer secretary of state, stems from his use of this metaphor on a number occasions regarding Syria.

The problem for Obama is that in August 2012 he unequivocally said the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a “red line for us…. There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculus, or calculations, significantly.”

Of course one can appreciate, as Obama said to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, that though information has filtered out in Syria, “we have to make sure that we know exactly what happened… I think having the facts before you act is very important.” This was clearly a not very subtle reference to the actions of President George W. Bush in justifying the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 because of the information of supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the country, information that turned out to be inaccurate or not corroborated.

It is understandable that no imminent attack is envisaged or that quick military action against Syria is improbable, or perhaps has never been contemplated by Obama. Yet there are real problems with Obama’s position and lack of action following the rhetoric. First, there is the refusal to admit that the existing facts made known so far justify that action. Although three countries, Britain, France, and Israel, as well as U.S. intelligence agencies, have declared that chemical weapons have been used in Syria on at least two occasions, and Secretary of State John Kerry said they had been used in Aleppo and near Damascus, the Obama administration still maintains that this is insufficient confirmation.

Reservations about Syrian actions were expressed with cautious nonchalance by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on April 25, 2013 when he stated that “The U.S. intelligence community assesses with some degree of varying confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria.” Secretary Hagel still had “uncertainties about what was used, what kind of chemicals was used, when it was used, who used it.”

Obama has been even more reserved. The mantra, often repeated concerning Iran, that “all options are on the table,” is now applied to Syria. But Obama’s utterances of the last week suggest otherwise. It has long been clear that Syria has chemical weapons — sarin, mustard gas, and other military-grade agents that attack the respiratory and nervous systems. But a problem regarding Obama’s position is that sarin gas, a nerve agent that can be found in human tissue, dissipates within a short time. Asking for more time to investigate and find evidence thus is less likely to lead to success.

Nevertheless, Obama on April 26, 2013 said he was responding “prudently” and “deliberately” to evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons. Using language — “prudence” and “deliberate assessment” — more like that of Edmund Burke than of a liberal Democrat, Obama was seeking further proof of culpability for the chemical attacks. In view of the refusal of the Syrian government to allow United Nations inspectors or the head of the U.N. agency for disarmament into the country, a refusal backed by Russia, it is difficult to see how the indisputable proof can be found. In his conversation with the King of Jordan on April 26, the president spoke of the need to obtain more direct evidence and confirmation of this “potential” use of chemical weapons.

The U.S. Armed Forces is preparing for sea-to-land missiles on Syria, with no ground invasion in the cards, according to CNN. President Barack Obama admitted at a press conference Tuesday morning that chemical weapons are being used in Syria, but he added that there still is no evidence showing exactly who used them.

Syrian rebel sources claimed that chemical weapons were used again Tuesday morning, this time in northern Syria, but there have been no details concerning casualties.

“We have evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, but we don’t know when, where, how and who used them,” President Obama said at the press conference.

“We don’t; want this genie [of chemical weapons] out of the box,” the president stated. When I make a decision for additional action [emphasis by the president], I have to have the facts…. If we rush into judgment without hard, effective evidence,” the United States will not have international support.”

The last think President Obama wants is another case of getting involved in foreign wars without international support, which was expected on the basis of America’s trying to save a foreign country from oppression and then achieving results that were exactly the opposite.

Once it is proven that Assad is guilty of using chemical weapons, the United States not only would be freer to act but also would have the opportunity to regain its image of leading to fight against evil.

If and when the United States attacks, thousands of soldiers will participate in the attack that is on the drawing boards, a senior government official told CNN.

The international community, which has done its best to snub the United States, would be forced to do an about-face and back the Obama administration if it produces evidence that Assad has used weapons of mass destruction, which could cause horrible injuries and deaths and also give the green light to terrorist organizations to do the same.

A Lebanese newspaper reported that an Egyptian diplomat has said that that the United States is prepared to deliver a “severe blow” to Syrian President Bashar Assad, with the possibility of participation of an international force, Voice of Israel public radio’s Arabic station reported Tuesday.

It said the decision to get ready for a direct military intervention was taken after a meeting two days ago between the Russian Foreign Minister and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who is to deliver a speech Tuesday night.

Nasrallah has said that Hezbollah is prepared for an “Israeli attack.”

President Barack Obama has scheduled a press conference for 10:15 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, and he is all but certain to face questions regarding American intentions concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the continuing revelations of faulty intelligence on the Boston Marathon terrorists.

Gun control and spending cuts also may be on the agenda of journalists at the conference.

Several websites have picked up on a UPI report that the Israeli Air Force attacked a chemical weapons site in the Damascus area on Saturday. (Here’s the original UPI report). The report is unconfirmed by any official source, but it is credible.  There are caveats, however.

The site in question, if it was struck, was probably the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC), long known to be a key facility in Assad’s chemical and biological weapons program.  (See here as well.)

The blogger, “Mossomo” at Flopping Aces put together an excellent timeline back in February on the events leading up to a previous unconfirmed report that the IAF had struck the SSRC.  This strike was reportedly conducted on 30 January 2013. Hours later, Israel targeted a truck convoy west of Damascus which was carrying sophisticated new surface-to-air missiles for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I doubt the convoy’s cargo itself was related to the chemical weapons site; if Israel went after both targets in January, it was because they were close, geographically, and Israeli military authorities wanted to maximize the gain from a rare and dangerous penetration of Syrian air space.

But it’s not actually clear that the SSRC was hit at the end of January.  David Barnett at Long War Journal was among many who picked up a few days afterward on satellite imagery shown by Israel’s Channel 2, which seemed to show the SSRC completely unscathed, after the date of the reported attack.  Barnett concluded that the IAF probably meant to attack only the truck convoy, which was in a parking lot close to the SSRC at the time of the strike.

If the IAF actually attacked the SSRC on 28 April, the urgency of hitting it may relate to the battle being waged in its vicinity at this very moment.  According to the Lebanese Daily Star, Assad’s forces are engaged in an all-out assault to retake the area around the compound from the rebels.  Fighting in the immediate vicinity of the SSRC increases the danger that its inventory will fall into rebel hands – and thence into the hands of Islamist jihadists, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda.

It’s also possible that Israel attacked something near the SSRC on Saturday, but not the SSRC itself.  One factor arguing for that assessment is that attacking the SSRC would be a big job.  There’s a lot of industrial square footage to thump; the IAF would want to put more than a couple of strike fighters over the target.  Ideally, there would be sequential strikes; I would envision two strike-fighter pairs delivering an initial ordnance package, followed by another wave of pairs an hour later delivering a second one.  Additional restrikes could well be necessary – if, that is, the objective is to “k-kill” the installation, or destroy it completely so that it could not be reconstituted within a timeframe useful to the current civil war.

If that’s not the objective, it’s hard to think of one that would justify putting IAF aircraft in Syrian air space in order to strike the SSRC.  Either you go in to take it out for the duration of the civil war, or you don’t hit it at all.

So perhaps the IAF visits have been for other purposes, and the SSRC hasn’t been hit.  Assad’s forces hold the compound itself and they may well be using it to marshal other kinds of military equipment, which, like the truck convoy in January, can from time to time present a lucrative target for the IAF.

It’s hard to say, without any idea of how big the reported attack was on Saturday.  If the Israelis did attack the SSRC, however, it’s a good bet that they did whatever was necessary to achieve a useful effect.  In our brave new world, someone will put out satellite imagery in a few days, and then we’ll have a better idea.

Originally published at the Optimistic Conservative.