Ex-Spanish Premier Calls On NATO To Add Israel As Member

[Ryan Ruck]

Ex-Spanish Premier Calls On NATO To Add Israel As Member

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar called for far-reaching NATO reforms to combat Islamic extremism, including expansion of the alliance membership to include Israel, Japan and Australia. The appeal came in an article published Thursday.

Writing for the Jerusalem Issue Brief series of the Jerusalem-based Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Aznar said "it is imperative to defend our values and way of life against a new threat: Islamic extremism and terrorism." The article was based on a presentation he made at the institute on March 16.

To transform NATO from a military alliance against the now-extinct Eastern bloc into a force that can counter the current threat, he wrote, "NATO must refocus itself on fighting terror, the major threat today. Indeed, this is an existential threat."

Aznar wrote that the alliance, formed in the aftermath of World War II to counter the rise of the Soviet Union and its allies, must shift away from its geographic definition and "widen its membership, open its doors to those nations that share our values, that defend them on the ground, and that are willing to join in the fight against jihadism. Thus, NATO should invite Japan, Australia and Israel to become full members."

"NATO must come to terms with the new strategic realities, that we are at war, because our foes have declared it upon us," Aznar wrote.

In an apparent reference to al-Qaida, he wrote, "They could be hiding in a cave far away, but their vision is crystal clear. They want to recreate the caliphate from Spain to the Philippines. They want a fundamentalist reading of Islam to be the ruling law."

Aznar, who served as prime minister of Spain from 1996-2004, wrote that NATO must change its strategic concept, working inside the borders of its members instead of concentrating on external threats.

"We cannot say that today the front between internal and external security has become blurred and at the same time keep all the administrative and institutional barriers separating them," he wrote. "Furthermore, we must understand that jihadism is a global movement in its scope, with different levels of expression, from car bombs to radical sermons in mosques, Internet sites, and TV stations."

Aznar wrote that Israel is the target of Islamic extremism with the ascension of Hamas to power in the Palestinian areas. He said NATO should extend its protection to Israel, also as a way of deterring Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction and is, Aznar wrote, clearly pursuing nuclear weapons.

"The West cannot fight this radical tide without Israel. Israelis might decide that for their own security they had better follow the traditional policy of relying just on themselves," he wrote. "But Islamic extremism is more a tsunami than a tide, and in front of this powerful force we better stand together."

I don't agree with his assessment of changing NATO into a counter-terror force but, I strongly agree with welcoming Israel into the fold. Much more so than I agreed with welcoming many of the ex-Soviet republics.

[Fourth Horseman]

Israel in NATO? Doesn't really seem to fit the mission of NATO to me. NATO was designed as a regional alliance for peace and mutal defense in Europe, not as a world peace keeper. I can see letting in ex-soviet block countries as their fate is directly tied to the actions of NATO, what with actions like those in Serbia.

But Israel? The issues they face just are not the issues Europe faces. Do we really want to get Germany drawn into a land war in Israel if a rogue Arab state invades?

[Sean Osborne]

Israel in NATO? While it is not a legally binding commitment - you can at this moment consider it a defacto reality.

There is no way on earth that NATO would allow Israel to be overrun by Arab or Islamic armies - or by any group of enemy nations in military alliance against Israel. The required legal documentation in Israel joining NATO is merely a matter of time - it will be a reality sooner rather than later. Make no mistake about this.

The simple bald-faced fact is that Israel was born of Jew's primarily from Europe - survivors of the Holocaust and WWII. The ties that bind remain; the vast majority of Israeli's have ethnic roots in Europe, yet their national soul has always been in the land of Israel and their eternal capital city of Jerusalem -especially for the past One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Six (1936) years.

For his part former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar is stating the geo-stragic facts with crystal clarity; he is stating the defacto truths that I am talking about above and have been talking about in Bible prophecy threads for years.

[Fourth Horseman]

Israel in NATO? While it is not a legally binding commitment - you can at this moment consider it a defacto reality.

There is no way on earth that NATO would allow Israel to be overrun by Arab or Islamic armies - or by any group of enemy nations in military alliance against Israel.

I disagree. Without clear treaty obligations, NATO would stand idly by, dithering and debating. The conquest would either fail or succeed in less than 7 days, and one way or another NATO (and even US) help could not be mobilized in time to make a difference. {Unless of course we are still in Iraq at that time. But if we are in Iraq in any strength, we remain the prime target. So I'm going to assume that the US has no large standing armies nearby.}

Realistically, any such attack in the future would almost certainly require nuclear weapons in the hands of the attacker. And so there would be no need for intervention after the initial 7 days. Israel is either blown off the map, or the rogue Muslim nation has many smoking craters where it's major cities used to be. Either way, not too much for outsiders to do other than help rope off the areas with high radiation.

[Sean Osborne]

I disagree. Without clear treaty obligations, NATO would stand idly by, dithering and debating. The conquest would either fail or succeed in less than 7 days, and one way or another NATO (and even US) help could not be mobilized in time to make a difference.
{Unless of course we are still in Iraq at that time. But if we are in Iraq in any strength, we remain the prime target. So I'm going to assume that the US has no large standing armies nearby.}

Well, you're disagreement is exceptionally misplaced and ill-considered. One cannot disagree with hard facts (the truth of a matter) without presenting at least one hard fact in rebuttal.

All you have presented here Fourth Horseman is issue hyperbole and contrary rhetoric which are devoid of a single substantive FACT upon which to base your disagreement. No argument or assessment can stand on a zero-sum, factless, assumptive foundation, especially not with me.

Except for being just 9-years old at the time, where were you in 1973? Where have you been in your study of military history and current geo-political events? With a screen alias such as "Fourth Horseman" you'd better bring more to the table than this hypothetical nonsense.

I am refering specifically to the Yom Kippur War of October 1973. This was the last time Israel faced a truly significant military threat from invading Arab/Muslim armies. The west nearly went to war - full scale nuclear war - with Russia and her Arab military allies in defense of israel during this war. We were as close to nuclear armageddon then as we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis - perhaps closer because major armed hostilities were underway. Only MASSIVE US military resupply of the IDF and their subsequent military successes in the Golan heights battlefield prevented a full-scale war between the US/NATO and the Russian/Arab/Warsaw pact allies. US and Russian strategic nuclear forces were at hair trigger readiness. This is a hard fact. This present day situation has not changed its inherent military perspective one iota since October 1973. In fact, it is even more poignant.

The US unquestionably WILL DEFEND ISRAEL with every means at our disposal, and any nation which responds to that defense by attacking US forces immediately is subject to full NATO military response as is OBLIGATORY under the NATO membership charter. This is a FACT.

Realistically, any such attack in the future would almost certainly require nuclear weapons in the hands of the attacker. And so there would be no need for intervention after the initial 7 days. Israel is either blown off the map, or the rogue Muslim nation has many smoking craters where it's major cities used to be. Either way, not too much for outsiders to do other than help rope off the areas with high radiation.

Realistically speaking, your assumption here is far worse as your assumption above is. It's actually "bassackwards."

Iran is now a defacto nuclear missile armed state and has existentially threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Iranian Hojjatieh sect Shi'a leadership fervently desires to ignite a nuclear armageddon in the Middle East. Syria also possesses vast quantities of WMD and a very capable missile force for delivery to Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon - a defacto arm of the Iranian military forces - is in possession of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles which are WMD capable.

Need I go on with FACTS?

At this point I will assume that you are up-to-speed with the standing pre-emptive warfare doctine of both the Unted States and Israel.

You do also understand the NATO charter in this regard, do you not?

You also do understand that NATO will accept Israel as a fuull member if ONLY to have the ability to exert some limited measure of control over the Israeli nuclear arsenal, but mostly to offer the Israeli's the comprehensive and collective military defense and security coverage which has been afforded all NATO members for more than 60 years now. You do understand what the significance of all this is, don't you?

[Fourth Horseman]

Well now that was one hell of a thorough beat down! Is it too late to change my user name to Third Horseman? I could probably debate Famine better. I laid no claim to special expertise, and came here to debate and learn. So now I request education:

The US unquestionably WILL DEFEND ISRAEL with every means at our disposal, and any nation which responds to that defense by attacking US forces immediately is subject to full NATO military response as is OBLIGATORY under the NATO membership charter. This is a FACT.

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not doubt that the US would defend Israel. It just seemed to me that any war would be over so fast that it would be unlikely that the US would be able to provide any meaningful aid. And I just couldn't see NATO mobilizing in a couple of days to send meaningful troop strength to Israel. Not due to lack of will to fulfill treaty obligations with the US, but more due to debating over who is going to do what. I acknowledge that there are very few facts to back this up. And thinking about it, I suppose that we could project air power to support Israel overnight. So educate me. If we assume a conventional war, how long would it have to go on before outside aid would be present in a meaningful way? And, given the skill of the Israeli military, what kind of situation on the ground would it take for the Arabs to think that they could take out Israel in a conventional war?

I am not sure that I follow the second half of your beatdown. I was pondering the fact that it seemed unlikely to me that Arab nations would even attempt to take out Israel with conventional weapons. So I assumed that if they were to attack Israel, it would likely be with nukes in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map in one night. And either they would succeed that night or Israel would massively retaliate or both. You seem to be saying that I am wrong while stating the same background I thought I was using. I am left confused.

[Ryan Ruck]

Fourth Horseman,
HA! Don't worry, once you get to know Sean he (like Rush Limbaugh) is a big, loveable fuzzball.

But seriously, I would make the case that Israel is a perfect candidate for NATO because, after all, NATO was set up to counter the Soviet threat and the truth is that Russia is a catalyst and enabler of modern day Islamicism. Hence, Israel is really facing a threat from Russia much as the rest of NATO member states were during the Cold War and are today (except possibly some of the newer xxxxxstan members).

I would also postulate that since Russia has essentially taken the Warsaw Pact and expanded it to include most of Asia (via China, North Korea, etc.) and now into South America, perhaps we need to expand NATO to be more than just the regional power it was (especially since the UN is now as big a joke as the League of Nations was).

[Sean Osborne]

Fourth Horseman,

This big, lovable Limbaugh-like fuzzball, err I mean to say, I did not intend my response to be taken by you as a beat down. I had thought my initial response of 10:10 on 30 April was a qualified current factual statement of tactical and strategic real-world realities.
...

(Israel in NATO? While it is not a legally binding commitment - you can at this moment consider it a defacto reality.

There is no way on earth that NATO would allow Israel to be overrun by Arab or Islamic armies - or by any group of enemy nations in military alliance against Israel.)

...

My subsequent response was actually a full-bore exposition of historical fact supporting my initial reply. Again, it was not intended to "beat down" anyone.

Moving on... I'll address your new post. This will be short and to the point, as I still have at lot to get to before going to work this morning and it's already 04:20 AM EDT.

Well now that was one hell of a thorough beat down! Is it too late to change my user name to Third Horseman? I could probably debate Famine better. I laid no claim to special expertise, and came here to debate and learn.

Keep the your screen name as it is. The full version of your screen name is "The Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse" and comes verbatim from the Revelation of Jesus Christ, whose words of prophetic warning are exceptionally near and dear to my heart. It is the horse representing Death; it is the Pale Horse as in "Behold a Pale Horse". It is descriptive of the battle of Armageddon, of the ultimate and final war of this current human era. and directly on-target with the purposes and plans of our enemies - particularly Iran and Russia. (ALL four horses of the Apocalypse make their appearances in a precise order which corresponds to specific events on the earth.)

So now I request education

And have it you shall, you've come to the right place.

Perhaps I was unclear. I did not doubt that the US would defend Israel. It just seemed to me that any war would be over so fast that it would be unlikely that the US would be able to provide any meaningful aid. And I just couldn't see NATO mobilizing in a couple of days to send meaningful troop strength to Israel.

You were unclear, exactly so, because you disagreed in toto with the overall responses given on April 30th. In this day and age of extremely rapid mobilization and lighting-fast, almost light-speed maneuver warfare - and with most EU and US forces already less than a 8-hour flight away, not to mention ground combat forces already in theater - there will be no massive Pan-Arab assault on Israel - not yet at least, that's coming but not just yet.

The next Arab-Israel war will be on the Lebanese-Syrian frontier - but it will be a precursor to the main event which will follow in short order. In both of these military actions Israel will not be overrun and major formations of EU and/or US forces will respond and take up residence. NATO has a very key strategic advantage in the whole of the CENTCOM Area of operations at this point in time. This will be utilized to great, exceptional advantage and decimating effect on the enemy.

With this background let's move on to your questions.

If we assume a conventional war, how long would it have to go on before outside aid would be present in a meaningful way?

About 45 minutes. Tops.

And, given the skill of the Israeli military, what kind of situation on the ground would it take for the Arabs to think that they could take out Israel in a conventional war?

By launching a massive barrage of WMD missiles on northern Isreal from Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and perhaps Syria. Northern Israel is a small place and some Arab-Irainian allies believe the largest part of Israel could be overwhelmed with such a strike. They're wrong, literally dead wrong, and such an attack will get Damascus nuked into oblivion. This won't stop the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah from trying though, they march to the tune of a different drummer.

I assumed that if they were to attack Israel, it would likely be with nukes in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map in one night.

Not nukes - but biological and chemical weapons, yes. All you have incorrect is the form of WMD that will comprise the initial enemy "suprise" attack. Nukes right off the get-go wipe out every one - Arab, Jew and Persian alike - there would be no survivors.

And either they would succeed that night or Israel would massively retaliate or both. You seem to be saying that I am wrong while stating the same background I thought I was using. I am left confused.

You're close, very close to the actual scenario which will occur. The attempt to wipe out Israel will come at night - between evening and the morning, while we are literally asleep. By day break it will all be over. But it will not be nuclear, except for the destruction of Damascus. It will be a bio-chem WMD assault with the same intent you make clear. A good portion of Israeli citizens, the "glory of Jacob" will die in this attack. Damascus gets nuked into dust as a direct result and Israel and her allies go on the offensive in a blitz unlike anything ever seen in the annals of military history. We are preparing for this event as we speak.

The dynamic of the entire Middle East changes as a result. Literally overnight. Terrorist groups such HAMAS and Hezbollah, even Al Qaeda will be militarily annihilated, Lebanon and Syria are conquered, liberated. Contiguous allied territories will exist from the Sinai of Egypt north to the Turkish frontier and east to Iran. Again, the weapons andtactics of this war have only been glimpsed at this point in time; when it happens we'll all be waking up to a different scanio in the Middle East. Then the second phase of the war begins.

And that is something I must leave at this point for another day.

[Fourth Horseman]

About 45 minutes. Tops.

What can they put there in 45 minutes?

OK. Lead me through the theory: Who does the attack? Why? What kind of time frame are you predicting (next year, 20 years from now, etc.)? Are we still in Iraq? Whose armies streak across the middle east? What is their justification to their public? Wouldn't the current situation in Iraq make it harder for a government to justify conquering a Middle east country to bring them to democracy?

Do you expect the Chem/bio attack on Israel to be successfull? If it is, then who leads the attack out of Israel?

Then the second phase of the war begins.

And that is something I must leave at this point for another day.

You leave me hanging and intrigued as to what this second phase might be.

[Sean Osborne]

You leave me hanging and intrigued as to what this second phase might be.

I'll answer your questions or point you to a link shortly... something else directly related just came up.

[Sean Osborne]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull


Global terror threat prompts NATO to upgrade Israel ties

---

Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST

May. 31, 2006

---

A desire to improve the ability of countries to work together in the war on international terrorism and in efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power are what prompted NATO to upgrade Israel's status in the military alliance and to invite the Navy to participate, for the first time, in a joint exercise, a high-ranking Israeli Navy officer has told The Jerusalem Post.
Israelis have taken part in NATO exercises as observers, but not on a tactical level. On Monday, eight NATO warships docked in Haifa port, scheduled to remain in the country until Sunday. The goal of the visit is to familiarize Israel with NATO capabilities and to discuss the "Cooperation Mako" exercise that will take place in the Black Sea in June.

NATO, said Brig.-Gen. Yohai Ben-Yosef, commander of the Haifa Naval base, was interested in upgrading ties with Israel in face of the growing threat posed by terrorism, and perhaps also due to Teheran's determined race to obtain nuclear power.

"NATO extended its hand to us," Ben-Yosef told the Post. "Even though we are not members of NATO, they are interested in better cooperation with us and in learning from our experience fighting terror."
Ben-Yosef also said, "It could be that the Iranian threat is also playing a role here but I think it has more to do with the global war on terror."
Ben-Yosef said the question of whether Israel would become a full-fledged member of NATO was up to the political echelon. In the past, senior IDF officers have ruled out joining, saying that full membership would impair Israel's ability to operate independently.

According to Spanish Rear-Admiral Teodoro Lopez-Calderon - commander of the NATO force currently docked in Haifa - Israel was not invited to partake in the exercise because of its unique experience in combating terror but rather due to its membership in NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue - a 10-year-old forum for political consultations and practical cooperation between countries in the Mediterranean area, including Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Jordan.

"The exercise is open to all Mediterranean Dialogue countries," Lopez-Calderon told the Post Wednesday. "The main reason is to create necessary and better interoperability the in the way NATO is utilized and to test communications and the necessary arrangements if, in the future, the different governments decide to participate in a joint military operation."

The Israeli Navy, Lopez-Calderon said, was unique in its level of professionalism, its experience and its advanced technology.

[Brian Baldwin]

This at least should have been a non-issue. Israel should have been included in NATO and the UN Security council long ago. They've always been there for everyone and never complained when we all asked them to take it up the wazoo for diplomacy sake. Many times they could have just outright destroyed Palestine and yet held their hand at the bequest of the world powers. No other country shows such restraint under such conditions. Not even the U.S., France, U.K., Germany, Russia, or China.

[Sean Osborne]

They've always been there for everyone and never complained when we all asked them to take it up the wazoo for diplomacy sake. Many times they could have just outright destroyed Palestine and yet held their hand at the bequest of the world powers. No other country shows such restraint under such conditions. Not even the U.S., France, U.K., Germany, Russia, or China.

Absolutely. And you know what, they'll do it again. Eventually, in the not-too-distant future, Israel willl make a deal with the devil himself in order to fabricate peace with its "sons of Ishmael" enemy.

[Sean Osborne]

What can they put there in 45 minutes?

Well since the assumption was conventional let's start with conventional cruise missiles from surface, subsurface and airborne weapons platforms.

There's also an entire US infantry battalion stationed at North Camp and South Camp in the Sinai - at the present time it happens to be composed of the Texas National Guard. Defensively there are US PAC III missile batteries in place. There would be and usually is a USMC amphibious ready group nearby. Also there are lots of assets in the immediate region - from Djibouti to Jordan to Turkey. On the other hand - worst case - we have more than adequate tactical nukes in theater. All of this could be brought to bear if need be and upon a deployment warning order within about 45 minutes.

Who does the attack?

Hezbollah and/or Syria in coordination with Iran and it IRGC.

Why?

Bacause, according to their Hojjatieh beliefs, such a war would hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam, the al-Mahdi.

What kind of time frame are you predicting

2, 3 to perhaps 5 years from now. Could just as well occur tomorrow. Whenever the war between Hezbollah, Syria and Israel breaks out it will occur at night and be over by dawn. Damascus gets nuked and there are lots of dead Israeli's from the initial bio/chem strikes in the Tel Aviv-Haifa area.

Are we still in Iraq?

Probably. May be a NATO mission by then as well, probably will be - built on the current Afghan model.

Whose armies streak across the middle east?

The Red Chinese, the "Kings of the East".

What is their justification to their public?

Don't know. However, when have the Red Chinese ever justified anything to their own people?

Wouldn't the current situation in Iraq make it harder for a government to justify conquering a Middle east country to bring them to democracy?

Nope, and the bringing of democracy is NOT the goal of the Trans-Asian Axis. It is conquest, domination and control of the natural resources.

Do you expect the Chem/bio attack on Israel to be successfull?

As stated above yes. No nation on earth can stop a barrage of several thousand missiles - which is what will occur - standard IRGC doctrine in the use of tactical missiles.

If it is, then who leads the attack out of Israel?

Probably the IDFAF in either F-16I Sufa's or Jericho II missiles to start.

You leave me hanging and intrigued as to what this second phase might be.

See Ezekiel 38/39.

[Segestan]

How many Europeans would go to war for Israel? My guess very few. This idea of Israel joining NATO is only fuel for division and chaos within the Alliance and the west that has held the communist of whatever design, at bay since the fall of Nazism. a Very Bad Idea!
Does the Spanish Premier really think that the millions of Islamist in Europe will not use this doctrine as political excuse for the fuel of discrimination ? Isreal should defend it's own soverignity , retain Jewish control over thier armed forces. To place Jewish forces under NATO doctrine is to ensure War not peace. Does the Jewish family really trust the NATO powers?
Europe is an divided house of common bonds and will not see the result of thier foolish immigration policies until the religious fanatics in the east and their communist masters have realized the dream of an End Time scenerio.
Hopefully Europe survives the chaos of rebuilding western civilization and industry.
regards,

[Sean Osborne]

How many Europeans would go to war for Israel? My guess very few.

Segestan,

My understanding is that you're wrong. Very wrong in fact. It was European's, you might recall, who launched the original Crusades to recapture the Holy Land from Islam. If resurgent Islam were to attempt to take the Holy Land once again, do you think for a moment Europe would stand idly by and let it happen? You had better think again, long and hard.

Irregardless of this, there is the fact that Article 5 of the NATO charter is binding on all member nations that an attack on one of them is an attack on all. This is known as "collective defense". If Israel is even an associate member - which it is - then you can bet a host of European nations would come to her military defense. I guarrantee it.

This idea of Israel joining NATO is only fuel for division and chaos within the Alliance

This nonsense is absolute

The idea is that Israel, as a democracy, born of primarily recent European roots, would have mutual defense arrangements with NATO at this time.

No one is suggesting the Israel will join the European Union - although that is a very distinct possibility in the not-to-distant future.

[Brian Baldwin]

Any updates on this? Was it just the ex-premier voicing his opinion and then business as usual or are they going to actually discuss the possibility?

[Sean Osborne]

Any updates on this? Was it just the ex-premier voicing his opinion and then business as usual or are they going to actually discuss the possibility?

NATO will have no choice or option when Israel is forced to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue on its own terms.

[Ryan Ruck]

Israeli Naval Forces Will Join NATO Exercise for First Time

For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli Naval forces into a military exercise that will take place next month in the Black Sea.

Ahead of the exercise, eight ships belonging to the NATO Southern Command docked Monday morning at Haifa port. The ships form part of a rapid deployment force and will remain in Haifa until June 4.

The ships arrived as part of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, a program set up with a number of non-NATO Mediterranean countries, including Egypt and Jordan, to foster political dialogue and consultation.

But senior IDF officers said the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation.

At a press conference onboard a Spanish freighter Brig. Gen. Yochai Ben Yosef said the visit marked another step in advancing the relationship between NATO and the IDF.

Speaking on behalf of NATO forces, Brig. Gen. Lopez Calderon said the purpose of the visit was to strengthen ties with Israeli civilian and military authorities. He stressed that NATO forces maintain a high level of readiness, with the ability to deploy forces at any time and in any region within a 3000 nautical mile radius.

Next month’s naval exercise will take place in the Black Sea off the coast of Romania. According to Reuters, the exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and-rescue drills.

Ben Yosef said the goal of Israel’s participation in the maneuver was for the IDF to learn to work with NATO forces operating in the region.

Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises.

An Israeli analyst for Jane’s Defense Weekly, Alon Ben David, told Reuters that Israel has been seeking to broaden its cooperation with foreign armies in preparation for a possible conflict with Iran. As Iran gets closer to attaining nuclear weapons, its leader has repeatedly called for wiping Israel off the map.

Military analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel’s ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit.

At this stage, broader military cooperation with NATO serves Israel’s interests, and may bolster Israel strategically should it decide to act unilaterally against Iran’s nuclear capability.

In another move to enhance military ties, a NATO delegation brought AWACS surveillance aircraft to Israel a few months ago in an effort step up cooperation in the war on terrorism.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was set up by the United States after World War II as a means of binding Western European countries into a military alliance to deter the Soviet Union from expanding its sphere of influence in Europe. An attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all member states, theoretically requiring all NATO members to go to war.

U.S. President George W. Bush told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Washington last week that the U.S. would rally to Israel’s defense if that nation is attacked.