France24 Debate - A Panel on Potential U.S. Intervention in Syria

I participated in a panel discussion on potential U.S./NATO intervention in Syria for France-24 television. Click here to view the discussion.

Interview on NPR's The "Takeaway" with John Hockenberry

I was interviewed by John Hockenberry for his August 27 "The Takeaway" show on NPR.

Foreign Policy Article - Corrections and Clarifications

The recent article in the magazine Foreign Policy,Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran, both quotes me and attributes things to me that are inaccurate or taken out of context. While trying to correct already published articles in widely-read publications is akin to unringing a bell, I think it important to respond to correct and clarify words and actions attributed to me.

While the article is technically truthful, it is nuanced and written to portray a cavalier attitude among the participants in several foreign policy initiative and intelligence operations during the last full year of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, specifically from September 1987 to August 1988. Having been one of the participants in these events, I can assure that we were serious about our work, attempting to do the best we could in a very unpleasant set of circumstances.

Let's start with the line right under the title:

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

Technically, this is true - but out of context. U.S. assistance to Iraq continued after it became known that the Iraqi armed forces had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops during the April 1988 offensive that reclaimed Iraq's al-Faw peninsula. I was on the al-Faw battlefields a few weeks after the battle. It was obvious to the other Defense Intelligence Agency officer and me that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons during the fighting. Our first clue was the presence of used atropine injectors on the ground, and in captured Iranian military weapons and equipment.

Atropine injectors are the universal antidote for exposure to nerve agents. When I asked the Iraqi officers escorting us about the injectors, they explained that they used a lot of obscurant smoke rounds in the artillery fires prior to the attack and that the Iranians may have been confused and thought they were being attacked with chemical weapons. While you could be skeptical, it was an explanation. It was an explanation that soon evaporated as we found decontamination fluid on the captured Iranian equipment. If there was no chemical warfare exposure, there was no need to decontaminate the vehicles.

We reported our findings to the embassy in Baghdad as well as all of the offices in Washington - CIA, State Department and Defense Department. Our cooperation with the Iraqis stopped immediately. A series of meetings were held in Washington - at a level, as we say, "way above my pay grade." In the end, we reluctantly resumed our program with the Iraqis. It was the only slightly better of two bad choices: stop helping the Iraqis and the Iranians would likely win the war, or continue to work with a country now using nerve agents on the battlefield.

Although we did not know it at the time, Saddam Husayn had already ordered his forces to use nerve agents against his own people - Iraqi Kurds living in the northern city of Halabjah. Thousands died in March of 1988 in what many analysts later believed was a weapons test of the nerve agent Sarin (GB).

America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen.

I am not sure we were in a position to stop the Iraqis from using chemical weapons, a capability they denied until years later.

U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

This is not accurate. While we did provide order of battle data about Iranian forces to the Iraqis, no one was "fully aware" that the Iraqis were going to use nerve agents. The first evidence that the Iraqis had successfully developed and weaponized nerve agents was after the attack on the al-Faw peninsula, not before.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture. "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew."

First of all, governments who deny possessing chemicals weapons don't announce they are going to use them. Second, armed forces do not generally announce in advance what weapons they are going to use, let alone the fact that they are going to launch an attack. For the sake of accuracy, I was not a military attaché in Baghdad - I served as a liaison officer to the Iraqi forces. As for the quote attributed to me, it is true - the Iraqis never told us they intended to use chemical weapons; they denied having them. After al-Faw, they did not need to admit to it, we knew.

Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as "GA") against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.

There is a problem here with "what I knew and when did I know it." I did serve in Jordan in 1984, although as an advisor to the Jordanian armed forces, not as an attaché. I learned about Iraq's 1984 use of the nerve agent Tabun after I had begun working on the Iraqi issue in 1987 - I had read these same documents that have now been released.

In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona's shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled "At The Gates of Basrah," warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives....

Just a minor correction here: That well-written report about the coming offensive was done by the analysts at the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, not my office. I am not sure whether or not it warned of a larger offensive than normal, but it might have.

The last of these attacks, called the Blessed Ramadan Offensive, was launched by the Iraqis in April 1988 and involved the largest use of sarin nerve agent employed by the Iraqis to date.

Actually, the April 1988 offensive to re-take the al-Faw peninsula was the first of four offensives in 1988 that eventually brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. The use of chemicals in the later offensives was greater than the first.

There is an excellent New York Times article written by Patrick Tyler on these events (in which I am mentioned but for which I was not interviewed): OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS.

Russian arms to Syria - interview on the Steve Malzberg Show

Air Force Expert: US-Russia Confrontation Likely If Russia Delivers Missiles to Syria

(Story at: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/russi-syria-missiles-confrontation/2013/05/31/id/507429#ixzz2UuriXOf9)

A looming threat by Russia to deliver missiles to Syria will escalate tensions between Syria and Israel — and possibly trigger a confrontation between Russia and the United States, a former top Air Force intelligence officer says.

Retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV that the possible standoff could echo the tension that surfaced during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which began with a surprise Arab attack on Israel.

"If you remember the 1973 war, we started to resupply Israel. The Russians put all of their forces on alert. They were going to intervene in the Middle East, we were going to intervene in the Middle East, and this was going to spiral out of control," Francona said.

"And this has the capability of leading to that confrontation because the Russians are backing the Syrians and if we declare a no-fly zone, they may feel that they have to intervene on behalf of the Syrians. We're approaching a very critical time in this right now."

The new threat stems from a cache of missiles Syria ordered from Russia years ago. They have yet to be delivered because of the ongoing civil war between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and protestors trying to topple it.

"The Russians now are threatening to deliver the missiles. And as we get closer to a possible no-fly zone, you're going to see Syria pressuring the Russians to go ahead and deliver those systems that they paid for," Francona said.

"It looks like the earliest they can get them there would be this fall. But if these missiles are delivered, this is a game changer."

The reason being, he said, because while Syrians have a lot of military air power, their systems are old.

"It really hasn’t been upgraded in decades . . . The Russians have always built really great air defense stuff and this is about as good as it gets and if they get these into Syria, it will put the northern half of Israel at risk."

Francona said Secretary of State John Kerry is now trying to get all sides together to diffuse the situation.

"Hopefully, something will come out of that," he said. "I don’t hold much hope for that, but this has the potential to become, once again . . . the superpower confrontations of decades ago."

(There is more - please watch the video)

Memorial Day 2013

Note: I wrote this in 2007 while a military analyst at NBC News. With a few word changes, I think it holds true yet today. The original is still available at MSNBC.com.

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Do not forget our fallen men and women

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
Military analyst - MSNBC

Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Ed and I served together in Desert Storm - this must have been his toughest duty.

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the "summer driving season" or a chance to buy appliances on sale. The constant news coverage of still high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It is not about driving or shopping – it is about remembering the men and women or our armed forces who died while in service to the country. It is important that we not forget that – after more than a decade, we are still at war and we still lose some our finest young men and women every week.

Yes, we are still at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Every one of the fallen volunteered to serve this country, and deserve a moment of remembrance. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces in the past – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a small village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, "In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil." A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, "You are welcome in France."

Over the years, over a million American troops have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the American flag draped on the coffin, an honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of seven rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation "on behalf of a grateful nation."

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive and Rick Francona

Iran - time to intervene in Syria?

The Syrian civil war has raged on for over two years - over 70,000 Syrians have been killed. Most of the world is merely watching events unfold, while a few nations are supporting the opposition with low levels of arms and money. Western nations are debating the possibility of imposing a no-fly zone over the country, wondering if their national interests require involvement in yet another country in the troublesome Middle East.

Each country is doing its own calculations on what happens if Bashar al-Asad remains in power or not. For one country, however, the stakes are abundantly clear. The removal of the regime will be a serious foreign policy setback for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Syria is the key to their access to Lebanon, home of a sizable population of Shi'a Muslims and, more importantly, their proxy paramilitary force, Hizballah. Hizballah was created by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Syria/Lebanon contingent in 1982 - that contingent formed the basis for the now-infamous Qods Force, the IRGC's special operations and "dirty tricks" unit.

Hizballah is part of Iran's greater strategy to isolate and confront Israel, which it regards as its primary enemy in the region and second only to the United States worldwide. Access to - and many would argue, control over - Hizballah allows Iran to open a northern front against Israel, or conduct a low-level war against the Jewish state with virtually no overt Iranian involvement. The ability of Hizballah to tie up huge amounts of Israeli military resources was demonstrated in the Israel-Hizballah war of 2006.

Iran's ability to maintain Hizballah as an effective organization - it provides virtually all of its weaponry, training and funding - is dependent on access to Syrian territory. Virtually all of Hizballah's weapons are delivered by Iranian aircraft - Iranian air force cargo aircraft or state-owned charters. The primary entry point for these supply flights is Damascus International Airport, about half an hour from the Lebanese border and Hizballah's strongholds in the Biqa' Valley.

As far as Syria itself, having an alliance with Damascus allows the Iranians to put additional pressure on Israel. Not only does Israel have to concern itself with Hizballah on its northern border with Lebanon, it also must be prepared to defend itself from the national armed forces of Syria.

Although the Syrian armed forces have recently gained the upper hand against the combined opposition of the Free Syrian Army and the more troublesome Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusrah, it is mostly through control of the sky that allows the regime to make gains against the opposition. Imposition of a no-fly zone - which is a distinct possibility as talks between Western powers begin in earnest - might tip the balance towards the overthrow of the al-Asad regime.

Iran may intervene militarily to prevent that from happening, and we may be seeing the next steps of that intervention. There have been IRGC troops in Syria for some time, but this week, the Iranian leadership announced that it was dispatching 10,000 IRGC fighters and basiji (volunteer augmentees) to Syria. The ostensible reason for the deployment was to defend two shrines in the Damascus area holy to Shi'a Muslims, and to defend the Golan Heights. The last excuse is interesting, since the Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights since 1967.

The two holy sites are the shrines of Sayidat Zaynab (left) and Sayidat Zukaynah (right). The shrine of Sayidat Zaynab is located just south of Damascus in the city of the same name (33°26'39"N 36°20'27"E) - it is the tomb of Zaynab, daughter of 'Ali (the first imam, son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad) and Muhammad's daughter Fatimah, making her Muhammad's granddaughter, a woman revered among the Shi'a.

The shrine of Sayidat Zukaynah is located just a few miles southwest of Damascus in the suburb of Daraya (33°27'32"N 36°14'26"E) - a heavily contested area near an important air base (al-Mazzah). Zukaynah was the daughter of Husayn bin 'Ali (grandson of Muhammad), and thus the great granddaughter of the Prophet - she died in a Yazdi prison at age four.

There also is no need for Iranian IRGC or Basijis to guard either of the shrines. The Sayidat Zaynab shrine is in a heavily Shi'a area with plenty of Iranian guards already present, and the Zukayna shrine is in an area that the regime must hold; it has devoted a lot of resources to defend the entire area, not just the area of the shrine. It is a minor shrine - I lived close to this area and had never heard of it.

Defense of the Golan Heights? On the surface, one could make the case that since the Syrian regime has withdrawn much of its military force that was in the area between Damascus and the Golan Heights to bolster the defense of the capital, it is highly unlikely that Israel would move into southern Syria. Why interfere when one of your enemies is imploding on its own?

It appears to me this is just what the Iranians believe is a non-threatening means of deploying 10,000 troops to Syria. Once there, they can be used as needed to bolster one of Tehran's few allies. It might be the first step in a much larger intervention in the country, because if Bashar al-ASad falls, Hizballah will likely die on the vine.

,

The battle after the Battle for Damascus

Demonstration in Aleppo, Syria

I have recently written two articles, The Coming Battle for Damascus, and a follow-on piece, The Coming Battle for Damascus - Addendum. There will be a Battle for Damascus, and I predict when it is all over, the Syrian people will have overthrown the dictatorial party that has ruled the country for five decades. That is a good thing, but that victory will lead to the second battle for Syria, the "Battle after Damascus."

In the beginning of the Syrian revolution, which has just entered its third year, the various grass-roots opposition groups united under the banner of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The FSA was a loose amalgam of local groups across the country. It was not long before military officers who had defected to the FSA, bringing with them military organizational skills, began to coordinate the disparate operations and begin to bring a quasi-military structure to the group, forming battalions, then brigades. Just this last week, we saw the creation of the FSA's First Infantry Division in the Damascus Countryside governorate.

Not long after the creation of the FSA, foreign fighters began to join the fight, and some elements of the loosely organized FSA began to appear more Islamist. Watching the hours of videos posted to sites like YouTube and LiveLeak, I noticed the clips showed increasing instances of Islamist chants and the appearance of the black Islamist flag normally associated with al-Qa'idah and its affiliates.

It came as no surprise when the Jabhat al-Nusra (Victory Front) declared its affiliation with al-Qaidah, followed by the joint declaration of the Front and the Islamic State of Iraq (also known as al-Qa'idah in Iraq) that they had formed a joint organization called The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Why has the FSA decided to cooperate with the Islamists? Simple - they offered capable assistance and support while the West, including the United States, sat on the sidelines, or offered "non-lethal" aid. I watch hours of Syrian opposition videos everyday - the term ghayr qatali (non-lethal) has become a joke among the Syrian fighters.

Do the more secular Syrians who make up the bulk of the FSA want an Islamic state in Syria after the fall of the Bashad al-Asad regime? Probably not, but right now is not the time for that battle. The secularists and Islamists are locked into an uneasy alliance based on a common enemy - they have decided that they will cooperate for now, knowing full well that there will be a major ideological clash in the future. There will be a fight over the future structure of the follow-on government of Syria. That battle will follow the coming battle for Damascus - the future of Syria will be decided in the streets of Damascus.

The FSA is aware that they may have mortgaged a piece of their future to the Islamists. Many of their supporters are not happy about it and have expressed their displeasure with the FSA leadership. The Christians - Arab, Assyrian and Armenian - are wary of supporting the FSA, but many have thrown in with the FSA. Most of the Kurds have reluctantly gone along as well.

However, there are secularists who are taking a hard line against the Islamists. The picture above of a group of women holding a sign the northern city of Aleppo illustrates the point. For my fellow Arabic linguists, the language is a bit awkward - it is a poem and it must rhyme.

The sign reads:

"Oh, what a pity for the Al-Qa'idah [men]
The [FSA] men are in jail and the Muslim women are free
And to trample their dignity would make them (the al-Qa'idah) despicable."

There is no illusion among the secularists that there is not another fight ahead of them. It too will not be an easy struggle.

Iraq "inspects" Iranian cargo aircraft heading for Syria - color me skeptical

There is widespread reporting about Iraq's third inspection of Iranian cargo aircraft bound for Damascus in just the past three days. This particular flight was a Mahan Air Boeing 747, similar to the one pictured above.

These "inspections" are in response to the recent visit of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to Baghdad. On March 24, Kerry met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and almost demanded that Iraq stop Iran from shipping arms to Syria through Iraqi airspace. "Anything that supports President Assad is problematic,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that the Iranian flights were "sustaining the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Asad."

If it were not such a serious issue, Kerry's naivete would be humorous. A virtual neophyte in Middle East matters, Kerry presumes to explain regional politics to the prime minister of Iraq. Specifically, he tells pro-Iranian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki - known in Iraq derisively as "Nuri the Iranian" - that allowing Iranian flights to transport weapons, supplies and personnel to Iraq is supporting the pro-Iranian regime of Bashar al-Asad.

Do we see a theme here? Iran, al-Maliki and Bashar al-Asad are on the same side. Why does Kerry not seem to know that?

Again, a neophyte in things Middle Eastern, Kerry probably believes the Iraqi accounts of what has happened this week. Three Iranian flights have been asked to land while transiting Iraqi airspace for inspection to ensure weapons are not among the cargo. In all three instances, Iraqi officials have found only "humanitarian goods" on the planes. True to form, the Iranian government has called the inspections “unacceptable," and vowed to continue its "relief operations" in Syria despite the inspections.

Mr. Secretary, surely you must know this is theater for your benefit. The Shi'a-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki is in the pocket of the Iranians - al-Maliki takes his orders from Tehran. Iran is the Syrian regime's primary supporter - the two countries have had close relations since Syria supported Iran in its eight year war with Iraq in the 1980s.

The Syrian and Iraqi leaders have grown closer since the premature departure of American forces in 2011, completing what one could call a "Shi'a crescent" running from Damascus through Baghdad to Tehran. You can thank your President for that....

There are two scenarios that may be in play here. The Iranians may have told the Iraqis which planes are not carrying weapons and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters, and the Iraqis are selecting these for inspection. Alternatively, the planes are carrying weapons and the Iraqis have been told to look the other way. Either is possible, although I suspect it is the former.

I also question the use of Mahan Air for resupply to the Syrians. In the past, they have used Iranian air force Boeing 747 cargo freighters, just as they have for decades. If you honestly believe that your admonition to Nuri al-Maliki has stemmed the flow of weapons from Iran to Syria via Iraq, you really are naive.

The Coming Battle for Damascus - Addendum

Note: This is an addendum to my article of one month ago, The Coming Battle for Damascus.

Al-Tadamun section of south Damascus

The Syrian rebels - an amalgam of the the loosely-organized mostly Sunni Muslim Free Syrian Army and a few Islamist groups, notably the Jabhat al-Nusrah, have made significant advances against the armed forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.

The rebels have been effective enough to seriously alter the military operations and planning of the Syrian government. Over the last month, the opposition has been able to down a number of armed assault helicopters as well as fighter-bomber aircraft using what I believe to be Chinese-manufactured shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Additionally, they have been able to take over a number of cities in the north of the country, some in the oil-rich northeast governorates.

At the same time, the rebels gathering around Damascus, despite being pounded around the clock by artillery, rockets and air attacks, have been able to push to within about a mile of al-'Abasiyin Square, considered to be a key target for the rebels. I believe that Bashar al-Asad has realized that the battle for Damascus is about to begin in earnest.

The Syrian general staff has made some alarming decisions to address the military situation. To understand the significance of these military moves, perhaps a quick look at Syrian defense strategy will be illustrative. The "normal" (pre-revolution) deployment of Syrian forces were to provide defense against what Syria considered its primary threat - Israel. Four divisions - the 1st Armor, 5th Armor, 7th Mechanized and 9th Armor were arrayed south of Damascus from the Lebanese border on the west, across the foothills of the Golan Heights to the Jordanian border in the east.

To protect the regime, there were two divisions stationed in the southern and western suburbs of Damascus whose primary mission was regime protection - the 4th Armor Division and the division-equivalent Republican Guard. These two units were officered almost solely by members of Bashar's 'Alawi sect.

As events unfolded this week, the Syrian general staff ordered the main combat units of the four divisions in the south to redeploy to defense positions in and around the capital city. In almost 40 years of watching the Syrian military, I have never seen these military units allowed into downtown Damascus. This leaves the borders with Israel, and to some extent Jordan, virtually unprotected. I believe the Syrian regime has determined that there is much less of a threat from either of these neighboring countries than the internal threat from the Free Syrian Army and the Islamists.

For President Bashar al-Asad to move these forces into Damascus indicates the level of concern over the gravity of the situation and the realization that his worst nightmare is about to commence - the bloody street battles that will determine the fate of Syria.

Bashar is also concerned for his minority 'Alawi sect, centered in northwest Syria near the Latakia coast. He has ordered additional army units to that area to protect this group from what might easily become a bloodbath of retribution for years of oppression. Deploying forces to this area lessens the number of forces to address the burgeoning revolution in the north and northeast - Aleppo, al-Raqqah, Dayr al-Zawr and al-Hasakah governorates. That area now has basically one armor division to quell the violence - it is not working. Bashar has likely made the calculation to cede this area to the rebels and concentrate on the defense of the 'Alawi homeland and the city of Damascus.

Things are happening quickly in the Levant. Syria is basically up for grabs. How far is Bashar and the regime prepared to go to remain in power? Would they rather see the country destroyed and have a chance at remaining in power, or will they opt for some way to prevent further bloodshed in return for a way out? I am guessing the former - it is going to get ugly.

Obama's visit to Israel - will this be Pollard's last chance?

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard

President Barack Obama will make his first visit as president to Israel in March, assuming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can form a coalition to govern the country. According to the Israeli media, Israeli President Shimon Peres will make yet another request for the release of admitted and convicted spy Jonathan Pollard "on humanitarian grounds."

Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, was convicted in 1987 of espionage against the United States on behalf of Israel. He was sentenced - as he should have been - to life in prison, but because of laws in existence at the time, he will be eligible for parole and may be released on November 21, 2015.

Almost a year ago, Shimon Peres made the same request. Prior to a trip during which he was awarded America's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Israeli president requested that President Obama release the convicted traitor. I wrote about that request - and the correct response, a refusal, from Mr. Obama. See Obama, Peres and Pollard - any "flexibility?"

Shimon Peres is an honorable man who has served his country in a continuous series of military, political and diplomatic positions that mirror the creation and development of the Jewish state. To have this icon of Israeli history grovel for the release of a traitor should be embarrassing for the people of Israel. A paragon of honor asking for the release of a spy - not exactly the legacy he would want. It is hard to believe the government of Israel wants one of its most respected citizens to compromise his standards to be associated with the ilk that is Jonathan Pollard.

Israeli requests for Pollard's release are nothing new. I am conflicted by the Israelis' continuous requests to excuse Pollard's treason. The intelligence officer in me respects the Israelis' desire to stand by a recruited spy who worked for them, while the American military officer in me would have supported the death penalty against a traitor whose perfidy may have led to the deaths of people who we, American intelligence, had recruited to work for us. It is a haunting duality. Do the Israelis really want to insult the only real ally they have?

What has changed in less than a year? For one, President Obama has been re-elected, and as such, may have what he believes is more "flexibility." He pointed this out to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when discussing America's European-based missile defense system, that he will have more "flexibility" after the 2012 election.

What does this mean for Jonathan Pollard? President Obama's self-ascribed flexibility might just be the key to Pollard's early release. It is no secret that Barack Obama is not highly regarded in Israel - no wonder, he has done very little to engender confidence that his declared support for the Jewish state is genuine.

A decision by President Obama to pardon Jonathan Pollard might be the one gesture that would endear him to the Israeli people. I hope the President does not take this step, in effect placing political expediency above doing the right thing. You may take from that phrase that I believe Jonathan Pollard should rot in that jail cell - he did the crime, he is doing the time.

A presidential pardon for Jonathan Pollard would be an insult to those of us who have conducted intelligence operations on behalf of our country. That said, I am not confident that this president is above playing politics at the expense of propriety.

To my Israeli friends: I know we disagree vehemently on this issue. I will not change my mind, nor will I get involved in a drawn-out discussion when we are unlikely to resolve our differences. This is my view - you are free to voice your own. I just will not respond.