WarSclerotic

U.S. finally calls Mideast diplomacy by name – crisis – Haaretz – Israel News.

In retrospect, Vice-President Biden’s words at Tel-Aviv University (“I should probably be used to it by now, but I’m always struck every time I come back by the hospitality of the Israeli people”) sounded pretty ironic. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon ended his visit to Washington on Thursday – a visit which coincided with the current crisis between Washington and Jerusalem, saying that “it’s my understanding that this incident is behind us”. Apparently, it only just began. In an interview both to NBC and CNN on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the announcement to expand building in East Jerusalem “insulting’. Advertisement “It was not just an unfortunate incident of timing but the substance was something that is not needed, as we are attempting to move toward the resumption of negotiation”, she told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. After mentioning the U.S. support of Israel?s security and the values shared between the two countries, she resumed discussion of the diplomatic incident. “It was insulting not just to the vice president, who certainly didn’t deserve that. He was there with a very clear message of commitment to the peace process and solidarity with the Israeli people. But it was an insult to the United States. The United States is deeply invested in trying to work with the parties in order to bring about this resolution. We don’t get easily discouraged, so we’re working toward the resumption of the negotiations. But we expect Israel and the Palestinians to do their part, and not to take any action that will undermine the chance to achieve a two state solution”. In an interview with CNN, Clinton explained that the U.S.-Israeli relations “are not at risk,” but later that “it was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone – the United States, our Vice President, who had gone to reassert America’s strong support for Israeli security – and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that view known.” Secretary Clinton said she didn’t have any reason to believe Netanyahu knew about it, “but he is the prime minister. It’s like the President or the Secretary of State; when you have certain responsibilities, ultimately, you are responsible,” she said. One might expect that at her scheduled appearance at the AIPAC annual conference in Washington in slightly more than a week, Clinton might soften a bit to assuage the renewed bitterness that resulted from Biden’s visit, which was intended to provide exactly the opposite. “Did you mean something by ‘Bibi'”? At the State Department press briefing, Assistant Secretary Philip J.Crowley reported some of the details from Clinton?s phone conversation with Netanyahu, saying that she reiterated the administrations objection not only to the timing, but to the “substance” of the announcement as well. He added that the U.S. “considers the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship,” which “had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America?s interests.” “The Secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security. And she made clear that the Israeli Government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process,” said Crowley. The following question by one of the reporters, who asked whether Crowley meant something by addressing the Israeli prime minister merely as ‘Bibi’ (“Knowing that from the podium you all use your words very carefully, you referred to the prime minister as Bibi Netanyahu. Is that intentional? You’re not going to quote him using his full first name? You’re using a nickname, which could be seen as pejorative by some”) definitely provided some comic relief. But in general, the ‘c’ word that both the Obama administration and the Israeli government carefully avoided since the emergence of tensions finally broke loose – it is a crisis. The same settlements that grabbed attention when both the Obama administration and the Israeli government made their first steps, and later were swept under the rug, came back to haunt their relationship and the phantom peace process. Those in Washington dealing with the Middle East every now and then have a strong sense of dejavu, but the claim attributed to Netanyahu’s aides that the U.S. “initiated” this crisis will for sure drop some jaws in utter disbelief. Attack might be the best defense, but the way this incident develops will block any potential for meaningful negotiations – direct or mediated talks – for a long time. Here are some highlights from the discussion following the announcement: The Anti-Defamation League was “shocked and stunned by the Administration’s public dressing down of Israel by saying it had “undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests”. The National Jewish Democratic Council is “proud of Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel and all that it has accomplished, and we support him fully, including his frank and honest words delivered in response to the unfortunately-timed announcement of plans for new housing units made by Israel?s Interior Ministry.” U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): “I urge the Administration to spend more time working to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and less time concerned with zoning issues in Jerusalem. As Iran accelerates its uranium enrichment, we should not be condemning one of America’s strongest democratic allies in the Middle East.’ Daniel Levy from the New America Foundation: “In the absence of decisive American leadership, Israel is likely to dig itself deeper into a hole, burying the last vestiges of hope for pragmatic Zionism. And America too will not emerge unscathed. The president can give any number of Cairo speeches and appoint Sen. Mitchell as special peace envoy, Sec. Clinton can appoint Farah Pandit as representative to Muslim communities and Rashad Hussain as envoy to the O.I.C., but these officials had all better be given the cellphone number of the Israeli interior ministry, Jerusalem district planning and building department, because that office and others in Israel’s bureaucracy still have the deciding vote in framing America’s image in the region.” (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/11/biden_netanyahu_and_papering_over_the_grand_canyon) Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development: “This synchronicity can in no way be dismissed as happenstance or as a resoundingly bad-timing accident. It was intentional, and it was intended to deflate the significance of discussions with a man who has long been the most uncompromising pro-Israel figure in the Obama administration and one of the staunchest supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party and in the United States Congress.” Israeli Ministers Yishai and Lieberman are determined to prevent a revival of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, even though Netanyahu must realize at this point that he can no longer be passive and permissive about the actions and decisions of his more extreme ministers. If he remains silent and inactive in face of these actions, he will have forfeited his leadership.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-p-cohen/a-resoundingly-bad-timing_b_495756.html Some expert’s opinions at the New York Times: Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator for Republican and Democratic administrations, currently scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center: “If you’re hoping for an Israeli-American war, I wouldn’t bet on it”.. beyond some very tough words by America, don’t expect much more?. The administration has yet to figure out how to maintain America’s special relationship with Israel (which can serve U.S. interests), yet prevent that bond from becoming so exclusive that Israel acts without consequence or cost, and America has little independence of its own on peace process policies.” Amjad Atallah, director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation: “The United States has been sending its messages with carrots and great diplomatic restraint. The current Israeli government, in stark contrast, has been responding like a petulant child, outraged that it hasn’t been able to get U.S. acquiescence to its own short-term political strategy.There is a great deal at stake in this public and private dispute between Israel and the United States. President Obama should consider responding in a similar manner, by creating his own facts on the ground, and ending all forms of U.S. cover and support of the settlement enterprise and other policies that sustain the occupation.” David Makovsky, the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: “It would be suicidal for Netanyahu to seek to sabotage such a friendly visit given Israel’s supreme interest in both of these issues. A deliberate move to undermine the Biden visit could fatally undermine Netanyahu’s efforts to improve ties with the Obama administration. Even Netanyahu’s biggest critics do not think he would act in a manner so counterproductive to Israel’s own concept of the national interest.. Something more practical is required: namely that Israelis and Palestinians reach a baseline agreement that neither party will expand into the neighborhoods of the other in East Jerusalem. This is more attainable than a freeze, and could avoid flashpoint incidents in the future.” P.S. In a book “Myth, illusions and peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East,” published last summer, which Makovsky co-authored with Dennis Ross, the two wrote: “…The U.S. at this point cannot afford to raise expectations again.” At this point, however, the question is more how low can these expectations go.

Obama’s new nuclear age doesn’t bode well for Israel – Haaretz – Israel News.
The custom is for every American president to put together a working paper that re-examines the government’s stance on nuclear weapons. The document is in effect a summary of the main principles of the incoming administration’s nuclear policy and a statement of the new president’s intentions on the future of America’s nuclear stockpile. Two presidents have produced such documents since the end of the Cold War: Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2002. Now it’s Barack Obama’s turn to publish a statement that will set out his nuclear policy.

Expectations are especially high this time around. Since the beginning of his term, Obama has repeatedly declared his intentions to inaugurate a new and secure nuclear age. He laid out his plans last April in a speech to an enthusiastic audience in Prague. His statement that “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility … to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” was greeted with applause. America must “put an end to Cold War thinking,” he said, hinting at his predecessor’s path.

But whoever expects Obama to lead the United States and the world into a new and optimistic nuclear age will be disappointed by the working paper’s details. A world without such weapons is a long way off, and despite announcements and promises, Obama’s policy is a direct continuation of Bush’s.

Paradoxically, the goals of U.S. strategy for using nuclear weapons actually widened after the Cold War, instead of narrowing. Clinton and Bush enlarged the aims of a nuclear attack to include the prevention of chemical or biological warfare on American soil, and even to target extra-governmental organizations.

While Obama said he intends to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” his government retains the right to use such weapons first. That is, just like his predecessors, Obama will not promise that the United States will not use nuclear force first. “Make no mistake,” Obama told the crowd in Prague. “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”

Nonetheless, Obama committed the United States “to begin the work of reducing our arsenal.” But even a reduction of several thousand nuclear warheads will not bring him much closer to the goal of a nuclear-free world. The Americans have 9,400 such warheads, of which 2,126 are strategic (intercontinental). In the negotiations between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on a follow-up agreement to dismantle nuclear weapons, the Americans agreed to cut the number of strategic weapons to around 1,500, but just a third of this amount is enough to destroy any potential Russian target.

This agreement does not include the 15,000 nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia have in storage as backup for weapons which are ready for operation. And the future of the approximately 480 nuclear bombs the Americans have put in six European NATO countries is unclear at this point. In addition, the Obama administration plans to budget $7.3 billion in 2011 for laboratory work connected to the American weapons stockpile, which does not seem to indicate an intention to disarm.

Whatever is written in the working paper that Obama signs, it seems that U.S. nuclear policy will not change and a nuclear-free world will remain a utopian vision for years to come. While Obama has good intentions, in a world with 23,000 nuclear bombs in the hands of nine states, good intentions will not suffice.

Regarding Iran, Obama does not intend to change the current policy of using diplomacy and sanctions to block Iran’s nuclear plans. This of course will not stop Iran; the American answer as it appears in the working paper is a defensive anti-missile system against the ayatollahs’ nuclear threat.

The American statement does not bode well for Israel.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Ehud Barak meets Robert Gates in D.C.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his inner cabinet Saturday night, March 12, to discuss the spiraling crisis with Washington and his first response.
debkafile‘s military and Washington sources report: The Obama administration is considering withholding from Israel military items urgently needed in case of a flare-up of hostilities with Iran. This would further ratchet up the mounting row over Israel’s decision to build another 1,600 homes in E. Jerusalem. The requests were filed by defense minister Ehud Barak as recently as Feb. 26, when he visited Washington and met defense secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
In an exceptionally harsh phone call to Netanyahu Friday, March, Clinton herself hinted at this possibility while administering a dressing-down on the East Jerusalem housing decision and its announcement during Vice president Joe Biden’s visit.
Reporting on that phone call, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley disclosed: “The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”
Washington correspondents interpreted this as a threat to withhold items vital for Israel’s security unless the prime minister reversed that decision (which Palestinians now demand as the precondition for resuming peace talks).

Our military sources report that the Barak arms list is tailored to a potential four-front offensive against Israel launched by Iran and its allies. It includes systems needed by the Israeli Air Force, certain types of missiles and advanced electronic equipment. During his last visit, the defense minster complained the list had been pending in Washington for more than three months and the sands for a possible conflict were running out fast. He stressed that it was essential for these items to reach Israel before a flare-up occurred. The urgency was such that he suggested that if they could not be supplied to Israel at short notice, they should at least be held ready meanwhile in the emergency stores of the US bases in Israel’s Negev.

Gates promised Barak to study the list and let him have his answer in the coming days, but none has so far been received.
Some circles in the United States and many in Israel say the Obama administration is blowing the crisis up with deliberate intent.  American-Jewish criticism was led Saturday night by the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, who issued this statement: “We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem
Defense sources in Washington reported Saturday the view that the Obama administration, which has never cultivated warm relations with the Netanyahu government, has seized on the Jerusalem housing spat as a device for restraining Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, a step which the White House strenuously opposes.

Jacob Heilbrunn: Hillary Clinton and Israel.

Not since George H.W. Bush tried to stop Israeli settlement activity has an American president openly confronted Israel. Now Barack Obama, first through vice-president Joe Biden, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is admonishing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about expanding settlements. Just as he has begun to make the case publicly for health care, so Obama is now starting to demand progress in the Middle East.

Obama, in other words,is going for broke. He has not given up on his insistence upon an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Instead, he’s doubling down, much as he did in Afghanistan. Anyone who thinks that Obama lacks boldness should think twice.

The blunt fact is that this is no sudden outburst of anger, but a simmering fury on Obama’s part. Obama’s calls for negotiations have gone nowhere over the past year. Biden’s humiliation was apparently the last straw. By flaunting its contempt for the administration, the Israeli government may have miscalculated.

Obama clearly believes that he has the political capital to lecture Israel, which is what makes the current standoff so fascinating. Obama is apparently calculating that the surge in Afghanistan, among other things, buys him enough political cover to push Israel to treat with the Palestinian leadership. Obama also appears to have a united foreign policy team. Biden, who is staunchly pro-Israel, was blindsided by the announcement of expanded settlements almost as soon as he touched down in Israel this week. The result has been an opening for Clinton, who lectured Netanyahu today. The message is clear: Israel is jeopardizing its special relationship with America.

Whether Obama’s efforts will actually lead to a comprehensive peace is another matter. Obama could end up simply alienating the Democratic Party’s traditional constituency of mostly liberal Jewish voters, who bridle at overt criticisms of Israel. But after a year of passivity, Obama is, to use a Clinton term from the 2008 campaign, finding his voice. America’s allies and foes have been put on notice.

American Thinker Blog: US fumes over Israeli home building while Iran builds nuke.

March 13, 2010

Mladen Andrijasevic

Latest from the Jerusalem Post :

WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sharply admonished Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the Interior Ministry’s approval of new building in East Jerusalem in a phone conversation Friday.

The Obama administration has completely lost it. They are engaged in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Here we are, months away from Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and potentially starting a nuclear war and what the administration is complaining about is Israel  building apartment blocks in Jerusalem which would  supposedly jeopardize the peace process.

What peace process?

Oslo I, Oslo II, Taba, Wye, Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, Sharm El-Sheikh, Roadmap, Annapolis all failed for one and the same reason and it has nothing to do with building in Jerusalem and everything to do with the ideology of jihad. Only yesterday the Palestinians have dedicated a public square to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest  terror attack in Israel’s history.

Instead of apartments in Jerusalem what Americans should be concentrating on is what Bernard Lewis, the West’s foremost scholar on Islam, said about the Iranian regime: “In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead–hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD [mutual assured destruction] is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

It is time to explain to the American people that the Obama administration with its appeasement policy towards a nuclear armed fanatical regime is endangering the lives of 7 million Israelis. For heaven’s sake Americans, get your priorities straight!

Gen. David Petraeus

Iran was clearly uppermost in the mind of the US Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus when he was interviewed Sunday, March 7, by CNN’s by Fareed Zakaria. Some of his remarks, though sparsely reported, were unexpectedly revealing on the political situation in Tehran, the point its nuclear program had reached and the likelihood of a US and/or Israel attack on its facilities.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly quotes the most telling of Petraeus’s remarks:
Well, first, I think you’re absolutely right to say that the security elements in Iran, particularly the Revolutionary Guard’s corps, the – the Quds force and the Basij, the militia, have had to focus a great deal more on internal security challenges than they did in the past. And, indeed, I think you’ve heard it said by pundits that Iran has gone from being a theocracy to a thugocracy, that it has frankly become much more of a police state than it ever was in – in the past since the Revolution.
Turning to the Iranian military nuclear program, he said:
I think it’s something slightly different, actually. I think, first of all, that there can be a debate about whether or not the final decision has been made. I think in fact probably that final decision has not been made by the Supreme Leader, and that will be his decision to take.
But that’s a little bit immaterial at this point in time because all of the components of a program to produce nuclear weapons, to produce the delivery means and – and all the rest of that, all of these components have been proceeding as if they want to be in a position where he can make that decision, having reached the so-called threshold capability. And that is, of course, what is so worrisome to the countries in the region, and, of course, above all, to – to Israel and obviously to the United States and the countries of the west.”

Some Gulf leaders even hope for an Israeli strike

Discussing a possible attack on Iran, which would fall under the CENTCOM commander’s jurisdiction, Gen. Petraeus said:
Well, I think, first of all, you have to ask a country that is most directly concerned about this, and that would be Israel. And, at the end of the day, what we might want with a slightly detached perspective than the other western countries. What the Gulf States and others might be willing to accept –
And by – by the way, there is no uniform or universal acceptance of what you had just laid out. In fact, it’s quite the contrary in many of the countries, and there’s quite a –
ZAKARIA: Meaning what? They – they want the United States to strike?
PETRAEUS: Well, there are some that are very, very, very, very concerned about the developments in Iran and they find that very –
(CROSS TALK).
PETRAEUS: – difficult.
ZAKARIA: What does that mean? They want – they want the United States to strike?
PETRAEUS: Well, it’s interesting. I think there – there is almost a slight degree of bipolarity there at times. On the one hand, there are countries that would like to see a strike, us or perhaps Israel, even. And then there’s the worry that someone will strike, and then there’s also the worry that someone will not strike. And, again, reconciling that is – is one of the challenges of operating in the region right now.
Our job right now is to ensure that we’re prepared for any contingencies, that we can support in deed, with the diplomatic efforts, to transition now to the pressure track and so forth.

Petraeus lets the cat out of the bag

The Obama administration – particularly its Iran strategists – would have preferred three of the American general’s utterances to have remained unsaid in public, DEBKA-Net-Weekly military and intelligence sources note:
1. By calling Iran a “thugocracy,” Petraeus publicly stigmatized Iran’s dominant Revolutionary Guards, indirectly criticizing the Obama administration for seeking to engage this highly disreputable organization in dialogue for political-military understandings.
2. He rendered the debate within the administration over whether or not Iran is resolved to develop a nuclear weapon academic by delineating Iran’s progress toward that goal: “…all the components of a program to produce nuclear weapons, to produce the delivery means, have been proceeding…” ready for that decision.
3. On the chances of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Petraeus made a disclosure which neither Washington nor Jerusalem is keen to bring to the knowledge of their publics. He noted that some Persian Gulf states – without naming them – were worried enough about a nuclear-armed Iran to hope for a military strike to smash its program, regardless of whether it was carried out by the US, Israel, or both.
The American general confirmed that the biggest danger hanging over Iran’s nuclear program came from Israel.
The CENTCOM commander made these remarks just two days before US Vice President Joe Biden began visits to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Biden’s primary mission was to make sure Israel did not embark on unilateral military action against Iran without prior clearance from Washington.

Arabs frown on Obama’s secret talks with Revolutionary Guards

Shortly before his arrival, our Washington and Jerusalem sources report, unofficial US emissaries brought Jerusalem the news – a shocker – that the Obama administration had launched secret talks with Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps representatives – despite its history as architect and sponsor of terror – and was maneuvering for more time to properly explore this track.
The message was delivered to a number of prominent, non-official Israelis for relaying to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak.
But it did not stop there. Jerusalem and Cairo are coordinated on military efforts against Iran. Through Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia are also linked by a more serpentine thread. Therefore, Washington assumed that after word reached Israel, it would not be long before it hit the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources in the Gulf and the Middle East report that the Egyptians, Saudis and Gulf emirs reacted to the news with strong disapproval. Resentment in Cairo and Riyadh simmered amid the fear of disastrous repercussions. They suspected the US of not merely giving up on stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, but feared Washington was about to embrace this prospect and then offer the moderate Arab nations the protection of an American nuclear umbrella. The sense in Riyadh is that the Obama administration is looking past next year’s US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and acting to bolster America’s permanent military presence and influence in the Gulf region.
They fail to see how Washington can tame the al Qods Brigades, the IRGC’s operational arm for running terrorist and intelligence networks around the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Seen from Riyadh, the US diplomatic venture is a threat in that sense because it will let al Qods off the leash and free to enhance its potential for troublemaking among Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority (10 million), which inhabits the oil-rich Eastern Provinces.

Israel in shock

Israeli political and military leaders were dismayed to learn of the Obama administration’s secret dialogue with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards representatives.
Their first thought was that this step had put paid to the prospect of harsh sanctions, since Washington had repeatedly singled out the IRGC as its main target for penalties against Tehran, and would therefore promise the Guards full or partial immunity to keep the talks going..
Their second thought was that the Obama administration, still guided by the determination to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, had in fact shortened Israel’s timeline for a decision on whether to go ahead with its military option against America’s wishes.
The Netanyahu government therefore jumped as though bitten by a snake when Vice President Biden started his visit to Israel on Tuesday, March 9, by stating: “I can promise the people in Israel that we will confront as allies every security challenge that we will face.”
This statement was interpreted as a warning that America would only help those who toe Washington’s line on policy-making, emphasizing that the US was there to decide when Israel was in danger and determine the appropriate response.
The Netanyahu government first kicked back with a clumsy gesture of self-assertion. A local planning authority granted initial approval to a long-term plan for adding 1,600 housing units to the Ramat Shlomo suburb of East Jerusalem. This action succeeded in putting up every back, whether American, Palestinian or European, at the very moment that the Palestinians had been talked round into participating in US-mediated indirect peace talks with Israel, after stalling for more than a year.
Biden was furious. Although this mini-crisis was patched up before he ended his visit, differences between Washington and Jerusalem linger, and more upsets may be expected.

DEBKA.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad went to Kabul Wednesday, March 10 on three errands – two demonstrative and one substantive:
1. He needed to demonstrate Iran was still a potent player in the affairs of the region’s countries, notwithstanding the reverse suffered by the pro-Iranian alliance in Iraq’s general election. It was his intention to show that the Iraqi setback was an isolated episode.
(More about Iraq’s election results in HOT POINTS below.)
2. He wanted to emphasize that Tehran does not need to ask Washington for permission to take a hand in the affairs of Afghanistan or Iraq; Iran’s regional standing is solid enough for independent action.
3. He decided to warn Afghan President Hamid Karzai against letting the Americans use their Afghan bases to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
This possibility has got Iranian leaders deeply worried.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Iranian and intelligence sources report Tehran is anxiously tracking the US troop build-up in western Afghanistan, concentrated at the big air and military bases near Herat, not far from the Iranian border. The Iranian president told Karzai he cannot understand why special forces from the US 82nd Airborne Division and Air Force units are massed so close to the Iranian border in western Afghanistan, when the main coalition war thrust is going forward in the south.
The pile-up of US forces in the West was even more puzzling, he found, in view of the fact that the southern town of Kandahar has been prescribed as the next US-led battle arena.

Tehran believes US is only pretending to restrain Israel…

The Iranian and Afghan presidents are both fluent in the Farsi language and could therefore speak tête-à-tête without interpreters.
Ahmadinejad’s questions were largely rhetorical. He did not expect answers from Karzai, knowing that the Afghan president does not make the decisions on how to deploy US troops in his country – or even always know about international military movements. But, in the interests of regional politics – and with an eye on Pakistan and India too – Tehran chose to go on record as warning President Karzai that any US military action against Iran from Afghan soil would meet with an Iranian reprisal powerful enough to shake the Karzai government off its perch.
The Iranian president told his Afghan host that a similar warning would be posted to Baghdad. The new Iraqi government would be warned after it is installed that Iran would have zero tolerance for an American attack staged from Iraqi soil.
From the content and tone of the Ahmadinejad-Karzai conversation in Kabul, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources learned that Iran does not believe the Obama administration is sincere in its efforts to engage internal elements in diplomacy or in its moves to hold Israel back from attacking its nuclear sites. Iran fears these activities are just camouflage to obscure active American preparations for a strike.
The Iranians eye with mistrust the heavy traffic of American official visitors to Israel, including even Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, and the frequent travel of top Israeli defense brass to Washington. Iranian intelligence analysts don’t buy the proposition that this activity is designed to restrain Israel and estimate that it is devoted to intense work for aligning US and Israeli military plans.
The Iranians are trying to sort out the date of this attack and find out which forces will take part, while wondering how well US and Israeli militaries mesh in the prospective operation.
Their skepticism may be genuine, but at the same time, Ahmadinejad understands the value of drumming up a threat by an outside enemy for uniting a nation behind its government. This is not a card he will pass up in his campaign to suppress every last dissident voice.

Administration’s Dressing Down of Israel is a ‘Gross Overraction’.

New York, NY, March 12, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said it was shocked and stunned by the Administration’s public dressing down of Israel by saying it had “undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests,” as related by Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley in his daily briefing.  Crowley was referring to the announcement about future building in Jerusalem made during Vice President Joe Biden’s Israel visit.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem.   We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.  One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.

It is especially troubling that this harsh statement came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly and privately explained to Vice President Biden the bureaucratic nature in making the announcement of proposed new building in Jerusalem, and Biden accepted the prime minister’s apology for it.  Therefore, to raise the issue again in this way is a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends.

The Administration should have confidence and trust in Israel whose tireless pursuit for peace is repeatedly rebuffed by the Palestinians and whose interests remain in line with the United States.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Hillary Clinton

The crisis in US-Israeli relations took a sharp turn for the worse Friday night, March 12, with a phone call from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the relationship was at risk unless Israel toed the administration’s line in renewed talks with the Palestinians. Israel must take immediate steps to demonstrate it was interested in renewing efforts for a Middle East agreement, he was told – a reference to sweeping concessions, including halting construction in Jerusalem.
It was the sudden announcement of an added 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo in the middle of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit which tipped the already tense relations into this crisis. Netanyahu told Biden it had come about without his knowledge.
Two days after Biden condemned the announcement, Clinton delivered a tough message, saying Washington considered the announcement “a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip.”
She said she could not understand how this happened,”particularly in light of the US strong commitment to Israel’s security.”
debkafile: The administration is clearly taking advantage of the weakness Netanyahu projected during the Biden visit to swallow its Iran policy, over which Israel feels it has been jilted, as well as its Palestinian policy.
Our exclusive analysis earlier detailed some of the steps, including those of the visiting US Vice President, which exacerbated the misunderstandings between Jerusalem and Washington, as follows:

The fallout from the US Vice President Joe Biden’s 48 hours in Israel undid a year of effort by the Netanyahu government to build a foreign policy and an understanding with Washington as the bedrock of a coordinated proactive policy on Iran, debkafile‘s exclusive sources report. Instead of ironing out misunderstandings which have marred relations, the visitor struck out on his own as America’s would-be Middle East policy overlord. Under the unrelenting pressure of the visit and its mishaps, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his closest ally, defense minister Ehud Barak, almost came to blows.
The announcement approving 1,600 new homes for the existing East Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo popped out at a particularly unfortunate moment. It may have been meant to mark Israeli resentment over Washington’s ineffectual handling of the Iranian nuclear drive. Instead, the announcement hit the Israeli prime minister in the face and gave Biden a large whip for beating the Israeli government down.

He was not the only one. Barak, leader of Labor, the senior partner in Netanyahu’s Likud-led coalition, ran alongside Biden, both using the Jerusalem housing announcement to intimidate, punish and bend the prime minister to their will  over the Jerusalem housing mishap.
Barak accused Netanyahu of recklessly causing irreparable damage to relations with the Obama administration and wrecking the diplomatic basis for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear industry.
The breakdown of the partnership which has dominated Israeli policy-making in the past year is of consequence not only for domestic political equilibrium, but also for the Netanyahu government’s world standing
Sources close to these events told debkafile that the prime minister came close to cracking under Barak’s onslaught, losing his cool and acting jumpy and confused. He could have calmly ordered the suspension of the 1,600 housing approvals for the four months allotted negotiations with the Palestinians – as he did for an ambitious scheme announced by Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat for Silwan, shortly before Biden’s arrival.
He refrained from this step for two reasons:

First, he could not afford to be seen folding under pressure to halt new construction in Jerusalem, although implementation of this particular scheme was at least two years away.
Second, he could not be sure the Interior Minister, ultra-Orthodox Shas leader Ellie Yishai – who holds jurisdiction over the planning commission – would not disobey him and throw the government into crisis. Netanyahu would be finished in his Likud party and much of the country if he lost his government by interrupting construction in Jerusalem, a highly sensitive issue
Caught on the horns of this dilemma, the prime minister hesitated too long, giving the Palestinians a chance to cash in on the accelerating crisis and lay down fresh terms for resuming peace talks. Finally, he decided to pacify the American leader and the defense minister by creating a new mechanism to prejudge all building permits for Jerusalem before they were processed.
By slowing down planning permission for construction, this device will have the effect of extending the West Bank building freeze to Jerusalem as well. Netanyahu has shown himself to be easy prey for pressure-wielders.
The maelstrom centering the prime minister obscured the fault-lines in the Obama administration shown up by Biden’s handling of his Middle East trip.
He came to the region with three missions: to sweeten US-Israeli relations, celebrate the launching of indirect Israel-Palestinian peace talks and underscore the commonality of US-Israeli purpose on Iran.
In the event, Biden fell down on all three counts, launching instead an independent Middle East posture at odds with the White House’s avowed policies.
This deviation was expressed in five ways:
1.  He hardly ever mentioned Barack Obama in any of his political appearances, preferring to say “we” – in other words, America, which he represented in his visit.
2.  While affirming American friendship for Israel and concern for its security, Biden’s recurring theme was this: “I can promise the people in Israel that we will confront as allies every security challenge that we will face.”
Here, too, “we” – meaning the United States – would define the security challenge and decide how to confront it, an attitude which was deeply resented in Jerusalem.
3. At his lecture to Tel Aviv University Thursday, March 11, before his departure, Biden said:  “The United States is resolved to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon” – a general statement with no commitment.
Until then, he had shunned any mention of Iran at all, but members of his party leaked word that he was leaning hard on Israel to prevent its resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear projects, without however offering any commitment on painful sanctions.
Saudi Arabia and its Arab Gulf neighbors got wind of the slugging-match over Iran in Jerusalem and were alarmed enough to demand clarifications from Washington. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was sent post haste from Kabul to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi with assurances that the Obama administration had not abandoned the road to a showdown with Iran, whether economic or military.
4.  The Biden party did not include Middle East envoy George Mitchell, but he did bring Dennis Ross along.
This seemed almost natural in view of Ross’s standing in the National Security Council as an expert on Iran.
However, given his long experience in Israeli and Palestinian affairs, the Vice President appeared to have chosen him as his senior adviser for the visit and sidelined presidential envoy Mitchell – yet another significant departure from the policy direction taken by the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
5.  And finally, instead of smoothing ruffled feathers in Jerusalem with interviews to the host media, Vice President Biden snubbed them all and granted the only interview of his trip to the Arabic Al Jazeera TV, whose news content is sharply slanted against Israel, US military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Western war on terror.
By signing off his Israel visit with an Al Jazeera interview, Joe Biden made it perfectly clear exactly how he feels about the Jewish state.

This is the best analysis I have read of the seemingly “brain dead” action Israel took with Biden

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs.

Israel puts US on notice By Victor Kotsev Relations between the United States and Israeli administrations have been tense for the past year. When US Vice President Joe Biden landed in Israel on Monday, seeking to avert a probable Israeli strike on Iran and to formally restart the peace talks with the Palestinians, he was likely prepared for some difficult moments. His reception, however, caught him off-guard, as it did the entire international community. “A slap in the face” and “humiliation” for him are some of the phrases observers used to describe the plan for the construction of 1,600 new Jewish homes in East Jerusalem that was unveiled on Tuesday shortly before Biden was to have dinner with the family of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Attesting to his shock, Biden was 90 minutes late following the announcement. The construction plan drew immediate and sharp condemnation from the international community, including from the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and Biden himself. The Palestinians, who were never too keen to negotiate, announced that the talks would remain frozen until the plan was revoked. “We want to hear from [United States envoy George] Mitchell that Israel has cancelled the decision to build housing units before we start the negotiations,” Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Thursday. Once the initial surprise was over, Biden was left with the unenviable task of swallowing his pride and accepting (at least formally) Netanyahu’s excuse that he had been blindsided by his Interior Minister Elie Yishai (whose office issued the announcement). He also had to try and persuade the Palestinians that “the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years”. There are two main explanations for this unexpected crisis, as well as a number of ramifications and twists. On the one hand, it is possible that a hiccup occurred inside the complicated Israeli bureaucracy – or even that Yishai, leader of the conservative ultra-orthodox party Shas and Netanyahu’s junior coalition partner, used the opportunity to boost his position at the expense of the prime minister. “Yishai faces fierce competition from within his party, but unlike Netanyahu, the interior minister can afford some criticism from Washington,” writes Amos Harel. “Actually, it might even help him among his voters.” [1] It bears mentioning that the proposed new homes are meant primarily for ultra-orthodox Jews who are Yishai’s constituency. Such an explanation would suggest staggering rifts within the Israeli bureaucracy, or, as the Jerusalem Post put it, “a dysfunctional government”. It would be further supported by Netanyahu’s reprimand of Yishai (the prime minister used the words “wretched, displaced and insensitive” to describe the timing of the decision) as well as by precedents such as Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s treatment of the Turkish ambassador in January (for which Ayalon was forced to apologize) [2]. However, given the broader circumstances of the spat, this is the less likely version of the events. Israeli leaders – including Netanyahu and Yishai (the latter also denied personal responsibility for the statement) – made a point of condemning the timing of the announcement, but not the construction plan itself. Netanyahu did not take any steps to reverse the decision; on the contrary, late on Thursday night his government approved a right-wing march through East Jerusalem. Moreover, a few hours prior to Biden’s arrival, the Defense Ministry approved the building of 112 additional homes in the settlement of Beitar Illit, where work had previously been suspended in accordance with the 10-month settlement construction halt announced in November. Legally, this constituted an even graver provocation than the building in East Jerusalem. All these events, coming in close succession, cannot be explained away as coincidences or bureaucratic hiccups. Contrasted with United States President Barack Obama’s oft-professed commitment to the peace process and the repeated calls for restraint coming from his administration, such steps amount to nothing other than a direct insult – all the more biting since they were wrapped in the full gamut of diplomatic civilities. The question remains: why would Israeli leaders go out of their way to embarrass the American administration? There is the Palestinian claim that Netanyahu simply aims to sabotage Obama’s peace effort; it may have something to do with the answer, but it doesn’t appear to be a satisfactory explanation. Few if any observers ever believed that much would come out of the current initiative; if Netanyahu wanted to bring about its demise, he would surely find a subtler way to do so than to spit in the face of Israel’s closest ally. We should not forget that 10 years ago, the Palestinians walked out on an offer that was more generous than anything they are likely to receive this time around. Netanyahu knows that well. He may or may not be serious about peace, but he is not so inexperienced as to take the blame for the failure of negotiations when he can count on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to do that for him. That leaves us again with a second option, as well as with the realization that the peace process is likely not a central consideration for the Israelis or the Americans. “Mitchell’s absence from the [Biden-Netanyahu] meetings indicate Palestinian talks don’t top agenda,” noted the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. Biden arrived in Israel on the heels of a number of top US officials (he’s the third and highest-ranking such official to visit in as many weeks), and according to most analysts his primary purpose is to coordinate action on Iran. One of his first speeches on his arrival in Israel emphasized America’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security”. In his final Tel Aviv address on Thursday, and perhaps as an attempt to reassure unequivocally his hosts, he stressed that “the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period”. The recent developments on the Iranian nuclear intrigue could shed light on the developments surrounding Biden’s visit. There are numerous indications that Israel is losing patience with Obama’s policy of restraint. The Americans first set the end of 2009 as a deadline for the diplomatic process, then postponed until the end of February this year, and last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that sanctions may be “months away”. On Monday, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, also suggested that it would take months before the agency provided recommendations on Iran to the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, perhaps encouraged by the US pressure on Israel and in an apparent attempt to tout the Jewish state, Iran transferred almost its entire stash of low-enriched uranium above ground, where it could easily be destroyed from the air. To Netanyahu, who has repeatedly promised to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes, this constitutes more than a personal challenge. The concept of deterrence holds a central place in Israel’s military doctrine and, from an Israeli point of view, inaction in the face of such touting threatens to erode the foundations of Israeli security. “At the very minimum,” writes Ha’aretz Israeli analyst, Avigdor Haselkorn, “Israel could face new attacks from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. At worst, the likelihood of a full-scale war would increase dramatically.” This leaves us with a final set of two options. On the one hand, if the US is truly adamant – as appears to be the case – in its pressure on Israel to hold back from a strike, Netanyahu most likely sees that as both a personal insult and a grave existential threat to Israel. In this context, his message to Biden could be interpreted as a stern warning that he means business with his threats to attack, and that the US has more to lose than to gain by twisting his arms. On the other hand, there exists the possibility that the whole thing is a masquerade designed to divert attention from an impending joint US-Israeli strike on Iran. Obama is unlikely to be comfortable with such a decision, but a number of analysts have argued that in the end, he might not have much of a choice. It is just about clear that diplomacy or sanctions won’t stop the Iranian nuclear program; moreover, it is not just Israel that feels threatened by Iran. On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia urgently summoned US Defense Secretary Robert Gates for clarifications on the Iranian problem, and on Sunday US Central Command chief General David Petraeus shared with CNN that “… there are countries [in the Gulf] that would like to see a strike [on Iran], us or perhaps Israel, even …”. This is the clearest indication yet of the pressure the US is facing from its crucial Arab allies in the Middle East, and it bears noting that Egypt, too, is firmly opposed to the Iranian regime and its nuclear program. It may well be that the American administration is faced with the choice to take action against Iran or to see its entire Middle East policy disintegrate.