WarSclerotic

Issue 436 – josephwouk@gmail.com – Gmail.

Obama Engages a New Iranian Partner – I Would the Revolutionary Guards Turn Against Their Own Ahmadinejad? Barak Obama In his thirteen-and-a-half months in office, President Barak Obama has never stopped looking for Iranian partners to engage in diplomacy for reining in its nuclear program. Spurned time and time again, he is now on his fourth try. His administration started out with the working hypothesis that Iran’s supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were not, despite their often wild rhetoric, total lunatics but political pragmatists who would eventually come around to a deal on their nuclear program. A plan was devised to let them off the hook of the international ban on uranium enrichment, and allow them to continue the process and go after the technology for building a nuclear weapon. It was assumed that the Iranians would stop short of actually assembling one. On this assumption, the Obama administration refrained from throwing its moral weight behind the protest movement when it sprang up in June over the alleged falsification of the presidential vote face of brutal suppression. When Tehran remained impervious to this inducement and diplomatic persuasion, Obama set September 2009 as the first deadline for Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on enrichment and level with the International Atomic Energy Agency on its clandestine projects. He pushed the deadline back to December, when Tehran joined talks with representatives of the 5+1 (the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany) on a fresh plan for the transfer of most of Iran’s low-grade enriched uranium stock to Europe for further processing as fuel for medical research. Courting the Revolutionary Guards December went by without a formal Iranian response to the Six-Power plan – and so did January. Yet Washington still waited. Then, in early February, Ahmadinejad announced proudly that Iran would begin enriching uranium to 20 percent grade on its own. Still, Obama did not rule out another engagement bid. In answer to a question put to him on Feb. 9, he said: “At this point, it seems they have made a decision, but the door is still open.” Meanwhile, a US effort to bring Russia aboard a Security Council sanctions motion sank almost without a trace. The Obama administration’s fourth move is revealed here for the first time by DEBKA-Net-Weekly Washington sources: Since the last week of February, US emissaries have been engaged in a hush-hush quest for a deal with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps leaders, with a view to distancing them from their loyalty to president Ahmadinejad, a former member. In secret encounters with IRGC high-ups in Tehran and European cities, administration envoys made the following pitch: The Obama administration is not after regime change in Tehran; it has proved this by withholding its support from the opposition’s campaign of anti-government street protests in the heart of the Iranian capital in the last six months. In the meantime, US intelligence currently estimates that Iran’s opposition Green Movement is fading and no longer a threat to the regime. How about a lame-duck president? The Americans are also naturally au fait with the Revolutionary Guards’ internal affairs and therefore aware of the fundamental change in emphasis it is undergoing, gradually evolving from an organization geared to military functions to one dominated by the financial interests of its huge business empire. This dynamic was exhibited most prominently in the low profile its leaders maintained during the months of domestic upheaval besetting the government. Only rarely did a corps figure speak out in defense of the president or spiritual ruler. Indeed, note was taken in Washington that since January 2010, too, not a single commander has voiced support for Ahmadinejad. The Obama administration deduced the Guards had come to regret engineering his re-election as president in June 2009. Washington hoped that this disenchantment stemmed from the same disappointment as the Obama administration felt in Ahmadinejad’s continued pursuit of the most radical path in all circumstances, rather than opting for a more pragmatic nuclear policy vis-à-vis the US. Inferring a common interest, White House strategists drew up a four-point plan for a joint US-IRGC effort to sideline the president. 1. Neither believe it is possible to oust the troublesome Iranian president or force him to resign before his term is up in 2013. Therefore, what the US is proposing is that the IRGC clip his wings and make him a lame-duck president for his remaining three years in office. The IRGC would be first in line for sanctions 2. The Revolutionary Guard high command should take into account that harsh sanctions against Iran, whether imposed by the UN Security Council or unilaterally by the US and its allies, could cripple up to one-third of the Islamic Republic’s economic activity. The Corps’ business bodies would be first in line for penalties that would seriously stunt its financial growth pattern. If, on the other hand, sanctions could be averted by becoming superfluous, the Guards’ economic base and its profitability would retain its robustness and continue to expand unhindered. 3. The Guards must pick a new candidate for president and groom him for election in 2013. DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources discuss the candidates proposed. The administration’s Iran experts are confident the Revolutionary Guard command would not want to see another extremist like Ahmadinejad’s mentor, the radical Ayatollah Messabah-Yazdi, replacing him, especially after Yazdi wrote in a political-religious work that it was incumbent on Iran to obtain nuclear arms, which he called a “special weapon of war.” Iran’s clerical elite rarely refers to the nuclear program in these terms in public. They would much prefer a realistic politician like the former president Hashem Rafsanjani or a seasoned diplomat like the Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC reps listen and report back Because the bellicose ayatollah’s words have given wings to Tehran’s drive for a nuclear bomb, the US emissaries urged the Guards to start looking for a new presidential candidate right now and start preparing the ground for his ascent to office. 4. Touching on the most sensitive part of their mission, the men from Washington said the US is reconciled to Iran attaining a military nuclear capacity so long as it does not the cross the threshold and actually assemble or build stocks of atom bombs. Accepting that the IRGC is in control of the two key branches – the nuclear weapons program and the production of missiles for their delivery – Obama’s messengers proposed that both continue to be developed up to a point mutually agreed between Washington and the Guards. The US administration is still waiting for the Revolutionary Guards’ high command to respond to its proposals which its representatives promised to pass on to their superiors. But Washington is optimistic about an affirmative reply to its offer of cooperation. Indeed, the few administration insiders privy to the plan have been advised that moves are afoot to strip Ahmadinejad of his (Revolutionary Guard) armor. As for its al Qods Brigades external terrorist arm, the administration hopes that as ties of cooperation evolve, the IRGC can be weaned from its rampant relations with the most radical terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Obama and his aides are not deterred by the failure of this tactic when they tried to engage Syrian Bashar Assad. He cheerfully continues to host myriad terrorist organizations and arm Hizballah, while Hizballah itself used Western tolerance to lever itself into the Lebanese government without relinquishing its smuggled missile arsenal or dismantling its militia. Nuclear watchdog grants Obama five months for his new tack President Ahmadinejad chose Saturday, March 6, to heap insults of exceptional virulence on the United States: “September 11 was a big lie paving the way for the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” he ranted, making sure the quote was aired in a state broadcast. He went on to call the al Qaeda hijackers airborne strikes on the World Trade Center’s twin towers a “scenario and a complex act of intelligence services.” This unbridled attack was taken in Washington to indicate that Ahmadinejad had got wind of the new diplomatic feelers Washington had sent out to the Revolutionary Guards and would not take them lying down, any more than he would give up his verbal abuse of Israel. Wednesday, March 10, the Iranian president landed in Kabul for added provocation. Addressing the media, he accused the US of playing a double game by establishing terrorist organizations, then fighting them. The impact of Obama’s latest venture on the political equilibrium of the Islamic Republic’s ruling regime has yet to be assessed. In the meantime, Washington has won some months for pursuing its latest diplomatic track. The gift came from Vienna Monday, March 8, when International Atomic Energy Agency director Yukiya Amano said the agency’s board would resume its consideration of Iran’s nuclear program and reach decisions only in five months’ time. July 2010 is therefore the US president’s next deadline for making headway on the Iranian nuclear controversy with its newest diplomatic partner, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, an internationally listed terrorist organization. He has five months to explore this channel. back to top

Obama Engages a New Iranian Partner – II New Obama Tactics for Iran Worry Mid East – and Some US Generals 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.

FOXNews.com – Trip to Nowhere.

Defense Secretary Gates arrived unexpectedly in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday—reportedly due to alarm at whatever Vice President Biden said in Israel this week. This comes in the wake of an unusual public admission by Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command, who said last Sunday that there are countries in the Persian Gulf that would like the U.S. or Israel to strike Iran militarily to slow its nuclear program. This shows that Middle Eastern governments have no confidence that President Obama’s Iran policy will work. That should concern every American, given that Iran’s Islamist theocracy is the most likely candidate to help terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into an American or allied city.

Over the past month, more than a half dozen Obama administration officials have paraded through the Middle East to showcase the latest iteration of U.S. policy. Like college students taking to the road for spring break, “Diplopalooza” has involved copious talk, together-time and posing, but few real accomplishments.

In addition to the Vice President and Secretary of Defense, the flurry of teas and meetings has featured no less than the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Adviser, the CIA Director, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command and Dennis Ross. Their goal? To pitch a set of diplomatic and communications strategies that have no conceivable chance of halting Iran’s nuclear program. And even though this set of talking points is being delivered in part by military and security officials, Iran’s leaders are breathing easy as neither they nor anyone else believe military options are being considered in Washington. Worse, many in the region believe one of Vice President Biden’s goals in his meetings with Israelis was to dissuade them from a military attack on Iran.

The Obama administration approaches this problem with questionable analysis and little urgency. Last month, Secretary Clinton said in Doha that “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship.” While that sounds like tougher talk, in fact it indicates the Obama administration still believes that there are senior officials within the regime on whom reason will work. The administration thinks this can be encouraged by sanctions. Both assumptions are wrong.

The Iranian government, like any, has cliques and factions, but they are not as deep and exploitable as the White House thinks. Mr. Obama should know better by now. Just last spring, he failed at this when he tried to talk above President Ahmadinejad to Supreme Leader Khamenei. In an April press conference with the king of Jordan, President Obama attributed Iran’s stated goal of demolishing Israel to Ahmadinejad and noted hopefully that it was actually Khamenei who “exercises the most direct control over the policies of the Islamic Republic.” The effort went nowhere. Predictably, neither leader felt any real pressure to join with the leader of the “Great Satan” against his colleague.

The latest effort to imagine a rift into existence is equally foolish. Iranian civilian officials are essentially indivisible from the Qods Force and other quasi-military elements. Trying to divide them would be like trying to divide the leadership of the Third Reich from the SS.

Sanctions also will fail, as they comprise an effort that is too little too late. China and Russia signaled again this week a disinclination to allow sanctions. Mrs. Clinton was also publicly shot down on this matter by Brazil during her visit there last week. Even if sanctions are enacted, it is not plausible to assume they could affect the Iranian nuclear program soon enough—if ever. The time for sanctions would have been a year ago when low oil prices and economic turmoil were having a serious impact on Tehran. That time has passed.

From its beginning, President Obama’s approach to Iran has been centered on image and emotion rather than decisive steps to advance American security. The administration began with the incorrect belief that its predecessor in the White House desired only confrontation and never tried to talk and listen to our adversaries. In the case of Iran, the U.S. in fact has been negotiating directly and through allies for decades. This mistake of believing one’s own campaign rhetoric, combined with a president who radiates weakness, indecision and a level of conceit that prohibits policy corrections, has convinced Tehran that is faces no real consequence from Washington for its actions.

If the Obama administration is serious about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, it needs to bring military options into the policy equation now—or at least stop trying to dissuade Israel from employing them. Otherwise, we are pinning our security solely on the device of hope. That emotion is hardly a sound defense.

Christian Whiton was a State Department official during the George W. Bush administration from 2003-2009. He is a principal at D.C. Asia Advisory and president of the Hamilton Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ChristianWhiton

WPR Article | World Citizen: Fears that Iran Wants to Trigger Mideast War.

As the United States steps up its campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran, fears are growing in Washington and in the Middle East that Iran will try to trigger a new war in the region in order to shift attention from its nuclear activities, throw the U.S. and its allies off balance, and put Israel on the defensive.

Few people, if any, envision Iran launching a direct attack. Rather, the concern is that Tehran will manage to stir up trouble in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, or even Syria, in order to spark a new confrontation between Israel and one of its Iran-allied neighbors. Even if the most likely scenarios do not include initial involvement by Iranian forces, at least not directly, the possibility that Tehran could join the fray cannot be discounted. And given the unpredictability of armed conflict and the level of tension between the U.S. and Iran, the possibility of eventual American involvement, while unlikely, is not out of the question.

The first high-ranking official to give voice to the worries that have now started spreading in the region was White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in late January, Jones predicted a series of events that, one might argue, are coming to pass.

“As pressure on the regime in Tehran builds over its nuclear program,” Jones made the case, “there is a heightened risk of further attacks against Israel or efforts to promote renewed violence in the West Bank.” Jones said that Iran, under pressure from domestic opponents and international critics, would likely “lash out” against Israel through Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Some go as far as to argue that Iran wants to invite an attack against its nuclear stockpiles on Iranian soil. That speculation grew out of Tehran’s puzzling decision on Feb. 14 to move almost all of its enriched uranium, in the presence of United Nations inspectors, to an above-ground plant in full view of spy satellites — and bomber pilots. As one official reportedly described it, it was “as if a bull’s eye had been painted on it.”

The idea that Iran would want to start a war on its own soil is most definitely a minority view. The more likely setting is a clash between Israel and one or more of Iran’s allies. Tehran would favor this, because it would occupy and degrade the fighting resources of the Jewish state and inevitably heat up anti-Israel sentiment.

In order to make it happen, Iran and its friends need a flashpoint, and Israel is clumsily providing a regular supply, with its frequent announcements of new building projects in the West Bank and Jerusalem. There is such an abundance of irritants that anyone interested in starting a new war would find no shortage of excuses.

Jones offered his warning as one more reason for Israelis and Palestinians to restart negotiations — perhaps persuasively so. After all, a stalled peace process offers Iran one more opening to stir up simmering resentments.

Jones is not alone in his concerns, and recent events have added credibility to his views. Worries about a new outbreak of war are being openly discussed not only in the U.S., but also in Israel and Lebanon. And there is talk in Israel that concern over an all-out conflagration was part of the reason why Israel may have decided to take the risk of eliminating Hamas’ Mahmoud al-Mabhouh last January. Mabhouh was a key player in the smuggling of weapons from Iran into Gaza.

If it is true that Tehran wants to light a fuse to ignite the Middle East, Ahmadinejad may have brought a book of matches to a recent meeting of Tehran’s backers in Syria. In late February, the Iranian president traveled to Damascus for a four-way meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas’ Khaled Meshal. The editor of the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi called the gathering “a war council.”

Only days earlier, the Iranian government reported that Ahmadinejad had phoned Hezbollah’s Nasrallah and advised him to prepare for a confrontation with Israel. “The level of readiness should be to such an extent,” the Iranian president reportedly told the Hezbollah chief, “that if [the Israelis] ventured upon repeating their past mistakes, they will be finished off.” In the case of war, Ahmadinejad reportedly said, “the Iranian nation will stand side by side” with those fighting Israel.

Hezbollah has already warned Israel that a new war would see the Jewish State fighting not only Hezbollah, as in 2006, but the Hezbollah-Syria-Hamas-Iran bloc. Nasrallah has been sharpening the blades of his rhetorical swords, warning Israel that the next war could see Hezbollah’s rockets reaching Israel’s major urban centers and strategic locations, such as Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion airport and the country’s major ports.

Hezbollah has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Imad Moughniyah, a top operative in the organization, which it blames on Israel. But the truth is that it’s easy to find a way to start a war in the Middle East. In 2006, Hezbollah triggered one by infiltrating Israel and killing a number of Israeli soldiers in an operation to kidnap two others.

Inside Israel and the West Bank, every day offers an opportunity for resentment, anger and violence. When the Israeli government announced a controversial decision to designate as Jewish Heritage Sites the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb — historical sites located in the West Bank — Hamas issued a call to launch a new Intifada against Israel. The call was answered with disturbances in Hebron.

After Friday prayers in Jerusalem last week, Hamas’ wish appeared to be turning into reality, when clashes erupted into pitched battles.

Tensions have increased with Syria, as well. A war of words broke out last month between Israel’s fiery Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his Syrian counterpart. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to calm the situation, but Ahmadinejad wants the sparks to continue flying.

Israel does not want a war now. Indeed, it is so concerned about a miscue leading to war that it decided to alter the long-planned Firestones 12 military exercise, canceling the part that included maneuvers along the Syrian border lest Damascus confuse the exercise with the kind of Israeli attack that Iran claims is imminent.

Experience of the Middle East has proven time and again that war can break out almost by accident, even when no one wants one to start. If a key player does want a war, it may prove impossible to prevent.

Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen, appears every Thursday.

‘Hated Israel will be annihilated’.

Photo by: AP

By JPOST.COM STAFF
11/03/2010 15:48

Ahmadinejad warns aggression won’t save “most criminal regime in the world.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

US Vice President Joe Biden in Jerusalem

Tuesday night, March 9, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told visiting US Vice President Joe Biden that the Interior Ministry district building commission’s announcement clearing the addition of 1,600 homes to the existing East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo had been made without his knowledge. It would take another two years of paperwork for building to begin.

The announcement drew sharp condemnation from the White House in Washington and from Biden, who arrived late for dinner with the prime minister, after condemning  the “substance and timing” of the announcement with the launching of proximity talks. This, he said “undermined the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions I’ve had here in Israel.” The announcement was roundly condemned by the UN Secretary, Egypt and Jordan, as well as Israeli opposition leaders.
Israeli officials later assured Washington there had been no intention to undermine the Biden visit, but Netanyahu took no steps to reverse the decision made by ultra-Orthodox, hard-line Shas interior minister Ellie Yishai.
According to debkafile‘s sources, the sweetness and light conveyed by public statements was hardly present in the US vice president’s private talks with Israeli leaders. Netanyahu may well have approved the Jerusalem announcement as an indirect comeback for the way the American visitor laid down the law on a number of issues of Israeli concern, chiefly the matter of Iran’s rapid progress toward a nuclear weapon.
The peremptory note was first noted when Biden called on president Shimon Peres, his first meeting with an Israel leader. He then explicitly warned Israel against venturing to attack Iran without prior American permission.

Even the oft-repeated American commitment to Israel’s security was delivered with a notable reservation: I can promise the people of Israel that we will confront every security challenge that we will face, said Biden. This statement ruled out unilateral Israel operations in its defense. Forget unilateral, he was saying: From now “we” make the decisions about the levels of “security challenge” facing Israel and how to “confront it.” And there was no false modestly about who the senior decision-maker was to be in this “alliance.”

Jerusalem was also taken aback by the US vice president’s assertion that Iran was isolated as never before. A distorting prism appeared to be held up by the Obama administration to justify its backtracking on painful sanctions for Iran. These sanctions were explicitly promised by the White House to Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak in return for Israel’s consent to hold back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Biden visit to Israel, therefore, far from meeting its avowed goal of smoothing over the differences between the Obama administration and Israel, has left Jerusalem more distrustful than ever.
The climate was not improved Monday, March 8, by Yukiya Amano, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, announcing that the IAEA board would get back to discussing Iran’s nuclear program and making decisions only in five months’ time. In other words, the UN Security Council would not have the nuclear watchdog’s recommendations for supporting a sanctions resolution before July.

Israel attributed this delay to Washington’s intervention as another gambit for shunting Israel and its demands for harsh sanctions aside, while also holding its hand against exercising any military options.
Approval for the expansion of Ramat Shlomo came on the heels of a tough new statement by defense minister Barak Tuesday. In a talk to students, he warned that when it came to Iran, Israel must keep its finger on the trigger at all times. And upon arrival in the United States this week, chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi was instructed from Jerusalem to talk tough on the Iranian question when he meets Pentagon officials in the coming days.

‘US playing game in Afghanistan’.

Photo by: AP

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
10/03/2010 13:30

Ahmadinejad: They created terrorists, now they claim to be fighting terrorists.

Discussion to focus on nuke program, US push for sanctions

Gates was due to meet King Abdullah in Riyadh (File)

RIYADH (Agencies)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew into Riyadh on Wednesday for talks expected to focus on Iran’s nuclear program and Washington’s push for tough sanctions against Tehran.

Gates was due to meet King Abdullah as the Obama administration kept up a concerted effort to rally international support for punitive sanctions against Iran, despite misgivings by China and other countries.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are “incredibly concerned about Iran’s nuclear program,” as well as its growing missile arsenal and “destabilizing” role in the region, a U.S. defense official told reporters earlier.

“The secretary will provide an update about where we are on our policy on Iran as we pivot from the engagement track to the pressure track,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Frustrated with Iran’s response to U.S. overtures for dialogue, the Obama administration has shifted its emphasis, vowing to pile pressure on Tehran to persuade it to abandon its uranium enrichment work.

A new climate

The diplomatic climate has shifted since Gates last visited Riyadh in May last year, when he had to reassure an anxious Saudi leadership that President Barack Obama’s offer of dialogue with Tehran would not jeopardize Washington’s close ties with the kingdom.

Any prospect for a warming of ties between Iran and the United States has since faded, amid rising tension over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Although Saudi leaders view Iran as a regional threat, they have yet to openly embrace Washington’s campaign for more sanctions.

The U.N. Security Council has already slapped three rounds of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment which Israel and the West view as a cover to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies the charge, saying the program is for peaceful nuclear energy.

Gates also planned to discuss bolstering Saudi “air and missile defense capabilities” as part of a broader U.S. effort to boost security in the Gulf in the face of Iran’s expanding arsenal of ballistic missiles, the defense official said.

The United States has promised to speed up weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies, which have bought billions of dollars worth of American weapons — including missile defense hardware — in recent years.

The U.S. military is also helping the Saudis train a new interior ministry security force created to protect vital oil and gas production infrastructure.

U.S. officials believe the arms build-up in the Gulf sends a clear signal to Iran that its nuclear and missile programs are counter-productive.

“It’s not lost on the Iranians all the security cooperation that’s been going on for years now,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters.

The warplanes and missile defense systems bought by the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and other states were “all designed to counter-weight and protect against the growing threat posed by Iran,” Morrell said.

Talks also were expected to include instability in Yemen, which U.S. and Saudi officials fear al-Qaeda is exploiting in order to use the country as a base to prepare attacks in the region and beyond.

The Yemen-based regional arm of al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for a failed attempt to bomb a U.S.-bound passenger plane in December and the U.S. has stepped up counter-terrorism assistance to the country.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

US defense secretary Gates in Kabul

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrived in Riyadh Wednesday, March 10, flying in unexpectedly from Kabul in Afghanistan, after the Saudis demanded urgent clarifications of the Obama administration’s Iran policy. debkafile‘s military sources report that the demand followed the failure of US Vice President Joe Biden’s talks with Israeli leaders to resolve their differences on Iran.

As a result, two senior US officials are visiting to Middle East capitals at the same to under pressure to deal with the Iranian nuclear question.

Gates was closeted with Saudi rulers although it was as recently as Feb. 15 that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Riyadh and explained Washington’s strategy on Iran to King Abdullah and several senior Saudi princes. But she failed to allay her hosts’ intense concerns that the US was doing enough to abort Iran’s nuclear weapons program..

Then on Sunday, March 7, US Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus, asked by a CNN interviewer, whether countries in the Persian Gulf wish to see a US military attack on Iran, said: “…there are countries that would like to see a strike, us or perhaps Israel, even…”

In Israel, where the media are obsessed with the slightest Arab or Palestinian utterance, none cited the US general’s comments.

debkafile‘s military sources report that Petraeus’ comments referred mainly to the two main Persian Gulf state, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, the UAE foreign minister, referring to the assassination of Hamas member al-Mabhouh, noted this week that his country and Israel see eye to eye on the Iranian issue.

Reports of the Biden conversations in Jerusalem Tuesday have reached Riyadh. They reveal that not only is the Obama administration leaning hard on Israel to abstain from attacking Iran, but is even retreating from harsh sanctions. Such penalties have now been put on hold for five months.

The Saudis are as deeply alarmed by the latest American stance on Iran is as the Israelis.
US sources reported that no sooner did the US defense secretary land in Riyadh from Kabul when he was summoned to dinner with King Abdullah and the Saudi defense minister, Crown Prince Sultan. They admitted that he would be required “to present an update to Saudi officials who are intensely concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and the fate of the American-led effort to impose new sanctions on Tehran.”

OpEdNews – Article: Iran: Will She or Won’t She?.

By Sandy Shanks

Will Iran build a nuclear device or won’t she? The truthful answer is: No one knows. This is likely true of President Obama and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The signals from the Islamic republic are conflicting and change weekly, or even daily at times. This, however, does not preclude an examination of the issue.

Perhaps, a more accurate question is: Does Iran have the capability to build a nuclear device? Still another crucial question remains, a question that is vital to every person living on the planet. What are Israel’s contingency plans? To put it more plainly, will Israel attack Iran?

A little known factor in all of this, particularly in the West due to lack of media coverage, is that on August 9, 2005, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. I am one of but a handful of American writers who has mentioned this in past articles. Apparently, notwithstanding religious factors, the Supreme Leader is well aware that the construction and possible completion of a nuclear weapon will make Iran a target, a bull’s-eye for the Israeli Air Force, possibly even the American Air Force. However, the latter is extremely unlikely under current conditions.

On Feb. 18, the IAEA reported concerns over Iran’s intentions. Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers reports, “The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there are signs Iran is trying to develop a nuclear warhead that would fit atop a missile, its bluntest assertion to date questioning Tehran’s claims to have an exclusively peaceful nuclear program.”

Strobel continues, “In a report on Iran’s nuclear activities, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has collected ‘broadly consistent and credible information’ about Iran’s suspected military nuclear research. ‘Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,’ it said.”

Then comes a revealing statement. “The information in question comes from European, U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies …” These are not exactly disinterested parties, nor are they unbiased on the issue, particularly Israel. Actually, the IAEA’s report contained nothing new, only concern. Put a different way, the IAEA doesn’t know either.

Why is one reminded of another time and place? During the latter half of 2002 and the early part of 2003, the President of the United States, his National Security Advisor, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA Director, members of Congress, and others, including the press, were hammering home to the American public that another nation in the Middle East had Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was a blitzkrieg campaign and it was successful. When the U.S. and Bush’s coalition aggressively attacked Iraq, the majority of American public opinion was soundly behind the aggression. No WMD’s were ever found. The war started by the Bush administration will soon experience its seventh anniversary. The war still has no end game. The public has since learned that the term, pre-emptive war, so favored by Bush and his advisors, is not only an oxymoron but a very tragic event. America, heretofore a glimmering example of democracy and freedom, became a pariah. Hopefully, our current and future leaders will never allow this to happen again.

I bring all this up because if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. will be drawn in. Due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, if Israel attacks Iran, it will be assumed by Iran and nearly every nation on Earth, including our traditional allies, that the U.S. gave at least tacit approval to the attack. In other words, some may assume the U.S., forgetting or ignoring the lessons of wars past and present, launched an aggressive action upon another country by proxy. It is within the realm of possibility they may be right if such an attack occurs.

The issue of Israeli intentions will be covered in a moment, but first the question — does Iran have the capability to build a nuclear weapon? Once again, the answer to this question is mixed. Israeli intelligence is convinced that Iran is doing so. Iranian leaders, including Ahmadinejad, say they are not. They say their development of uranium is for peaceful purposes only. Despite all the conflicting reports, perhaps, some answers are out there.

Recently, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran, unable to get fuel rods from the West for its U.S.-built reactor, which makes medical isotopes, had begun to enrich its own uranium to 20%. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had a rather interesting reply to that bold statement. “He [Ahmadinejad] says many things, and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.”

Noting that the official U.S. position is that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, resulting in U.N. sanctions and urging more stringent sanctions, Gibbs’ comment begs a question. If Iran is incapable of enriching uranium to 20% commercial use, how can it possibly enrich uranium to 90%, or weapons grade?

More to the point, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) supports Gibbs’ viewpoint. According to a report recently issued by David Albright and Christina Walrond of the ISIS, “Iran’s problems in its centrifuge programme are greater than expected. … Iran is unlikely to deploy enough gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power reactors (Iran’s stated nuclear goal) for a long time, if ever, particularly if (U.N.) sanctions remain in force.”

So,the White House press secretary and the ISIS seem to agree. Iran’s enrichment capabilities are not nearly as daunting as many are led to believe. Was Gibbs speaking on his own, giving his private opinions? That’s not the way it works. White House press secretaries are told what to present to the press and their personal opinions are immaterial and unknown to the press and the public.

The ISIS’ report continues in a rather interesting way. ISIS insists, however, that “Iran may still be able to build a bomb. Yet, to do that, Iran would have to divert nearly all of its low-enriched uranium at Natanz, now under U.N. watch, to a new cascade of centrifuges, enrich that to 90 percent, then explode a nuclear device. Should Iran do that, however, it would have burned up all its bomb-grade uranium, and would lack enough low-enriched uranium for a second test. And Tehran would be facing a stunned and shaken Israel with hundreds of nukes and an America with thousands, without a single nuke of its own.” There is little reason to elaborate on that analysis.

All this notwithstanding, the last I heard Israel is convinced that Iran is building a nuclear device to be mounted on one of her missiles capable of reaching every major city in Israel. The Jewish Republic is justified in its fear. Israel, the most powerful nation in the Middle East, is about the size of New Jersey, the U.S.’s fifth smallest state. The distance between Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean coast, one of the most vital of Israel’s cities, and Jerusalem on the West Bank is 63 kilometers, roughly 39 miles.

Targeting Iran’s tunnel builders – UPI.com.