WarSclerotic

Binyamin Netanyahu

What happens next after the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu‘s departure from Washington March 25 without a single point of agreement with US president Barack Obama and the traditional friendship buried deep under the discord?
This is not the first time an American president has targeted an Israeli prime minister whom he disliked. Usually, when the president brought all his weight to bear, he was able to contrive the Israeli leader’s fall from power.
The late Yitzhak Rabin did not last long after fighting the Middle East policies laid down by Henry Kissinger and Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. He was punished by a public reassessment of US relations with Israel and the secret stoppage of the flow of financial and military assistance.
In the 1990s, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir paid the price for opposing the Middle East Policy of President George Bush, Sr. and his Secretary of State James Baker, by Washington’s refusal to approve the loan guarantees Israel badly needed at the time, an action akin to a partial economic embargo on Israel.
Shamir ended up defeated in elections.
Netanyahu had a similar experience during his first term in office when, in 1999, he clashed with Bill Clinton, who refused to believe Yasser Arafat was preparing to launch large-scale war of terror against Israel.
In all these cases, the Israeli voter punished the prime minister for the rift with America by throwing him out of office.
Barack Obama is sure history is on his side.
The only difference between then and now is the openness, swiftness and brutality of the means employed by this US president to get rid of Binyamin Netanyahu. The process has only just begun and the hammer and tongs between Washington and Jerusalem is likely to escalate before the crisis is over.

How will the Americans proceed?

Washington will start by putting its diplomatic, economic and military relations with Israel on ice. Senior US officials will forego their regular visits to Israel and the invitations to Israeli ministers will dry up, including those sent to the Israel embassy for official events. Exchanges will be kept down to inferior bureaucratic levels.
The administration will suspend its customary briefings to Jerusalem on diplomatic and strategic steps in the offing in the Middle East, as well as its hitherto standard practice of prior consultation with Israel on the implications of those steps.
In other words, Washington means to cut Israel out of its decision-making processes on Middle East affairs.
Military ties will also be demoted from reciprocal visits by top US and Israel officers to exchanges between lower ranks. Responses to Israeli requests for weapons and replacement parts and US notifications of new weapons in development will be frozen.
After stating solemnly time and again that no US government will go back on its commitment to Israel’s security and defense needs, Obama administration officials cannot afford to officially admit the relations are in limbo. They will just stonewall on Israeli requests by saying: “No answer yet.”
Israel’s UN delegation and its representatives in international forums are in for a hard time. US ambassadors will give them the cold shoulder and, instead of vetoing or abstaining from voting on hostile UN measures and condemnations of Israel, they will vote for them, especially when they favor the Palestinians.
This will open the dam gates for a flood of anti-Israel resolutions.
American financial institutions, banks and military industries will be encouraged to follow the White House lead in ostracizing the Jewish state.
The only area of cooperation to be left untouched is intelligence, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s intelligence sources predict. Intelligence-haring is not just a keystone of US-Israeli relations, but even the White House realizes that any interruption in the operation of their joint systems would seriously imperil both countries.

And how will Israel respond?

Prime Minister Netanyahu has no illusions about the relative might of the United States and Israel and the former’s overwhelming capacity to harm the Jewish state’s vital interests. He will try applying soft soap for a time and pretending to the Israeli public that he is making progress in solving the crisis in relations.
But behind this front, he will work hard to shift the confrontation to the domestic US and Israeli political realms where he is more confident.
In the United States, Netanyahu will try and capitalize on the warm welcome he received on Capitol Hill Wednesday, March 24 – in contrast to his rough treatment at the White House. He will use this opening to rally US lawmakers for the application of counter-pressure to make President Obama back down from his harsh treatment of the Israeli government.
Knowing the ability of the two houses of Congress to force their will on the President in executive matters is slight, he will try and mobilize American Jewry for support and hope to persuade Jewish donors to withhold their contributions from the Democratic Party.
At home, the Israeli prime minister may try and expand his government, establishing a national unity administration to head off the White House campaign to unseat him in an early general election.
He holds a card stronger than any held by his predecessors when they found themselves in a US president’s sights – and that is Iran. With nothing more to lose from the Obama administration, he would be assured of broad popular support if he decided to embark on a military operation against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s nuclear sites. After the way he was treated in Washington, he would no longer feel obliged to consult with or even notify the Obama administration in advance.
The late Prime Minister Menahem Begin, who fell out with Ronald Reagan, overrode this US president’s objections and ordered the Israel Air Force to bomb the French-built Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. A month later, he won re-election at the polls.
Such action by the Netanyahu government would throw President Obama’s Middle East calculus into disarray and make him rethink his attitude toward Jerusalem.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Many American and Israeli officials worked hard to smooth over the differences between Jerusalem and the White House before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu set out for the United States Sunday, March 21.
They tried to hammer out a formula, fueled by a string of Israeli concessions to meet President Barack Obama‘s demands, to let Netanyahu declare the crisis in US-Israel relations over and done with and the two governments back on their normal working track.
On the American side, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources in Washington and Jerusalem report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the reconciliation effort, supported by Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, Washington’s secret contact-man with Damascus, Fred Hoff, and the president’s special adviser at the National Security Council, Dennis Ross.
On the Israeli side, Defense Minister Ehud Barak held the effort together at the head of a team which included Netanyahu’s national security adviser and senior aide, Dr. Uzi Arad, and the prime minister’s veteran personal adviser and right-hand man, Yitzhak Molcho.
Lengthy phone wrangling between Barak’s office at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv and Hillary Clinton’s office in Foggy Bottom, Washington, produced an agreed four-point paper for bridging the acute differences marring US-Israel relations:

A package of ambiguities and concessions

One: Israel agrees not to catch the United States off guard on Iran.
Netanyahu promised not to order the Israeli Defense Forces to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities before prior consultation with the Obama administration. The two sides decided to stick to this wording although both interpreted it differently: Washington read into the pledge an implicit Israeli undertaking to call off the attack if it faced administration objections, meaning an Israeli strike would be contingent on a green light from the US.
In Jerusalem, the pledge was taken to mean no more than advance notice of any Israeli action – military or diplomatic – against Iran with no obligation to await US approval.
The gap between the two interpretations was admittedly critical. Clinton said she counted on Barak personally not to put the Obama administration in the position of receiving notice of Israel’s intention a few hours before its missiles and warplanes were in the air on their way to Tehran.
Barak slid past this request by commenting that, even if this happened, there would still be time for Jerusalem and Washington to discuss the matter.
Netanyahu’s colleagues in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were severely critical of his consent to this stipulation, because they interpreted it as the prime minister’s surrender of Israel’s freedom of military action in its defense. They said, therefore, that a way must be found to circumvent him.

More than one power center

In a conversation in Tel Aviv (the site of Israel’s defense ministry and security establishment) last week, before the prime minister left for Washington, an Israeli defense official remarked to an official American that he assumed Washington realized the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem was not Israel’s only power center and decision-making body.
(See the next item: Can Obama Hold Israel Back from Striking Iran?)
He also advised taking into account that Netanyahu’s inability to stand up to arm-twisting in Washington applied equally to pressure at home (for attacking Iran). The suggestion that the pledges given by Netanyahu and Barak regarding Iran may not be watertight was certainly instrumental in keeping the crisis between Israeli government and the White House going at full blast before and after the Obama-Netanyahu showdown in the Oval Office.
Two: Netanyahu agreed to a near-total freeze on Jewish construction in East Jerusalem for the duration of negotiations with the Palestinians.
Barak warned that domestic pressures prevented this decision being advertised. So the prime minister promised a new mechanism in his own office to ascertain no new projects were started; he would also set up the bureaucratic machinery, again without public fanfare, for overseeing the stoppage of Jewish property purchases, mainly by Americans, in Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods.

Choice tidbits for Abbas

Three: In his talks with peace envoy George Mitchell, the prime minister offered certain gestures to tempt Mahmoud Abbas out of his long sulk on talks with Israel.
They included the release of some 150 Palestinian prisoners, the dismantling of more IDF checkpoints in the West Bank, and the building of new highways for linking the West Bank’s main Palestinian towns.
Four: The Prime Minister further assented to the automatic extension of the West Bank settlement building moratorium, offered the Obama administration in December 2009, when it runs out in September 2010 for as long as negotiations, direct or indirect, are in progress with the Palestinians.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly reports that Jerusalem believed optimistically that this document would write finis on the “Biden crisis.” which erupted over construction in E. Jerusalem during the US vice president’s visit to Israel in early March. Israel trusted that its concessions would placate the White House and permit the restoration of “rational working arrangements” – as the defense minister put it in one of his conversations with Secretary Clinton.
This expectation turned out to be unrealistic, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Washington sources explain – primarily because Obama’s advisers don’t trust anything Netanyahu tells them – whether directly or through his emissaries.
In short, the profound mistrust between the US and Israel lingers on – even after an intense diplomatic effort to paper it over and, at this stage, defies all efforts to bridge it.

The Roots of American Mistrust

• Washington doesn’t believe Netanyahu has truly renounced a unilateral Israel military option against Iran.
After all, his campaign platform led off with a strong pledge to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities as his primary mission if he were re-elected prime minister. The sense in the White House is that somehow, the Israeli leader will confront the US with a fait accompli and so drag America into war in its wake.
This suspicion prompted the administration to order Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia – including Iran, to offer this testimony to the Senate’s Armed Services Committee on March 16:
“The (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel.”
Petraeus’ comments suggested that US military officials were coming around to the idea that failure to resolve the Middle East conflict had begun to imperil American lives and harm vital US national security interests. The administration used the Palestinian issue to illustrate its point, but was referring to Iran.
• The administration does not believe Netanyahu’s promises on the Palestinian issue.
The Israeli prime minister is not trusted to follow through on his promises to hold up construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank to help restart talks with the Palestinians. The administration is certain Netanyahu is keeping more ‘traps” or “surprises” up his sleeve – just as they believe he engineered the “Ramat Shlomo trap” for Biden’s visit to Israel.

The Roots of Israel’s Mistrust

• The Obama administration has not kept any of its promises to Israel regarding Iran.
The administration has never followed through on its commitment to enact tough sanctions against Iran.
According to intelligence reaching Israel (and also Saudi Arabia), the administration is actually pursuing the reverse policy, trying its luck again on engagement with Iran, this time with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (as first revealed in DNW. 436 of DNW on March 12 – Obama Engages a New Iranian Partner).
• President Obama has begun enforcing an arms embargo against Israel without prior notice.
As soon as Vice President Biden was out of Israel, the president stopped a shipment of JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) bound for Israel, diverting it the American air force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. This betokened the start of an American military embargo to deny Israeli the tools for attacking Iran.
According to American military sources, the shipment contained 387 sets of advanced bunker-busting bombs of two types: 195 sets of the BLU-110 model and 192 sets of the BLU-117 model.
• The administration is working actively to bring the Netanyahu government into international isolation.
Jerusalem is convinced the British foreign secretary David Miliband had Washington’s encouragement when he ordered a senior Israeli diplomat, the Mossad representative in London, expelled on the day Netanyahu was received at the White House.
• No right-wing or centrist Israeli government can accept the proposition the Obama administration is trying to hawk that the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict imperils the lives of American troops. This claim is seen in Jerusalem as another blunt weapon misused by Obama to corner Israel into ceding its national security interests when they impinge on the Palestinian issue.
For all these reasons, the Israeli prime minister’s Washington visit landed him in the middle of a major crisis with the administration. It was exacerbated rather than calmed in his meetings on March 23 with President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton. Netanyahu found himself pushed hard against a wall by an administration which he saw would not scruple to bend him – or even break his government – if necessary to meet their objectives.
At the same time, Netanyahu determined not to bow as long as his hosts persisted in what he saw as their “irrational behavior.”

Gabi Ashkenazi

The US president Barack Obama has mounted a round-the-clock siege on Israeli decision-makers at all levels to straitjacket them against supporting an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
An Israeli security official told DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources he has never seen America using such direct and roughshod tactics for imposing its will as this US administration has set in train.
He declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the situation he described:
“Lately, whenever I have a meeting with an Israeli colleague, I have to wait until he finishes talking to some American official ahead of me,” he said. “And when I walk out the door, I find another American waiting to go in.”
According to our Washington sources, their contacts at the National Security Council and Pentagon believe they have persuaded Israel’s Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi there is no need for Israel to attack Iran and, should one arise, it would be better for the US to carry it out.
The general was in the US in the second week of March at the same time as US Vice President Joe Biden‘s visit to Israel was dogged by a major flare-up in US-Israeli relations over the announcement of new building in an East Jerusalem suburb.
The crisis overshadowed his talks with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and kept them out of the news, so that his presence in the United or States went practically unnoticed.

Israel’s top soldier’s tone on Iran is milder

However, Israeli military circles monitoring the Iranian issue acknowledge that, since visiting the United States, Ashkenazi’s rhetoric on Iran in closed forums has toned down noticeably. He says mildly that no option, including the military one, should be taken off the table, without elaborating.
His temperance has, in contrast, made the hawks in the army and the Israeli defense establishment more vocal, although they only criticize the Chief of Staff in private. Some of them maintain his trouble is that he does not understand the Americans – in particular, diplomats and their nuanced behavior. In the middle of a crisis with Israel’s leaders, US officials showered Ashkenazi with pomp and high honors. A straight up soldier, he did not catch onto their ulterior motive, which was to persuade him of the expedience of canceling or at least delaying an Israeli strike against Iran.
According to one source, the Israeli general interpreted the US official openness he met on matters they no longer discuss with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as channels available for dialogue with the right interlocutors.
“That’s where he’s mistaken,” said the source. “He thinks he made real headway in Washington, but when the moment of decision about attacking Iran comes around, he’ll find himself receiving the same treatment as any other Israeli in authority.”
Describing the mood current in top Israeli military and intelligence quarters, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military sources report them standing ready to embark on a military operation against Iran the moment they receive the order from government authority. A high-ranking military official told our sources, “They (i.e., the Israeli military brass) know that they can do it and they want to do it.”

Israeli military is able and willing

By “they know,” he means intelligence is already to hand on the targets which must be hit to disarm Iran’s bomb program. It also means that Israel’s generals are full conscious of the tactical difficulties inherent in the operation and its cost in terms of loss of military lives.
“They can” means that the IDF possesses the right manpower and weapons systems to execute the operation and achieve its objectives. If the Obama administration had hoped a military embargo would restrain Israel, “It came too late,” said the source. (See the first item in this issue on the Obama-Netanyahu Impasse.)
“The IDF already has everything it needs to go forward with the attack. That the IDF may lack certain resources if the fighting moves into another phase is an argument that does not affect the initial strike. No one in Washington or Jerusalem can see round that corner,” said the source.
The assertion “They want to do it” attests to the Israeli government’s appreciation that the moment for the attack is near. Missing it when it comes means that it will be too late; Iran will have acquired a nuclear weapon.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Washington sources report that administration officials realize that this perception has come to dominate the thinking of a substantial part of Israel’s military leadership, and this has prompted the US rough-and-tough tactics for deterring them. Calling an Israeli attack off altogether is clearly out of the question, so Washington is applying itself to obtaining a postponement.
The scenario US officials are painting to dissuade Israelis from attack mode is simple:

US anti-war lobbyists: What about the follow-up?

Let’s say Israeli missiles and its air force successfully attack and destroy key elements of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, they say. Keep in mind that Iran has had plenty of time to prepare for a strike by you or by us, and will therefore have set up alternative facilities for getting their military projects back on track within one or two years.
So what happens then? Another strike? And if so, by whom? And who will undertake what we call in military jargon the follow-up?
The IDF and the Israeli Air force would be burnt, say the US persuaders. After exposing their assault tactics, they would need two or three years for developing new methods and building fresh assault resources.
The Obama administration refuses to attack the Iranian nuclear program now and would certainly not undertake a follow-up operation.
Given these considerations, Obama’s men argue, an Israeli attack will leave Iran stronger than ever and more immune than before to military strikes.

Nearly 300 Congress members declare commitment to ‘unbreakable’ U.S.-Israel bond – Haaretz – Israel News.

Nearly 300 members of Congress have signed on to a declaration reaffirming their commitment to “the unbreakable bond that exists between [U.S.] and the State of Israel”, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The letter was sent in the wake of the severe recent tensions between Israel and the U.S. over the prior’s decision to construct more than 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a project it announced during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to the region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of his trip to the United States this week to try to mend the rift with the Obama administration, but he was greeted with cold welcome by the White House.

Netanyahu also met during his visit with members of Congress, who welcomed him with significantly more warmth.

The letter from Congress expresses its “deep concern” over the U.S.-Israel crisis, and emphasizes that lawmakers had received assurances from Netanyahu that the events leading up to the recent tensions would not be repeated.

Letter from members of Congress

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts.

The announcement during Vice President Biden’s visit was, as Israel’s Prime Minister said in an apology to the United States, “a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred.” We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises, however unintended, will not recur.

The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship.

A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.

From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special bond between the U.S. and Israel.

For decades, strong, bipartisan Congressional support for Israel, including security assistance and other important measures, have been eloquent testimony to our commitment to Israel’s security, which remains unswerving.

It is the very strength of this relationship that has, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who sought Israel?s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.

In its declaration of independence 62 years ago, Israel declared: “We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land.”

In the decades since, despite constantly having to defend itself from attack, Israel has repeatedly made good on that pledge by offering to undertake painful risks to reach peace with its neighbors.

Our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.

As the Vice-President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space.”

Steadfast American backing has helped lead to Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And American involvement continues to be critical to the effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small.

Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations.

We believe, as President Obama said, that “Israel’s security is paramount” in our Middle East policy and that “it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel?s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.”

In that spirit, we look forward to working with you to achieve the common objectives of the U.S. and Israel, especially regional security and peace.

Sincerely,

STENY HOYER ERIC CANTOR

HOWARD L. BERMAN ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

GARY ACKERMAN DAN BURTO

Petraeus to Ashkenazi: I never said Israeli policy endangers U.S. – Haaretz – Israel News.

Commander of the U.S. Military’s Central Command Gen. David Petraeus phoned his Israeli counterpart, Gabi Ashkenazi, this week to deny reports that he had blamed Israeli policy for the failure in a regional solution and for endangering U.S. interests.

Earlier this month, Petraeus warned the Pentagon that “America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers,” in a posting on the Foreign Policy Web site.

In a 56-page report, the Central Command had written: “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” the CENTCOM report read.

Petraeus told reporters on Thursday that the report ? which he claimed had been taken out of context – had been drafted because: “We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don’t think that’s disputable.”

“But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it,” he added. “And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly.”

Responding to questions regarding that report, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict gave enemies of the two allies the opportunity to “exploit” the lack of a political settlement.

“Lack of progress toward Middle East peace is clearly an issue that is exploited by our adversaries in the region and is a source of certainly political challenge,” said Gates. “Whether it has a direct impact, I’m not entirely sure. But there is no question that the absence of Middle East peace does affect U.S. national security interests in the region.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, meanwhile, told reporters at the same briefing that the relationship between the U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Forces remained “exceptionally” strong.

Mullen added that he had been in contact with IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi twice this week and that the U.S. was concerned with Israel’s security because:

“It is in our national interests obviously or we wouldn’t be so engaged… the United States has considered peace in the Middle East to be a national security interest for decades.”

Also Thursday, th U.S. State Department said that it was still “working on keeping proximity talks moving forward with goal of resuming direct negotiations as soon as possible,” despite the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israel over construction in East Jerusalem

Jamal Abdi: War with Iran by Any Other Name.

This week may be looked back on as the pivotal moment when war with Iran entered the mainstream of political thought in the Obama era. At a time when Iranians are standing up to an Iranian government that has been deprived of the Bush-era shadow of war, that shadow is again emerging.

“Bomb Bomb Iran” may be finally crossing over to the pop charts.

While Iran war rhetoric is nothing new in Washington, for the first time it has been given a vehicle. This week, a resolution in the House of Representatives is being circulated by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert that explicitly endorses an Israeli military strike on Iran if “no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.” The resolution does not specify what peaceful solution its supporters are willing to endorse, what timeframe they would consider “reasonable”, or what kind of “support” the United States would provide to Israel if they bombed Iran. The resolution also does not specify what sort of Israeli military action the U.S. would support.

But in the National Review this week, neoconservative pundit Daniel Pipes raised the specter that, if Israel bombs Iran, it will be with nuclear weapons. Pipes offers this as yet another reason the President must be cajoled into bombing Iran first (he has previously urged that Obama attack Iran to win reelection).

This was also the week that AIPAC convened its annual conference in Washington, in which many of the speakers, including U.S. lawmakers, focused on the importance of imposing “crippling sanctions” on Iran and rallied AIPAC members to lobby Congress on this point. While it was the “crippling” gasoline sanctions that were on the marquee, the conference’s subtext was clearly war.

“To our friends in Israel, to AIPAC,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina proclaimed to the conference on Monday, “Congress has your back!”

“All options must be on the table. And you know what option I’m talking about,” Graham declared.

“When you talk about war you should never talk about it with a smile on your face. But sometimes it’s better to go to war than it is to allow the holocaust to develop a second time,” asserted Graham, thus reducing the debate on Iran policy to a false choice between all out war or a second holocaust.

And then, having committed himself to the former option, Graham laid the groundwork for his vision for war.

If military options go forward, Graham said, “The Iranian government’s ability to wage conventional warfare against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist; they should not have one plane that can fly or ship that can float.”

Whether this message was intended for Israeli generals or for American war planners, Graham’s message was clear–a military option must be “decisive” and the U.S. and Israel need to act soon because “we do not have time on our side”.

“I hope and pray that other options will work,” Graham insisted. “I hope and pray that is not the option we have to seek.” But if figures like Graham are so hopeful that other options will work, it is odd that they have worked so effectively to systematically undercut and eliminate those other options every step of the way.

Already, multilateral sanctions the Obama Administration is attempting to construct with partners and at the U.N. have been declared dead before arrival. Prior to that, it was the engagement track that was prematurely eulogized after a mere twelve weeks. And once “crippling sanctions” are circumscribed to an artificial timeline and fail to miraculously fix everything, we will soon have exhausted our entire diplomatic playbook with remarkable swiftness. The path will be cleared for war.

This is not keeping all options on the table, this is clearing the table for only one option.

On Sunday, Michael Makovsky, foreign policy director of the Bipartisan Research Center, revealed the true pathway upon which “crippling sanctions” will place the U.S. In a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Makovsky clearly connected the dots between a “crippling” gasoline embargo and war with Iran.

The President, Makovsky said, should “beef up” the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf so that “the U.S. Navy could then blockade Iran to enforce sanctions on gasoline imports passed by both houses of Congress.”

In order to enforce “crippling sanctions”, then, a naval blockade will be necessary. And while Makovsky does not call this blockade “war”, a naval blockade is an act of war by accepted international legal standards. Hence, while one can call it “the naval blockade option”, as Lindsey Graham would say “you know what option I’m talking about.”

Thus, we have policymakers and pundits claiming an aversion to war, talking about not talking about war with a smile on their face, and yet their solution is merely to call the pathway to war by a different name.

In committing only to pushing forward the most draconian sanctions available, they avoid a true assessment of what will be the cost–derailing diplomatic options, burning bridges with our allies, and helping snuff out Iran’s opposition movement.

The abysmal effort that has been invested in avoiding a war scenario makes it challenging to accept the premise that these policymakers are actually committed to war as only a last option. Hoping and praying is not sufficient. If we know “bomb bomb Iran” is next on the playlist, it is time to get serious and figure out how to change the station.

Alalam.
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:12:22 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday slammed Western countries over stirring up “too much fuss” over Iran nuclear issue, a day after big powers failed to reach agreement on further sanctions on the country.

“They are saying we are worried that Iran may be building a bomb,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech at the inauguration of a new dam in southwest Iran.

“But we are saying you have built it and even used it. So who should be worried? We or you? They are just making a fuss. They have ended up humiliating themselves,” he added.

“Let me tell you, the era when they could hurt the Iranian nation is over. The Iranian nation is at such a height that their evil hands can’t touch it,” he said.

Meanwhile, senior officials from the United States, Russia, France, Britain, China and Germany failed to agree on sanctions against the Islamic republic in Wednesday’s conference call.

China took part in the call and appealed for more diplomacy to resolve the issue on Thursday.

“China urges all sides to use diplomatic means to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiation,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing.

“This is the best choice and it conforms to the interests of all sides as well as peace and stability in the region.”

Israel, the Middle East’s sole possessor of nuclear bombs, and the United States have several times threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The West accuses Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran strongly denies the accusation.

Tehran says its nuclear program is aimed at making nuclear fuel for civilian purposes, particularly generating electricity for its growing population.

Iran further seeks to enrich uranium for a nuclear research reactor in Tehran.

Netanyahu to AIPAC: Stop Iran or Israel Will – Joel C. Rosenberg – The Corner on National Review Online.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Netanyahu to AIPAC: Stop Iran or Israel Will [Joel C. Rosenberg]

After the worst week in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington Monday and gave a powerful and effective speech at the AIPAC gala dinner at the Washington Convention Center, warning the world to stop Iran — or Israel will — and respectfully but directly challenging the Obama administration on Jerusalem and the peace process.

Netanyahu received scores of standing ovations from the 7,800 guests in attendance, the biggest event in the history of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). More than half of the members of the U.S. House and Senate were there, as were ambassadors from more than fifty countries and many top Israeli officials, including defense minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The longest and most sustained came when the prime minister firmly resisted the policy of President Obama, who seeks to divide Jerusalem and stop Israel from building “settlements” in East Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement,” said Netanyahu. “It is our capital.”

Netanyahu’s strategy in rebuilding U.S.-Israel relations is now clear. Reduce tensions with the president and executive branch if at all possible, but focus on speaking directly to the American people and strengthening the truly pro-Israel end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Congress.

Most stunning line of the night: To the surprise of many at the dinner, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) conceded that when it comes to Iran, “Diplomacy has failed.” We all know this to be true, but it has not yet been said so clearly and publicly by such a high-ranking Democrat and close supporter of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Will Schumer’s analysis be taken up by fellow Democrats? This remains to be seen, but if it is, it could have dramatic implications for Washington’s next steps towards Iran. Schumer urged the administration to keep the military option open, but he stressed hitting Iran with crippling economic sanctions immediately. A bill he has co-sponsored to help cut off gas supplies to Iran (Iran imports 45 percent of its gasoline) passed the Senate on January 28th, he noted. It is now being reconciled with the House version. It should go to the president for signature soon, and he demanded the president move decisively with “immediate implementation.”

The most sobering speech of the night was that of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who spoke the truth more clearly and succinctly than anyone else when he noted that this could be the last annual AIPAC conference before Iran gets the Bomb. He said that while he hopes war won’t be necessary — he also supports crippling economic sanctions against Iran — the U.S. needs to urgently prepare for the possibility of launching massive airstrikes to stop Tehran from building and deploying nuclear weapons.

What Will Happen If the World Does Not Stop Iran?
The desire of Radical Islam to annihilate Israel was the first issue Netanyahu raised, and rightly so. “Iran’s rulers say, ‘Israel is a one bomb country,’” the prime minister noted. “The head of Hezbollah says, ‘If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.’”

Netanyahu called on the world “to act swiftly and decisively” to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but he made it clear that if the world does not stop Iran, Israel reserves the right to safeguard her people from another Holocaust.

“The greatest threat to any living organism or nation is not to recognize danger in time,” the prime minister said in his speech’s most sobering moment. “Seventy-five years ago, many leaders around the world put their heads in the sand. Untold millions died in the war that followed. Ultimately, two of history’s greatest leaders helped turn the tide. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill helped save the world. But they were too late to save six million of my own people. The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.”

What Have the Palestinian Leaders Done for Peace?
That said, given the brouhaha in the past week between the U.S. and Israel, Netanyahu’s central message naturally focused on his country’s deep and substantive commitment to making peace. He noted that his government has repeatedly called on the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table without preconditions, to no effect.

“From Day One, we called on the Palestinian Authority to begin peace negotiations without delay,” he said. “I make that same call today. President Abbas, come and negotiate peace. Leaders who truly want peace should sit down face-to-face.”

Netanyahu pointed out that his government has dismantled several hundred roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank to enable the easier flow of people, goods, and services, and that this has lead to dramatic economic growth in Judea and Samaria. He noted that his government announced last year “an unprecedented moratorium on new Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria.”

“This is what my government has done for peace,” said Netanyahu. “What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace?”

The answer, according to Netanyahu: The Palestinian Authority has “placed preconditions on peace talks”; they have “waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel’s legitimacy”; they have “promoted the notorious Goldstone report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes”; they have “continued incitement against Israel — a few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent it.”

Why Does Israel Face a ‘Triple Standard’?
The prime minister thanked the United States for six decades of a strong and enduring relationship, based on shared values and common interests. He mentioned specific ways that the U.S. and Israel work together to advance freedom and fight fanaticism. But he also noted that while Israel has its imperfections and welcomes and appreciates sincere and honest criticism from its friends, “Israel should be judged by the same standards applied to all nations, and allegations against Israel must be grounded in fact.”

Going off text, he then asked why Israel faces a “triple standard” in the world. There is, he said, one standard for dictatorships, another for democracies, and a third for Israel.

A case in point, of course, is the U.N.’s pernicious and anti-Semitic Goldstone Commission Report which condemns Israel for committing so-called “war crimes” for defending her innocent civilians from 10,000-plus rocket attacks from Hamas terrorists in Gaza while for years the U.N. did nothing to stop those rocket attacks and barely holds Hamas to account for those attacks.

Outreach to Evangelicals
Finally, it should be noted that several years ago, to their credit, the leadership of AIPAC decided to make a conscious effort to reach out to pro-Israel evangelical Christian leaders and activists. I am so glad they did. Last night, there were 130 evangelical leaders present to show unconditional love and unwavering support to the Jewish people and the state of Israel. In the future, I hope more Christian leaders attend and build bridges to AIPAC and the Jewish community.

My wife and I met numerous religious and secular Jews last night (as we did last year) who are profoundly grateful for the support of evangelicals. One Orthodox Jewish woman told my wife and me, “You Christians are the best friends Israel has. You’re the only friends we really have.”

It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Washington blitz” will avert a coming train wreck between his government and the Obama administration over Iran, Jerusalem, and the peace process. But he is right to speak directly to the American people and to Israel’s friends in Congress. Indeed, he and his government should do much more, including a steady stream of major addresses to pro-Israel groups of Jews and Christians throughout the United States.

— Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times–best-selling author of seven novels and non-fiction books about Israel, including Epicenter and Inside the Revolution. He served as an aide to Mr. Netanyahu in 2000.

03/23 02:57 PMShare

Who believes in fairy tales anymore?

The MSM and pretty much all the Netizens have concluded over the past two weeks that Israel and the United States are in a historic crisis that may reshape US / Israel relations.  The neocons say that Obama is either naive or a muslim sympathizer.  The lefties say it’s about time the US stopped being pushed around by the “Jewish lobby,” and that even harsher measures are called for.

Nothing has made sense to me over this entire period.  The announcement of new housing in E. Jerusalem while Biden was there was simply too stupid to have been unintentional.  The response of the US, first by Biden then by Clinton and White House spokesmen was so disproportional that it seemed even stupider.

All of a sudden, Gen. Petraius decides to announce for the first time ever that Israeli policy endangers US servicemen.

It’s almost as though our leaders all attended a PCP party.  What’s wrong with them?  Don’t they see the horrible threat that the entire civilized world is under from the Iranian nuclear program?

So I’ve devised a (wishful thinking) fairy tale to explain this seemingly self-destructive insane behavior.  It is based on the premise that all players in the game are smarter not dumber than any of us and that they are well aware of everything we can see and more.

In this fairy tale, Obama realized that nothing short of military action would stop the Iranians after their announcement that they were centrifuging their uranium to 20%.  With the world essentially unified in its opposition to Iran after their contemptuous rejection of all Obama’s overtures, he does not need to build support for a strike on Iran.  He already has it.

In my fairy tale, he sends Biden to Israel together with instructions to Netanyahu to take some action that would have no effect on the peace process, but which could be played up as if it could.  Together they would hide behind the cloud of this “crisis” while they planned this strike on Iran.

Think about it….

Think about how many hours have been spent behind secret closed doors by the top echelons of the US and the Israeli governments since then.  Not that there wasn’t plenty before, but not on this level.  Think about the press blackout Obama ordered under cover of the “crisis.”

Think about the bunker buster bombs delivered to Diego Garcia.  Think about the buildup of US forces in Afghanistan on the Iran border rather than in the Taliban trouble spots. Think about radical Muslims around the world celebrating this discord between the great and the little Satan.

Then think about Passover, which occurs next week.  When would Israel be less expected to strike.  Think about the moral and historical significance of the Jewish holiday.  If Obama has decided to take military action, when would be a more symbolic and powerful date?

In my fairy tale, this whole “crisis” is a disinformation ruse tailor made for radical Islam.  Israel and America or Israel with tacit American support will attack and defeat Ahmadabad during Passover.  Nothing would serve Obama’s as well as Netanyahu’s political futures better than this.  Nothing would serve the interests of Israel and the US more than this.  Nothing would server the interests of world civilization more than this…

Of course it’s just a fairy tale.  Our countries are both run by corrupt fools with no interest or understanding of what’s at stake or how to deal with it, right?

Silly me.  I can’t help but keep hoping that one day fairy tales will come true.

Joseph Wouk
March 24, 2010

After meeting, deafening silence – Laura Rozen and Ben Smith – POLITICO.com.

By LAURA ROZEN & BEN SMITH | 3/23/10 11:51 PM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34914.html#ixzz0j6seCOOy