WarSclerotic

China insists it has not changed its stand on Iran’s nuclear program – latimes.com.

The statement came after U.S. officials said Beijing was more open to sanctions on Tehran.

China insisted Tuesday that it has not shifted its approach on Iran’s nuclear program, despite White House claims on Monday that Beijing had become more open to sanctions on Tehran.

Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Beijing that “China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue” of concern about Iran’s nuclear program, according to the official New China News Agency.

She said that China “upholds its consistent stance on the Iran nuclear issue.” Beijing opposes Iran gaining nuclear weapons and supports a “dual-track strategy,” combining negotiations with pressure, she said.

On Monday, White House officials said that President Obama had received Chinese President Hu Jintao’s promise to cooperate in developing a new round of sanctions against Iran.

“They’re prepared to work with us,” said Jeffrey Bader, a senior National Security Council official.

Obama addressed the apparent discrepancy during a news conference Tuesday at the conclusion of the nuclear security summit in Washington. Despite Beijing’s ties to Iran, it is more willing now to consider sanctions than it was a year ago, the president said. He added that he wanted broad international agreement on new sanctions soon.

“The Chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy generally,” Obama said. “A lot of countries around the world have trade relations with Iran. And we’re mindful of that.”

The sanctions are aimed at dissuading Tehran from proceeding with a nuclear program that many world powers believe is aimed at developing weapons. Tehran contends that it wants nuclear power only for peaceful purposes.

The Obama administration, like the George W. Bush administration before it, has struggled to win commitments from China and Russia to cooperate on Iran. U.S. officials have repeatedly claimed progress in winning over the two countries, both permanent Security Council members, only to see them seemingly head in a different direction days later.

The White House has recently asserted common ground with Moscow on the issue. Yet last week, in an appearance with Obama in Prague, Czech Republic, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed that there were limits to the sanctions that his country was willing to impose.

“There is no contradiction between continuing diplomatic efforts and at the same time working together on a sanctions resolution in New York,” a senior Obama administration official said Tuesday. “We believe a sanctions resolution is the best way to get back to . . . negotiations at some stage.”

SINGAPORE — A state-owned Chinese refiner plans to ship 30,000 metric tons of gasoline to Iran after European traders halted shipments ahead of possible new UN sanctions, according to Singapore ship brokers.

Beijing has growing commercial and political ties with Iran and has resisted US pressure for sanctions to press Teheran to abandon its nuclear program. Chinese officials say the country is entitled to energy trade.

Unipec, the trading arm of China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, plans to load the oil tanker Hongbo with the gasoline Thursday in Singapore, said the brokers, who asked not to be identified further to avoid jeopardizing customer relations.

They said the tanker will likely go directly to Iran.

The gasoline shipment suggests Chinese refiners are moving to fill the void left by European suppliers, who halted sales to Iran earlier this year.

A deputy Chinese foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, said Tuesday that China is ready to discuss all ideas that UN Security Council members put forward to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. But he said any agreement on Iran must involve all parties, not just one or two countries.

Cui said Iran’s legitimate right to have energy trade with other countries should not be undermined as the world pursues a settlement of the nuclear standoff. Beijing’s position on energy could make it more difficult for the United States and China to resolve differences on Iran.

Iran denies it intends to build an atomic bomb, and despite widespread concern about its intentions, President Barack Obama is having difficulty getting agreement on a new set of UN sanctions. He said Tuesday that his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, assured him that Beijing would participate in drafting sessions at the United Nations on strong sanctions.

Petraeus: Israel vital strategic ally.

Obama’s Nuclear Summit: Progress on Security, Not Iran – TIME.

President Barack Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington

The goals of President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit are so modest and uncontroversial that the event can’t be anything but a success. But the real action is taking place on the sidelines of the Washington sit-down, where the President is lobbying world leaders one by one to back new sanctions against Iran. And on that front, his prospects remain decidedly mixed.

“They are prepared to work with us,” White House China hand Jeffrey Bader announced after Obama discussed the sanctions issue with President Hu Jintao. But the Chinese quickly poured cold water on any suggestion that they had embraced Washington’s view that tough sanctions offer a path to resolving the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. “China always believes that dialogue and negotiation are the best way out for the issue,” Foreign Ministry official Jiang Yu said after the meeting. “Pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve it.” (Watch TIME’s video “Ahmadinejad Says Obama Should Back Off.”)

It has become a familiar pattern to hear Administration officials claim Russian and Chinese support for sanctions, only for the extent of that support to quickly pale in the cold light of day. The Chinese do not appear to have reversed their opposition to sanctions; they’ve simply agreed to discuss a sanctions resolution presented by the U.S. — something they had refused to do until now. The chances of such discussion resulting in a meaningful escalation of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran remain slim. The U.S. is proposing measures to choke off investment in Iran’s energy sector, block Iran’s access to international credit and punish companies associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. But China is the largest foreign investor in Iran’s energy sector, and it has made clear that it opposes measures aimed at stopping such investment. While President Obama reportedly indicated that the U.S. would help China make up any shortfall in oil imports resulting from Iranian retaliation for any Chinese support for sanctions, that’s unlikely to change Beijing’s position — its investments are designed to secure its long-term strategic stake in Iran’s energy sector, which goes far deeper than simply buying Iran’s current oil exports.

China, like Russia, has also made clear that it will oppose any measures that inflict economic pain on Iranian society, meaning that the best consensus that Washington manages to forge will likely be Beijing’s agreement not to veto another milquetoast package of sanctions measures that are unlikely to change Tehran’s calculations. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also in Washington for the summit, announced that his country — also currently on the Security Council — opposes new sanctions against Iran, but is willing to mediate between Tehran and the West. Also on the sidelines of the summit, Brazil — another current Security Council member — also opposed further sanctions and called for dialogue. (See pictures of the worst nuclear disasters.)

One of the toughest Iran sanctions fights facing the Administration in the weeks ahead, in fact, may be on Capitol Hill, where a tough sanctions bill that would punish third-country companies for doing business with Iran’s energy sector has been passed by both chambers, with the Senate and House versions currently being reconciled. But such measures would invariably antagonize China and other players, potentially dooming the wider sanctions effort. The White House is reportedly seeking to allow exceptions in the law for “closely cooperating countries,” but congressional Iran hawks — aware of just how limited any U.N. sanctions are likely to be — are hanging tough.

Administration officials frame this week’s Washington talks as part of a carefully choreographed sequence of events, including the new START agreement signed with Russia last week and President Obama’s new Nuclear Posture Review, and to be followed next month by the five-yearly review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in New York City. That event, however, promises some real fireworks. Whereas the President’s summit is attended by some 50 countries, the NPT one will be attended by 200 — including Iran, as a signatory to the treaty. (See pictures of securing loose nukes in Chile.)

Tehran has previously garnered some support from developing countries for its claim that the West is trying to deny Iran’s NPT right to maintain a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program — which includes the right to enrich uranium. This weekend, it plans to host its own minisummit on the NPT under the slogan “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None,” and claims that both Russia and China will attend. The theme is a smart move to turn attention back to the disarmament component of the NPT, whose underlying principle is that states without nuclear weapons will refrain from pursuing them, while those who have them will move toward disarmament.

It’s a safe bet that Iran will insist on discussing Israel’s nuclear arsenal at the NPT event — the Jewish state has declined, like India and Pakistan, to sign the treaty, and is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads — and on that issue it will get support from even many of the moderate Arab states that share Washington’s concerns over Iran. Statements in recent days from Iranian officials also suggest that it will draw attention to President Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review, which among other things reserved the right for the U.S. to launch nuclear strikes against states deemed by the U.S. to be noncompliant with the NPT, making explicit that President Obama was referring to Iran. The prerogative to use the threat of nuclear attack to enforce the NPT is not one recognized by the treaty or most of its signatory states, and Tehran will hope to turn the tables on Washington.

Iran doesn’t necessarily need to win others over to its own camp; simply keeping them out of the Western camp would count as a victory. And the positions of Turkey, Brazil — and even China — on the preferability of dialogue over sanctions may be a sign that the U.S. and its allies could struggle to isolate Iran.

The American Spectator : Inviting War Against America.

By Peter Ferrara on 4.14.10 @ 6:08AM

To get the money to win World War II, America ran unprecedented deficits and drove up the national debt to unprecedented levels. In 1943 alone, the federal government borrowed $54.5 billion, which was more than it had borrowed in all of its previous history before the war, combined. By 1946, Gross Federal Debt peaked at 122% of GDP, and net national debt held by the public peaked at 109% of GDP.

But according to the CBO, under President Obama’s budget, Gross Federal Debt will already be at 122% of GDP by 2020, without any world war. Net national debt held by the public will be at 90% of GDP. After 2020, it will all just get much worse on our current course.

So if we have to fight a major war at some point in the future, where would we get the money? Note that during World War II we raised taxes to unprecedented levels, and we still needed the above unprecedented borrowing. Note also that Greece’s national debt is at 113% of GDP, and the bond market is telling them no mas.

So if we find ourselves in another major war, would the bond markets allow us to do what we did during World War II, on top of what President Obama and Congressional Democrats are already doing with budget deficits and the national debt? In particular, would the Communist Chinese really lend us the money to fight the war by buying the bonds necessary to fund it? Would whoever we are fighting sit by with equanimity and just watch them provide us with the money? Or would they more likely ally with the Communist Chinese to cut us off? And what if we are at war with the Communist Chinese themselves, and their allies, which could include Iran and North Korea, if not Russia?

Suppose the war looks like this. Iran attacks Israel, China attacks Taiwan and Japan, North Korea attacks South Korea, and Russia attacks Ukraine and Poland. America gets the money from where to respond to this? The defense builddown Obama is pursuing is adequate to do what in response to this?

Okay, this is a scenario for World War III. Is it okay that we soon will not have the defense or the financial resources to fight World War III? Is that the goal of Barack Obama, George Soros, and their assorted leftist fellow travelers?

And once we reach this point, would we see World War III, or would our allies simply change allegiances, and throw in with our enemies? And how far would that go?

The Decline and Fall of America?

Everything President Obama is doing on national defense and foreign policy seems to be leading to this result. He has already canceled our planned missile defenses in Eastern Europe on the illogical premise that such purely defensive weapons somehow threaten Russia. In an editorial on April 9, Investors Business Daily adds:

Obama has already gutted U.S. missile defense, cancelling deployment of additional ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. He has also canceled ready-to-deploy missile defenses such as the Air Force’s Airborne Laser program, which destroys enemy missiles in their vulnerable boost phase.

President Obama has also terminated the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the best fighter in the world by far, and a guarantor of continued American air superiority. Yet the Russians continue with the rollout of their own version.

Over the last few days, much of our national media have celebrated the signing of a new START arms control treaty with Russia. Just like President Obama, they missed the historical fact that the Cold War is over, and we won it without firing a shot (thanks to the brilliance of Obama’s nemesis, Ronald Reagan). This is no longer a bipolar world, and we face rising nuclear threats from other nations now, especially China. All this retro START hoopla just reflects, again, President Obama’s mental stagnation, stuck in the 1970s, and his weird, stubborn devotion to ignoring anything that has happened since 1980. Indeed, this Obama characteristic displayed throughout his domestic and foreign policies is so weird and so stubborn that it should be troubling to thinking people.

In this START treaty, America agrees to give up another 30% of its nuclear warheads. Moreover, we agree to steep reductions in the number of delivery vehicles, meaning intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers (like the B-2), to 800 overall. As the April 9 IBD further explains, “This also hurts our conventional deterrent…our bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are also delivery systems for the precision guided munitions that strike terror in our foes.” The Wall Street Journal added on March 31, “B-2 bombers are a useful instrument for global power projection and conventional weapons delivery, not only in nuclear conflict. In Congressional testimony last summer, Deputy Joint Chiefs Chairman General James Cartwright put 860 launchers as the bare minimum.” President Obama only made all of this worse with the unilateral retirement of the Tomahawk cruise missile, capable of delivering long-range nuclear or conventional explosives.

In return, the Russians give up nothing actually. The Russians barely have the resources to maintain the weapons the treaty allows, as the WSJ also explained on March 31, saying, “With much of its hardware obsolete and rusting, Russia already is at that level and tried to push the U.S. as low as 500 launchers.” Or, as the Heritage Foundation explained, in its April 12 Morning Bell, “Russia’s nuclear and conventional weapons arsenals are declining faster than ours, due to age and funding, so of course they want to bring our levels down to theirs.” The one area where the Russians do have a big advantage, tactical battlefield nukes, is not covered by the treaty, leaving Russia with an advantage of thousands of such nukes.

The Obama Administration insists that the treaty includes no constraints on America’s missile defense. But Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says, “Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding,” pointing out treaty language in support. Lavrov adds, “Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if…the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.” As IBD again explains, “This gives Russia a veto over the defense of the American people against nuclear attack.”

Richard Perle cogently sums up the START treaty folly in yesterday’s WSJ:

With the new START treaty, the administration has continued the now senseless practice of fixing the size and character of our nuclear forces not by analyzing what is necessary for our security, but by reaching a bilateral treaty with Russia.” [This made sense] “during the Cold War when the most important issue facing our nuclear deterrent was whether its size and character was adequate to deter the nuclear forces of the Soviet Union. But no one believes the threat we face today comes from Russia’s arsenal. It simply does not matter how many weapons Russia has…. To the degree that an otherwise unimportant Cold War relic like the new START treaty limits our freedom to optimize our defenses, it will diminish rather than increase our safety.”

Slouching Towards Disarmament

With American warheads to be reduced to 1,550, it should be crucial to ensure that what we do have is in good condition and working order. But with our nuclear stockpile aging, the U.S. has suspended any nuclear testing that would ensure the weapons still work. President Bush proposed development of a new nuclear warhead to modernize our nuclear deterrent and umbrella. But Congressional Democrats including then Senator Obama adamantly and successfully resisted that.

President Obama has now formally committed to these policies in his recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). He permanently renounces all nuclear testing, and calls for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty. He also unilaterally rejects “the development of any new nuclear weapons, thus ensuring the aging of our nuclear deterrent into obsolescence and irrelevance,” as IBD explained it on April 7. In sharp contrast, Russia devotes its available resources to just the opposite, as IBD further reports: “Moscow is on track toward upgrading 80% of its strategic forces. It routinely conducts underground hydrodynamic tests that Obama considers impermissible under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty we religiously observe.”

Then, of course, there is the famous renunciation in that NPR of the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against any state in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attack America with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction, or with a crippling cyberattack. Michael Anton explains the utter fallacy of this policy in the April 19 Weekly Standard, saying, “One of the rationales for the United States forswearing the development of biological and chemical weapons (apart from their inherent repugnance) was that our nuclear arsenal remained the surest guarantee against CBW attack. Well, not if we explicitly renounce the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances.”

President Obama is well on his way to reversing Reagan’s Cold War victory, losing it without firing a shot.

Unserious Policy Meets Unacceptable Results

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama proved he was serious about our national defense, at least to enough unserious voters, by continually repeating that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be “unacceptable.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was still repeating that mantra just last month in a speech trying to soothe the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), when it should long have been obvious that a nuclear Iran was not seriously unacceptable to the Administration. It would be nice if AIPAC woke up before Israel is gone.

Obama, indeed, was in perpetual self-congratulatory mode in 2008 for his brilliant insight that he could stop the Iranian nuclear program by “talking to Iran.” Lots of unserious voters fell for this as well, blissfully unaware that every Administration had been “talking to Iran” all the way back to Carter, with no positive results. It should also have been obvious that with Iran devoted to “wiping Israel off the face of the earth,” there was nothing to talk to them about.

Nevertheless, President Obama pursued this hopelessly naïve, doomed policy from his Inauguration Speech, extending an outstretched hand to Iran and pleading for an unclenched fist in return. The mullahs have responded by mocking him ever since, and accelerating their nuclear program. The President has set deadline after deadline for diplomatic results, but let each lapse with no consequence. In his recent Persian New Year message, President Obama yet again repeated, apparently cluelessly, “our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands.” Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s swift reply: “They say they have extended a hand to Iran, but the Iranian government and nation have declined to welcome that.”

In blind pursuit of this policy he called “tough diplomacy” during his misleading campaign, President Obama left the Iranian people dying in the streets protesting for democracy, contrary to America’s history back to its own Founders of promoting democracy around the world. Obama scorned the realistic policy of regime change that this uprising offered America, while promoting precisely such regime change among America’s allies, from Israel to Honduras. Even Jimmy Carter, with his foreign policy devotion to human rights, would not have so blundered.

That is why for months now, the focus has been on President Obama’s attempts to impose meaningful sanctions on Iran, even though those sanctions have no chance of working. Iran’s ruling mullahs have long said they have much bigger issues in mind than the mere materialistic penalties such sanctions could at best impose. Moreover, it should have long been obvious that both China and Russia prefer to see America continue to be troubled by the Iranian threat, and would block any serious sanctions, particularly any that could have adverse military consequences.

Last Friday on Good Morning America, President Obama apparently inadvertently revealed that even he does not seriously believe sanctions will work. He said, “If the question is do we have a guarantee as to the sanctions we are able to institute at this stage are automatically going to change Iranian behavior, of course we don’t. The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that, you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don’t.”

Translation: a nuclear Iran is no longer so unacceptable, at least no more unacceptable than a nuclear North Korea turned out to be, where pursuit of hopelessly naïve diplomacy and sanctions failed miserably. AIPAC, call your office.

Preposterously, President Obama’s real Iran policy has now metamorphosed from the “talking to Iran” he used to gull voters in 2008, into now it is America’s nukes that are unacceptable. What Obama has been telling us throughout all of his recent nuclear hoopla is that if we just demonstrate our “moral leadership” by standing down our nukes, Iran and even North Korea will do the same. But President Obama never explains what is moral about not defending America.

As the WSJ again explained on March 31:

Announcing the Russian deal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said repeatedly that the treaty shows the likes of Iran and North Korea “that one of our top priorities is to strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.” And that somehow the U.S.-Russian agreement will induce Tehran and Pyongyang to join in. This faith-based nonproliferation flies in the face of history. As the U.S. and Russia have drawn down their arsenals the past two decades, the rogues have moved fast to build up theirs. They continue to do so.

But President Obama is not really so hopelessly naïve as to believe that this will work either. He is actually using the Iranian threat to pursue what he really wants, which is the nuclear disarmament of America. That is the only way to make sense of his policies. American people, call your office.

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

y

Syria holds self-propelled Scud ready to hand to Hizballah

Syria has not actually delivered Scud missiles, A or SS-1B, to the Hizballah in Lebanon – only positioned them on the border ready for transit at a moment’s notice – and taught two Hizballah brigades how to use them, debkafile‘s military sources report in the wake of a flurry of press reports, according to which these ground missiles have already been smuggled into Lebanon in violation of UN resolutions.
Israel has warned Damascus via Washington that their crossover into Lebanon would bring forth Israeli military action to destroy the missiles and their bases on both sides of the border.
Our sources add that Syria engineered the reports originating in the Kuwait Al Rai al Yaam in order to show Israel up to the American and Middle East public as unable to follow through on its warnings and just a paper tiger.
Israel is especially sensitive to the prospect of Scud missiles in the hands of Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hizballah, for two reasons:

1. Their range is 700 km, more than double the 300 km-range generally reported. What they lack in precision, they more than make up for in the distance of their reach; they would enable Hizballah for the first time to hit the big Israeli air bases in the southern Negev, twice as far from the Lebanese border as Tel Aviv.
2. The Scud A or SS-1B are self-propelled, and therefore highly mobile and maneuverable and requiring relatively small teams and few vehicles for their operation. This would render their Hizballah operators less susceptible to Israel air attack.
When in the second half of March, the Obama learned of Syria’s preparations to arm Hizballah with these Scuds, the White House sent John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to intercede with President Bashar Assad. At their meeting in Damascus on April 1, Assad denied the missiles had been smuggled into Lebanon, but he kept to himself the information that they were poised on the border for transfer and that two Hizballah brigades had been trained to fire them.
In consequence, Robert Ford, named as first US ambassador to Damascus in five years, was told to wait before taking up his post and the Senate procedure for his confirmation delayed.
On Tuesday, April 13, Sen. Kerry’s spokesman said: “These weapons transfers must stop in order to promote regional stability and security.”
Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak said the Scuds, if they were delivered, “would alter the balance of strength in the region and threaten its stability and calm.” He said the military build-up in Lebanon “is a clear violation of Security Council resolutions.”

Barak made it clear that Israel has “no belligerent intentions” towards Lebanon, adding: “We recommend that everyone maintain the calm.”

Iran talks big on missile capabilities – UPI.com.

» Obama’s Mideast Peace Process: No Process and No Peace – Big Government.

The first foreboding came during President Obama’s inaugural address when he announced to the Muslim world, “…we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect…we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”  Who can quarrel with such a goal? But with the benefit of 15 months of hindsight, those words were an early warning signal to Israel the sole steadfast American ally in the region surrounded by Muslim nations essentially sworn to its destruction.

There was also, of course, the much heralded Cairo speech which was loaded with good-sounding, even pseudo-historic, platitudinous remarks but which lacked the one statement that mattered…that both sides agree to enter peace talks, the publically avowed purpose of which would be to reach a settlement that would end the Israel-Palestinian dispute once and for all, a settlement that would mean no new demands directed by one party against the other.

Israel has been paraded, often reluctantly, to center stage by a succession of American Administrations to perform much like a dancing bear for a variety of Presidents who wanted to add “peacemaker” to their legacy and who demanded of Israel a succession of concessions each of which was called a “confidence building measure” to show the Arab nations Israel’s good faith intentions.

Since its inception as a Jewish state in 1948, the only one by the way, effectively created by the United Nations (many of the remainder of which being creations of British map drawing after World War I), Israel has been the only true democracy and a steadfast ally of the United States.  It has enjoyed the support, in varying degrees, of American governments from Truman through Bush, including even Jimmy Carter while he was president.

Barack Obama is different.  Notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric about America’s unshakeable friendship with Israel when he speaks at public forums or before Jewish audiences at his or fellow Democratic fundraising events, his actions once taking office have been ambiguous at best and downright hostile at worst.

He has visited the Mideast with visits to Egypt and Jordan, notably snubbing Israel.  Even before the recent trip by Vice President Biden to Israel, during which Israeli municipal authorities made a clumsy and poorly timed announcement of procedural progress in a long process toward further construction in Jerusalem, he has treated Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu like a pariah, a treatment he reinforced by his actions during Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington.  It also appears clear in the aftermath of the Jerusalem construction imbroglio that Washington knew the ill-timed announcement was not of Netanyahu’s making and that it was, in fact, a calculated move by one of Israel’s 38 political parties to embarrass the Prime Minister. Nonetheless it provided an opportunity for the Administration to fire a gratuitous broadside salvo at a worthy ally.

A careful look at what passes for Obama policy reveals a desire to curry favor with the Islamic world, and if that means distancing America from Israel then so be it and damn the consequences.

The president seems to have adopted the view that the borders that emerged following the 1967 six-day war, and the so-called “settlements” in Jerusalem are the reason for the historic enmity the 22 Islamic countries of the Mideast have toward Israel.  If that were so, this dispute would have been settled long ago.  At both the middle-east summits hosted by President Clinton in 2000 and later by President Bush in 2007, Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, respectively, offered to return to essentially the 1967 borders (with some land swaps) and to share Jerusalem as the capital of two states.  On both occasions PLO Chairman Arafat in 2000 (to the amazement of Clinton’s principal Mideast advisor, Dennis Ross) and Palestinian Authority President Abbas in 2007 rejected the offers.

Arafat, who was offered these terms with the proviso that the Arab states would recognize Israel’s right to exist as a nation and that there would be no further future demands, was quoted as saying “if I agree to that, I will be signing my own death warrant.”  In contrast, not once since 1948 have the Arabs offered their outline of the terms of a permanent peace with Israel except upon conditions such as those in the so-called Saudi Plan that demanded the right of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to the homes they fled, which would amount to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

The position taken by almost all the Islamic nations regarding Israel, which is held to this day by Hezbollah, Hamas and even Fatah (the so-called moderate wing of the Palestinian Authority) is that Tel Aviv, Herzliya, Safed, Haifa, etc. are also occupied territory.  Even in the face of that uncompromising position, the United States and the European nations have persisted in pursuing, since the date of the Oslo accords in 1993, a so-called roadmap to peace also referred to as the “peace process.”  We know the results.

When Barack Obama became president, he tipped his hand in his Cairo address regarding his approach to this seemingly intractable dispute.  There, a careful reading made it clear that the United States would, in effect, stand on its head to placate world Islam.  And since then his outstretched hand to Islam has been spurned, and in the case of Iran, spat upon.  But, the president in his effort to restart peace negotiations imposed a condition only on Israel demanding that it stop building settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the eastern portion of which was conquered by Jordan in 1948 but annexed to Israel after the 1967 war.  Leave aside that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (Obama said so himself many times) and building in one’s capital is hardly the building of settlements, the president has asked Israel to concede a principal point of contention in advance of negotiations even being restarted.  No preconditions have been imposed on the Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, every Arab nation jumped on this condition giving PA President Abbas an excuse not to negotiate until he “pockets” an Israeli concession.  This has never before been a precondition of the PA to negotiations, which, by the way, doesn’t even control Gaza, so it isn’t clear Abbas can even speak for the Palestinians in peace talks.  Hamas, which does control Gaza, has made clear time and again, that they will never come to a peace table or recognize Israel.  Why don’t we believe them?  Why wouldn’t the president ask Abbas, Hamas, and their Arab allies, as a precondition to full negotiations, to agree that upon resolution of border issues, they will recognize Israel as a Jewish nation living side by side with its neighbors?

Instead the President has laid down a requirement that asks only the Israelis for a gesture of good faith.  Never mind that Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, many of whom engaged in violent acts of terrorism against it, eased West Bank roadblocks, and, in the greatest concession of all, dismantled settlements and withdrew unconditionally from Gaza (and southern Lebanon a few years earlier).  In return they were met with daily rocket bombardments from Gaza, war from Lebanon, and the continuous importation into those areas of weaponry to resume attacks.  Israel’s military invasion into Gaza in 2008 to eliminate this threat ended with condemnation by our craven European allies who were strangely silent during the daily rocket attacks.

As Charles Krauthammer noted in a recent column in the Washington Post:

“Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “’unprecedented.’”

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency?  Not one.

Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel.  That’s why the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks” — a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat’s groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.

And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?  Now that is an insult.

This brings us to another unyielding demand that Arab states have made of Israel — the so-called “right of return.”  In 1948 after the UN approved the partition of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel, Arab armies from all surrounding countries attacked the new nation.  Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes, hoping to return once the Israelis had been swept into the sea, as promised by the invading Arab nations. This, as we know, did not come to pass and since then these Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps in the West Bank and Lebanon but not absorbed in any of the 22 Arab countries with 800 times the landmass of Israel.  Contrast this with the millions of displaced people all over Europe after World War II who were absorbed and resettled within three years.

The nations of the world, while crying crocodile tears for Palestinian refugees (keep in mind there has never been in recorded history a nation called Palestine) an estimated 800,000 to one million Jews were forced out of Arab countries after 1948 most of whom were absorbed by Israel.  But in every peace conference the Arabs have demanded the right of Palestinians to return to the land they abandoned in 1948 and a cash payment of compensation to boot.  The “World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries” estimates that the aggregate size of the real estate left by fleeing Jews was over 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of Israel) and that the value of Jewish property then taken by the Arabs would be worth $300 billion today.  This fact is never mentioned in the mainstream press.  All we hear about is the plight of Palestinians still living in refugee camps.

And what about Jordan?  After the UN’s 1947 partition, the West Bank was captured by Jordan, which claimed sovereignty there in 1950 and extended citizenship to all its residents.

Jordan, however, severed its administrative ties to the West Bank and abandoned its claim of sovereignty in 1988.  Since that time, without a peep from the world press, Jordan has been systematically stripping citizenship from Palestinians rather than providing them shelter within its borders (land much larger than Israel) even though last year King Abdullah launched a housing initiative to build 120,000 housing units for low income Jordanians.

And while the Administration condemned Israel for its poorly timed announcement of building plans in Jerusalem during Vice President Biden’s visit (which the president knew was leaked by one of 38 parties comprising Israel’s Knesset legislature to try and embarrass Netanyahu) neither he nor the State Department has raised a word of protest over the ceremonies in which Mr. Abbas took part following the Biden visit to the West Bank honoring and glorifying Datal Mughrabi who was responsible for the 1978 massacre of 37 Israelis.

The Jerusalem Post said it well in its March 16, 2010 edition:

[President Obama’s] strategy of “engaging” Islamic rogue states has been disastrous.  The effort to prevent the nuclearization of Iran by appeasing the Iranian tyrants backfired with the ayatollahs literally mocking the US.  The response of Syrian President Bashar Assad to US groveling and the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus was to host a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and ridicule the US demand that he curtail his relationship with Iran.  President Obama did not consider this “insulting,” prompting the editor of the Lebanese The Daily Star to write that “the Obama administration these days provokes little confidence in its allies and even less fear in its adversaries.”

President Obama is traveling the road of appeasement to the Arabs.  He seems to believe that every grievance of Islam is attributable to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  This theory has been demonstrated to be wrong time and again.  Its adherents over the years have attributed everything from Soviet influence in the Mideast, the first Gulf War, the attacks on 9/11, the Ft. Hood attack, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons … everything except Islam’s inability to build viable democratic nations which respect pluralism and human rights … to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  They believed, and continue to believe, that all Islamic grievances would vanish and Islam would truly be a religion of peace if only Israel would make one further concession after another.  This is a dangerous theory, for it only emboldens Arab states to demand more and more without giving anything in return.  How absurd this all is, as if peace would reign if only Israel stopped building apartments in its capital.

In short, Mr. Obama’s policy, previewed in the Cairo speech, amounts to nothing less than an effort to rehabilitate Islam’s image in the world.

Bret Stephens in a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal summarized the absurdity of this thinking:

“There may well be good reasons for Israel to dismantle … [settlements] assuming that such an act is met with reciprocal and credible Palestinian commitments to suppress terrorism and religious incitement, and accept Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.  But to imagine that the settlements account for even a fraction of the rage that has inhabited the radical Muslim mind … is fantasy.  The settlements are merely the latest politically convenient cover behind which lies a universe of hatred.”

The president’s approach to the Arab-Israeli question is consistent with his entire foreign policy, which can be summarized as follows:

* He makes nice to our sworn enemies.

* He dithers and delays taking any firm action against Iran, allowing their demented leaders further time to build nuclear weapons and a delivery system to threaten its neighbors and make good on its threat to wipe Israel off the map.  Nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands, said candidate Obama “would be a game changer.”  The momentum in this game has changed and not in our favor.

* He apologizes for our outrageous arrogance to the nations of Europe who owe their very existence to America.  Our allies like England, Poland, the Czech Republic, Columbia, Honduras and now Israel get slapped in the face.

* He claims America was embarrassed by Israel during Biden’s visit there.

If America was indeed embarrassed, it is nothing compared to what an embarrassment the policies of our president are to those who have been steadfast in their support of us.  They, and others are surely watching and wondering whether, if we treat our friends this way, what kind of a trusted ally will we be when push comes to shove.

Global Politician – Listen to the Two Best Arab Journalists Warning What A Nuclear-Armed Iran Means.

Prof. Barry Rubin – 4/14/2010

The two Arab journalists I most respect have written of the fear in Arabic-speaking countries about Iran’s having nuclear weapons. They explain persuasively why a U.S. containment policy of reassuring Arab states and Israel against direct nuclear attack is totally inadequate.

Listen to what they’re saying as it is much more accurate in warning about the coming strategic shift in the region than what’s being written in the West.

Both Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid and Ahmad al-Jarallah are close to elements in the Saudi regime yet also maintain personal independence and support liberal reform. Rashid (often transliterated, Rashed) is a Saudi who is former editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, probably the best Arabic newspaper, and is now director-general of the al-Arabiya network, possibly the best satellite television network. Writing in al-Sharq al-Awsat on February 21 (translated by MEMRI) he explained:

“An Iranian bomb…will not be put to military use; it will be used as a way to change the rules of the game. What we are afraid of is Iran’s policy, that uses all means to force its existence [as a regional power], and nuclear weapons is only [one of these] means.” For example, if pro-Iranian militias “take over southern Iraq, no superpower will dare to use military means to stop it.”

“We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country’s funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella to protect him from deterrence by [any] superpower.

“The Gulf states, that built giant cities and factories all along the coast, will, when Iran possesses nuclear weapons, become hostage to the caprices of Ahmadinejad and his extremist government….”

Precisely right. Iran’s bomb will change the strategic balance, inspire revolutionary Islamist movements, lead Arab and Western states toward appeasement, and thus shift power in the region decisively toward Tehran.

Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, has survived several assassination attempts which he attributes to Syria. He wrote on February 7:

“The entire region has become hostage to fears of [possible] rash actions by Iran that could cause nuclear catastrophes that neither Iran nor the world will be able to bear. After all, examples of such catastrophes, some of which were the result of unexpected events, are still etched in memory, and the world continues to pay for them.”

He adds, “The current Iranian position is reminiscent of the stands taken by Saddam [Hussein], the Iraqi dictator who was the last regional leader who sought hegemony in the area. Clearly, the political path taken by the Tehran regime is controlled by imperialist aspirations; this inspires much fear…not only due to [Iran’s] support for several extremist groups of various kinds, but also due to the nuclear issue and the real intentions that the Iranian leadership is concealing….

“Now more than ever, the entire international community must stop Iran’s rashness and bring it back to the right path – particularly in light of the obvious signs of the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the region. Beyond the economic cost, this race will affect all areas of life, and will drown the region in a quagmire of chaos and [evoke] reactions that none can predict.”

As an extra bonus, take a look at Fouad Ajami’s piece on Afghanistan in the Wall Street Journal. It is a brilliant analysis–ok, it sounds like what I’ve been saying but it’s still brilliant–about how as Obama shows his weakness and unreliability U.S. allies are running for cover. Isn’t it funny how people who really know or live in the region understand this perfectly.

Yes, bland assurances that all will be ok because the United States will stop Iran from firing off nuclear missiles at its neighbors are very much beside the point.

Stopping Iran.