WarSclerotic

Syria threatens to send Israel back to ‘prehistoric times’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Roee Nahmias

Obama damages Middle East peace prospects | Midwest Voices.

By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

President Obama laid down an important marker on the Middle East recently: He declared that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a “vital national security interest of the United States.”

His predecessors have said much the same thing. But then he upped the ante. He said the chronic failure to settle the conflict was “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Now that drew attention. Obama was claiming a direct link between the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate and the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet neither of Obama’s assertions stand up to scrutiny, and the administration’s ham-handed approach could, at best, succeed only in damaging U.S. credibility.

Obama’s extraordinary recent hostility to Israel is a big departure from the traditional U.S. approach.

The latest flashpoint was an apparent bureaucratic foulup by Israel, which announced plans for new housing units in Jerusalem right in the middle of a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. The Israeli move was boneheaded, but Obama’s reaction was completely out of proportion.

That takes us to the administration’s approach on Iran. As farfetched as it sounds, Obama’s apparent strategy is to pound on Israel to get the “peace process” moving, in the hope that will draw Arab support for the U.S. effort to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

If that’s the strategy, it makes little sense, as Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations argued recently. If Tehran senses friction between Israel and the United States, it will only “harden its nuclear stance.” The mullahs will assume Israel won’t dare attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the midst of a squabble with Washington.

The belief that Israeli-Palestinian peace is the key to the entire region is based on a falsehood, writes Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official who served as a Middle East adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations.

Miller’s recent article in Foreign Policy, “The False Religion of Mideast Peace,” ought to be required reading in the Obama White House. Miller writes as a former believer who realizes that whether or not the “religion” was true in the past, it is no longer as relevant.

Certainly it would help if the Palestinians and Israelis could settle their differences. The long-running struggle feeds Arab anger. But it is not a magic key to resolving other regional challenges, such as the future of Pakistan or the threat of Iran, not to mention a successful resolution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These days, Miller writes, doggedly pursuing “Arab-Israeli peacemaking” is the equivalent of “tilting at windmills.”
Big decisions require strong leaders. But Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu presides over a divided coalition, and his counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, presides over a broken national movement riven by the schism with Hamas.

Obama has botched his opening moves. He demanded that Israel scrap plans for the Jerusalem housing project, as well as all other such plans in the city. Netanyahu refused.

The State Department response? A climbdown: Washington acknowledged that Jerusalem’s future would be decided by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians — Israel’s position all along.

In his Foreign Policy piece, Miller essentially accused the administration of incompetence. He didn’t use the word, but the message was clear. Obama went to the mat over an issue — housing in Jerusalem — without connecting it to a larger strategy “whose dividends would make the fight worthwhile.”

In other words, the rookies in Washington escalated a spat without any purpose in mind other than perhaps impressing the Arabs.

“In the spring of 2010 we’re nowhere near a breakthrough, and yet we’re in the middle of a major rift with the Israelis,” Miller wrote. “Unless we achieve a big concession, we will be perceived to have backed down again.”

Amid these pratfalls, there’s talk of the administration coming up with its own settlement and ramming it down the throats of the Palestinians and Israelis.

Right. That would work about as well as everything else this crew has tried.

The moment of decision – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Eitan Haber

Iran to allow UN officials to inspect new uranium enrichment plant – Haaretz – Israel News.

Iran will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its new enrichment site in Natanz in central Iran, the Iranian envoy to the IAEA said Saturday.

Ali-Asqar Soltanieh told ISNA news agency that Iranian and IAEA experts met in Vienna and agreed on inspections of the new site, where Iran is pursuing the 20 percent uranium enrichment process.

The Iranian envoy said that the inspections will take place within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), indicating that the IAEA would be obliged to coordinate the inspections in advance with Tehran.

Iran withdrew from the IAEA Additional Protocol, under which the IAEA could have made snap inspections, in 2005.

Soltanieh said that any changes in Iran’s nuclear projects would be in coordination with the IAEA, adding that he hoped that the United Nations nuclear watchdog would reflect this new instance of cooperation in its next report.

Iran started the 20 percent uranium enrichment process in Natanz in February after a plan brokered in October by the IAEA – under which Iran would swap its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for fuel made in Russia and France for a medical reactor in Tehran – failed.

Tehran said that it would still be ready to accept the deal but only with the condition that the swap be made inside Iran. The IAEA and world powers have so far rejected the Iranian condition.

Although the uranium exchange deal would not have fully settled the dispute over Iran’s controversial nuclear projects, it was regarded by both sides as a first step towards ending the seven-year deadlock.

The U.S. and its allies are pushing toward renewed sanctions against the Islamic state through a new UN Security Council resolution. They accuse Iran of not fully cooperating with the IAEA.

China and Russia, both strategic partners of Iran, have also reportedly changed their attitude towards new sanctions and may join the West in punitive measures.

Tehran has in response begun what it calls “active counter-diplomacy” with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki due to visit Austria – currently a rotating member of the UN Security Council – on Sunday and hold talks with officials in Vienna about the nuclear dispute and probable sanctions.

The Iranian chief diplomat is reportedly due to visit other European capitals though no details have yet been disclosed about host countries.

Meanwhile, Iran’s president on Saturday said proposed UN sanctions against the country’s nuclear program lack legal validity.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a visit to Uganda that he will not accept sanctions. He said sanctions would hurt the reputation of the U.S. and President Barack Obama.

Ahmadinejad arrived Friday in the East African nation to discuss Iran’s
nuclear program. Uganda is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and has not yet ruled out the possibility of voting for sanctions against Iran.

Iran has been under harsh criticism from Western nations for pressing ahead with uranium enrichment programs it says are to produce nuclear energy. The West fears the militant Islamic state could develop nuclear weapons

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards dismissed as “ridiculous” on Saturday the U.S.-led drive to impose sanctions on the elite force, underlining Tehran’s defiance in the face of Western pressure over its nuclear program.

Senior commander Yadollah Javani also said the Guards could easily replace foreign oil companies such as Shell and Total in domestic energy projects.

Iran’s long-running dispute with the West over its atomic activities has made Western energy companies increasingly reluctant to invest in the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter.

Analysts say the political and the economic influence of the Guards appears to have grown since hard-line Ahmadinejad, himself a former Guardsman, came to power in 2005.

The force played a key role in quelling street unrest that erupted after Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election last June.

“Imposing sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards is rather ridiculous because even with all the propaganda they couldn’t reach their goal of imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic,” ILNA news agency quoted Javani as saying.

Likud MK: Iranian nuclear scientist seeks political asylum in Israel – Haaretz – Israel News.

An Iranian nuclear scientist is seeking political asylum in Israel, Deputy Minister Ayoob Kara said on Saturday.

Speaking at a cultural event in Ramat Gan, Kara said that he received a request to assist the scientist from an Iranian-born Jew currently living in Israel.

Kara said he was recruited to help because “I am willing to help anyone in order to remove the strategic and nuclear threat against Israel and the enlightened and democratic world.”

The Druze minister added that Arab states are also threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions but they are reassured at the moment by Tehran’s focus on Israel.

“There is no doubt the Arab countries will be part of Iran’s nuclear attack if the world continues to hibernate and allow this option to be realized,” said Kara.

The Likud minister also addressed tensions with Syria and said he hopes Damascus will avoid escalation.

He added, however, that he sees flexibility within the Syrian government regarding humanitarian and economic matters, citing an upcoming meeting between Druze leaders in the Golan Heights and Syrian officials about the supply of 200 million cubic meters of water to the region.