WarSclerotic

Letting the mullahs get the bomb – NYPOST.com.

Schmoozing with the ladies of “The View,” Vice President Joseph Biden predicted last week that the Security Council would impose sanctions on Iran by the end of this month or early next. Let’s hope he knows something that the negotiators in New York don’t.

Many diplomats here are skeptical that a punitive resolution could be enacted at the United Nations before June — which gives Iran and its Security Council enablers, starting with Brazil and Turkey, enough time to undermine the sanctions.

So unless America’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice quickly pulls a rabbit out of her diplomatic hat, preferably this week, much of the Obama administration’s indecisive Iran maneuvering will be further compromised.

AFP/Getty Images

Rice: UN envoy dithering on sanctions.

Yes, there’s an agreement in principle that it’s time for sanctions, but as April comes to a close, the UN diplomats negotiating in New York are falling into a familiar routine. Ambassadors from the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany meet almost daily, while the Chinese or Russian representatives raise objections to this or that American-proposed sanction.

The others try to defend it, leading to a bit of give and take around the table. But, in the end, no agreement is reached, so it’s on to the next item.

So April is all but gone. How about next month?

“We work 12 months a year,” Rice told me last week, dismissing the widely held notion that May is off the table.

But some diplomats worry that an anti-Iranian resolution in May might be disruptive for Lebanon, which holds the rotating council presidency for the month, because Tehran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, controls half of the seats in the Beirut government.

Also, world leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are scheduled to gather in New York early next week for a month-long periodic review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Egypt plans to raise demands for Israel’s nuclear disarmament.

Other powerful Third Worlders will attack the recent Russian-American arms-reduction treaties as insufficient, calling on the nuclear powers to disarm before they “preach” to the nuclear have-nots.

Why spoil such a perfectly inane UN session by raising Iran’s violation of the NPT? As Brazil’s foreign minister, Celso Amorim, said recently, May’s NPT conference shouldn’t be “contaminated” by discussing Iran.

Rice hasn’t yet shown her sanctions proposal to Brazil and Turkey, which now sit on the Security Council. Instead, the two countries are attempting to revive the dead horse of negotiations with Iran. As Amorim told me during a recent UN visit, “Iran has to show flexibility, but I think the West also has to show flexibility.”

Amorim was in Tehran yesterday, preparing a mid-May visit there by the Brazilian President Lula da Silva. Along with the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, who visited Tehran a week earlier, Amorim hopes to get the Iranians to send nuclear fuel to another country, ensuring that enrichment doesn’t reach weapons-grade level.

Iran has dangled this nuclear-fuel “swap” idea in front of diplomats for years, but as the Obama team has learned recently, the mullahs never deliver, and their terms aren’t sufficient, anyway.

Nevertheless, a new, 11th-hour Turkish-Brazilian “swap” plan (perhaps using Turkish soil) could emerge soon. Any indication that Iran may agree — yesterday Iran’s foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, told Amorim that he hoped such a plan could be finalized “in the near future” — would severely undermine sanctions talks, even if the six powers are close to an agreement by then.

All this maneuvering at the UN, where big and midsize nations’ influence is much weightier than their real power, is seriously setting back Obama’s Iran agenda.

Yet, even as Congress sought to impose severe American sanctions on Iran back in January, the president reportedly asked for a delay until the UN agreed on sanctions. (Now, Congress is set to impose sanctions by the end of May.)

Sooner or later, Rice will likely convince enough of her colleagues to impose sanctions. After all, the “isolationist” Bush administration got the UN to impose sanctions three times. But why wait? By now we could have created, say, a virtual naval blockade on our own by pressing the world’s major insurance companies to deny policies to shipping firms that deliver goods to Iran. Or we could have better aided Israel’s secret sabotage operations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Yet, Obama wasted a whole year hopelessly chasing negotiations and then, overestimating his ability to convince “the world” to formally adopt grand resolutions, wasted months at the UN while doing almost nothing elsewhere. No wonder insiders like Defense Secretary Robert Gates ask aloud whether Obama even has a long-term Iran strategy. beavni@gmail.com

Wrestling with rogues – NYPOST.com.

The South Korean government is now reporting that a large undersea explosion (e.g., a torpedo) is likely responsible for sinking its warship Cheonan in the Yellow Sea in March, with the loss of more than 40 souls.

South Korea has yet to officially lay blame, but the probable culprit for the unprovoked attack — the most serious act of aggression against it in years — is, of course, its hostile neighbor North Korea. But if South Korean President Myung-bak Lee forgoes any military response, it’s largely out of concern that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il could lob nukes south across the infamous Demilitarized Zone.

Getty

Sunk: The Cheonan was likely torpedoed.

So South Korea just may let North Korea act with near impunity — all because of the risk of Pyongyang exercising the nuclear option. (Seoul will likely reduce ties, trade and aid to Pyongyang, at a minimum.)

This migraine-inducing dilemma for South Korea (and its American ally) in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea throws into sharp relief the challenges the world will face when Iran — a bigger country with much greater resources and ambitions than North Korea — gets the bomb in the next few years.

With nukes, Iran will magnify its regional power, eclipsing major Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, stirring up trouble with Shia minorities in neighboring countries and subverting small local states likes Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Iran could also step up its meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan and increase its overt support for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah and kindred-spirit Syria, relentlessly harassing US ally Israel and thwarting Middle East peace.

A nuclear Tehran could also try to turn the Persian Gulf into an Iranian lake, controlling the transit of shipping and 40 percent of the world’s oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

What if Iran were to transfer nuclear-weapons technology, warheads or ballistic missiles to its ally Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, right here in the Americas?

The inability — or unwillingness — of the United States and others to resist or counter Iranian actions because of its nuclear status could undermine American interests in a whole raft of nasty ways.

Unfortunately, in 15 months on the job, President Obama has shown an appalling lack of progress on the Iranian nuclear dossier. It’s not clear that the administration “gets it.” In fact, it seems to be trying to ease us into some sort of tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran, mumbling beneath its breath about containment, deterrence and massive retaliation.

This latest North Korean provocation should serve as a cautionary tale of how far a nuclear rogue state can go, if it believes it can act with a free hand with even a small nuclear arsenal. The fact is, once Iran goes nuclear, it can cause all sorts of mischief in advancing its regional, anti-Israel and anti-American interests — short of fighting an atomic Armageddon.

Team Obama needs to understand that the time to prevent Iran from becoming an even bigger nightmare than it already is for American national security is now — not later. Iran’s behavior will only get worse after its nuclear breakout.

Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. peterbrookes@heritage.org

Clinton: US seeks ‘tough’ Iran sanctions – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US secretary of state says Islamic Republic has made no shift in its weekend talks with International Atomic Energy Agency, continues to defy world community on its nuclear program

Reuters

“So far as we are aware based on the readout of the meeting between the Iranian foreign minister and the director general of the IAEA, there was nothing new that was presented,” Clinton told reporters during a meeting with a visiting European Union official.

“Iran’s continued disregard for its international obligations underscores the importance of united international pressure to change its policies,” she added. “The United States is working with our partners … on tough new sanctions that will further sharpen the choices that Iran’s leaders face.”

The fuel plan calls for Iran to ship 1,200 kg (2,646 pounds) of low-enriched uranium to Russia and France to make fuel for a medical research reactor. Iran agreed to the offer in principle last October but later balked at it.

“We still don’t have anything other than just an ongoing effort to try to influence public opinion as opposed to sitting down and providing an answer on the outstanding offer on the TRR (Tehran Research Reactor), which is many, many months old now,” Clinton said.

The United States and other Western nations believe Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at making atomic weapons. Tehran denies the charge, saying it wants to enrich uranium for energy production.

Obama, are you listening? – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Real problem is Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, not home construction

Dan Calic

President Obama’s new face? – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

White House may be realizing rift with Israel not a wise move

Yitzhak Benhorin

Report: Iran’s uranium supply nearly out – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Nuclear experts tell Time Magazine that Islamic Republic’s uranium stockpile running low, and, therefore, more efforts must be focused on Iran’s attempts to obtain uranium abroad

Yitzhak Benhorin

Foxman: US shift in Israel policy “deeply distressing”.

The Anti-Defamation League’s National Director Abe Foxman over the weekend joined the growing tide of American Jewish leaders criticizing US President Barack Obama’s policy toward Israel.

In a statement, Foxman described as “deeply distressing,” the “significant shift in US policy toward Israel and the peace process, which has been evident in comments from various members of the Obama Administration and has now been confirmed by the president himself in his press conference at the Nuclear Security Summit.”

Foxman continued that Obama’s statements that “the absence of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict undermines US interests in the broader Middle East and the larger issue of resolving other conflicts is a faulty strategy” and “an incorrect approach on which to base America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and its relationship with its longtime friend and ally, Israel.”

Foxman’s statement went on to criticize the “blatantly disproportionate number and the nature of statements issued by this administration criticizing Israel as compared to what has been said about the Palestinians,” as well as what he described as “dangerous thinking” that “shifts responsibility for success of American foreign policy away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and directly onto Israel.”

Instead, Foxman called on the US administration to demand that Palestinians “abandon their tactic of just saying no” and “insist that the rest of the Arab world move toward normalization relations with Israel.”

Foxman was far from alone in his criticism.

Late last week, World Jewish Congress Chairman Ronald Lauder penned an open letter to Obama, published in a number of major newspapers including The Jerusalem Post, in which he, too, called on Obama to reassess his administration’s policy regarding Israel.

Lauder, who is known to support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and ran as a Republican candidate in a New York City mayoral race, also blasted the administration for “seeming to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks,” arguing that “after all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.”

Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel also put his thoughts in print, taking out paid advertisements in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal entitled: “For Jerusalem.”

Wiesel wrote that “For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than 600 times in Scripture – and not a single time in the Quran.”

Wiesel emphasized that only under unified Israeli rule, “for the first time in history, Jews, Christians and Muslims may all worship at their shrines.”

Wiesel warned against “tackling the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely” and suggested instead to “first take steps which will allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security.”

But Sheldon Schorer, counsel for the Democrats Abroad-Israel, recalled that according to poll recently released by the American Jewish Committee, “the majority of American Jews still support Obama on the Middle East and Israel.

“It could be that these statements reflect some sectors of the American public, but these figures may also be trying to make their voices heard and shore up their position as American Jewish leaders,” Schorer added.

“Speaking out against the settlements pretty much reflects American policy as a violation of the status quo. It is a valid tradition to be opposed to settlements and even during his campaign Obama said that in order to support Israel one doesn’t have to be a Likudnik,” Schorer explained.

“I would personally prefer to see these issues settled at the negotiation table by representatives of the two parties, and in that case, the role of the United States should be procedural.”

‘Hizbullah more armed than most gov’ts’.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

28/04/2010 08:03

Gates appears to confirm Syria provided guerrilla group with Scuds.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday night warned of Hizbullah’s alarming military capabilities, and appeared to give an official Washington confirmation that Syria had indeed provided the guerrilla group with Scud missiles.

“Syria and Iran are providing Hizbullah with rockets and missiles of ever-increasing capabilities,” he said. “Hizbullah has far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world.”

Gates’ comments came after a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Pentagon, during which Iran and the rearming of Hizbullah were major topics.

Reports of the alleged Scud transfer surfaced in Kuwait’s Al-Rai newspaper earlier this month. Israel subsequently issued a stern warning that it would consider attacking both Syrian and Lebanese targets in response to a Scud attack on its territory.

Egypt then warned of a new escalation between Israel and Lebanon and sent a letter Tuesday to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an effort to “defuse tensions” between the two countries

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reassured his Lebanese counterpart, Sa’ad Hariri, on Tuesday that Israel does not plan to attack his country.

Also on Tuesday, Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren told CNN that although “the fact of the matter is the Syrians have been providing missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon, Israel has “no intention of attacking Lebanon, Syria or anybody else in the Middle East.”

Israel must prepare for nuclear terror threat – Haaretz – Israel News.
Nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to the world’s security – so says United States President Barack Obama, who recently convened an international conference on the issue. In Israel, sunk in its own troubles, nuclear terrorism has elicited little interest until now. Beyond the dimensions of the threat, nuclear terrorism poses two unique problems in terms of deterrence. One is that the elements liable to employ nuclear terrorism are nihilist in nature – they are prepared to pay any price for Israel’s destruction and are therefore not given to deterrence. The other is the absence of an “address” for purposes of deterrence and retaliation.

Nuclear terrorism is liable to be employed against Israel with the aim of causing unprecedented destruction, deterring it from offensive moves like striking at the Iranian atom or defeating Hezbollah and Syria, imposing diplomatic-security dictates, weakening its national strength, and more. Hezbollah and Hamas, extremist though they may be, have thus far evinced a clear ability to weigh advantages and disadvantages in their conduct, i.e. characteristics of a “rational player,” and therefore are apparently given to deterrence. Most observers believe that Iran, too, is basically “rational” and given to deterrence.

However, the ability to employ nuclear terrorism is liable to change those patterns of action and, above all, there is the problem of nihilist elements like Al-Qaida, which has operated intensively to obtain a nuclear capability and presumably is continuing to do so today. Clearly, Israel should act on the diplomatic and intelligence level, on its own and in cooperation with the United States and other countries, to foil any possibility of the threat emerging. The main question is how it should act if it finds out that a plan to develop a nuclear terrorism capability already exists or has reached an advanced and even operational stage.

	Advertisement

In face of these possibilities Israel must adopt a tough and unambiguous deterrence policy. It has to be clear to all that Israel will act immediately, without restraint and with all the means at its disposal, both against those directly involved and against those who are only suspected, on the principle of “shoot first, ask later.”

However, while this deterrent approach could well be effective against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, it is very doubtful it would influence Al-Qaida. The accepted wisdom to the effect that this organization is not subject to deterrence is liable to be correct, but it has not yet been proven and the implications are grave. Therefore, there is no alternative but to examine whether there really does exist a threat, no matter how grave, that could serve as a basis for deterring Al-Qaida, such as the destruction of population centers and sites of symbolic and religious importance to Islam. The very thought is repugnant, but possibly only such threats have the potential to prevent an unprecedented threat to Israel.

The good news is that insofar as is known, no terrorist organization has succeeded in obtaining nuclear capability. The technological obstacles are many, the international community, under the leadership of the United States, is increasingly on the alert and apparently Israel is in no immediate danger. Therefore, we have time ahead of us to prepare and formulate a comprehensive thwarting and deterrence policy. One thing is clear: The dimensions of the threat are intolerable and necessitate pertinent preparation, the sooner the better.

The writer served as deputy national security adviser. An extensive study of this issue has been published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.