WarSclerotic

FOXNews.com – Iran Fuel Deal Puts U.S. in Check in Ongoing Nuclear Chess Match.

Iran’s Ghadr-1 missile is paraded during a ceremony marking National Army Day outside Tehran April 18. (AP Photo)

Iran backed the Obama administration into check in its ongoing nuclear chess match by announcing its own fuel swap deal after a Western-backed plan fell apart last fall.

The country, trying to avoid sanctions after it rejected a deal with the U.S., Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy Agency in October, steered around the United States in brokering a swap with Turkey and Brazil.

In a sense, Iran left the Obama administration an out by declaring it would continue producing 20 percent enrichment uranium even as it proposes shipping nuclear material to Turkey. To become official, the deal still has to be agreed to by the same group of nations that pursued the deal last fall — and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement that while the fuel swap would be a “positive step,” any move to continue enrichment internally would be a “direct violation” of Security Council resolutions.

“The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community,” Gibbs said. “Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns.”

But regardless of how far this deal progresses, the announcement makes the administration’s job much more difficult should it continue to pursue international sanctions — something Gibbs did not take off the table.

“If this continues, it cuts the knee caps off the administration’s sanctions effort,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under the Bush administration. “I think it’s a jujitsu move by the Iranians that undercuts the Obama policy.”

The administration for months has been in a diplomatic campaign at the United Nations to build support for tough sanctions against Iran. U.S. officials upped their condemnation of the country earlier this month after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a U.N. speech in New York City to accuse the United States of “acts of terror.”

Under the terms of the latest proposal, Iran would ship about 2,600 pounds of enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for fuel rods. Those rods would be enriched to a level strong enough for a research reactor but not a warhead.

But Bolton said the apparent gesture merely gives powerful countries like Russia and China — two of the five permanent Security Council members — a ready excuse to back away from sanctions. Plus Brazil and Turkey are non-permanent members of the Security Council and unlikely to punish Iran after winning the country’s cooperation in a deal they brokered.

“At a minimum this slows everything in the Security Council down,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “They’re just playing out the string here.”

The Obama administration, fully aware of the talks with Turkey and Brazil, signaled last week that it would continue to press for sanctions for defying past U.N. Security Council demands that Tehran cease its uranium enrichment.

“Iran’s senior officials continue to say they will not talk about their nuclear program with us,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday. “So we are working closely with our U.K. and other partners on a new Security Council resolution affirming that there are serious consequences should Iran continue to flout its international obligations.”

The key difference between the October deal and this one is that Iran has enriched a lot more uranium since then. The 2,600-pound amount was thought to represent two-thirds of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile last fall. Now it’s roughly half, so the deal may not be as enticing to the United States and other countries.

Plus Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that Iran reserves the right to call on Turkey to return the uranium “swiftly and unconditionally” to Iran if provisions of the agreement are not followed.

FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger and Fox News’ James Rosen contributed to this report.

Israel’s Deputy P.M. Ya’alon: ‘We are already in a military confrontation with Iran’.

Hizbullah was said to have established an estimated 160 outposts and bunkers in southern Lebanon near the border with Israel. Military sources said Hizbullah was expected to receive significant support from the U.S.-equipped Lebanese Army, which has deployed air defense systems as well as 15,000 soldiers in the south.

“There is no doubt, looking at the overall situation, that we are already in a military confrontation with Iran,” Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon said. “Iran is the main motivator of those attacking us.”

The sources said the military has been working on the assumption that within hours of hostilities Israel would be struck by missile and rocket salvos from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. They said both Hamas and Hizbullah were amassing huge arsenals designed to strike Israeli cities, military bases and critical facilities.

All services of the military are training and preparing for the outbreak of hostilities that could turn into a multi-front war against Israel. The sources said the assessment was that Iran and Syria would employ Hamas or Hizbullah in the opening stage of what could rapidly become a wider war that would include massive missile attacks.

“Hizbullah is expanding its arsenal and improving rocket accuracy,” Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, a leading military planner, said.

In the 2006 war, Hizbullah missiles and rockets were said to have struck five percent of their targets in Israel. The Hizbullah ratio was expected to increase in any future war.

“In the next war, there will probably be a 95 percent target hit,” Christopher King, director of force protection at the U.S. company Raytheon, said.

As a result, the military has expanded its exercise schedule in 2010 for the Army, Navy and Air Force. The sources said a key goal was to significantly enhance air assault operations that would combine Army and Air Force assets.

“The idea is for rapid response, deployment and retaliation,” a senior military source said. “Israel cannot afford to spend weeks fighting a rocket war.”

The sources said the military has increased efforts to protect Israeli cities from missile and rocket attacks to ensure the rapid mobilization of the reserves. They said the military was pressing for additional missile and rocket defense assets, particularly the Iron Dome short-range interception system.

“Hizbullah’s dream is to maintain an army of at least 40,000 men,” Israeli military analyst Alex Fishman said. “Today it has less than half of that, and the increase it aspires for requires a compromise on manpower quality.”

The Israeli military has been dispersing its logistics and weapons to prevent their destruction in an Iranian or Syrian missile attack. Officials said Iran and Syria have intensified efforts to identify key Israeli military facilities.

“Over the last two years, the Israel Defense Forces has been performing wide-scale efforts to examine the best way to protect its military equipment, including ammunitions, weapons, fuel and any other equipment meant to serve the army during war,” Brig. Gen. Nissim Peretz, head of the army’s logistics division, said.

The military has determined that Iran and Syria would try to avoid an open confrontation with Israel. Instead, the sources asserted that both countries would use Hamas, Hizbullah and other proxies to launch a missile war that would include the Scud-class ballistic missiles.

“I call the summer of 2010 the tipping point for the Middle East,” [Ret.] U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said. “This could change the whole chessboard over there.”  //

The Cutting Edge News.

Cutting Edge News analyst

At the end of April 2010, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Navy conducted three days of “Great Prophet V” exercises in the Persian Gulf. Hundreds of fast boats were deployed in what appears to be a rehearsal for Iran’s first wave of attackers against ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world’s oil passes. These are the same swarming boats that harassed U.S. Navy ships in January 2008. The fast boats may have been reinforced recently by Iran’s furtive acquisition of the Bradstone Challenger, the world’s fastest speed boat, which could now be cloned. Some of the speed boats are reportedly equipped with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.The danger of small boats was proven when the USS Cole was hit in October 2000 in Yemen by a bomb-laden inflatable boat – an order of magnitude slower than the speed boats. Seventeen sailors lost their lives in the Cole attack.

During the Iranian exercise the Revolutionary Navy also interdicted and searched a French and an Italian vessel in the Strait of Hormuz for “environmental” checks.

On the eve of the Revolutionary Guard exercise, the Iranian Navy dispatched a reconnaissance plane to buzz the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier. Although the plane came within 1,000 yards of the carrier and loitered for some 20 minutes, the plane was not challenged by the U.S. Navy.

Then on May 6, the Iranian armed forces began eight-days of war games, Velayat 89. Iranian aircraft patrolled the sea routes and escorted passenger and cargo ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s navy stepped up its operations in the Gulf, according to Iran’s news agency. “Passing ships were successfully checked by destroyers, frigates, special operation teams and naval commandos in line with the goal of establishing security and peace in transit routes bound for the Hormuz Strait and the Persian Gulf,” said Iranian Rear Admiral Qasem Rostamabadi.

The Iranian press also boasted of the test launch of a home-built anti-submarine torpedo fired from Iran’s home-built Jamaran destroyer (actually closer in size to a smaller frigate). Iranian ships and shore batteries are also well-equipped with anti-ship missiles, and Iran has made extensive use of anti-ship mines in the past.

Why is Iran girding for naval warfare to such a degree?

Because most of the world will not truck with Iran carrying out its threats to block the world’s major oil artery at the Strait of Hormuz. The 370 km Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP) across the Arabian Peninsula from Habshan to Fujairah will bypass the Strait but it won’t be ready until next year. While the press focuses on the Iranian military exercises, uranium enrichment, and long-range missile development, the navies of dozens of countries have been quietly gravitating toward the Persian Gulf.

The American Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Persian/Arabian Gulf from Iran, and is supported by the USS Eisenhower battle group. Earlier this year, 22 ships from the United States, Britain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and France all participated in an 11-day naval exercise in the Gulf.

An interruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz would cause economic and social convulsions in the oil hungry West, especially the United States, which currently has no effective plan to address such a crisis, according to author Edwin Black. In his book, The Plan, Black details the strategic importance of the narrow Strait of Hormuz, and the likely result of an oil interruption for the U.S. should oil be cut off from the world by Iranian naval activity such as laying sea mines or otherwise attacking ship traffic. Black has called the Strait of Hormuz the “solar plexus of the industrialized world.”

To counter the threats of piracy to shipping near the Horn of Africa, ships from other nations, such as Australia and Japan, are often on patrol in the Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea or Gulf of Aden — all within close range of the Persian Gulf.  In recent years, both the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle and the British carrier Royal Ark have deployed to the region for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If that’s not enough to worry Iranian defense planners, Israeli missile boats and submarines may also be on station close to Iranian shores. According to published accounts, Israeli warships have traveled through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea in recent months, on their way to the Persian Gulf, American analysts routinely express concern over Iranian threats to American and NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil interests in the Arabian Peninsula, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and Israeli civilians within range of Hizbullah and Hamas missiles.

Given the Iranian array of threats that they blatantly project against Western interests, allied forces, ships, tankers and bases, it is only reasonable to assume that the allies are exploring an array of preemptive actions.

Perhaps it’s time to redirect the analysis of military threats, reverse the arrows, and report on the threats against Iran from naval forces in the region, from special forces based in Iraq and Afghanistan which border Iran, and from bases on the Arabian Peninsula.  Iran is a rogue state led by dangerous men, but it is not the ultimate bogeyman.  The long-awaiting “biting” sanctions against Iran have yet to be enacted, but in the meantime the specters of deterrence and military threats can be enhanced.

Lenny Ben-David is public affairs consultant and a former senior Israeli diplomat in Israel’s Embassy in Washington. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.

Iran fuel deal would not fix nuclear issue-France | Reuters.

PARIS, May 17 (Reuters) – A Turkish-Brazilian deal to help Iran swap nuclear fuel might boost international trust in Tehran, but it would do nothing to resolve problems over Iran’s nuclear programme, the French Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said France wanted to see details of the accord, announced earlier on Monday, before judging its merits.

“However, let us not deceive ourselves, a solution to the (fuel) question, if it happens, would do nothing to settle the problem posed by the Iranian nuclear programme,” he said in a statement. (Reporting by Crispian Balmer)

FOXNews.com – Iran’s Latest Game of Charades.

Iran has just announced it will ship uranium to Turkey, to be enriched and returned as fuel for Iran’s nuclear energy plants. Sounds good right?

Wrong. Iran is shipping only part of its uranium — the rest is staying put at the covert enrichment plant at Qom, where it’s an integral part of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

So why bother? Because Iran doesn’t want to give the U.S. or Israel an excuse to attack its nuclear sites. It doesn’t want the UN, especially U.N. Security Council members Russia and China, to impose severe economic and gasoline sanctions for being non-compliant on nuclear enrichment. Those trading partners don’t want to be dragged into sanctions either – they don’t see Iran’s nuclear weapons program presenting a threat to their security. So the deal announced today gives them all an excuse to ease off on sanctions, while allowing Iran to continue secretly enriching uranium to weapons grade quality.

The deal Iran has just announced is mostly a charade. The country is pretending to halt its nuclear enrichment program in hopes that we pretend to believe them. Meanwhile, the world is edging closer and closer to a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the world.

Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com’s DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 “Principles of War Speech” which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch “K.T.” and Mike Baker every Monday at 10 a.m. on FoxNews.com’s “DefCon3” already one of the Web’s most watched national security programs.

‘Nuclear swap deal may not be enough’.

White House: Iran still must prove its nuclear program is peaceful – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Iran vows to continue high-grade nuclear fuel enrichment despite swap deal; Russia: Iran nuclear fuel swap deal may not allay world fears.

By News Agencies and Shlomo Shamir Tags: Israel news Iran nuclear Brazil Turkey

	Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, flashes a victory sign before signing an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send low-grade nuclear fuel abroad, on May 17, 2010.
	Photo by: AP

The White House said Monday that Washington and its international partners remained seriously concerned about Tehran’s nuclear program, but that it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do in October.

“Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Gibbs acknowledged efforts made by Turkey and Brazil, and said the proposal must “be conveyed clearly and authoritatively” to the International Atomic Energy Agency before it can be considered by the international community.

“Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns,” Gibbs said.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier Monday cautiously welcomed the Iranian fuel swap deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey, but said that questions remained that may fail to allay international fears over Tehran’s contentious nuclear program.

“One question is: will Iran itself enrich uranium? As far as I understand from officials of that state, such work will be continued. In this case, of course, those concerns that the international community had before could remain,” Medvedev said.

Iran agreed with Brazil and Turkey on Monday that it would send some of its uranium abroad, abruptly ending its refusal to countenance such a deal just as the United Nations Security Council readied tougher sanctions.

“The question arises – is the level of this swap operation sufficient? Will all members of the international community be satisfied? I don’t know,” Medvedev said. “We need to see what follows this declaration.”

Medvedev said consultations were needed with Iran and all major powers involved in the negotiations about the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

“After this, we need to decide what to do: Are those proposals sufficient or is something else needed? So I think a small pause on this problem would not do any harm,” he said.

He said he would speak later in the day to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to discuss the issue.

Medvedev’s fears were voiced just hours after an Iranian official vowed that Tehran would continue its uranium enrichment activities, including production of 20 percent enriched uranium even after signing the nuclear fuel swap deal.

“There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities … We will continue our 20 percent uranium enrichment work,” said Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

Iran signed an agreement late Sunday with mediators Brazil and Turkey for a nuclear fuel swap designed to allay international concern over the Islamic Republic’s atomic ambitions and avert fresh sanctions on Tehran.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said after the deal was signed that he saw no need for the West to pursue harsher United Nations Security Council sanctions.

U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, called the deal a “potentially good development,” describing it as: “an example of what we all hope for, which is a diplomatic system that encourages good behavior on the part of the Iranian regime.”

But he added: “Obviously we have a million miles to go.”

Iran said it had agreed to swap 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium for higher-enriched nuclear fuel, to be used in a medical research reactor. The exchange would take place in Turkey, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.

Iran, which rejects Western accusations it is seeking to develop nuclear bombs, had earlier insisted such a swap must take place on its territory.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on six world powers, which have been discussing further UN sanctions on the major oil producer, for fresh talks on Iran’s nuclear program after the fuel exchange agreement.

“Following the signing of the nuclear fuel swap deal, it is time for 5+1 countries to enter talks with Iran based on honesty, justice and mutual respect,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany.

There was no immediate comment from Washington, which has been leading a Western push to impose additional punitive measures on Tehran.

Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, had offered to mediate to find a resolution to the impasse. It was seen as the last chance to avoid a fourth round of UN sanctions.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan discussed the deal with Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Iranian state media reported.

“The swap will take place in Turkey,” Mehmanparast told reporters, shortly before the agreement was signed by ministers in front of reporters.

Mehmanparast said Iran would send low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month and that it would be under the supervision of the UN nuclear agency, state Press TV reported.

Major world powers had urged Iran to accept a months-old International Atomic Energy Agency plan to ship 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium – enough for a single bomb if purified to a high enough level – abroad for transformation into fuel for a medical research reactor.

The proposal, backed by the United States, Russia and France, was aimed at giving time for diplomatic talks with Iran.

Tehran agreed in principle to the deal in October but then demanded changes such as a simultaneous swap on Iranian soil, conditions other parties in the deal said were unacceptable.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Turkey would be obliged to return Iran’s LEU “immediately and unconditionally” if Monday’s agreement between Iran, Brazil and Turkey was not implemented.

“Based on the agreement signed this morning, if the swap does not take place, then Turkey will be obliged to send back our dispatched uranium immediately and unconditionally,” Mottaki said.

Trita Parsi, director of Washington-based National Iranian American Council, said a potential breakthrough had been made in the long-running dispute, saying Turkey and Brazil had succeeded in filling a “trust gap”.

“But will the deal be satisfactory to the U.S.? With the details remaining unknown, it’s impossible to speculate,” Parsi said in an e-mail comment.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Celebration in Tehran

Iran can keep its nuclear program afloat with a quiet mind and without fear of international harassment, thanks to the intercession of Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “Lula” and Turkish prime minister Reccep Erdogan. They clinched a deal in Tehran Monday, May 17, for Iran to export some 1,200 kilograms of its lightly enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing to 19.5 percent grade.
The two leaders mounted their initiative on behalf of the nascent anti-American bloc also backed by Russia, as well as Iran’s close allies Syria, Hizballah and Hamas.

There was no immediate response from Washington.
From a wide range of data, debkafile‘s military sources confirm the deal is wholly fraudulent and no more than a piece of diplomatic trickery.
1. Turkey does not possess the facilities for reprocessing enriched uranium to a higher level, unlike Russia and France, which also have the technology to block its further enrichment to weapons-grade and whose services Tehran rejected.
2. The deal legitimizes Iran’s right to enriched uranium of a higher grade, which can be converted in short order to fuel for a nuclear bomb. Tehran has now gained an international seal for going up to weapons grade.

3.  Given the close bonds unfolding between Turkey, Iran and Syria, no independent agency can expect a chance to monitor the transaction or find out the actual quantity of enriched uranium Tehran is in fact exporting to Turkey.
4.  The Six-Power group’s compromise proposition for the export of 1.200 kilograms of low-enriched Iranian uranium was put forward more than a year ago and left hanging. There is no telling how much enriched uranium Tehran has produced in the interim period. Therefore, the quantity Iran has agreed to send to Turkey may be a drop in the ocean. In any case, the deal leaves Tehran with all the necessary infrastructure for continuing to build up its stocks of enriched uranium – and at a higher grade.
5. US president Barack Obama’s insistence on engaging Iran in diplomacy and concentrating the effort on curbing Iran’s product of enriched uranium has led up a blind alley after being outmaneuvered by Tehran and its backers.
The Iranians can use the phony deal pulled off by Lula and Erdogan as a recipe for putting paid to all hopes of the UN Security Council uniting behind a resolution for reining in their drive for a nuclear bomb. It has stripped the United States of levers for controlling the most dangerous peril besetting Middle East stability in the immediate future.
The Brazilian and Turkish rulers were not alone; they maintained constant communication with Moscow in the last ten days, during which Russian president Dmitry Medvedev made trips to Damascus and Ankara, the Brazilian president’s stopped over in Moscow on his way to Tehran Sunday, May 16, and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin kept an open line to the prime movers in the anti-US group’s scheme to get Tehran off the nuclear hook.

After the signing, the Brazilian, Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers announced they expected by the Six Power Group led by the United States to approve the deal within a week and  delivery of Iranian enriched uranium to Turkey a month later.

Turkish foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu said he saw no need for further sanctions against Iran, even though the foreign ministry spokesman in Tehran said the deal brokered between the three powers would not prevent Iran from continuing to enrich uranium up to 20 percent inside the country.

For now, stay ambiguous – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

By Yossi Melman

Determining the real threat to peace in the Middle East | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

As Israel marked its 62nd anniversary on May 15, a familiar rift was occurring with a U.S. administration over the settlements issue. This time, the matter involved Jerusalem, specifically Israel’s expansion of existing settlement in the Old City.

Most Americans may be forgiven for wondering why Israel’s people should be told where they can or cannot build in their own ancient capital. They would also be surprised to learn that Washington doesn’t recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s modern capital. While the U.S. has long been Israel’s most steadfast ally, when it comes to Jerusalem, America stands with most nations in declining to locate its embassy there.

The rationale for this refrain is this: East Jerusalem was part of the real estate taken by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967. Like other territory gained in that conflict, it is viewed as an obstacle to peace so long as Israel holds it.

Is it?

One way to find out is to look at the pre-1967 Middle East. Even a cursory examination suggests that the problem isn’t Israel’s reluctance to relinquish land, but her enemies’ refusal to recognize a Jewish state on any land, no matter how minuscule.

Unfortunately, this was true from the beginning. In 1917, Britain’s Balfour Declaration declared the right of the Jews to a homeland in what was then called Palestine. When the Arabs protested, London considered abandoning the Declaration. In 1922, it broke off nearly 80 percent of Palestine, setting it aside as a new Arab homeland called Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was banned.

This left the Jews with only 20 percent of original Palestine. Yet they accepted this outcome, while the Arabs did not. The massacre of Jewish civilians in Hebron in 1929 was a grisly display of the refusal to countenance Zionist settlement in what was left of Palestine. This readiness to endorse mass violence was embodied by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, an Arab Muslim leader in Palestine who spent World War II in Nazi Germany cheerleading the Holocaust and urging its extension into the Middle East.

After World War II, in 1947, the United Nations voted for a Partition Plan that took part of the 20 percent and gave it to the Arabs. Once again, the Jews embraced the plan, while the Arabs rejected it.

In his book, “The Cause for Peace,” Trygve Lie, the UN Secretary General, wrote that having opposed the Partition Plan, the Arabs “seemed determined to drive that point home by assaults upon the Jewish community of Palestine.” Some of these assaults included bombing apartment buildings in Jerusalem, killing students at Hebrew University near Jerusalem, and massacring 78 Jewish doctors, scientists, and nurses on the road to Hadassah Hospital.

Arab leaders did not dispute this charge. In April 1948, Jamal Husseini told the U.N. Security Council that in response to the charge that the Arabs had begun the fighting, “we did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight.”

On May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was declared. The Arabs’ response was to try to strangle it in its cradle. Armies from six Arab nations invaded. That same day, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, proclaimed, “This will be a war of extermination…”

It wasn’t. Israel prevailed, repelling the invasions.

This was the first of many times in which the Jewish state’s foes launched a “heads-we-win-tails-you lose” campaign. From direct wars on Israel to terrorist strikes against its populace, Israel’s enemies knew that if they won, Israel would be destroyed but that if Israel prevailed, the international community would make sure there would be no price to pay.

That changed with the 1967 war.

On May 15, 1967, the forces of Egyptian strongman Gamal Abdul Nasser moved into the Sinai. On May 17, Cairo Radio’s Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, “All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel.” The following day, it promised “the extermination of Zionist existence.” On May 20, Syria’s Defense Minister and its future leader, Hafez Assad, proclaimed that “the time has come to enter into the battle of liberation.” On May 27, Nasser proclaimed, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.” The following day, he said there would be no “co-existence with Israel.” adding that “the war with Israel has been in effect since 1948.” Then on May 30, Jordan, formerly Transjordan, signed a military pact with Nasser.

Rather than wait to absorb the impending attack, Israel struck first, defeating its would-be invaders. This time, a cost was extracted from her enemies. Israel took territory, including the Golan Heights from Syria, which had been used to fire on Israelis, the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan.

Both Egypt and Jordan eventually decided to recognize Israel and received land back in return. Moreover, Israel has unilaterally left Gaza.

As for the long-standing issue of Arabs displaced during the 1948 war, Israel offered Yasir Arafat a Palestinian state in 2000 in return for full recognition of its right to exist. Arafat responded by launching a multi-year terror campaign against Israel’s civilians.

In short, history dispels the notion that Israel’s occupation of additional land since the 1967 war is the cause of Arab/Israel hostilities. Rather, it is the refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist that drives the conflict. Were it not so, there would have been no conflict before 1967.

Indeed, it is ironic that as the world remains fixated on a mythical obstacle to peace, the prospect of real and unprecedented war looms as Iran, another foe of Israel and opponent of the West, moves closer to realizing its nuclear ambitions. This would be the culmination of nearly three decades of its regime’s fanning terrorism’s flames, from its role in the creation and support of Hezbollah in Lebanon to its actively aiding Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza.

Which is the real threat to peace: Israelis building houses or Iranian mullahs building a bomb? That is the question for today.

Paul Liben has worked in New York City and Washington, DC as a speechwriter for the past 15 years.   He served as a speechwriter for New York Governor George Pataki and then as director of speechwriting for U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.   A published writer, he has written op-eds for more than 100 publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer and Houston Chronicle.