WarSclerotic

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Tags: Israeli Air Force Robert Gates USS Truman

SuperHornets taking off from US carrier

The armada of 10 US warships plus an Israeli and German battle vessel each, which transited the Suez Canal Friday, June 18, has reached the Persian Gulf, debkafile‘s military sources report.
But first, from June 6 through June 10, the USS Harry S. Truman carrier Strike Group was deployed 50 miles of the shore of southwestern Israel, secretly drilling the interception of incoming Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah missiles and rockets against US and Israeli targets in the Middle East.
This was first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 449 on June 18.

The fleet let by the Truman then headed for the Persian Gulf through the Suez Canal accompanied by an Israeli missile ship (not identified) and the German missile frigate FGS Hessen F221.

For five days and night, the Truman’s sixty F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter bombers took off on simulated bombing missions against targets set up by the Israeli Air Force at its firing range on the Nevatim Base-28, in the Negev desert southeast of Be’er Sheva – one of its three big air bases.
The exercise was prompted by rising tensions from Syria’s deployment of advanced Scud missiles for Hizballah on its border with Lebanon. it took place not far from the spot where Israeli commandos subsequently raided the Turkish Mavi Marmara on May 31.
The Super Hornets flew simulated bombing missions night and day against targets set up by the Israeli Air Force at its firing range on the Nevatim Base-28, in the Negev desert southeast of Be’er Sheva – one of three big Israeli air facilities.
The exercise had 60 American F-16 fighter jets landing at Israeli Air Force facilities from bases in Germany and Romania, refueling and taking off with Israeli fighter bombers to practice long-range bombing missions over the Red Sea and the Mediterranean and drill air-to-air combat along the way.
Both Washington and Jerusalem withheld public exposure of this US-Israeli aerial exercise, dubbed Juniper Stallion 2010. President Barack Obama ordered all US missile interceptors in the Middle East to go on war alert in the second week of June, including batteries aboard US Sixth Fleet vessels on the Mediterranean and the US Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf.
debkafile‘s military sources add that Israel’s missile’s shield, including Arrow anti-missile missiles, was similarly on standby.
It was decided at the White House to stage the Juniper Stallion exercise only eight months after Juniper Cobra 10, the biggest joint war maneuver the US and Israel had ever conducted against missile attack, after receiving new intelligence that Iran, Syria and Hizballah had almost doubled their operational armory of medium-range missiles.
Switching over to a tough line, US defense secretary Robert Gates warned a Senate panel on June 18 that Iran could fire “scores or hundreds” of short- and medium-range missiles against Europe – in salvoes rather than one or two at a time.
Four days later, Gates told a Fox interviewer: “I don’t think we’re prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think… our view still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons.” Asked whether a military strike was preferable, he said all options remain on the table although some time is left for working on problem.”

Iranian aid flotilla postponed – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Senior Red Crescent official says departure of vessel delayed due to lack of coordination, new date yet to be set. ‘The ship isn’t carrying any weapons,’ he adds

Dudi Cohen

TheSpec.com – Opinions – Flotilla aftermath: End knee-jerk criticism.

Jonathan Spyer

The Hamilton Spectator

(Jun 21, 2010)

For me, the loss of life on the Gaza flotilla is tragic. It doesn’t matter that they were clearly Muslim Brotherhood-related Jihadi’s intentionally seeking violent confrontation with Israel.

It doesn’t matter that the Turkish press carried interviews with the families of the dead where they expressed “their joy” for their loved ones who had finally achieved their goal of “martyrdom.” For me, those deaths were tragic and avoidable, even if they sought it.

What does matter to me is the growing divide between the actual strategic situation facing the Middle East, and the perception of the conflict that is manipulated by anti-Israel propagandists for consumption by the West. The latter is testimony to the skilful and fervent activity of extremist ideologues, which at times seem to overwhelm considerable sections of Western public opinion. However, despite their best efforts, a more accurate picture of those events is now emerging.

Since the 2007 Hamas violent takeover of the government in Gaza and its avowed intention to destroy its neighbour, Israel has organized a totally understandable and fully legal blockade to prevent the flow of arms from Iran into Gaza. This blockade has been explicitly supported by Egypt, the largest Arab state, which also shares a border with Gaza. It has been implicitly supported by the Palestinian Authority and other Arab states in the region, all of whom have genuine reasons to fear an Iranian-backed, radical Islamist base within their midst.

The Turkish IHH group (Insani Yardim Vakfi Humanitarian Relief Foundation) sponsored the flotilla. It is connected to the global Muslim Brotherhood. Like all other Muslim Brotherhood allies, IHH is unambiguously opposed to the existence of Israel, and eagerly assists those seeking to destroy it. The present Islamist government in Turkey, for its own geopolitical interests, fully supported this initiative, knowing full well that it would likely end in violence and with a contrived “crisis” with Israel.

Despite the onslaught of media manipulation by extremists, it is now crystal clear that the intentions of this flotilla had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns for the people of Gaza. The organizers of the flotilla have said as much, both before and after the incident.

For example, on May 27, flotilla organizer Greta Berlin stated that: “This is not a humanitarian effort. This is about breaking the Israeli blockade.”

The simple truth of this horror is reflected in the fact that the aid brought by the convoy now sits in trucks at the border. Hamas refuses to allow it into Gaza.

What took place on the decks of the Mavi Marmara was a skirmish in Israel’s defensive war against militant Islam. In much of the West, there is a widespread refusal to engage with or internalize this reality. Instead, media coverage was generated in which Israel’s concerns were seen as utterly inexplicable and the Islamist militants on the ship were depicted as peace-loving humanitarians. George Orwell could not have written this frightening novel of the utter inversion of every truth, moral and ethic as defined in the democratic tradition.

The initial global response to these events reflected a profound disconnect between perception and reality in the region. The establishment of this disconnect is one of the chief strategic achievements of the jihadis. It is critically important that every person who is truly dedicated to peace in the region realize how terribly dangerous this is.

The commission of inquiry launched last week is headed by Israel’s former Supreme Court Justice Yaacov Tirkel. Joining him on the panel will be Hague Prize Laureate in International Law Professor Shabtai Rosen and former president of the Israel Institute of Technology, Major General Amos Horev. International observers include Nobel Peace Prize Laureate William David Trimble from Northern Ireland and Canadian Ken Watkin, former military judge advocate general.

This very distinguished group will be able to shed real light on the sequence of events that led to this violent outburst. The committee will also examine the Turkish position and actions taken by the flotilla’s organizers, especially the Turkish group IHH, as well as the identity of the participants in the flotilla and their intentions.

No doubt, there will soon be other assaults on Israel’s legal and vital interest in preventing more arms from reaching Hamas killers in Gaza. No doubt, the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies will do their best to spin the stories as more examples of “Israeli lawlessness.”

Hopefully, with the lessons learned from this recent event, world leadership, media and public opinion will be a little less “knee-jerk” in their criticisms of Israel and a bit more prepared to seek out the truth before delivering blanket condemnations. After all, it’s not just Israel that is under attack, it’s every country that shares its democratic values.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is senior fellow, the GLORIA Center, Herzliya, Israel. This article was submitted by the UJA Federation of Hamilton in response to a June 9 Gwynne Dyer column on this page, ‘Gaza Strip blockade must end.’

Iran bans 2 IAEA inspectors from entering Iran – Sacramento News – Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee.

In yesterday’s leading Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Achronot, there appeared a small advertisement asking for civilian female volunteers, in good physical condition, to sign up to handle the members of an “all female” flotilla ship scheduled to leave Lebanon in the next few days.

The advertisement stressed that the women should be civilians, not afraid of men, to deal with the women on  the flotilla and that the work was on a voluntary basis with no pay.

The advertisement was also mentioned on Israel’s channel 10 news.

It would appear that the Israeli government has begun to think creatively after the Turkish flotilla fiasco.

The Region: Obama’s failed popularity strategy.

By BARRY RUBIN
06/20/2010 20:59

In a cost-benefit analysis of the administration’s apologetic foreign policy posture, the costs to the US far outweigh the expected benefits.

In critiquing the Obama administration, I don’t mean to suggest that it has no reason for wanting to please Arabs and Muslims. It is, after all, one of its highest (sometimes seemingly the highest) priorities. Unfortunately, in practice, this approach has often meant flattering the more extremist forces in those groups and giving short shrift to the more moderate among them.

This strategy isn’t a conspiracy; it just doesn’t correspond with the realities of the region.

The main factors inspiring this effort in terms of foreign policy – in contrast to ideological premises about America itself – are as follows: 1. The hope that Arab governments will help the US extricate itself from Iraq and ensure there is a stable regime there that is friendly to America.

Leaving aside US efforts within Iraq, there is no visible payoff on this issue.

Even relatively moderate (Sunni-led) Arab states are keeping the (Shi’ite- and Kurdish- led) Iraqi regime at arms’ length while still favoring Sunni rebels. Syria continues to back Sunni terrorists in every way and if their effectiveness is declining, that’s not due to Syrian moderation but to US and Iraqi defensive efforts.

So there is no particular dividend that the Obama administration’s policy has gained for the US in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.

2. The hope that Arab governments will help the US against Iran, especially in trying to stop Teheran from getting nuclear weapons and, if that fails, containing Iran.

Clearly, some effort is needed here to assure basing rights. Yet here, too, the policy makes little difference. Arab regimes need US protection against Iran and want American weapons for themselves.

No matter what the US says or does, Arab state policies (except for pro-Iran Syria) remain the same: In private, they hope that Iran will somehow be prevented from getting nuclear weapons; in public, they say little and do less.

At the same time, though, Arab states are also intimidated by Iran (especially given their perception that the Obama administration is weak), and worried about internal subversive forces and their rivals portraying them as lapdogs of the West. They also know that nationalist and religious sentiments run high, in part because these same governments have long encouraged them.

Thus, their help will be limited no matter how much Obama tries to persuade them that he is a nice guy, sorry for the past and not too close to Israel.

3. The hope that if sufficiently soothed, flattered and appeased, Arabs and Muslims are less likely to join or support anti- American terrorist groups. Here, no doubt there is some limited success, very limited.

Al-Qaida has been weakened more by US offensive actions and, in some cases, regime repression than a pro-American shift by the population.

People join revolutionary Islamist groups for a variety of reasons but basically because they want the transformation of their own societies by an Islamist revolution. Anti-Americanism is a very secondary factor for the vast majority of these recruits. The key point is that they are against their own governments and accept an Islamist interpretation of the world.

4. The hope that the US can stay out of crises, including Israeli-Palestinian, the struggle over power in Lebanon, the intervention of Syria and Iran backing terrorists in Iraq, of Pakistan backing terrorists in India and others. Obama succeeds in avoiding such entanglement, but the cost is that there are victories for revolutionary Islamists (Hamas entrenches itself in the Gaza Strip; Syria recaptures control over Lebanon; Hizbullah becomes stronger; Iran and Syria can intervene in Iraq and kill Americans there without cost; moderate regimes lose faith in America; etc.). The failure to impose costs on radical states, the openness to engaging Islamists, the posture of weakness and apology makes the radicals more aggressive and confident.

5. There is also some domestic advantage for Obama, who can argue that he has made America (or at least himself) popular and reversed the armed engagements and anti-Americanism that developed during his predecessor’s administration.

AND YET even here, the last fortress of the claim that current US policy makes sense is under assault. According to the latest Pew poll, Arab and Muslim positive views of the US are down. In Egypt, the numbers are even lower than during the administration of George W. Bush. The attitudes toward Obama himself are also extremely low.

This is true not only in the Arab world, but also in Pakistan, where the administration has poured in billions and given virtually uncritical support to a regime that is not all that helpful in fighting anti-American terrorists and eager to help anti-Indian ones. Just 17 percent have a positive view of the US, and only 8% of Obama himself. He’s even less popular than is America as a whole.

And what effect has Obama had in trying to prove the US isn’t really a leader but just one of the guys? The number of people in the world who think that the US is multilateral has gone up only six points, from 26% to 32%. Among those who support the administration, there is an assumption that the whole strategy of apology, empathy, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the distancing from Israel, the redefinition of the “war on terror” into a narrow “war on al-Qaida” has brought benefits. Yet it is rather difficult to define precisely what those benefits have been.

The costs of this policy are much easier to measure.

A key element in this strategy has been to distance the US from Israel and to bring it closer to Iran, Syria and Islamist groups. Ironically, this has also meant in practice a reduction of support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, pro-Western forces in Lebanon and all the other Arabs who want US protection against the radicals. Perhaps, then, if even the popularity strategy has failed the US should think of a strategy based on such traditional diplomatic concepts as credibility through strength, support for allies, imposing prices on enemies and showing real leadership.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. He blogs at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Tags: Gaza blockade Lebanese flotilla Israel

The Juliais is stalled at Beirut port

Barring surprises, the sea campaign against Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza spearheaded by Turkey  may have run its course, debkafile‘s Middle East sources report.

Beirut is close to abandoning the Lebanese convoy, Damascus has turned away requests to use its ports, Cyprus is negative and even the Iranian expedition appears snarled. Israel has in the last 24 hours won US and European support for its sea blockade. It was endorsed also by Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas after the Israeli cabinet bowed to international pressure and approved the passage of all civilian goods to the 1.2 million Palestinians of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
After Israel endured three weeks of international censure for its commando raid on the flotilla aiming to break the Gaza blockade and 9 Turkish deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara, the Netanyahu government has hauled the wheel round, stemmed the tide of opprobrium and stabilized Israel’s diplomatic and security position. British ex-prime minister Tony Blair, Special Envoy of the Middle East Quartet, pitched in to help Israel out of a tight spot ahead of prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s White House meeting with President Barack Obama on July 8.
The formula drafted and approved by Israel’s security cabinet permitted all civilian goods to reach Gaza, banned military, dual-use materials and weapons, and left the sea blockade in place.
In Gaza, Hamas leader Mahmoud A Zahar, furious over the collapse of the campaign against the blockade, declared Sunday, June 20 that it was time for Qassam missiles to be launched against Israel from the West Bank as well as Gaza. Nothing about Hamas’ policy had changed, he stressed in response to Blair’s admonition that Hamas could become part of the peace process if it released the Israel soldier, Gilad Shalit, held captive for four years, and renounced violence.

debkafile‘s military sources report that Israel and Western military and intelligence circles in the Middle East warn that a celebration over the apparent end of the flotilla chapter would premature. Thwarted for now, Turkey, Iran, Hizballah and Hamas may be at this minute plotting a major operation for giving the Israeli Navy enforcing the blockade a nasty surprise.
For now, Washington, Jerusalem, the Europeans and Abbas’ faction between them have managed to post keep out signs over most Middle East ports usable for sending convoys out to Gaza. The first to be affected was the two-ship Lebanese flotilla that was scheduled to set sail from Beirut port Monday, 21.
The White House in Washington, the UN Secretary’s bureau in New York and UNIFIL Command headquarters in Lebanon made it clear to the Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri that letting the two-ship campaign flotilla to depart Beirut port on schedule, Monday June 21, would be a very bad idea. Various bureaucratic pretexts were found Sunday to keep the ship from sailing.
Our intelligence sources also disclose: Campaign organizers turned to Damascus for the use of Syrian ports, only to be told that Syria is at war with Israel and not looking for trouble. Anyway, it would most inconvenient at this time because President Bashar Assad is preparing for a long absence touring Latin America. They have not had much luck with South European, Greek or Cypriot ports because of the deal Tony Blair swung with Netanyahu.
The only ports remaining now for launching boats against the Gaza blockade are Turkish, but the fact that one of the ships, to have carried scores of women campaigners, including many Christians, was dedicated to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Maryam in Arabic) does not sit easily in Ankara and its Islamic government.  The second ship is Julia.
At a joint news conference in Jerusalem Sunday, Netanyahu and Blair announced that a new list of banned goods for passage through land crossings from Israel would be published soon and construction materials allowed for projects under international supervision such as schools, health facilities, housing, sanitation and water – to make sure they are not used for military installations. The opening of additional crossings would be contingent on the security situation

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Is Iran Actually Containing the U.S.?.

At the dawn of the Cold War in 1947, noted diplomat George Kennan proposed in a famous Foreign Affairs magazine article that the U.S. adopt a policy of “containment” to thwart Soviet expansion. “Containment” became a new buzzword in the diplomacy lexicon, the goal being to thwart the ability of a country to act against another.

When the UN Security Council imposed its fourth round of sanctions against Iran’s illegal nuclear program last week the punitive economic measures were intended to “contain” Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.

Dismissing the latest round of international punishment, Iran’s mercurial president declared the sanctions to be nothing more than “…used tissues which should be thrown into the trash.” Hyper bravado or trash-talk?

Despite the denials multilateral sanctions are certainly more than a mere nuisance to Iran’s leadership. The latest round of sanctions impose on Iran an arms embargo, blacklist Iran’s international shipping companies, authorize inspections of cargo ships bound for Iran, prohibit foreign investment in Iran’s bonds, and blacklist companies and persons connected to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Add other sanctions about to be imposed by the U.S. and its allies, and the noose should be tightening against Iran… or so sanctions proponents would have us believe.

Well then, why not chalk this up as an unprecedented diplomatic achievement for the good guys given the fact that Iran’s two most important allies on the Security Council — China and Iran — abandoned the mullahs? Surely, as sanctions are increasingly fine tuned Iran will be more “contained” and find it far more economically painful to continue thumbing its nose at the world. So it would seem.

But Iran has been feverishly constructing its own containment policy to neutralize sanctions and straightjacket any military designs against its nuclear facilities.

As the clock ticks toward a showdown with Iran will it succeed — or miscalculate — that it can thwart an attack by Israel or the U.S. against its nuclear enrichment facilities?

First, in a global cat and mouse game, Iran has demonstrated uncanny resourcefulness and ingenuity to evade the worst of the sanctions against it. It has constructed a house of mirrors to hide its ownership of funds financing its imports and the companies breaking the sanctions.

Iran has been relatively successful maintaining its vital export markets with the very countries we need to turn the sanctions tourniquet tighter. By any measure, American-led efforts to economically isolate Iran have achieved important victories, but on balance, insufficient ones. In fact, Iran continues to export its goods relatively unhindered particularly to the very nations the U.S. is counting on to support sanctions; namely Japan, the EU and India. Moreover, the Sunni Arab states most concerned about Shiite Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, namely Kuwait, Oman and the UAE, have not done nearly enough to end Iran’s access to their exports. A few weeks ago, while in Oman I personally witnessed a flotilla of zodiac boats overflowing with camouflaged goods zipping across the Arabian Gulf to Iran from the port of Khosab.

Second, Iran has formed a new “northern alliance” which now includes, Syria, Hezbollah and Turkey. Turkey, once a strong NATO ally, is now firmly allied with Iran against the U.S. Turkey, which supported Iran in the UN, would certainly oppose military action against Iran and prevent its NATO air bases from being used against Iran. Iran may be calculating that by attacking Iran, both the U.S. and Israel risk losing Turkey as a NATO ally altogether.

Third, several weeks ago a “terror summit” was held in Damascus among the leadership of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran which have formed a de facto military alliance. Reports out of Syria after the summit indicate that Hezbollah is primed to provoke a preemptive crisis with Israel to open a “northern front” against Israel should Iran be convinced Israel is preparing to attack it. The pieces are in place: Iran has shipped to Syria SCUD and M-600 ground-to-ground missiles capable of reaching every major Israeli population center and talk of war is in the air. Media reports indicate that Hezbollah has now stashed away 40,000 missiles as compared to the 15,000 missiles it had in its arsenal at the beginning of the 2006 war with Israel.

Fourth, contradictory statements out of Washington have emboldened Iran to precede full speed ahead to quicken the pace of its nuclear enrichment program. And Iran has used every conceivable chance to publicly enumerate how it will retaliate against an attack, resulting in more and more hand-wringing in Washington over the cost of a military option. Public admonishments by Washington against the use of force by Israel against Iran, coupled with Iran’s schadenfreude over America’s troubled relations with Israel have also served to embolden Iran.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently wrote a three-page memorandum to NSC Advisor Jim Jones warning that the U.S. had no clear contingency policy in place should sanctions fail to deter Iran from reaching a “threshold” capacity to construct a nuclear weapon. And Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, has repeatedly thrown cold water over a possible U.S. military strike against Iran even though he has recently not ruled out U.S. missile strikes against Iran. Why would Iran blink if Washington is unable to convince even itself that the inevitable shortcoming of sanctions leaves the use of military force as the only option left on the table?

Also on the table is Iran’s capacity to mischievously ratchet up its interference against American military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran’s rulers may suffer from a bad case of misbegotten uber confidence. But on balance Iran’s counter-containment policy has achieved impressive results. How impressive? Obviously, time will tell. But by its words and deeds Iran’s bravado has the telltale hallmark of nation increasingly convinced that rather being contained, it is the nation that is doing the containing.

Why Turkey’s change of attitude toward Israel is important and ominous | San Francisco Examiner.

By: Bruce McQuain
Special to The Examiner
06/19/10 11:25 PM PDT

Syrian President Bashar Assad said Israel’s attack on the Gaza aid flotilla has increased the chances of war in the Middle East, in a BBC interview on Wednesday. Assad said that Syria was working to prevent a regional war but he added that there was no chance of a peace deal with the current Israeli administration, which he called a “pyromaniac government”.

The rhetoric keeps ratcheting up as if various Arab factions are trying to talk themselves into testing Israel again. It’s been a while, but the in the past the results have been uniformly bad for the Arab nations.

But there has been a recent change. Turkey is now talking tough as well. And, add in Iran’s attempt to ingratiate itself with the Arab world and suddenly it’s a little different ballgame.

Turkey’s inclusion against Israel in the rhetorical wars now being waged has encouraged many Arab pundits to hail the Turks and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as the much awaited “leader” of the movement against Israel. One writer hailed him as “more Arab than the Arabs” while criticizing Arab leaders as too passive.

There have been huge pro-Turkey rallies in Gaza, Beruit and Damascus. Recently, text messages from viewers displayed on Al-Jazeera TV during a June 4th Erdogan speech in Konya, some of which said: “Erdogan, you are king of the Arabs,” and “Son of the sultans, you have restored the glory of the Ottomans.”

Hizbullah considers Erdogan the new rock star of anti-Israeli leadership, and some Gazans are naming their children after him.

What Turkey and Erdogan have apparently managed to do, according to one writer, is bring those who have rejected Hamas and Hizbullah because of their Iranian ties on board in a unified “Islamic” effort to confront Israel:

“Unlike the Palestinians and many Arabs who support Nasrallah, large groups had yearned for a leadership unconnected to Iran or the new jihadi Shi’a… They rejected Hamas and accused the Palestinian jihad movement of being an instrument of Shi’ite Iran. Now Turkey has emerged to compensate for the incapacity of the leaders of the Arab regimes.

“Erdogan [has emerged as a figure] whose portrait can be displayed in homes, on billboards, and on cars. When all is said and done, the integration into the resistance movement of those who [had] hesitated is now being achieved through the gate of Islam.

Turkey seems to have finally rejected the west and put to rest its desire to be a part of it. Although it retains NATO membership, it appears to have no further interest in the EU. Turkey also appears to be again casting its eyes in the direction of its past glory – the Ottoman Empire. Certainly it isn’t pretending it would again rule over all of its former territories, but Turkey seems to feel it could be a major if not the major influence in the area of the Middle East. One sure way to work toward that goal is to take on Israel.

While it publicly claims it is still a secular nation ruled by secular institutions, this latest situation with Israel and Turkey’s reaction are all Islamic and designed to appeal to the Islamic world in general and the people of the Middle East specifically.

This is one of the conflicts that is brewing on the horizon. It is a new twist in a very old situation. But it promises real trouble if not addressed and defused quickly.

Of course, that will take leadership, not apology tours. I’m not sure that the US is up to the job. And I think the reason we’re hearing all this from Turkey now is they sense that is the case.

American Thinker: Why Israel and the U.S. Are In Crisis.

By Pamela Geller