WarSclerotic

Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

U.S. president tells Channel 2 Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.

By Haaretz Service

U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.

In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied “I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern.”

	U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walking at the White House, on July 6, 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

Obama spoke to Channel 2’s Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an “excellent” meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran’s efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,” Obama said.

“I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there’s the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West,” Obama went on to say.

Obama added that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. “I think [Netanyahu] understands we’ve got a fairly narrow window of opportunity… We probably won’t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It’s going to be difficult.”

The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.

When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that “I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about,” adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to “secure Israel for another 60 years”

In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not “blindly optimistic” regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be “a great source of hope.”

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin “very soon”, but warned that they would be “very, very tough.”
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.

Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.

At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. “This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation,” he said, adding “the sooner the better.”
“Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will,” he said.

Israel unlikely to surprise US with Iran attack: Obama – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

US president Barack Obama says it is highly unlikely Israel will surprise Washington with an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to posses nuclear weapons and we are going to do everything we can to prevent that happening,” Mr Obama told Israel’s Channel 2 television.

“Neither of us try to surprise each other,” he said, when asked if he was concerned Israel would surprise the US with an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel, which has the Middle East’s sole but so far undeclared nuclear arsenal, regards Iran as its principal threat after repeated predictions by the Islamic republic’s hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Jewish state’s demise.

Along with the West, Israel suspects Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, a claim Tehran denies.

Israel has backed US-led efforts to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability through sanctions, but has also refused to rule out military force.

In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor and reportedly also attacked a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007.

Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at power generation and medical research and says the international community should focus its attention on Israel, which, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Mr Obama gave the interview, his first to an Israeli channel since taking office, during a visit to the United States by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been hailed as a fence-mending trip between the two leaders.

– AFP

Secret document confirms US-Israel nuclear partnership.

“According to Army Radio, the US has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies.”

This information appeared as the lead article in yesterday’s Haaretz. The article went on to say, “Israel’s Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries . . .

“Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty], and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.”

In fact, Israel’s nuclear plant/arsenal was built in the Negev with the help of the French in 1956, and has been maintained by Israel to this day. It contains an estimated 200 to 300 nuclear warheads.

Haaretz added that “Army Radio’s diplomatic correspondent said the reported offer could put Israel on a par with India, another NPT holdout which is openly nuclear-armed but in 2008 secured a U.S.-led deal granting it civilian nuclear imports.” And thanks to the fact that previous President George Bush would not sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on behalf of the US, as well.

Haaretz said that “During Tuesday’s meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the two leaders discussed the global challenge of nuclear proliferation and the need to strengthen the nonproliferation system.” This is certainly a laudable action if it’s true.

“They also discussed calls for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was proposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York and which Netanyahu said he would not take part in because it intends to single out Israel.” Was Netanyahu’s reference to New York a reference to the UN? Certainly, the city itself has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel?

In any case, “Obama informed Netanyahu that, as a co-sponsor charged with enabling the proposed conference, the United States will insist that such a conference have a broad agenda to include regional security issues, verification and compliance and discussion of all types of weapons of mass destruction.” Here, here, for President Obama.

Again, “Obama emphasized the conference will only take place if all countries ‘feel confident that they can attend,’ and said that efforts to single out Israel would make the prospects of such a conference unlikely.”

Well, why would Israel be singled out? Could it be for its repeated offers to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or for Menachim Begin’s leveling Iraq’s newly built nuclear facility in 1981 with US F-15s and F-16s. Fortunately, there was no nuclear material in it at the time, but it remains the only time any nation has bombed a nuclear facility.

Despite that unpleasant history, “The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the IAEA General Conference in September.”

Certainly, we wouldn’t want Israel to feel victimized. Especially in the way Jeff Gates recently described its victimization of the Egyptians in the 1967 War in his article, Bibi back at the White House – the consistency of Israeli duplicity comes ever more clearly in focus. It turns out, according to Gates, that “Israel was neither under attack nor under threat of attacks as its leadership has since conceded. Air raid sirens were just props in the stagecraft of waging war by way of deception.”

Gates also pointed out that “Though the US has been deceived with stunning consistency for more than six decades, a mid-east course correction remains possible. If this latest president can concede to himself that his political career is a product [of] those complicit at this deceit, he may yet emerge as the transformative leader that his supporters once hoped he would be.” How true.

Haaretz reported that “Obama emphasized that the U.S. will continue to work closely with Israel to ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security, and ‘support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability.’”

Ironically, “Dan Meridor, Netanyahu’s deputy prime minister in charge of nuclear affairs, said Obama’s endorsement was not new but that its public expression — two months after Washington supported Egypt’s proposal at a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — was significant.”

Perhaps some old wounds can be licked, seeing how, as Gates writes, “In the [1967] war’s first few hours, the ‘victimized’ Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force while its aircraft was still on the ground.” So who is the real victim?

But Meridor went on to say that, “Obama’s statement ‘was without a doubt a special and significant text. It was important for us, and it was important for the region.’”

And Haaretz writes, “Israel neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons under an ‘ambiguity’ strategy billed as warding off foes while avoiding public provocations that can spark regional arms races.” An “ambiguity strategy; how ambiguous is that?

Perhaps as Haaretz concluded, “The official reticence, and its [Israel’s] toleration in Washington, has long aggrieved many Arabs and Iranians — especially given U.S.-led pressure on Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.”

That pressure comes as sanctions. As Shamus Cooke reports, Obama’s New Iran Sanctions: An Act of War. Cooke writes, “When the UN refused to agree to the severe sanctions that the U.S. wanted, Obama responded with typical Bush flair and went solo. The new U.S. sanctions against Iran — signed into law by Obama on July 1st — are an unmistakable act of war.” That’s a pretty heavy-handed response from the man bearing an olive branch for Israel and not wanting to “aggrieve” Tehran.

The New York Times responded, “If fully enforced, Iran’s economy will be potentially destroyed.” The Times outlined the central parts of the sanctions: “The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” (July 1, 2010). Does that really make sense?

Cooke writes, “ . . . as Iran must import the majority of its oil from foreign corporations and nations, since it does not have the technology needed to refine the fuel that it pumps from its soil. By cutting this refined oil off, the U.S. will be causing massive, irreparable damage to the Iranian economy — equaling an act of war.

“In fact, war against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.” Right you are, Mr. Cooke.

“Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as ‘peaceful’ solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to ‘defend’ itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.” So, starve Iran of refined oil and wait for the desired response. That’s clever.

But the bad news doesn’t stop there. According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).

The very same article says that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that, “ . . . the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran, as well as the whole world, knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.

The capper, Cook writes, is that “Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it [is] the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations (not to mention Zionist Israel, a U.S. cohort in its war aims against Iran). Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily.” This is truly mind-boggling.

As stated by Cooke, “It remains to be seen how closely U.S. allies will follow the new oil sanctions; they will be under tremendous pressure to do so. The European Union has already signaled that it will follow Obama’s lead.”

But then, what really is Obama’s lead? Leading Israel to the non-nuclear proliferation table while driving Iran to war to save itself from ruin? I’m confused. Won’t this further aggravate conditions in the Middle East? Isn’t this walking towards the brink of all-out war between Middle East nations and the already war-straddled US? Is there no end to the machinations, the waste of blood and money? And how does Israel keep US policy in its pocket on behalf of this insanity?

Hill consensus on Iran attack.

JERUSALEM, July 7, (Agencies): US Senator Joseph Lieberman says there is a broad consensus in Congress that military force can be used if necessary to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Lieberman cites a recent set of sanctions passed by Congress against Iran as a potential deterrent. But he insists that the goal of keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power will be accomplished “through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must.”
The Connecticut senator spoke Wednesday in Jerusalem, where he was visiting with fellow senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Israel, the US and other Western countries accuse Iran of trying to develop an atomic weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian use.
The United Arab Emirates dismissed as “inaccurate” on Wednesday statements attributed to its ambassador in Washington backing possible military action over Iran’s nuclear programme.
“The statements attributed by the Washington Times to the UAE ambassador to the United States, Youssef Al-Otaiba, are not precise,” the official WAM news agency quoted deputy foreign minister Tareq al-Haidan as saying.
Comments quoted in the paper on Tuesday “came as part of general discussions held on the sidelines of an unofficial gathering” in which the ambassador was speaking, Haidan said.
They “were taken out of context.”
In the reported remarks, which the Washington Times described as “unusually blunt”, Otaiba was quoted as saying that he preferred a resort to military action to “living with a nuclear Iran.”
“We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE,” the ambassador was quoted as saying.
The deputy foreign minister stressed: “The UAE totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and rather calls for a solution through political means.”
Haidan said his government “respects and believes in the sovereignty of other states and in the principle of non-interference, in any form, in their internal affairs.”
However, “the UAE, at the same time, believes in the need to keep the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons,” he added.
The UAE’s relations with Iran deteriorated last month after it reportedly took steps to implement tough new UN sanctions against its neighbour across the Gulf.
The central bank ordered the freezing of 41 bank accounts targeted by the new sanctions, one UAE daily said.
Dubai also closed down the offices of 40 firms suspected of breaching the sanctions against Iran, another daily quoted an unnamed UAE official as saying.
Sanctions
Iran acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that newly imposed sanctions “may slow down” its nuclear drive, including its sensitive uranium enrichment work, but said it will not halt it.
The comments by the head of Iran’s atomic energy, Ali Akbar Salehi, were the first admission by a senior official of the impact of new UN sanctions imposed on June 9.
“One can’t say sanctions are ineffective,” Iran’s ISNA news agency quoted Salehi as telling a press conference in the southern port city of Bushehr.
“If sanctions are aimed at preventing Iran’s nuclear activities… we say they may slow down the work, but will not stop the activities. This is a certainty.”
Previously senior officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had been defiant in their dismissal of the new sanctions.
Speaking soon after the UN Security Council adopted the new measures, Ahmadinejad said they were like a “used hanky which should be thrown in the dustbin.”
Salehi, who is one of several vice presidents in Ahmadinejad’s government, said the sanctions would not affect a nuclear power station nearing completion in Bushehr, which he visited on Wednesday.
But he said there could be some impact on Iran’s uranium enrichment programme as it would now be more difficult to procure some equipment.
“The Bushehr site is not (affected) by the sanctions and Russian officials have repeatedly maintained that the sanctions are not targeting Bushehr,” he said after inspecting the Russian-built plant, which he said would open in September.
“But on the issue of enrichment, we may face problems with some equipment such as measuring instruments,” he said.
He added: “If we face a problem over this equipment, we will manufacture it.”
Talks with the major powers on a plan drafted by the UN nuclear watchdog last October for the supply of fuel for a Tehran medical research reactor in return for Iran’s shipping most of its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium abroad failed to bear fruit.
A fresh proposal brokered by Brazil and Turkey before the adoption of the new UN sanctions has been cold-shouldered by the West.
Salehi said Iran was “ready to negotiate” with the major powers over the fuel supply plan but he insisted that the talks should be on the basis of the proposal agreed with Brazil and Turkey.
He said the Tehran reactor was currently being run so as to ensure that the existing fuel “will suffice until September next year.”
Satellite
Telecommunication Minister Reza Taghipour said on Wednesday that Iran is expected to launch a new satellite, Rasad 1, in the last week of August, the Mehr news agency reported.
“Rasad 1 (Observation) satellite is expected to be launched into space on the back of a domestic carrier during the period marking the government week (last week of August),” Taghipour said.
He said the launch would mark Iran’s “newest achievement” in space technology.
The minister had previously said that during the current Iranian year to March 2011, new satellites capable of transmitting data and images would be launched.
In his Wednesday comments he did not say whether Rasad 1 was one of these satellites.
Iran in February revealed details of three new satellite prototypes — the Toloo (Dawn), Navid (Good News) and Mesbah-2 (Lantern), the last said to be a telecommunications satellite.
In February 2009, Iran launched its first home-built satellite, the Omid (Hope), to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Meanwhile, Iran’s first nuclear power plant is set to be launched by late September now that an important final test has been carried out at the reactor, the head of the Islamic state’s Atomic Energy Organisation said on Wednesday.
Ali Akbar Salehi’s statement, at the site near the Gulf port city of Bushehr, suggested that a row that erupted between Moscow and Tehran in May over new UN sanctions against Iran had caused no further delays to the project.
“We reached the point of no return and the ground is paved for the reactor to go on stream,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Salehi as saying, adding the start-up would take place during the Iranian month which begins on Aug 23.
He said warm-water tests had been conducted on the facility, adding they were “the last and some of the most important tests before going on stream.” The report did not say when they were carried out nor by whom.
Russia agreed to build the 1,000-megawatt reactor 15 years ago but delays have haunted the $1 billion project and diplomats say Moscow has used it as a lever in relations with Tehran.
The head of Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Sergei Kiriyenko, said this year the Bushehr reactor was scheduled to begin operating in August.
A Canadian court found a Toronto man guilty on Tuesday of attempting to export nuclear-related materials to Iran in violation of sanctions, prosecutors said.
Mahmoud Yadegari, 36, was convicted in the Ontario Court of Justice of nine criminal and customs charges for attempting last year to ship pressure transducers to Iran via Dubai, said the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
The items, manufactured in the United States, can be used in nuclear power plants but are also required to produce nuclear weapons. They are subject to a UN embargo on nuclear exports to Iran and are on Canada’s export control list.
Yadegari was arrested in April 2009 for failing to obtain required permits to export the so-called “dual use” items the month before.
He faces up to a maximum of 10 years in prison and fines of up to 500,000 dollars for each infraction. He was, however, acquitted of one count of forgery.
Yadegari is to be sentenced on July 29.
Iran has summoned the Swiss charge d’affaires to protest the “abduction” of a nuclear scientist by US intelligence agents, state television’s website reported on Wednesday.
The Swiss mission in Tehran handles US interests as Washington has had no diplomatic ties with Iran for more than 30 years.
“The Swiss charge d’affaires (Georg Steiner) was summoned on Tuesday following the release of new documents relating to the abduction of Shahram Amiri by American security forces,” the report said, quoting a foreign ministry statement.
Iran’s foreign ministry said on July 4 it had presented to the Swiss embassy “evidence” that Amiri, who has been missing since last year, was abducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Iranian television on June 29 screened a video of a man claiming to be Amiri and saying that he had managed to escape from the hands of US intelligence agents in Virginia.
“I could be re-arrested at any time by US agents… I am not free and I’m not allowed to contact my family. If something happens and I do not return home alive, the US government will be responsible,” he said.
“I ask Iranian officials and organisations that defend human rights to raise pressure on the US government for my release and return to my country,” the man said, adding he has not “betrayed” Iran.

IDF Releases Proof of Hezbollah Arms Buildup – Inside Israel – CBN News – Christian News 24-7 – CBN.com.

JERUSALEM, Israel – The Israel Defense Forces released maps and other intelligence information on Wednesday confirming Hezbollah’s stockpiling of weaponry in southern Lebanon.

The declassification of military intelligence information comes on the fourth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War between Israel and the Lebanese-based Iranian proxy.

In the ensuing four years, Hezbollah has amassed 40,000 short-, medium- and long-range missiles – supplied by Iran and Syria – and has deployed an estimated 20,000 armed insurgents in south of Lebanon’s Litani River.

Using the same strategy as Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the weapons have been stored in residential neighborhoods. In the event of war, the IDF would appear to be targeting civilian areas.

In addition to its weapons’ cache, Hezbollah has built a series of underground tunnels, bunkers and control centers from which to conduct its operations. Terror cells varying from 30 to 200 trained fighters live in each of the villages.

According to the IDF report, a typical example is the village of Khaim, about 10 miles north of the Israeli city of Kiryat Shmona.

With a population of 23,000, the village has a least 10 weapons storage facilities, some adjacent to schools and the town’s medical facility.

“Hezbollah is hunkering down in the villages,” IDF Col. Ronen Marley said. “They’re gathering significant quantities of intelligence on our forces. Every day they are busy digging tunnels and building up communication infrastructure to prepare for war,” he said.

In the past few months, Israeli farmers near the border have seen Hezbollah fighters monitoring Israel from high atop reconnaissance towers.

The farmers have overheard some of them speaking Iran’s Farsi language. These men likely report to Hossein Mahdavi, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Lebanon Corps, headquartered in Beirut.

In addition to the reported long-range SCUD missiles delivered by Syria, which can target nearly any city in Israel, Hezbollah has thousands of missiles Syrian- and Iranian-made missiles, including the M-600 jointly made by Iran and North Korea, which has a 150-mile range.

It appears Hezbollah is ready to launch a missile attack in the event of a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

WPR Article | World Citizen: The Next War in the Middle East.

rida Ghitis | Bio | 08 Jul 2010
World Politics Review

Iran says Bushehr nuclear plant to be ready by September – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The 1,000-megawatt unit of the Bushehr plant was scheduled to be finished at the beginning of the decade but has been delayed at least five times.

Iran said Wednesday that the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a joint project with Russia, would be ready for operation in two months, the ISNA news agency reported.

	The reactor under construction near the Iranian city of Bushehr
	Photo by: AFP

Atomic agency chief Ali-Akbar Salehi said important, so-called hot tests have been concluded and, according to both Russian and Iranian experts, the plant would be ready by September.

The 1,000-megawatt unit of the Bushehr plant was scheduled to be finished at the beginning of the decade but has been delayed at least five times.

The Russian side gave technical reasons for the delay, but some Iranians suspected political considerations behind the holdups and accused Moscow of using the project as a political tool both against Iran and the United States.

Iran so far had to tolerate the delays in the construction because it has no other potential nuclear partners.

Western powers suspect Iran of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran denies. Iran is the subject of several UN Security Council resolutions for its lack of cooperation with nuclear inspectors and its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Although Russia has not yet completed the first plant, Iran has promised Moscow it would have priority in future nuclear projects.

The light-water reactor in Bushehr is internationally tolerated because of Russia’s involvement and guarantees that the nuclear fuel would be delivered from and nuclear waste returned to Russia, reducing fears of nuclear proliferation.

Focus U.S.A. / Netanyahu-Obama meeting continues the Israel-U.S. soap opera – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Professional cynics should have no doubt that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama had an ‘excellent’ meeting at the White House.

Professional cynics should have no doubt that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama had an “excellent” meeting at the White House on Tuesday. After all, Obama used the adjective three times, seemingly compensating for the previous episode of the unfolding Israel-U.S. soap opera, in which Obama snubbed the prime minister.

	U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walking at the White House, on July 6, 2010.
	Photo by: Reuters

Other superlatives describing the two countries’ relationship were “extraordinary,” “unbreakable,” “strategic,” “closer and closer,” as well as the declaration that “our relationship is continuing to improve.”

From Netanyahu’s point of view, there was clearly a serious improvement.
Obama commended him on “real progress” in his handling of the crisis in Gaza, which “has moved more quickly and more effectively than many people anticipated.”

On Iran, Netanyahu got his assurance that the Obama administration – which imposed exceedingly tough sanctions last week signed in addition to those at the UN Security Council – is seriously committed to dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program.

The real treat was Obama’s announcement that “there is no change in U.S. policy” when it comes to Israel’s nuclear program.

“We strongly believe that given its size, history, region and the threats that are leveled against it, that Israel has unique security requirements,” Obama said. “It’s got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that’s why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests.”

And finally, there was the subject of proximity talks with the Palestinians, which administration officials made every effort to portray as effective, and that Israel and the Palestinians have been “narrowing the gaps.”

“I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace,” said Obama. “I think he’s willing to take risks for peace…. Now more than ever, I think is the time for us to seize on that vision. And I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is prepared to do so. And I believe that the government of Israel is prepared to engage in such direct talks. And I commend the prime minister for that.”

The need for “confidence-building measures” was mentioned – but there was pretty much no talk of extending the moratorium on Israel’s settlement construction in the West Bank, which expires in September.

“I think the Israeli government, working through layers of various governmental entities and jurisdictions have shown restraint over the last several months that I think has been conducive to the prospects of us getting into direct talks,” said Obama.

“And my hope is that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment and success,” Obama continued. “Not every action by one party or the other is taken as a reason for not engaging in talks, so there ends up being more room created by more trust. And so, you know, I want to just make sure that we sustain that over the next several weeks.”

Obama also dismissed the claim he “snubbed” Netanyahu in their prior meeting. “The premise to your question was wrong, and I entirely disagree with it,” he told the reporter who asked about the cool welcome Netanyahu had received. “If you look at every public statement that I’ve made over the last year and a half, it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel; that our commitment to Israel’s security has been unwavering. In fact, there aren’t any concrete policies that you could point to that would contradict that.

And in terms of my relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I know the press, both in Israel and Stateside, enjoys seeing if there’s news there. But the fact of the matter is that I’ve trusted Prime Minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected president, and have said so both publicly and privately. I think that he is dealing with a very complex situation in a very tough neighborhood.”

And an invitation was extended –

“You know, I’ve been coming here a lot. It’s about time you –,” said Netanyahu, suggesting Obama visit Israel.

“I’m ready,” answered Obama.

“ – and the first lady came to Israel,” finished Netanyahu.

“We look forward to it,” replied Obama.

“So anytime.”

“Thank you.”

“Anytime.”

“Thank you very much,” said Obama.

And then there was lunch for the Israeli delegation. The guest list included, in addition to the American Diplomat in Chief, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice; National Security Adviser General James Jones; Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell, senior director for the central region Dennis Ross, Dan Shapiro, senior director for Middle East and North Africa and the U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham.

So the compensation indeed exceeded expectations and must have brought real catharsis to the audience that followed the drama of this uneasy relationship – especially the Israeli public and the American Jewish community.

Some analysts – for example, Stephen Walt at Foreign Policy – claim (quite rightfully) that it was mainly a photo-op and therefore, a waste of the time.
True, the prospects of peace are still shaky and the future of the Iranian nuclear program still murky. But for some in the Israeli public, skeptical as they might be, these handshakes and a bouquet of flowers from the First Lady, and smiles and pictures and accommodation at the Blaire House instead of some distant hotel, and photographers taking pictures of Netanyahu’s departure instead of sneaking him out of the White House in the dark, it might well be a rare moment of consolation.

After all, in this “tough neighborhood,” what can make us forget our troubles other than a good soap opera?

McCain: Israel not considering strike against Iran right now – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Senator visiting Jerusalem says it’s too soon to discuss issue, according to Washington Post; Sen. Lieberman: U.S. will use ‘every means’ to stop Iran.

U.S. Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he does not believe Israel is currently considering military action against Iran over its contentious nuclear program, The Washington Post reported.

“I don’t believe we are at the point of making that kind of decision, nor is the Israeli government, given the state that Iran is in now as far as the development of their nuclear weapons is concerned,” McCain told reporters after talks with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

	Senators Joseph Lieberman and John McCain
	Photo by: Archive

McCain was visiting Jerusalem this week, along with fellow Republican senator, Lindsey O. Graham, and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.

McCain was responding to a question posed to the senators on whether they would support an Israeli strike against Iran. McCain said he could not yet give an opinion on the matter as it “would be dictated by so many different circumstances”, according to The Washington Post.

Lieberman did not respond directly to the question, according to The Post, but said: “We will use every means that we have to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military action if we must.”

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said late last month that world leaders “believe absolutely” that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.