WarSclerotic

DEBKA.

President Barack Obama

Tehran has been thrown off balance, its decision-making processes stalled in the past month by a hail of unforeseen body blows – proving that religious dictatorships are just as vulnerable as others of their ilk when faced with rare challenges to their will.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly singles out the five blows which rocked Iran’s leaders:

1. On June 9, Iran’s supreme self-confidence faltered when China and Russia, instead of casting vetoes, voted with the UN Security Council majority in favor of sanctions for its nuclear program, leaving only two supporters, Turkey and Brazil, to oppose the motion and Lebanon abstaining. Many years of wary diplomatic finagling in Moscow and Beijing were wiped out at one stroke, forcing Tehran to look for the first time at the real prospect of international isolation.
The next shocker came when UN sanctions proved to be but Step One in an incremental process. European Union members quickly pitched in with their own penalties. US President Barack Obama followed on July 2 by signing the most painful package of all, a ban on refined oil deliveries to the Islamic Republic, including gasoline and jet fuel, for its “refusal to comply with its international obligations.”
Iran’s rulers’ high-sounding rhetoric was suddenly revealed as hollow. Their mocking ranting about the ineffectiveness of the sanctions and the inability of superpowers to issue diktats to other countries any longer faded, as did their pretensions to rule the roost in the Persian Gulf and Middle East by dint of their political and military prowess.
The ordinary Iranian began to sense that the international penalties imposed for his government’s nuclear aspirations would fall squarely on his back amid his country’s growing isolation.
Iran’s lead-role challenged by Turkey

2. Iran’s reliance on Turkish support for its nuclear plans turned out to carry a heavy price in the form of a powerful claimant for top spot in the nascent Northern Islamic Bloc (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas). Turkish Prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan was riding high, topping the waves with the help of a sea expedition to bust Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The international condemnation of the Israel commando raid to halt the effort played right into his hands. Suddenly, Erdogan was the mouthpiece for the radical Islamic cause, pushing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei off the world’s headlines.
Iran was pushed back further after it failed to make good on its threats and dispatch its own flotilla to Gaza – seen to take fright not only from the US military buildup around it but even from Israel’s threat to treat all vessels bound for Gaza as enemy ships.
Tehran’s obedient Lebanese proxy, Hizballah, failed likewise to launch its promised flotilla to the Gaza Strip, further underlining Tehran’s impotency as proactive player when the curtain went up.
Tehran’s impotence exploited by Washington

3. Taking note of Iran’s loss of nerve, the Obama administration decided to strike.
On the one hand, the White House ordered a further buildup of American naval, air and Marines forces around Iran (See the opening item in last week’s DEBKA-Net-Weekly 450, from July 2: Iran Fears Attack from Four Directions, including Caucasus and Central Asia).
And on the other, on July 2, the US president signed into law a tough congressional sanctions bill left hanging fire for months – with immediate effect.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources in Washington disclose that the president was persuaded to go forward chiefly by CIA chief Leon Panetta, who assured him that Iran’s leaders were too divided and off-balance for a coherent reprisal.
Until then, Obama had heeded the threats from Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani and Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Naval Forces General Ali Fadavi, that American searches of Iranian ships and aircraft to enforce the new sanctions would bring forth severe military reprisals against foreign vessels, including American warships and oil tankers, in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.
A crisis of this order could send world oil prices skyrocketing.
However, Panetta was sure that Iran’s rulers were in no condition for radical decisions on that order. At worst, they might wield a small stick but would not go so far as to jeopardize the Gulf’s oil shipping lanes.
He relied in his evaluation on Tehran’s meekness, aside from verbal threats, in the face of UN Security Council sanctions of June 9.
The ayatollahs shook their fists at parties playing ball with the Americans in the Persian Gulf, reserving most of their ire for the United Arab Emirates for freezing the bank accounts of local firms connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps administration. But that was as far as they went – except for a petty outbreak of spleen in South Lebanon. There, local Shiites were told by Hizballah to punish Paris for its UN vote by harassing the French contingent of UNIFIL with roadblocks, stone-throwing at the troops and street demonstrations. Other than that, Panetta saw no signs of Iran preparing reprisals in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Confusion in Tehran over ban on refined oil products

4. The US sanctions package sent Iran’s rulers into long conferences from Saturday, July 3, on ways and means of responding to the new bans which threatened to take the cars off Iranian roads and ground its airliners. By the time this issue closed, no real action appeared to be in the making.
On Monday, July 5, Mehdi Aliyari, secretary of the Iranian Airlines Union, was quoted by the ISNA agency as saying: “Since last week, after the passing of the unilateral law by America and the sanctions against Iran, airports in England, Germany and the UAE have refused to give fuel to Iranian planes.”
In Iran, such announcements – certainly their publication by official media outlets – are subject to advance clearance at the highest level of authority, including the president.
Yet, 24 hours later, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast contradicted his colleague, denying some countries had refused to fuel Iranian planes because of sanctions. “No such limitation was imposed,” he said.
The denial referred to “some countries” rather than “some companies.”
The sense of confusion was compounded by a UAE denial that Iranian planes had been refused fuel at Dubai international airport and British and German officials avoiding comment, saying only that any move to withhold fuel would be down to individual fuel companies.
According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources, some of the muddle was down to the fact that the refusal to refuel Iranian passengers planes at some European airports and Dubai came from firms in partnership with or subsidiaries of the American-British oil giant BP PLC-BP. Head office had told them to stop refueling Iranian airliners in keeping with the new energy sanctions signed by the US president.
The Iranian authorities issued conflicting statements to buy time for their response, so presenting the appearance of confusion.
The UAE defection takes the wind out of Iran’s commercial sails

5. By joining the US in enforcing UN, European and American sanctions against Iran, UAE ruler Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan has given the chop to Tehran’s most vital lifeline to the outside world.
This is no exaggeration.
Tehran has made the Persian Gulf emirate its regional trading hub, using Dubai’s international airport as its gateway to the world. No Iranian passenger flight, aside from those bound for Turkey and Syria, continues to its destination without first stopping over in Dubai. And no Iranian flight incoming from Europe lands in Tehran without first touching down in Dubai.
Dubai is Iran’s main import and export port.
Thousands of Iranian companies and businesses operate out of Dubai, many employed in the Islamic Republic’s multibillion-dollar re-export transactions across the Gulf. It is there, in this bustling business community, that the Revolutionary Guards have planted a network of straw companies designed to bypass sanctions.
However, the tiny UAE appears to have bowed to US and Saudi pressure and is beginning to ease out of its role as Iran’s senior trading, financial and transport hub. This brings home to Iran’s rulers how far they blundered in holding back from instant action for the punishment raining down on them. In one short week, Tehran has gone from Gulf superpower to an entity which even little UAE is not scared to defy.
That is a bitter pill for Iran’s arrogant leaders to swallow and they are unlikely to take it lying down.
Wednesday, July 7, Tehran began to pull itself together and warned the UAE that their trade ties would to be cut down.

DEBKA.

US President Barack Obama and Saudi King Abdullah

Saudi King Abdullah made up his mind to press ahead on uranium enrichment – in defiance of repeated US requests – after his June 29 conversation with US President Barack Obama at the White House ended in discord on nuclear questions. The king was not satisfied with US efforts to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon and decided to take matter in his own hands.
(See DEBKA-Net-Weekly 451 of July 2: US-Saudi Arabia at Odds on Iran Tactics – King Abdullah Demands Direct US Action to Halt Iran’s Nuclearization—or Else…)
Shortly after he returned from Washington, a Saudi cabinet meeting chaired by Crown Prince Sultan, deputy premier and minister of defense and aviation was called for July 6 and resolved to expedite the signing of a nuclear cooperation pact with France.
The ruling council rarely makes its decisions public, but, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s intelligence and Gulf sources, the projected pact with France, defined as cooperation for building and operating the “atomic and renewable energy city” near Riyadh as announced by King Abdullah in April, had a more far-reaching function. It was designed in fact to expedite the concentration of all the kingdom’s nuclear facilities in one place, using the structures standing ready for two years at the new nuclear city.
The core component was to be the secret uranium enrichment facility currently housed in the southern military town of Khamis Mushayt near the Yemeni border.

Abdullah brings Jordan aboard

Jumping the gun on the pact, French nuclear engineers and technicians have been working on the project since early this year, the first Western experts to see at first hand what is going on in the Saudi nuclear city.
Our sources quote the Saudis and French officials involved in the project as predicting that the enrichment facilities will start working at full tempo within four to five months after their reinstallation in the nuclear city.
Abdullah came away from his conversation with Obama angered rather than persuaded by Obama’s proposal for Saudi Arabia to adopt as its model the United Arab Emirates-United States’ nuclear cooperation plan, under which the UAE would receive nuclear reactors and other equipment from America.
This proposal put King Abdullah’s back up for two reasons: The Saudi royal family is on bad terms with the UAE’s ruling Al- Nahyans. Furthermore, Washington proposed bringing forward its year-old nuclear proposition to the UAE – provided the Emirates’ consented to join American sanctions against Iran.
This would be a powerful sanctions tool, since the UAE has long served Iran as its main financial, trading, aviation and transport hub and export and import lifeline to the outside world.
And indeed, the UAE carried out its side of the bargain in the last two weeks. By denying fuel to Iranian airliners, the Gulf federation awarded the US a major strategic breakthrough and dealt Iran a grave setback. However, seen from Riyadh, the US-UAE transaction looked like an American attempt to cut Saudi Arabia out of its dealings over Iran and a mark of its mistrust of the Saudi throne.
When they met last week, King Abdullah rebuked the US president for failing to run his transaction with the UAE past his government first.

Riyadh places orders for French military satellites

Following another confidential cabinet decision against Washington, the king decided to couple the oil kingdom’s nuclear partnership with France with expanded military acquisitions, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military sources reveal. Billions of petrodollars were earmarked to buy off-the-shelf French military satellite systems which France will launch for Saudi Arabia in the next two years. France will also be commissioned to build Saudi ground stations to receive the data gathered by the satellites and operate the stations until Saudi teams are trained.
Like the nuclear pact, this contract too is still unsigned but already in the initial stages of implementation.
A Saudi delegation last month visited the French military intelligence imagery center at the French Air Force base in Creil, north of Paris, to get coordination procedures started.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s intelligence sources report that just as Iran used North Korea’s services to try and establish in Syria a nuclear infrastructure to feed Tehran’s program with plutonium, Saudi Arabia is taking steps with French help to make Jordan its “logistical nuclear fuel backup” for supplying the Saudi nuclear program with fuel for a nuclear weapon.
On returning from Washington, the Saudi King got in touch with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and gave him a green light to expedite negotiations with concessionaires for mining Jordanian uranium deposits and building enrichment facilities and nuclear reactors.
These reactors will produce electricity and also nuclear fuel rods.
Abdullah encourages Jordan to tap uranium bonanza, build reactors

The two kings Abdullah decided to go fast forward, although well aware of extreme Obama administration objections to both their plans. After talking to the Saudi monarch, Abdullah II ordered the Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission to kick-start negotiations with the several firms vying to sell the kingdom the technology for its first nuclear power plant.
Experts estimate that Jordan has at least 65,000 tons of uranium under the desert outside Amman and possibly an additional 100,000 in southern, central and eastern Jordan, making its deposits the 11th largest in the world. This bonanza of high-quality ore relatively close to the surface may be enough to revolutionize Jordan’s economy which is heavily dependent on outside assistance.
French and Chinese geologists are carrying out intensive explorations in search of more finds.
Earlier this year, Jordan signed a joint venture with France’s Areva to mine uranium in central Jordan under a 25-year concession. In May, the French nuclear giant Areva, Canada’s AECL and Russia’s Atomstroyexport were shortlisted to compete for designing the kingdom’s first 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant.
The Jordan French Uranium Mining Company (JFUMC), a joint venture between AREVA and Jordan Energy Resources Inc., has been operating within a 1,400-square-kilometre concession area in the central region, including the Swaqa, Khan Azzabib, Wadi Maghar and Attarat areas.
Amman has presented to Washington an ambitious program for developing its uranium wealth and in parallel building enrichment plants that would make the kingdom the Middle East hub for distributing nuclear fuel to Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf States, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It has met with US disapproval.
Washington fears Jordan too unstable to keep nuclear facilities secure

Washington’s refusal to let Jordan exploit its own uranium deposits to make nuclear fuel has held up their nuclear cooperation talks. The American side insists on guarantees from Jordan that would oblige it to buy reactor fuel from the international market – a safeguard against its potential diversion for military uses (after the Iranian precedent).
Washington proposes an accord permitting Jordan to mine the ore but not convert it into fuel. This would spike Jordan’s plans, backed now by Saudi Arabia, to become a regional centre for uranium enrichment. In return, the US would help Jordan launch a civilian nuclear program for generating 30 percent of its energy needs by 2030.
The Jordanian side stands by the right to produce its own nuclear fuel as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are three major considerations behind the Obama administration’s alarm over its close Middle East ally’s nuclear plans:
– Another nuclear power would be introduced to the Middle East, flying in the face of Barack Obama’s ambition for worldwide denuclearization, starting with this volatile region.
– The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and its king are not powerful or stable enough to keep their fuel enrichment installations secure.
– A high-tech nuclear industry would make Jordan an irresistible target for its covetous neighbors, such as Syria, Iran and even possibly Iraq or Islamic extremists.
– Given a free hand, Jordan or its conquerors may seek nuclear weapons and pose the same threat to the world as Iran.
US grants Israel nuclear perks to maintain its military edge

Powered by full Saudi backing and a French vested interest, the Hashemite king feels he can overlook Obama’s objections and move forward with his nuclear plans.
Cairo is watching these events with interest.
Monday, July 5, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak took advantage of his visit to Paris for a discussion with French president Nicolas Sarkozy on the integration of his own nuclear plans in the burgeoning Saudi-French-Jordanian program. This was before he went into the Percy military hospital for medical check-ups (see HOT POINTS of July 7)
The acute acceleration of a nuclear race on the moderate Arab side of the Middle East figured large in President Obama’s talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House Tuesday, July 6. It resulted in a presidential pledge, leaked later by US and Israeli sources, to sell Israel materials for the production of electricity, advanced nuclear technology and other items, without requiring Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This pledge was in keeping with Obama’s public commitment to guarantee Israel’s military edge.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Moscow and Tehran have announced that the nuclear reactor Russia is building Iran at Bushehr – its first – has completed all its test-runs and will be up and running in early September – ahead of schedule.
debkafile‘s military sources reported several times in recent months that the Iranian reactor at Bushehr is not just a power plant but also has military applications. Chief among them is the reuse of its fuel rods to produce plutonium as atomic weapon fuel.

Wednesday, July 7, Ali Akbar Salehi, chairman of the Iranian Atomic Energy Commission, said: “Today we passed the hot water test, one of the Bushehr power plant’s most important and final tests before its inauguration.”
He admitted UN, US and European sanctions would slow the pace of the Iranian nuclear program – but not affect the activation of the Bushehr reactor.

Thursday, July 8, Atomstroyexport, the Russian company building the Iranian reactor, confirmed this: “Efficiency tests of the reactor equipment and supporting technological systems were held,” said the firm’s spokesman in Moscow. “We finished the so-called hot operational testing that was the final stage before launch.”

The Russian company did not mention when the reactor would go on stream, but back on March 18, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said at a summit of senior Russian officials in southern Russia: “The first reactor at Iran’s nuclear power plant in Bushehr is to be launched already in the summer.”
Since he made this remark while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Moscow, it was taken as a Russian signal to Washington that while willing to support expanded UN sanctions, Russia had no intention of abandoning its nuclear cooperation with Tehran.
Clinton’s response was: “In the absence of those reassurances (from Iran regarding the nature of its nuclear program), we (the Americans) think it would be premature to go forward with any project at this time.”

And indeed, on June 9, Russia voted with 11 UN Security Council members in favor of the US motion to expand sanctions against Iran for failing to comply with international obligations on its nuclear program.
At the same time, Moscow remained opposed to unilateral sanctions outside the world body.
This was stated by special emissary to Tehran, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, after the European Union and the United States imposed their own sanctions, including President Barack Obama’s signature on an embargo on refined fuel products and a ban on business with Iranian banks.
Thursday, July 8, Moscow then leaned further in Tehran’s favor, calling for the world powers to consider Iran’s proposals for a compromise on their nuclear controversy, not just their own, when negotiations are resumed.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the negotiations can only begin in September.
It would therefore seem that the concatenation of the two events – diplomacy and the launching of the Bushehr reactor – points to Russia’s new emphasis on improving its relations with Iran and willingness to take its side in the forthcoming nuclear dialogue.

PENCE & BAUER: Defending Israel takes more than hugs – Washington Times.

The alliance between our nation and Israel has deep and enduring roots, yet since taking office, President Obama has torn apart the ties that bind. Despite a meeting this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that by many accounts was cordial, much still remains to be done to restore the friendship between our two countries.

The modern nation of Israel was established as the clock struck midnight in Jerusalem on May 14, 1948. Eleven minutes later, President Harry Truman, rejecting the advice of Secretary of State George Marshall and most of the foreign-policy establishment, recognized the newly restored Israeli nation. The next day, Arab states declared war on Israel in an effort to kill the new nation in its crib.

Since then, under Israeli prime ministers and American presidents of both parties, the friendship has endured. Both countries believe in the dignity of every human being. Both nations believe in fundamental human rights – freedom of speech, assembly and dissent. We share values rooted in the rich soil of Judeo-Christian civilization; we face hatred from similar enemies.

The Israeli people are overwhelmingly pro-American, and Americans express affection for Israel at levels that are rivaled only by our feelings toward Great Britain. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attack, Americans were shocked to see street celebrations break out in parts of the Middle East, with dancing crowds celebrating the pain inflicted on us. But we were comforted to see Israelis cry along with us, lower their flag and declare a day of mourning as we buried our dead. Israelis understood very well what had happened to America. Proportionately, more Israelis were killed by Palestinian jihadists during the intifada than we lost on Sept. 11.

It is against the backdrop of this cherished alliance that the realization is slowly taking shape in both Israel and the U.S. that Mr. Obama is the most anti-Israel president ever to occupy the Oval Office.

In the 17 months since taking the oath of office, the president methodically has moved the United States away from our friend Israel while reaching out to the most thuggish regimes in the Middle East. He sends letters offering friendship to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who says Israel will be “wiped off the map,” while at the same time disrespecting Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Obama protests that nothing has changed and that he is committed to the U.S.–Israel relationship. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton went to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention to reassure the audience that we are committed to Israel‘s security. Other administration functionaries use the same talking points, but public policy tells a different story. The administration shows a disturbing pattern of currying favor with enemies like Iran while pushing aside the concerns and interests of allies like Israel.

Iran’s government is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Yet the White House offers the Iranian regime friendship, diplomacy and dialogue. The president has displayed infinite patience with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Iran‘s deception has been overlooked. Mr. Obama has eagerly sought talks while promising no preconditions even as Iran insists that its nuclear program will not be negotiated. A year ago, when Iranian reformers were beaten and murdered in the streets of Tehran, the Obama administration was slow and tepid in its condemnation for fear it would damage the administration‘s outreach to the oppressive Iranian government.

Compare this indulgent treatment of Iran to the bullying Israel has received from the Obama administration. There was unprecedented outrage when the administration heard that the Jerusalem municipal authority had allowed building permits to go forward in a well-established, undisputed Jewish neighborhood. White House officials made sure to “leak” to the media that Mr. Obama was livid with Israel. The White House publicly demanded that all building stop in East Jerusalem, a demand to which no Israeli prime minister could ever agree.

The American people have been left to wonder how an American administration could denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem. What should a reasonable observer conclude when Israelis building homes in their own capital elicit more White House anger than does Mr. Ahmadinejad, who promises a second genocide and urges the Iranian people to imagine a world without Israel and the U.S.?

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference met in May, it was widely assumed that the Obama administration would use the opportunity to rally support against the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, the conference, with the support of the Obama administration, issued a statement demanding that Israel, which is not a signatory to the treaty, open its nuclear program to outside supervision. It’s unprecedented for a U.S. president to sign on to a resolution that singles out Israel and ignores Iran, Syria and North Korea.

The most recent browbeating of Israel came when the president criticized Israel‘s blockade of Gaza as “unsustainable.” This administration does not understand the critical importance of the Gaza blockade. The terrorist organization Hamas has used Gaza as a launching pad for thousands of rockets that killed innocent civilians in Israel. The blockade helps keep weapons away from Hamas, saving lives in Gaza and Israel. Yet the American president sees fit to join the anti-Israel international chorus, which seeks little more than to tear down Israel‘s right and ability of self-defense.

Time and time again, the pattern is the same. The world is being sent a clear and unmistakable signal: This administration will not stand with Israel against the circling vultures. The Obama administration‘s policies are undermining our ally, emboldening Israel‘s enemies and making a Middle East war more, not less, likely. By endangering Israeli security, Mr. Obama is also making America less safe. Our alliance with Israel is not a liability; it is an asset. Together with other free nations, we are defending our shared values.

A group of respected world leaders and academic figures, including former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, met in Paris recently. They boldly asserted, “There is no West without Israel.” They are right. Israel is the “tip of the spear” of Western democratic values in a dangerous neighborhood of thugs, jihadists and dictators. The weakening of the Israeli nation does not help America. It puts us more at risk. Undermining a 62-year alliance with Israel doesn’t win friends for the U.S. – it makes every nation question the value of aligning with America. After all, if America will break with its most cherished ally, what other nation could rely on our promises?

We are entering dangerous waters. Iran is marching forward with its nuclear program. NATO member Turkey appears to have realigned against U.S. interests and toward a new alliance with Iran and Syria. The president’s policies toward Israel are damaging an alliance that now more than ever needs to be strong. Meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and treating him with respect this week was a good start. But much work still remains to be done.

Rep. Mike Pence is chairman of the House Republican Caucus, and Gary Bauer is the president of American Values and chairman of Campaign for Working Families.

Charles S. Robb and Charles Wald – Sanctions alone won’t work on Iran.

Friday, July 9, 2010

When President Obama signed into law tough, new legislative sanctions against Iran last week, he capped a month of new measures against that country’s nuclear program. Earlier in June, the Obama administration achieved a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, and the European Union declared plans to adopt additional sanctions in July. This activity, the culmination of months of political and diplomatic negotiations, is welcome. Absent a broader and more robust strategy, however, sanctions alone will prove inadequate to halt Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Congress’s Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act targets companies that sell, transport and insure gasoline to Iran, as well as financial institutions with ties to Iran’s nuclear program. We agree that ratcheting up pressure on Iran through all means available is essential. And yet, as CIA Director Leon Panetta recently conceded, these measures alone “probably” won’t be enough to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Similarly, even many supporters of the new U.S. law acknowledge that without multilateral participation and enforcement, Iran will continue to evade many of these new U.S. restrictions and acquire gasoline, albeit at higher cost, from suppliers and middlemen beyond the reach of U.S. law. Indeed, the U.N. sanctions do not prohibit selling Iran gasoline.

Even if they could put enough pressure on Iran to force a policy change, sanctions require time to take effect. Yet as Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium grows, the time for stopping its nuclear program rapidly dwindles. As we wrote in our just-released Bipartisan Policy Center report on Iran, two scenarios become increasingly likely in the coming months:

First, current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States. Contrary to a growing number of voices in Washington, we do not believe a nuclear weapons-capable Iran could be contained. Instead, it would set off a proliferation cascade across the Middle East, and Iran would gain the ability to transfer nuclear materials to its terrorist allies. Meanwhile, even as it continued to threaten Israel’s existence, Tehran would be able to dominate the energy-rich Persian Gulf, intensify its attempts to destabilize moderate Arab regimes, subvert U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, violently oppose the Middle East peace process, and increase support for terrorism across the region.

An Iran emboldened by nuclear weapons clearly might overstep its boundaries, pulling the Middle East and the United States into a treacherous conflict.

An even more likely scenario, however, is that Israel would first attack Iranian nuclear facilities, triggering retaliatory strikes by Iran and its terrorist proxies. This would put the United States in an extremely difficult position. If we remained neutral in such a conflict, it would only invigorate Tehran, antagonize our regional allies and lead to greater conflict. On the other extreme, the United States could be dragged into a major confrontation at a time not of its choosing.

With sanctions unlikely to be sufficient, a nuclear Iran strategically untenable and an Israeli strike extremely risky, we support a triple-track strategy that involves the simultaneous pursuit of diplomacy; sanctions; and visible, credible military readiness activity. This strategy is consistent with President Obama’s 2009 pledge at Camp Lejeune, N.C., “to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort. Indeed, publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely.

Instead, the administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear and supporting military facilities.

Many who condemned the Bush administration’s lack of transparency before the invasion of Iraq today discourage public discussion of military options concerning Iran. But we cannot afford to shirk this debate or dismiss it as warmongering; it is precisely a public recognition of a viable military option that could preclude its need.

We are not under any illusions: No risk-free solutions exist. Our triple-track strategy does not guarantee complete success. However, the likely alternatives are more alarming, with a perilous conflict involving a nuclear Iran becoming more probable each day. The stakes are too high to rely on sanctions and diplomacy without credibly preparing for a potential military strike as well. We cannot fall prey to the inertia of resignation. Bold U.S. leadership is required.

Charles S. Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, and Charles Wald, a retired general and air commander in the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom, are co-authors of the Bipartisan Policy Center report “Meeting the Challenge: When Time Runs Out.”

Netanyahu: Israel a Stabilizing Force in Middle East – Politics & Gov’t – Israel News – Israel National News.

by Maayana Miskin

Contrary to what some believe, Israel is actually the greatest source of stability in today’s Middle East, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said this week while speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that his statement “flies in the face” of what many have heard. As proof of his statement, he said, “Just imagine what would happen if we weren’t there. What would happen to some of our neighbors – I won’t spell it out.”

Israel “stops the brunt of an attack that is directed at some of our Arab neighbors and directed at others beyond the middle east,” he said.

// <![CDATA[if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}]]>

Netanyahu also discussed ties between the United States and Israel and the extensive intelligence and security cooperation between the two nations.

Obama tries diplomatic outreach to Israeli public.

Friday, July 9, 2010; 8:43 AM

The American people have gotten used to the Barack Obama soft sell, the casual sit-down interview with a popular television anchor that is designed to bring the president into the country’s living rooms, let him open up a bit.

The Israelis are just now finding this out.

The interview with Yonit Levi of Israel’s Channel 2 offered a more relaxed view of President Obama, far removed from the formal head-of-state picture that Israelis normally see.

This approach comes at a time when the White House is seeking to reassure Jews, both in Israel and this country, that the president is fully committed to Middle East peace and to the country of Israel. Those commitments have been strained by Obama’s disagreements with Israel’s leaders over settlement policy, the sometimes frosty exchanges with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the president’s outreach to Muslims and his own name.

Obama confronted those issues directly in the interview, saying that he understands the roots of the concerns, but said they are not founded.

“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel. My top political adviser is somebody who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors,” Obama said, seated in the Diplomatic Room in the White House. “Some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion. Some of it may have to do with the fact that I have actively reached out to the Muslim community, and I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there’s the feeling of ‘the friend of my enemy must be my enemy.’ ”

But, he added: “And the truth of the matter is, 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.”

The televised charm offensive comes on the heels of a well-choreographed visit by Netanyahu to the White House, where the visiting head of state was given all the bells and whistles usually afforded to close friends.

The outcome is important for Obama, politically and diplomatically.

As the president tries to broker peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it has become important for him to burnish his credibility in Israel, where his popularity had sunk to all-time lows. And in the United States, the notion that the relationship with Israel had grown chilly threatened support from a key constituency.

Obama told Levi that reports of any breakdown in the relationship between the two countries, and the two leaders, had been overblown. He called it an “impression that somehow there were more strains than there were.”

He acknowledged that the two countries sometimes have differences, including on the contentious issue of whether Jews should be allowed to continue building settlements in contested areas. But, he said, those disagreements are “always voiced not in the spirit of trying to undermine Israel’s security, but to strengthen it.”

During his meeting with Obama last week, Netanyahu reserved his strongest language for Iran, saying the possibility of that nation acquiring nuclear weapons is the biggest threat in the region and around the world.

But Obama expressed confidence that Israel would not surprise its American allies with an attack on Iran.

“I think that the relationship [between] the U.S. and Israel is sufficiently strong and that neither of us try to surprise each other but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern,” Obama said. “And that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.”

Asked about the historic nature of his presidency — an African American in the White House — he said it hadn’t hit him yet. And he said the thing that he misses most from his private life is anonymity.

“Taking walks,” he said. “There is a value to anonymity in terms of just being able to wander around, sit on a park bench, take your kids to get ice cream without having Secret Service and helicopters over you. That part of this life, I’ll never get used to. In fact, I remember when I first visited Jerusalem, I could wander through the Old City and haggle for some gifts to bring back to Michelle, or stand at the Wailing Wall, and people didn’t know who I was. And that is a profound pleasure that is very hard to experience now.”

Ex-CIA chief: Secrecy after attack on Syrian nuclear plant unjustified – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Hayden’s comments, published in a journal on intelligence published by the CIA, reflect a view different from that of Israel, which has not commented on the attack, widely attributed to its air force.

By Amir Oren

The secrecy surrounding the attack on the nuclear plant in eastern Syria in September 2007 was justified only for the period immediately after the operation, according to the CIA head at the time, Gen. Michael Hayden. That secrecy had been meant to save President Bashar Assad from embarrassment that could have provoked him to retaliate.

Hayden’s comments, published in a journal on intelligence published by the CIA, reflect a view different from that of Israel, which has not commented on the attack, widely attributed to its air force.

	Syria nuclear facility
	Photo by: Reuters / Archive

Before being appointed CIA head by George W. Bush, Hayden was a senior officer in the U.S. Air Force and head of the National Security Agency – the main signals-intelligence service in the United States. He resigned last February after President Barack Obama turned down his request to have his tenure extended by six months.

Some analysts were critical of the CIA’s release of information related to the air strike, and argued that the main motivation was for the organization to show an intelligence success following the failure to prevent the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

In the interview, Hayden was asked to explain his support for exposing the role of intelligence in unveiling the presence of the Syrian reactor.

“It was a very complex political problem,” he said. “First of all, when we became aware of it, it became very important to keep it secret. Arguably secret, because it had to be dealt with in a way that didn’t create a war in the Middle East. And the more public it became, the more difficult it would be for the Syrians to act responsibly. So no question that it needed to be kept secret.

“But after a time, after the facility had been destroyed, there were two lines working – because you had two bad actors here, the Syrians and the North Koreans,” Hayden said.

“With the Syrians, you needed to keep it secret, otherwise they might do something stupid if they were publicly embarrassed. With the North Koreans on the other hand, we were moving in the direction of a new arrangement with regard to things ‘nuclear,’ including proliferation.”

In the dispute between the two approaches, it appears that Hayden was right and those who advocated secrecy were wrong. Nearly three years after the strike and two years and three months since the CIA officially released the information, Syria did not do “something stupid” and Assad did not go to war.

Smiles and ambiguity – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The White House has pulled a 180 with regard to Netanyahu, coddling the prime minister instead of ostracizing him. Are Bibi and Barry now the best of pals, or just engaging in realpolitik?

By Aluf Benn

U.S. President Barack Obama completed a turnaround in his foreign policy this week. Last summer, he tried to be conciliatory with Iran and to pressure Israel. Now he is imposing sanctions on the Iranians and embracing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This about-face has not served to advance Obama’s goals so far: Iran is still pursuing its nuclear project and the establishment of a Palestinian state seems as distant as ever. But now the president can tell the international community, “I tried.”

	Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama following their White House meeting, July 6, 2010.
	Photo by: AP

The friendly reception accorded Netanyahu in the White House this week showed that the American president understands politics. After the “Ramat Shlomo crisis” during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem in March, the White House made a concerted effort to pressure Israel and condemn Netanyahu for “humiliating America.” But Congress rallied behind Netanyahu and most of its members called on the president not to engage in a public quarrel with an ally as important as Israel.

Senior figures in the Democratic Party urged Obama to treat Netanyahu well. Instead of the leaks from the White House about lack of trust and bad chemistry, we got Obama talking about “an excellent one-on-one,” praise for Netanyahu’s speech marking the Fourth of July and, most important, the president’s declaration, “I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace.”

With statements like that, Obama can approach Jewish donors and voters ahead of the midterm elections in November and show them that contrary to what they’ve said about him, he is an avowed supporter of Israel and the prime minister.

The White House is aware of Netanyahu’s unprecedented power in his second term as prime minister, with no underling clearly vying for his seat. Yitzhak Rabin had Shimon Peres, Netanyahu had Ariel Sharon and Sharon had Netanyahu, Yitzhak Shamir had a group of hardline ministers and Olmert was sniped at by Tzipi Livni. But no one in Likud poses a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership, no one is leaking anything against him and no one is trying to subvert him.

The opposition, too, is weak, diluted and waiting patiently on the threshold of the government without challenging Netanyahu.

Obama and his aides realize that they have to work with Netanyahu. They also know that any political agreement Netanyahu signs will get the sweeping support of 70 to 80 percent of the Israeli public. That recognition helped bring about Washington’s transition from bashing to caressing.

Netanyahu did his bit to change the American approach in two ways. He mobilized the pro-Israeli lobby to deflect the administration’s pressure and he yielded to Obama’s demands whenever the president was insistent. Thus Netanyahu accepted the two-state principle, froze construction in the settlements, quietly blocked building for Jews and demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and eased the Gaza blockade. All these decisions exacted no political price – and that, too, was noticed by the administration.

Obama on weapons control

The question now is where Obama and Netanyahu will pull their shared cart. From the prime minister’s point of view, the major achievement of the visit to Washington was getting public presidential backing for Israel’s nuclear policy. Since Golda Meir’s meeting with Richard Nixon in 1969, all presidents and prime ministers have been committed to a tacit understanding that Israel would cling to its policy of nuclear ambiguity and the United States would protect Israel against demands that it abandon its program.

In the past, these understandings were a deep secret and transmitted from generation to generation orally. Netanyahu asked for and received confirmation of them in writing from former president Bill Clinton in 1998, but the letter was not made public. Now, Obama has declared that weapons control initiatives will not impinge on Israel’s security and that only Israel has the right to decide what its security needs are.

Israeli sources say Obama also promised to further civilian nuclear cooperation with Israel, despite the policy of “ambiguity.” These assurances were preceded by lengthy negotiations between the national security adviser, Uzi Arad, and his White House counterparts. The immediate motivation for the policy shift was the international conference on nuclear weapons held in May, which ended with a call for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – in other words, to disable its nuclear capability.

The Obama administration voted in favor of the resolution and since then has been busy making clarifications and apologies to Israel.

But the conference was only the excuse. Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is being eroded and is crumbling because of the Iranian nuclear threat. As the experts anticipated, the more threatening Iran looks, the more Israel will aspire toward open deterrence. Obama prefers to publicly reinforce Israel’s deterrence, provide it with extensive military assistance and hold more security-coordination meetings, as opposed to having Netanyahu attack Iran.

Did Netanyahu promise that Israel will not launch a preemptive strike if it receives American guarantees for the maintenance of its deterrence? Or does Obama’s receptiveness indicate that the Americans have already reconciled themselves to the Iranian bomb and are now putting in place regional security arrangements for once they pass the fail-safe point?

Netanyahu has made the Iranian threat his top priority. Obama chose to open their joint press conference by talking about Gaza and praising Israel for easing the blockade. Maybe he thought it would be better to underline the modest achievement he extracted from the flotilla affair, or maybe he wanted to focus on an issue that is preoccupying world public opinion. The political process with the Palestinians was mentioned only later, and both leaders chose to concentrate on procedure – a quick transition from the indirect talks, which have gone nowhere, to direct talks – rather than on substance, which remains shrouded in fog and in vacuous peace phraseology.

Netanyahu carefully avoided uttering so much as a word deviating from the political right’s line, and his comments placed him firmly in the camp of Moshe Ya’alon and Benny Begin. Netanyahu warned that an Israeli withdrawal from the territories was liable to bring terrorism and rockets, as occurred in Gaza. He also called on the Palestinian Authority to alter its school textbooks. He promised only steps on the ground, without elaborating.

In a press briefing, he made it clear that these steps would not include the transfer of parts of Area C to the Palestinians so that they can build a road to their new city of Rawabi, near Ramallah. The settlers are adamantly against the Rawabi project, claiming the city will adversely affect the quality of the environment and their lives – and Netanyahu has the settlers’ interests in mind.

If Netanyahu and Obama moved from ambiguity to openness in the nuclear sphere, they maintained total ambiguity in regard to the settlements. Neither of them said what would happen when the construction freeze ends in September, beyond the expectation that by then direct talks will have begun between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The silence is understandable: Anything Netanyahu says now will be used against him. If he promises that the freeze will continue, he will infuriate the settlers and their supporters; if he says construction will resume, he will embarrass his new pal in the White House. The decision will be made and announced only at the last minute – and maybe after. It will be part of a package that includes the direct talks and a few bonuses for the Palestinians on the ground, in return for a thaw in the construction freeze in the big settlement blocs.

Even the most moderate ministers in the forum of seven do not support a total freeze, as the Palestinians are demanding, and will make do with stopping construction in isolated settlements.

But all this talk is about minor matters: direct or indirect talks, whether to continue the freeze and where. It does not bring peace and does not affect the quality of life of the Israeli public, which is totally indifferent to the contacts with Mahmoud Abbas and his aides.

The only political issue Israelis care about is the fate of Gilad Shalit. In this atmosphere, packaging and reception, smiles and body language far outweigh whatever details were discussed in private.

Iran to U.S.: No talks until you clarify stance on Israel nukes – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator suggested in a letter to the European Union’s foreign affairs chief this week that talks could be held as soon as September on issues including Tehran’s atomic program.

By Reuters

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the United States must make its position on Israel’s nuclear strategy clear before talks on Tehran’s atomic program could resume.

Sanctions imposed by “arrogant” Western powers would not slow Iran’s nuclear progress, he said.

	Technicians measuring parts of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant in this undated photo.
	Photo by: AP

The United States, Europe and the United Nations have imposed sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program. Iran says its aim is to generate electricity and rejects Western suspicions it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator suggested in a letter to the European Union’s foreign affairs chief this week that talks could be held as soon as September on issues including Tehran’s atomic program.

Speaking in Nigeria after a summit of the D8 group of developing nations, Ahmadinejad said Iran supported dialogue but blamed the United States for the failure of previous talks.

Asked what conditions must be met for talks to resume, Ahmadinejad said Washington must make its position on Israel’s nuclear strategy clear.

“The first condition is they should express their views about the nuclear weapons of the Zionist regime. Do they agree with that or not. If they agree that these bombs should be available to them, the course of the dialogue would be different,” he said.

Israel is widely assumed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the region but it refuses to confirm or deny having such weapons. It has usually been spared scrutiny by its guardian ally but the Obama administration alarmed Israel in May by backing an Egyptian initiative for talks in 2012 on a Middle East free of weapons of mass-destruction.

However, hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama echoed Israel’s veiled justifications for having the bomb and said Israel had “unique security requirements”.

The White House said Obama had further pledged to keep Israel, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, from being “singled out” at a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna in September as well as at the Egyptian-proposed regional conference.

Ahmadinejad, speaking to reporters through an interpreter, said the United States must also clarify its own commitment to non-proliferation and its position on its readiness to “resort to force”.

Iran is seeking closer trade ties with Africa and Ahmadinejad laced a speech to Nigerian academic, civil society and religious groups with parallels between African relations with ex-colonial powers and Iran’s own standoff with the West.

“The wealth they stockpiled came from the pockets of others. They have plundered and looted all the mines in Africa. They have plundered the labor force for hundreds of years,” he said.

It was a message that resonated with some of the audience at the gathering in Africa’s most populous nation of 140 million people, roughly equally divided between Christians and Muslims.

“They call the leaders of America leaders of the free world. We call you the leader of nations struggling for freedom,” said Shehu Sani, president of Nigeria’s Civil Rights Congress.

“Dr, Ahmadinejad is a role model, he is an inspiration.”

But Sani also tackled the Iranian leader about his public statements questioning whether the Nazi Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed across Europe had indeed occurred, comments which stirred tensions with Israel.

Ahmadinejad replied: “Why should they occupy the land of the Palestinian people. The people of Palestine committed no crime during World War Two.”