WarSclerotic

America’s third Middle Eastern war.

Acertain stream of thought about American foreign policy holds that “the Israel lobby” or “the Jewish lobby” or just “the Jews” control or manipulate the US, in part so that it will fight wars on behalf of Israel.

The accusation is hardly new.

The early 20th-century forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion also spoke of the Jews’ purported ability to “respond with the guns of America.” More recently, Operation Iraqi Freedom ostensibly provided evidence of this ongoing control, even though polls of American Jews in 2003 indicated that they supported the push for war less than did the general American population, and even though at least some Israeli officials reportedly advised against the invasion, having predicted many of its likely side effects, including the strengthening of Iran.

The latest version of this conspiratorial canard has Israel and its supporters agitating for an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent or delay that country’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Among their many claims, some more convincing than others, opponents of such a move typically point out that an attack would embroil the US in an unnecessary third war with a Muslim state.

THIS ARGUMENT reflects a fundamental misreading of the situation.

Air strikes on specific targets with the limited goal of damaging or destroying them is a far cry from the American invasions and lengthy occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, as the documents publicized recently through WikiLeaks demonstrate, Iran and the US already are at war.

The documents reinforce previous assessments, made public through media accounts, congressional testimony by military and diplomatic officials and Defense Intelligence Agency and Congressional Research Service reports, that Iran has played an important and active role in not just destabilizing Iraq, but in targeting American military personnel.

Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards al-Kuds Force and Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah have trained, equipped and directed Shi’ite Iraqi insurgents.

The New York Times and others have detailed some of these groups’ activities, which include the provision of sophisticated weapons systems (e.g., rockets, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles and explosively formed penetrators, the latter of which have been disproportionately lethal in roadside attacks against American forces); training in kidnapping, sniping and the use of explosives; and initiating and planning the assassinations of Iraqi officials.

In at least one case, Iranian soldiers allegedly engaged a joint American-Iraqi patrol on the Iraqi side of the border. Collectively, these actions are much more actively hostile than simply trying to undermine American foreign policy through diplomacy; Iran and the US are fighting a hot, or at least a warm war.

America’s involvement in Iraq has been much bloodier thanks to Iran’s efforts.

The “Israel lobby/wars of the Jews” crowd undoubtedly will see in Iranian involvement in Iraq a “natural” reaction to the war that Israel’s supporters “forced” on the US and its allies.

Or they will fantasize that without Israel as a US ally, there would be no enmity between Iran and the US. Certainly neither the WikiLeaks reports nor any other evidence will break the distorted, self-reinforcing logic of Jewish conspiracy theories.

Thoughtful, compelling arguments can be and have been made both for and against an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Concern that such an attack will start an Iranian- American war is not one of them. That war has been long under way, though today only one of the sides is armed with nuclear weapons.

The writers are research fellows at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 11, 2010, 6:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ahmad Yousef campaigns for Hamas-Iran bond

The Hamas government’s deputy foreign minister Dr. Ahmed Yousef is actively campaigning for the Gaza regime to form a strategic partnership with Iran on the same lines as the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah alliance.

debkafile‘s Middle East sources report that Yousef heads the radical Hamas’s “moderate” wing.

His initiative will certainly be welcomed in Tehran as extending the Iranian foothold on the eastern Mediterranean from Lebanon as far south as the Gaza strip. Iran would also gain a forward position close to Israel’s population centers, with leverage for expanding the wedge dividing Palestinian Hamas from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The ayatollahs would also be in place to threaten the stability of Jordan, where already Hamas-Damascus controls the local Muslim Brotherhood branch sufficiently to order its members to boycott last week’s parliamentary elections.

Finally, close ties between Gaza and Tehran will bolster the Palestinian extremists’ military and intelligence ties with Damascus and Hizballah. This will in turn boost the bloc led by Iran and Syria and add to its leverage for derailing any fence-building moves between the feuding Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah and perpetuate the division between the two Palestinian entities – one in Gaza and the other on the West Bank.

In any case, a further round of conciliation talks broke up in Damascus Wednesday, Nov. 10, without accord.

According to debkafile‘s sources, the Fatah delegation insisted that the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas be the sole sovereign authority for all security services in both territories.

For the first time, the Fatah delegation turned up with Palestinian security service officers from the West Bank – intelligence chief Gen. Majad Faraj and Preventative Security chief Col. Samir Rifai.

But the Hamas representatives demurred and instead demanded a “reconciliation and unification” to be drafted permitting each Palestinian faction to continue to rule its respective territory.

This dispute will decisively influence the US-sponsored talks between Israel and the Palestinians – if they ever take off. It means that the only accommodation attainable would be, at best, a partial one covering only the West Bank and a far cry from “the two nations living side by side in peace and security” goal aimed for by President Barack Obama and Secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

The tighter the prospective bond between Hamas and Iran, the farther it removes US policy objectives in the region.

Wednesday, Nov. 10, Ahmed Yousef was empowered by his superiors in the Hamas regime to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Gaza. He explained that the visit would “boost the morale of the resistance front here as did Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon.”

In a broadcast over Israeli TV’s Channel 2 that night, Arab Affairs commentator Ehud Yaari revealed that the Hamas official had laid the religious-ideological groundwork for his invitation with a new book entitled: The Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Distributed to Hamas leaders in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank as well as Gaza, the book’s subtitle is: The Dialectic of State and Nation in the Thought of the Imams al-Banna and Khomeini.

Its preface was written by Dr. Muhammad al-Hindi, head of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, a violent Palestinian organization sponsored by Tehran which must therefore have approved the publication.

The writer explains that the contemporary affinity between Tehran and Hamas is neither random nor born of a marriage of convenience but rather predestined by the common aspiration for the divine ideal of an Islamic state.

According to debkafile‘s sources, the evolving partnership between Hamas and Iran and its negative impact on the prospect of an Israel-Palestinian peace is the key determinant of the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians in recent weeks – not, as claimed in Washington and Jerusalem, the row which has sprung up over 1,300 new Israeli apartments in old-established East Jerusalem suburbs.

IDF strikes target in central Gaza Strip – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Aircraft, ground troops exchange fire with militants in Gaza; no injuries sustained by IDF soldiers.

By Haaretz Service

The Israel Defense Forces attacked a building in which armed militants were hiding in the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, the military’s spokesperson’s unit said.

According to the IDF, Israel Air Force aircraft and IDF troops fired at the building and a direct hit was confirmed. Militants returned fire but no injuries were sustained amongst the IDF troops.

	An IAF helicopter
	Photo by: Tal Cohen

The IDF said that militants had planted explosive devices earlier in the day and had planned to fire at IDF soldiers.

On Wednesday in the same area, two explosive devices targeting a passing IDF patrol exploded along the Gaza border fence. No injuries occurred in that incident.

Following Wednesday’s blasts, IDF helicopters were called in and are reported to have opened fire.

Army patrols later uncovered a third explosive device, which IDF sappers destroyed in a controlled explosion.

Palestinian media reported that the Islamic Jihad militant group had claimed responsibility Wednesday’s attack.

Iran plans to test own model of Russia S-300 missile – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Iran has developed a version of the Russian S-300 missile and will test-fire it soon, the official news agency IRNA said, two months after Moscow cancelled a delivery of the sophisticated system to Tehran to comply with United Nations sanctions.

	A Russian-made S-300 missile
	Photo by: Kremlin

“The Iranian (version) of the S-300 system is undergoing field modification and will be test-fired soon,” IRNA quoted Brigadier General Mohammad Hassan Mansourian, a commander in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday as saying..

World powers are locked in an eight-year-old stand-off with Iran over its nuclear energy program, which they believe will be used to develop nuclear bombs rather than be devoted to peaceful generation of electricity, as Tehran says.

Some Western officials suspect Iran’s development of more sophisticated missiles and some much-publicized missile tests could serve the goal of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon.

The Islamic Republic denies such accusations, saying its missile development efforts are for defensive purposes only.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev banned the delivery of the high-precision S-300 air defense system to Iran in September,scuttling a tentative deal in gestation for years, saying it would violate expanded UN sanctions imposed in June over Iran’s defiance of demands to curb its nuclear program.

Iranian officials said after Russia scrapped the sale that Tehran had decided to build its own model of the S-300.

“Buying S-300 missiles from the Russia was on the agenda to meet some of the security needs of our country,” said Mansourian. “But under the pretext of the (UN Security Council) resolution and due to American and Zionist pressure, Russia refused to deliver the defensive system.”

Scepticism

Pieter Wezeman, a researcher on military issues at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), said he was skeptical about Iran’s ability to build its own S-300.

“Producing such a system is an extremely complex thing to do. These are advanced systems which only have been produced by countries with a very extensive, well-functioning arms industry with a large industrial base,” Wezeman told Reuters.

The United States and Israel had urged Moscow to scrap the deal, fearing Iran could use S-300s to shield nuclear facilities that they suspect are part of an atomic bomb program.

U.S. and Israeli officials have not ruled out a pre-emptive attack to knock out Iran’s nuclear sites if diplomacy fails.

Iran this week offered world powers some dates for renewed talks but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday the disputed nuclear program would not be up for negotiation.

The Islamic Republic has warned that its response to any military attack would be crushing.

Iranian officials have criticized their Russian counterparts for unilaterally nullifying the S-300 sale contract.

A Russian official has said Moscow planned to pay back a e166.8 million advance payment made by Iran for the S-300.

Moscow’s support for a fourth round of UN sanctions was part of a gradual shift closer towards the tougher stance that the United States and European Union have taken towards Iran.

Russia, which has built Iran’s first civilian atomic power plant, backs Western efforts to make Iran prove its nuclear work is purely peaceful, but strongly opposes any use of force.

Israel Presses the U.S. to Get Confrontational with Iran – TIME.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; an Iranian nuclear power plant

From left: Jim Hollander / AFP / Getty Images; Atta Kenare / AFP / Getty Images

• Comment
• Print
• Email
• Reprints

• Facebook
• Twitter

• MORE

  • Add to my:

    • del.icio.us
    • Technorati
    • reddit
    • Google Bookmarks
    • Mixx
    • StumbleUpon

  • Blog this on:

    • TypePad
    • LiveJournal
    • Blogger

    <!–

    • WordPress

    –>

    • MySpace

• 0diggsdigg

The last time Israel’s Prime Minister asked the U.S. to bomb the nuclear facilities of one of its enemies, he was rebuffed. “I cannot justify an attack on a sovereign nation unless my intelligence agencies stand up and say it’s a weapons program,” President George W. Bush says in his new memoir, Decision Points, that he told Ehud Olmert in response to the then Israeli Premier’s request that he bomb a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria. And the CIA’s assessment was that while the Syrian facility appeared to be a nuclear reactor under construction, it did not believe Damascus had a nuclear-weapons program. (Israel itself eventually bombed the facility.) Bush’s rebuff of Olmert, however, hasn’t deterred current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from making a similar request to President Barack Obama on Iran.

Netanyahu met Sunday with Vice President Joe Biden in New Orleans, and, according to the Israeli leader’s aides, told Biden that the Obama Administration’s sanctions effort is not going to change Iran’s mind on the nuclear issue. “The only way to ensure that Iran will not go nuclear is to create a credible threat of military action against it if it doesn’t cease its race for a nuclear weapon,” Reuters reported one Netanyahu aide as telling Biden. “The economic sanctions are making it difficult for Iran, but there is no sign that the Ayatullah regime plans to stop its nuclear program because of them.” (Is Iran war rhetoric a self-fulfilling prophecy?)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded Monday with a clear rebuke, saying “sanctions are biting more deeply than they anticipated” and that he “would disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the steps it needs to” on its nuclear program. The Israelis are not wrong in arguing there’s no sign that Iran intends to change course despite the sanctions, and their skepticism of that reality changing in the future is widely shared by analysts. Still, the call for military action — because the “threat” of force can only be “credible” with a demonstrable readiness to follow through — continues to arouse skepticism in the U.S. military establishment, in which the consequences of starting a war with Iran are deemed potentially more dangerous than any threat currently posed by Iran’s nuclear program. And, apropos the threshold for action as stated by President Bush on Olmert’s Syria request, the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment is that while Iran is using its nuclear-energy program to give itself the means to produce nuclear weapons, it has made no decision to actually build such weapons.

Secretary Gates, like President Obama, insisted that the threat of force remains on the proverbial table. But the Obama Administration would have neither a legal basis nor much international support beyond Israel for initiating a new war in the Middle East that could have disastrous consequences for regional security and for the world economy — and would probably strengthen the regime’s hand at home and even its regional influence, which has grown steadily since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Will the midterm elections change Obama’s Iran policy?)

The Obama Administration and its allies are preparing to start a new round of negotiations with Iran, but the search for a diplomatic solution is bound to be protracted and its outcome is uncertain. So, the Israelis are clearly looking to turn up the pressure on Obama to prepare for war with Iran. And they could be helped by the outcome of last week’s congressional election. Influential South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Saturday urged President Obama to go beyond sanctions and take “bold” action against Tehran, warning that “containment is off the table.” (Containment refers to the idea that the U.S. and its allies ought to prepare a strategy, like that used against the Soviet Union, to limit the damage and the danger of a catastrophic war in a situation in which Iran succeeds in creating nuclear weapons.) Graham is just one of a number of GOP legislators pressing for confrontation with Iran. Should Tehran fail to back down, Graham advocates a U.S. military campaign “not just to neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. In other words, neuter that regime.”

That could be dangerous rhetoric if it were taken seriously by Iran: after all, fear of regime change is the most important reason the intelligence community believes Tehran would have for seeking a nuclear deterrent. But Graham’s comments were dismissed by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, as “a joke,” and he advised reporters not to take them seriously. Nor is that simply bravado: Iranian analysts believe that the U.S., given its travails in Iraq and Afghanistan, is in no position to launch a new war against a far stronger foe. (See pictures of smuggling between Iraq and Iran.)

There are some in Obama’s Administration who share the view that a credible threat of force in the nuclear standoff is essential if the use of force is to be avoided. But there are also skeptics. And issuing a credible threat of force becomes a zero-sum game, because the Iranians are unlikely to negotiate under a threat of coercion — either they blink or call the U.S.’s bluff, leaving the Iranians to either retreat in humiliation or plunge into a dangerous war. (Comment on this story.)

It’s already plain to see that being “soft on Tehran” will be a key trope used by Republicans aiming to prevent President Obama’s re-election in 2012, and any attempt at engagement of any sort with Iran will likely bring relentless attacks on Capitol Hill. That will certainly suit the Israeli leadership, who not only want to see a more confrontational U.S. position on Iran, but who also came into office insisting that Iran’s nuclear program, rather than peace with the Palestinians, should be Washington’s priority in the Middle East.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2030195,00.html#ixzz14unGilJp

American Thinker Blog: The coming attack on Iran.

Jerry Philipson

Walid Phares: Prosecute Hezbollah – WSJ.com.

There is no hope for Lebanon unless the U.N. and the West will enforce the tribunal’s findings on the Hariri assassination.

By WALID PHARES

In the coming weeks, the United Nations will indict the killers of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in its first-ever tribunal to try terrorists. As the international prosecutors of the Security Council’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon prepare to make their case on the February 2005 assassination, in which Hezbollah features prominently, the “Party of God” and its backers in Tehran and Damascus are once again taking off their gloves.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently visited Lebanon to show support for Hezbollah, indicating that Iran, and not only its minions, would act in the event of an adverse ruling. In June, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as well as Iran and Syria threatened the Lebanese government and Prime Minister Saad Hariri—son of the slain head of state—with dire consequences if they support indictments of the organization. Hezbollah threatened to stoke civil unrest and break up the government, which could spark another war with Israel and destabilize the entire region.

In the past five years, Hezbollah has shown that it usually makes good on its threats. Between July and December of 2005, a range of anti-Hezbollah lawmakers and journalists died or suffered grievous injuries in attacks across Lebanon, and bombings hit several anti-Syrian neighborhoods in Beirut.

In the first six months of 2006, Nasrallah claimed he was negotiating with Lebanon’s leaders to surrender his weapons, only to trigger a devastating war with Israel. After the war, Hezbollah unleashed more violence at home, killing Lebanese legislators, including the Sunni Walid Eido, the Christian Antoine Ghanem and Minister of Industry Pierre Gemayel, son of former President Amine Gemayel. In May 2008, Hezbollah mounted a full-fledged military invasion of West Beirut and parts of the Druze Mountains, which crumbled Fuad Siniora’s pro-Western government and propelled Hezbollah to the fore of Lebanon’s national security policy. Since then, no domestic force has been able to confront Hezbollah or pressure it into disarming.

Hezbollah has reason to fear the Special Tribunal, whose mandate covers more than the Hariri murder. It includes prosecuting the assassinations of Cedar Revolution leaders Samir Cassir, George Hawi, and Lebanese parliamentarian Jebran Tueni, as well as the bloody attempts against former Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade and journalist May Chidiac.

The U.N. originally established the tribunal as an international criminal court, comprised of judges from Lebanon and across the world, to prosecute the acts relating to Hariri’s assassination under Lebanese law. Under Chapter 7 of its charter, the U.N. is required to provide force to execute its decisions, if necessary, but it cannot do so without the support of the Lebanese government.

At the time, that would have been possible, as many Lebanese politicians publicly accused Syria’s Assad regime of the assassination, and observers predicted that the tribunal could even result in the indictment of Syrian officials. The Lebanese government was then headed by a pro-Western, anti-Syrian majority, and was modestly willing to push back against Hezbollah.

When Hezbollah invaded Beirut and toppled then-prime minister Fuad Siniora’s cabinet in May 2008, it brought in a new government headed nominally by Saad Hariri, but with a pro-Syrian President, General Michel Suleiman. It had also by then penetrated Lebanon’s security apparatus, giving Iran an implicit veto.

That’s why when the tribunal issues its verdict, the Lebanese government is unlikely to make any arrests. In preparation for the forthcoming showdown, Hezbollah has been hyperactive in identifying and arresting anyone it believes would support the indictments, branding them as Israeli spies, and agents of a “vast Zionist conspiracy.”

Thanks largely to bountiful Iranian aid, Hezbollah is winning its war against international justice. The Turkish government even suggested that the Special Tribunal postpone its decisions. And Lebanese officials, including traditionally anti-Syrian politicians, have been bullied into saying that they would consider any indictment of Hezbollah an act of aggression against the Lebanese Republic.

The message to those in the U.S. and Europe looking for “dialogue partners” should be clear: There are no moderates in Hezbollah. When the Special Tribunal issues its final verdict, let’s hope for Lebanon and the region’s sake that the U.N. and the West will have the courage to enforce the prosecutors’ findings.

Mr. Phares is the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Fox News contributor, and author of “The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2008).

AJC Mideast Briefing: “It’s Too Quiet” – American Jewish Committee.

Ed Rettig, Acting Director, AJC-Jerusalem

Like the cliché from an old Western film where the hero squints at the horizon and says “it’s too quiet,” General Amos Yadlin, the outgoing chief of Israel’s Military Intelligence, issued a warning in his recent briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He said, “The recent security calm is unprecedented but there should be no mistake that there are efforts [by elements] in the area to grow stronger.” Israel’s enemies are lying low for two reasons. First, the 2006 (Lebanon) and 2008 (Gaza) conflicts generated deterrence. But second, the current calm serves their purposes. They make use of the time to arm themselves with new weapons.

Retired General Giora Eiland noted the dangers that would confront Israel should a Palestinian state arise that was not completely demilitarized:

1. 1. Rockets and missiles of different varieties, positioned throughout the West Bank, would be able to reach the entire State of Israel.
2. 2. Advanced antiaircraft missiles would be capable of shooting down not only large passenger aircraft flying into Ben-Gurion Airport, but also helicopters and even fighter planes.
3. 3. Anti-tank missiles that are highly effective up to a range of 5 km. can easily cover strategic positions such as Israel’s north-south Highway 6 and other sites that are crucial to Israel’s defense.

Eiland points out that all these weapons are small and easily smuggled, so that demilitarizing a Palestinian state by depriving it of tanks and airplanes will not address the threat. Eiland urges revising the discussion of what constitutes “secure borders.” He specifically suggests thickening Israel’s narrow waist beyond its current 16 kilometers in order to allow a margin of safety and guarantee Israel’s internal lines of communications in the event of war.

Further complicating the situation is the Iranian nuclear program. While many assume that solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians will make it easier to deal with Iran, the inverse may be more accurate. Yadlin reports the Iranians now have enough enriched uranium to create one nuclear bomb and are well on the way to enriching enough for a second. Failing to deter or neutralize the Iranian nuclear program would make the current discussion of future borders largely irrelevant.

An Iranian nuclear weapon would mean that Israel must enhance its capacity to survive a first strike. Israel is particularly vulnerable because its population lives largely along the coast and many of its security resources are located there. To withstand a first strike Israel will have to move resources away from the coast. Since it is about the size of New Jersey, Israel does not have vast, empty lands to which it can disperse crucial facilities and population. The logical diredction for dispersal is Jerusalem. That is a Muslim holy city and is surrounded by 1.5–2.3 million West Bank Palestinians, and so is regarded as a less likely Iranian nuclear target. Thus, as Prof. Martin Kramer, a noted academic expert, expressed it: “… a nuclear Iran creates a dynamic where Israel, from a strategic point of view, is compelled to keep a tight grip on Jerusalem and a large swath of the West Bank for the simple reason that it creates a deterrent to an Iranian attack. If all our strategic assets are concentrated on the coastal plain around Tel Aviv, we’re vulnerable.”

Combining the analyses of Yadlin, Eiland and Kramer, we see how the concept of secure borders may become ever harder to define. Iranian nuclear-weapon capacity; a decline in the significance of demilitarizing Palestine of armor and airplanes; the rising importance of readily smuggled or manufactured missiles all elevate the strategic significance of much of Jerusalem and the West Bank, even as the Israeli public has shown disregard for the much discredited “greater Land of Israel” ideology.

This weakens the arguments supporting the feasibility of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish State of Israel behind “safe borders.” Conversely, it strengthens the hand of the pragmatic “security right” in Israel (as opposed to the “Greater Land of Israel” right). And it may well encourage a majority of Israelis, who tend toward pragmatism, to question their safety under current formulations of possible borders, such as those indicated by former President Clinton in his recent remarks on the 15th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Iranian nuclear-weapons capacity will alter Israel’s fundamental safety calculations that currently guide their negotiators.

So much hinges on the results of the U.S. initiatives to stop Iran’s nuclear program. If they succeed, we may yet have a peace accord in this region. If they fail, efforts at peace between Israel and the Palestinians may well be sent back to the drawing board.

Hamas invites Ahamdinejad to Gaza – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Islamist group calls on Iranian president to visit Strip after his October tour of Lebanon, however estimates say visit unlikely to take place

Dudi Cohen

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report November 8, 2010, 1:38 PM (GMT+02:00)

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates from Melbourne rapped Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s knuckles for his comment in New Orleans Sunday, Nov. 7, that “Iran must be made to fear a military strike against its nuclear program.” Gates shot back: “I disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the actions that it needs to end its nuclear weapons program.” He added, “We are prepared to do what is necessary but at this point we continue to believe that the political-economic approach we are taking is, in fact, having an impact on Iran.”

The defense secretary did not refer to the mounting US military buildup around Iran, described by debkafile‘s military sources on Nov. 7 (To read article click here).
Our Washington sources report that Obama administration leaders were irritated by Netanyahu bursting through an open door. The Obama administration is in the process of applying military pressure on Iran and resents the Israeli prime minister’s bid to force the pace beyond the carefully calibrated momentum.  As we reported, President Barack Obama not only ordered Iran to be put in a military vice but to do so in a way that was impossible for the rulers in Tehran and the ordinary Iranian to miss. The menacing military moves were to fall short at this stage of practical preparations for an attack.

As part of this strategy, two weeks ago, the White House requested the heads of NATO to draw up operational plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, stressing that those preparations must fall short of full-scale war, as first revealed in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 466 on Nov. 5, 2010.

Also in line with Obama’s new posture on Iran were the comments Sunday, Nov. 7, by influential Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina), member of the Armed Services and Homeland Defense committees. He said: “The US should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guards.” In an address to the Halifax International Security forum, he declared “They should neuter the regime…”

After Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki tried to pooh-pooh the senator’s remarks as a joke – “Don’t take the American senator’s remark too seriously. He wanted to joke” – word came back that Sen. Graham stood by his remarks.

Netanyahu on the other hand may have done more harm than good by stepping into this delicate United States process which is still in its early stage, say US sources. By speaking out of turn, he may have slowed it down.

Tehran, for its part, is sending mixed signals regarding the offer by the big powers – the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – to revive negotiations with Iran in Vienna Nov. 15-17.  Western diplomats have said the agenda must be updated to take into account Iran’s escalating uranium enrichment activity and growing arsenal of bomb-making materials.

Sunday, Mottaki suggested Turkey as the venue, in the hope of co-opting an ally to the forum, and adding the “Zionist regime’s nuclear arsenal” to the agenda. He admitted that nothing had been decided about the time, agenda or venue.
A day earlier, another Iranian official said the US could take its dream of negotiations to the grave unless it gave up its “hegemonic activities.”