WarSclerotic

U.S. envoy: Washington closely coordinating with Israel on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Ambassador Dan Shapiro rebuffs previous claims by U.S. officials that Israel would not alert Washington ahead of a strike on Iran.

By Barak Ravid

U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said Thursday that Washington has been fully cooperating with Israel when it comes to the Iran and its nuclear program.

“There is no issue that we coordinate more closely than on Iran,” Shapiro said during a briefing to reporters in Tel Aviv.

	PM Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro
	Photo by: Amos Ben Gershom, GPO

Shapiro’s comments come against the backdrop of uncertainty regarding the U.S.-Israeli coordination on a possible strike on Iran.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to take military action against Iran.

Shapiro, however, discounted these claims and asserted the close cooperation between Israel and the U.S.

“We believe Iran is pursuing a military nuclear capability and we are determined to stop it,” he added.

He also noted that Quartet envoys are due to arrive in Jerusalem next week and meet Israeli and Palestinian officials.

“We emphasize that the parties need to talk directly,” he urged.

Commenting on the recent elections in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood’s significant gains, Shapiro said that the U.S. expects that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty will be respected after elections in Egypt as well.

Analysis: The covert intelligence war against Iran – Business Intelligence Middle East – bi-me.com – News, analysis, reports.

Author: Scott Stewart
Source: Stratfor.com
Published: Thu December 8, 2011 11:59 am
INTERNATIONAL. There has been a lot of talk in the press lately about a “cold war” being waged by the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies against Iran. Such a struggle is certainly taking place, but in order to place recent developments in perspective, it is important to recognize that the covert intelligence war against Iran (and the Iranian response to this war) is clearly not a new phenomenon. Indeed, STRATFOR has been chronicling this struggle since early 2007. Our coverage has included analyses of events such as the defection to the West of Iranian officials with knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear program; the Iranian seizure of British servicemen in the Shatt al Arab Waterway; the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists; the use of the Stuxnet worm to cripple Iranian uranium enrichment efforts; and Iranian efforts to arm its proxies and use them as a threat to counteract Western pressure. These proxies are most visible in Iraq and Lebanon, but they also exist in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. While the covert intelligence war has been under way for many years, the tempo of events that can readily be identified as part of it has been increasing over the past few months. It is important to note that many of these events are the result of hidden processes begun months or even years previously, so while visible events may indeed be increasing, the efforts responsible for many of them began to increase much earlier. What the activities of recent months do tell us is that the covert war between Iran and its enemies will not be diminishing anytime soon. If anything, with the current withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Iranian nuclear efforts continuing,we likely will see the results of additional covert operations — and evidence of the clandestine activity required to support those operations. Ramping Up All eyes were on this covert intelligence war after The New York Times published an article Jan. 15 reporting that the United States and Israel worked together to create and launch Stuxnet against the Iranian nuclear program. The visible events related to the intelligence war maintained a relatively steady pace until Oct. 11, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced that two men had been charged in New York with taking part in a plot by the Iranian Quds Force to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, on U.S. soil. In early November, a  new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report was issued detailing Iranian efforts toward a nuclear weapons program. While this report did not contain any major revelations, it did contain new specifics and was more explicit than previous IAEA reports in its conclusion that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA report resulted in an Israeli-led diplomatic and public relations campaign urging more effective action against Iran, ranging from more stringent sanctions to military operations. Then, in the early afternoon of Nov. 12, explosions occurred at an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ballistic missile base near Tehran, killing 17 people, including a high-ranking IRGC commander who was a critical figure in Iran’s ballistic missile program. Iran has insisted the blast was accidental, but speculation has since spread that the explosion could have been part of a sabotage operation carried out by Israeli intelligence. Israeli intelligence officials also have undertaken not-so-subtle efforts to ensure that outside observers believe they were responsible for the blasts. Later on Nov. 12, the Bahraini government went public with the discovery of an alleged  plot involving at least five Bahrainis traveling through Syria and Qatar to carry out attacks against government and diplomatic targets in Bahrain. Iran vehemently denied it was involved and portrayed the plot as a fabrication, just as it responded to the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador. The next day, the Iranian press reported that Ahmad Rezai, the son of Mohsen Rezai — who is the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, a former IRGC commander and a presidential contender — was found dead at a hotel in Dubai. The deputy head of the Expediency Council told the Iranian press that the son’s death was suspicious and caused by electric shocks, while other reports portrayed the death as a suicide. On Nov. 20, the Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials confirmed the CIA had suspended its operations in Lebanon following the arrest of several of its sources due to sloppy tradecraft on the part of CIA case officers assigned to Beirut. Following this report, the Iranian government announced that it had arrested 12 CIA sources due to tradecraft mistakes. We have been unable to determine if the reports regarding Lebanon are true, merely CIA disinformation or a little of both. Certainly, the CIA would like the Iranians to believe it is no longer active in Lebanon. Even if these reports are CIA spin, they are quite interesting in light of the Oct. 11 announcement of the thwarted assassination plot in the United States and the Nov. 12 announcement of the arrests in Bahrain. On Nov. 21, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a new wave of sanctions against Iran based on the aforementioned IAEA report. The new sanctions were designed to impact Iran’s banking and energy sector. In fact, the United Kingdom took the unprecedented step of totally cutting off Iran’s Central Bank from the British financial sector. The Canadian government undertook similar action against the Central Bank of Iran. On Nov. 28, there were unconfirmed press reports of  an explosion in Esfahan, one of Iran’s largest cities. These reports were later echoed by a STRATFOR source in Israel, and U.S. sources have advised that explosions did occur in Esfahan and that they caused a significant amount of damage. Esfahan is home to numerous military and research and development facilities, including some relevant to Iran’s nuclear efforts. We are unsure which facilities at Esfahan were damaged by the blasts and are trying to identify them. Elsewhere on Nov. 28, Iran’s Guardians Council, a clerical organization that provides oversight of legislation passed by Iran’s parliament, approved a bill to expel the British ambassador and downgrade diplomatic relations between the two countries. The next day, Iranian protesters stormed the British Embassy in Tehran, along with the British Embassy’s residential compound in the city. The angry — and well-orchestrated — mob was protesting the sanctions announced Nov. 21.  Iranian authorities did not stop the mob from storming either facility. On Dec. 1, the European Union approved new sanctions against some 180 Iranian individuals and companies over Iran’s support of terrorism and its continued nuclear weapons program. The European Union did not approve a French proposal to impose a full embargo on Iranian oil. In the early hours of Dec. 4, a small improvised explosive device detonated under a van parked near the British Embassy building in Manama, Bahrain. The device, which was not very powerful, caused little structural damage to the vehicle and none to the building itself. The next day, an unnamed U.S. official confirmed Dec. 4 reports from several Iranian news outlets that Iran had recovered an RQ-170 “Sentinel” unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Iranian territory. The Iranian reports claimed that Iranian forces were responsible for bringing down the Sentinel — some even said the Iranians were able to hack into the UAV’s command link. U.S. officials have denied such reports, and it is highly unlikely that Iran was able to take control of a UAV and recover it intact. Outlook The United States is currently in the process of completing the withdrawal of its combat forces from Iraq. With the destruction of the Iraqi military in 2003, the U.S. military became the only force able to counter Iranian conventional military strength in the Persian Gulf region. Because of this, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create a power vacuum that the Iranians are eager to exploit. The potential for Iran to control a sphere of influence from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean is a prospect that not only frightens regional players such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but also raises serious concerns in the United States. As we have noted before, we don’t believe that a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities alone is the answer to the regional threat posed by Iran. Iran’s power comes from its ability to employ its conventional forces and not nuclear weapons. Therefore, strikes against its nuclear weapons program would not impact Iran’s conventional forces or its ability to interfere with the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz by using its conventional forces asymmetrically against U.S. naval power and commercial shipping. Indeed, any attack on Iran would have to be far broader than just a one-off attack like the June 1981 Israeli strike at Osirak, Iraq, that crippled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program. Because of this difficulty, we have seen the Israelis, Americans and their allies attacking Iran through other means. First of all, they are seeking to curb Iran’s sphere of influence by working to overthrow the Syrian regime, limit Syria’s influence in Iraq and control Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are also seeking to attack Iran’s nuclear program by coercing officials to defect, assassinating scientists and deploying cyberwarfare weapons such as the Stuxnet worm. It is also necessary to recognize that covert action does not occur in a vacuum. Each covert activity requires a tremendous amount of clandestine intelligence-gathering in order to plan and execute it. With so much covert action happening, the clandestine activity undertaken by all sides to support it is obviously tremendous. But as the frequency of this activity increases, so can sloppy tradecraft. Finally, as we examine this campaign it is remarkable to note that not only are Iran’s enemies using covert methods to stage attacks on Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities, they are also developing new and previously unknown methods to do so. And they have shown a willingness to allow these new covert attack capabilities to be unveiled by using them — which could render them useless for future attacks. This willingness to use, rather than safeguard, revolutionary new capabilities strongly underscores the importance of this covert campaign to Iran’s adversaries. It also indicates that we will likely see other new forms of covert warfare emerge in the coming months, along with revolutionary new tactical applications of older forms. This article is republished with permission fromSTRATFOR. © 2011 STRATFOR. All rights reserved Disclaimer: This article is sourced direct from a third party news provider as an additional service to our readers. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by Business Intelligence Middle East. RELATED ARTICLES Geopolitical analysis: Syria, Iran and the balance of power in the Middle East Viewpoint: Playing ‘what if?’ with oil prices and a potential strike on Iranian nuclear facilities Iran downs US drone, threatens reprisal Iran sanctions update: Banking sector sanctioned Analysis: Dubai traders fear sanctions impact on Iran business UK orders closure of Iranian Embassy over Tehran attack ‘Deep, increasing concern’ on Iran, says IAEA resolution Saudi Arabia wants UN vote on assassination plot US election ups risk of Israeli strike on Iran, says expert Analysis: Countering Iran in the covert world

israel today | Iran, Israel prepare for war – israel today.

IDF holds search, rescue drill in south – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Home Front Command simulates attack on southern town; troops practice dealing with collapsed buildings

Yoav Zitun

The IDFheld a search and rescue drill in the south this week, preparing for future missile barrages, terror attacks and other doomsday scenarios that could destroy buildings and trap citizens.

The exercise took place in a large demolition site that posed as an Ashkelon neighborhood and simulated missile attacks on a mall and a nursing home, as well as a car bomb explosion at an underground parking garage.

Drill at demolition site (Photo: Roee Idan)

Two Home Front Command brigades took part in the training session, practicing cooperation with the police, fire and Maged David Adom forces who were first to respond on the disaster scene. The troops trained on fake victims hysterical residents who arrived in an attempt to locate their loved ones. Bulldozers and cranes were used in the rescue operation

“Working at such destruction sites is sensitive, complex and requires a high level of professionalism,” the deputy commander of the Abu Gosh unit, Amaad Jabar. said. “We are using small engineering tools to get those who are trapped out as fast as possible.”

IDF officials said that while no buildings collapsed during the Second Lebanon War and in the recent rocketattacks from the Gaza Strip, it was important to prepare for such a possibility.

“We realize that we will have to deal with greater challenges, because the enemy’s weapon arsenal is bigger,” Colonel Yoram Lev-Oren said.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report December 8, 2011, 11:28 AM (GMT+02:00)

US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone

The Obama administration’s decision after internal debate not to send US commando or air units into Iran to retrieve or destroy the secret RQ-170 stealth drone which fell into Iranian hands has strengthened the hands of the Israeli faction which argues the case for striking Iran’s nuclear installations without waiting for the Americans to make their move.

Senior Israeli diplomatic and security officials who followed the discussion in Washington concluded that, by failing to act, the administration has left Iran not only with the secrets of the Sentinel’s stealth coating, its sensors and cameras, but also with the data stored in its computer cells on targets marked out by the US and/or Israeli for attack.

debkafile’s military sources say that this knowledge compels the US and Israel to revise their plans of attack for aborting the Iranian nuclear program.
Like every clandestine weapons system, the RQ-170 had a self-destruct mechanism to prevent its secrets spilling out to the enemy in the event of a crash or capture. This did not happen. Tehran was able to claim the spy drone was only slightly damaged when they downed it.
The NATO spokesman claimed control was lost of the US UAV and it went missing, a common occurrence for these unmanned aircraft.
The enigmas surrounding its capture continue to pile up. How did Iran know the drone had entered its airspace? How was it caused to land? Most of all, why did the craft’s self-destruct mechanism which is programmed to activate automatically fail to work? And if it malfunctioned, why was it not activated by remote control?

Thursday, Dec. 8, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that from Sunday, Dec. 4, when Tehran announced the stealth drone’s capture, the Obama administration weighed sending special commando forces into Iran from bases in Afghanistan to bring the downed aircraft back to Afghanistan or blow it up to destroy the almost intact secret systems – either by a sneak operation or by an air strike.

Iranian officials said the drone was detected near the Iranian town of Kashmar, 200 kilometers from the Afghan border and presumably moved to a military or air base inside the country. The NYT disclosed that the special force would have used “allied agents inside Iran” to hunt down the missing aircraft, the first time Washington has admitted to support from “allied agents” operating covertly in Iran.

In the end, the paper quoted a US official as explaining that the attack option was ruled out “because of the potential it could become a larger incident.” If an assault team entered the country, the US “could be accused of an act of war” by Tehran.
The Obama administration’s internal discussion on how to handle the loss of the high-value reconnaissance drone was followed tensely in Jerusalem. The decision it took against mounting a mission to recover or destroy the top-secret Sentinel was perceived in Israel as symptomatic of a wider decision to call off the covert war America has been conducting for some months against Iran’s drive for a nuclear bomb – at least until the damage caused by RQ-170 incident is fully assessed.
A senior Israeli security official had this to say: “Everything that’s happened around the RQ-170 shows that when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program, the Obama administration and Israel have different objectives. On this issue, each country needs to go its own way.”

Home Front Command Continues War Drill – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Home Front Command emergency drill

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Home Front Command continued its efforts to prepare Israel’s citizens for whatever may soon come their way from surrounding Arab nations, as well as from its enemies within, be that war, or peace. The IDF continued testing air raid sirens Thursday with drills in the north and in Jerusalem.

The first test was conducted in the Galilee at about 10:00 a.m., and in one school in the Tzfat area, a number of students went into a panic, not realizing the siren wasn’t real.

“They didn’t let the school know! Why didn’t they let the school know?” a student exclaimed in an interview with Arutz Sheva following the drill.

“Two girls panicked, and then we walked quickly downstairs to the dorm mother,” she continued. The student requested anonymity since she was not authorized to speak to media.

“We didn’t go to the shelter,” she added, admitting that because several other students had figured out that it was probably a drill, they had decided “there was no need.”

Still, she said, “There are girls here from all kinds of places in the country, who live in places where rockets have exploded and who could have been traumatized by this. The students should have been told,” she contended.

Earlier this week, a similar drill was conducted in communities in southern Israel, in Israel’s northeastern Negev region, and in the upper Galilee the day before.

Late last month, terrorists in southern Lebanon fired a barrage of four Katyusha missiles at northern Israel in an attack that military analysts reviewed to determine whether it might be a harbinger of things soon to come. One struck a gas tank, which exploded. A second struck a chicken coop in an agricultural community. Two others landed in open areas. Although there was damage and people were traumatized, no one was physically injured. The IDF returned fire to the source.

Pierre Atlas: All anxious eyes on Iran | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com.

Iran’s determination to acquire the technology to create nuclear weapons poses a global threat. While it may be “rational” for Iran to want nuclear weapons — given its geography and the presence of U.S. forces in the region — the extreme belligerence of the Islamic regime makes any such desires highly dangerous and destabilizing.

According to last month’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has conducted computer simulations of nuclear explosions and has been developing designs for nuclear detonators and for attaching nuclear warheads to missiles. Given Iran’s extensive uranium enrichment and nuclear research and development programs, and its years of duplicity toward the IAEA and the international community, it is highly likely that Iran is seeking the capacity to build nuclear weapons. The idea of Iran armed with “nukes” makes many people nervous.

From the moment the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded in 1979, it has identified Israel as its enemy. Iran funds, arms and trains Hezbollah in Lebanon and is a major source of support for Hamas in Gaza — militant Islamist groups that are committed to Israel’s destruction. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well known for his outrageous threats to remove Israel from the map. Even if his words are just empty rhetoric, given the tense atmosphere, they feed into the belief in Israel and elsewhere that Iran seeks to acquire nuclear weapons in order to attack the Jewish state. Israel views Iran as an existential threat, and that is why the current as well as previous Israeli governments have contemplated the possibility of military strikes to prevent — or at least delay — Iran from acquiring nukes.

Israel is not the only country in the region that fears a nuclear Iran. Many Sunni Arab leaders believe that Iran’s radical Shiite regime is trying to establish a “Shiite Crescent” across the Arab world, stretching from the Persian Gulf and Iraq to Lebanon. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, Iraq had been the main deterrent to Iran. As a retired Jordanian general asked me in Amman several years ago, “Who is going to deter Iran now? Is the U.S. going to stay in Iraq forever?” Today, with U.S. forces withdrawing from Iraq, the general’s apprehension rings even more true. Sunni fears of Iran sparked Saudi Arabia’s decision a few months ago to send troops into Bahrain (which is 70 percent Shiite) to help Bahrain’s Sunni monarchy crush the largely Shiite pro-reform movement there. A nuclear-armed Iran would be all the more intimidating.

It is widely believed that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the mid-1960s. This decades-old reality has not caused instability in the region. But should Iran come closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, major Arab states and perhaps Turkey may all seek to start their own nuclear weapons programs for deterrence, leading to a nuclear arms race in one of the world’s most volatile and dangerous regions.

Israeli or U.S. military action would only delay and not eliminate Iran’s geographically dispersed nuclear project. Should Iran be attacked, that country’s pro-democracy forces would be marginalized and the main beneficiary would be the regime’s hard-liners. Iran could respond by having its ally Hezbollah launch a new war against Israel from Lebanon — and Hezbollah is now armed with thousands of Iranian-supplied long-range missiles. Iran could blockade the Straits of Hormuz, through which flows 90 percent of Persian Gulf oil. The resulting spikes in oil prices could cripple the global economic recovery.

The best way to avoid such dangerous scenarios is to impose targeted, debilitating sanctions that will make the costs of Iran’s nuclear project economically and politically prohibitive. So far Russia and China have opposed United Nations Security Council sanctions, but as Iran’s bellicosity — and its international isolation — steadily increases, persuasive diplomacy by the U.S. and Europe might convince those two powers to come around. An Islamic Republic of Iran armed with nuclear weapons is against every country’s interests, including Russia’s and China’s. If robust, international sanctions are not imposed, then a risky nuclear arms race in the Middle East — and, possibly, military strikes that could destabilize the region and damage the global economy — might result instead.

Atlas is an associate professor of political science and director of The Richard G. Lugar Franciscan Center for Global Studies at Marian University. Contact him at patlas@marian.edu.

Asia Times Online :: War clouds gather in the Middle East.

By Victor Kotsev

An all-out war in the Middle East is hardly in anybody’s interest, yet it may happen, either as an escalation of a lower-intensity conflict, or because one of the sides miscalculates or is pushed into a corner.

A more localized outbreak, for example in Gaza or in parts of Syria, is considerably more likely, given the incredible buildup of arms and words in the region; in the mid-term, an American-backed or led attack on Iran is not inconceivable, as the wheels of both bureaucracy and rhetoric are clearly rolling in that direction.

Outward “signs” coming from the region are clearly not peaceful. Syria is becoming ever less stable, Hezbollah is restive, and the Gaza Strip has accumulated more weapons than ever before (and an all-but-open rivalry has developed between the ruling Hamas

and the more tightly aligned with Iran second-largest militant organization there, Islamic Jihad).

Iran is seething – some of the latest developments include an attack on the British Embassy, a reported downing of an American stealth drone, and a couple of major explosions that reportedly obliterated a key Iranian missile testing base and damaged nuclear installations near the city of Isfahan. [1]

Israel is rapidly expanding its capacity to mitigate the impact of its enemies’ most formidable offensive weapons – missiles. A couple of weeks ago, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported, Israel received additional Patriot anti-missile systems from “a friendly country”. [2]

If confirmed, this acquisition would suggest an extraordinary step taken by the Israeli government in the face of an imminent threat (one memory it brings up is of the Gulf War, when the United States stationed Patriot missiles in Israel to counter the threat of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds).

Meanwhile, a third Iron Dome battery (against short-range missiles) has also reportedly been deployed by the Israeli Defense Forces in the past month or so. [3] During the last significant flare-up in October, Israel only had two functioning batteries, one of which failed to deploy immediately.

The Israelis have turned their anti-Iran rhetoric up to what seems a maximum in the past weeks. Given that past Israeli military operations relied on surprise, this circumstance likely suggests that an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program is not imminent, but also that Israel is building up its case before the international community, justifying an attack in the future.

“We can’t wait and say – we’ll see if they have a bomb, and then we’ll act,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak commented recently, responding to American pressure to hold off from an attack. “What if by then we will not be able to act?” [4] In the past few days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also directed a new round of veiled threats at Iran. [5]

Despite all the threats, Israel is understandably reluctant to engage in an operation on its own – especially right now, while it is still taking delivery of new anti-missile technology. A fourth Iron Dome battery, critical against the formidable short-range missile arsenal of pro-Iranian militants in Lebanon and Gaza, is expected early next year, to be followed several months later by a fifth (Israel needs around 15 for near-complete protection on all fronts, so every installation counts).

Some time in 2012, moreover, the new Arrow 3 exo-atmospheric anti-ballistic missile system, one of the most advanced in the world, is scheduled to be unveiled. It is as good an answer to Iran’s ballistic missile threat as any, and if that is forthcoming, it may be worth waiting for.

This timeline seems consistent, moreover, with the time frame for an Israeli attack by the second half of next year circulated by Israeli media and critics of such an attack, such as the influential former Mossad (Israeli spy service) director Meir Dagan, and attributed to Barak. [6]

In the meantime, while arming itself (and basking in the warmth of American generosity), Israel can sit back and allow a kind of war of attrition to go on. Sanctions wear down the Iranian economy, civil unrest wears down the Iranian allies in the region (specifically Syria, and indirectly Hezbollah), and sabotage and missteps wear down the Iranian nuclear and missile program. The much-rumored Israeli cyber-warfare program may yet offer new surprises, and set the Iranian military programs further back. [7]

A war in Gaza, however, is considerably more likely in the next months. It could be provoked (like several other recent violent episodes near Gaza) by Islamic Jihad, a militant organization considered Iran’s pawn and the major rival of Hamas in the Strip. There are increasing recent reports of tensions between Iran and Hamas, with the latter reportedly planning to pull out of Syria. [8]

As Israeli journalist Amir Oren suggests, Israel may also have a motivation to expedite a war in Gaza that it may see as inevitable, in light of the Egyptian elections and the likelihood that the next Egyptian government would be hostile to any Israeli military operation in the Strip. [9]

The United States, on the other hand, is coming under ever greater pressure to do something about the Iranian nuclear program. Its diplomatic initiatives are in disarray, new rounds of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council were rejected by Russia and China, and the American allies in the Middle East are showing increasing signs of impatience.

The military option is increasingly looking like the only way to resolve the crisis while maintaining a measure of control over the situation. A number of top American officials now publicly acknowledge that they are not sure if Israel will not surprise them with an air strike that could bring disastrous consequences. Saudi Arabia, moreover, is now all but publicly threatening to join the nuclear arms race if nothing is done against Iran. [10]

Though it can be difficult to gain detailed insight into American administrations – the current one included – it is a big and cumbersome bureaucracy that in many aspects functions according to broad policies that are hard to change and to resist, even by top officials.

Thus, whether we believe that former US president George W Bush was behind the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 (which claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003) [11] or not, it more or less tied his hands.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran last month, which showed that estimate wrong, is bound to put pressure on current President Barack Obama to attack, whatever his personal inclinations are.

Notes
1. Report: Blast at Isfahan damaged nuclear facility, Ynet, November 30, 2011.
2. Iran’s Khamenei presents war scenarios, Ynet, November 25, 2011.
3. US may buy Iron Dome to defend ME bases, Jerusalem Post, December 1, 2011.
4. Barak: We can’t wait until Iran has nuclear bomb, Ha’aretz, December 3,2011.
5. Netanyahu’s history lesson hints at Israeli strike on Iran, Ha’aretz, December 4, 2011.
6. Former Mossad chief briefed comptroller about Iran strike plans, Ha’aretz, December 2, 2011.
7. Insight: Did Conficker help sabotage Iran’s nuke program?, Reuters, December 2, 2011.
8. Iran threatening to cut Hamas funds, arms supply if it flees Syria, Ha’aretz, December 5 2011.
9. Egypt turmoil may prompt Israel to strike Gaza, , Ha’aretz, December 27, 2011.
10. ‘Saudi Arabia may join nuclear arms race’, Ynet, December 5 2011.
11. Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?, Time, December 4, 2007.

Victor Kotsev is a journalist and political analyst.

It’s time Israelis trust Netanyahu and Barak on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Adopting foreign interests influences the crucial debate over the Iranian nuclear threat.

By Israel Harel

Islamic ascendancy intensifies US… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

    Ironically, US President Barack Obama portrays himself as a friend of Israel while soliciting funds from Jewish donors, but two senior members of his team provided chilling insights to what Israel may expect should the current administration be returned to office.

After reaffirming that the US retains “an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta crudely told a Brookings Institution forum that it was high time for Israel to “get to the damn negotiating table.” He ignored the fact that even after a 10-month settlement freeze, the Palestinians had refused to engage in direct negotiations with Israel.

Panetta’s repetition of the mindless mantra that Israel is “partly” responsible for its diplomatic isolation and his demand for further Israeli unilateral concessions to end the conflict would certainly be welcomed by the Arabs as an extension of their long-term strategy to dismantle the Jewish state in stages.

Furthermore, Panetta’s demand for Israel to “reach out to mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability,” specifically with Turkey and Egypt, failed to address either Israel’s extraordinary efforts to retain good relations with Egypt, despite the ascendancy of jihadist groups there or the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now openly allied with the genocidal Hamas. For a US secretary of defense to implicitly blame Israel for the erosion of relations with these countries is simply outrageous.

Finally, the secretary warned Israel that if Jerusalem acted alone in relation to Iran, it would place America in an unenviable position, cost many lives and lead to global economic chaos. As former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams observed afterward, Panetta eased Iranian concerns by effectively nullifying longstanding American statements that “all options are on the table” to curb the nuclear threat.

PANETTA’S ADDRESS was followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pontificated on Israel as a democratic state criticizing proposed legislation in Israel that would limit foreign funding for nongovernmental organizations.

This issue has indeed generated a great deal of controversy in Israel, but it is unprecedented and inexcusable for an American official to become involved in a domestic Israeli debate or to publicly criticize the government of a purportedly close ally. This is especially true in light of the fact that Clinton has hardly been forthright in condemning human rights violations or anti-Semitic outbursts in Muslim countries or by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. As these groups emerge as the new dominant forces in these countries, her silence in this matter is deafening.

Even more disconcerting were Clinton’s remarks concerning a marginal number of misguided Israeli soldiers who sought to boycott events in which female singers participated. This issue, and the clumsy manner in which it was handled by the IDF, has admittedly distressed many Israelis. But what business is it of the secretary of state, again – especially when she cannot bring herself to address women’s rights in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? Furthermore, her comparison of this episode with the segregation of African-Americans in the 1950s does not merely reflect her ignorance. That, and her comment that this Israeli behavior reminded her of the way Iranians treated women, is downright offensive.

Finally, Washington’s ambassador to Belgium, a former major Jewish fundraiser for Obama named Howard Gutman, told European Jewish leaders and lawyers that “a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The innuendo was that Muslim anti-Semitism is a by-product of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East, and therefore, can be understood and implicitly justified. It is of note that these sickening remarks were made by the US ambassador to one of the most anti-Israeli countries in Europe, Belgium.

THESE OUTBURSTS signal that despite favorable public opinion and congressional support, Israel continues to face hostility and difficulties from the US administration. Senior officials like secretaries Panetta and Clinton do not make comments like these without the backing of the president.

The timing of these provocative outbursts – concurrent with the radical Islamist tide sweeping across North Africa – makes them especially reprehensible. Egypt’s election victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi groups mean Israel’s worst fears have been realized – the country is now surrounded by a ring of fanatic, hostile Islamic states. The Muslim Brotherhood, creator of Hamas, is an outright jihadist organization whose charter unequivocally calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews.

In this context, it is exasperating and sickening to be subjected to delusional spins by Western politicians and liberal media suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood has turned a new page, is now tolerant and, to quote some US administration officials, is even in the process of becoming “secular.”

In addition, the only issue over which Sunnis and Shi’ites have been able to overcome their passionate differences is their frenzied hatred of Israel. From Sunni Arab Egypt to Shi’ite Persian Iran, the anti-Semitic propaganda that is published in the state-run media of every country in the Islamic Middle East is indistinguishable from the vilest Nazi propaganda. But again, this is an issue that is off the radar for the Obama administration.

IT BEHOOVES the president, and other Western leaders, to take note of the fact that in the Islamic grand order, Israel and the Jews are merely the “canary in the mine” and represent a minor component of their global ambitions. An Islamic victory over Israel and murder of all its Jewish citizens would not ease tensions. Rather to the contrary: it would embolden Islamists towards their goal of conquering Europe and ultimately the world.

Israel can do little to influence the course of events in the Arab countries and its leaders have wisely stood aside, but the time has surely come for the Obama administration to recognize that its policies of appeasement have led to disastrous consequences. Instead of trying to mollify Islamists by distancing themselves and making one-sided criticisms against Israel, they should gird themselves for a long-term struggle against fanatical Islamists who have been conditioned into believing that they can best achieve their global objectives through intransigence and intensification of violence.

American Jews can make an important contribution in this area. Yet alas, most of their leaders fail to condemn these reprehensible remarks directed against Israel by leading Obama Administration officials. While as expected, the Zionist Organization of America and the Jewish Republicans protested, the response from other Jewish organizations was extraordinarily muted.

Abe Foxman of the ADL condemned Panetta’s remarks as did David Harris of the AJC in a far more understated manner. The Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned the US Belgian Ambassador.

Yet, until now, the Jewish establishment responded to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s offensive remarks with deafening silence.

The traditionally robust responses by American Jewish leaders to such hostile remarks by public officials were sadly lacking.

One is even tempted to suspect that they have collectively decided not to rock the boat and to eliminate any contentious references to Israeli-associated issues from political discourse related to the forthcoming elections. How else can one explain the paucity of meaningful response to such provocations? Which leads us to ask, will Jews at the grassroots level remain satisfied that their principal spokesmen remain silent on these issues?