WarSclerotic

Presidential politics bring Iran to… JPost – Magazine – Opinion.

Iran becomes key talking point as GOP candidates seek to unseat Obama.

Photo by: REUTERS/Jason Reed

Convention seems to indicate that the upcoming Presidential election will be focused on jobs and the economy. If employment is up and the markets are steady, the pundits say US President Barack Obama will be a formidable candidate. If not, he is highly vulnerable. But as the threat of Iranian nuclear belligerence becomes more pronounced, Obama has been forced to expose an even greater vulnerability and address growing international fear over Iran. Republicans would do very well then, to start really pushing the issue to fore.

Unlike economic matters, which are often complex and are reflective of multiple fluctuating components, the subject of Iran is fairly straightforward. While the case for or against various economic initiatives allow much room for dispute and is at times highly subjective, quantifying progress on Iran is fairly elementary on all fronts – both for candidates to explain it and for the public in turn to grasp.

Overall, most people would gladly give up the opportunity to amass more wealth in favor of living safer, longer and without fear. That being the case, and since Obama has nothing substantial to show for himself so far, Republicans should seize the opportunity to bring the issue of Iran to center stage.

In dealing with the Iranian crisis, there are three primary options on the table: sanctions, covert action and military strikes. Yet at least as far as the public is concerned, Obama has addressed all three.

On the first path, sanctions, the President has talked a big game, but bottom line is that implementations have been far weaker than what is necessary. So much so that New Jersey Senator, Robert Menendez, usually a staunch Obama ally, publicly expressed anger and frustration with the administration last month over a crucial bill aimed at sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. As Foreign Policy reported:

Two senior administration officials testified……that the current bipartisan amendment to impose new sanctions on the CBI (Central Bank of Iran) and any other bank that does business with them is a bad idea that could alienate foreign countries.

On Sunday, Israel’s largest daily newspaper,Israel Hayom, reported:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not pleased with the way the US administration is managing its sanctions campaign against Iran, according to a senior Israeli diplomat. Netanyahu is said to be urging the US to target Iran’s Central Bank and crude oil industry.

With the second path, covert action, the nature of the beast means that it is obviously harder to quantify Obama’s position. But various reports and public statements made by the administration about covert operations – especially over the January 11 assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan – are indicative that the President is not in favor of any such actions. The US denied any role in the assassination and Victoria Nuland of the US State Department released the following statement: “We condemn any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family.”

Israel’s Channel 2 TV station also quoted a source within “Netanyahu’s bureau” that claimed that Obama had asked for an explanation regarding Israel’s involvement in the assassination. For his own part, in an interview that aired on Dutch television Thursday night, Netanyahu declined to comment about the assassination, only saying that, “Anytime something happens in Iran, Israel is accused, but that doesn’t make it true.” He continued by saying that Israel doesn’t “respond to these kinds of [accusations of involvement] ever, including many cases in which we are not involved.”

With respect to the third option – actually launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities – the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend:

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike.

This begs the question, what exactly should Israel’s recourse be? Should the Jewish State close its eyes and just continue holding the hand of the US President in absolute faith and trust, while keeping in mind that it is the obliteration of Israel that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised to deliver?  Positioned within striking distance of long range Iranian missiles and within touching distance of both of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel simply cannot afford to take that risk. Considering the overwhelming degree of solidarity that voting Americans feel with their Israeli counterparts, this is a point that candidates would do well to highlight time and again.

Obama defenders point to economic risk over oil prices as a reason to move slowly with Iran, but one thing we can be certain of is that a nuclear Iran will create far greater economic instability. Additionally, forcing Iran into a limited oil market would allow their primary customers, such as China, to offer far less for Iran’s oil – possibly even forcing the oil prices down around the world.

Other supporters have expressed the possibility that Israel and the United States are actually working together in dealing with Iran, staging a good cop, bad cop “delay, delay, delay” dynamic. However, the only method that may actually have some impact on Iran right now is a unified bad cop, bad cop message.

Mitt Romney got the tone right in a November debate when he said “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.” Since, at least for the time being, the economy is showing signs of improvement, the prescribed course of action for Republicans should be to up the ante on the Iran threat.

The writer is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF. He can be contacted at defune@gjcf.com.

From the Arabic: Attack Iran Today, Not Tomorrow – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

‘Obama to Get 12 Hours Notice before Hit on Iran’ – Global Agenda – News – Israel National News.

F-15 fighter jet

Israel news photo: Wikimedia Commons/US Air F

Israeli officials told visiting USS Chief Joint of Staffs Martin Dempsey that it would give President Barack Obama no more than 12 hours notice if and when it attacks Iran, The London Times reported Sunday.

The Netanyahu government also will not coordinate with the United States an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to the report, the latest in a number of suposed scenarios concerning cooperation or lack of it between Jerusalem and Washington.

It is left to speculation whether the rumors are based on facts or are leaked by officials to mask the possibility of secret military coordination.

The London Times said its sources explained that that Israel fears that President Obama would try to torpedo an Israel attack if more notice were given because he is concerned that Iran will respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a rise in the price of oil that could cripple Western economies. If the attack were to occur in the next 10 months, it would put President Obama in a tight spot on the eve of his bid for re-election.

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, “I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples.”

Dempsey, on his first official visit to Israel, was wined and dined by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gants, who went so far as to arrange an IDF orchestra rendition of song made famous by Frank Sinatra, one of Dempsey’s favorite singers.

Dempsey tried to play down the postponement of what was billed as the largest-ever joint military drill between the Israeli and American armies, involving thousands of U.S. Army soldiers.

Published reasons for the delay have ranged from budgetary constraints, logistical problems to a signal from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he distrusts President Obama’s commitment to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey maintained that the delay, which was announced by Israel, will give both countries more time to prepare and “achieve a better outcome.”

The top American general left Israel on Friday, before the Sabbath began.

Syrian opposition plead with Arab League to change tack and refer Assad to Security Council – Telegraph.

Syria’s main opposition group formally called on the Arab League to refer President Bashar al-Assad to the UN Security Council, effectively declaring its monitoring mission a failure.

The Arab League, which had won praise for its willingness to challenge Mr Assad, faces a difficult dilemma Photo: AP

By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent

7:21PM GMT 21 Jan 2012

US Military Chief Holds Talks in Israel on Iran | Military.com.

JERUSALEM — The U.S. military’s top general conducted an intense string of closed-door talks with Israeli leaders Friday, amid apparent disagreements between the two countries over how to respond to Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Israeli leaders kept silent about the exact content of their discussions. Dempsey was expected to urge Israel not to rush to attack Iran at a time when the U.S. is trying to rally additional global support to pressure Tehran through sanctions to dial back its nuclear program.

Dempsey met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been warning about the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade.

Netanyahu told Dempsey the U.S. should ratchet up sanctions against Iran to ones that would target its central bank and oil exports, the Israeli news site YNet reported. It quoted Netanyahu as saying such measures must be imposed immediately.

Following Dempsey’s departure Friday evening, his spokesman, Col. David Lapan, said the meetings “served to advance a common understanding of the regional security environment.”

At the start of talks with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Dempsey said the U.S. and Israel “have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time, and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we’ll all be.”

“There is never a dull moment, that I can promise you,” Barak replied, in comments released by Barak’s office.

Israel believes Iran is close to completing the technology to produce an atomic weapon. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Israel has said it prefers employing international diplomacy to solve the problem, but it has not taken the option of a military strike off the table.

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile development, support of radical anti-Israel forces in Lebanon and Gaza and frequent references by its president to the destruction of the Jewish state.

In an interview published Friday in the Israeli daily Maariv, Israel’s recently retired military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, said the U.S. and Israel now agree that Iran is deliberately working slowly toward nuclear weapons, to minimize international diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

The U.S. and Israel differ about what would be considered unacceptable Iranian behavior that would require a military strike, the former chief claimed.

“While Israel defines the red line as Iran’s ability and potential for a breakthrough, the Americans draw the red line a lot farther away,” said Yadlin, who stepped down as intelligence chief in late 2010.

He said the Iranian nuclear program was Israel’s “only existential threat,” noting that in addition to the possibility of a nuclear attack from Iran, its possession of nuclear weapons would spark a regional arms race.

“In that situation, in a nuclear neighborhood, the chance grows that a nuclear weapon could slip into the hands of terrorists,” Yadlin said.

Gen. Dempsey also met with Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, and President Shimon Peres.

“I am sure that in this fight (against Iran) we will emerge victorious,” Peres said to Dempsey, in comments provided by the president’s office. He called Iran a “center of world terror.”

Dempsey told reporters he “couldn’t agree more” with Peres’ “characterization of the common challenge we face.”

In between the meetings, Dempsey visited Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum. He wrote in its guest book, “We are committed to ensuring that such a human tragedy (as the Holocaust) never happens again.” He added, “God bless the victims and protect Israel.”

In the past, Netanyahu has sharply criticized Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and has drawn parallels between the world’s treatment of Iran today and its failure to act against Nazi Germany in time to save European Jewry.

Confronting Iran in a Year of Elections – NYTimes.com.

By DAVID E. SANGER

¶ WASHINGTON

Tehran rejects Sarkozy’s accusation of seeking nuclear bomb – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Foreign Ministry says French President ‘looking for a pretext to put pressure on the Iranian nation.’

By DPA

ran insisted Saturday that its nuclear program was peaceful, rejecting remarks by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear bomb, Iranian state television network IRIB reported.

“The nature of Iran’s nuclear programs are peaceful, and all activities are transparent and in constant cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, referring to the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

	Iranian soldiers take part in military drill, Dec. 30, 2011.
	Photo by: AFP

On Friday, Sarkozy accused Iran of pursuing a “senseless race for a nuclear bomb.” Mehmanparast accused Sarkozy of “looking for a pretext to put pressure on the Iranian nation.”

“It seems that the French president is following a path which is contrary to peace and stability in the Gulf region and Middle East but this path will not lead anywhere,” Mehmaparast said.

“Iran is, however, not after political quarrels (with France) but serious negotiations,” the spokesman added, referring to Iran’s readiness to resume nuclear talks with six world powers – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

Mehmanparast said a planned oil embargo by the European Union was a “totally wrong course” and would not solve the nuclear dispute.

On Friday, Sarkozy warned against any military intervention against Iran over its nuclear program, saying a strike on Iran would “trigger war and chaos in the Middle East.”

At his annual New Year’s address to diplomats in Paris, Sarkozy warned “a military intervention would not solve the problem (of Iran’s nuclear program) but would trigger war and chaos in the Middle East and maybe the world.”

European Union foreign ministers are likely to agree on extra sanctions, including an oil embargo and a freeze on the assets of Iran’s central bank at a meeting on Monday, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said.

Iran has reacted by threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway at the mouth of the Gulf, through which about 20 per cent of the world’s daily oil trade is shipped. Last month, Iran conducted military drills in the Strait.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week any decision on an Israeli attack was “very far off”.

Iran: US presence in Gulf ‘not n… JPost – Iranian Threat – News

    TEHRAN – Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday it considered the deployment of US warships to the Gulf part of their routine activity, apparently backing away from previous warnings to Washington not to enter the area.

“US warships and military forces have been in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region for many years and their decision in relation to the dispatch of a new warship is not a new issue and it should be interpreted as part of their permanent presence,” IRGC Deputy Commander Hossein Salami told the official IRNA news agency.

The comment may be seen as an effort to reduce tensions that rose sharply this month when Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz – the vital shipping lane for oil shipments out of the Gulf – if new sanctions hit its crude exports.

Crude prices have spiked several times on fear of military conflict and uncertainty about the effect of sanctions on the global oil market.

There has been no US aircraft carrier in the Gulf since the USS John C. Stennis left at the end of December. On Jan. 3, Iran told the Stennis not to return – an order interpreted by some observers in Iran and Washington as a blanket threat to any US carriers.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 21, 2012, 3:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

US Gen. Martin Dempsey received by Binyamin Netanyahu with friendly discord

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu advised visiting Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey Friday, Jan.20 that the time for action against Iran was now, for two reasons: First, the conviction that Iran has passed the point of no return for developing a nuclear weapon; and second, the diminishing prospects for a US-led embargo on Iranian oil to catch on before it is too late.

The Obama administration disputes the Israeli prime minister on both points, insisting there is still time for tough sanctions to incapacitate the Iranian economy and stop Tehran before it reaches the point of no return in its drive for a nuke. Israel insists that this pivotal point was reached four years ago in 2008.

Gen. Dempsey was exhaustively briefed on the Israeli position during his whirlwind interviews Friday with President Shimon Peres, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and three conversations with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, one with key General Staff officers.

It was not by chance that Maj. Gen. (ret.) Asher Yadlin, until last year Israel chief of military intelligence, maintained in a detailed article in the Tel Aviv daily Maariv: “If Iranian leaders were to convene tonight and decide to go ahead with the secret production of a nuclear bomb, they already possess the resources and components for doing so. This [capability] was once defined as the point of no return. [As matters stand] now, Iran’s nuclear timeline no longer hinges on the calendar; it rests entirely on a decision in Tehran.”
The former intelligence chief was saying that for four years, the US and Israeli governments colluded in propagating the false assumption that Iran had not reached a nuclear weapon capability. Presenting a highly problematic oil embargo in 2012 as capable of putting Iran off its nuclear stride is equally illusory.

Yadlin’s disclosure provided backing for Netanyahu who Thursday, Jan. 19, at the end of a visit to Holland, asserted for the first time: “Iran has decided to become a nuclear state” and called for “action now to stop Iran before it’s too late.”
Some of Israel’s cabinet ministers tried to soften the impact of the prime minister’s words by suggesting that his bluntness aimed at pushing President Barack Obama into implementing the sanctions he signed into law on Dec. 30 targeting Iran’s central bank and oil sales, and giving him an extra lever for bringing the European Union and Asian powers aboard.
But Netanyahu soon put them right. According to debkafile‘s Jerusalem sources, he lined them all up to inform Gen. Dempsey – and through him President Obama –  that they did not believe in those sanctions and suspected the Obama administration of orchestrating their buildup as a tool for holding Israel back from a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

debkafile‘s oil sources in Asia and Europe report that updated figures confirm how little traction the oil embargo campaign has achieved so far:
There is no evidence that China, Japan, South Korea, India, Turkey and the European Union members, which purchase in total 85 percent of Iran’s total average export of 2.5 million barrels a day, have cancelled any part of their orders.

While China – which in 2011 bought from Iran 550,000 barrels a day, covering 11 percent of its oil – cut its orders down in January by 285,000, this had nothing to do with ab embargo. Beijing was simply exploiting the threat of an embargo to squeeze from Iran a discount on prices and reduction of its debt for previous purchases. China made it clear to the Security Council that is opposed to “sanctions, pressure and military threats” against Iran. After settling its price dispute with Tehran, China fully intends to return to its former level of trade, even if it decides to partially diversify its oil sources to Saudi Arabia following Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s Middle East trip this month.

The European Union, which buys some 450,000 barrels per day from Iran, holds a special meeting Monday, Jan. 23, after failing last week to approve a cutback on purchases from Iran. Iran provides Greece, Italy and Spain respectively with about 25 percent, 13 percent and 10 percent of their oil. They are holding out for a very partial embargo and want it delayed until the end of 2012.
Japan, while pledging publicly to keep reducing its purchases of Iranian crude by 100,000 barrels a day, is waiting to see whether China and India join the ban. “The United States should try and talk more with India and China as they are the biggest buyers of Iranian crude,” said Japan’s foreign minister Koichiro Gemba this week, clearly passing the buck.

South Korea is only willing to forgo 40,000 bpd, but is asking for a waiver.

India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said this week that India, which as Iran’s second biggest buyer after China relies on Iran for 12 percent of its imports (3,500,000-4,000,000 bpd), will continue to trade with Tehran and not abide by sanctions.

In anticipation of a US-led ban on Iran’s central bank, Delhi announced this week that the CBI would open an account with an Indian bank for receiving payment for its oil, partly in Indian rupees instead of US dollars.
Turkey, keen to position itself as broker between the West and Tehran and the venue for future nuclear negotiations, is maintaining its import level of 200,000 bpd of crude from Iran.

Given the snaillike progress of the international oil sanctions campaign against Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister informed Gen. Dempsey Friday that he could not see his way to giving the Obama administration more time for these penalties to work. He stressed that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program had reached the critical point where time was of the essence for preempting a nuclear-armed Iran.

Israel’s fears of a nuclear Iran | Updated News.

On a cold morning in Jerusalem, US General Martin Dempsey enters the main hall of Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust Memorial. As he steps through the door, he removes his military cap as a sign of respect and replaces it with a Jewish skullcap.

A minute later, he is told that he can wear his own cap – and he makes a discreet swap of his headgear. The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff then lays a wreath in remembrance of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust.

It is a familiar ritual. Each official visitor to Israel is taken to Yad Vashem. The visit is meant to convey Israel’s central message: the Jewish people were once nearly destroyed – the state must protect against similar threats in the future.

Some in Israel believe that this threat now comes from Iran – a subject that the Israeli government was keen to discuss with General Dempsey.

“I believe that Iran has its own ambition to revive the Persian Empire and they would like to do it by taking control of all of the Middle East,” says Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom during an interview at his offices in Tel Aviv. “They believe that a nuclear bomb is the only way for them to become an empire or to become a superpower.”

On the walls of his office there is a large picture of Mr Shalom standing between two former US presidents, Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Israel is proud of its long-term alliance with the United States. But the two countries have noticeable differences over how to interpret the scale of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Red lines

Some in Israel suggest that Iran is trying to build an actual nuclear bomb. But the Pentagon disagrees.

“‘Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon ? No. But we know that they are trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us,” US defence secretary Leon Panetta told CBS News on 8 January.

Silvan Shalom sees Iran’s ambitions with less subtlety. His voice rises as he speaks.

“We know what the Iranians are trying to develop and we know very well that the Iranians will do everything they can to have a nuclear bomb and I believe that we should realise that and not to argue between ourselves if they are having those intentions or not.

“It’s ridiculous. They have it. What we should do is to stop them.”

But how?

Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt-Gen Benny Gantz, warned recently that Iran could expect “unnatural events” in 2012. His comments were soon followed by the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran by unidentified motorcyclists.

Iran accuses Israel of leading a covert offensive against Iran’s nuclear programme. Israel’s leaders remain silent on covert activities. But, in recent months, discussion of an overt Israeli military strike against Iran has increased to such an extent that the government now feels the need to calm the speculation.

“The whole thing is very far away,” the Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on 18 January.

“None of us would like to go to a military option,” adds Silvan Shalom. “But of course Israel cannot live with the idea that lunatics like the Iranian regime will be the one that can take a decision if they would like to destroy the state of Israel or not.”

How big a risk?

But not everyone in Israel believes that Iran poses such a serious existential threat. Martin van Creveld, a military historian, says that Israel exaggerates the dangers posed by the Persian state.

“We are very self-centred; we are taught from day one that the whole world is against us that everybody hates us for no good reason and we are the righteous victims. It’s a position that Israelis love and it’s very useful to us,” he says.

Mr van Creveld speaks from a small office in his home outside Jerusalem. Some of the 20 books he has written sit on the top shelf next to his computer. He appears to enjoy opposing mainstream Israeli opinion.

“Iran is a dangerous country but not to us,” he says, “Israel is far away. Israel has got what it takes to deter Iran if necessary.”

So, what happens in the Middle East if Iran gains a nuclear capability?

“Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens,” he says.

The historian believes that a nuclear Iran would help to keep the peace in the Middle East – just as nuclear weapons kept the peace between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

“I think this is not a valid analogy,” says Michael Herzog, who used to run the Israeli army’s strategic planning division.

“During the Cold War you had two actors who were very careful about what they owned and there were channels of communication between them,” he says.

“If Iran holds a nuclear weapon without any channels of communication with Israel, given the state of relations between Iran and Israel, I think this calls for very heightened tension and potential nuclear crisis between the parties.”

The Israeli establishment believes that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel’s well-being. But there is one important question to put to its deputy prime minister.

But Israel is not defenceless. It has a powerful army and an undeclared nuclear capability of its own.

Surely a country would have to be suicidal to attack Israel?

“That’s always the problem that we have with nice friends like you,” Silvan Shalom says.

“You think in a Western way. In the Middle East, they think differently. It doesn’t match. What for you looks illogical, for others it can make sense.”

(BBC News)