WarSclerotic

‘What We Know Suggests the Development of Nuclear Weapons’ – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is not shrinking in the face of Iranian denials. Once again, he has asserted his suspicions that Iran’s goal is a nuclear-weapons capability:

“What we know suggests the development of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in German on Thursday, adding Iran had so far failed to clarify allegations of possible military links to its nuclear program.

“We want to check over everything that could have a military dimension.”

An IAEA delegation, to be headed by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information that indicates Iran has engaged in research and development relevant for nuclear weapons.

Of course, before any military action takes place against Iran (and I hope it never happens), those who launch such an attack better be certain of Iran’s intentions. Amano’s IAEA, though, is continuing to push on this issue, which is a useful and clarifying thing. By the way, I was talking to a friend yesterday, another reporter who covers this issue, and he took note of something important: There isn’t anyone in the Obama White House who believes that Iran’s intentions are peaceful. Why is this important? Because this isn’t a neoconservative-dominated Administration; this is an Administration that ran against a neoconservative approach to the world. Still, it’s worth knowing more about what Iran is doing before irreversible and dramatic decisions are made.

In other news, French President Sarkozy states something obvious, warning “against any military intervention against Iran over its nuclear program, saying a strike on Iran would ‘trigger war and chaos in the Middle East.'” Well, obviously. The next conclusion he reached isn’t so obvious or logical: “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.'” I actually think a military strike could solve the problem — at least for three to ten years — posed by Iran’s nuclear program. But it would also definitely trigger war and chaos. The formula remains the same, for the moment at least: An attack on Iran to prevent a theoretical nightmare — a possibly-uncontainable nuclear Iran — could cause an actual nightmare, an all-out conventional war raging across the Middle East.

U.S. determined to avert an Israeli strike on Iran, be it with a rebuke or an embrace – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Washington is crowing about sanctions on Iran working and Jerusalem is downplaying the chances of an attack. Yet tensions from the Strait of Hormuz to Jerusalem are rising and everybody involved is still on edge.

By Amos Harel

The international media have adopted an all-encompassing script regarding the Persian Gulf: Israel is determined to bomb Iran, and the U.S. is doing everything in its power to restrain the Netanyahu government. Every report about new developments in the gulf, from a war of words over the Strait of Hormuz to magnetic bombs in central Tehran, is wedged into this pre-determined narrative of an impending military confrontation.

Speculation has heightened over the last two weeks, as reports continue to emerge from Israel, Iran and the U.S. First came the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist, and then the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. President Barack Obama tried to calm down Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; then came the decision to defer a joint Israeli-American military exercise for a few months, along with the news of the visit to Israel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who arrived yesterday.

	An Iranian soldier during a drill near the Strait of Hormuz.
	Photo by: Reuters

Defense Minister Ehud Barak was drafted on Wednesday to allay anxieties. In an Army Radio interview, Barak declared: “We haven’t reached a decision to undertake [an attack on Iran]. We haven’t set a date for reaching a decision. Everything is in the distance. I don’t think we should deal with this as though it were going to happen tomorrow.” Even the Kadima primaries, scheduled for March 27, “will happen before this,” Barak added, a nod to the opposition party, which set its primary date just a few hours before. “I don’t think that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is coming to pressure Israel. All of the handling of our relations with the United States comes out a little distorted in the media.”

A few hours after Barak’s interview, a top State Department official in Washington gathered Israeli journalists for an unusual briefing. Her message: International sanctions led by the Obama administration against Iran are working. They have already caused real damage to the Iranian economy, and they will be stiffened during the coming year, she said. Concurrently, the U.S. is working to enlarge oil reserves around the world, and to pressure large oil-consuming nations, such as India and China, into curtailing their oil imports from Tehran.

Taken together with Gen. Dempsey’s first visit, undertaken just four months after he assumed his post, along with the stream of top officials who have arrived here since the summer, it is hard not to conclude that the Americans are worried.

Cause for anxiety

The official American stance of total opposition to an Israeli attack on Iran has not changed, certainly not under present circumstances. U.S. tactics, however, have changed. In a San Francisco forum two months ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained why an Israeli attack, which would be also be viewed as an American strike, would be a bad idea. Panetta referred to concerns about rises in oil prices, which would hurt the pockets of American consumers during a presidential election year.

He also estimated that the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites would not delay the nuclear project by more than a year or two.

Panetta assumed that his comments were off the record. After they were leaked, Washington changed its orientation, from one of implicitly rebuking Jerusalem to one of embracing Israel’s leadership. Now the Americans are talking about fulfilling a joint objective while working shoulder-to-shoulder; once again, they are hinting about a military option, and speaking effusively about the success of the sanctions.

The Americans’ ultimate objective seems to remain constant: They want to stop Israel from attacking during the coming months. The U.S. respects Israel’s sovereignty, and its right to self-defense, as Barak stridently notes; yet the string of warnings issued by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan about intentions harbored by Netanyahu and Barak surely sent alarm bells ringing in Washington.

It can be assumed that the Americans have other information and intelligence sources that have given them reasons to worry.

Barak told Army Radio that Obama is providing “unprecedented support” to Israel, and is assisting its defense more than his predecessors. He hinted that the U.S. president is also “prepared for other options.”

All parts of the defense minister’s analysis are correct, yet the deep loathing that Netanyahu incurred in the Obama administration by deploying stalling tactics for three years on the Palestinian track cannot be discounted.

The Obama White House appears to suspect that Israeli willingness to launch an attack this year does not stem only from the Iranians’ progress in installation of centrifuges in the underground facility near Qom. There is also a feeling that Netanyahu and Barak reason that the U.S. president will not risk losing the Jewish vote in an election year by precipitating a diplomatic fracas with Israel’s leadership.

Springtime strike

The passage of time is also having an effect on the chances of an attack. Western analysts believe that winter clouds above Iran mean that an effective strike against the country’s nuclear facilities could not be undertaken at least until March. The fear of an Israeli attack on Iran, which saturated international media until the end of autumn, is making its way back to the headlines as spring gets a little closer. The level of agreement between Israel and Western states regarding Iran’s intentions and the pace of its nuclear program’s advance is wider than it has been in the past.

Israeli officials regarded last November’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency as confirmation of their assumption that Iran is active on the military track in an effort to attain nuclear strike capability.

Based on this shared assessment, Israel continues to send aggressive signals. Netanyahu’s appearance at the Israel Defense Forces’ General Staff forum, flanked by senior officers, should be seen as one such signal.

The threat of a strike is supposed to serve two purposes: In theory, it ups the ante, provoking more substantive international action against Iran (because unless measures are taken, those crazy Israelis will attack ), and it improves the IDF’s operational readiness. The problem is that prolonged preparations for an action in Iran pull the Israel Air Force in all sorts of directions, and they come at the expense of IDF preparation for other possible scenarios.

The final decision is in Netanyahu’s hands, and is subject to a cabinet vote. Yet Barak exerts considerable influence on the prime minister.

Netanyahu currently enjoys considerable strength in the domestic political arena, and sometimes his popularity translates into acts of hubris. A number of factors – the realization of the Shalit prisoner-exchange deal, Netanyahu’s rise in popularity, and the apparent lack of serious political rivals in Likud, or in other parties – have political analysts wondering how the prime minister will comport himself. Will Netanyahu be goaded into trying an attack on Iran, or, conversely, will his political ascendancy lead him to think that he should not endanger his popularity?

The Barak riddle

At least two retired IDF major generals, both of whom worked closely with Netanyahu in the past, believe that despite his deep ideological commitment (the prime minister talks about an Iranian bomb as though it poses a threat of a second holocaust of the Jewish people ), Netanyahu will not take the risk of launching a strike against Iran in the absence of consent of, and coordination with, the Obama administration.

The defense minister, on the other hand, remains an enigma wrapped within a riddle. Only total cynics believe that his intensive involvement of the Iranian issue is motivated by a desire to rise to the top of Likud’s list. As Barak ages (next month he will turn 70 ), interviews with him, particularly in the electronic media, become more interesting. His interview on Army Radio was particularly revealing, as was an interview he did with CNN in November where he declared that less than a year remained to stop the Iranian nuclear program from reaching its objective.

That interview was an attempt to spell out Israel’s ultimate red lines for Iran. When a significant amount of enriched uranium reaches the fortified facility at Qom, Israel will lose any possible first strike capability and may have to take the military option off the table altogether.

Since it has more sophisticated military wherewithal, the window of opportunity for an American strike against Iran would last a few months beyond this “red line” point for Israel.

In other words, Barak has been hinting that the West in general, and the U.S. in particular, has chosen the wrong focus by directing attention to the question of when exactly Iran might move from the development of nuclear capability to a specific campaign to attain nuclear weaponization (particularly by arming missiles with nuclear warheads ). Once enough materials have reached heavily fortified underground sites, Iran’s nuclear program might be shielded in a way that allows it to choose whatever time it wants to accelerate a nuclear weapons effort.

Israeli intelligence officials believe that Iran has yet to reach a final decision regarding an attempt to assemble a nuclear bomb. The Americans concur with this analysis. Moving ahead with an effort to make a bomb entails a cost – by demonstratively blocking any IAEA monitoring efforts, Iran would have to endure yet stiffer sanctions.

Mixed on sanctions

The issue of sanctions seems vital. Iran is indicating that the sanctions cause vast economic damage, since the country’s currency has devalued by 60 percent against the dollar in recent months. The European Union is prepared to engage in a full embargo on oil imports from Iran, starting this July. Russia claims that such international actions will mainly harm Iran’s citizenry, and that their main intention is to topple the regime in Tehran, rather than to forestall its nuclear program.

Israel has been sending mixed signals regarding the efficacy of sanctions. In an interview with an Australian newspaper last week, Netanyahu praised the sanctions; yet on Monday, he cast doubt about their utility during a briefing given to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and on his trip to Holland on Wednesday he called for tougher sanctions.

Barak told Army Radio that “there’s no doubt that we’re seeing effects from the sanctions,” but he doubted that these effects would be powerful enough to persuade Iran’s leaders to forgo the nuclear weapon option.

The sanctions will influence developments Iran’s parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March. International pressure is expected to strengthen the regime’s opponents.

Will the sequence of events lead to an attempt to manipulate the election’s results, as many claim the regime did after balloting in the 2009 presidential race?

The “Green Revolution” in Iran that summer foreshadowed the coming of the Arab Spring last year. A sequel involving accusations of election fraud could ignite fires of domestic unrest, and the dissent this time could be reinforced by residents of neighboring states.

Faced with such domestic turmoil as well as with the international sanctions, Iran’s leadership is signaling willingness to undertake a review about the aims of its nuclear effort. Such signals about a reassessment are surely a mere stalling tactic; but they nevertheless reflect anxieties in Tehran.

While eyes around the world are watching out for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, another possible theater of conflict is the Strait of Hormuz, where the Iranians are renewing threats that they might disrupt the supply of oil from the Gulf states, in response to the sanctions. July 2012 is the date scheduled for the opening of a new pipeline that would bypass the strait and supply 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.

Until this pipeline comes online, Iran has the power to hold hostage about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. Britain and the U.S. are currently deploying unusually large naval presences around the Gulf. A third U.S. aircraft carrier is scheduled to reach the Persian Gulf area in another two weeks.

This has yet to reach a level of tension on a par with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, yet temperatures are definitely rising. A miscalculation, particularly by Iran, could cause an eruption of violence, even one that seems to be against Tehran’s objective interests.

This could be the background to the Americans’ somewhat surprising disavowal regarding the killing of the nuclear scientist last week, and also to the decision to defer a joint drill involving missile defense systems, from April to the end of the year. The real game is now being played in the sanctions arena, and it would be wrong to downplay the damage sanctions cause to the Iranian regime’s stability.

Active efforts to derail the nuclear project, such as the liquidation of scientists, are likely to be held in abeyance. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, should violence erupt in the near future, it should come as the result of coordinated international action, and not as a result of what Iran might be able to portray as acts of military aggression against it. This being Washington’s agenda, it is asking Israel’s boat not to enter the path charted by its aircraft carrier.

World powers signal openness to … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    WASHINGTON – Major powers seeking to negotiate an end to Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons on Friday signaled their openness to renewed talks with Tehran but diplomats said the powers remain divided on their approach.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the group, issued a statement making clear that a diplomatic path remains open to Iran despite tougher sanctions and fresh speculation of a military strike on its nuclear facilities.
The group, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, includes Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

“The EU3+3 has always been clear about the validity of the dual track approach,” Ashton’s spokesperson said in a statement that included her Oct. 21 letter. “We are waiting for the Iranian reaction.”

The release of the statement and the letter itself appeared be an effort to demonstrate that the major powers are willing to talk to Iran, while reiterating their demands that Tehran must return to the table willing to talk about its nuclear program.

It also appeared to reflect frustration at recent Iranian statements hinting at a willingness to return to the table but Tehran’s failure to formally respond to the letter and commit to discussing the nuclear program in earnest.

One diplomat said Iran had been sending mixed signals on whether it might be willing to return to talks in the face of tighter US sanctions focused on its crude oil exports and the possibility of a European Union petroleum embargo.

“This is a way to ensure that our offer is absolutely clear,” said the diplomat, adding that the central point was to make clear that “we are prepared to sit down with you if you are prepared to demonstrate serious intent.”

There have been signals in recent weeks that Iran might be willing to hold a new round of talks about its nuclear program.

Major powers differ on negotiation strategy

Diplomats said that major powers are divided over what incentives to offer Iran if talks resume and whether to allow it to keep enriching uranium at lower levels.

If the Iranians were willing to sit down, the question would then become how the major powers, known as the P5+1 and as the EU3+3, might approach Iran during any such negotiations, notably on any “confidence-building measures.”

“There is no agreement inside the P5+1 on how such confidence-building measures should or should not be presented to the Iranians,” said one diplomat.

A central issue is whether the group might ask Iran to cease enriching uranium to the higher level of 20 percent but allow it, at least for a time, to continue enriching at lower levels – a stance partly at odds with the group’s past positions.

Uranium enrichment is a process that at low levels can yield fuel for nuclear power plants or, if carried out to much higher levels of purity, can generate fissile material for bombs.

Multiple UN Security Council resolutions have called on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities and the P5+1 has taken the view that it must suspend such activities during any serious negotiation.

To permit Iran, even for a period, to enrich at lower levels would be something of a concession by the P5+1, although it has previously offered a temporary “freeze-for-freeze” in which Iran would halt expansion of its nuclear program and the major powers would not pursue additional sanctions.

Asked why some members of the group might be willing to let Iran continue to enrich at lower levels, at least for a period, one diplomat said it reflected a desire to give diplomacy every possible chance to succeed.

“That really is the crux of it. You want to be able to say that you pursued every option diplomatically to try to get Iran to halt its program,” he said.

A senior Obama administration official told Reuters that if talks were to resume, the group would have a common stance.

“If the Iranians accept the offer of the P5+1 to have talks on the basis of High Representative Ashton’s October letter, we fully expect a unified P5+1 approach to the talks,” the official said.

Major powers to say terms for Iran’s return to talks; IAEA chief says Tehran ‘key priority’ for 2012.

Friday, 20 January 2012

Iran denies seeking atomic weapons, saying its program is peaceful. (Illustration by Amarjit Sidhu)

inShare1

Report: Hizbullah Got Long-Range Surface-to-Air Missiles from Syria — Naharnet.

USS Abraham Lincoln sails into waters off Iran – CNN.com.

(CNN) — The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the Arabian Sea on Thursday, Navy officials said, a likely prelude to testing Iran’s recent warning against sending a U.S. carrier through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Lincoln joins the USS Carl Vinson, already in the region, returning the U.S. Navy its standard two-carrier presence there. The carrier USS John Stennis left in the past few days and is now traveling back through the western Pacific.

The Lincoln’s arrival puts into place all the elements for a U.S. carrier to travel back into the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz for the first time since recent tensions with Iran escalated.

U.S. military officials have told CNN the United States will continue its long-standing military commitment to having an aircraft carrier in the Gulf, but will not say when the transit will take place in light of security concerns about Iran.

Several weeks ago, as the Stennis left the Gulf, Iranian officials warned the United States not to send in another carrier. In recent years, the United States has kept one carrier in the Gulf and one in the North Arabian Sea for much of the time.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the U.S. naval and military presence in the region will not change and the current level is sufficient to deal with any situation that could arise.

“We have always maintained a very strong presence in that region,” Panetta said Wednesday. “We have a Navy fleet located there. We have a military presence in that region. And … we have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we were going to do everything possible to help secure the peace in that part of the world.”

A senior U.S. official acknowledged the Pentagon continues to see the Iranian naval forces controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps inside the Persian Gulf as more aggressive than regular naval forces.

U.S. military intelligence has been tracking the record of Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders in the region and remains concerned about whether they are all firmly under the control of the most senior commanders in Teheran, the official said.

Out of concern that a confrontation could escalate unnecessarily, the United States recently suggested that a direct channel of communication be opened between the two governments.

U.S. military chief begins closed talks in Israel on Iranian nuclear program – The Washington Post.

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

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Israeli leaders are keeping silent about the exact content of their talks. Dempsey is 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.

At the start of a meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Friday, 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,” Barak replied, in comments released by the Israeli defense minister’s office.

Israel believes Iran is close to developing the technology to building an atomic weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel has said it prefers employing international diplomacy to solve the problem, but Israel 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 Israel.

Dempsey also met with Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. Also on his tight Friday schedule are talks with Israel’s prime minister and president,

In between the talks, Dempsey plans to visit Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

‘US, Israel share challenge of Iranian threat’ –.

US military chief meets President Peres, Gantz; Dempsey: We respect you as our partner in the fight for freedom.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff described the Iranian threat as a “challenge shared by Jerusalem and Washington,” in a meeting Friday with President Shimon Peres and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz.

“The deep trust between the two countries will help protect our shared value of freedom,” said Dempsey. Emphasizing the friendship between the two countries he continued: “We respect you as our partner in the fight for freedom, not only in this region, but in the entire world.”

RELATED:
US Army chief concerned about Iran ‘miscalculation’
US uncertain Israel would advise before Iran strike

Addressing the Iranian threat, Peres said, “I’m sure we will win this battle too, in the struggle for a free and safe world for all nations. Israel and the United States stand on the same front.”

The president also thanked Dempsey for coming to Israel saying, “your visit is important, in order to show our shared world view in relation to in issue that endangers the whole world.”

The US army chief began his round of meetings with Israel’s top military and political leadership on Friday with a clear message – coordination and dialogue is the key to improving Israel’s security standing in the region.

“We 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,” Dempsey told Gantz and Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the beginning of their meeting at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. Barak responded saying, “There is never a dull moment. That I can promise you”.

Dempsey also assured Gantz of US commitment to Israel: “The simplest message of all, my presence here, I hope reflects the commitment we have with each other and I’m here to assure you that’s the case.”

“I do know that both our countries share the same interests and values, and I’m sure that we can somehow work it out together,” Gantz said to his US counterpart earlier in the conversation, seemingly referring to the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat.

Dempsey, the US’s most senior military officer, arrived in Israel late Thursday night for talks that are aimed at getting the IDF and the government to put the brakes on plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US is hoping that Israel will move attack plans to the back burner and give diplomacy and sanctions more time to have an effect on the Iranian regime.

After arriving in Israel, Dempsey and his wife Deanie met Gantz and his wife Revital for dinner near Tel Aviv. Before the dinner, Gantz surprised Dempsey with a performance by the IDF orchestra which played Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York”. Dempsey is a known Sinatra fan and often sings at various military ceremonies.

Dempsey will also meet with head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, OC IDF Planning Directorate Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He will later visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum before leaving Israel Friday evening.

The US army chief’s visit comes amid rising tension between Jerusalem and Washington over Israeli frustration with the US and Europe’s reluctance to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran.

He is expected to try and reassure Israel that the Obama administration is committed to stopping Iran’s nuclear program, even if it ultimately comes down to using military force. Top US officials have recently said that the US will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

While there are differences between the countries as to the type of steps that need to be taken to stop Iran, both Israel and the US share the same intelligence assessments regarding the status of Iran’s nuclear program.

As reported last month in The Jerusalem Post, Israeli and American intelligence believe that while Iran has mastered all of the technology it requires to build a nuclear weapon, the regime has yet to make the decision to do so.

Ahead of Dempsey’s visit, Barak tried to ease tensions with Washington, saying that an Israeli military strike against Iran is still “very far off.” Barak said that Israel was coordinating with the US on how to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“We haven’t made any decision to do this,” Barak told Army Radio on Wednesday, adding: “This entire thing is very far off. I don’t want to provide estimates [but] it’s certainly not urgent.”

Jpost.com staff contributed to this report

Obama: Iranian economy in ‘shambles’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

In meeting with Jewish donors in New York, US president says Western sanctions caused severe damage to Iranian economy; reaffirms commitment to military, security cooperation with Israel

Yitzhak Benhorin

US President Barack Obama on Thursday met with Jewish donors in New York and declared that Western sanctions imposed on Iran have caused sever damage to its economy

Obama said that the US mobilized the world to impose “unprecedented sanctions” on Tehran and boasted the fact that Washington managed to get the support of China and Russia for the move. He noted the sanctions were “so effective, even the Iranians have had to acknowledge that their economy is in shambles.”

One of the event’s organizers, Alan Solow, told the Jewish daily Forward that Obama “made very clear that he’s serious about prohibiting Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” He added that the president hopes to achieve those ends through sanctions, but that the Iranians are aware that all options are on the table.

The statements come as Israel demands that Washington increase pressure on Tehran fearing further progress into nuclear weapons production. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that the current sanctions were ineffective.

The president also repeated his unwavering support of Israel and said, “since I’ve been in office, we have unequivocally said that Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” He also discussed the unprecedented level of military and security cooperation between Jerusalem and Washington.

Obama was repeating statements he made in an interview with Time magazine adding that he was very serious in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities. “I have repeatedly said we don’t take any options off the table in preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon.” It should be noted that Obama did not initially address the Iran issue during his speech but answered questions on the subject by the donors.

The meeting was held in a gourmet restaurant in Manhattan’s Upper East Side and was attended by 100 representatives of the Jewish community who collectively donated some $500,000 to Obama’s campaign.

Among the participants was former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who despite being a democrat fiercely criticized the president during his conflict with Netanyahu on the settlement construction issue. Koch has since changed his views and is wielding his influence in the Jewish community to get Obama reelected.

During the dinner, the president said that since entering the White House he has worked to ensure that Israel and the US maintain a stronger than ever security cooperation. “That’s not my opinion, by the way, that’s the Israeli government’s opinion,” he said.