WarSclerotic

Iran denies it has plans to attack U.S. targets.

Iran on Friday rejected allegations by the U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper that the Islamic republic was more willing now to carry out attacks on American soil.

“Iran categorically denies James Clapper’s unfounded allegations,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.

“Those who are themselves accused of supporting the assassination of Iranian scientists in Tehran cannot allow themselves to make such false and inexact allegations.”

In written remarks on Tuesday to senators, Clapper said an alleged plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States showed Tehran might be more willing now to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.

“Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against [Saudi Arabia’s] ambassador as well as Iranian leaders’ perceptions of U.S. threats against the regime,” he said.

The United States made its allegations early last October and claimed it traced the supposed plot back to the Quds Force, a special operations unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Iran has repeatedly denied any involvement in the plot, which have strained its already frayed relations with Saudi Arabia.

A key U.S. Senate panel on Thursday adopted a sweeping package of tough new sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to freeze its controversial nuclear program amid escalating worries of a military confrontation.

The Senate Banking Committee approved the harsh new measures by voice vote, without dissent, as part of a mounting campaign in the U.S. Congress to tighten the economic screws on defiant Iran.

Tehran denies Western charges that it seeks the ability to build a nuclear weapon, insisting its atomic activities are an effort to develop a civilian power-production capability.

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a 32-year-old deputy director of Iran’s main uranium enrichment plant, was murdered on Jan. 11 along with his driver/bodyguard when assassins on a motorbike fixed a magnetic bomb to their car.

It was the fifth such incident targeting Iranian scientists in the past two years. Four other scientists – three of them involved in Iran’s nuclear program – died in the attacks.

Iranian officials say the attacks are a covert campaign by Israel and the United States.

Ya’alon: Assad’s fall could break ‘axis of… JPost – Middle East.

Russia’s UN Veto on Syria Gives Assad ‘License to Kill’ – Businessweek.

By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Zaid Sabah

(Updates with China comment starting in 16th paragraph.)

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) — Failure by the United Nations Security Council to deliver global condemnation of Syria gives President Bashar al-Assad room to continue his deadly 11-month crackdown on protesters.

While 13 countries in the 15-member UN Security Council voted yesterday to adopt a proposal by Western and Arab countries to end the bloodshed, Russia used its veto to block a draft resolution against its top Mideast ally. Taking Russia’s lead, China also cast a veto.

Assad stands to benefit from the collapse of the resolution a day after reports that security forces killed 330 people in the city of Homs, one of the bloodiest attacks since protests began last March. This is the second time Russia has blocked attempts at the UN to hold Assad accountable for a conflict that the UN says has killed more than 5,400 people.

“The Russian, Chinese veto today is giving Bashar Assad and his regime a license to kill and is a painful blow to the Arabic-Russian relations,” Burhan Ghalioun, president of the main opposition coalition, the Syrian National Council, told Al- Arabiya television.

Syrian Ambassador Bashar al-Jafari told the council after the vote that the “killing was carried out by terrorist opposition to send you a misleading message in an attempt to influence the vote.”

Diplomatic Cover

“The Russian government is not only unapologetically arming a government that is killing its own people, but also providing it with diplomatic cover,” Philippe Bolopion, UN director at Human Rights Watch in New York, said.

At least 330 civilians were killed and more than 1,600 wounded as Syrian forces shelled the city of Homs with mortars and artillery Feb. 3, Al-Jazeera reported, citing activists. The death toll in Syria yesterday increased by 95, including 39 in Homs, Al Arabiya reported, citing activists.

“Assad received a substantial cover for his interpretation of the rebels and a diplomatic boost,” said George Lopez, a former UN sanctions investigator at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. “He’s not been weakened by this vote and that is significant.”

Russian Isolation

A measure of Russia’s growing isolation is that South Africa and India, which had abstained in an October vote on Syria that was vetoed by Russia and China, yesterday broke ranks and sided with Arab and European nations.

Both countries took issue with Russia’s claims that concessions made by Arab and European Union negotiators in the final draft could still be interpreted as calls for an Assad ouster.

“We thought we had a consensus text” and that “everyone was agreed,” Indian Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri said in an interview. The Russians wanted “another three days time but with the spiraling violence the council was not in the mood to countenance delayed action.”

South Africa’s Baso Sangqu said “we didn’t want regime change, we didn’t want military intervention and we thought those were taken care of” in a text that was watered down least four times before being put to a vote.

For both Russia and China to veto the resolution after the regime’s assault on Homs and after Arab and Western allies diluted the resolution “effectively means they were helping Assad play for time and ensure his rule,” according to Andrew J. Tabler, Syrian expert and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Weapons Sales

Russia, which sells Syria weapons and has its only military base outside the former Soviet Union in the Syrian port of Tartus, defended itself against growing criticism that it’s protecting its own interests in shielding Assad.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said that, while he “would certainly agree tragic events are happening” in Syria, his country had “made an honest effort.” He said the Arab League, which in November imposed sanctions on Assad, “shall not count on the Council” for endorsement of a plan that imposes a timeline on when Assad should leave.

China said it voted against the resolution because the declaration may further complicate events in Syria.

Any move to “put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian government, prejudge the result of the dialogue or impose any solution” won’t help resolve the Syrian issue, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement posted on its website today.

U.S. ‘Disgusted’

“Any further blood that flows will be on their hands,” U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said in the council after the vote. The U.S. was “disgusted” by the vetoes and accused Russia and China of standing “behind empty arguments and individual interests,” she said.

Russia’s alignment with Syria puts at stake the Kremlin’s relationship with oil-rich Gulf States led by Qatar that asked the Security Council to endorse their plan to convince Assad to delegate his powers to a deputy to pave way for elections.

Before votes were cast, Russia announced Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would visit Damascus on Feb. 7 to hold talks with Assad. That plan remains in place, Churkin said.

–With assistance from Helen Sun in Shanghai. Editors: Ann Hughey, Paul Tighe

To contact the reporters on this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson in United Nations at fjackson@bloomberg.net; Zaid Sabah Abd Alhamid in Washington at zalhamid@bloomberg.net

Russia – Sort of, but Not Really – NYTimes.com.

Denis Sinyakov/Reuters

Protesters in Moscow have gotten more brazen. This banner, which says “Putin, Go Away,” faces the Kremlin.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 4, 2012

AS a journalist, the best part of covering the recent wave of protests and uprisings against autocrats is seeing stuff you never imagined you’d see — like, in Moscow last week, when some opponents of Vladimir Putin’s decision to become president again, for possibly 12 more years, hung a huge yellow banner on a rooftop facing the Kremlin with Putin’s face covered by a big X, next to the words “Putin Go Away” in Russian.

The sheer brazenness of such protests and the anger at Prime Minister Putin among the urban middle classes here for treating them like idiots by just announcing that he and President Dmitri Mevedev were going to switch jobs were unthinkable a year ago. The fact that the youths who put up the banner were apparently not jailed also bespeaks how much Putin understands that he is on very thin ice and can’t afford to create any “martyrs” that would enrage the antigovernment protesters, who gathered again in Moscow on Saturday.

But what will Putin do next? Will he really fulfill his promise to let new parties emerge or just wait out his opposition, which is divided and still lacks a real national leader? Putin’s Russia is at a crossroads. It has become a “sort-of-but-not-really-country.” Russia today is sort of a democracy, but not really. It’s sort of a free market, but not really. It’s sort of got the rule of law to protect businesses, but not really. It’s sort of a European country, but not really. It has sort of a free press, but not really. Its cold war with America is sort of over, but not really. It’s sort of trying to become something more than a petro-state, but not really.

Putin himself is largely responsible for both the yin and the yang. When he became president in 2000, Russia was not sort of in trouble. It was really in trouble — and spiraling downward. Using an iron fist, Putin restored order and solidified the state, but it was cemented not by real political and economic reforms but rather by a massive increase in oil prices and revenues. Nevertheless, many Russians were, and still are, grateful.

Along the way, Putin spawned a new wealthy corrupt clique around him, but he also ensured that enough of Russia’s oil and mineral bounty trickled down to the major cities, creating a small urban middle class that is now demanding a greater say in its future. But Putin is now stalled. He’s brought Russia back from the brink, but he’s been unable to make the political, economic and educational changes needed to make Russia a modern European state.

Russia has that potential. It is poised to go somewhere. But will Putin lead? The Times’s Moscow bureau chief, Ellen Barry, and I had a talk Thursday at the Russian White House with Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov. I left uncertain.

All these urban protests, said Peskov, are a sign that economic growth has moved ahead of political reform, and that can be fixed: “Ten years ago, we didn’t have any middle class. They were thinking about how to buy a car, how to buy a flat, how to open bank accounts, how to pay for their children to go to a private school, and so on and so forth. Now they have got it, and the interesting part of the story is that they want to be involved much more in political life.”

O.K., sounds reasonable. But what about Putin’s suggestion that the protests were part of a U.S. plot to weaken him and Russia. Does Peskov really believe that?

“I don’t believe that. I know it,” said Peskov. Money to destabilize Russia has been coming in “from Washington officially and non-officially … to support different organizations … to provoke the situation. We are not saying it just to say it. We are saying it because we know. … We knew two or three years in advance that the next day after parliamentary elections [last December] … we will have people saying these elections are not legitimate.”

This is either delusional or really cynical. And then there’s foreign policy. Putin was very helpful at the United Nations in not blocking the no-fly zone over Libya, but he feels burned by it — that we went from protecting civilians to toppling his ally and arms customer, Muammar el-Qaddafi. It’s true. But what an ally! What a thing to regret! And, now, the more Putin throws his support behind the murderous dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the more he looks like a person buying a round-trip ticket on the Titanic — after it has already hit the iceberg. Assad is a dead man walking. Even if all you care about are arms sales, wouldn’t Russia want to align itself with the emerging forces in Syria?

“There is a strong domestic dimension to Russian policy toward Syria,” said Vladimir Frolov, a Russian foreign policy expert. “If we allow the U.N. and the U.S. to put pressure on a regime — that is somewhat like ours — to cede power to the opposition, what kind of precedent could that create?”

This approach to the world does not bode well for reform at home, added Frolov. “Putin was built for one-way conversations,” he said. He has overseen a “a very personalized, paternalistic system based on arbitrariness.”

Real reform will require a huge re-set on Putin’s part. Could it happen? Does he get it? On the evidence available now, I’d say: sort of, but not really.

Iran mass producing anti-ship cruise missile: TV.

Iran has begun mass production of an anti-ship cruise missile, state television’s website said on Saturday.

The Zafar missile, as it is dubbed in the report, “is a short-range, anti-ship cruise missile capable of destroying small- and medium-sized targets with high precision.”

It can be mounted on speed boats and other light vessels, can withstand electronic warfare, and is able to fly in low altitudes to avoid detection, the report said.

Iran has a fleet of speed boats that often challenge US and allied warships in the Gulf.

The vessels are usually controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards and can be equipped with missiles.

The Islamic republic says it has a wide range of missiles. It says some are capable of striking targets inside Israel as well as Middle Eastern military bases of its other main archfoe, the United States.

Tehran regularly boasts about developing missiles having substantial range and capabilities, but Western military experts cast doubt on its claims.

Iran’s military said in January that it could close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf, through which a third of global marine oil traffic passes, if it is attacked.

Iranian warships dock at Saudi port.

Iranian naval ships docked on Saturday in the Saudi port city of Jeddah on a mission to project the Islamic republic’s “power on the open seas,” the Fars news agency reported.

The supply ship Kharg and Shaid Qandi, a destroyer, docked in the Red Sea port in line with orders from Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it quoted navy commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

“This mission aims to show the power of the Islamic republic of Iran on the open seas and to confront Iranophobia,” he said, adding that the mission started several days ago and would last 70 to 80 days.

The commander did not give other destinations.

Iran’s navy has been boosting its presence in international waters since last year, deploying vessels in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden on missions to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates.

Tehran also sent two ships into the Mediterranean for the first time in February 2011 through the Suez Canal.

Ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have long been strained, deteriorated in late 2011 following US allegations that a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington had been hatched in Tehran.

Tehran has also called on Riyadh to reconsider its vow to make up for any shortfall in Iran’s oil exports due to sanctions over its nuclear programme, saying Riyadh’s pledge to intervene on the market was unfriendly.

Iran Finally Comes Clean with the World — It Sponsors Terrorism – Yahoo! News.

COMMENTARY | So, it’s finally official: Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. The word came from the mouth of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Friday when he categorically announced Iran would sponsor anyone — anywhere — that would work against Israel.

Khamenei also admitted to helping attack Israel through third parties, something Iran officially downplays or denies, the Associated Press reported. “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this,” Khamenei told followers during morning prayers.

Iran has the role of aggressor down pretty well. If it isn’t spewing threats against the West on a daily basis, it is saber rattling in the Persian Gulf. Now its religious leader — the ultimate voice on all matters in Iran — has confirmed what Israel has been warning about for decades. It is words such as these that should inspire the civilized world to react and may, for all intents and purposes, be the final straw for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I have always said the Israelis will act when they feel truly threatened. When – not if ­­– that moment occurs, they will act will full effect. Israel has the capabilities and the will to act alone in handling what it considers to be an existential threat. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday that Israel has been making contingency plans for such an attack and any accompanying retaliation, Reuters reported.

I am certainly not a warmonger, but I am very much a realist when it comes to Iran. That country is not going to stop until it forces the hand of the U.S. or Israel or a combination of both. The inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t cease and that can only lead to one ultimate resolution. For the past 30 years the tension has, at times, been palpable been the two nations, but never led to military confrontation.

I’m not sure that is the case this time. The Western powers are not going to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons capabilities. Since Iran continues researching and developing launch systems, the clock is ticking on how long the West will wait before launching a preemptive assault.

Avoid World War III — The U.S., Not Israel, Should Attack Iran – Yahoo! News.

COMMENTARY | According to the Christian Science Monitor, it is likely Israel with launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities this spring.

While the strike might well be justified, Israel should not be the one to administer the blow. An Israeli-Iranian conflict could easily lead to the decimation of tiny Israel, either through a large-scale Arab retaliation or a massive surge in terrorism encouraged by Iran’s ayatollahs. Additionally, Iran could successfully claim victim status, uniting its citizens in a struggle against its attacker and garnering many supporters who have, so far, been ambiguous or ambivalent about supporting the Islamic Republic.

Iran will gain support at home and abroad and, given the fact many of its suspected nuclear facilities are hardened targets with underground bunkers, maintain much of its current WMD capabilities despite textbook-perfect airstrikes. Israel could hit hard and accomplish little but bringing on a wave of retaliation, perhaps even full-scale war, forcing it to decide whether to use its own suspected nuclear arsenal. The irony would be Israel, in an attempt to prevent itself from being nuked in the future, provokes a war that forces it to become the nuclear aggressor.

If Iran’s nuclear facilities must be destroyed, it is far safer for the world for the U.S. to use its Navy and Air Force to administer the strikes. Iran would have a more difficult time retaliating against an opponent separated by thousands of miles of ocean than it would against a nearby foe like Israel. Similarly, a mass uprising of Iran’s new allies would cause much less harm to the U.S. than it would to Israel.

Iran’s nuclear program is wrecked and World War III, complete with potential nuclear warfare, is prevented. Instead of being able to retaliate against a next-door aggressor, Iran is forced to contend with a larger, more powerful foe on the other side of the globe. It has no justification for trying to annihilate Israel, as it has oft threatened. While crisis might not be averted, it is nevertheless much less likely.

If Iran must be struck to cripple its nuclear ambitions, it should be struck by a foe against that it cannot easily retaliate and thereby begin a wide-ranging war.

Obama Must Not “Caution”, but Defend Our Most Important Ally | The Moral Liberal.

JAY SEKULOW, ACLJ

Israel is facing grave danger from Iran, which is expected to have nuclear weapons within a year.

The big question: Where does President Obama stand? Will he back Israel and defend our most important ally, if necessary?

Don’t seem to be getting that feeling from the White House. The Washington Post reports: “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold.”

The President “cautioning” Israel? He should be warning Iran, not Israel. Why is he urging Israel to stand-down? And, where’s our pledge of support to Israel? Our promise to defend them if necessary?

No, that’s not happening. Instead, Defense Secretary Panetta told reporters that “we have expressed our concerns” to Israel about a potential military strike against Iran.

Let’s put this into the proper perspective. Israel – under siege – in the crosshairs. Consider this new threat issued today by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He says Iran “will support and help any nations, any groups” in fighting Israel. He added: “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region. . . .and it definitely will be cut off.”

Israel has no shortage of enemies and Iran is said to be cozying up to anti-Israel groups around the globe. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak understands the danger. He says military action might be necessary if sanctions don’t work.

This from Barak:

“Today, unlike the past, there is no question of the unbearable danger a nuclear Iran poses for the future of the Middle East, for the security of Israel and for the security and financial stability of the entire world.

Today, unlike the past, the world has no doubt that the military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.

He who says ‘later,’ may find that it is ‘too late.’”

It’s been nearly 60 years since an American President turned their back on Israel. The last time that happened was in 1956 when President Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. We cannot turn our back on Israel again.

Stand with us and demand that President Obama support Israel and defend Israel if necessary. This is not the time for political posturing. It’s time to show our unequivocal support for Israel. Add your name to our petition now.

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

U.S. Leak on Israeli Attack Weakened a Warning to Netanyahu – IPS ipsnews.net.

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

The leak by Panetta (above) appears to confirm fears that efforts to distance the U.S. from an Israeli attack are undermined by competing interests. Credit:U.S. Navy

WASHINGTON, Feb 4, 2012 (IPS) – When Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius this week that he believes Israel was likely to attack Iran between April and June, it was ostensibly yet another expression of alarm at the Israeli government’s threats of military action.

But even though the administration is undoubtedly concerned about that Israeli threat, the Panetta leak had a different objective. The White House was taking advantage of the current crisis atmosphere over that Israeli threat and even seeking to make it more urgent in order to put pressure on Iran to make diplomatic concessions to the United States and its allies on its nuclear programme in the coming months.

The real aim of the leak brings into sharper focus a contradiction in the Barack Obama administration’s Iran policy between its effort to reduce the likelihood of being drawn into a war with Iran and its desire to exploit the Israeli threat of war to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran.

The Panetta leak makes it less likely that either Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Iranian strategists will take seriously Obama’s effort to keep the United States out of a war initiated by an Israeli attack. It seriously undercut the message carried to the Israelis by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last month that the United States would not come to Israel’s defence if it launched a unilateral attack on Iran, as IPS reported Feb. 1.

A tell-tale indication of Panetta’s real intention was his very specific mention of the period from April through June as the likely time frame for an Israeli attack. Panetta suggested that the reason was that Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak had identified this as the crucial period in which Iran would have entered a so-called “zone of immunity” – the successful movement of some unknown proportion of Iran’s uranium enrichment assets to the highly protected Fordow enrichment plant.

But Barak had actually said in an interview last November that he “couldn’t predict” whether that point would be reached in “two quarters or three quarters or a year”.

Why, then, would Panetta deliberately specify the second quarter as the time frame for an Israeli attack? The one explicit connection between the April-June period and the dynamics of the U.S.-Israel- Iran triangle is the expiration of the six-month period delay in the application of the European Union’s apparently harsh sanctions against the Iranian oil sector.

That six-month delay in the termination of all existing EU oil contracts with Iran was announced by the EU Jan. 23, but it was reported as early as Jan. 14 that the six-month delay had already been adopted informally as a compromise between the three-month delay favoured by Britain, France and Germany and the one-year delay being demanded by other member countries.

The Obama administration had also delayed its own sanctions on Iranian oil for six months, after having been forced to accept such sanctions by the U.S. Congress, at the urging of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The administration recognised that six-month period before U.S. and EU sanctions take effect as a window for negotiations with Iran aimed at defusing the crisis over its nuclear programme. So it was determined to use that same time frame to put pressure on Iran to accommodate U.S. and European demands.

By the time the news of the postponement of the U.S.-Israeli military exercise broke on Jan. 15, Panetta was already prepared to take advantage of that development to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran.

Laura Rozen of Yahoo News reported that U.S. Defence Department officials and former officials, speaking anonymously, said Barak had requested the postponement and that they were “privately concerned” the request “could be one potential warning signal Israel is trying to leave its options open for conducting a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the spring.”

The Israelis were not on board with that Obama administration tactic. In fact, Netanyahu seemed more interested in portraying the Obama administration as favouring a soft approach on Iran in an election year.

Instead of reinforcing the effort by Panetta to use the six-month window to bring diplomatic pressure, Defence Minister Barak, speaking on Army Radio Jan. 18, said the government had “no date for making decisions” on a possible attack on Iran and, adding “The whole thing is very far off. . . ”

Another indication that the Ignatius column was not intended to increase pressure on Israel but to impress Iran is that it did not reinforce the message taken by Gen. Dempsey to Israel last month that the United States would not join any war with Iran that Israel had initiated on its own without consulting with Washington.

Ignatius wrote that the administration “appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets which would trigger a strong U.S. response.” But then he added what was clearly the main point: “Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: the United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israeli population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.”

Ignatius, who is known for reflecting only the views of the top U.S. defence and intelligence officials, was clearly reporting what he had been told by Panetta in Brussels.

Further underlining the real intention behind Panetta leak, Ignatius went out of his way to present Netanyahu’s assumptions about a war as credible, if not perfectly reasonable, hinting that this was the view he was getting from Panetta.

The Israelis, he wrote “are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and constrained”. Emphasising the Israeli doubt that Iran would dare to retaliate heavily against Israeli population centres, Ignatius cited “(o)ne Israeli estimate” that a war against Iran would only entail “about 500 civilian casualties”.

Ignatius chose not to point out that the estimate of less than 500 deaths had been given by Barak last November in response to a statement by former Mossad director Meir Dagan that an attack on Iran would precipitate a “regional war that would endanger the (Israeli) state’s existence”.

After that Barak claim, Dagan said in an interview with Haaretz newspaper that he assumes that “the level of destruction and paralysis of everyday life, and Israeli death toll would be high.”

But Ignatius ignored the assessment of the former Mossad director.

The Panetta leak appears to confirm the fears of analysts following the administration’s Iran strategy closely that its effort to distance the United States from an Israeli attack would be ineffective because of competing interests.

Reza Marashi, research director at the National Iranian-American Council, who worked in the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs from 2006 to 2010, doubts the administration can avoid being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran without a very public and unequivocal statement that it will not tolerate a unilateral and unprovoked Israeli attack.

“Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And sometimes the only way to ensure that a friend doesn’t endanger you or themselves is to take the away the car keys,” Marashi said.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006