WarSclerotic

Obama’s ‘Pretty Strong Teflon’ Coating Deflects Foreign Policy Criticism – Bloomberg.

Even as President Barack Obama benefits from an improving economy, an arc of foreign crises from Libya to Afghanistan is pushing U.S. foreign policy worries into an election dominated by concern over the American and global economies.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to Capitol Hill today for the first of two days of testimony that will give Republicans a chance to quiz her about Obama’s apology for U.S. troops burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan and other issues. The Koran incident sparked a cycle of anti-American violence that has claimed the lives of four U.S. soldiers and raised doubts about the administration’s efforts to speed the withdrawal of American combat forces and hand more responsibility to Afghan troops and police.

At a Chamber of Commerce event yesterday in Livonia, Michigan, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum criticized Obama’s handling of the Koran burning. “We should stop apologizing for America and stand up and defend our troops,” he said in one of the few sections of his speech that drew strong applause.

The administration’s challenges aren’t confined to Afghanistan. Obama’s policies also are being tested by a Syria verging on civil war; a political standoff with ally Egypt over trials for 16 American pro-democracy workers; an Iraq struggling to cope with corruption and civil strife following last year’s U.S. troop withdrawal; and, most of all, by the rising tension between Israel and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Israeli Visitors

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak will fly to Washington tonight for more talks with senior U.S. officials on the Iranian nuclear threat. In less than a week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in the capital and is expected to meet with Obama and address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

U.S. intelligence officials who have met with senior Israeli officials concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is increasingly likely, perhaps as early as this spring. Israel’s leaders, according to the officials, said they are prepared to act unilaterally without informing the U.S. in advance. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions with the Israelis.

Traditional Claims

While polls show that the president has been able to inoculate himself against traditional Republican claims of Democratic weakness on defense, the protests and killings in Afghanistan undermine administration arguments that it eliminated Osama bin Laden and has made enough progress in Afghanistan so the U.S. can leave, said Seth Jones, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp. in Arlington, Virginia.

“It makes it much more difficult to sell that argument with events like the rioting and instability and then suicide attacks that have all come together,” said Jones, who worked for the U.S. Special Operations Command in Afghanistan last year.

The “national security wild card” is a conflict with Iran over its nuclear activities, “which is certainly a possibility and could sharply raise energy prices,” Anthony Cordesman, a defense policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in an interview.

“If Israel attacks Iran, and the price of gas rises by $2 a gallon, you can see this linking back to the economy and election politics,” Caroline Wadhams, a senior fellow on national security policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group with close ties to the administration, said in an interview. “With Afghanistan, it’s hard to imagine it would ever become a dominant issue.”

Iraq and Afghanistan

Obama has delivered on the foreign policy issues the White House thinks voters care most about: the elimination of bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a timetable for a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan, said two administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to comment.

Republican pollster Ed Goeas said his party’s candidates may not have much to gain by criticizing Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Today, as much as a year ago, as much as two years ago, voters are primarily looking at things through an economic prism,” said Goeas of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Tarrance Group, who conducts the nationwide Battleground Poll, a bipartisan survey of voter attitudes. Obama “gets a certain amount of credit on fighting terrorism and foreign affairs.”

‘Pretty Strong Teflon’

Obama “has coated himself with some pretty strong Teflon,” Martin Indyk, director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in an interview. “I don’t think he has much of a foreign policy vulnerability from all these untoward events as long as he sticks with his basic approach: to be tough on terrorism but to be ending the wars in the greater Middle East and bringing the troops home.”

So far, foreign policy barely registers as an issue in public opinion polls. Asked for “the single most important issue in your choice for president,” 51 percent of respondents said the economy and jobs while 2 percent said terrorism and national security, according to a CBS News Poll conducted Jan 12-15. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Asked whether Obama “will keep America safe,” 61 percent of respondents said “very well” or “somewhat well” describes the president, according to an Associated Press-Gfk poll conducted Feb. 16-20. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

No Wedge Issue

Republicans have yet to find a “wedge issue” on foreign policy, said former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a veteran voice on foreign policy and now director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University in Bloomington.

While Republicans have accused Obama of “apologizing” for America, most recently after the Koran burning, he said, “I don’t think it’s a cutting-edge-type issue that will resonate in the general election.”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a Feb. 24 policy speech in Detroit, said Obama hasn’t been tough enough on trade disputes with China and has been slow to ramp up sanctions and other pressure on Iran to avoid having “our future and our kids’ future threatened by a nuclear Iran.”

The Iran situation “is the toughest one for the president, and the one that could explode before the election,” Hamilton said. “His Israeli policy has floundered. Iran is going to stay on the front burner because of the nuclear program.”

Oil Prices

Oil surged to the highest level in almost 10 months on Feb. 24 as escalating tension with Iran threatens supplies and signs that a global economic recovery will boost demand. Iran, OPEC’s second-biggest crude producer, has threatened to block shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a transit route for about a fifth of the world’s globally traded crude, if its exports are blocked.

Oil for April delivery fell $1.21 yesterday to settle at $108.56 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have increased 9.8 percent this year.

An improving job market along with an 8.75 percent surge in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index this year are helping keep Americans optimistic in the face of rising gasoline prices. The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index rose to the highest level since April 2008 in the week ended Feb. 19.

Declining Unemployment

The unemployment rate declined in January to 8.3 percent, the lowest since February 2009, and employers added 243,000 workers to payrolls, the most in nine months. Builders broke ground on more homes last month, and sales of existing houses climbed in January to the highest level since May 2010.

“By the time the election comes, Obama could be facing worse problems than high gasoline prices,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “There could be a full-blown war in the Middle East.”

The turmoil in Afghanistan demonstrates how unforeseen events can put the administration’s plans in doubt.

Marine General John Allen, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, recalled all coalition advisers from Afghan ministries in and around Kabul over the weekend after two American officers were shot in the back of the head in the heavily guarded Interior Ministry. Those deaths and two others a few days earlier in the country’s east, cast a shadow on the future of the training and mentoring effort that’s a key part of the U.S. strategy to wind down the war.

Democracy Movement

The democracy movement that the administration embraced as an “Arab Spring” has become increasingly problematic with the rise of Islamists in Egypt following the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, a growing death toll in Syria and ethnic and sectarian strife in Iraq and feuding militias in Libya.

Despite the annual $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt at stake and Clinton’s two meetings with Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr in recent days, 16 American democracy workers — including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood — are facing trial April 26 for operating without proper registration and accepting foreign funds, charges the U.S. rejects.

In Iraq, the prospect of a flourishing democracy built on eight years of U.S. investment of money and lives is fading. Just a few months after the last U.S. soldier left, “the country has become something close to a failed state,” Ned Parker of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York wrote in an analysis in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

Syrian Violence

Most pressing is Syria, a neighbor of Israel, where violence is spiraling into civil war. President Bashar al- Assad’s military forces have killed about 8,500 people, according to the Arab Organization for Human Rights.

Clinton returned on Feb. 26 from an inaugural “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunisia, which demanded Assad immediately stop the shelling, allow humanitarian workers into the country and adhere to an Arab League plan that would have him hand power to a deputy to create a unity government. Assad responded the same day with a speech on State TV declaring his confidence in victory.

The Obama administration has rejected a replay of Libya, where air power by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization helped rebels topple Qaddafi. Republicans “may try to use the Syria case as another example of the United States not using its power effectively,” said Wadhams. “But Americans are exhausted with war.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Terry Atlas in Washington at tatlas@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

Gerson: Obama’s Iran option | GoErie.com/Erie Times-News.

WASHINGTON —

Anyone who has worked at the White House is keenly aware of two gaps. The first is the gap between the obsessions of the media and the challenges of the country. So Rick Santorum explains his views on the pill and Satan, while nuclear inspectors leave Iran in failure and the president again enters the Situation Room to clarify his flawed options.

The second gap is between the classified knowledge possessed by the White House and the confident cluelessness of commentators. The people making difficult choices on Iran know things we don’t. But some things can be asserted with confidence. By building a broad international coalition against Iran and applying effective sanctions, the administration has raised the stakes of the confrontation. More accurately, it has built a broad coalition by raising those stakes.

After an initial period of naiveté, the administration concluded that inducements would not be enough to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The only hope is the application of costs Iran cannot bear. The resulting sanctions are biting. But having made the case for urgency and concerted action, it would be difficult for President Obama to tell the world “never mind” and shift to a strategy that accepts Iranian membership in the nuclear club.

Sanctions have not caused Iran to back down, but the approach is not yet exhausted. It is worth another twist of the tourniquet to reduce significant exceptions and exemptions. The Iranians have traditionally used diplomatic meetings as a method to weaken sanctions in exchange for the promise of more meetings.

A negotiation conducted by America and Europe that eases pressure only as a reward for compliance would send a final signal of seriousness. The history of negotiations with Iran justifies a cautious pessimism. In the event of failure, one man’s reaction will matter most. And Obama needs to know his mind before indecision begins to limit his options. The president probably recognizes that the containment of an Iran with nuclear weapons is not a serious option, because advocates for this approach are confused about the meaning of containment. Obama could make clear that an Iranian nuclear attack on America would result in the death of every Iranian citizen.

Obama can’t do nothing. But it is not advisable or practical to launch a multiweek conventional air and naval campaign. So the national security adviser, the secretary of defense and intelligence officials need to provide their boss something better than this dismal, binary choice. They will need to identify a range of in-between options. A virtuous somebody has already been conducting cyber attacks on the Iranian nuclear program and targeting key scientists. Are there other ways — ranging from covert action to stealth bombers — to disable or destroy a few key facilities, including Iran’s two uranium enrichment sites?

An unattributable action would be best — giving groups and governments in the Middle East the excuse to respond in the minimal way. But deniability may not be possible in an operation on this scale. It is a military judgment no outsider can confidently make.

A limited strike, it is true, would only buy time. The message, however, would be clear enough: If you keep at it, we’ll do it again. In the meantime, an oppressive and increasingly desperate regime may lose its grip on power.

Close cooperation with Israel in designing a targeted strike against enrichment facilities would have an added benefit. If the Israelis are convinced that America — after a last diplomatic push — is serious about preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, Israel would be less likely to take quick action of its own. American resolve is the best guarantee of Israeli patience. Obama wants to be known for winding down long wars. But he has shown no hesitance when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone militarist. Iran should take this fact seriously as it calculates its next move.

MICHAEL GERSON is a Washington Post columnist (michaelgerson@washpost.com).

Avionews – Agenzia stampa del settore aeronautico, elicotteristico, aerospaziale e della difesa.

Tel Aviv, Israel – Massive offensive ability developed by IAF during last years

(WAPA) – It doesn’t surprise Israel, ever on the American side in preventive destruction of Iranian nuclear sites, is ready to strike another attack thanks to its modern IAF (Israeli Air Force) almost definitely conceived for this long-range missions.

More revelations today (February 27, 2012) seems to be the umpteenth force demonstration and also a warning to Iran which, as well-known, is recently under the world attentions due to the oil economic situation upon which Iran premptory imposed vetoes operating an aggressive policy as much of American to reply to Western coercion.

The situation is also complicated more by the recent development of Iranian nuclear technology that, despite last decades raids (in fact, Israel already bombed some neighbouring regions already in 1981, striking the Iraqi reactor in Osirak, near Baghdad, and recently a Syrian plant in 2007), seems to be concluded (about it, it could be useful to read something about IAEA declarations (International Atomic Energy Agency) reported in this AVIONEWS).

Israeli Air Force, moreover, is conceived since two decades at least expressly for this kind of missions, including the most advanced versions of American 4Th generation fighters such as F-15S and F-16, the latter particularly is completely fitted with national technology by Israeli and take the designation of F-16I “Sufa”, conceived to improve the range and able of a remarkable weaponry for strategic strikes, also able to oppose an excellent air deterrent thanks to modern air-to-air medium to short range missiles, such as the AIM-120 Amraam and the latest version (the “X” one) of the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

For more information about technical specification of this aircraft, is also possible to read about the recent supply purchased by United Emirates and Pakistan, described in the following AVIONEWS.

Israel gets ready for Iran retaliation – FT.com.

©Reuters

An Israeli soldier (centre) role-playing as a victim is evacuated during a drill simulating a missile attack in Holon near Tel Aviv

As they ponder the option of a military strike against Iran, Israeli leaders have started to worry about targets closer to home.

Prompted by concern over a possible Iranian counter-attack, they are debating how well their own country is prepared for war. Iranian leaders have left Israel in no doubt that a strike on its nuclear facilities would invite harsh retaliation. The latest threat came on Saturday, when Gen Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian defence minister, warned that “a military attack by the Zionist regime will undoubtedly lead to the collapse of this regime”.

On previous occasions, Gen Vahidi has warned of a “crushing response” to any Israeli strike.

Though some in Israel dismiss such threats as bluster, most senior Israeli officials fear that the country’s home front would indeed be severely tested in a conflict with Iran.

“The paradigm of war has changed,” Dan Meridor, the deputy prime minister in charge of intelligence and nuclear affairs, told foreign journalists in a recent briefing. “In the past there was a battlefield where tanks fought tanks and planes fought planes … now the war is mainly in the home front.”

The last time Israel faced a sustained attack, during the 2006 war with Hizbollah, the “real battlefield” was in northern cities such as Haifa and Kiryat Shmona, Mr Meridor said.

He added: “If there is a war, and I hope there won’t be war, they are not going to hit just Israeli soldiers. They are mainly aiming at the civilian population.”

Much like the debate on a strike on Iran, the discussion about its aftermath is marked by sharply diverging opinions. Officials and analysts are split on the question of Iran’s capability and willingness to hit back, but also on the likely role of Tehran’s allies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Israel estimates that the Lebanese Hizbollah group, for example, has an arsenal of 50,000 rockets and missiles, which are stationed just across Israel’s northern border.

Should it decide to enter the fray and help its Iranian sponsor, Hizbollah could strike at targets deep inside Israel, including the densely-populated coastal plain around Tel Aviv.

The most catchy estimate of the likely Iranian response is expressed in a simple mathematical formula: x(1991 + 2006 + BA). The formula, as one former senior security official explains, is meant to capture the combination of threats faced by Israel in the aftermath of a strike.

The first is that of an Iranian missile attack on Israel, echoing the barrage fired by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War in 1991. The second threat is that of a rocket and missile attack by Hizbollah, as happened during the brief 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese group. BA stands for Buenos Aires, scene of deadly bomb attacks against the Israeli embassy in 1992 and a Jewish cultural centre in 1994.

Israeli officials believe that such sites abroad could be targeted once again should there be a conflict with Iran.

The ‘x’ of the formula is a multiplier, suggesting that this time the impact of all three lines of attack would be worse than before: Hizbollah’s arsenal, for example, is larger and more sophisticated today than it was in 2006. Israel believes Iran itself has hundreds of missiles that can reach Israel, and is probably in a position to inflict more damage than Iraq was two decades ago.

“The Iranians will not set the Middle East on fire,” the former official said. “They will react and they will retaliate…but the reaction will be calculated and according to Iran’s means.”

He added: “Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice? No. But it is better than a nuclear Iran.”

The problem, according to Zeev Bielski, a lawmaker from the centrist Kadima party, is that Israel’s cities are less prepared for such a barrage than they should be. “Iran [and its allies] will shoot hundreds and maybe thousands of rockets and missiles at our heavily-populated cities. That is what we have to be ready for,” he said.

Mr Bielski, who chairs the parliamentary subcommittee on home front readiness, points out that 1.7m Israelis currently live in homes without shelter or safe rooms, and that more than half the population has no gas masks. “All these years, we were concentrating on the readiness of our army,” Mr Bielski said. “But today the readiness of the home front dictates to a large degree the readiness on the front itself.”

He added that Israelis were indeed ready to face an initial Iranian response, but cautioned that more needed to be done to prepare the home front for a more protracted conflict. “Sometimes a war doesn’t finish in 24 hours,” he said.

Experts point out that Israel boasts one of the most comprehensive and sophisticated anti-missiles shields in the world. The country has developed and installed the Arrow system to intercept ballistic missiles fired from a distance, and the Iron Dome system to counter the threat from shorter-range rockets and missiles. Both have been tested repeatedly and found to be effective – but neither offers complete protection.

Some Israeli leaders, most notably Ehud Barak, talk down the danger of Iranian retaliation. The defence minister has repeatedly dismissed the chances of heavy Israeli casualties, saying there was “no chance” that an Iranian military response would kill more than 500 Israelis.

Few found that assessment, given in November last year, reassuring. “For a small country like Israel, 500 is a lot,” Mr Bielski said.

Obama, Iran in secret nuclear deal | The Daily Caller.

U.S. Considers New Message on Iran – WSJ.com.

By CAROL E. LEE and JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the U.S.’s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more forcefully outlining potential military actions, and the “red lines” Iran must not cross, as soon as this weekend, according to people familiar with the discussions.

President Barack Obama could use a speech on Sunday before a powerful pro-Israel lobby to more clearly define U.S. policy on military action against Iran in advance of his meeting on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these people said.

Israeli officials have been fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state’s threat to use force against Tehran by publicly questioning the utility and timing of such strikes.

The Israeli leader has told U.S. officials that he wants Mr. Obama to outline specifically what Washington views as the “red lines” that Iran cannot cross, something the administration is considering as it drafts the president’s speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and sets the agenda for his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu.

Some administration officials said that if Mr. Obama decides to more clearly define his red lines, he is likely to do it in private with Mr. Netanyahu, rather than state it in his AIPAC speech.

Mr. Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials also are pressing for Mr. Obama to publicly clarify his insistence that “all options are on the table” in addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.

Mr. Netanyahu recently conveyed his displeasure with the administration in separate meetings in Jerusalem with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and a group of U.S. senators, said people involved in the meetings.

He complained that comments by senior U.S. officials have cast Israel as the problem, not Iran, and only encouraged Tehran to press ahead with its nuclear program by casting doubt over the West’s willingness to use force.

Israeli officials were particularly alarmed when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Iran as a “rational actor” in a CNN interview after a recent visit to Israel.

The Israelis made clear in these meetings that Mr. Netanyahu intends to press Mr. Obama on the two points as the two allies more closely try to align their strategies to contain Tehran’s nuclear threat.

“The Israelis are unnerved,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), who was one of five U.S. senators who had lunch with Mr. Netanyahu last Tuesday in Jerusalem. “They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and I do too.”

Mr. Graham, a staunch Israel supporter, added: “The president needs to be reassuring to the Israelis that the policy of the United States is etched in stone: we will do everything, including military action, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. I hope the administration when they talk about ‘all options’ will better define what those options are. We’re getting too far into the game to be overly nuanced now.”

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who also was in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu last week, said he had never seen an Israeli leader “that unhappy.”

“He was angry,” Sen. McCain said. “And, frankly, I’ve never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point.”

The March 5 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama is part of a critical week of diplomacy and politicking in Washington that could affect not only the standoff with Iran, but also Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. U.S-Israel relations have been rocky since both leaders took office in 2009. Mr. Obama’s often frosty relationship with Mr. Netanyahu has degenerated at times into public spats between the two sides, raising concerns among the president’s Jewish supporters.

The annual AIPAC conference, which comes just days before a series of state votes on Tuesday in Republican primaries, is seen as a crucial venue through which to win Jewish support. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have all been invited to address the group, and Mr. Netanyahu will speak the day after his meeting with Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama will use his AIPAC speech to stress that his administration has developed deeper defense and intelligence-sharing ties with Israel than any other U.S. president, administration officials said. Seeking to build on his speech at the United Nations General Assembly last September, as one senior administration official put it, Mr. Obama will also remind Jewish voters at AIPAC that the U.S. stood up for Israel when the Palestinians sought to unilaterally claim statehood through a vote at the U.N. Security Council last fall.

The president also will outline the significant steps Washington has taken in recent months to increase Iran’s economic and diplomatic isolation through sanctions, officials said, and stress both the need to give those efforts time to work and the administration’s belief that there still is room for diplomacy.

Mr. Obama will repeat that his policy of also leaving all options on the table, including military force, remains, officials said. Aides are discussing what it would mean to go into greater detail. They are expected to make a decision later this week.

Administration officials acknowledge that Republican candidates believe they have an opening to attack Mr. Obama as weak in support of Israel as well as soft on confronting Iran. And because of the recent tensions in U.S.-Israel relations, the president’s aides are approaching this moment carefully.

“We have more to prove,” said one senior administration official.

Iran has proven to be a divisive issue for the two allies for months. Mr. Netanyahu was skeptical about Mr. Obama’s initial efforts to engage Iran’s theocratic government diplomatically in a bid to contain its nuclear program. And the U.S. and Israel have developed differing red lines to gauge the nuclear threat.

Israel has defined its red line as Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons “capability,” rather than the actual assembly of an atomic weapon. The U.S. has cited the latter and American officials continue to argue that the West still has a few years to dissuade Tehran from developing a bomb.

Last week, the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog announced that Tehran had more than tripled its monthly production of the purer form of enriched uranium that is closer to weapons grade.

Write to Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

Israel Won’t Warn U.S. Before Strike On Iran: AP Source.

WASHINGTON — Israeli officials say they won’t warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel’s potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, and the Pentagon and Office of Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the Israeli Embassy.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.

The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel’s frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally – a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other’s capitals.

“It’s unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel’s prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

“We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive,” Ruppersberger added.

They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran.

“We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon,” he said. “We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. … All options are on the table.”

“I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program,” Rogers told CNN on Monday. “It’s their calculus that the administration … is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

“They believe they’re going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States,” he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out both its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

___

AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.