Archive for February 2012

U.N. victory may push Syria’s Assad into unwinnable war

February 6, 2012

U.N. victory may push Syria’s Assad into unwinnable war.

The Russia and Chinese veto may bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s contention that he is fighting an Islamist insurgency funded and directed by foes in Gulf Arab states. (Reuetrs)

The Russia and Chinese veto may bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s contention that he is fighting an Islamist insurgency funded and directed by foes in Gulf Arab states. (Reuetrs)

Syria’s victory in dodging a U.N. resolution it deemed a license for regime change may only escalate its internal conflict into a full-fledged civil war that many analysts believe President Bashar al-Assad cannot ultimately win.

With the collapse of the sole diplomatic effort recognized by Assad’s foes – both armed and in a split civilian opposition, the stage is set for deeper diplomatic isolation of Syria and perhaps a new flows of arms and money to Syria’s insurgents.

“The worst effect of the veto is that it inflames, the civil war, intensifies it. We’re no longer talking about a hypothetical civil war. We’re now in the middle of a civil war. It’s started,” said Nabil Boumonsef, a columnist with Lebanon’s an-Nahar daily.

Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution on Saturday that sought backing for an Arab League proposal to end 11 months of bloodshed in Syria by urging Assad to pull troops from cities and allow a political transition to start.

The defeat of the measure a day after Assad’s opponents reported that his forces had killed over 200 people with artillery fire on the city of Homs prompted Western vows to ramp up pressure on Assad until he quits power.

By abetting violence, the veto may bolster Damascus’s contention that it is fighting an Islamist insurgency funded and directed by foes in Gulf Arab states, but offers no alternate political path out of the greatest crisis Syria has faced in the 49 years of the Assad family’s dynastic rule, analyst say.

“This (veto) is obviously an endorsement of the regime’s approach to the crisis which, over the last 11 months, has brought the country to the brink,” said Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group.

“We can expect the regime to push ahead along the same lines, which will raise the prospect of a civil war.”

Russian mediation, absent opposition

Russia, which sells Syria arms and maintains a military base on its coast, maintained that approving the resolution would have fanned the conflict through its failure to blame opposition groups equally for the bloodshed, which the United Nations says it can no longer track after 5,000 deaths.

Moscow will offer its own mediation – in the person of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and its intelligence chief who are to meet Assad on Tuesday, fulfilling a pledge last week to seek a negotiated end the bloodshed.

But that offer has already been rejected by the Syrian National Council (SNC) – the exiled dissident umbrella group which claims to speak for Syria’s political opposition and has only a tenuous link to the rebel force of army defectors.

The SNC and decentralized cells of fighters in Syria alike have demanded Assad surrender power as a precondition for any negotiations, a prospect analysts believe Russia itself would not raise with Assad.

“Russia understands what the Syrian regime is going through; it has an inherent inability to adjust quickly on the ground,” said Ayham Kamel, analyst with Eurasia Group risk consultancy.

“They encourage the Syrian regime to reform, but not remove all the structures. It’s all about restructuring, not removal.”

That approach rules out the key demand of the opposition, but it now looks to be making headway in a campaign to brand Assad a pariah, after Tunisia moved to expel his ambassador and withdraw recognition of Damascus.

“They may tell him to move just enough to get a political process going, but now I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Middle East commentator Rami Khouri. “The opposition won’t talk to him and he won’t negotiate his own exit.”

Prospect of arming rebels

With prospects for a negotiated solution dim, attention may turn to the balance of forces between rebels and Assad’s army.

Some in the opposition say the army has acted with relative restraint – despite the increasing death toll – partly due to fear about empowering officers too far from ruling circles.

Defector forces – with a notional leader allowed to operate from nearby Turkey – recently thrust to the edge of the capital. Past government offensives have swollen their ranks and they may now find an audience for their case to be armed more heavily.

“If indeed armed struggle is the only option left on the table, there’s a chance that opposition groups will procure the strategic depth that has been missing,” said Harling.

Washington has couched its threat of greater pressure on Assad in terms of political transition only.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed on Sunday to dry up Syria’s sources of weapons while supporting “the opposition’s peaceful political plans for change”.

Khouri noted the symbolic power U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has already exercised in the revolt against Assad, a member of a minority Shi’ite Muslim sect deemed heretical in the puritanical Sunni Islam that is a pillar of rule in the kingdom.

Riyadh, the self-styled steward of Sunni Islam, is deeply wary of the political upheaval gripping the Middle East and sent troops to Bahrain as it crushed pro-democracy protests last year. But the Saudis weighed in against Assad in August, when he cracked down on restive Syrian cities at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The kingdom hosts a Syrian cleric, Adnan Arour, who left the country when Assad’s father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad, crushed his own Islamist insurrection, culminating in an attack on the city of Hama 30 years ago that left at least 10,000 dead.

The cleric has been granted air time on satellite outlets broadly loyal to Saudi Arabia to denounce Assad’s rule in bitterly sectarian terms, calling at times for mass reprisal against the Alawite community from which he hails.

“The armed groups that are fighting against them look to be escalating, and I think you’re going to find people around the world supporting them on some humanitarian basis but also militarily,” Khouri said.

“There are concerns that the opposition is becoming a Saudi Qatari proxy…if you have to choose, though, most people would rather have a liberated Syria with broad GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) influence than the Assad regime.”

That escalation would ensure a long and bloody conflict, Boumonsef said. “The regime is still stronger on the ground, but we’re heading to something like a balance of forces,” he said.

“Once the logic of civil war takes hold somewhere, it’s out of the hands of countries to stop it until their shared interest dictate so…We’re the best experts on this after the 15 years (of civil war) we lived through in Lebanon.”

Scores killed and injured as Syrian army shells Homs; shelling seen as ‘real war’

February 6, 2012

Scores killed and injured as Syrian army shells Homs; shelling seen as ‘real war’.

The shelling is the most intensive shelling on Baba Amro since the start of the protests. (Al Arabiya)

The shelling is the most intensive shelling on Baba Amro since the start of the protests. (Al Arabiya)

As many as 18 people have been killed and scores of others have been injured in intensive shelling of the Baba Amro neighborhood in Homs, Al Arabiya reported on Monday citing Syrian activists.

“It is the most intensive shelling on Baba Amro since the start of the protests,” one witness told Al Arabiya by phone.

Military helicopters are taking part in the shelling of Baba Amro, which caused a number of residential buildings to collapse, Syrian activists said.

“Seven residential buildings collapsed as a result of the Syrian intensive shelling of Homs,” an activist at the Local Coordination Committees told Al Arabiya. “Homs is witnessing a real war,” he said.

Syrian army deserters destroyed a military control post in the northeast overnight, killing three officers and capturing 19 soldiers in the process, as Western powers vowed to seek new ways to punish Damascus amid growing outrage after Russia and China blocked a U.N. resolution condemning Syria.

The attack happened in the village of al-Bara in the Idlib region, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, adding that none of the army deserters involved was killed.

The regular army post was completely destroyed, AFP reported citing the London-based group.

The news is the latest sign of growing unrest within the ranks of the Syrian forces, as outrage grows in Syria and in the West over the regime’s bloody crackdown on opposition protests.

Western powers vowed Sunday to seek new ways to punish Damascus amid growing outrage after Russia and China blocked a U.N. resolution condemning Syria for its deadly crackdown on protests.

The vetoes wielded by Beijing and Moscow at the U.N. Security Council on Saturday handed President Bashar al-Assad’s regime a “license to kill” according to the opposition.

Double veto

The rare double veto also drew international condemnation, with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it a “travesty” and vowing to push for new sanctions on Syria.

“Those countries that refused to support the Arab League plan bear full responsibility for protecting the brutal regime in Damascus,” a forceful Clinton told a news conference with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov in Sofia.

Faced with a “neutered Security Council” she promised to redouble efforts outside of the U.N.

“We will work to seek regional and national sanctions against Syria and strengthen the ones we have,” Clinton added,

Echoing Washington’s sentiments, France said Europe would strengthen sanctions against Damascus.

“Europe will again harden sanctions imposed on the Syrian regime. We will try to increase this international pressure,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said.

He also said France would “help the Syrian opposition to structure and organize itself.”

Russia defended its U.N. veto, saying Western powers had refused to reach a consensus.

“The authors of the draft Syria resolution, unfortunately, did not want to undertake an extra effort and come to a consensus,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov wrote on Twitter.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov are preparing to visit Damascus on Tuesday, amid reports that the mission could try to push Assad to quit.

“Russia strongly intends to achieve a rapid stabilization of the situation in Syria through the rapid implementation of much-needed democratic reforms,” the Russian foreign ministry said.

China defends U.N. veto

China’s top newspaper on Monday defended Beijing’s rejection of the U.N. resolution, saying Western campaigns in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the error of forced regime change.

The commentary in the People’s Daily, the top newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party, was Beijing’s clearest defense of its decision to join Moscow at the weekend in vetoing a draft United Nations resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Assad to quit after months of bloodshed, according to Reuters.

The commentary suggested that Chinese distrust of Western intervention lay behind the veto.

“The situation in Syria continues to deteriorate and numbers of civilian casualties keep rising. Vetoing the draft Security Council resolution does not mean we are giving free rein to letting this heart-rending state of affairs continue,” said the commentary in the paper, which echoes government thinking.

“Currently, the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster,” said the paper.

In March, China abstained from a Council vote that authorized Western military intervention in Libya. That resolution became the basis for a NATO air campaign that led to the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi, despite misgivings from Beijing and Moscow about the expanded campaign, which they said went beyond the resolution.

“Libya offers a negative case study. NATO abused the Security Council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone, and directly provided firepower assistance to one side in the Libyan war,” said the People’s Daily Commentary.

It also cited Iraq and Afghanistan in its case against the Syria resolution.

“The calamities of Iraq and Afghanistan should be ample to wipe clear the world’s eyes. Forceful prevention of a humanitarian disaster sounds filled with a sense of justice and responsibility,” said the paper.

“But are not the unstoppable attacks and explosions over a decade after regime change a humanitarian disaster?” it said.

Meanwhile U.S. Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said Sunday the United States could take covert action to help oust Assad, without using U.S. troops.

Gingrich, who is struggling to keep up with frontrunner Mitt Romney in the Republican race, told the CBS program: “Face the Nation” that Washington should act to help remove the Syrian leader blamed for a deadly crackdown on opponents.

“I think there are a lot of things we could do covertly in terms of supplying weapons, supplying — helping people in the region supply advisers,” the former House speaker said.

The Russian and Chinese vetoes came hours after the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) reported a “massacre” overnight Friday in the central flashpoint city of Homs with more than 230 civilians killed during an assault by regime forces.

On Sunday, activists reported more shelling in the city, with at least 56 civilians and 28 regular army troops killed the day after 48 people were reported dead.

The weekend death toll was one of the bloodiest since the uprising against Assad’s regime erupted almost 11 months ago.

Opposition groups say at least 6,000 people have now been killed.

Growing fear

The second U.N. double veto in four months also fuelled fears among Syrian activists of a new surge of violence that would once again target Homs.

“The SNC holds Russia and China accountable for the escalation of killings and genocide, and considers this irresponsible step a license for the Syrian regime to kill,” it said in a statement.

In Libya, crowds of Syrians chanting anti-Russian slogans entered Moscow’s Tripoli embassy and replaced the Russian flag with the new Syrian flag while hundreds protested outside the Russian embassy in Beirut.

And Turkish police fired tear gas to disperse protesters seeking to storm the Syrian consulate in Istanbul.

Iran, however, welcomed the veto on the resolution condemning its ally Syria and accused the Security Council of attempting to interfere in the country’s internal affairs

Assad’s troops shelled Homs overnight Friday, killing at least 260 civilians, the SNC said, while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said about 100 women and children were among its toll of 237 dead.

The tolls could not be independently confirmed. Damascus denied responsibility, blaming the deaths on rebels seeking to swing the U.N. vote.

The U.N. resolution — approved by 13 of the 15-member Security Council — was proposed by European and Arab nations to give strong backing to an Arab League plan to end the crackdown.

On Sunday, League chief Nabil al-Arabi said the bloc would press on with mediation efforts to find a political solution and avoid foreign intervention in Syria.

Syrian government mouthpiece Tishrin called the veto “a catalyst” and said it would help accelerate reforms in the country.

Tunisia urged other Arab nations to follow its lead after it said on Saturday it was expelling Syria’s ambassador and withdrawing its recognition of the Assad government.

Iran official suggests pre-emptive Israel strike

February 6, 2012

Iran official suggests pre-emptive Israel strike – Washington Times.

As nuclear tensions escalate, threats grow.

Tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear program escalated as Tehran’s armed forces staged exercises over the weekend and Iranian leaders vowed to retaliate against Western sanctions and any Israeli strike on the regime’s atomic sites.

What’s more, an Iranian official called for a pre-emptive missile attack on Israel before the end of the year to prevent an Israeli attack on the Islamic republic. According to Israel’s Channel 2 on Sunday, Ahmed Tavakoli, head of the Iranian Parliament’s research center, posted the remark on the institute’s website.

Meanwhile, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned that Iran would punish military strikes against his country’s nuclear program, which Western nations fear is developing an atomic weapon.

His militia staged exercises over the weekend near the southern city of Jiroft, according to state media.

The military drills were executed a day after Iran’s supreme leader vowed that “sanction will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course.”

In recent days, Israeli officials have issued some of their strongest warnings to date that the Jewish state will not allow Iran to do that.

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday, referring to fears that, once Iran completes a new underground nuclear facility near Qom, its program will be immune from attack.

Israeli officials have said they will not allow Iran to enter this “zone of immunity.”

U.S. officials have said they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon and have not ruled out military action to stop them. But they believe the Islamic regime has not yet decided whether to create an atomic bomb.

Although small-scale, the exercises by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, whose senior leadership was implicated in a foiled terror plot against the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year, could stoke U.S. concerns that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program might blow back against the United States.

U.S. officials believe “Iranian retaliation would fall largely on U.S. military and even civilian personnel” serving in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, said Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.

Top U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers last week that Iran might use terrorist or criminal proxies to strike at American and allied targets, including in the U.S. homeland, in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said last week that he believes Israel could attack in the spring. The comments, which he has declined to dispute, were the latest in a series of public comments by U.S. officials rasing the specter of an Israeli strike.

The comments, Ms. Slavin said, are part of a concerted effort by U.S. officials “to smoke the Israelis out,” forcing Israeli officials into an unprecedented public debate about their options. “We are telling them every which way we can ‘Don’t do it,’ ” she said.

The Obama administration does not want Israel to strike because it would send the price of oil soaring and smash the international coalition against Iran that the United States has established, she added.

“The Israelis would be doing [Tehran] a huge favor if they attack,” because a divided and increasingly impoverished Iranian people undoubtedly would rally behind their leaders, Ms. Slavin said.

Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said there would be “no comment, no response,” to Mr. Panetta’s comments

But a veteran Iran scholar said bellicose rhetoric from Iranian leaders is to be expected as Iran celebrates the anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

“The rhetoric always becomes very heated at this time of year,” said Judith S. Yaphe, a research fellow at the National Defense University. “They will make very aggressive remarks. They will launch their latest, newest, flashiest technology.”

Abraham Rabinovich in Jerusalem contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports.

After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror

February 6, 2012

After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror – St. Louis Jewish Light: World – After string of foiled plots, concerns mount over Iranian-backed terror: World.

 

WASHINGTON — When America’s top intelligence official said that Iran’s regime is considering attacks on U.S. soil, he cited a single incident and qualified the assessment with a “probably.”

But intelligence and law enforcement experts say the Jan. 31 warning by the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, was likely based on more than the evidence he cited.

“I would be surprised to learn a statement like that was not backed up by intelligence,” said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The question of whether Iran will respond to escalating international pressure over its nuclear program with terrorist attacks on overseas targets is of particular concern to Jewish communities around the world.

While there has been intense speculation over how Iran would respond to a possible Israeli or American strike against its nuclear facilities, experts already are citing with concern a series of recent foiled plots, allegedly connected to Iran or its proxies, against Jewish and non-Jewish targets.

In his written unclassified testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper cited only the alleged plot revealed in October to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir at the Cafe Milano, a popular Georgetown hangout for the powerful and influential. The attack allegedly had the backing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“The 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime,” Clapper wrote.

Matthew Levitt, a former deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Treasury under George W. Bush, said Clapper’s inclusion of Khamenei in his warning, even with the “probably” qualification, was no accident.

“People are careful to say what they mean, and nothing more,” he said of the intelligence community. “As soon as I read that, I said, ‘Uh-oh, that’s not just a statement to say the threat to the ambassador was real, [Khamenei] was in there to say it went to the top.”

Sources close to law enforcement say there is no specific threat of an attack, although the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in recent weeks have intensified their monitoring of possible threats.

ABC News cited an Israeli internal security document in reporting Feb. 3 that Jewish and Israeli institutions in the Unites States are on high alert over concerns that they will be targed by Iran or its proxy. In a letter, the head of security for the Israeli consul general for the Mid-Atlantic states, according to ABC, wrote that the security threat has increased on “guarded sites” such as Israeli embassies and consulates, and “soft sites” such as synagogues, as well as Jewish schools, restaurants and Jewish community centers.

ABC reported that local and regional law enforcement and intelligence officials in U.S. and Canadian cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Toronto have increased security at Israeli and Jewish institutions, and that federal officials also have increased vigilance in looking for imminent attacks.

“In the past few weeks, there has been an escalation in threats against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,” ABC quoted a U.S. regional intelligence document as saying. “Open source has reported many demonstrations against Israel are expected to be concentrated on Israeli embassies and consulates. Such demonstrations have occurred internationally as well as domestically. These demonstrations could potentially turn violent at local synagogues, restaurants, the Israeli Embassy and other Israeli sites.”

The document said that “Law enforcement should be vigilant when making periodic checks at all Jewish facilities.”

An Israeli intelligence report warned that forged Israeli passports might be used by potential terrorists to leave the Middle East and enter the United States and Canada.

As the tensions over Iran’s nuclear program mounted, Jewish security professionals noted the possible threat to Jewish institutions around the world.

A number of disrupted plots overseas in recent weeks have raised concerns, said Paul Goldenberg, national director of the Secure Community Network, an effort funded by the Jewish Federations of North America that works on strengthening security for Jewish institutions.

“The people that want to come after Israel overseas will look at Jewish targets in the host nations as well,” he said. “They will look not just at embassies, but at synagogues and JCCs as secondary targets.”

An example cited by Goldenberg of the conflation of Jewish and Israeli targets was the late January arrests in Azerbaijan of at least two citizens of that country in connection with an alleged plot to kill two rabbis and the Israeli ambassador in the capital city, Baku.

Three men reportedly were charged with weapons smuggling as part of a plot to kill two rabbis who worked for a Chabad Jewish school in Baku, as well as the Israeli ambassador to Azerbaijan. Two of those charged are reported to be in custody; one is still at large.

Azerbaijan’s national security ministry accused Iranian intelligence agents of arming and equipping the three men, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported. Haaretz suggested the plot was intended as retaliation for the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Bureau has issued a travel warning for Azerbaijan.

In addition to the Baku attacks, Bulgaria reportedly uncovered a plot against Israeli tourists. Prompted by an alert from Israeli intelligence authorities in Thailand on Jan. 13, a Lebanese man alleged to have plotted a bombing attack against Israelis and Jews was arrested.

Levitt, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said there was a period in which Iran was reluctant to strike out against targets overseas.

Iran was implicated in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds. An Argentine prosecutor eventually accused five Iranians and the operational chief of Lebanese Shiite milita Hezbollah, Imad Mughniyah, of involvement in the attack. Interpol issued warrants for their arrests in 2007.

Iran, which has always denied involvement in the AMIA attack, was stung by the diplomatic backlash in its wake, and it is widely believed to have ordered its proxies to confine operations to the Middle East.

The trigger that renewed the threat of attacks overseas was the assassination of Mughniyah by a car bomb in Syria in 2008. Hezbollah blames Israel’s Mossad for the assassination, Levitt said.

“We will pick the time, the place, the punishment, the means and the method,” Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said at the time.

Jewish communities in the United States and overseas have issued security alerts each year since then on the Feb. 12 anniversary of the killing.

Levitt said the intensification of Iran’s isolation as the result of sanctions targeting its suspected nuclear weapons program and the heightened U.S. military posture have likely contributed to the intelligence community’s sense that more attempts on overseas targets may be imminent.

“We’re at a point where Iran, when pushed into a corner and we’re finally doing things that have an impact on the nuclear program, the likelihood it lashes out increases,” he said.

Another factor that has spurred Iranian threats of retribution is the spate of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

“From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help,” Khamenei said Feb. 3 in a Friday sermon translated by the Associated Press. “We have no fear expressing this.”

Dubowitz said such statements merited heightened alert.

“The overall question of what other aggressive actions the Iranians are willing to take in response to our pressure means Jewish institutions in the United States need to take reasonable precautions,” he said.

Obama: U.S. in ‘lockstep’ with Israel on Iran

February 6, 2012

Obama: U.S. in ‘lockstep’ with Israel on Iran – Josh Gerstein – POLITICO.com.

 

Barack Obama makes remarks on the economy at Fire Station 5 in Arlington, Virginia. | AP Photo

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72479.html#ixzz1lZnlGnYM

President Barack Obama said Sunday that he’s committed to working in “lockstep” with Israel to try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as concern is rising in the U.S. and overseas about a possible Israeli strike on Iran that could unleash violence across the Middle East.

Obama seemed eager to calm worries that Israel is on the brink of a pre-emptive attack, even as he continued to warn about the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Obama said during a six-minute, live interview from the White House during NBC’s Super Bowl pre-game show. “We are going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this — hopefully, diplomatically.”

Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he believes expanded international sanctions on Iran are hurting the regime.

“They are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure,” the president said. “But they have not taken the steps that they need to diplomatically to say ‘We will pursue peaceful nuclear power. We will not pursue a nuclear weapon.’ Until they do, I think Israel is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.”

Obama did not directly answer a question from Lauer about whether the U.S. has blessed any military action by Israel, nor would he say whether Israel has promised to warn the U.S. before carrying out a strike against Iran.

“I won’t go into the details of our conversations. I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we ever have. And my number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel,” Obama said.

A series of published reports and statements from Israeli officials in the past week have raised concern that the Jewish state may act in the next few months to try to set back Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful but outside experts believe is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

In response to a question from Lauer, Obama said he doubts that Iran is seeking to carry out attacks in the United States. “We don’t see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now,” the president said.

Obama’s statement was a curious one, since an intelligence community assessment that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper presented to Congress last week said that some Iranian leaders “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Obama said he prefers a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, in part because of the potential impact a military confrontation could have on the U.S. economy and on U.S. troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“But we’re not going to take any options off the table, and I’ve been very clear that we’re going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the president said.

Lauer did not ask Obama during the live interview about the violence Saturday in the Syrian city of Hama, where more than 200 people reportedly were killed by pro-regime forces.

But Lauer did remind Obama that in a Super Bowl interview in 2009, the president said that if he wasn’t “done” turning the economy around by now, he would not be reelected.

“I deserve a second term, but we’re not done,” Obama said Sunday. “When you and I sat down, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. … Now we’re creating 250,000 [a month]. We created 3.7 million jobs over the last 23 months. We’ve created the most jobs since 2005, the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990s, but we’re not finished.”

Obama cited his efforts to create jobs in the manufacturing and energy fields, as well as the administration’s work to increase regulation on the financial markets and improve education so American workers will be better equipped for the future. He also warned, in vague terms, that solutions Republicans are offering are unwise.

“We’ve made progress,” Obama said. “The key right now is to make sure we don’t start turning in a new direction that could throw that progress off.”

As he buckles down for his reelection bid, Obama refused to pick sides in Sunday’s showdown between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. He suggested his reticence was the product of true uncertainty rather than political caution.

“I can’t call it. I think this is going to be one of them where it comes down to a turnover,” Obama said during the six-and-a-half hour pre-game broadcast. “I think this is going to be a tough game. Both teams have their weaknesses. They’re not a strong as they were a couple of years ago.”

Asked by Lauer, Obama said his daughters Malia and Sasha are not quite old enough to be putting up posters of heartthrobs like Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. And the president said he wouldn’t welcome that sort of thing.

“I may call some executive privilege and say that that’s not appropriate,” Obama joked.

First lady Michelle Obama also made an appearance during NBC’s Super Bowl coverage Sunday, in a pre-recorded segment about the National Football League’s “Play 60” program encouraging kids to engage in 60 minutes of physical activity daily. The NFL public service effort is a partner of “Let’s Move,” Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity.

Early in the pre-game show, the first lady was shown giving a White House tour to James Gale, an 11-year-old boy originally from Liberia who now lives in North Carolina. Gale won a “Play 60” contest and was picked to deliver the game ball onto the field during the Super Bowl.

More of the interview with Obama is set to air on NBC’s “Today” show Monday morning.

House Intel Chair: Israel Attack on Iran Would Harm U.S. National Security – ABC News

February 6, 2012

House Intel Chair: Israel Attack on Iran Would Harm U.S. National Security – ABC News.

As United States and Israel grow increasingly concerned over Iran’s nuclear program, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is cautioning that a pre-emptive strike by Israel could spell trouble for America.

“If Israel does a unilateral strike, this could be a real problem for the national security interests of the United States,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

This statement comes days after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed concern that Israel would bomb Iran in an unattributed comment run in a column in the Washington Post.  Panetta while not directly quoted by the columnist, has not denied the accuracy of the column and the general consensus is that Panetta does believe Israel is ready to bomb Iran.  Rogers said recent tension between the United States and Israel has lead to breakdown of trust when it comes to dealing with Iran.

“Israel has been a little bit distrustful of the United States and I think that’s caused a little bit of friction,” Rogers said.

Iran caused quite a stir earlier in January when it announced that it had enriched the country’s first nuclear fuel rod.  Those rods could be used to create a nuclear weapon.  The International Atomic Energy Agency also released a report in November that suggested Iran is making progress in its program to create nuclear weapons.

While U.S. leaders have shown continued restraint when talking about Iran, the public largely supports military action against Iran. According to a December 2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll,  54 percent of Americans said that they would support attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, while 38 percent said that we should not.

Only two of the Republican presidential candidates support a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.  Rick Santorum said that as president he would not only bomb the nuclear sites with airstrikes but also make it public that we were doing so, while Newt Gingrich expressed support for a plan that included Israeli cooperation.

For now, the United States and several of its allies have imposed harsh economic sanctions on Iran.  Rogers said he believes the sanctions are having a real impact.

“It’s working in the sense that it is affecting every sector of their economy,” he said. “It’s impacting average Iranians in their daily lives. Inflation is just rampant. The fact that they’re having a hard time getting access to currency for transactions is starting to be a real problem.”

Netanyahu Says Military Strength Guarantees Israeli Security

February 6, 2012

Netanyahu Says Military Strength Guarantees Israeli Security – Businessweek.

By Jonathan Ferziger

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who yesterday announced plans to visit the U.S. in March, said turmoil in neighboring Arab states and threats from Iran show that Israel must build up its military.

“In such a region, the only thing that ensures our existence, security and prosperity is our strength,” Netanyahu told his Cabinet in Jerusalem in remarks broadcast on Israel Radio. “We are obligated to continue to develop the military, economic and social strength of the state of Israel.”

Israeli leaders have been warning publicly that time is running out for a military strike that could stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. U.S. President Barack Obama said on NBC News yesterday that “our preferred solution is diplomatic but we’re not going to take any actions off the table.”

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Obama told NBC. Obama said the two countries have “closer military and intelligence consultation than ever before” and “we are going to work in lockstep to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically.”

Netanyahu will visit Washington in early March and speak at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to an announcement. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman arrives in the U.S. today for a series of meetings with government officials, his office said.

The Israeli prime minister clashed with Obama during a visit to the White House last May over the issue of negotiating borders with the Palestinians. He was later given 29 standing ovations when he addressed a joint meeting of Congress.

Iranian Cruise Missile

Iran has said it won’t give up its nuclear program, which it says is for civilian purposes and not for developing weapons. The country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Feb. 3 that a strike would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East “10 times over,” the Associated Press reported.

Iran has been developing its arsenal of conventional weapons and has started to mass produce a new, short-range, naval cruise missile, the Zafar, Tehran Times reported, citing Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi.

The Zafar is a short-range, anti-ship, radar-guided cruise missile which can be installed on various types of vessels and is able to hit small- and medium-size targets with high precision, Vahidi said, according to the newspaper.

Referring to Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that will be cut, Khamenei said in his Friday, Feb. 3, sermon that “if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will help.”

The acting commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Brigadier-General Hossein Salami, said yesterday that “any location that may be used by the enemies to launch an attack against Iran will face retaliatory aggression by units of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.” His remarks were reported by the state-run Fars news agency.

Sarkozy

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a political journal that Iran may face military action by Israel if it doesn’t stop its threats and nuclear program.

“We know that some in Israel are seriously considering” military intervention, Sarkozy said in an interview with the quarterly Politique Internationale published yesterday. “If Iran continues its senseless race to get the bomb and continues to threaten its neighbors, we are facing the risk of a military intervention,” he said.

At a security conference in Munich, Germany, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu yesterday said a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations “will create a disaster.” Davutoglu said negotiations between Iran and the West would be preferable to military action.

Barak’s ‘Operation’

Netanyahu told his Cabinet that Middle East peace efforts also require Israel to bolster its military.

“This is the only guarantee for the existence of peace and the only defense for Israel should the peace unravel,” Netanyahu said. “Developing Israel’s strength is this government’s main issue.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Feb. 2 that Israel must consider conducting “an operation” before Iran reaches an “immunity zone,” referring to Iran’s goal of protecting its uranium enrichment and other nuclear operations by moving them to deep underground facilities.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declined to comment directly on a report by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June. Panetta and other U.S. officials have repeatedly warned Israel not to act alone.

–With assistance from Ladane Nasseri in Dubai, Jonathan Tirone in Munich, Helene Fouquet in Paris and Hans Nichols and Roxana Tiron in Washington. Editors: Louis Meixler, Ann Hughey.

In Israel, Talk of Attacking Iran Transcends Idle Chatter – NYTimes.com

February 6, 2012

In Israel, Talk of Attacking Iran Transcends Idle Chatter – NYTimes.com.

JERUSALEM — Israelis like to say that when it comes to military and security operations, those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know. But the intense and increasingly public debate about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities is challenging that piece of conventional wisdom.

 

The standard view has been that successful attacks rely on secrecy and surprise, so the more talk there is about an operation, the less likely it will occur.

 

One year ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to support that theory. He told foreign journalists that Iran briefly stopped working on a nuclear weapon only once, in 2003, because that was when the United States attacked Iraq, and Iran feared it might be next.

 

“The paradox,” Mr. Netanyahu said then, “is that if there is a credible military option, you won’t have to use it.”

 

In other words, the more noise you make about war, the less likely you will have to resort to it.

 

But few who have spent time with Israel’s decision makers in recent months have come away believing that the talk of a military assault is merely a well-scripted act of public diplomacy. It is that, to be sure, but there is more. It is also a window into the government’s thinking.

 

Israel believes that its threats to attack Iran have been the catalyst that has pushed much of the world to agree to harsh sanctions on Iran’s energy and banking sectors, sanctions that otherwise would not have been agreed to. It believes further that the Iranian economy is fragile and the popularity of the Tehran government is low, so that there is a small chance the sanctions could force a change of policy or a political crisis in Iran.

 

But Israel’s top leaders also worry that the sanctions are too late and that, in the end, a military assault is the only way to accomplish their goal — stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. So the talk in this crisis is not made instead of action, but in addition to it — and perhaps as a prelude to it.

 

This was clear again last Thursday evening when the defense minister, Ehud Barak, spoke publicly about what he viewed as the existential nature of the Iranian issue. He said the decisions he and his colleagues faced today were “no less fateful” than those facing the Zionist leaders who founded Israel in 1948 or those just before and during the wars of 1967 and 1973.

 

“The leader has to decide when to act and when to wait, when and what to declare and when to keep silent,” Mr. Barak told the annual Herzliya Conference devoted to Israel’s security.

 

He said that never in Israel’s history had a topic of such import been debated with such thoroughness and frankness as this one. An Iran with nuclear weapons, he asserted, would be “far more complex, dangerous and costly in blood and money than stopping it today would be.”

 

“Those who say ‘later,’ may find that later is too late,” he warned, and added, “We mean what we say.”

 

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, but the United States, European states and Israel believe that Iran’s goal is to build weapons. Israel is more worried than the others, however, because Iran has singled it out, calling it a “tumor” that should be removed, and the government in Tehran finances and arms violent anti-Israel groups.

 

Opinions in Israel, however, are far from unanimous on the idea of an assault. The military establishment is unenthusiastic, and that includes several of the most important generals, active and retired. Many reject the conclusion that Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu have embraced, that an Israeli attack would produce only a limited and bearable conflict.

 

Alex Fishman, a military analyst for the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, wrote on Sunday that a former commander of the air force, Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliahu, likened the situation to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 when President John F. Kennedy threatened to bomb Cuba if Soviet nuclear missiles were not removed from there.

 

The Cuban crisis stood on three legs, he said: a naval blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States, military threats and a diplomatic channel of dialogue that allowed the Soviets ultimately to back down. The Iranian crisis, General Ben-Eliahu was quoted as saying, has two of those legs — sanctions and military threats — but it is far from clear that it has the needed diplomatic channel.

 

The discussion here of an Israeli attack has grown so loud lately that some now worry that it has become counterproductive as a diplomatic tool. Amos Yadlin, a retired general who used to direct military intelligence in Israel, said on the radio on Sunday that it was time to quiet that talk.

“These statements have reached the point where they have crossed the line from bringing benefit and are beginning to cause damage,” he said. “I’ll give you an example. I saw on an Iranian Web site this morning thoughts like, ‘If this is the situation, maybe we should attack first.’ I think there is a danger of escalation that will get out of control. Right now we should do what Israel knows how to do well — keep quiet.”

Israel’s intentions toward Iran remain unclear – latimes.com

February 6, 2012

Israel’s intentions toward Iran remain unclear – latimes.com.

A worker makes his way in front of the Bushehr reactor in Iran.

A worker rides a bike in front of the reactor building at the Bushehr nuclear power plant near Bushehr, Iran, in this 2010 photo. (Majid Asgaripour, Mehr News Agency / February 5, 2012)

Analysts differ on whether Israel’s threat of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a bluff to spur tougher sanctions, or a real warning.

By Edmund Sanders, Los Angeles Times

6:24 PM PST, February 5, 2012

Reporting from Jerusalem

By ramping up its threat to attack Iran’s nuclear development program, Israel appears to have galvanized international attention on an issue it has long sought to bring to the top of the global agenda.

But it remains unclear whether Israel’s unusually public statements about a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities are a bluff designed to spur tougher economic sanctions or a means of preparing the world, politically and psychologically, for what some see as an inevitable confrontation, perhaps as soon as this summer.

Although some credit Israel’s tough rhetoric for the European Union’s recent decision to ban Iranian oil imports, others warn the strategy could backfire by triggering retaliation from Iran or setting Israel on a course that may be difficult to reverse.

Skeptics say that if Israel were actually preparing to launch a military strike against Iran, it would not be talking about the option so openly. No such debate occurred before Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.

“Israel has shot itself in its own feet by exaggerating the Iranian threat,” said Shahram Chubin, an Iranian-born nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program in Geneva.

Recent speculation about an attack — both by Israeli and U.S. officials — has undermined both countries’ deterrence option, he said. “It has banalized the military option, where empty bluster has taken over from quiet, careful preparation, and crying wolf has blurred the red lines, which have been moved consistently.”

But others insist Israel is serious about striking Iran, calculating that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic would represent a far greater danger than the possible repercussions.

“I fear they really mean it,” said Reuven Pedatzur, academic director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Strategic Dialogue at Netanya Academic College. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “lives for this issue. It’s not just talk to him but a fundamental matter.”

The lack of clarity on which way Israel is leaning is not surprising. In many military matters, including its own arsenal of nuclear weapons, Israel often adopts what it calls a “policy of ambiguity,” designed to keep enemies guessing.

President Obama said Sunday that he did not think Israel had made a decision about whether to attack Iran.

“I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program,” Obama told NBC News, saying there was close military and intelligence consultation between the U.S. and Israel. “We are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically.”

Military affairs analyst Alex Fishman likened the recent campaign of leaks and news reports in the U.S. and Israel to “ante in the regional poker game.” But in his Sunday column in Israel’s daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot, he also warned that Iran “saw our bet and raised it.”

Iranian officials are reacting with tough talk of their own, including a recent threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for much of the world’s oil supply. Although Western powers fear that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons, Tehran insists that its nuclear development program is meant for civilian purposes only and has warned Israel and the U.S. of the dire consequences of an attack.

Last week, Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s domestic security agency, said that Iranian agents have been attempting to hit Israeli targets in Turkey, Thailand and other countries in order to make Israel think twice about launching a preemptive strike, Israeli media reported.

Such actions could also be a response to a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mysterious explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities, which many believe were carried out by Israel and U.S. intelligence agencies.

In Israel, debate rages among government officials and intelligence experts over whether Iran’s purported nuclear arms ambitions represent an existential threat that must be stopped at any cost and whether an Israeli strike would deliver only a short-term setback and potentially trigger a destructive regional war, including a missile barrage from anti-Israel Iranian allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

After saying last month that a decision to attack Iran was “very far off,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak abruptly shifted gears last week, warning that time was running out. “Later is too late,” said Barak, who has warned that Iran will enter an “immunity zone” by September, after which Israel will find it more difficult to carry out a successful operation because Iran has spread its nuclear facilities in dozens of locations, some located deep underground.

Some in Israel and the U.S. have questioned whether it’s already too late for an Israeli strike to make a difference, as they did when Israel was able to make single-location attacks in Iraq and Syria. Several Iranian facilities are built so deeply they are potentially out of reach of even the biggest American “bunker-buster” bombs.

Israel’s military lacks the size, breadth and weaponry needed for the kind of sustained, multi-pronged bombing campaign that could set Iran’s program back by more than a year or two, experts say.

“Americans have the capabilities for carrying out a series of attacks,” said Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “Israel might be capable of staging one strike.”

Israeli officials, however, caution against underestimating their military’s reach. Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon told the 2012 Herzliya public policy conference Thursday that Israel was confident that “any facility in Iran can be hit, and I speak from experience as the [former Israel Defense Forces] chief of staff.”

Yaalon said it was still possible that the Iranian regime would back down voluntarily, but only if leaders believed the government’s survival were at risk. He said the only time Tehran has suspended its nuclear program was in 2003, when it was concerned that the U.S. might invade, as it had in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“If this regime faces this dilemma, it will be rational,” Yaalon said. But the international community needs to demonstrate greater resolve, he added.

“The West has the ability to attack, but as long as Iran isn’t convinced about their determination to carry it out, they will continue their manipulations.”

edmund.sanders@latimes.com

Batsheva Sobelman in The Times’ Jerusalem bureau and Kathleen Hennessey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Israel Not Preparing to Attack Iran, Obama Says – NYTimes.com

February 6, 2012

Israel Not Preparing to Attack Iran, Obama Says – NYTimes.com.

President Obama said Sunday that he did not believe Israel was preparing to attack Iran to disrupt its nuclear program and that diplomacy remained the “preferred solution” to resolving the standoff over what Western leaders believe is Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 

In an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, broadcast before the Super Bowl on Sunday night, the president also said that administration officials “don’t see any evidence” that Iran had the “intentions or capabilities” to mount an attack on United States soil in retaliation for a strike on its nuclear facilities.

 

Asked by Mr. Lauer if he deserved a second term, Mr. Obama said he did, despite the slow economic recovery.

 

“I deserve a second term, but we’re not done,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ve made progress, and the thing right now is to just make sure we don’t start turning in a new direction that could throw that progress off.”

 

Much of the interview, however, focused on the issue of Iran.

 

Mr. Obama’s remarks appeared to be intended to ratchet down emotions after a series of alarming public statements and reports. Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary, did not dispute a report last week by David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Mr. Panetta believed Israel might strike Iran this spring.

 

And on Tuesday, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., said in testimony to the Senate that the apparent plot to kill the Saudi envoy in Washington showed that Iranian leaders “have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

 

Mr. Obama said he shared Israel’s concern about a nuclear-armed Iran.

 

“I don’t think Israel has made a decision. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Obama said in the interview, broadcast live from the White House. “Until they do, I think Israel rightly is going to be very concerned, and we are as well.”

 

Mr. Obama noted that his administration had worked to escalate sanctions against Iran. “We have mobilized the international community in a way that is unprecedented, and they are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure,” he said.

 

In keeping with longstanding American policy, Mr. Obama did not rule out military action by the United States if diplomacy failed and if Iran moved close to building a nuclear bomb.

 

“I’ve been very clear that we’re going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating an arms race, a nuclear arms race, in a volatile region,” he said.

He declined to describe conversations between American and Israeli officials, but said that “we are going to make sure we work in lock step and work to resolve this, hopefully diplomatically.”