WarSclerotic

Russia, China join Security Council statement on Syria crisis – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

In rare move, longtime backers of Assad regime join other 13 members in urging Syrian authorities to allow UN aid chief to visit the country, halt humanitarian crisis.

By Reuters and Haaretz

The United Nations Security Council urged Syria to halt a humanitarian crisis taking place in the country, a statement said on Thursday, which was also signed by long-time Syria backers Russia and China.

In the missive, UNSC members said they “deplore” a rapidly humanitarian crisis, urging Syrian authorities to allow UN humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos to visit the country.

	The United Nations Security Council
	Photo by: AP

The joint statement came after the Red Cross indicated that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad finally allowed its officials to enter the war-torn Homs area, after rebel forces withdrew from the site of the weeks-long battle.

Russia, China and Cuba voted against a resolution adopted overwhelmingly by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council which condemned Syria for violations that may amount to crimes against humanity.

Earlier Thursday, activists indicated that most Syrian rebels pulled out of the besieged Baba Amro district of Homs after a 26-day siege by Assad’s forces.

They said a few fighters had remained behind in the shattered quarter to cover the “tactical withdrawal” of their comrades.

Syrian forces again shelled Baba Amro earlier in the day, despite world alarm at the plight of civilians trapped there.

Snow blanketed the city, slowing a ground assault begun on Wednesday, but also worsening the misery of residents short of food, fuel, power, water and telephone links, activists said.

Reports from the city could not be verified immediately due to tight government restrictions on media operations in Syria.

Assad is increasingly isolated in his struggle to crush an armed insurrection that now spearheads a year-long popular revolt against four decades of his family’s iron-fisted rule.

To those who have contributed to help keep this site going.  It was begun almost 3 years ago with the expectation that its longevity would be limited to a few months at most.

Right….

Thank you!  Don’t know how to say it more emphatically.

This was originally a video blog documenting the suffering of Israelis during the Cast Lead operation in Gaza.  I pray to not have the opportunity to give video reports of our suffering from the war with Iran.

If it needs doing, I’ll do my best.  It’s the most I can do to help my people.

Here’s my first vid post on this site re Iran.  Other than how younger I looked then, it’s amazingly “up to date.”

– JW

Russia, China join U.N. council in Syria rebuke, urges ‘immediate’ humanitarian access.

Thursday, 01 March 2012

The U.N. Security Council said in a unanimously agreed statement that they “deplore” the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria. (Filr photo)

inShare1

Jeffrey Herf: Why Won’t Obama Speak Frankly About Iran? | The New Republic.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 1, 2012, 5:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

Last-ditch bid fails to bridge US-Israeli differences

In a dramatic U-turn to show Israel that Washington is serious about its military option against Iran’s nuclear program, Pentagon officials disclosed Thursday, March 1, that “military options being prepared start with providing refueling for Israeli planes and include attacking the pillars of the clerical regime. They include the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its elite Qods Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.” The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in Washington’s first public reference to possible joint military action with Israel against Iran.
Earlier, Israel asked the Obama administration to finally set red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and abandon its “shifting red lines” option, as well as spelling out US military contingencies instead of using the worn-out “all options are on the table” mantra.
debkafile reported earlier Thursday on the deep discord marking the US-Israeli approach to the threat of a nuclear Iran:

Barring last-minute changes, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will still be at profound cross purposes on Iran when they meet at the White House on March 5. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington to try and work out with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday, Feb. 29 a formula for bridging the widening gap. debkafile’s Washington sources report that notwithstanding their smiling embraces, Barak flew straight back home to inform the prime minister they had failed.

While still airborne, Barak heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney further sharpen Obama’s current tone:  “I think we have been clear about this – that any (Israeli) military action in that region threatens greater instability in the region, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq – we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan.”
Carney added “But our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions.”

Senior American and Israeli officials said on Thursday, March 1 that this statement confirmed that the president had turned down two key Israeli requests:

1. To set final and absolute red lines for Iran’s nuclear program which, if crossed, would provide the grounds for the US and Israel to strike its nuclear sites. Israel maintains that Washington’s Iran policy can be summed up as “shifting red lines:” Whenever Iran moves ahead with another nuclear achievement, the US sets new “red lines” to avoid a confrontation. This enables Tehran to jump its nuclear program forward from one US “red line” to the next.
2. To stop reciting the mantra that “all options are on the table’ for stopping Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and moving on to more definite language for specifying American military contingencies. However, the attempt to formulate a new locution evaded the efforts of Panetta and Barak.
President Shimon Peres is due to meet President Obama Sunday, March 4 although the hour has not yet been set. Whether it takes place before or after the US President’s speech to the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) National Convention opening that day in Washington is significant.
If it takes place after, it would mean that the Americans are no longer amenable to Israeli persuasion to give up their objections to an Israeli attack and they expect Jerusalem to respect the Obama administration’s demand to give sanctions and diplomatic pressure more time to persuade Iran’s leaders to pack up their nuclear weapon program.

Obama is waiting anxiously to see if the Iranians turn up for nuclear talks with the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany in Istanbul next month. To meet one of their conditions for coming to the table, the US stalled on leading the West and Arab powers into military intervention to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Assad.

But even if Peres gets to see Obama before the AIPAC speech, there is not much he can do to persuade the US president to accept a compromise formula that would save his talks with Netanyahu from digging the rift between them on Iran still deeper.
Thursday, March 1, senior American sources listed the US-Israeli schedule for the coming days:

Thursday: Former US presidential adviser Dennis B. Ross holds a background briefing on US policy for Iran with American journalists. Although he holds no official White House position, Ross is considered sufficiently influential and well-informed to outline the next stages of the presidential Iran strategy.

Sunday, March 4:  President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both address the opening of the national AIPAC Convention in Washington. The extremely sensitive order of appearance has not yet been settled.
Jerusalem would rather Obama go first to give Netanyahu the chance to answer his comments. For that very reason, the Americans would prefer their president to follow the prime minister and so, in a manner of speaking, carve his policy in stone.

The White House is making every effort to make sure no public confrontation over Iran takes place between the American and Israeli leaders in their widely broadcast and televised appearances before an audience of some 14,000 Jewish delegates from across America.

Monday, March 5:  The Obama-Netanyahu summit at the White House.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Binyamin Netanyahu 

Last-ditch bid fails to bridge US-Israeli differences

Barring last-minute changes, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will still be at profound cross purposes on Iran when they meet at the White House on March 5. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington to try and work out with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday, Feb. 29 a formula for bridging the widening gap. debkafile’s Washington sources report that notwithstanding their smiling embraces, Barak flew straight back home to inform the prime minister they had failed.

While still airborne, Barak heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney further sharpen Obama’s current tone:  “I think we have been clear about this – that any (Israeli) military action in that region threatens greater instability in the region, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq – we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan.”
Carney added “But our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions.”

Senior American and Israeli officials said on Thursday, March 1 that this statement confirmed that the president had turned down two key Israeli requests:

1. To set final and absolute red lines for Iran’s nuclear program which, if crossed, would provide the grounds for the US and Israel to strike its nuclear sites. Israel maintains that Washington’s Iran policy can be summed up as “shifting red lines:” Whenever Iran moves ahead with another nuclear achievement, the US sets new “red lines” to avoid a confrontation. This enables Tehran to jump its nuclear program forward from one US “red line” to the next.
2. To stop reciting the mantra that “all options are on the table’ for stopping Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and moving on to more definite language for specifying American military contingencies. However, the attempt to formulate a new locution evaded the efforts of Panetta and Barak.
President Shimon Peres is due to meet President Obama Sunday, March 4 although the hour has not yet been set. Whether it takes place before or after the US President’s speech to the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) National Convention opening that day in Washington is significant.
If it takes place after, it would mean that the Americans are no longer amenable to Israeli persuasion to give up their objections to an Israeli attack and they expect Jerusalem to respect the Obama administration’s demand to give sanctions and diplomatic pressure more time to persuade Iran’s leaders to pack up their nuclear weapon program.

Obama is waiting anxiously to see if the Iranians turn up for nuclear talks with the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany in Istanbul next month. To meet one of their conditions for coming to the table, the US stalled on leading the West and Arab powers into military intervention to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Assad.

But even if Peres gets to see Obama before the AIPAC speech, there is not much he can do to persuade the US president to accept a compromise formula that would save his talks with Netanyahu from digging the rift between them on Iran still deeper.
Thursday, March 1, senior American sources listed the US-Israeli schedule for the coming days:

Thursday: Former US presidential adviser Dennis B. Ross holds a background briefing on US policy for Iran with American journalists. Although he holds no official White House position, Ross is considered sufficiently influential and well-informed to outline the next stages of the presidential Iran strategy.

Sunday, March 4:  President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both address the opening of the national AIPAC Convention in Washington. The extremely sensitive order of appearance has not yet been settled.
Jerusalem would rather Obama go first to give Netanyahu the chance to answer his comments. For that very reason, the Americans would prefer their president to follow the prime minister and so, in a manner of speaking, carve his policy in stone.

The White House is making every effort to make sure no public confrontation over Iran takes place between the American and Israeli leaders in their widely broadcast and televised appearances before an audience of some 14,000 Jewish delegates from across America.

Monday, March 5:  The Obama-Netanyahu summit at the White House.

Israel unveils sophisticated shelters in Tel Aviv, a likely Iran target – The Washington Post.

Iran Air War: U.S. Plans For Possibility, But Goal Remains Unclear.

WASHINGTON — Planning for an air war against Iran continues inside the Pentagon, and the U.S. Air Force could mount such intense strikes against Iranian targets that “you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” said Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, on Wednesday.

Indeed, some senior military officers and air power specialists caution that putting a decisive end to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions would require a massive, all-out war — not only to demolish Iran’s nuclear facilities but to destroy its governing regime.

President Barack Obama has said the United States is “determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.” The United States and others are now tightening financial and trade sanctions to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. But the Obama administration has not spelled out precisely what “prevent” means, and administration officials have been careful not to set clear military objectives.

In a meeting with defense reporters Wednesday, Schwartz deflected a question by The Huffington Post about whether air power alone could “end” Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“It really depends,” he said. “What is the objective? Is it to eliminate? Is it to delay? Is it to complicate? The larger question here is more one of policy” than of military capability, he said.

The Air Force, along with the other military services, has given the White House a series of options for attacking Iran, Schwartz said. Other government agencies have provided political, financial and additional options.

As far as the military options are concerned, Schwartz said that Marine Gen. James Mattis, the Mideast combat commander who would oversee a war with Iran, “is satisfied that we have been as forthcoming and imaginative as possible” in the planning.

“We and each of the other services each contribute, and we are prepared to do so,” Schwartz added. He declined to provide specific details about the war planning.

Among the weapons that could be used against Iran is the 20-foot-long, 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), designed to be used against deep-buried targets such as the nuclear reprocessing plant shielded by 250 feet of granite in a mountain outside the holy city of Qom, according to a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Although the MOP has encountered technical problems in its development, Schwartz said it is “operational.”

But making effective use of such a weapon requires a broad, coordinated effort among hundreds of aircraft, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, an F-15 combat pilot who planned the complex 1991 air war against Iraq and other operations, told The Huffington Post. “Executing an air campaign is not just flying from A to B and dropping a bunch of bombs and coming home,” he said.

In the event of an attack, missiles, bombers and strike fighters would be sent against Iran’s air defenses, which Schwartz said have recently been strengthened. Other aircraft would be targeted on Iran’s nuclear sites, accompanied by command-and-control aircraft, airborne electronic countermeasures and electronic warfare systems, all choreographed with aerial tankers “and put together in such a way that the timing is impeccable and each part of the overall mission reinforces other parts,” Deptula explained.

“It would be a formidable air campaign, but it could be accomplished,” Deptula said. And it would take the United States to do it. “The Israelis have one of the most excellent, innovative air forces in the world — that’s not at issue,” he said. But with the distances to be covered to reach Iran and the limited number of refueling tankers that Israel can provide, “there is a capacity issue.”

How effective could such a broad air campaign be? “You can set them back months to years,” Deptula said. “But ultimately you are going to have to deal with the same problem again. One of the biggest challenges is you are dealing with a theocracy, a bunch of zealots, and that’s the quandary.”

“No one wants to talk about regime change. But if you want to put an end to this problem, I am afraid to say it will require a change of regime in Iran,” he said.

Nonetheless, like other senior commanders, Deptula urged caution when talking about attacking Iran. “Everybody is talking about the kinetic [military] option,” he said. “But first, a highly orchestrated symphony of diplomatic, economic and information pieces have to be assembled into a coherent whole to accomplish our end game, and that has to be done before we talk about military options.”

That view parallels the thinking of retired Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, who left last summer as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is a former fighter pilot and from 2004 to 2007 led the U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibility for global nuclear and conventional strategic attack missions.

Iran’s nuclear facilities are “not a pinpoint target,” Cartwright warned during a panel discussion last week at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. He said Iran has been “very clever” about siting its nuclear facilities, some in remote locations and some deep underground where “there are not weapons that can penetrate.”

Asked about that assertion Wednesday, Schwartz acknowledged that deep underground targets are difficult to destroy. “Strike is about physics, and the deeper you go, the harder it gets,” he said. But he said the MOP “is not an inconsequential capability.”

Cartwright insisted last week that any air strike would fall short of the goal of ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“Really,” he said, “to take care of this problem kinetically is going to require quite a few [U.S. military] people on the ground, which is not likely to happen. So you can do air strikes to cause havoc, and then what?”

If Iran has the will to push forward with development of a nuclear weapon, it has the intellectual capacity to accomplish that, Cartwright said, and it can continue to spread out nuclear weapons sites beyond the ability of the United States to find them all.

In short, he said, “a kinetic attack is a delaying tactic. A strategy that would deny Iran nuclear weapons probably requires an invasion and change of regime.”

And no matter whether military action is effective or not, said Cartwright, the instability it will cause will be “significant, and not just in the oil markets.”

Netanyahu Sees Israel as a Top Developed Nation Amid Iran Threat.

As the Iranian nuclear threat dominates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s second term, nothing motivates him more than making economic history.

The son of 101-year-old Benzion Netanyahu, a former Cornell University history professor, the Israeli premier says his ambition is to overtake France and the U.K., the world’s fifth- and sixth-largest economies, in terms of output per head. It’s the push for growth that drives Netanyahu’s policies, even as he heads to Washington next week for talks on Iran.

Since the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated Netanyahu began selling state assets and loosening labor laws as finance minister from 2003 to 2005, Israel’s economy has boomed, growing at an average 4.2 percent each year. The expansion will help ensure Israel’s survival, as an “island of democracy that is surrounded by a sea of troubles” in the Middle East, the 62- year-old premier told U.S. Jewish leaders at a Feb. 19 conference in Jerusalem.

“If we are to address our defense needs that we are being challenged with, we have to continue this growth,” Netanyahu said at the meeting. “It is not a question of living standard. It’s a question of national security.”

As part of his plan to spur growth, Netanyahu has set up a committee to boost competition, introduced reforms to lower the cost of living after social protests, passed a law to free up public land for private development, maintained fiscal discipline, and introduced a two-year budget, a move praised by the International Monetary Fund.

Fischer’s Stature

Israel’s economy probably expanded 4.8 percent in 2011, according to the IMF, matching the 2010 figure and exceeding the 1.7 percent growth in the U.S. The Finance Ministry estimates gross domestic product will increase 3.2 percent in 2012.

With Stanley Fischer steering monetary policy at the Bank of Israel, Netanyahu says there’s scope for the nation to match some of the world’s most developed economies. Fischer was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s thesis adviser at MIT.

“There’s no reason why we can’t eventually surpass Britain and France in GDP per capita,” Netanyahu said during a Feb. 20 interview in his Jerusalem office, kept warm by two free- standing electric radiators. “We have to keep growing at 5 percent.”

The IMF calculates Israeli GDP per head was $32,300 last year, compared with $39,600 in the U.K. and $44,400 in France. Unemployment was 5.4 percent in Israel in the fourth quarter, the lowest since at least 1985. The jobless rate was about 9.3 percent in France and 8.4 percent in Britain.

Riskless Return

Having never fully resolved the state of war with its neighbors that accompanied Israel’s founding in 1948, the country produced better risk-adjusted returns than all other developed stock markets in the past decade, according to the Bloomberg Riskless Return Ranking.

The Tel Aviv TA-25 Index returned 7.6 percent in the 10 years ended Feb. 17, after adjusting for volatility, the highest among 24 developed-nation benchmark indexes. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index was the next-best market with a risk-adjusted gain of 6.7 percent, followed by Norway, which had the highest total return.

“This is a great achievement,” Netanyahu told the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, on Feb. 20.

It’s one that the premier argues can help ward off the challenges such as the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, set to be the key theme of his talks with President Barack Obama at the White House on March 5.

Iranian Sanctions

In the run-up to the meeting, Obama has sent emissaries to Jerusalem, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Middle East envoy David Hale, to assure Netanyahu that the U.S. won’t allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Netanyahu sent Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Washington on Feb. 27 to meet with Vice President Joe Biden.

Netanyahu remains skeptical about the effect on Iran of international economic sanctions. Barak has suggested that time is running out to stop Iran by staging a military attack on suspect nuclear facilities as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government presses ahead with the enrichment of uranium.

An Israeli attack would have precedents. The country staged an air strike in September 2007 to destroy a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor under Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Menachem Begin ordered a similar operation against an Iraqi reactor 26 years earlier.

Netanyahu’s family background has equipped him with a sense of history. His father, an expert on the Spanish Inquisition, appeared with him in a 2009 election campaign commercial, showing the two playing chess at home.

Chess Board

“You need the steadfastness to act, to do the unpopular thing that may ultimately save the country,” Netanyahu said in the ad after his father moved a piece across the board.

When it comes to policy discussions, it’s the economy that moves the premier most. The former commando gets positively electric when he talks about strategies for growth, jumping away from his desk and grabbing a marker to sketch plans on a white board built into a wall of his private office for, say, cutting taxes or deregulating the real-estate market, according to his spokesman, Mark Regev.

In the Feb. 20 interview, Netanyahu highlighted the strength of Israel’s technology companies such as Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., the world’s No. 2 software security firm.

First Term

“Israel produces more conceptual products than any other country,” he said.

Israel, whose population of 7.8 million is similar to Switzerland’s, has about 60 companies traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market, the most of any country outside the U.S. after China. The nation also is home to more startup companies per capita than the U.S.

During his first term as prime minister in the 1990S, Netanyahu encouraged foreign investment and helped the growth of software, telecommunications and other technology firms. He liked to refer to the burgeoning industry as “Silicon Wadi,” using the Arabic term for a dry river bed. His government lightened restrictions on trading the shekel, narrowed the budget deficit, slowed inflation and limited the scale of wage increases by standing up to organized labor.

Suez Challenge

In Netanyahu’s 30-month stint as finance minister, the economy rebounded from the recession of 2001 and 2002 as he instituted spending cuts, sold off state-owned companies and introduced deregulation. Netanyahu oversaw the sale of El Al Israel Airlines Ltd., the country’s largest airline, Israel Discount Bank, the No. 3 bank, and Bezeq Israeli Telecommunication Corp., the biggest telecommunications provider. He also started the sale of Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd.

“How can we get the great Asian economies interested?” Netanyahu said in the interview. “First of all, with our technology. And we have that. We can also build a train line from the Red Sea to Ashdod to link Asia and Europe. And we can pump gas the other way, from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.”

That rail line would link Ashdod on the Mediterranean with the southern port of Eilat on the Red Sea, enabling Israel to compete for cargo traffic with Egypt’s Suez Canal. Another line Netanyahu is planning would run from the northern port of Haifa to the eastern border town of Beit Shean, potentially giving the Palestinian Authority and Jordan rail access to the Mediterranean.

Gas Find

Confidence in Israel’s economic future has been bolstered by the discovery of offshore natural-gas deposits by a group led by Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. and Netanya, Israel-based Delek Group Ltd., which could make the country both energy- independent and a gas exporter.

Israel’s Leviathan gas field may hold as much as 20 trillion cubic feet of gas, Noble, a partner with Israeli companies in the site, said in a Dec. 19 statement. The field is Noble’s biggest find. Noble operates Leviathan and has a 39.66 percent interest. The second-largest Israeli gas find is the Tamar, which is estimated at about 9 trillion cubic feet.

Sending gas and other Israeli products to China and India, the world’s most populous nations, are among Netanyahu’s highest priorities in building the economy, he told the Jewish leaders last month.

“We have to be like a nimble mammal that finds its way in a perilous world,” Netanyahu said.

White House Press Briefing by Jay Carney, February 29, 2012.

Q And in light of the President’s pending speech at AIPAC and the visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu, I was talking to a national security expert who was telling me that he didn’t think that there had been enough of a discussion of what if Israel did launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and things went wrong. And one of the issues he raised was the idea that Iran obviously borders Afghanistan and has stayed relatively — has stayed pretty much out of Afghanistan in terms of — compared to some of the things that it’s done in Iraq, for instance, in terms of arming the insurgents in Iraq. It has not done so in Afghanistan. And the official — the expert, rather, expressed concerns that if things went wrong then it would be possible that Iran might start helping to attack or at least arm insurgents in Afghanistan and try to kill American soldiers. In light of publicly discussing the things that could go wrong in such a strike, is that a concern being discussed here at the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say two things about that. First, our approach to this has been to galvanize and mobilize the international community to make it clear that Iranian behavior is the issue, to pressure and sanction Iran for its failure to live up to its international obligations, and to ratchet up that pressure and increase the sanctions on Iran to the point where we hope Iran will change its behavior.

We believe that there is time and space to continue to pursue that approach, even as we refuse and make clear that we do not take any option off the table in our effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

It is certainly the case — and I think we have been clear about this — that any military action in that region threatens greater instability in the region, threatens — as you point out, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq — we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan. There are all sorts of potential consequences to more military activity in that region and in Iran specifically.

But our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions, and we continue to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran. And I think it’s important to note that while Tehran does not and has not lived up to its international obligations, that it does not do the things it needs to do to demonstrate that it does not have nuclear weapons ambitions, we do have visibility into their programs and Iran has not broken out and started to pursue a weapon. So there is time and space to continue to pursue the policy that we have been pursuing since the President took office.

Q You just said that we do not believe that Iran has broken out to pursue a weapon. Is that why the administration is reluctant to outline when it may use a military option?

MR. CARNEY: Well, no. I think that we’ve made very clear that we do not take any option off the table as we pursue a policy designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We believe that the policy that we’ve been pursing, unifying the international community and pressuring and isolating Tehran, creates the best opportunity for ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. It is the best option. And because there is time and space still to allow that option to work, we are continuing to pursue it.

But speculation about what we would do if this were to happen and what would trigger what response is not something I would do here from the podium, and it’s not productive to the success of our policy.

Q To clarify, is U.S. policy to prevent Iran from a nuclear weapon, or to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons capability?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think I’ve been clear that we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We obviously monitor through IAEA inspectors their nuclear programs, and there is no question that Iran has not lived up to its international obligations with regards to uranium enrichment and their level of cooperation with the IAEA.

So the fact that we do have inspectors who are able to provide visibility into their programs does not mean that they have been entirely cooperative, because they have not. And it is Iran’s refusal to behave in accordance with their international obligations, to take the necessary steps to assure the international community that they do not have the intention of developing a nuclear weapons program and developing nuclear weapons, that they are subject to these broad and increasing sanctions by the United States and the entire international community. And that pressure will continue and it has had an effect on both the economy and on the political leadership.

Q Can you speak to some of the reports in the Israeli papers that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to pressure President Obama to be more specific about these “all options on the table”? Will the President be more specific?

MR. CARNEY: The President is very specific and direct in his many conversations with the Prime Minister of Israel, and I’m sure that will be the case when they meet again next week. Our approach is very clear — and I do not expect that I or anyone else will engage in speculation about how we might react should something or the other happen in the future with regards to Iran’s program. So I think you’ll hear from us a very consistent message and I fully expect that the President’s conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu will continue to be as detailed and candid as they always have been.

Q And if Israel attacks Iran and Iran retaliates, will we defend Israel?

MR. CARNEY: That’s a couple of “ifs” down the road. What I can say is we have an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. It’s a commitment that’s demonstrated by the unprecedented level of military-to-military and intelligence-to-intelligence service cooperation that we’ve established with Israel, a fact that has been testified to not just by Obama administration officials but by Israeli government officials, including the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister. And that level of cooperation will continue. We are absolutely committed to Israel’s security.