WarSclerotic

Today there is no doubt – anywhere in the world – that the United States will insist upon Israel’s security and legitimacy. That will also be true as we continue our efforts to our pursuit of peace. And that will be true when it comes to the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran’s nuclear program – a threat that has the potential to bring together the worst rhetoric about Israel’s destruction with the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders.

A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia.

That is why, four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is what we have done.

When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant – increasingly popular, and extending its reach. In other words, the Iranian leadership was united and on the move, and the international community was divided about how to go forward.

And so from my first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t. In fact, our policy of engagement – quickly rebuffed by the Iranian regime – allowed us to rally the international community as never before; to expose Iran’s intransigence; and to apply pressure that goes far beyond anything that the United States could do on our own.

Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before. People predicted that Russia and China wouldn’t join us in moving toward pressure. They did, and in 2010 the UN Security Council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions.

That is where we are today. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally – the Assad regime – is crumbling.

Of course, so long as Iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unsolved. The effective implementation of our policy is not enough – we must accomplish our objective.

In that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed. The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. Now, the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July – thanks to our diplomatic coordination – a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold. Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.

Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.

Moreover, as President and Commander-in-Chief, I have a deeply-held preference for peace over war. I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency. For this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country.

We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

Moving forward, I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick. As we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve, and that our coordination with Israel will continue.

Obama: All options remain on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses AIPAC conference in Washington; staunchly defends his administration’s record on Israel, citing strong security and diplomatic assistance.

By Barak Ravid

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday that the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that all options remain on the table to keep Iran from going nuclear.

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically,” Obama said in an address at the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC’s policy conference in Washington. “Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”

	U.S. President Barack Obama
	Photo by: AP

“That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Obama spoke shortly after President Shimon Peres told the same conference that “there is no space” between the U.S. and Israel on Iran policy.

“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment,” Obama said. “I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

Obama criticized recent public speculation about the possibility of military action against Iran.

“Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” Obama said. “Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program.  For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick.”

Obama staunchly defended his administration’s record on Israel, citing strong security and diplomatic assistance.

“The fact is, my administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented,” Obama said. “Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every year. We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology – the type of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge – because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

“When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it,” Obama continued. “When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism. When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to help save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to de-legitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Obama called for continued pursuit of a two-state solution.

“I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel’s own leaders understand the necessity of peace,” Obama said. “Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, Defense Minister [Ehud] Barak, and President Peres – each of them have called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state.”

“I believe that peace is profoundly in Israel’s security interest. The reality that Israel faces – from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment – demands a resolution of this issue. And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values – because of our shared belief in self-determination; and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected.”

Obama said that U.S. support for Israel should not be turned into a partisan issue.

“The U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics,” Obama said. “America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important.”

Obama also announced that Peres will be presented later this spring with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor.

West of Eden-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

The two uneasy allies will engage in a high-stakes, three-dimensional game of wits in their meeting in Washington tomorrow.

By Chemi Shalev

“The president should have built a credible threat of military action and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.”

This, according to most Israeli sources, is the essence of the position that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is taking to his meeting with President Barack Obama in their meeting in Washington tomorrow.

	U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the White House lawn.
	Photo by: GPO

It also happens to be an exact quote of what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on January 7 at the Republican debate at St Anselm College in New Hampshire.

And though most people wouldn’t suspect Netanyahu of coordinating his positions on such an existential issue with the Republican Party, some of the people close to Obama suspect that this is exactly what he’s been doing. According to this conspiracy theory, Netanyahu and the Republicans are in cahoots: the Republican role is to portray Obama and his Administration as weak in order to push it to adopt a harsher position on Iran; Netanyahu’s role is to strike a bellicose pose that not only confirms the Republicans’ accusations against the president but also ratchets up tension in the Middle East, drives up the price of oil, increases the price of a U.S. gallon of gas and thus sows voter dissatisfaction in advance of the upcoming presidential campaign.

Whether coldly realistic or hysterically paranoid, this suspicion of subterfuge is but one manifestation of the myriad extraneous elements that will complicate the already complex discussions facing the two leaders on Iran. Though they are united in their aim of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons – in the eyes of most everyone except for the most deranged of Obama’s critics – the contacts between the president and the prime minister cannot but be colored both by their problematic history and by the high political stakes of their meeting, in particular, and of the Iran issue, in general, for both of their futures. In their talks tomorrow they will thus be engaged in an intriguing three-dimensional game of wits that could be the stuff of high political melodrama were it not so critical for the future of the rest of us.

As one who knows better than most how much effort and resources a politician tends to invest in his own survival, Netanyahu and his advisers will no doubt be asking themselves whether Obama’s pledges and guarantees are aimed more at thwarting Iran’s sinister designs or at safeguarding the Jewish vote and postponing the Iranian quandary until after the November elections. Obama, for his part, must be wondering how far he can trust an Israeli prime minister who has been quoted as saying that he “thinks Republican” and whose main American benefactor is the same man who has been bankrolling Newt Gingrich and pledging to spend many millions more in order to defeat Obama in November.

Politics and public opinion

The two leaders must also take into account the effect of their agreements and disagreements on their respective publics. On the one hand, most polls show that Americans consider Iran to be the most dangerous threat to American security today, that most would support either an American attack or an Israeli attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities and that many of them, it stands to good reason, would not take kindly to an Obama that seems to be harsh with Netanyahu and soft on the ayatollahs.

But Netanyahu knows the American public well enough to realize that this public support could be very short-lived if Israel is perceived as causing a spike in oil prices, exposing Americans to Iranian retaliation or dragging America into a war against its will.

If the American Administration does not stand behind Israel, it will be a matter of weeks before the reservoir of support that Israel currently enjoys will be sorely depleted. It is worthwhile remembering, just for the sake of historical proportions, that following the 1981 Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osiraq, the Reagan Administration sharply criticized the bombing, supported a condemnation of Israel at the UN, imposed an embargo on further sales of F-16’s on its great ally Israel and paid absolutely no political price for its actions.

Netanyahu must also take into account the potential negative fallout of a disagreement with Obama on his own public back home. As the poll released last week by University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami showed, the Israeli public’s support for an attack on Iran is contingent on a perception that the United States backs it as well. Netanyahu might have hell to pay if an Israeli attack on Iran does not go as well as expected, if the Israeli public is subjected to fierce retaliation and if the prime minister is perceived as having alienated the U.S. administration at a time when Israel needed it most.

Netanyahu must also consider the possibility that Obama may “still be around after November” as the Vice President’s National Security Adviser, Antony Blinken, bluntly warned in a briefing to the Israel Policy Forum in New York last week. But even if Obama is defeated in November, a Republican president wouldn’t take office until late January, when, at least by Israel’s account, it might be too late to effectively attack the Iranian nuclear sites, especially if winter weather postpones such an offensive until April 2013, at the earliest.

In fact, it is only if Obama is reelected that Israel will be able to rely on American commitments given before the November elections. Obama’s pledges, after all, are acts of state, while Republican exhortations, no matter how gung-ho, are no more than non-binding campaign rhetoric. Not only that, under the Nixon-to-China, Bush-to-Iraq principle of public opinion, there can be no doubt that the American public’s support for a confrontation with Iran will be deeper and longer-lasting under a “dovish” Democrat like Obama than under a “hawkish” Republican like Romney or Santorum.

And it is also far from clear why a newly-elected Republican president would choose to start his term in office with a potentially unpopular war with Iran that would raise oil prices, increase the deficit and possibly run the American economy aground. It’s also far from certain, to say the least, that the titans of industry and finance who are so closely allied with the Republicans would be too enthusiastic about such destabilizing steps either.

In the same boat

But notwithstanding these complex and often contradictory calculations, Obama and Netanyahu will find themselves tomorrow at the White House sitting in the same boat, facing the gravest threat to both of their countries’ together. And while they may differ in their evaluations of what steps have to be taken and when – both are also united in their preference for a satisfactory non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

Netanyahu knows that whichever country attacks Iran, if it comes to that, Israel will need an American president that “has Israel’s back” as Obama told Jeffery Goldberg last week. By the same token, America requires Israel’s close cooperation in order to prevent a war breaking out before America is fully prepared to deal with its repercussions. And Obama, just like any other American president in recent times – and even more so, his supporters might say – is indeed committed to ensuring the survival of a country that many Americans consider to be one of their best allies in world, warts and all.

When both of them were running for office in the summer of 2008, Netanyahu was brimming with confidence that he would find much common ground with a fellow Boston-educated man of the world like Obama. Things didn’t work out exactly as he foresaw, but fate, and the Iranian challenge, have nonetheless bound together the fortunes of the MIT graduate Netanyahu with the Harvard-educated Obama.

Thus, the motto for their meeting tomorrow might be taken from the man whose exquisite 1767 portrait by David Martin hangs in the Green Room in the White House. It was he, Benjamin Franklin, who reportedly said at the signing of the American Declaration of Independence: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Obama’s burden on the Iranian nuclear threat – NY Daily News.

The President must get much tougher, right now, to stop Tehran’s Bomb

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

When President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he must bring fresh resolve to scuttling Iran’s nukes.

Goldberg Interview Can’t Disguise the Divide Between Obama and Israel « Commentary Magazine.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was rewarded for years of diligent cheerleading for Barack Obama with an exclusive interview that was published this morning. Goldberg asks some interesting questions as well as some that can be characterized as mere sucking up. But though there’s not much here that we haven’t already heard, the transcript of the exchange provides a summary of the Obama attempt to persuade Israel, American supporters of Israel, Iran and the rest of the world that he means business about stopping Tehran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Obama is at pains to try to assert he doesn’t “bluff” when it comes to threatening the use of force, but after three years of a feckless engagement policy followed by a largely ineffective effort to impose sanctions on Iran, it’s hard to find anyone who really believes he would actually launch a strike to prevent the ayatollahs from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. Much of what the president says in this interview is exactly what he should be stating. But his credibility is undermined by his disingenuous attempt to deny that until his re-election campaign began the keynote of his Middle East policy was to distance the United States from Israel. Equally false is his attempt to make it seem as if he doesn’t despise Israel’s prime minister.

Obama complains, with Goldberg’s assent, that it is unfair to characterize his administration as unfriendly to Israel. But in order to buy into his assumption, you have to ignore the entire tenor and much of the substance of the U.S.-Israel relationship since January 2009. Though, as I have often written, Barack Obama has not sought to obstruct the decades-old security alliance between the two countries, he has needlessly and repeatedly quarreled with Israel’s government in such a way as to create the justified impression there is a wide gap between America and the Jewish state on a host of issues including borders, security arrangements, Jerusalem and settlements.

More to the point, despite Obama’s statements about an Iranian nuke being as much a danger to the United States and the West as it is to Israel, talk is cheap, and that is all he has ever done on the issue. That has left Israel with the impression Obama will never take action on an issue that is an existential threat to the Jewish state.

The Goldberg interview is, of course, not just one more salvo in the administration’s charm offensive to American Jewish voters. It is part of his effort to head off an Israeli strike on Iran, something he may fear far more than the ayatollahs getting their fingers on the nuclear button. For all of his lip service to the Iranian threat, Obama clearly is still more worried about Israel.

But the problem is Obama is bluffing when he talks about being willing to hit Iran. His halfhearted attempt to force Iran to its knees via sanctions is failing, and the idea that waiting until the end of the year (when, Obama hopes, he will be safely re-elected and thus free from needing to worry about Jewish voters or donors) to see if it works is just hot air. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be in Washington to meet with Obama following his address to the AIPAC conference, knows this, and that will be focal point of their next confrontation.

Netanyahu knows Obama does not have his country’s back despite Goldberg’s cajoling this promise out of the president. But he will likely smile when he reads Obama’s answer to Goldberg’s question about the relationship between the two men. Though Obama has bragged of his close relationships with other leaders such as the Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, he makes little effort to disguise his contempt for Netanyahu. He tells Goldberg he and Netanyahu are too busy to discuss anything other than policy. Obama then slips up a bit and attempts to explain their differences as being the result of belonging to “different political traditions,” as if there was some sort of natural tension between being an American Democrat and an Israeli Likudnik. This actually tells us more about Obama than anything else.

The truth is, these two “traditions” are not natural antagonists because they are the result of two entirely different political systems and histories. If Obama sees them as inherently opposed to each other it is because his conception of American liberalism sees an Israeli nationalist faction dedicated to their nation’s security as somehow antithetical to his own view. In fact, the origins of both parties are “liberal” with a small “l” in the sense that they are based on the idea of democracy and opposed to socialism. Indeed, the Likud is far closer to both American major parties because it is dedicated to free market principles the Israeli left abhors.

The divide here is not between a Democrat and a member of the Likud but between an American who is ambivalent about Israel and an Israeli who is deeply sympathetic to the United States. That is why a close reading of Goldberg’s attempt to help Obama to portray himself as Israel’s best friend only reinforces the phony nature of the president’s Jewish charm offensive.

Report: Assad’s air force pounds population centers in Syria’s Rastan – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Rebel forces carry out ‘tactical’ withdrawal from city to avoid massive loss of life; Syrian military reportedly planning to take back cities of Idlib and Dir al-Zur as well.

By Zvi Bar’el

The Syrian military launched an aggressive counter-offensive on Sunday, bombing the city of Rastan from the air as “clean-up operations” continued in the city of Homs, particularly in the restive Baba Amr quarter.

Human rights activists in Homs reported that the Red Cross was prevented from entering Baba Amr as Syrian forces committed acts of murder, rape and execution against civilian residents of the quarter.

	A funeral for members of the Free Syrian Army in Hazzano, Idlib province, March 3, 2012.
	Photo by: Reuters

Meanwhile, reports and videos uploaded by Syrian opposition activists the Syrian air force is clearly seen bombing population centers in the city of Rastan, north of Homs.

In the wake of the bombings, the Free Syrian Army conducted a “tactical withdrawal” from the city, fearing that their continued presence in the city would draw continued attacks on the city by pro-regime forces, leading to massive loss of life.

Rastan, a city of one hundred thousand people, occupies a strategic location near the Rastan dam and a large bridge that links the northern and southern parts of the country.

Government forces were also expected to target the cities of Idlib and Dir al-Zur. Idlib has served as a primary center of resistence to the regime since the beginning of the uprising, and hosts one of the Free Syrian Army’s logistical bases. Due to its proximity to the Turkish border, Idlib and the surrounding villages serve as a way station for refugees and army deserters fleeing the country.

	A boy plays in a park converted to a cemetery in Idlib, March 3, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

Armed with light weapons, machine guns and light mortars, the Free Syrian Army relies mainly on guerrilla tactics. Opposition sources report that for several weeks the group has been receiving weapons shipments from Iraq. However, the amount of weapons reaching the insurgents in not sufficient to mount a serious military challenge to the country’s regular army.

The weapons shipments are apparently being sent by Sunni tribes living near the border, with funding apparently coming from governments of Gulf states that support the opposition, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait.
Meanwhile, Al Arabiya quoted Pentagon sources on Sunday saying that the United States currently has no plans to fund or arm the Free Syrian Army.

The involvement of the Syrian air force is likely to revive calls made by Arab states and the Syrian opposition for a no-fly zone over the country. If implemented, such a move could accelerate outside military intervention in the country, along the lines of the Western-Arab intervention in Libya last year.

Such a decision, however, would first have to be approved by the Arab League and the UN Security Council, and somehow overcome the opposition of Russia and China. Opposition sources hope that Russia’s position will be more flexible this time, citing statements by Putin that Russia “has no special relationship with the Syrian regime” and that events in Syria are “an armed struggle that must be stopped immediately in order to facilitate dialogue.”

Also on Sunday, Reuters reported shelling by Syrian forces against the town of Qusair in the western part of the state, sending residents fleeing on foot to neighboring Lebanon.

Israeli minister says failure in Syria shows world cannot protect Israel.

Sunday, 04 March 2012

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s comments come as the U.S. tries to convince Israel to rely on global economic sanctions and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. (Reuters)

inShare2

Israel’s foreign minister says the international community’s failure to stop the violence in Syria shows it cannot keep Israel safe.

Avigdor Lieberman says the inability of international leaders and aid workers to alleviate “systematic murder of innocent civilians” in Syria “challenges all the promises of the international community that they are responsible for our security.”

Lieberman spoke Sunday on Israel Radio. His comments come as the United States tries to convince Israel to rely on global economic sanctions and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions before resorting to a military strike.

Israel is worried Iran is developing nuclear weapons that could be used against it. Iran claims it only seeks nuclear reactors for energy and medical research.

Obama told the Atlantic Monthly magazine in remarks published Friday that his relationship with the Israeli leader was one focused on business and noted they came from different political traditions.

“We can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other,” he said.

“For the most part, when we have our differences, they are tactical and not strategic,” he said. “We have a common vision about where we want to go.”

“At any given moment — as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader — there’s not going to be a perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives,” he said.

While the chemistry, or lack of it, between Israeli and US leaders can ebb and flow according to who holds the post at any given time, the underlying state-to-state bond is unshakeable, Israeli and US officials say.

“I have no doubt that at this meeting the prime minister and the president will reaffirm the deep bonds between the countries,” Kurt Hoyer, spokesman of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv told AFP.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.Adamant
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 4, 2012, 12:11 PM (GMT+02:00)

Binaymin Netanyahu’s dilemma

Expectations that the meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, March 5, will produce accord on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear are likely to prove unfounded,  say debkafile’s military and Washington sources. Obama has made it clear that a military strike would be “premature” and economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and negotiations must be allowed to run their course before a military option is considered as a last resort.

When Netanyahu flies home, therefore, he will come away from the White House facing exactly the same dilemma as before: It is up to him to determine Israel’s window of opportunity for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and decide if and when to go through with it.
After he met Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Friday, March 2, Netanyahu tried to temper his disagreement with Obama by offering to go along with the Six Power negotiations with Iran starting in Istanbul next month, which are a cornerstone of the US president’s Iran policy, although Israel firmly believes Iran is just playing for time.
Nonetheless, for the talks to have any point, he proposed that they should aim for three results:

1. The dismantling of the uranium enrichment facilities buried underground at Fordo;

2. The transfer of highly-enriched uranium outside the country to international control, effectively removing the material for assembling a bomb out of Tehran’s hands;
3. A ban on uranium enrichment to a grade higher than 5 percent instead of the 20 percent concentrated fissile fuel stocked at present.

The Israeli prime minister’s proposal was rejected by the White House after Moscow too it unacceptable.
A number of confidential Russian messages advised Israel to forget any reversals of Iran’s nuclear progress. The coming international negotiations, they said, must start with accepting the current status of Iran’s nuclear program, “There’s no turning back.”
The White House message to Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Obama was that Tehran would simply not come to the negotiating table if faced with those three demands.
This message was reinforced by a leak to the New York Times Sunday, March 4, asserting that “American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.”
By reverting to its long-abandoned attitude of denial on the Iranian nuclear threat, Washington flies in the face of the last two International Atomic Energy Agency quarterly reports. The last one published ten days ago stated: “The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” and “Iran has produced nearly 110kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg is needed for a nuclear weapon.”  The report also pointed out that “Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, refining uranium to a level that takes it significantly closer to potential bomb material, to the site.”
Nuclear watchdog concerns were further exacerbated by Tehran’s refusal to allow inspectors to visit the Parchin site suspected of nuclear explosion tests in two recent visits.

The Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has warned that Iran was in the process of moving clandestine nuclear projects to a “zone of immunity” safe from outside attack.

Notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration has resorted to turning the Iran’s nuclear clock back to 2007.  Then too, in an effort to hold Israel back from a preemptive attack on Iran, the National Intelligence Agency informed President George W. Bush that Iran had abandoned  its military program in 2003.

A year ago, all the evidence accumulating of Iran’s rapid nuclear advances appeared to put the US-Israeli dispute to rest.
But now, the White House may be reacting to the explicit statement of Israel’s case by former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in the same paper on March 2. He wrote: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity – and all other options have failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear quest – Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”
debkafile’s Washington sources report that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was determined to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington – both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.

Liberman: World must intervene to stop Syr… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS/Uriel Sinai

The international community must intervene to end the massacres in Syria, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Sunday in an interview with Army Radio.

“These sights of killing, you only see in Hollywood – we must put and end to this immediately,” Liberman said.

“In this case we must leave political calculations aside,” Liberman said. “We are humans first, before we are politicians, leaders, commentators and journalists. What is happening there in the 21st century is intolerable, and we must help.”

Liberman added that Israel would provide humanitarian aid to Syria if it was requested to do so, but would not act alone.

Meanwhile on Sunday, The Washington Post quoted US officials as saying that Iran is increasing its supply of arms and other aid to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad and has played a key role in the intensification of the government’s crackdown on dissidents.

“The aid from Iran is increasing, and is increasingly focused on lethal assistance,” the Post quoted one of the officials as saying.

The US intelligence assessments appeared to support claims by the Syrian opposition that hundreds of Iranian military advisers, security officials and intelligence operatives have been sent into Syria along with weapons, electronic surveillance equipment and money.

“They’ve supplied equipment, weapons and technical assistance — even monitoring tools — to help suppress unrest,” a US official was quoted as saying by the Post. “Iranian security officials also traveled to Damascus to help deliver this assistance.”

The Free Syria Army, an armed opposition group fighting Assad, released a video in late January purporting to show seven Iranians, including five members of the Revolutionary Guard, captured in Homs, Al Arabiya reported.

“I am Sajjad Amirian, a member the Revolutionary Guards of the Iranian armed forces. I am a member of the team in charge of cracking down on protesters in Syria and we receive our orders directly from the security division of the Syrian Air Force in Homs,” Al Arabiya quoted one of the captives as saying.

“I urge Mr. [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei to work on securing our release and return to our homes,” he added.

The Free Syria Army said that five of the men were military agents working with Syrian Air Force intelligence and two showed “civilian status” as employees in a Homs power plant. The opposition group added that all seven men entered Syria during the uprising.

Iran has denied that the men were military agents.

Reuters contributed to this report.