Archive for March 6, 2012

When Israel Acts, Will the U.S. Have Israel’s Back?

March 6, 2012

When Israel Acts, Will the U.S. Have Israel’s Back? | The Weekly Standard.

Monday night, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said simply and clearly, “When it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.”

Barack Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Barack Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But not according to President Obama. His timetable for acting against Iran would precisely undermine Israel’s ability to determine her fate. President Obama wants to wait to act until Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. And by that point Iran will have entered what Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak calls a “zone of immunity”—when Israel, with lesser capabilities than the U.S., might well no longer be able to act to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Israel is to act, it must be before Iran enters that zone. Otherwise, Israel will be in the position of depending on the U.S. to act later to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This dependence on another nation is what an Israeli prime minister cannot accept.

The issue is not whether Israel can trust President Obama to do what he says—or whether Israel could trust any American president on a matter of such gravity. The issue is not whether the president is right to be confident that the U.S. would see an Iranian breakout and could act in time. The issue is not even how an Iranian nuclear capability, pre-breakout, would transform the region for the worse. These are all secondary issues.

The Israeli prime minister insists that Israel remain the master of her fate. The American president is willing to let the Iranian nuclear program go to a point where Israel would no longer be master of her fate. This is the fundamental disconnect. And this disconnect can result in only one outcome: Israel will have to act.

Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu at AIPAC 2012

March 6, 2012

Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu at AIPAC 2012 – YouTube.

Israel’s prime minister on Monday vigorously asserted his country’s right to defend itself against the nuclear threat emanating from Iran, warning that time was growing short and declaring he wouldn’t “gamble with the security of the state of Israel.”

Benjamin Netanyahu’s tough talk in a speech to thousands of American Jewish supporters was his strongest suggestion yet that he wouldn’t hesitate to launch a unilateral pre-emptive attack on Iran. It differed starkly in tone from President Barack Obama’s appeal earlier in the day to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work before resorting to force.

Israel has “patiently waited” for diplomacy and sanctions to work but time is working against that approach, Netanyahu told a record gathering of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

“None of us can afford to wait much longer. As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation,” he said to a roaring standing ovation.

Israel, like the U.S. and much of the West, rejects Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is designed to produce energy and medical isotopes. The head of the U.N. nuclear agency fed concerns further Monday by saying his organization had “serious concerns” that Iran may be hiding secret atomic weapons work.

But Israel and the U.S. disagree over when a strike might be appropriate and how effective a unilateral Israeli attack might be against scattered and heavily fortified Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Israeli leader dismissed arguments that an attack on Iran would exact too heavy a toll by provoking Iranian retaliation. He held up a copy of a 1944 letter from the U.S. War Department rejecting world Jewish leaders’ entreaties to bomb the Auschwitz death camp because it would be “ineffective” and “might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

“My friends, 2012 is not 1944,” Netanyahu said. “Today, we have a state of our own. And the purpose of the Jewish state is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future.”

Netanyahu’s speech drew tumultuous applause and numerous standing ovations from the crowd of more than 13,000 people, reflecting the immense support Israel enjoys in the U.S.

It also drew attention to the gap between the U.S. and Israel over how to handle Iran.

As he entered his meeting with Netanyahu at the White House earlier Monday, Obama declared, “The United States will always have Israel’s back,” but quickly added, that “both the prime minister and I prefer to solve this diplomatically.”

Netanyahu responded that Israel must remain “the master of its fate” but made no reference to letting diplomacy and sanctions percolate.

Israel assesses that Iran is close to being able to build a bomb and wants to stop it before it reaches that point. Some Israeli defense officials have said Israel must strike by summer because Iran is moving key operations out of the reach of Israeli air power.

The Obama administration sees this course as dangerously premature, arguing that Tehran has not yet decided whether to actually produce atomic weapons and might still respond to non-military pressure. Because of its superior firepower, the U.S. reasons it would be able to act many months after Israel could.

McCain calls for airstrike on Syria

March 6, 2012

McCain calls for airstrike on Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Statement is as much a critique of President Barack Obama as a rallying call for an international military campaign, accusing the president of being too soft on Assad.

By The Associated Press

A leading Republican senator on Monday urged the United States to launch airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime to force him out of power – a call for dramatic military intervention against the growing violence that was not supported by the Obama administration or its European or Arab partners.

The statement of Sen. John McCain, who lost the 2008 presidential election, on the Senate floor came as the U.S. and European governments pleaded for Russia’s Vladimir Putin to rethink his anti-interventionist stance on Syria, in what appeared to be an increasingly desperate effort for consensus among world powers to stop a crackdown that has killed more than 7,500 people. Hundreds fled to neighboring Lebanon on Monday fearing they’d be massacred in their homes.

McCain - Reuters - October 23, 2011 U.S. Senator John McCain gives a speech at the World Economic Forum annual meeting on the Middle East at the Dead Sea, October 23, 2011.
Photo by: Reuters

But the trans-Atlantic calls for Russia to abandon its opposition to strong UN action were delivered at a curious time: a day after Putin showed his strength by resoundingly winning re-election to the position he held from 2000 to 2008. Even the modest aim of gaining Russian support for a humanitarian strategy in Syria faced renewed resistance Monday – showing just how limited the diplomatic options were despite the continuing violence.

McCain’s strategy would be far more direct, though it is unclear how popular it would be. His statement was as much a critique of President Barack Obama as a rallying call for an international military campaign, accusing the president of being too soft on Assad.

McCain and his party’s senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. should change policy by arming Syria’s rebels and spearheading a military effort to support them.

“The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower,” McCain concluded. “The United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces.”

McCain’s proposal will likely divide American lawmakers, many of whom opposed a similar operation in Libya last year. Even if it were championed by the Obama administration and its NATO allies, the plan would divide other countries hostile to the Assad regime but unwilling to support another Western military intervention in the Muslim world. And it would be anathema to Russia, which sees Syria as its primary ally in the Middle East.

Unlike the international Libya campaign that ousted Moammar Gadhafi in Libya last year, military action against Syria would not have the backing of the UN
Security Council and would be difficult to justify under international law. In many ways, it would also be a rejection of Obama’s doctrine stressing international collaboration on applying military force.

Obama’s strategy has been to use sanctions and international diplomatic isolation to pressure Assad into handing over power as part of a political transition. At the minimum, Western countries want aid guaranteed for civilians caught between Assad’s forces and the increasingly militarized opposition, but are struggling even to convince Damascus and its Russian and Iranian backers of that.

Russia, alongside fellow veto-wielding Security Council member China, has stood by Assad even while his forces have killed thousands over the past year, rejecting two UN resolutions critical of the Syrian government. Negotiations on a narrower, third resolution are ongoing in New York, and the Kremlin again seems to be standing in the way.

“I hope that Russia now, after the elections and with a clear view, will see that it stands on the wrong side of history,” said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. “The people in Syria who are standing up for democracy and their freedom need solidarity from the international community.”

Speaking in Prague, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said an Arab League meeting this weekend would offer Putin a chance to work with the rest of the world on getting humanitarian assistance into besieged cities such as Homs, and recognizing “that there needs to be a new leadership in Syria.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Washington planned to immediately take up the Syrian issue with Moscow. She said the U.S. is open to compromise on UN action as long as Russia stopped trying to equate the Assad regime’s violent repression of protesters with rebels trying only to defend their communities.

“We hope that their sense of humanity and compassion will encourage them to join us in pressing the Assad regime to silence its guns,” she said.

The entreaties failed to make an immediate impression on Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov instead drew attention to a months-old Russian resolution demanding that Syria’s government and the opposition hold talks on reforms. The Russian approach would keep the levers of power in Assad’s hands, while requiring his opponents to end their rebellion.

“I don’t think there is a need for any new initiatives,” Lavrov said Monday. He said other countries “shouldn’t expect one another to take any action, but sit down together and decide what steps need to be taken so that the Syrians stop shooting at each other.”

Syria is Russia’s primary ally in the Middle East, having maintained close ties with Damascus since the Cold War, when the Arab country was led by the current leader’s father, Hafez Assad. Putin, Russia’s prime minister for the past four years, called last week for government and opposition forces to pull out of besieged cities, accusing the West of encouraging the rebels to fight by refusing to make that demand.