Archive for March 7, 2012

Obama pushes back on imminent military decision on Iran, slams Republican ‘bluster’

March 7, 2012

Obama pushes back on imminent military decision on Iran, slams Republican ‘bluster’.

Obama pushes back on imminent military decision on Iran, slams Republican ‘bluster’

 

 

U.S. President Barack Obama said that American politicians ‘beating the drums of war’ had a responsibility to explain the costs and benefits of military action. (Reuters)

U.S. President Barack Obama said that American politicians ‘beating the drums of war’ had a responsibility to explain the costs and benefits of military action. (Reuters)

 

 

U.S. President Barack Obama lashed out Tuesday at criticism from Republican rivals over his Iran policy, saying “bluster” is not helping resolve the nuclear standoff.

Amid mounting speculation that Israel could attack Iran’s nuclear sites in coming months, Obama said that American politicians ‘beating the drums of war’ had a responsibility to explain the costs and benefits of military action.

“This is not a game, and there’s nothing casual about it,” Obama told a news conference. “When I see some of these folks who had a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them, specifically, what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years.”

 

Speaking after Republican campaign hopefuls pledged a tougher stand on Iran, Obama dismissed the comments as political.

“What’s said on the campaign trail… those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not commander in chief,” Obama told reporters.

“And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded of the decision that I have to make, in terms of sending our young men and women into battle. And the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy.”

Earlier Tuesday, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney suggested he would be more willing than Obama to consider using military force while Rick Santorum backed an ultimatum demanding Iran stop nuclear production to avoid action by the U.S. to “tear down” its facilities.

Newt Gingrich, a long-shot for president, told the Washington gathering he would back everything short of war to “undermine and replace” the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In White House talks on Monday, Obama appealed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for more time for international sanctions and diplomacy to work.

Obama has insisted that military options remain on the table if other means fail to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu told Obama that Israel has not made any decision on striking Iran. But Netanyahu also gave no sign of backing away from possible military action.

Netanyahu leaves U.S. with assurances on Iran, yet war talk downplayed by Obama

March 7, 2012

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Netanyahu leaves U.S. with assurances on Iran, …
Follow my videos on vodpod

Netanyahu leaves U.S. with assurances on Iran, yet war talk downplayed by Obama

March 7, 2012

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not believe that the international sanctions against Iran will prevent the country from procuring nuclear weapons. (Photo Illustration by Amarjit Sidhu)

By Al Arabiya with Agencies

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Washington early Wednesday with assurances that the United States is prepared to use force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, just not yet.

Netanyahu, who met with President Barack Obama on Monday and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, put the world on notice that his patience was wearing thin and, if necessary, he would launch unilateral strikes.

“As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation,” he told 13,000 delegates in a keynote speech on Monday night at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, according to AFP.

“Unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear program has continued to march forward. Israel has waited… for diplomacy to work, we’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.”

Sitting alongside the president at the White House before going into talks on Monday, Netanyahu told Obama that Israel must remain the “master of its fate,” in a firm defense of its right to mount a unilateral strike.

Obama, who assured Netanyahu that he has Israel’s “back,” stressed that he sees a “window” for diplomacy with Iran, despite rampant speculation that Israel could soon mount a risky go-it-alone military operation.

What happened behind closed doors?

“Netanyahu does not believe that the international sanctions against Iran or the dialogue with Iran will prevent the country from procuring nuclear weapons,” Israel’s Haaretz daily quoted a senior Israeli official as saying on Tuesday. “That is why Netanyahu thinks the damage and casualties from a missile attack on Tel Aviv in response to an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will be small change compared to the consequences of the Iranian government attaining nuclear capability.”

While no one knows exactly what was said behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Obama publicly kept to a far more dovish line and appeared notably at odds with Netanyahu over just how immediate the Iranian threat is.

“This notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks or month or two months is not borne out by the facts,” he told a press conference Tuesday.

But addressing AIPAC on Sunday, Obama recognized Israel’s right to take action on its own and said he was prepared to use force if necessary to snuff out an Iranian nuclear threat.

According to Haaretz report, Netanyahu said the Iranian regime has reached an official policy decision to destroy Israel. Therefore, in Netanyahu’s view the debates on the matter are incorrectly focusing on the number of missiles that will be fired at Israel or the number of dead after an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and the Iranian counterattack. In Netanyahu’s view, the Israeli home front will absorb a blow even if the U.S. attacks Iran, so the real issue is the dangers of Iranian nuclear missiles, and not conventional ones.

Obama acknowledged “Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.”

“I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said. “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.”

Iran is feeling the bite

World powers on Tuesday responded to Iran’s new willingness to discuss the nuclear issue with an offer of talks, which Obama said would “quickly” show whether the Islamic republic was serious about avoiding war.

Obama, seeking a second term in November, argued that Iran was now feeling the “bite” of tightening sanctions though cautioned he did not expect a breakthrough in a first set of negotiations.

He also slammed Republican candidates for their statements demanding military action on Iran, after leading candidate Mitt Romney earlier said “thugs and tyrants” only understood American readiness to use power.

“This is not a game, and there’s nothing casual about it,” Obama said.

After meeting Clinton, Netanyahu held talks Tuesday with congressional leaders before flying home.

“We’ve had a very good visit in Washington, first in our discussion with the president in the Oval Office… and now culminating in this remarkable display of solidarity here in the Congress of the United States,” he said.

“I go back to Israel feeling that we have great friends in Washington.”

Their divergent comments on Tuesday — Obama at a news conference and Netanyahu on Capitol Hill — highlighted the differences that remain between the two leaders over the need for military action against Iran a day after they presented a unified front at the White House.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli officials have warned that Iran may be only months away from reaching a zone of immunity where its nuclear activities in deep underground facilities would be invulnerable to Israeli air strikes.

The Obama administration says it does not believe Iran has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon, or that the time is right for military action, preferring to give biting new sanctions time to work.

But Israel, which sees a possible Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to its very existence, claims Iran may be on the cusp of “breakout” capability — when it could quickly build a nuclear weapon.

In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu sought to minimize the differences between himself and the U.S. president.

Obama “stated clearly that all options are on the table and that American policy is not containment,” Netanyahu said. “Israel has exactly the same policy.”

U.N. aid chief heads for Syria as Obama says military intervention would be ‘mistake’

March 7, 2012

U.N. aid chief heads for Syria as Obama says military intervention would be ‘mistake’.

U.S. President Barack Obama described what was happening in Syria was heartbreaking and outrageous. (Reuters)

U.S. President Barack Obama described what was happening in Syria was heartbreaking and outrageous. (Reuters)

The U.N.’s humanitarian chief heads for Syria Wednesday to urge the regime to let aid into devastated protest cities, with U.S. President Barack Obama insisting military intervention would be a “mistake.”

The five major U.N. powers discussed on Tuesday new efforts to press for a halt to the violence in Syria, which Obama called “heartbreaking,” as regime forces pounded rebel towns and the death toll rose.

U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos and the joint U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan are due to visit Syria this week to see firsthand the effects of a conflict that the United Nations says has killed more than 7,500 civilians.

Amos is due to arrive in Damascus Wednesday for a two-day stay, in a bid to persuade Assad’s government to allow humanitarian aid into protest cities which have been relentlessly bombarded by regime forces, according to AFP.

Annan is to go to Damascus on Saturday to press the humanitarian case and start efforts to persuade Assad to halt the deadly offensive.

Obama said what was happening in Syria was “heartbreaking and outrageous,” and witness accounts of the devastation after government troops bombarded the rebel stronghold of Baba Amro into submission have given attempts to reach a diplomatic solution renewed urgency, according to Reuters.

The White House said Obama was committed to diplomatic efforts to end the violence, saying Washington wanted to isolate Assad, cut off his sources of revenue and encourage unity among his opponents.

“Ultimately this dictator will fall,” Obama said at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday, adding that it was not a question of if, but when Assad would be forced out.

But he opposed a call by U.S. Senator John McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential election, for the United States to lead an international effort to protect population centers in Syria with air strikes on Assad’s forces.

“For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake,” he said.

Obama’s comments came as world powers met behind closed doors at the United Nations late Tuesday to discuss a U.S.-drafted resolution urging an end to the crackdown on the revolt against Assad and unhindered humanitarian access.

U.S.-drafted resolution

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice

But despite the chorus of outrage, Western leaders have ruled out a Libya-style military intervention in Syria, fearing it could trigger wider conflict in the Middle East.

Russia and China have vetoed two previous council resolutions, saying they were unbalanced and only demanded that the government stop attacks, not the opposition. Moscow, which has taken the lead, accused Western powers of fueling the conflict by backing the rebels.

The new draft resolution, proposed by the United States and obtained by Al Arabiya, tries to take a more balanced approach in an effort to get Russia and China on board, but it was unclear if the new language would be sufficient to satisfy them.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared downbeat as she left the meeting, telling reporters: “I don’t think you should expect anything specific,” according to The Associated Press.

In a statement later, Rice said the discussions focused on “whether there is any possibility of reaching agreement around a potential text that would demand an end to the violence in Syria and demand immediate humanitarian access.”

After Tuesday’s closed discussion of the U.S. draft, Russia’s U.N. ambassador had no comment. China’’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong, asked about a new resolution, said “we are still working on that.”

Morocco’s U.N. envoy Mohammed Loulichki called the atmosphere “promising,” but added that no date has been set for another meeting on the draft.

The U.S. draft demands that the Syrian government comply with the Arab League plan of action adopted Nov. 2 and immediately cease all violence, release all detainees, and return all Syrian military and armed forces to their original barracks.

It also calls on “the armed elements of the Syrian opposition to refrain from all violence.”

The draft deplores “the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation” and demands unhindered access for humanitarian organizations, the Arab League, and Arab and international media.

U.S. Proposes New Resolution on Syria

March 7, 2012

U.S. Proposes New Resolution on Syria – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

 

 

New resolution has Security Council demands an end to violence in Syria, both by government and opposition fighters.
By Elad Benari

First Publish: 3/7/2012, 5:12 AM

 

Damaged houses in Baba Amr, Homs

Damaged houses in Baba Amr, Homs
Handout photo / Reuters

 

The United States proposed a new UN Security Council resolution Tuesday, demanding an end to the violence in Syria, first by government forces and then by opposition fighters.

The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, was discussed behind closed doors by the five permanent council members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — and Morocco, the Arab representative on the council.

AP reported that the new draft tries to take a more balanced approach in an effort to get Russia and China, who have vetoed two previous resolutions on Syria, on board.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov defended his country’s position on Syria on Tuesday, telling reporters in Moscow that the Council should “seek compromise, stimulate negotiations and a political process.”

Morocco’s UN envoy, Mohammed Loulichki, called the atmosphere at the meeting “promising,” but added that no date has been set for another meeting on the draft.

The U.S. draft, according to AP, demands that the Syrian government comply with the Arab League plan of action adopted November 2 and immediately cease all violence, release all detainees, and return all Syrian military and armed forces to their original barracks.

Immediately after these measures are implemented, the draft resolution calls on “the armed elements of the Syrian opposition to refrain from all violence.”

The U.S. draft condemns human rights violations by the Syrian government, without a similar condemnation of opposition attacks.

It also mentions past Arab League decisions, which include demands that Assad hand over power to his vice president.

The discussion on the draft came as former UN chief Kofi Annan and other world envoys prepared to launch a diplomatic drive in Damascus.

Annan, who has been named special envoy for the United Nations and Arab League, is due in Damascus on Saturday. He will be accompanied by his deputy, former Palestinian Authority foreign minister Nasser Al Qudwa.

Israel on Sunday formally offered to send humanitarian relief to Syrian civilians harmed in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown via the ICRC.

“The state of the Jewish people cannot sit idly by while in a neighboring state atrocities are taking place and people are losing everything,” said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

“Even if Israel cannot intervene in what is being done in a state with which we have no diplomatic ties, we have a moral obligation to at least give humanitarian aid, and to stir the world to act to end the slaughter,” Lieberman declared.

Panetta on Iran: ‘We Will Act If We Have To’

March 7, 2012

Panetta on Iran: ‘We Will Act If We Have To’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told AIPAC the US would use military force to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
By Gavriel Queenann

First Publish: 3/6/2012, 6:16 PM

 

Leon Panetta

Leon Panetta
Reuters

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Tuesday vowed the United States would take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if diplomacy fails.

“Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,” he said at the America Israel Policy Committee conference. “But make no mistake, we will act if we have to.”

Panetta was affirming a sentiment expressed in by US President Barack Obama in his AIPAC speech on Sunday, where he declared that the United States will “not hesitate to use force” against Iran.

Panetta’s critics, however, say he intentionally leaked Israel’s potential time-table for a strike on Iran’s nuclear program in order to hamstring Jerusalem’s military option.

Obama has refused to set red-lines that would trigger a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and insists his sanctions-only diplomatic track is working.

That has been a major point of contention between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who has gone on record saying sanctions are not working.

Despite the recent bid by US officials to reassure Israeli policy makers by amping up their rhetoric vis-a-vis Iran, Israeli officials have expressed disappointment with Washington’s “lack of resolve.”

They note Iran has sufficient stockpiles of Low Enriched Uranium at 20% to start a sprint for 93% “weapons grade” High Enriched Uranium that would be difficult to detect and only take 2.5 to 3 months to complete.

Obama and Netanyahu met in the White House on Monday with Iran at the top of their agenda. However, despite the outward display of unity, clear policy differences emerged.

Netanyahu reportedly told Obama that Israel would remain the master of her own fate and would exercise its sovereignty in all matters of defense and foreign policy.

The statement was widely seen in Washington as a reaffirmation of US policy makers’ belief that Israel will strike Iran in the coming months if Tehran does not alter its course.

Some analysts say Obama’s recent tough-talk on Iran combined with his refusal to commit to so-called red lines is a tacit “green light” for an Israeli strike intended to put pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany announced Tuesday they would resume nuclear talks with Iran in the coming weeks.

Iran simultaneously announced it would grant UN nuclear inspectors access to the Parchin military complex as a “goodwill gesture.”

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors believe Parchin houses a large test chamber for the high-explosives needed to trigger a nuclear warhead.

 

Obama Comes Out Swinging at GOP on Iran

March 7, 2012

Obama Comes Out Swinging at GOP on Iran – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Barack Obama sought to paint his GOP rivals as foreign policy amateurs under a fusillade of criticism on his ‘reticent’ posture on Iran
By Gavriel Queenann
First Publish: 3/6/2012, 10:03 PM

 

Barack Obama

Barack Obama
Reuters

President Obama came out swinging and took his Republican presidential rivals to task on Tuesday for talking “casually” about going to war with Iran.

“What is said on the campaign trail — those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities,” Obama told reporters on Tuesday. “They are not commander in chief. When I see the casualness with which those folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs involved in war.”

“When we have [made decisions to go to war] in the past, when we haven’t thought it through, and it gets caught up in politics, we make mistakes,” Obama said. “And it’s not usually the people popping off who pay the price. It’s these incredible men and women in uniform who pay the price.”

Speaking hours after GOP candidates put his Iran policy in the crosshairs at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama said, “Those who are suggesting or proposing or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be.”

“It’s also not just a question of interests to Israel if Israel acts prematurely,” he said. “Any time we consider military action — the American people understand — there’s going to be a price to pay. Sometimes it’s necessary. But we don’t do it casually.”

Analysts say Obama’s first White House news conference since October was aimed at ensuring he was not eclipsed by the GOP on Iran as the Democratic National Committee worries over Obama’s poor Israel record and the Jewish vote.

Jewish voters are traditionally strongly pro-Israel and, while only constituting a small percentage of America’s popular vote, are concentrated in key electoral states where previous elections have been contested, or won by mere thousands of votes.

The president’s other press conference topics — immigration, women’s health, and housing — were eclipsed by by questions over his management of Israel, Iran, and the daunting prospect of a Middle East war.

The press conference followed Obama’s weekend address to AIPAC, and an Oval Office meeting Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who asserted Israel’s sovereign right to self defense in the face of Obama’s attempts to dissuade an Israeli attack.

Obama’s comments on Iran likely underscored his own concerns that an Israeli strike on Iran could trigger a chain of events in the Middle East that could cost him his bid for reelection.

 

Obama sets out case for Israeli strike

March 7, 2012

Our World: Obama sets out case fo… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

 

By CAROLINE GLICK

 

03/06/2012 23:12
The US president is actually demanding that Israel place its survival in his hands.

US President Barack Obama at AIPAC Conference

By REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

In his commentary in Maariv’s Friday news supplement, the paper’s senior diplomatic commentator Ben Caspit laid out a hypothetical lecture that Obama might give Netanyahu during the two leaders’ tete-a- tete in the Oval Office Monday afternoon. In Caspit’s scenario, Obama used the meeting to lay down the law to the Israeli premier.

If you bomb Iran’s nuclear installations before the November elections, in my second term Israel will no longer be able to buy spare parts for its weapons systems from the US. So too, Caspit’s Obama said, the US will end its support for Israel at the UN Security Council if Israel dares to take it upon itself to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold before the US elections.

Perhaps Caspit wrote his article after hearing about a meeting between American Jews and Vice President Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor Anthony Blinken. According to Commentary’s Omri Ceren, Blinken told the assembled Jews that if Israel’s supporters discuss Obama’s hostile treatment of Israel in the context of the election, they can expect to suffer consequences if Obama is reelected.

It is important to keep Blinken’s threats and Caspit’s scenario in mind when considering Obama’s speech to AIPAC on Sunday morning.

Obama’s speech was notable for a number of reasons. First, this was the first speech on an Israel-related theme that Obama has given since the 2008 campaign in which he did not pick a fight with Israel. And it is due to the absence of open hostility in his address that Obama’s supporters are touting it as a pro-Israel speech.

While he didn’t pick a fight with Israel on Sunday, his speech did mark a clear attempt to undermine Israel’s strategic position in a fundamental – indeed existential – way.

As many commentators have noted in recent weeks, Israel and the US have different red lines for the Iranian nuclear program. These divergent red lines owe to the fact that the US has more options for attacking Iran’s nuclear installations than Israel.

From Israel’s perspective, Iran’s nuclear program will reportedly become unstoppable as soon as the Iranians move a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium and/or centrifuges to the Fordow nuclear installation by Qom. Since Israel reportedly lacks the ability to destroy the facility, Israel’s timeline for attacking Iran will likely end within weeks. The US reportedly has the capacity to successfully bomb Fordow and so its timeline for attacking Iran is longer than Israel’s.

The reason this is important is because it tells us the true nature of Obama’s demand that Israel give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. When one recognizes Israel’s short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands. Again, once Iran’s nuclear project is immune from an Israeli strike Obama will effectively hold the key to Israel’s survival. Israel will be completely at his mercy.

To understand just how dangerous this would be it is worth considering the other issues Obama covered in his speech. Obama’s speech essentially boiled down to three assertions, which he argued prove that he is the best friend Israel has ever had and therefore can be trusted to ensure its survival.

First, Obama asserted that military cooperation between Israel and the US has grown to unprecedented levels under his leadership. Second, he claimed that his administration has served as Israel’s stalwart defender in the UN and generally when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Finally, he argued that he can be trusted to defend Israel from a nuclear armed Iran because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the US and the international community since he entered office.

The alleged expansion of US-Israel military cooperation under Obama’s watch has served as a regular talking point for Obama administration officials. The claim is convenient because it is based on classified information unavailable to the general public. You and I have no way of knowing if it is true.

But what we do know is that under Obama’s leadership, senior US military and defense officials have made repeated statements that are openly hostile to Israel. Then-defense secretary Robert Gates called Israel “an ungrateful ally.” Current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demanded that Israel “get back to the damned table” with the Palestinians. General Dempsey and his predecessor Michael Mullen have spoken disparagingly of Israel and its military capabilities and so at a minimum gave comfort to its enemies.

Aside from these rather uncooperative comments, under Obama the US has adopted policies and taken actions that have endangered Israel militarily on all fronts and in fundamental ways. With Obama at the helm the US not only stood back and allowed Hezbollah and Iran to take over Lebanon. The US has continued to supply the Hezbollah- controlled Lebanese military with sophisticated US arms.

Under Obama, the US intervened in Egypt’s internal politics to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and overthrow Hosni Mubarak. The transformation of Israel’s border with Egypt from a peaceful boundary to a hostile one is the direct consequence of the US-supported overthrow of Mubarak and the US-supported rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. These are indisputable facts. Their military repercussions are enormous and entirely negative.

Then there is Syria. For more than six months, Obama effectively sided with Bashar Assad against his own people who rose up against him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer. Now, as Assad butchers his people by the thousands, the US has still failed to send even humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. Almost unbelievably, Clinton said that Assad would have to agree to any US assistance to the people who seek his overthrow.

There have been reports that the US has warned Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia about the possibility that Assad’s ballistic missiles and chemical and biological arsenals may be transferred to terrorists. Such a prospect constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security – as well as to Israel’s national security.

Indeed, the threat of proliferation of WMD is so dangerous that the administration could be expected to take preemptive steps to destroy or commandeer those arsenals. Certainly it could be expected to support an Israeli operation to do so. But according to reports, Obama has sufficed with empty warnings to the Arabs – not Israel – that this could perhaps be a problem.

By failing to act against Assad, the Obama administration is effectively acting as the guardian of Iran’s most important regional ally. That is, far from enhancing Israel’s military posture, Obama’s behavior toward Syria is enhancing Iran’s military posture. He is acting in a manner one would expect Iran’s ally to behave, not in the manner that one would expect Israel’s ally to behave.

As to Iran, while Obama touts the new anti-Iran sanctions that have been imposed since he took office as proof that he can be trusted to take action against Iran, the fact is that Obama has been forced to implement sanctions against his will by the US Congress and Europe. So too, Obama still refuses to implement the sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank that Congress passed against his strong objections earlier in the year. As with the case of Syria – and Hezbollah in Lebanon – on the issue of sanctions, Obama’s behavior has served to help rather than hinder Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

Beyond Israel’s immediate borders, and beyond Iran, Obama’s behavior toward Turkey has had a destructive impact on Israel’s military position and strategic posture. Obama has said that Turkey’s Islamist, anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is one of the five foreign leaders he is closest to. He reportedly speaks to Erdogan at least once a week. The Turkish leader prime minister is the Middle Eastern leader that Obama trusts the most.

Erdogan gained Obama’s trust at the same time that he ended his country’s strategic alliance with Israel and began directly funding the Hamas terrorist organization and providing aid and comfort to Hamas by seeking to end Israel’s lawful maritime blockade of Gaza’s coastline.

What is notable about Obama’s relationship with NATO member Turkey is that he has not used his relationship with Erdogan to influence Erdogan’s behavior. Instead he has rewarded Erdogan’s behavior.

Obama’s self-congratulatory statements about US assistance to the development of Israel’s missile defense systems ring depressingly hollow for two main reasons.

First, the military cooperation agreement between Israel and the US for the development of the Iron Dome antimortar and rocket shield was concluded and financed under President George W. Bush due to the peripatetic actions of Senator Mark Kirk. Obama inherited the program. And in his 2012 budget, Obama reduced US funding of the project.

The second reason his statements ring hollow is because his actions as president have increased Israel’s need to defend itself from Palestinian mortars and rockets from Gaza. Obama has empowered the Palestinians to attack Israel at will and pressured Israel to take no offensive steps to reduce the Palestinians’ ability to attack it.

This brings us to Obama’s statements about his support for Israel at the UN and toward the Palestinians. The fact is that it is Obama’s hostile position toward Israel that fuelled the Palestinians’ rejection of negotiations with Israel. As Mahmoud Abbas told The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, Obama’s demand for a Jewish building freeze convinced him that he has no reason to hold talks with Israel.

Then there is his “support” for Israel at the UN. The fact is that the Palestinians only sought a UN Security Council resolution condemning Jewish construction in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria because Obama made them think that he would support it. It was Obama after all who called Israeli settlements “illegitimate,” and demanded an abrogation of Jewish building rights outside the armistice lines.

The same is the case with the Palestinian decision to have the UN accept “Palestine” as a member. In his September 2010 address to the UN General Assembly Obama called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within a year. It was his statement that made the Palestinians think the US would back their decision to abandon negotiations with Israel and turn their cause over to the UN.

So in both cases where Obama was compelled to defend Israel at the UN, Obama created the crisis that Israel was then compelled to beg him to defuse. And in both cases, he made Israel pay dearly for his protection.

The fact is that Obama’s actions and his words have made clear that Israel cannot trust him, not on Iran and not on anything. The only thing that has been consistent about his Israel policy has been its hostility. As a consequence, the only messages emanating from his administration we can trust are those telling us that if Obama is reelected, he will no longer feel constrained to hide his hatred for Israel.

What these messages make clear is that if our leaders are too weak to stand up to Obama today, we will pay a steep price for their cowardice if he wins the elections in November.

PM: Israel has acted against US advice before

March 7, 2012

PM: Israel has acted against US a… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

By HERB KEINON, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
03/07/2012 00:39
House Speaker John Boehner pledges Congress will never let Jewish state ‘stand alone.’

 Binyamin Netanyahu with Speaker John Boehner. By REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON – Citing historical precedents in which the US and Israel did not see eye-to-eye and Israel acted according to its own perception of its interests, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told congressional leaders Tuesday that Israel viewed things differently than the US did at times, because it was not a global power and was more vulnerable.

Israeli sources said Netanyahu, meeting congressional leaders before flying back to Israel Tuesday evening, noted that David Ben-Gurion declared independence against the advice of the US; Levi Eshkol launched a preemptive attack in 1967, against Washington’s counsel; and Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 despite US opposition.

America has global interests, while Israel is “on the ground and more vulnerable,” Netanyahu said in reference to Iran, saying that this made for a very different perspective.

Netanyahu followed up his meeting at the White House Monday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as leaders of both parties pledged commitment to a robust policy to keep Iran from getting nuclear arms.

“The US Congress will always stand by Israel, and the US Congress will never allow Israel to stand alone,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday, standing alongside Netanyahu and the House leadership from both parties.

“The looming threat of a nuclear Iran cannot be ignored,” he said, warning that “ambiguity could lead to serious miscalculation, which is what we collectively hope to avoid.”

Boehner said that Israel and the US had to be clear with each other, and with the Iranians.

“Now is the time to stand together, and we are here today to tell the prime minister that Congress intends to do so,” he declared.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) echoed his comments, saying that “rejecting containment of Iran and preventing them from having a nuclear weapon” was in the interests of the US, Israel and the region.

Boehner and Pelosi spoke just prior to a luncheon meeting with Netanyahu – along with other congressional leaders – as the prime minister was winding down his two-day visit to Washington. Before meeting the congressional leadership, Netanyahu met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last week, he met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa to enlist his support for action against Iran.

Netanyahu thanked the congressional leaders for their support and “remarkable solidarity” when it came to Israel.

“I [will] go back to Israel feeling that we have great friends in Washington,” he said.

National Security Council head Ya’acov Amidror said that following the trip to Washington there was a need to return to Israel to “digest” what the Americans had said, and make decisions “based on Israel’s interests and the premise upon which Israel was created – that we are able to defend ourselves.”

Amidror said that during Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, the US president had made clear that containment of a nuclear Iran was not an option, something Amidror said was a message it was important for Tehran to understand.

During the meetings, Amidror said, several points were made clear: that Israel retains the freedom of action to defend itself as it sees fit, and that there is not only a cost for an attack on Iran, but also a “very, very high price to the possibility of a nuclear Iran.”

He added that the overall importance of the meeting with Obama was that both sides now better understood the positions of the other. In a relationship as important as the one between the US and Israel, he said, “this type of understanding is critical in continuing the dialogue.”

On Monday night, just after meeting Obama, Netanyahu delivered a passionate speech to some 13,000 delegates at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference, intoning the “Never Again” mantra and pledging that “as prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”

Netanyahu adopted a tough tone toward the Islamic Republic, drawing on the tragic history of the Holocaust to argue that the world, and the Jewish people, could not “accept a world in which the ayatollahs have atomic bombs.”

“We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” he said. “We leave all options on the table.

And containment is definitely not an option. The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal.”

While forcefully asserting Israel’s right to defend itself, and spelling out the dangers Iran posed to the world, Netanyahu stopped well short of providing any indication of how or when Israel might act.

“Every day, I open the papers and read about these red lines and these time lines,” he said, in reference to weeks of speculation on differences between the US and Israel about how to deal with Iran. “I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do. Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that.”

Instead, the speech focused on Israel’s historical imperative and justification to act if it felt the need to do so.

Netanyahu said he had warned against a nuclear Iran for 15 years, the international community had tried diplomacy to stop it for the last decade, and the world had imposed sanctions over the last six years – but none of it had worked. While expressing appreciation for Obama’s efforts to impose tougher sanctions, he said that Tehran’s “nuclear march goes on.”

“We’ve waited for diplomacy to work,” he said. “We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.”

Netanyahu chastised unnamed “commentators” for saying that stopping Iran from obtaining a bomb was more dangerous then letting it have one.

“They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already under way, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran,” he said, adding that he had heard, and even read, those arguments before.

He then dramatically displayed copies of letters that the World Jewish Congress had exchanged with the US War Department at the height of the Holocaust in 1944 that implored the US government to bomb Auschwitz.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere, and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources,” Netanyahu read from the letters.

“And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all,” he added, quoting, “‘Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.’” “Think about that: ‘even more vindictive action than the Holocaust,’” he said. “My friends, this is not 1944. The American government today is different.

You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday. But here’s my point. The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future. That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

Netanyahu reiterated what he had said before meeting Obama: “We must always remain the masters of our fate.”

He made mention of the upcoming holiday of Purim, saying that in every generation there were those who wished to destroy the Jewish people.

But, he added, “in this generation we are blessed to live in a time when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people.”

‘Israel must be ready to strike Iran if talks fail’

March 7, 2012

‘Israel must be ready to strike Iran if talks … JPost – Defense.

By JPOST.COM STAFF
03/07/2012 10:28
National Security Council head Amidror: Netanyahu didn’t travel to US to set red lines, receive green light for Iran strike.

Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor By Reuters

Head of the National Security Council Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya’akov Amidror said Wednesday that Israel must be ready to act against Iran should talks between the international community and Tehran fail, Israel Radio reported.

Still, Amidror said that Israel praises the renewal of talks between the international community and Iran over its controversial nuclear program, which the Islamic Republic claims is for peaceful purposes.

The national security head added that without placing the military option on the table, the Iranians will not take such talks seriously.

Iran indicated in a letter dated February 14 that it was ready for talks with the six Western powers tasked with dealing with Tehran over its nuclear program, which includes the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Tuesday that the bloc of Western nations had accepted Iran’s offer to renew talks.

Despite Western calls for diplomacy, Amidror told Israel Radio that it would be a mistake to wait to act until Israel loses the ability to act effectively and unilaterally to defend itself and until it would be dependent on a decision by US President Barack Obama.

Amidror further added that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had not come to the US to set red-lines or to request a green light to strike Iran, as had been reported in the Israeli media.

He also noted that Netanyahu and Obama had a good working relationship and that their talks had been positive.

Reuters contributed to this report.