A Special Place in Hell-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

No one will be following the U.S. presidential campaign more closely than the man adored by Republicans nationwide as the favorite son they can never adopt, Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Bradley Burston

There is something in the air. Something new. Something as recent as this week’s AIPAC conference. And for Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s not something to be desired.
American conservatives have begun to think out loud that Barack Obama will win in November. Citing the GOP’s disastrous showing in the 1964 presidential election, influential Washington Post columnist George Will suggested this week in a tone of some resignation (“the Presidency is not everything”) that conservatives might better use their energies by concentrating instead on Congressional and Senate races.

No one will be following the campaign more closely than the man adored by Republicans nationwide as the favorite son they can never adopt, Benjamin Netanyahu. And should Obama win a second term, perhaps recouping a measure of Congressional strength on his coattails, Netanyahu stands to lose as much as anyone.

	President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, March 6, 2012.
	Photo by: PMO

Much of the prime minister’s policymaking strategy has been based on educated hopes for a steady decline in Obama’s first-term electoral strength and a Netanyahu- friendly Republican taking the White House in 2012. Marshalling conservative allies in Congress and the Jewish community, Netanyahu seemed to have shattered the Obama administration’s linkage of Israeli-Palestinian peace progress (with its attendant threats to the settlement enterprise) and resolution of other regional issues, notably Iran.

But it’s a different Netanyahu coming home this week. The Prime Minister’s Office is no longer betting on Obama to lose.

You can hear the change in the words of Israeli officials. Before the shift, during the run-up to AIPAC and a closely watched meeting at the Oval Office, the prime minister had five senior U.S. senators over to lunch, a group headed by Republican former presidential candidate John McCain.

Officials, riding a frankly pro-Republican wave of sentiment, later quoted Netanyahu as telling the senators he was “disappointed” with Obama administration statements on Iran, adding that the public opposition of administration leaders – apparently including the president – to an attack on Iran, “serves the Iranians.”

On Tuesday, as the AIPAC conference ended, government figures in Jerusalem took a markedly different tack, one that began to confront the possibility that Obama may occupy the Oval Office for four fateful second-term years.
“We hope that if he is re-elected in November,” Channel 10 television quoted officials as saying, “that he will appreciate Israel’s restraint, if, in fact, Israel maintains restraint.”

It was not lost on them, that at a key Congressional briefing Tuesday, the head of the U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, signaled a rebirth of linkage, warning a joint military affairs committee that the current stalemate in the Israel-Palestine stalemate could not continue, and that talks toward a two-state solution were needed.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. By this time, aided by and aiding the Republican-in-all-but-name Netanyahu government, Obama, and talk of an urgent need for negotiations toward two states, were supposed to be on their way out.

But as the American economy recovers and the Republican Party guts itself in efforts to field a credible candidate to face Obama, the Netanyahu government is weighing a challenge that may prove politically second only to that of a nuclear Tehran – an Obama victory.

At issue are the twin underpinnings of the Netanyahu government, expansion of settlements and resistance to granting concessions to Palestinians. They are the cement that has kept in place an ill-fitting collection of political building blocks.
Second-term U.S. presidents often have much more freedom to bring influence to bear on their Israeli allies, a factor of significance if Obama seeks to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace as the cornerstone of his presidency.

Should Obama win, Netanyahu may have to radically rethink the composition of his government, as well as his strategy with respect to the Palestinians. He may have no choice but to begin to put substance to his commitment – empty until now – toward a two-state solution.

In theory, Netanyahu will not let this happen without a fight. It is in his every short-term interest to help the GOP recapture the White House. But if Obama’s electoral strength continues to grow, Netanyahu may be forced to concede that his fight has ended before it has truly begun.

Most of all, Netanyahu will have to deal differently with Obama himself. It won’t be easy. Where the current American President and Israeli Prime Minister are concerned, there’s never been a special relationship quite like this one.
Since Netanyahu’s election three years ago, the only genuine leader of the opposition in Israeli politics has been Barack Obama. And for Obama as a first-term American president, Netanyahu has increasingly filled the same role.

Early on, Obama mounted what became the only substantive challenge to Netanyahu’s hard-line policies. But when the Washington-wrought freeze on settlement construction failed to jump-start peace negotiations, Netanyahu was quick to leverage Obama’s flagging mid-term popularity to his own advantage, turning much of Congress itself into a version of AIPAC.
Netanyahu’s May appearance before a joint session of Congress, arranged by Republican lawmakers, took on the tones of a shadow State of the Union address, underscoring the absence of a Republican figure capable of galvanizing broad support even on the U.S. right.

In the end, both men know that the wild card in the deck is war. On a strictly political level, the consequences of war before November – soaring oil prices, a plunging stock market, division and despair among Democrats – could spell defeat for Obama.

Poker, with war in the balance, remains a game which Netanyahu, though seasoned, has shown himself to play only erratically. Obama, though new to the game, has become a quick study. Netanyahu is still in the game. But he can no longer afford to bet against Obama.

Cargo containers in transit: the Iran… JPost – Opinion – Op-Eds.

By NITZAN NURIEL AND ADAM WOLFSON

03/06/2012 22:59

Iran has been transferring large quantities of armaments to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

By Reuters

In recent years, Iran has been transferring large quantities of armaments, by various means, to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. While United Nations Security Council resolutions 1835, 1803, 1747 and 1737 strictly forbid Iran to export or trade any form of weaponry, the Islamic Republic has found an effective way to circumvent these restrictions. It accomplishes this is by using shipping containers which reach their final destination via intermediate ports.

In November 2009, 36 containers full of weapons were loaded at an Iranian port onto a ship bound for Egypt. There the containers were transferred, without any inspection or screening, to the cargo vessel Francop, a German-owned vessel leased at the time to a Cypriot freight delivery company and Antiguan-flagged. The Francop was to dock at a second intermediate port in Cyprus on its way to Syria, its final destination. From Syria the weapons were intended to be transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Instead, the ship was intercepted by Israeli naval forces before arriving in Cyprus.

According to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the most critical component of global trade today is transportation of goods by container through seaports around the world. Therefore, a container explosion can have an enormous negative impact not only in terms of loss of life and damage to the port and its surrounding areas, but also to the host nation’s economy as a whole.

Such an incident occurred on July 2011 in Cyprus, where the explosion of confiscated containers of gunpowder from Iran killed the commander of the Cypriot navy and 11 others, wounding dozens and causing severe damage to surrounding infrastructure. The incident had significant political ramifications: the defense minister and the country’s top military official resigned.

Further incidents like this could paralyze the global economy and severely undermine freedom of movement (as has occurred in the past with air travel).

Containers in transit are almost never screened for weapons or other illegal goods without prior intelligence for two main reasons. The first has to with the fact that since these containers do not officially enter the country, there is no reason for the customs agencies – which are usually in charge of screening incoming containers from abroad – to inspect them.

The second reason is that screening containers costs money. This cost will almost certainly be partially if not fully imposed on the shipper, thus increasing overall shipment cost. A shipper might then decide to ship his containers via a different intermediate that charges less money.

The way to combat such illegal activity is to subject containers shipped by states like Iran that have been caught undermining the system by falsifying documents and smuggling weapons to terrorist organizations to a 100 percent inspection regime. This would not only increase port safety and security, but would also deny Iran a way to transfer weapons to terrorist organizations. The inspection costs would be borne by Iran.

The only way such a system can be effective is if the entire international community legally commits itself to apply such an inspection regime on all incoming “transit containers” from Iran. Otherwise, Iran will bypass the inspections by shipping its containers through intermediate ports which do not use the aforementioned 100% inspection regime.

This measure will help guarantee that containers loaded with weapons which were shipped from Iran to terrorist organizations will be caught – regardless of prior intelligence – due to the comprehensive inspection regime at intermediate ports.

Nitzan Nuriel is the former head of the Prime Minister Office’s Counter-Terrorism bureau.

Strenger than Fiction-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

(One of the anti-Netanyahu bloggers from the left leaning Haaretzz – JW)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may go into history not as another Winston Churchill, but rather as another George W. Bush.

By Carlo Strenger

There are obvious points of consensus in the Free World: the Iranian regime is not nice; in fact it’s pretty horrid, both to its own people and in its support of violent actors in the Middle East. A nuclear Iran is bad, very bad; not just for Israel, but for the Middle East, and the world as a whole.

I don’t envy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak: they need to make fateful decisions under a high degree of uncertainty: the problem, as the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once said, is that life can only be understood backward, but needs to be lived forward.

	Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
	Photo by: Olivier Fitoussi

It has been argued that Netanyahu’s and Barak’s real goal in threatening that Israel will strike Iran on its own is to push U.S. President Barack Obama to either initiate such a strike when it is under U.S. control, or to force the U.S. in joining Israel when Iran retaliates by attacking Israeli cities with rockets. If this will indeed be the case, and if this will topple the regime in Iran, Netanyahu will, as he dreams, go into history as Israel’s Winston Churchill who saved the world from a nuclear Iran.

If, instead, the attack will set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a short time only, if the Israel Air Force will incur heavy losses, and if Israel will suffer severe damages from Iranian rocket attacks, Israel’s deterrence will actually be lowered. In addition, the Middle East might be set the Middle East ablaze and the world economy sent into a tailspin.

Given the high level of uncertainty, it may well be wise to keep room for maneuvering. But, as Aluf Benn has pointed out, Netanyahu’s Auschwitz analogy at AIPAC narrowed his own options. Because if indeed Iran is Nazi Germany, if a nuclear Iran is a repeat of Auschwitz, and not bombing Iran is like not bombing the railways to Auschwitz, there is indeed no way to justify any course of action other than attacking Iran.

Does Netanyahu actually believe that a nuclear Iran may be the end of Israel and endanger the Jewish people’s existence? Peter Beinart has pointed out in a thoughtful essay, that there is almost complete consensus between those who, beyond doubt are experts on the matter (including current Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, former chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy; former commander of the IAF and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz) that while a nuclear Iran is bad and dangerous, it is not an existential threat either for Israel, and certainly not to the Jewish people. This is also what I hear, off the record, from central members of Israel’s security establishment. Given that, like Beinart, I am not a military expert, I need to base whatever I say on their assessment.

This raises the question why Netanyahu keeps returning to the Holocaust analogy; why, for years, he keeps telling the world that the next Holocaust is around the corner; that the Chamberlains of 2012 are about to close their eyes, whereas he, the Churchill of our era, fearlessly looks at the facts as they are. Because, if the consensus of Israel’s security establishment that a nuclear Iran – bad as it may be – is not an existential threat to Israel is correct, then Netanyahu (who, presumably, has access to all the information these experts have) is saying something that isn’t true.

It cannot be denied that the Holocaust theme has served Netanyahu well politically. As many commentators have pointed out, Netanyahu has succeeded in reframing political discourse on the Middle East: this visit to the U.S. was the first in a long time in which the Palestinian issue was completely off the table. Nobody even raised the question of settlement construction or the old question how to bring Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table.

Instead of being on the defensive on the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu is now on the offensive on Iran. By invoking the allied power’s failure to disrupt the Nazis sending millions to concentration camps in 1944, he is reminding the Free World of a horrible mistake, and demanding that this mistake not be repeated.

But Netanyahu’s short-term political advantage may well turn into a pyrrhic victory highly detrimental to Israel’s long-term interests: a few years ago Netanyahu’s current security advisor Yaakov Amidror argued in a conference at Tel Aviv University that he was against attacking Iran, because such an attack would not prevent Iran from going nuclear in the long run. In fact, he claimed, it would pretty much force Iran’s future leadership to build the bomb, and, at some point, to redress the humiliation of having been attacked by Israel.

If Amidror’s argument is correct, Netanyahu may go into history not as another Churchill, but as another George W. Bush. Like Bush before the invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu is twisting the facts to make his case; and like Bush he may drag Israel into a war that may take an exorbitant toll on Israel and the world economy, without preventing Iran from going nuclear in the long run.

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

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

Tuesday, 06 March 2012

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)

inShare1

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.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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

Wednesday, 07 March 2012

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

inShare1

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. 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 – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

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’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

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 – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

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.