WarSclerotic

Israel v. Iran: A War of Words.

The debate over when or if Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities has been raging of late and I am beginning to suspect that much of what passes for news represents a charade being orchestrated between Israel and the United States to ratchet up pressure on Iran’s leaders.

President Obama will address the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday and no doubt his speech will be closely parsed for any indication of an official U.S. position regarding Iran’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons. The address by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will likewise be analyzed. Suffice to say, both oppose a nuclear Iran.

One fact stands out. U.S. efforts, in concert with other Western nations and aided by some Middle Eastern nations, have put tremendous pressure on Iran’s ability to sell its oil and to collect the revenues. It is having some success.

Another fact that is often overlooked is that Iran has avoided war since its conflict with Iraq from September 1980 to August 1988. It was costly in lives and treasure for Iran and ended in a stalemate. Later Saddam Hussein would attack Kuwait an act that played a role in the decision to put together a coalition to drive the Iraqis out and to later invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

Iran has preferred to use proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to pursue its attacks on Israel. It supports terrorist activity. Its alliance with Syria is going to be affected by the outcome of the internal attacks on the Assad dictatorship. The bulk of the Middle Eastern nations are united in their condemnation of the Syrian leader. Except for pro-forma support from Russia and China in the United Nations, Iran is increasingly isolated.

As Prof. Barry Rubin recently wrote in The Jerusalem Post, credible observers and analysts of the Middle East believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons because “Iran’s main goal, like that of Pakistan, is to make itself immune to any reprisals for terrorism and subversion by having nuclear weapons.” Prof. Rubin asserted that “In part, the rationale for the nuclear program is outdated, though that certainly won’t stop Tehran from pursuing it.” Prof. Rubin is an Israeli scholar, a research director, and a member of the editorial board of the Middle East Quarterly.

Prof. Rubin noted that, “After 32 years in power the Islamist regime in Tehran has yet to do something really adventurous abroad.”

Then there is the belief by military experts that Israel may, in fact, lack the capability to effectively neutralize Iran’s nuclear program. Richard Russell, a professor at the U.S. National Defense University’s Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C., has said that “The Israelis actually have limited means of attacking Iran’s nuclear program. This is a very, very difficult problem for the Israelis, and it’s getting more and more acute.”

While acknowledging that Israel’s air force is “capable of launching an attack on Iran and causing damage”, Yifah Shaper, director of the Military Balance Program at Tel Aviv’s University for National Security Studies, has said that “It is far from capable of disabling the Iran nuclear program. That would take at least a month of sustained bombing, That’s not something Israel can carry out alone.”

Retired U.S. Air Force General, Charles ‘Chuck’ Wald, calculates that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would require in excess of one thousand sorties. None of this is lost on the Israelis.

While Israel has previously destroyed nuclear reactors in Iraq in 1981 and again in Syria in 2007, the logistics of disabling Iran’s extensive nuclear facilities would be daunting. Israel would simultaneously have to invade southern Lebanon to deter Hezbollah’s use of thousands of missiles there.

While I have previously expressed the view that Israel would, if it lacked any other option, attack Iran, a closer examination of the many factors involved in such an operation suggests that it would only occur if there was credible evidence that Iran was preparing to launch nuclear-armed missiles. Current intelligence analysis suggests that Iran is still far from manufacturing the nuclear warheads for its missiles.

The question remains whether the ayatollahs running Iran would risk any attack by Israel and while, in general, that option exists, the economic weakening of Iran by current sanctions, they would likely exacerbate Iran’s leadership facing problem a restive, unhappy population that wants them out of power. An attack might serve to unite Iranians..

Finally, Iran’s military is far from capable of dealing with an Israeli air attack that might conceivably trigger support by the U.S. and allied nations. None of the Gulf nations has any love for Iran. There are lots of U.S. military assets in the region.

As the rhetoric heats up, Iran has been making a show of its military strength holding military exercises and by sending elements of its limited naval capability through the Suez canal and meaningless trips in the Mediterranean. It continues to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Its Air Force is nothing to write home about either. It is composed of aged U.S. aircraft and Russian aircraft.

While a war of words will continue between Israel, the United States, and Iran, a cold calculation argues against an Israeli attack and against U.S. involvement after more than a decade of U.S. conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither nation wants a shooting war with Iran.

The odds, in this observer’s view, are against an Israeli attack despite my earlier concerns that it could or would occur in the near term.

Global Edmonton | New deadline for Iran penalties passes with no action from Obama administration.

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | New deadline for Iran penalties passes with no action from Obama administration

WASHINGTON – A congressional deadline for the Obama administration to begin enforcing new financial penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran passed Wednesday with no fresh action from Washington.

While some congressional authors of a bill President Barack Obama signed Dec. 31 expected the administration to announce new punishments on foreign banks, the Treasury Department said it did not have the authority to take that step now.

Top administration officials instead pointed to success in persuading friendly countries and financial institutions to cut ties with the Islamic republic on their own.

The legislation gave the administration 60 days to investigate private foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum transactions with Iran’s powerful Central Bank. That is a run up to heavier sanctions on Iran’s lucrative oil business that take effect this summer.

The White House hopes that tough commitment to financial pressure will persuade Israel to back away from the possibility of launching a military strike on Iran, an approach the U.S. believes is shortsighted. Obama will make that case directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday when the two leaders meet at the White House.

Some in Washington expected Obama to strengthen his position ahead of the high-stakes meeting by announcing fresh economic penalties that went into effect Wednesday. The penalties were included in a law Obama signed on Dec. 31.

But the administration chose not to immediately take action, and officials disagreed about when they could. A Treasury official said the administration has been identifying financial institutions that may be involved with transactions that could be sanctioned so they would be prepared to act following the deadline.

A senior Senate aide involved in Iran sanctions said that by not announcing new penalties Wednesday, the administration had failed to comply with the law as it was intended.

Both officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

In testimony on Capitol Hill and private negotiations with key allies around the world, Obama administration officials insisted sanctions already levied on Iran were working and that more economic pressure can thwart Tehran’s disputed nuclear program.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Congress the administration is having success in pushing U.S. allies to cut ties with Iran on their own rather than face American sanctions.

“We have faced some challenges because even some of our very best friends have to make serious adjustments in order to comply,” Clinton said. “But we’ve laid the groundwork so that they understand that … this is an important international commitment and they’re stepping up.”

The legislation said that “beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the president shall prohibit” any privately owned foreign financial institutions from engaging in significant non-oil transactions with Iran’s Central Bank. Oil sanctions would be added later under the same legislation.

The United States would have had ample examples of foreign firms that have continued to do lucrative business with the powerful Iranian central bank since December.

“Our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday. “There is time and space to continue to pursue the policy that we have been pursuing since the president took office.”

Since the United States does little real business with Iran, its economic leverage comes largely from the threat of U.S. financial punishment on foreign government or businesses.

Iran has an extensive international trade network, including longstanding economic relationships with many U.S. allies. Since long before the current crisis over a possible Israeli strike, the U.S. has taken a cautious approach to punishing friendly foreign entities.

The sanctions that went into effect Wednesday put the White House in the awkward position of choosing whether to punish financial institutions in countries that are friendly to the U.S., mainly in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

The U.S. has approached financial institutions around the world to caution them to stop doing business with Iranian banks.

One such institution, the Dubai-based Noor Islamic Bank, said Wednesday that it had stopped doing business with Iranian banks in December, shortly before Obama signed the defence bill into law. Noor appears to have acted, at least indirectly, in response to Washington’s efforts to tighten the screws on Tehran.

“When we became aware in December 2011, that unilateral U.S. sanctions were to be applied against a number of Iranian banks, we took pre-emptive action to end our business relationships with Iranian banks licensed in the UAE,” the bank said.

Dubai, just across the Gulf from Iran, is a major Middle East banking and commercial hub and an important trading centre for Iranian merchants. It is one of seven semiautonomous sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, a key U.S. ally.

Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions expert advising the administration on Iran, said announcing more penalties Wednesday would have sent a message that the administration was serious about sanctions enforcement.

“I think it would have been wise to have welcomed the prime minister with a show of force on the economic warfare front,” Dubowitz said of the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.

Israel has largely stayed out of the debate about specific sanctions. Israel has made the case to U.S. officials privately that its decision about whether to attack Iran is based on its own calculations about when such a strike would be effective.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak was in Washington Tuesday and Wednesday for unusually private meetings with the Pentagon and White House. Neither the White House nor Israel offered details of Barak’s meetings Tuesday with Vice-President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

A Pentagon spokesman said Barak and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta “discussed the U.S.-Israel defence relationship and a range of regional issues including Syria, Iran, and the ongoing changes in the Middle East.”

___

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

Iran further complicates relations between Obama, Netanyahu | The Asbury Park Press NJ | APP.com.

WASHINGTON (USA TODAY) — President Obama’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been complicated by misunderstandings, diplomatic miscues and occasional differences of opinion.

Obama has angered Israelis and some American Jews with his call to halt settlements in the West Bank. Last time Netanyahu visited Washington, he embarrassed the president by lecturing him about Israel’s history in front of the cameras. And at the G-20 summit in November, a hot mic caught Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy griping about the Israeli premier.

As Netanyahu heads to Washington this weekend, the relationship might be approaching its most delicate moment. Obama is trying to persuade Netanyahu that it’s in Israel’s interest to resist, at least in the immediate future, launching a direct strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

The president will have a chance to press Netanyahu face to face when the two meet Monday at the White House, the same day Netanyahu is scheduled to speak to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Obama will address AIPAC on Sunday. Discussions about the Arab Spring and the future of Middle East peace talks are among the issues on the AIPAC agenda, but the buzz before the group’s annual meeting centers on whether Israel will buck the White House and carry out a military strike on Iran.

The differences between Obama and Netanyahu over how much time they have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon seem stark.

“The two are temperamentally very different leaders, but this isn’t about personalities,” says Jon Alterman, a Middle East analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated the administration’s position on Tuesday that Iran has not decided whether to pursue a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration believes there is still “time and space” to thwart Iran’s nuclear program through sanctions and diplomacy, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Iran has become further isolated as both the United States and Europe have increased sanctions in recent weeks. The European Union has announced a boycott of Iranian oil. Penalties against Iran’s central bank and those doing business with it have helped prompt a precipitous slide in Iran’s currency. Iran is finding it more difficult to do business with reputable international banks. Even India, which continues to buy Iran’s oil, is only willing to pay in rupees — limiting where Iran will be able to spend that revenue.

Israeli officials say Iran is quickly approaching what Defense Minister Ehud Barak calls a “zone of immunity” where Israel’s military capabilities wouldn’t be sufficient to mount an effective strike.

Though the Israelis agree that stepped-up sanctions are starting to take a toll on Iran, they aren’t working fast enough, says Mark Dubowitz, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative group that focuses its research on human rights and terrorism issues.

Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said in late January that the Iranian regime “so far” had not changed their behavior in the face of sanctions, but “as the pressure ratchets up, there is the prospect that they could change.”

“The Israelis are looking at a calculus where they are not really sure if Obama means what he says when he articulates over and over again that an Iranian nuke is unacceptable and the military option is always on the table,” says Dubowitz, who has advised the administration and Congress on sanctions against Iran. “If I were an Israeli, I would be much more worried about the Iranian regime than their hardware. I would want assurances from the president that he is not willing to bet the survival of Israel on the theory that this is a containable regime.”

In recent weeks, Obama has dispatched some of his top advisers to Israel to huddle with Netanyahu and Israeli officials about Iran’s nuclear program, and senior administration officials have publicly stated that they believe an attack against Iran is not wise. But a report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, indicated last week that Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment, further cementing the Israeli viewpoint that time is running out.

It remains unclear whether Israel will even give the Obama administration forewarning if it decides to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Carney declined to comment on the matter during a White House news briefing Tuesday.

In the GOP presidential race, the candidates have stepped up criticism of Obama’s handling of Iran and have repeatedly suggested that the president has been a less-than-trustworthy ally to Israel.

Mel Levine, a former California congressman who serves as an adviser to the Obama re-election campaign, says the suggestion that Obama is not dedicated to Israel’s security is “flat wrong.” The most recent budget request includes a record amount of military aid to Israel, he says.

“To suggest that there is a tension in the relationship … I think it potentially sends the wrong message to Iran,” he says.

Peres: Iran Knows There Are Other Options – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

President Shimon Peres

Israel news photo: Flash 90

President Shimon Peres had a clear message for Iran on Wednesday, during an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC’s “The View”.

The interview took place after Peres landed in New York for a visit to the United States, where he will hold a series of policy meetings, including a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.

According to a report on Israel’s Channel 2 News, during the interview Peres addressed the Iranian nuclear threat, which he is also expected to discuss with Obama, and said, “The government in Tehran finances and supports international terrorism. The combination of these facts with the possibility that it will have an atomic bomb in its hands is a danger to the entire world.”

In an attempt to cool the mounting tension over the reports on the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Peres sent a reassuring message to the audience and said, “There are many rumors and speculations around the issue and most are not true.”

Last week, a report in Haaretz said that Peres intends to tell President Obama that he opposes an Israeli raid on Iran.

However, Peres later spoke before the annual Jerusalem meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and said, “The state of Israel is a sovereign one and it has the right and the ability to defend itself from every threat,” he said. “When we say all options are on the table, we mean it!”

During the interview with Walters, Peres once again warned that “all options are on the table. Of course there is a preference to resolving the conflict using diplomatic means and I hope that the sanctions will do the job, but the government in Tehran is well aware that if the sanctions do not bear fruit, there are other ways.”

When asked about the nature of the relationship between Israel and the United States, Peres replied that “there is full coordination between us and I am grateful to President Obama for his work.”

Barak, Panetta Hold ‘Useful’ Meeting in Washington – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Barak and Panetta meet in Washington

Reuters

Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in Washington on Wednesday, in a meeting that was described as “important and useful,” Bloomberg reported.

The two reportedly discussed Iran, Syria and the changes across the Middle East.

During his two-day visit in Washington, Barak also met Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon. President Shimon Peres has also arrived in the U.S. for a series of policy meetings, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will arrive next week and meet President Barack Obama at the White House on March 5.

Bloomberg reported that Barak described the meeting with Panetta as “long,” indicating “the close security ties between the U.S. and Israel.” He called the talks, which were also attended by General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “important and useful.”

The meeting was held in the wake of tensions between the U.S. and Israel over how to deal with Iran. One U.S. official after another has called for additional time to let new, more severe sanctions have an impact, but Israeli leaders have warned publicly that time is running out for a military strike that could stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Earlier this week, a U.S. intelligence official said Israeli officials have made it clear they won’t warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The official told The Associated Press that Israel said that if it eventually decides a strike on Iran is necessary, it would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel’s potential attack.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted on Wednesday that the Obama administration is undertaking a campaign of “aggressive outreach” to ensure sanctions on Iran are enforced.

“We should recognize what has been accomplished with the sanctions Congress passed and we are aggressively implementing,” Clinton told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. “Discussion hasn’t gone anywhere, but pressure has been ratcheted up.”

Panetta’s meeting with Barak on Wednesday was the fourth between the two since Panetta took the Cabinet post in July, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told Bloomberg in an e-mailed statement.

The statement said that the frequent encounters have enabled Panetta “to coordinate very closely with the Israelis on security issues, and we will continue to do so.”

Retired American General James E. Cartwright warned on Wednesday against an Israeli strike on Iran.

Cartwright told The New York Times such an attack would probably prompt Iranian-backed terrorist attacks, but only Israel would be targeted with missiles.

MK Herzog: Syrian rebels want peace with Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Labor party’s Isaac Herzog says Syrian opposition leaders told him they want peace with Israel after Assad falls; Syrian rebels wish to ‘be friends’ with Jewish state, he says

Associated Press

Labor Party Knesset Member Isaac Herzog says Syrian opposition leaders have told him they want peace with Israel after Syrian President Bashar Assad falls.

Herzog said Wednesday that the Syrian opposition wants to “be friends” with Israel. He refused to name his sources because he said they fear retribution by Assad. He said they are aligned with the main rebel factions in Syria.

There was no confirmation from the Syrian opposition figures to Herzog’s remarks.

MK Herzog, who currently serves on the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said Israel should supply medical and humanitarian assistance to the rebels.

However, he ruled out military aid to rebels fighting President Assad’s Alawite regime.

Knesset Member Herzog, who met with Syrian exiles in Washington last year, already said previously that Israelis should listen to Syria’s rebels and not rule out a future relationship.

“We in Israel often complain that they don’t know us and don’t understand us. We should know that we too do not possess sufficient understanding of our neighbors, and when it comes to Syria we see total ignorance,” he said at the time. “Following these and other meetings, I can say that what’s happening there does not resemble any other change taking place in our region. The Syrians are a secular nation comprising a fascinating coalition of ethnicities.”

“In my view, following the Assad era there is a chance for positive processes vis-à-vis Israel as well, and they will require us to meet the challenge,” Herzog said.

Senior Israeli official: North Korea pact is no model for Iran nuclear talks –

Under the arrangement, North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid; Israel official: Attempts to compare Iran and North Korea are ‘worrisome.’

By Barak Ravid

Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Wednesday’s agreement between the United States and North Korea that would halt the latter’s nuclear program is no proof that diplomacy will be enough to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, a senior Israeli diplomatic official said.

Under the arrangement, North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid.

	A nuclear facility under construction inside a mountain located about 20 miles north northeast of Qom, Iran.
	Photo by: AP

“Any attempt to compare the two cases is worrisome,” the official said. “North Korea has already blown up two nuclear facilities and it’s not the first time it has claimed that it will stop its nuclear program to get something in return. The last time the North Koreans made such an announcement they actually continued to advance their nuclear plans.”

Just days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to meet U.S. President Barack Obama, American newspapers were filled Wednesday with stories concluding that sanctions could stop the Iranian nuclear program. Netanyahu and Obama are scheduled to meet on Monday.

Reports about the North Korea deal contributed to the Obama administration’s full-court press against the possibility of an Israeli military operation targeting Iran.

“We should recognize what has been accomplished with the sanctions Congress passed and which we are aggressively implementing,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a congressional hearing Wednesday, when she was asked about the administration’s position on a possible Israeli strike.

“Discussion [with Iran] hasn’t gone anywhere, but pressure has been ratcheted up,” she said.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak yesterday met with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in Washington, as well as with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey – and Iran was the main topic of discussion.

The Defense Department and the American intelligence community are widely believed to be orchestrating a media campaign against an Israeli attack on Iran.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that, in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran would respond by firing missiles at Israel and carrying out terror attacks on U.S. bases or other facilities in the Middle East.

Also yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Army does not believe that Iran moving its nuclear enrichment facilities to its underground compound near Qom will make it impervious to attack. Senior military officers were quoted as saying that the newest bunker-busting bombs the U.S. Army recently acquired could do irreparable damage to the nuclear installations, even even if they can’t reach the deepest bunkers.

The American military has been conducting tests of the new bombs on bunkers said to resemble those near Qom.

The Prime Minister’s Office and the White House Wednesday continued discuss the summary statement that would be issued after the two leaders meet. But White House officials stress that Obama will not take a public stance on Iran that is any tougher than his administration’s current policy.

‘US policy is to prevent Iran nuc… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT 03/01/2012 01:02

Hillary Clinton says US policy is to prevent Iran from achieving capability to build nukes, not just final product.

By REUTERS/Jason Reed

WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clarified Wednesday that Washington is committed to preventing Iran from having the capability to make nuclear weapons, not only from their actual construction.

“It’s absolutely clear that the president’s policy is to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons capability,” she told the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, when asked whether the US would allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, short of actually building nuclear weapons.

The drawing of a red line with Iran, particularly between having a nuclear weapons capability and having an actual nuclear weapon, is a significant point of discussion between the US and Israel.

Israel would like to see a red line drawn sooner in the nuclear weapons process than many have perceived the US has been willing to do.

that Israel would seek the more explicit and public drawing of such red lines when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu meets with US President Barack Obama this Monday, coinciding with their participation in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Washington conference.

When Clinton was asked Wednesday about America’s willingness to make such a public declaration, she responded, “It’s probably smarter for us to be pressing on the sanctions and the negotiations while we keep our objective of no nuclear capability absolutely clear, instead of setting other benchmarks at this time publicly.”

The US and Israel have been involved in intensive discussions in preparation for the two leaders’ parley next week, which is expected to focus largely on Iran.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has been in Washington this week meeting with his counterpart Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and other top military and intelligence officials in consultations ahead of Netanyahu’s trip.

Clinton said the sanctions are having an impact in Iran as the regime becomes “increasingly desperate.” She stressed the US commitment to continue to strengthen sanctions even as it explores the possibility of fresh talks with Tehran.

“Discussion hasn’t gone anywhere but pressure has been ratcheted up,” she said, also speaking of “aggressive” implementation of sanctions on the part of the Obama administration.

Some members of Congress, however, feel that the administration could do more on sanctions and are also looking to take action themselves. A new bill is making its way through the capitol right now and is expected to be a major focus of the lobbying effort that will accompany the AIPAC conference, to be attended by some 13,000 people.

Clinton demurred on several questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and an earlier appearance Tuesday before the foreign operations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, which asked her to spell out what the likely ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran would be.

But she pushed back against the suggestion made by other members, including Republican presidential candidate Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), that there was scant evidence of Iran’s interest in acquiring nuclear weapons by pointing to the “suspicions” raised by the country’s treatment of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

“If there is no weapons program, what does Iran have to hide? If there is no nuclear weapons program, why are they putting their centrifuges deep underground?” she asked, pointing as well to its increased enrichment of uranium.

Clinton also declined to comment on the reports that the American NGO workers held by Egypt would be released, saying the State Department was awaiting final confirmation of their release.

The detentions provoked a major outcry among members of Congress, who have threatened to withhold aid to Egypt unless they were released.

Clinton did note the turmoil and change in the country, and said the US was carefully monitoring the emerging government.

Despite the uncertainties, she said she did not see Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt currently at risk.

“It is my assessment as of now that there is no threat to the Camp David Accords, to the existing peace agreement with Israel,” she said.