WarSclerotic

Barak says Israel never ruled out attacking Iran | Fox News.

Published April 17, 2012

| Associated Press

JERUSALEM –  Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday his country has never promised the United States it would hold off from attacking Iran while nuclear talks were taking place.

The comments, in which Barak said that a diplomatic push to reach a compromise with Iran was a waste of “precious time,” further exposed a rift between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran and its nuclear program.

“We are not committing to anything,” Barak told Israel’s Army Radio. “The dialogue with the Americans is both direct and open.”

Israel, arguing that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat, has said it will not allow Tehran to acquire a nuclear weapon. It cites Iranian calls for Israel’s destruction, Iran’s support for Arab militant groups and its development of missiles capable of striking the Jewish state.

Fearing that Iran is moving quickly toward nuclear capability, Israel has repeatedly hinted at an attack if Iran’s uranium enrichment program continues to advance. Enrichment is a key process in developing weapons, and Israel says Iran is closely approaching a point where it can no longer be stopped.

The U.S. favors diplomacy and economic sanctions and has said military action on Iran’s nuclear facilities should only be a last resort if all else fails.

Officials from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany met with Iran in Istanbul last weekend to discuss the country’s nuclear program. The talks were described as positive, and they agreed to meet again on May 23 in Baghdad.

Barak told Israel’s Army Radio he did not believe the talks would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “We regret the time being lost. This is precious time,” he said.

Barak said the talks needed to yield quick results.

“It requires a few direct meetings where all the demands are put on the table. There you can see if the other side is playing for time, drawing it out through the year, or if indeed the other side is genuinely striving to find a solution,” he said. “In this light, any ‘time-outs,’ especially when they are this long, do not serve our interests,” he said.

“Unfortunately, we maintain the view that this will probably not have an impact or bring the Iranians to cease their nuclear program. Of course we will be happy to be proven wrong,” he added.

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran got a “freebie” from the international community, saying the May meeting gave the Iranians an additional five weeks to continue uranium enrichment without any restrictions. He said Iran should be forced to stop this immediately.

Netanyahu was publicly rebuked by President Barack Obama, who said the U.S. had not “given anything away” in the talks.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and says it does not seek a bomb. The U.S. and its allies doubt the sincerity of that.

The Obama administration has urgently sought to hold off Israeli military action, which would likely result in the U.S. being pulled into a conflict.

Obama’s Tough Talk Masks Iran Freebie « Commentary Magazine.

President Obama responded sharply yesterday to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim the P5+1 talks with Iran constituted a Western “freebie” to the Islamist regime because it gave it five more weeks to continue to enrich uranium.

Speaking during his visit to Colombia, the president let loose with another barrage of tough talk about his intentions to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Warning “the clock is ticking” for Iran, he directly addressed criticism of the talks by saying he wouldn’t allow it to turn into a “stalling process” and that far more draconian sanctions would be put into place against the regime if it didn’t take advantage of the diplomatic process.

That’s reassuring rhetoric, but the problem with America’s policy on the Iranian nuclear issue remains the same as it has always been: the disconnect between President Obama’s public rhetoric and the process by which U.S. diplomatic efforts has allowed Tehran to do the stalling that he claims he opposes. With reports of Saturday’s meeting showing that nothing other than a commitment to future meetings in Baghdad (the venue has been changed from Turkey to suit Iran’s latest whim), it’s not clear why Israel or anyone who cares should have much confidence that the negotiators are doing anything but allowing both the ayatollahs and a president who wishes to avoid a confrontation during an election year to run out the clock in contravention to what Obama has pledged.

The president’s continued discussion of his desire to press Iran and refusal to let them off the hook ought to have encouraged the Israelis. But given the clear desire of America’s P5+1 negotiating partners — a group that includes Iran’s friends Russia and China — to treat the talks as merely a method for preventing an Israeli attack on Iran, it is difficult to fault Netanyahu for his skepticism about a process that, despite Obama’s comments, seems to have no clear agenda or deadline for success. Indeed, accounts of the meeting seem to have confirmed his fears that the whole point is about defusing tension over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and creating a process that will continue until well past November.

What is perhaps most discouraging about the accounts of the talks and the preparations for the next meeting is that they do not at all seem informed by the fact that the West has been down the garden path with Iran before. This is not the first diplomatic contact with Iran. Several years of talks dating back to the Bush administration and including President Obama’s ludicrous effort at engagement with Tehran all sought to get the Iranians to export their stockpile of enriched uranium as well as to prevent it from creating more. Each time, the Iranians agreed to the discussions and then even gave the impression that a deal was in place before reneging.

The president has indicated he is aware of this, but by buying into the current process and allowing the Russians and the Chinese an equal say in the negotiations, he has set himself up for a repeat performance. Unless he is prepared to get as tough with his own side in the talks as he claims to want to be with Iran, it is difficult to see how he can prevent a “stalling process” from taking up the entire summer and fall with talks that are not likely to achieve anything. The idea that he will be able to persuade the leaky international coalition he has assembled on behalf of sanctions on Iran to go ahead and embargo oil from the rogue state while he is simultaneously engaged in negotiations with it defies common sense. But if all the president is interested in doing is mollifying American public opinion while putting off an Israeli strike, his strategy makes perfect sense.

While Netanyahu is being criticized for going public with his concerns about the talks, his comments about a “freebie” merely indicate that this diplomatic process fools no one in Jerusalem. Both the Iranians and the president share a desire to kick the can down the road until after the November election. All the tough talk from the White House doesn’t change the fact that there is little reason to believe there will be genuine progress toward eliminating the Iranian threat.

The Iran War Estimate: Odds of Conflict Fall to 42% – Dominic Tierney – International – The Atlantic.

By Dominic Tierney

The probability that the United States or Israel will strike Iran in the next year is 42 percent–down from a figure of 48 percent in March.

We’ve assembled a high-profile panel of experts from the policy world, academia, and journalism to periodically predict the odds of conflict. They include: Daniel Byman, Shahram Chubin, Golnaz Esfandiari, Azar Gat, Jeffrey Goldberg, Amos Harel, Ephraim Kam, Dalia Dassa Kaye, Matthew Kroenig, John Limbert, Valerie Lincy, James Lindsay, Marc Lynch, Gary Milhollin, Trita Parsi, Paul Pillar, Barry Rubin, Karim Sadjadpour, Kenneth Timmerman, Shibley Telhami, Stephen Walt, and Robin Wright.

It’s a diverse group ranging from a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran, to a military correspondent at Haaretz. Each panelist makes an individual prediction about the percentage chance of war and we report the average score. For more on The Atlantic‘s Iran War Estimate and the panelists, here’s our FAQ page.

During the last month, the tide of war seems to have receded. Most importantly, talks have restarted with Iran, after being suspended over a year ago. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that, “it is not in anyone’s interest for [Israel] to take unilateral action. It is in everyone’s interest for us to seriously pursue at this time the diplomatic path.”

In a modest potential concession, Iran offered to stop enriching 20 percent uranium, which is one step below weapons-grade uranium, but only after it has stockpiled enough uranium for “medical research.” Meanwhile, the United States and its allies demanded that Iran shut down a key nuclear facility at Fordow. Few analysts expect a rapid breakthrough.

Other recent developments may also have moved the dial in a dovish direction. Shaul Mofaz became head of the main opposition party in Israel, the Kadima Party, and offered a cautious view of the Persian danger. “The greatest threat to the state of Israel is not nuclear Iran,” but the growing number of Palestinians living in Israeli controlled territory. “So it is in Israel’s interest that a Palestinian state be created.”

Sanctions against Iran are also having a significant impact on Tehran’s financial transactions and its ability to sell crude oil–although the effect of this tightening vice on peace talks is not clear.

Our prediction of a 42 percent chance of war is consistent with the betting market Intrade.com, which found that in recent weeks the odds of conflict have fallen from 40 percent to 30 percent. The Atlantic‘s figure may be higher because our question covers a longer time period–until April 2013, rather than December 2012 as with Intrade.com.

This month, we also forecast the odds of Iranian retaliation following an Israeli or U.S. strike.

A classified American war game predicted that a unilateral Israeli attack would entrap the United States in a wider regional war. The simulation forecast that Tehran would retaliate against U.S. warships in the region, potentially killing 200 American sailors, and in turn provoking the United States to strike Iran. Following the war game, General James Mattis, commander of American forces in the region, “told aides that an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.”

By contrast, Israeli officials have tried to downplay the likely consequences of an Israeli air strike. Last November, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”

According to the panel, if Israel strikes Iran in the next twelve months, there is a 64 percent chance that Iran will launch rockets against Israel. There is a 66 percent chance that Hezbollah in Lebanon will fire rockets against Israel.

Meanwhile, if the United States strikes Iran in the next twelve months, there is a 36 percent chance that Iran will make a serious attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. And there is a 44 percent chance that Iran will directly attack U.S. forces in the region (this scenario only covers an assault by Iranian forces, and not indirect attacks such as enhanced aid to insurgents in Afghanistan, which many analysts believe is even more likely).

Perhaps with an eye to these dangers, in recent weeks, the United States, Israel, and Iran have taken a small step back from the Rubicon.

‘Moment of truth is near:’ Israeli Air Force set to attack Iran — RT.

Israeli Air Force fighter F-16C taking off from the Uvda Air Force base in the southern Israel (AFP Photo / Menahem Kahana)

Israel has once again demonstrated its readiness to launch a massive assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Israeli Air Force is geared up and ready to strike as soon as the order is given, a major Israeli TV station reported.

­A reporter from Israel’s Channel 10 TV station has spent several weeks interviewing pilots and other military personnel at an Israeli air base. Dozens of pilots are inspired with the prospect of Israel’s first full-scale air campaign in 30 years. Most of the interviewees spoke openly about the “year’s preparations” that are now almost over, as the country heads towards a hot and tense summer.

“Dozens if not more planes” are being prepared to carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, the reporter Alon Ben-David said. This includes F-15 fighter jets, escort planes and air tankers to refuel the squadron en route to its target.

Unmanned drones are also expected to play a role in the operation. The all-weather fully-automatic UAV Eitan was designed for strategic reconnaissance but reportedly has assault capabilities as well. “This plane can do all that is required of it when the order is given,” one of the pilots said as cited in the report.

When the order is given, the assault will be “short and professional,” pilots say.

Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned earlier that, although IAF has the capability to deliver a crushing blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities and wipe out years of research, such an attack would have serious repercussions. He said that such an operation would trigger a war in Gaza – and that in retaliation, Iran would launch hundreds of missiles at Israel.

One of major problem the IAF will be facing is the Russian-made advanced anti-aircraft systems deployed in many countries across the region, including Iran and Syria. Israel’s military personnel are aware that by no means will all of them get home safe from the mission.

Moreover, the pilots had already been told where their families would be moved when the assault begins – proof that attack day is drawing close, as the report mentions.

Israel believes that a nuclear-equipped Iran would pose an existential threat to it. As a result, Israel has repeatedly reiterated its threats to deal with the issue militarily. Defense Minister Ehud Barak even spoke of a three-month deadline for Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, which ends in mid-summer.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is fully civilian, and any enriched uranium it produces is for medical and research purposes. The Islamic Republic has even said it is ready to make concessions on its nuclear program if the West takes “confidence-building measures” and lifts the crippling sanctions. “We are ready to resolve all issues very quickly and simply,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in an interview with the Iranian news agency ISNA.

“It can speed up the process of negotiations, reaching results,” Salehi said, “if there is goodwill.” Iran is currently under four sets of UN sanctions over its nuclear program. The US and EU have also slapped Tehran with their own sets of sanctions, targeting the country’s financial markets and oil industry.

The nuclear talks between Iran and six major world powers resumed on April 14. The latest meeting in Turkey was described as generally successful by the majority of participants, and the next round is scheduled for May 23 in Baghdad. Many consider these talks to be the last chance for a peaceful solution.

Obama’s all-hat-no-cattle diplomacy.

The three practical effects of the Obama Doctrine: emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country.

The multinational negotiations held over the weekend in Turkey with the ostensible purpose of halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be followed by – drum roll – yet another round of talks in late May.  Not surprisingly, the Iranian regime is calling this diplomatic exercise “a success.”

Indeed, it is from their perspective.  The Persians are, after all, the people who invented chess.  They have millennia-old experience haggling about carpets and other merchandise in the bazaar.  And they have the Obama administration and the rest of the so-called “international community” right where such strategically minded folks with a gift for besting their interlocutors want them:  Talking, seemingly endlessly.

The Iranians know that as long as the United States and the other members of the Perm 5-plus-1 – diplo-speak for the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council (the U.S., Britain, France and the mullahs’ patron/protectors, Russia and China) and Germany – are engaged in a diplomatic dance, they will insist that Israel not take matters into its own hands and strike Iran.

The predictable effect will be to give Tehran the time it needs to complete its longstanding bid to get the Bomb, even as President Obama’s campaign flaks and foreign policy acolytes congratulate him on skillfully managing the vexing Iran portfolio.

Such a posture reminds me of the old cowboy put-down of someone who is “all hat and no cattle.”  If ever there were a case of someone who is good at the hat bit – talking big, gesticulating forcefully – but abysmal at the business of delivering, it is Barack Obama.

Sadly, the Iranian debacle is not the only example of Team Obama’s all-hat-no-cattle foreign policy.  A small sample of the most important of such behavior would include:

• A reset with Russia that has amounted to nothing more than a serial give-away to the Kremlin on missile defense, on nuclear deterrence and the political cover the Russians’ persist in providing rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Syria.  One can only imagine how much worse this will get if the President gets reelected and can be even more “flexible” on such matters than he has been to date.
• Coddling of China, even as it arms to the teeth with weapons designed to attack American forces and infrastructure – a number of which have emerged to the complete surprise of U.S. intelligence.  In the face of such developments, to say nothing of what amount to acts of war as sustained PRC government-linked hacker attacks on public and private sector computer networks, the Obama administration has maintained what can only be described as a cordially accommodating, business-as-usual approach to Beijing.
• Ignoring the strategic implications of the impending demise of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.  The President’s participation at the Summit of the Americas over the weekend could have been an opportunity to forge a hemispheric commitment to democracy in Venezuela.  At the very least, the United States could have put a strong marker down in opposition to the prospective hijacking of that long-suffering country by the narco-generals Chavez has put into power as his cancer metastasizes.  In this case, even the President’s big hat was obscured by the scandal involving his womanizing Secret Service detail.
• Perhaps most worrying of all is Team Obama’s recent and intensifying engagement with the virulently anti-American and anti-infidel Muslim Brotherhood.  Far from contributing to democracy in Egypt and regional peace with Israel, the prospect for either, let alone both, have become substantially worse, thanks to the administration’s appalling conduct.  The latter includes: opening formal relations with a group whose declared purpose is “destroying Western civilization from within”; feting a Brotherhood delegation in Washington; turning over to the Brotherhood-led Egyptian government in one lump-sum payment $1.5 billion in military assistance; and doling out a further $180-plus million to the Brothers’ franchise in “Palestine,” Hamas, which is now partnered with the Palestinian Authority in a unity government there.

The all-hat-no-cattle policy is advancing the three practical effects of the Obama Doctrine: emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country.

Speaking of friends, press reports are circulating in the wake of the weekend’s negotiations with Iran, that Israel is reportedly about to strike that Islamic republic. If true, it’s deeply regrettable that such early warning is being given to the Iranians.

But the prospect that the Obama administration has every intention of allowing the Iranians to run the clock out leaves the Israelis with no choice but to attack if they are to stave off an existential threat to their people. We should be helping them do that, not helping the mullahs – and not encouraging still other enemies of this country, actual and prospective, to believe that the costs of taking us on are minimal thanks to our all-hat-no-cattle administration.

US, Israel’s Netanyahu already are at odds over progress at Iran nuclear talks | The Australian Eye.

By Erik West

April 16, 2012

JERUSALEM _ Just two days after representatives of the United States and other key world powers met in Istanbul with Iran to discuss its nuclear program, Israel is throwing cold water on the effort, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charging that Iran was being given a “freebie.”

Both U.S. and Iranian leaders expressed satisfaction with the initial meeting Saturday of talks between Iran and the P5+1 _ the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Both sides saw the agreement to meet again May 23 in Baghdad as a step forward after more than a year of no talks.

But Netanyahu was unimpressed. “My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie,” Netanyahu said. “It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition.”

President Barack Obama had defended the talks in comments to reporters Sunday in Cartagena, Colombia, where he was meeting with heads of state from Latin America. He called the talks “an opportunity for us to negotiate and see if Iran comes to the table in good faith.”

“The notion that somehow we’ve given something away … would indicate that Iran has gotten something,” Obama said. “In fact, they’ve got some of the toughest sanctions that they’re going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don’t take advantage of these talks. I hope they do.”

Officials in Jerusalem, however, remained pessimistic over the talks, saying that the U.S. and world leaders were giving Iran the one thing they needed to develop a nuclear weapon _ time.

“History teaches us that so far, Iran has always used ‘talks’ to buy time, and in that time they have moved their nuclear weapons program forward,” said Eitan Livne, director of Iran Research for the Israel Project advocacy group. “The Iranians have proven to be experts in this maneuver.”

Livne said that Israeli officials feel vindicated by a report released in November by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, that found that Iran had a program to develop nuclear weapons until 2003 and that some parts of that program might still survive. The report, however, said the IAEA had been unable to determine if Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons now.

“Israel feels that it is clear in the eyes of the world, especially after the U.N. report, that Iran’s intentions are dangerous and that this is a military nuclear program. Iran has already postponed, in a very effective way, all past attempt to negotiate with them. That is why Israel currently feels so pessimistic,” Livne said.

A senior Israeli official, interviewed by the Hebrew-language daily Maariv, was quoted as saying that Israel’s government had held different expectations for the talks in Istanbul.

“In contrast with the understanding we reached, we were surprised that the Iranians were given five more weeks to continue enriching uranium without interruption. This was not at all our expectation from the talks,” the paper reported the official as saying. The official was not named.

A statement from Netanyahu’s office said that the Israeli premier found the results of the talks unacceptable _ arguing that Iran must immediately stop all uranium enrichment, remove enriched material from the country, and dismantle the nuclear facility in Qom.

Israel’s expectations were unrealistic, said professor David Menashri, director of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

“I can understand that Israel is not happy with the talks so far, but that is because their expectation was that Iran would be given a simple choice to say yes or no,” Menashri said. “Israel would have preferred a harsher policy towards Iran _ but that is always their position.”

Israeli officials, Menashri said, were making a mistake in openly criticizing the talks so quickly.

“I had hoped that our politicians would shut their mouths on the issue of Iran and let the international community handle it for a change,” he said. “Israel should not clash with the U.S., and they should give the talks some time before declaring them a failure.”

He criticized the saber-rattling that he said was all too common in the Israeli press.

Over the weekend, Israel’s Channel Ten news program featured a lengthy report on Israel’s air force gearing up for an attack on Iran this summer.

The report, which featured senior military reporter Alon Ben-David, was arranged and approved by the Israeli military’s press office. It was also given clearance by Israel’s military censor.

“Dozens if not more planes” will take part in the mission: attack and escort jets, tankers for mid-air refueling, electronic warfare planes and rescue helicopters, the report said.

While no strike is likely to occur before the P5+1 talks with Iran resume in May, Ben-David said that the “coming summer will not only be hot but tense.”

“Years of preparations are likely to come to realization,” he said, adding that “the moment of truth is near.”

___

(c)2012 the McClatchy Washington Bureau

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau at http://www.mcclatchydc.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

US lawmakers say Iran talks inad… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

04/17/2012 00:19

“US shouldn’t mistake diplomatic developments for compliance with UNSC resolutions,” Senator Kirk says; “We have five weeks to convince the Iran that (December) sanctions were only a first step,” Senator Menendez says.

Photo: REUTERS/Raheb Homavand

WASHINGTON – US lawmakers on Monday pushed for more sanctions against Iran after talks between Tehran and global powers failed to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program.

Although the talks between Iran, the United States and five other world powers were described as “constructive” by the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, some US lawmakers said they were unimpressed.

“The United States should not mistake positive diplomatic dialogue for compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions,” said a spokesman for Republican Senator Mark Kirk.

Kirk and several other US legislators have been pressuring the White House to get tougher on Iran and are pushing for a range of additional penalties that would further isolate Iran and prevent it from trading with the rest of the world.

US President Barack Obama warned on Sunday there would be more sanctions imposed on Iran if there was no breakthrough in talks in coming months.

Iran’s foreign minister said Tehran was ready to resolve nuclear issues if the West starts lifting sanctions.

‘We have five weeks’

US sanctions that Obama signed into law in December have already forced some of Iran’s biggest trading partners, such as Japan, to reduce their Iranian oil imports.

Other countries are scrambling to cut purchases of Iranian crude before a mid-year deadline. If they fail to do so, those countries could see their banks blocked from US markets.

“We have five weeks to convince the Iranians that the sanctions we passed in December were only a first step,” said Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who along with Kirk helped design the sanctions that were signed into law in December.

Iran and the group of world powers, which comprises the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain – plus Germany, have agreed to reconvene talks in Baghdad May 23.

Ashton, who leads the negotiations for the six global powers, has said she expects subsequent meetings would lead to concrete steps “towards a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program.”

Many Republican and Democratic Senators support legislation that would force the United States to target Iran’s main oil and shipping companies and require publicly traded companies to disclose their Iran-related activities.

But the legislation stalled when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow lawmakers to consider adding further penalties to the bill.

A spokesman for Reid said he had not decided whether to bring the bill to the Senate floor during the current session. Reid has chastised Republicans for blocking the bill although there has been bipartisan support for further measures.

Menendez said it was crucial that Congress pass the legislation quickly to send a message to the Iranian government that the United States “won’t allow them to use the Baghdad talks to stall for more time to advance their covert nuclear program.”

Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: Israeli EMP attack on Iran.

Stock and banking transactions would also be wiped out.

Internet Anthropologist


UPDATE:
Tehran hears a loud clap of thunder, and Iran scrambles jets
as the Israeli jets retreat back across the Iranian border.
Fluorescent lights and television sets will glow eerily bright, despite being turned off. 
The putrid smell  of ozone mixed with smoldering plastic will seep from outlet covers as electric wires arc and smoking telephone lines melt.  Your MP3 player and cell phone will get hot, their batteries overloaded
hot enough to burn your skin if left in contact with them..  Your computer, and every bit of data on it, will be gone deleted to a crisp. Suddenly you hear the birds as silence decends.  The background noise of civilization, the mufflers of autos and trucks will have stopped, engines that will never start again.  
You check your body for damage and you feel well, just an feeling of creeping disaster as you recognize
you are back in the 1800’s. 
ATMs, Banks phones, cell phones, computers, TV, radios, all transportation DEAD.
Never to run again.
Data bases wiped clean, deleted, financial records, medical records, police records and most
of the Iranian Governments electronic records destroyed, unretrievable.


The regime unable to communicate to its armys, un able to govern, Society reverts back
to tribal methods of governance the regime decapitated and replaced.


Citizens elect a new Government and world governments revert to a rescue effort
to restart the Iranian culture, minus any nuclear capability.


And not one Iranian killed by the NNEMP.






Gerald


.

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

The U.S. election campaign is a major cause of mutual suspicions between the two leaders.

By Chemi Shalev

It took only one round of preliminary nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries for a trans-Atlantic ruckus to break out between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Obama over whether Tehran had or hadn’t been given a “freebie.” One can only imagine the open hostilities that might break out between the two leaders if, contrary to expectations, the talks begin to yield real results.

“My initial impression is that Iran has been given a ‘freebie,’” Netanyahu said on Sunday in regard to the five-week hiatus before the next round of talks with Tehran, scheduled to be held on May 23 in Baghdad. With U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman as a character witness by his side, Netanyahu was pointedly showing off his ease and familiarity not only with American vernacular but with American politics as well, and the point was not lost on Obama’s White House advisers. The Israeli shot across the bow travelled all the way to Cartagena, Colombia, where the visiting Obama took the trouble to reject Netanyahu’s charge verbatim, saying that Iran had gained nothing from the first round of talks, certainly not a “freebie.”

	Obama listens to Netanyahu in Oval Office, May 20, 2011.
	Photo by: AFP

The early timing of this undiplomatic exchange surprised even some seasoned observers of the troublesome relationship between the two leaders. During his relatively amicable visit to Washington last month, Netanyahu and Obama had reached broad understandings, if not total agreement, on the ways to move forward over the coming weeks. And the dynamics of the negotiating process are such that the decision to convene a second round of talks is insignificant in and of itself, Netanyahu knows full well, and the crunch time will come, if at all, only if a third and decisive round of talks is convened. Thus, the logic behind Netanyahu’s early broadside against the talks remains unclear, though it clearly angered Obama.

Israelis, of course, are axiomatically skeptical of the talks with Tehran and view them as an Iranian diversionary tactic aimed at gaining time, weakening international sanctions and enhancing Iran’s legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim world. Israeli officials are under no illusions that Tehran would ever accept Jerusalem’s two main demands of a total ban on uranium enrichment or the dismantling of the Fordow underground facility near Qom. Under normal circumstances, however, Israel would be expected to understand the need to go through the motions of exhausting the diplomatic options and to trust the U.S. to call the Iranian bluff in order to show the world that Tehran’s intentions are far from benign.

But the circumstances are far from normal. Rumors of White House attempts to broker backdoor deals that are completely unacceptable to Israel  – including those that would allow the Iranians to continue low-grade enrichment – have been swirling in Washington and reaching the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem for several weeks now, gnawing away at the tentative sense of understanding created during Netanyahu’s recent visit. These reports, together with the deep skepticism about Obama’s attitude to Israel, rife among many of Netanyahu’s confidantes and advisers, and the widely held suspicion that the president’s overriding goal is to achieve an arrangement that would avert a crisis and keep oil prices low in advance of the November elections all make for a toxic mix that could very well induce increasingly scathing outbursts from Jerusalem.

The same is conversely true, perhaps even doubly so, from the point of view of the White House. Netanyahu’s critiques of Administration positions towards Iran provide valuable ammunition for the presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney to attack Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus.”  Given his well-known ties with Romney and other Republicans, only recently highlighted in a front-page New York Times report, the White House will be hard pressed not to suspect Netanyahu that his vocal objections to any hint of progress is aimed at giving crucial aid and succor to his conservative ideological allies in their bid to unseat Obama.

At the same time, both leaders realize full well that they are inexorably bound to each other in what might be termed “a balance of terror.” Obama, after all, will most likely fail to convince the American public that he hasn’t sold out Israel if the Israeli prime minister claims otherwise. Netanyahu, for his part, will need Obama’s stamp of approval for any attack on Iran not only to prevent international isolation but also to convince the Israeli public that there was no other choice.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the current talks collapse, the stage will be set, theoretically at least, for an Israeli attack that could ignite the Middle East, rattle the world’s economy and possibly derail Obama’s chances of victory. If, contrary to current expectations, progress is achieved in the talks – or at least if the U.S. decides to call it progress – the threat of war might be averted but the danger of a rupture between Israel and the US would become clear and present indeed.

And if Israel decides to go it alone despite international agreement with Tehran, it would be jeopardizing the very foundations of its diplomatic standing around the world and much of its political support in the U.S. as well.

Israel and America are not one and the same, of course, and may have found themselves at cross purposes over the Iranian nuclear challenge under different leaders as well, but the troubled history, the divergent ideology and the bad chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu dramatically complicate and exacerbate a situation which is of existential importance to Israel, and of strategic significance, at the very least, to the U.S. as well.

The willingness of the two leaders to believe the worst of each other places the Iranians in a unique position, if they play their cards right, to drive a serious wedge between “the Great Satan” and the “Small Satan,” and whether they do so for rational or for irrational reasons is largely irrelevant.

It is a unique set of circumstances worthy of close examination in the specialized academic field of foreign policy analysis, which, among other things, analyzes the effect of personalities and the interaction between them on international relations and crises. The troubled interactions between Netanyahu and Obama and their potential ramifications would be fascinating in theory, of course, if they weren’t so frightening in reality.

Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 16, 2012, 3:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

Barack Obama and his double diplomatic track

The fundamental rift on Iran between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu burst into the open Monday, April 16 when high-ranking Israeli officials close to Netanyahu directly accused the president of reneging on the US-Israeli understandings reached ahead of the Istanbul talks between the six powers and Iran on April 14.

Behind the show biz of Istanbul, they charged, the US and Iran had reached secret agreements in clandestine bilateral contacts channeled through Paris and Vienna.
The row surfaced Sunday when Netanyahu said the US and world powers by agreeing to hold more talks in Baghdad next month had given Tehran a “freebie” of five more weeks to continue enriching uranium without restrictions. By singling out the US, the prime minister aimed his comment directly at the president.
Obama’s response was fast. At a news conference ending the Western Hemisphere summit in Cartagenia, Colombia, he commented sharply: “The notion that somehow we’ve given something away or a `freebie’ would indicate Iran has gotten something. In fact, they’ve got some of the toughest sanctions that they’re going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don’t take advantage of these talks.”
That is the very point on which Israel accuses the US president of playing false: time. As disclosed by debkafile on April 9, American and Israeli officials preceded the Istanbul talks with an understanding for the US to put before Iran agreed demands/concessions: Iran would be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges for the low-level enrichment of uranium up to 3.5 percent purity, the first time Israel had accepted the principle of Iran enriching uranium at any grade at all.

It was also agreed between Washington and Jerusalem that Iran would not be permitted to keep 20 percent enriched uranium, which is a short step before weapons-grade, in any quantity.
These understandings, known as the “1,000 principle,” were meant to represent the final upshot of the formal negotiations with Iran, a consensus to which US diplomats would aspire in as short a time possible.
In the event, the US delegation did not present any of the agreed demands – or any other – to the Iranians attending the first round of talks in Turkey.

The belated sense of being misled prompted the prime minister’s exceptionally sharp reaction.
Israeli official sources now suspect that in their secret contacts, the US has granted Iran far-reaching concessions on its nuclear program – more than Israel would find unacceptable. The formal talks in Istanbul and in Baghdad on May 23 are seen as nothing but a device to screen the real business the US and Iran have already contracted on the quiet.