WarSclerotic

U.S. Concerned Netanyahu, Mofaz May Attack Iran – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Netanyahu and Mofaz

Flash 90

The United States is worried that Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party’s joining a unity government with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could result in an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to a report on Channel 10 News on Thursday.

U.S. government officials told Channel 10 News that they believe a Likud-Kadima joing government could make a decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment and perhaps even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The report said that when the Americans believed early elections would be held in Israel on September, they thought it meant the attack in Iran would be postponed at least until after the election. Now, with the stabilization of Israeli politics and the current government likely to end its term on schedule, the situation has changed and the Americans are concerned.

According to the Channel 10 report, in order to try and prevent or at least postpone the Israeli decision on the issue, the Americans recently held marathon talks with Israeli officials at all levels.

Israel – like the United States, its European allies, and Gulf Arab states – believe Iran is conducting nuclear work with military applications.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently warned that as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table.

“I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,” Barak said.

“I have enough experience to know that a military option is not a simple one,” Barak added. “It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world.”

Recent reports indicated that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment.

According to the reports, the Obama administration now is willing to allow 5 percent enrichment if Iran were to take other major steps to curb its ability to develop a nuclear bomb.”

DEBKA.

Binyamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz

The possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program fell back on the White House table with a heavy thud this week when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu dodged around an early election in September by the stunning device of attaching the leading opposition party, Kadima to his government coalition.
Israelis woke up early Tuesday morning, May 8 to discover a smiling Netanyahu and Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz sitting pretty athwart a jumbo majority of 94 out of 120 MKs.
But it soon dawned on Washington and Brussels that the Israeli prime minister had also unlocked the wheel clamps constraining him from military action, which would have been the effect of a hotly-contested election campaign combined with a vocal opposition urging him to leave the job to America.
Instead, he had acquired a new partner for a preemptive attack simply by showing Mofaz, a former defense minister and chief of staff, updated intelligence on Iran’s nuclear progress and the scale of the threat to Israel and the Middle East. As newest member of the diplomatic-security cabinet, the forum which decides on key matters of war and peace, he could be counted on to vote for a decision to go to war on Iran.
By Wednesday, officials in Washington, Brussels and Jerusalem, were coming out of their daze over the rapid reversal of their plans and mulling new stratagems for holding Israel in check, a difficulty complicated by the fact that, in contrast to the prime minister, Barak Obama still had a reelection campaign to win.

Restarting US moves for holding Israel in check

Israel’s political turnabout was bad news for Obama in another sense too. If he returns to the White House in November, he will find Binyamin Netanyahu solidly entrenched in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem for many a month to come.
In the meantime, the US president must brace himself for a nasty surprise or two – either from his Republican rival Mitt Romney, or Jerusalem or Tehran, during the crucial weeks of September or October 2012 leading up to voting day on Nov. 4.
From his point of view, all the efforts his administration invested in holding Israel back from military action against Iran had gone for naught and would have to be restarted.
One stratagem had been for top American military and other officials to interact non-stop with Israel’s top intelligence and military officers and officials and so keep a constant finger on the Israeli pulse in order to be forewarned of an approaching attack on Iran. The frequent visits back and forth had become the butt of jokes.
After six months during which US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak were meeting every two or three weeks, Barak proposed to Panetta: “I’ll tell you everything you want to know. “Why should Martin (US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey) have to keep on coming and dining at the same Tel Aviv restaurants? He deserves more variety.”
Another deterrent tactic used extensively by the Obama administration was a media blitz in the US and Europe based on contentions that Israel’s defense forces, IDF, lacked the weaponry and capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities – or even throw it off-balance for long enough to make it worthwhile. At best, said the editorials and the pundits, Iran would be delayed in its progress by no more than a year or less at the price of a regional disaster.
In early April, Obama’s advisers reported they had put dampers on plans which Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had brought close to realization in March. The US president ordered the media campaign cooled at that point.

Ashton tests the ground (for Obama) on an Israeli Iran attack

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence and Washington sources expect it to be renewed in one form another quite soon.
The first harbinger of the pressure to come was an unscheduled visitor to Jerusalem Wednesday, May 9.
Catherine Ashton, the European Market’s foreign policy executive and coordinator of the P5 + 1 nuclear talks had come for a look at Netanyahu’s day-old unity government and, at the behest of the White House, a testing of the ground on which the new government stood on Iran.
Just a week earlier, the prime minister had sent his security adviser Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror on a tour of key European capitals and Moscow) to test the ground of the world powers on behalf of Israel.
When he asked what proposals would be put on the table at the Six-Power talks with Iran in Baghdad on May 23 and whether Israel’s positions would be taken into account, he was informed everywhere that it all depended on the secret dialogue afoot between Washington and Tehran. He was also told that this dialogue was progressing at a spanking pace and had reached accord on some of the fundamental issues.
In London, Amidror was even warned, “Obama may still stun Israel with an Iranian May surprise.”

No Israeli compromise on Iranian enrichment

Ashton’s visit gave the Israeli prime minister his chance to elucidate Israel’s position for the ear of the US president as head of a new formidable lineup.
He could have left her in the hands of her opposite Israeli number, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Instead, Netanyahu not only received her himself, but made sure he was flanked by Lieberman, Defense Minister Barak, and his new acquisition, ex-opposition leader turned Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz.
The quartet informed the EU executive that Israel’s position on the Iranian nuclear issue was firmer than ever before. The world powers must confront Tehran with three requirements:
1. An immediate halt to uranium enrichment at all levels;
2. The shipment of all enriched uranium outside the country.
3. The immediate cessation of work at, and dismantling of, the Fordo underground nuclear facility.
To dispel any doubts about Israel’s resolve, Netanyahu broke with custom and instructed his spokespersons to issue a public statement on this position.
His message to Ashton and through her to Obama was crystal clear: If Iran can’t be pulled off its nuclear aspirations by diplomacy then Israel still held to its military option.

DEBKA.

President Barack Obama hoped to have foreign issues and any US military options kept firmly on a back burner for the next seven months so as not to distract the American voting public from his campaign for reelection on November 4. But Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not playing.
The issues and administrative trivia he keeps on raising are buzzing past Obama’s electoral defenses. However much he would like to swat the nuisance away, the president must contend with almost daily feed from the Iranian ruler who is keeping their four-month old secret channel vibrating with an eagerness which stumps even those US officials with past experience of dealing with Tehran, DEBKA-Net-Weekly reports.
Iranian negotiators have an inexhaustible supply of surprises up their sleeves, including constant changes of venues for meetings – and now their team out front. They have advised the Americans that new faces will confront the Six World Powers at their coming session in Baghdad on May 23, different from the lineup at their first meeting in Istanbul. All the same, Tehran wants the next secret Iran-US get-together to take place as soon as possible to preserve continuity.
American sources suspect Khamenei’s bureau, the Nuclear Energy Agency and Intelligence Ministry are locked in a major battle over the choice of delegates – both to travel to Baghdad later this month and to negotiate with their opposite US numbers in the backdoor channel running through Gulf and European venues.

Obama must keep a nuclear accord with under his hat

Unless Tehran has another surprise in store, US officials expect the Baghdad talks to end on a positive note and set a date for a third round – or even a fourth. They drew this insight from the package of “proposals” suddenly turning up through one of the secret channels in the last few days. Khamenei seems to believe that his package is a good vehicle for carrying the dialogue forward to a breakthrough on their nuclear controversy – or even a final accord.
But he wants to persuade Obama to settle for this accord quietly and keep it under his hat for now. Iran would also delay implementation until the US president is free and clear into his second term. Obama would meanwhile proceed with his campaign with greater assurance, knowing he has a major achievement in his pocket ready to pull out and kick off his second term with a grand flourish.
Until then, if Obama falls for this tactic, he will be motivated by his future triumph to keep important concessions to Iran on stream and Iran may even be forthcoming with certain concessions in advance to help him beat back his Republican rival Mitt Romney’s charges of doing nothing to halt a nuclear-armed Iran.
A close look at the Iranian package, as disclosed here by DEBKA-Net-Weekly, not surprisingly, shows more demands and catches than “proposals:”

Access to nuclear sites – only if sanctions lifted

1. They stipulate that the Fordo (or Fordow) underground nuclear plant will not be closed down with or without an accord. Iran is willing to sign and uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s additional protocol which permits spot checks of suspect nuclear sites without prior notice and, in general, accept substantially increased inspections. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency will be allowed to install cameras and monitoring devices in various parts of Fordo – but here comes the rub: All sanctions must first be lifted.
2. International watchdog visits to the Parchin military center – which Yukiya Amano, Director-General of the IAEA, called Friday, May 4 the agency’s first priority – will be allowed. But first a start must be made on removing sanctions. The areas of the site made accessible to inspection will grow in direct proportion to the number of sanctions withdrawn.
3. The US must halt its proactive military movements in the Persian Gulf because, the Iranians complain, they can hardly conduct serious negotiations when the Americans are engaged in hostile activity around their shores. They refer to US military exercises directed from command centers at the Pentagon, in Europe, in the Gulf and around the Middle East; the deployment of a F-22 Raptor squadron at a UAE base; and two aircraft carriers and their strike forces cruising around the Gulf (See DNW issues 538 and 539).
If the Americans want to continue negotiations and attain results, they need to put a halt to these military moves.

Iran will give up annexing Gulf waters if US brings emirates under control

4. Tehran asks Washington to smooth the ruffled feathers of the United Arab Emirates over their claim to Abu Musa, Greater Tanb and Lesser Tanb, the three islands controlling the entrances to the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, say the Iranians, if the UAE keeps pushing, matters could get out of hand and slide into a limited armed conflict which could drag in the GCC Gulf states and Saudi Arabia in support of Abu Dhabi.
5. If UAE tempers can be calmed, Tehran is willing to offer its first real concession for easing the mistrust of its Gulf neighbors: a commitment to refrain from extending Iranian territorial waters to include the disputed islands, the Strait of Hormuz and any part of the tanker route to and from the Persian Gulf. This would be offered as part of ongoing nuclear negotiations and entail withdrawal of the territorial waters annexation bill awaiting Majlis approval.
6. In our last issue, we disclosed exclusively that Iran had offered to help stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq as its quid pro quo for a nuclear deal with the Obama administration. (Iran’s Balance Sheet on Dialogue with US: The Tradeoff: US Eases Nuclear Demands for Iran’s Cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq)
However, this week, the new proposals Tehran has relayed to Washington show umbrage over the new security pact President Obama signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul on May 2. The Iranians consider the pact not worth the paper it was written on. What concerns them most is the decision to leave a large number of American troops in Afghanistan on their eastern border until 2014.

Khamenei wants to be America’s strategic partner

Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said this week that the US-Afghan pact for keeping American troops in Afghanistan for years will increase instability in the country and is of concern to Tehran. Withdrawal of foreign forces is necessary for security.
What really miffed the Iranians is that despite their offer to be helpful to the Americans in the two war-torn countries, the US did not consult with Tehran before concluding his pact with Karzai. Being left out in the cold on key regional affairs is not part of Khamenei’s scheme of things. His eagerness to pursue back door diplomacy with Obama comes from his belief that he can squeeze from Obama not just acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program but also cooperation in regional affairs as a respected strategic partner.
It is hard to President Obama going for this sort of partnership with Tehran or risking any display of such relationship with the Islamic Republic to the American voter.

The Axis-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

Israel’s acquisition of three Dolphin subs from Germany will allow it to prepare for almost any future war it may face, be it in Lebanon, Syria, a radicalized Egypt and of course Iran,

By Anshel Pfeffer

With all the attention in recent days given to short-term political developments, an event with long-term implications for regional strategic balance almost escaped serious attention.

Last Thursday, the high command of the Israeli Navy took part in the delivery ceremony of INS Tanin, Israel’s fourth Dolphin submarine, at Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft shipyard in Kiel, Germany. Most of the foreign media reports tend to focus on the rumored special tubes which may also be used by nuclear-tipped missiles. This was the focus of Gunter Grass’ poem on Israel’s dark plans to annihilate the Iranian population. But the real significance of the new submarines Israel is receiving from Germany, three in all, is the huge boost it will give to Israel’s long-range strategic capabilities.

	A German Dolphin submarine.
	Photo by: IDF Spokesperson

Not only will the three additional subs numerically double Israel’s underwater fleet, but the navy is also simultaneously expanding its training course for submariner crews with the eventual goal of having two crews for each ship, rather than one crew per ship that it has today. This will enable a sub to spend more time at sea with a fresh crew, while the other one rests up and prepares back on shore. The first three Dolphins were supplied in the 1990s and are now going through extensive mid-life refurbishments which will equip them for many more years beneath the waves. The new subs are enhanced versions with one major improvement – a new “hybrid” propulsion system which combines the conventional diesel lead-acid battery with an air-independent propulsion electric fuel cell. “Without going into specific details of the new range,” explains a senior naval officer, “the new subs will be able to spend much longer time under water without giving its position away, by coming up to the surface to replenish the air in its engine.”

Tracking and attacking enemy shipping is only one of the Dolphin’s roles. A submarine is basically a mobile base for collecting visual and electronic intelligence, dispatching commandos to distant beaches and launching conventional attacks against targets on shore. Almost any future war the IDF may face, be it in Lebanon, Syria, a radicalized Egypt and of course Iran, can be fought from the sea.

The full complement of three new submarines will not be entirely operational until 2016 at the earliest. But since Israeli military planners are already talking about “the next strike on Iran,” the one that may be carried out four or five years down the line (after the Iranians rebuild their nuclear program following an Israeli or American attack), the advanced underwater capability is very relevant. Along with the three new submarines, the IDF’s most ambitious purchase is a squadron of twenty stealthy F-35s, which in a potential attack would have the role of penetrating air-defenses and carrying out the initial surgical strikes.

But the F-35 is undergoing serious delays in development and early production, and the IAF will probably not have an operational squadron at this rate before 2018. This means that if Iran significantly improves its air-defense system, as can be expected, the next war, or the one after it, could well be launched from underwater.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 10, 2012, 2:06 PM (GMT+02:00)

Damascus terrorized

Beset on two fronts, Bashar Assad rushed his elite Republic Division to Damascus Thursday, May 10, as two massive car bombs in the al Qaza district of Damascus demolished the command center of the Syrian military security service’s reconnaissance division, killing at least 50 people and injuring 170. Over  to the southeast, 12,000 special operations troops from 17 nations, including the US and other NATO members, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were poised on the Jordanian side of the Syrian border for an exercise codenamed “Eager Lion.”

debkafile’s military sources also disclose that the bomb attack on Damascus was the most serious his regime had suffered against a military target since the 14-month Syrian uprising began. For the first time, Assad moved his most loyal unit, the Republican Guard Brigade, into central Damascus.
Western and Arab pressure is building up to an intolerable pitch for the Syrian president to step down and save his people from the descent into the ultimate agony of a full-blown civil war. It is coming from two directions:
1. Special forces units of the US, France, Britain, Canada and other NATO members have gathered in Jordan alongside Saudi, Jordanian and Qatari special units for a large-scale ten-day military exercise in Jordan starting May 15.
The exercise was set up by the US Special Operations Command Central. It is the Obama administration’s message to the Islamic rulers of Iran, Bashar Assad and his Moscow backers, as well as its answer to the complaints from Arab and other Western governments that America is doing nothing to stop the horrors perpetrated in Syria.
Since all 12,000 troops massed in Jordan are commandos, they stand ready at all times to cross the border into Syria if this is deemed necessary.
2.  Syrian cities, especially the capital, are being targeted for violent bombing attacks designed to bring the Assad regime tumbling down. Behind these attacks are Persian Gulf emirates led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose they have been joined in the last few days for the first time by Turkey which is contributing intelligence input. The military pressure on the Assad regime is thus reinforced by a campaign of terror against its props.
No connection is admitted between the multinational force on the Jordanian-Syrian border and the spate of bombings. However, if Saudi or Qatari intelligence did play a hand in the Damascus bombings, their special forces in Jordan will have been in the picture.

Obama’s Israel Problem – Up Front Blog – Brookings Institution.

Marvin Kalb, Guest Scholar, Foreign Policy

The Brookings Institution

May 09, 2012 —

White House officials are puzzled why Netanyahu, and many other Israelis, had to worry at all. At the drop of a hat, they are prepared to tick off Obama’s contributions to Israel’s defense. No president, they state with pride, has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama. No president has provided more intelligence, more sophisticated weaponry, both offensive and defensive, than Obama. No president has protected Israel’s back at the UN, and at other international organizations, more effectively than Obama. No president has spent more time talking to a foreign leader than Obama has to Natanyahu—in person and on the phone.

All of which is true, confirmed by American and Israeli officials. Never before have contacts between Washington and Jerusalem been as close, as frequent, as collaborative as they have been in recent years. Whether the issue be Iran’s nuclear program, Egypt’s political upheaval or Palestinian uncertainties about the “peace process,” the United States and Israel are described as singing from the same sheet of music, their strategic visions in perfect harmony, even if there are still small tactical differences between them.

Furthermore, Obama could not possibly have been clearer about his support for a strong and independent Israel. “Our ironclad commitment—and I mean ironclad—to Israel’s security,” he stressed in his State of the Union address, “has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.”

And yet, Israelis still feel uncomfortable with Barack Obama as president of the United States. They still wonder whether, in a secret corner of his heart, he feels a greater sympathy for the Arabs than for them. It almost seems as if the Israelis cannot accept Obama’s frequent pledges of an “ironclad commitment” to their security, as if he has been making such a pledge only for political reasons, his eyes fixed on the upcoming November elections.

Talk to Israelis, as I have had the benefit of doing in recent days. Press them for a logical explanation of their concerns. Roughly, this is what they say.
Obama is an intellectual, who happens to be a politician. He understands the Israelis and their security concerns, but only, it seems, from an intellectual point of view. He does not “feel” Israel. Proof, the Israelis stress, is the president’s naïve, foolish and totally non-productive insistence on an Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank.

Another reason: when, early in his administration, he was in Cairo to deliver a major address on his approach to the Arab world, he chose not to make the short hop to Jerusalem and explain his approach to the Jewish world. He still has not traveled to Israel, though he has been just about everywhere else. (White House officials, present and former, say no other American president has visited Israel in his first term except Bill Clinton, and he went there primarily to honor the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin.)

Still another reason: although statesmen are supposed to base their policies on the national security interests of their countries, these two statesmen have allowed personality differences to influence their attitudes. Netanyahu has been caught lecturing Obama on Jewish history, as though Obama knew nothing about the Holocaust. Insulting?

Trust, the essential ingredient in any close relationship—clearly, the Israelis do not trust Obama any more than he trusts them, but they both know they need each other, especially in the volatile aftermath of the Arab upheaval of last year.

In recent months, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has shuttled between Washington and Jerusalem, sharing intelligence and impressions about the ongoing Iranian nuclear program. As a result, both sides agree that they intend to stop the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb. If there is any difference between them, it is in Israel’s belief that Iran can build a bomb within months. The United States thinks it will take a bit longer. Another small difference is that Israel believes nothing positive will come of the current negotiation with Iran; the United States is a touch more hopeful.

What is clear is that both the United States and Israel have been preparing for a military strike against Iran, although both are hoping it will not be necessary. Will Israel attack first? Will there be a joint attack? Will an attack come before or after national elections in the United States this November? Whatever concerns Israel may harbor about Obama, the military planning in both countries continues. Netanyahu’s latest political deal puts him in a powerful position to act unilaterally, if he feels he cannot depend on Obama, who is politically vulnerable. The clock is ticking, more loudly with each week and month.

12,000 troops take part in Jordan war games: U.S..

Wednesday, 09 May 2012

Jordan is playing host to the Eager Lion 12 international military exercises, the biggest in Jordan’s history. (AFP)

inShare

The U.S. military said on Wednesday that 12,000 soldiers from 17 countries are taking part in this month’s military exercises in Jordan, seeking to enhance their abilities to meet “security challenges.”

“The tactical execution of Eager Lion 2012 exercise will officially start on May 15,” Major Robert Bockholt, public affairs officer at Special Operations Command Central, told AFP.

“Eager Lion is an annual, multi-national exercise designed to strengthen military-to-military relationships through a joint, whole-of-government, multinational approach integrating all instruments of national power to meet current and future complex national security challenges.”

Bockholt did not name all countries, which include Jordan.

“We acknowledge the right of each participating country to announce their participation in the exercise on their own terms,” he said.

In April, the U.S. Department of Defense said the exercise would be held from May 7 to May 28.

Bockholt said participants gathered in Jordan since Monday to prepare for the land, sea and air exercise, which will be held in “various training locations.”

“In all, there are more than 12,000 service members participating in the exercise,” he said.

Some local media reports have speculated that the war games are linked to the unrest in neighboring Syria, saying the troops seek to secure Jordan’s border.

“Execution of Eager Lion 2012 is not connected to any real-world event. It has nothing to do with Syria. It is just a coincidence,” Bockholt said.

The war games come as Jordan’s Special Operations Forces Exhibition is under way, displaying new technologies by defense manufacturers around the world.

Jordan is a major beneficiary of U.S. military and economic aid, with Washington granting Amman $2.4 billion (1.85 billion euros) in the past five years, according to official figures.

Israel’s Nuclear Triad Gets New Muscle | The Jewish Week.

INTERVIEW-Iran atom compromise “worse than no deal” – Israel – AlertNet.

09 May 2012 13:50

Source: reuters // Reuters

* Israelis worry Iran might continue enriching uranium

* EU’s Ashton moves to reassure Netanyahu on Tehran talks

* Iran’s leaders “not irrational”, senior Israeli diplomat says

By Michael Stott and Crispian Balmer

JERUSALEM, May 9 (Reuters) – World powers must not yield in their demand Iran abandon sensitive nuclear projects, a senior Israeli official said on Wednesday, arguing Tehran had been allowed to “dictate” terms despite being vulnerable to sanctions.

Speaking a day after Israel formed a surprise unity government fuelling speculation that preemptive war on Iran could be in the works, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon voiced cautious hope for a peaceful resolution from international talks with Tehran due to resume on May 23.

“We would very much like the negotiations to succeed, because a political solution is better than any other option,” he said. “At the same time, a bad deal would be worse than no deal.”

Talks between Iran and the five U.N. Security Council permanent members plus Germany resumed last month, more than a year after they collapsed with powers failing to persuade Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. The next round of talks is expected to take place later this month in Baghdad.

The United States and European Union have imposed tough new sanctions on Iran’s oil exports this year, and say they hope this can force Tehran to make a deal to curb a nuclear programme they believe aims to make an atomic bomb.

Israel says it could attack Iran if it thinks that is the only way to stop it from getting nuclear arms. Washington and Brussels have been urging Israel not to launch any strikes until diplomacy has a chance, but Israeli officials say time is short.

Like Israel, the powers have insisted that an eventual accord require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. But the Los Angeles Times said last month Washington might agree to allow Iran to continue processing uranium to 5 percent fissile purity.

If enriched further, uranium can be used to fuel warheads. Iran says it has no military designs and seeks only nuclear energy and medical isotopes. It says it will never agree to curbs on its uranium enrichment.

“The fact we hear some rumours about compromise, about meeting them halfway here and there, I think is very, very dangerous,” Ayalon told Reuters in a small conference room in Israel’s parliament that, to double as a wartime shelter, had been fitted with an industrial air filter and blast-proof walls.

Allowing Iran to keep enriching and stockpiling uranium could enable Tehran to opt for a bomb “in very short order”, he said, adding that those projects were already “accelerating”.

Israel’s Iran timelines have often been more urgent than those of its Western allies. But with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now saying the Iranians are just months away from fortifying their nuclear sites against air strikes, fears of an imminent new Middle East conflict have surged abroad.

Netanyahu’s alliance with centrist opposition leader Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday appeared to buttress Israel further for war. Yet Iran strategy did not feature in the two leaders’ coalition negotiations, a senior official told Reuters, adding that Israel potentially had until 2013 to decide how to tackle its arch-foe.

In Israel a day after Netanyahu dropped his political bombshell, Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign affairs chief and senior liaison for the six world powers in talks with Tehran, briefed the prime minister about the nuclear negotiations.

MISGIVINGS

Mofaz, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also attended the session. An Israeli official said the Israeli leaders told Ashton it was clear Iran has been using the talks to play for time and there was no evidence it intends to stop its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Ayalon, a former ambassador to Washington who belongs to Lieberman’s ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party in Netanyahu’s government, declined to be drawn on whether Israel might defy the misgivings of the United States and other powers by attacking Iran unilaterally.

“I don’t want to lock ourselves to anything,” he said, adding: “Certainly we are not a part to any of these agreements (between world powers and Iran) and I think we have all the rights to be concerned based on the threats coming from Tehran.”

Iran “can be stopped” if subjected to more aggressive diplomacy, including sanctions on its oil and banks, Ayalon said.

“Of course there is a bad taste in that they dictate(d) the venue,” he said, referring to discussion over Baghdad hosting this month’s talks after the first, April 14 round in Istanbul. “That’s not something we should all be proud of. We don’t think Iran is in a position to negotiate at all.”

He cited U.S. findings that the Iranians lost $60 billion since July due to tightening sanctions, and noted their decision to back down after a bout of naval brinkmanship with the U.S. Navy in the strategic Strait of Hormuz in December and January.

“If its oil exports are reduced by only 40 percent … then their economy is ground to a halt and things will evolve very radically from there,” Ayalon said.

“There is a lot of spin and a lot of psychological warfare, but Iran is a very vulnerable country … We do know that the ayatollahs, as fanatic and dangerous as they are, are not irrational when it comes to their own political survival.”

Israel itself is widely presumed to have a nuclear arsenal, which it neither confirms nor denies. Unlike Iran, it has never signed up to the non-proliferation treaty that requires it to forego nuclear arms in return for guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.

Asked if Israel might resign itself to containing a nuclear Iran, Ayalon said: “This is a bridge not yet built, let alone crossed.” (Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Peter Graff)

Israel and Iran -will they, won’t they? | The World | International affairs blog from the FT – FT.com.