Archive for August 19, 2012

The media cacophony

August 19, 2012

Israel Hayom | The media cacophony.

( AMEN ! – JW )

We’ve gone mad, and we need to stop. This, in a nutshell, has been the story from the past few days and weeks.

More and more commentators who don’t have the slightest clue are delving into psychological analyses, trying to determine what motivates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. They have been called action junkies and have been said to be motivated by political interests, and their psychological makeup and relationships with their parents have been picked apart.

And this is all being done with an air of upmost gravity, with a furrowing of the brow as if representing the pinnacle of intellectualism. Truth be told, this is merely part of one huge, systematic breakdown. Indeed, only one possibility isn’t being discussed: Could our leaders actually be right? And if they are right, what does that say about the recent symphony of criticism against them? Because in the meantime – and this is not subject to speculation – the Iranians are listening to us and are continuing to act determinedly and without pause toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The leadership in Tehran has made it clear time and again that it intends to eliminate the State of Israel. There isn’t a word it hasn’t used to describe its intentions. There were days in the past when well-intentioned people would respond to any combative statement in Arabic by explaining it was meant for “domestic consumption” only. Since then it has been shown that when they say, “We want to kill you,” they certainly mean it.

The Iranians repeatedly clarify what they want to do to us, and they are working to build the means with which to achieve it. And even though everyone agrees it’s preferable for the U.S. to do the job, there is also the possibility that it won’t. After all, the Americans have twice vowed to prevent a country from building a nuclear weapon, and have twice failed to keep that promise, most recently with North Korea.

So, a few retired experts come out of the woodwork and explain to us that we still have more time. The truth is they don’t know – very few do. This does not prevent them, however, from furrowing their brows in earnest and explaining how we cannot completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, rather only buy more time. Buy more time? This is precisely what we did during the War of Independence in 1948 and every war since: We’ve just bought more time. Meanwhile, all this time we have bought has somehow added up into the years of our existence as a state.

However, since this still isn’t enough, in recent days several media outlets have been preoccupied with analyzing the weak points in Israel’s defenses. There’s a water leak in a bomb shelter here, or not enough gas masks are available over there. Who does this help exactly? Ah yes, Shaul Mofaz. As transportation minister in 2008, he declared that the Iranian nuclear program must be stopped, causing gas prices to soar through the roof across the globe, and was immediately asked by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to keep quiet. He indeed kept quiet.

In the meantime, he became the leader of the opposition, vowed to stand at the head of the social justice protests, joined the government and forgot all about the protests, drew criticism, resigned from the coalition over the new ultra-Orthodox enlistment proposal (after voting for the same Tal Law that exempted them in the first place), and now is saying that he was squeezed out of the coalition because of the Iranian issue. Right, of course.

And then, as the cacophony of criticism was reaching its crescendo, President Shimon Peres chimed in. On the eve of the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, Peres sent a letter to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin in which he predicted Israel could be “alone like a tamarisk in the desert,” if it bombed the reactor. Several years have passed, but in an interview with Channel 1 the same Peres said, “As long as we’re talking about destruction, Iran can also be destroyed.” Now he has voiced his opposition.

All the while, strategy “experts” like Amos Oz, with backgrounds in theater and poetry, draft their petitions and claim to know when, where and from which direction not to attack Iran. And the madness reaches one new level and then another. Enough of it; it’s insane already. We need to stop. We need a little quiet here.

Syria war tipping Mideast balance toward Sunnis

August 19, 2012

Syria war tipping Mideast balance toward Sunnis.

Over 40 killed in Syria's Azaz airstrike watchdog

Syrians check the damage of destroyed houses after an air strike destroyed at least ten houses in the town of Azaz on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/ Khalil Hamra)

BEIRUT (AP) — Not long ago, Arabs everywhere listened when the leader of Hezbollah spoke. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah’s prominence, bolstered by his Lebanese guerrilla force’s battles against Israel, was a sign of the rising regional influence of Shiite Muslims and overwhelmingly Shiite Iran. Now, his speeches don’t necessarily make front pages even in Lebanon.

The change is emblematic of how the bloody conflict in Syria, now in its 18th month, has brought a shift in the Middle East’s sectarian power balance. For much of the past few years, Shiites were surging in power across the region, based on the central alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, with close relations to Shiites who took power in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

But now the region’s Sunni-led powers are appearing more confident, encouraged by the prospect that the Sunni-led rebellion could bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, dominated by members of the Shiite offshoot sect of Alawites. Assad’s fall would cost Iran a priceless foothold in the heart of the Arab world. Hezbollah would lose a bastion of support and a conduit via Syria for vital Iranian weapon supplies.

Already, Iran and Hezbollah have seen their reputations damaged by their support for Assad in the face of the uprising.

“Iran’s influence in the Arab world has taken a big hit recently,” said Alireza Nader, a Middle East expert from the Rand Corporation. Iran’s and Hezbollah’s support of the Assad regime, he said, contradicts their support for Arab Spring revolts elsewhere. “This policy makes Iran, and Hezbollah, appear cynical if not hypocritical.”

Further boosting the Sunnis, the wave of uprisings around the Middle East since early 2011 brought greater political influence to Sunni Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt and Tunisia.

The announcement Saturday that Egypt’s new, Muslim Brotherhood-rooted president, Mohammed Morsi, will visit Iran on Aug. 30 — the first such visit by an Egyptian leader since the mid-1970s — likely reflects the growing confidence that Iran’s status is damaged and that Sunni Arab nations can steer the agenda.

Egypt has long shunned Iran and in recent years, former President Hosni Mubarak had joined with Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia in touting Tehran’s growing influence as the main threat to the Middle East. Morsi, who was elected this year in the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, has called for Assad’s removal and last month pledged Egypt’s “protection” of what he called Saudi Arabia’s “guardianship” of Sunni Islam against outside threats, a thinly veiled reference to Iran.

But at the same time, Morsi’s Brotherhood has suggested it is aiming for a new policy of engaging with Iran and influencing it. During a recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Morsi proposed the formation of a contact group of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to mediate a solution in Syria. The proposal may have been largely symbolic, but Brotherhood officials touted it as a return of Egypt’s regional impact “that it had lost under Mubarak.”

“Sunni Arab countries are pushing back to make up for the losses they suffered after 2003,” said prominent Iraqi analyst Hadi Jalo. “With the civil war in Syria and the isolation of the government in Iraq, the Shiite tide is retreating.”

The “Shiite bloc” has suffered a number of reversals amid the Syria conflict.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas moved its political leadership out of the Syrian capital Damascus, costing Assad the leverage he had long enjoyed by hosting the group. Now Hamas, which had long received Iranian largesse, has shifted allegiances to energy-rich Qatar, which is also a backer of Syria’s opposition.

Iraq, where the Shiite majority rose to power following Saddam’s 2003 ouster, is firmly in Iran’s sphere of influence, but the Shiite-led government there is isolated, facing serious challenges to its authority from the Sunnis and Kurds, who between them combine for some 40 percent of the population.

Attacks blamed on Sunni militants there have further eroded the government’s authority. Sunni-led Arab nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, continue to shun the Baghdad government because of its ties with Iran and its perceived marginalization of Iraq’s Sunnis.

Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies last year also banded together to help crush an uprising by Bahrain’s Shiite majority demanding greater rights under the tiny Gulf island nation’s Sunni leadership. The uprising — which threatened to turn into an Arab Spring-style revolt — raised Saudi fears of greater Iranian influence on the doorstep of eastern Saudi Arabia, site of much of its oil resources and the center for its Shiite minority.

Iran is also facing increased pressure over its nuclear program, which the United States and its allies believe is intended to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charge. The U.S. has hiked up sanctions, hitting Iran’s vital oil revenues and straining its economy. Israel has talked of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Shiite militant group Hezbollah, meanwhile, still holds a dominant position in Lebanon. But even that is being challenged.

Only a few years ago, Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah had emerged as a hero even among many Sunnis across the Middle East after his fighters battled Israel to a near stalemate in a destructive 2006 war in southern Lebanon. But his backing for Assad has tainted him among many across the region, and among opponents at home. Regional news channels like Al-Jazeera no longer carry his speeches live and in full as they once did.

Nasrallah, perhaps in search of relevance, warned on Friday in an 80-minute speech of a harsh and punishing response by Iran if it were attacked by Israel. He warned that if Israel should attack Lebanon, his guerrilla group with its rocket arsenal could turn the lives of millions of Israel to “real hell.”

Rami Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute of Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, says Hezbollah is no doubt making preparations for survival without Assad to support it.

“Hezbollah has to face a really huge challenge if the Syrian regime falls, but I cannot imagine a group like Hezbollah waiting for this to happen and not actively preparing itself for that eventuality,” he said. “But it is clear that both Hezbollah and Nasrallah have lost some stature as a result of the Syrian conflict.”

Only the U.S. Can Peacefully End Iranian Nukes

August 19, 2012

Articles: Only the U.S. Can Peacefully End Iranian Nukes.

By Noah Beck

Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon recently declared that the (nearly decade-long) diplomatic efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program have failed.  Last Friday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad called Israel a “tumor” that will soon be destroyed — the latest of many bellicose statements underscoring the seriousness of the Iranian threat.  There is little time left to avoid another Middle East conflict that could spin disastrously out of control, leave many dead, and send oil prices skyrocketing.  But the U.S. can still resolve this explosive crisis by using much bigger carrots and sticks to convince Iran to change course before it’s too late.

Only a truly credible threat of overwhelming force against Iran will peacefully prevent a potential doomsday scenario from becoming reality, and only the U.S. can deliver such a threat.  Paradoxically, if Iran believes that the U.S. is about to launch a massive attack, it will back down, and no force will be needed.  But if Iran doubts American resolve, it will continue to develop an independent nuclear capability and could even purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan, making it impossible for any power to stop Iran from becoming another nuclear proliferator.  The Iranian regime must understand that it faces devastating consequences if it attempts — by any means — to acquire nuclear weapons.

The threat of force should be used to achieve something far more effective than the illusory “arrangement” settled on with North Korea in 1994.  The goal with Iran must be a Libya-style total disarmament, removing equipment and material from Iran’s nuclear weapons program, with independent verification by the IAEA.

Such a disarmament is the only way to eliminate the many risks posed by Iranian nukes.  These dangers potentially include: (i) nuclear proliferation, because other countries in the volatile Middle East will feel threatened into wanting their own nuclear programs; (ii) the transfer of nuclear materials from Iran — the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism — to terrorist organizations and/or states; (iii) bolder attacks by terrorist groups protected by an Iranian nuclear umbrella; and (iv) an even more belligerent Iran that flexes its nuclear arsenal to: export its radical Islamic ideology, acquire disputed territories and resources from neighboring countries, and/or undertake actions like blocking the Strait of Hormuz to increase the price of oil.

Iran violently quelled the democratic aspirations of its citizens in 2009 and has actively supported the brutal crackdown on Syrian protesters.  The Islamic Republic directly and through its proxies threatens stability in Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, and the Gulf area.  Iran is also responsible for many deaths of American and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As clear as it is today that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Third Reich would have spelled catastrophe, so should it be clear with the Iranian theocracy.  Allowing Iran to acquire or develop nuclear weapons could lead to horrific destruction on an unthinkable scale.  Even well-intentioned reformers will need time to transform Iran’s governing system and political culture.  Thus, the world must wait for major changes before concluding that Iran can be trusted with the world’s most dangerous weapons.

To be fair and to show good faith to Iran, the threat of overwhelming military force for non-compliance should be complemented by hugely generous rewards for Iranian cooperation.  In exchange for the verifiable dismantling of Iran’s entire nuclear program, the U.S. should compensate Iran financially for related losses and provide other economic and political benefits that are collectively far more advantageous to Iran than a nuclear weapon would be.  These benefits could include, for example, (i) replacing economic sanctions with European Union and U.S. free trade agreements and (ii) providing a written security guarantee — adopted by the U.N. Security Council, if needed — that neither the U.S. nor any of its Middle Eastern allies (including Israel) will initiate an attack on Iran.  If the Iranian regime is peaceful (or rational), then it should readily accept such an attractive bargain.  But if Iran rejects this offer, then its regime is clearly on a nuclear warpath that must be stopped by the only world power that can do so swiftly and decisively, and without producing a nuclear war that consumes the entire region and leaves many millions dead.

Iran has frequently called for the destruction of Israel and has — despite the sanctions against it — actively worked to acquire the means to annihilate Israel whenever it chooses.  The tiny Jewish state doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring such a threat and, unfortunately, cannot wait much longer for a diplomatic solution.

Every day, the Middle East moves closer to a Armageddon-type showdown that could force Israel’s hand.  Only the U.S. has the power to resolve the matter peacefully, with a grand bargain, and decisively, if necessary, with overwhelming force.  Our world depends on such an intervention, and history is watching.

Noah Beck recently published The Last Israelis, a doomsday novel about the Iranian nuclear threat.  His editorial is largely based on the epilogue to that book.  For more details about the author and book, see www.TheLastIsraelis.com.

Iran strike won’t cause rift with US, says Israel’s ambassador to Washington

August 19, 2012

Iran strike won’t cause rift with US, says Israel’s ambassador to Washington | The Times of Israel.

Michael Oren says Israeli action against Iran would be understood by US public, Congress and president

August 19, 2012, 9:40 am 1
Michael B. Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States (photo credit: Yossi Zamir/Flash 90)

Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States (photo credit: Yossi Zamir/Flash 90)

Israel’s ambassador to the US said that an Israeli strike on Iran would garner widespread support among Americans, Israel Hayom reported Sunday.

Ambassador Michael Oren, who was in Israel this weekend, said that he doesn’t anticipate a rift between Washington and Jerusalem if Israel decides to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

“If Israel eventually decides to act against Iran, we will gain widespread support from the American public and the American Congress, and President Obama will continue to recognize our right to defend ourselves,” Oren was quoted as saying.

Oren added that he was feeling no pressure from the Americans to avoid action against Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Americans can hear the threats being uttered by Iran’s leaders who want to destroy Israel. It is obvious to me that they are asking themselves, ‘What would we do if we were in their place?’” he said.

Oren said that the upcoming US elections were not a consideration in the Iran debate. The only consideration is “Israel’s security, which is the responsibility of the prime minister and the government. [It is] a responsibility that no sovereign state would ever entrust to a different country, even to its greatest friend in the world, as the US is to Israel.”

Oren’s statements come amid signs of a deepening schism between Jerusalem and Washington over a solo Israeli strike on Iran.

The US is reportedly working to stop a unilateral strike by Israel, with Israel’s Channel 10 news claiming that US President Barack Obama will reportedly offer Israel assurances that Washington will back Jerusalem militarily if more time is given for sanctions and diplomatic measures against Iran to work.

In recent weeks, the Israeli media has ramped-up reports that Israel is looking to hit Iran in the early fall, before the US presidential election. According to these reports, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are proponents of a strike, though much of the military brass opposes the move.