WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Satellite images suggest cover-up of nuclear activity at Iranian site.

Israel Hayom | Biden, Panetta, Obama on Iran.

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points.”

Last May, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden took an extremely hard line on Iran. ”We will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by whatever means we need,” he said.

This week Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the same thing. “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” he said on Sunday. He followed that up in Jerusalem with something even tougher: “I want to reassert again the position of the United States that with regard to Iran, we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, period. We will not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon, and we will exert all options in the effort to ensure that that does not happen.”

What’s missing is anything like these words from President Barack Obama. He has been far less specific. “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” he said in March. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that, when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”

Speaking to AIPAC that month, he said: “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

But saying “I do not bluff” or “I have a policy” is not the same as saying what Panetta said. That the president has never said words as tough as those of his subordinates must alarm the Israelis, for they know that the only view that counts is Obama’s. It is sometimes argued in his defense that he wants to leave options open and avoid specificity, but that’s just the problem. He should “advertise what our intentions are.” Why could he not say what Panetta just did? If the goal is to confront the ayatollahs with a stark choice, why not make it starker?

That Obama fails to do so may produce in both Jerusalem and Tehran uncertainty as to whether, in the end, he will use force to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. If his diplomatic and economic efforts against Tehran are to have the slightest chance of success, and if his efforts to persuade Israel not to strike Iran are to succeed, that uncertainty must be eliminated. Only if Obama can fully persuade the Ayatollah Khamenei that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, that all the effort and isolation and expense have been wasted, and that the goal will never be achieved because the American military will block it, is there any chance that Iran will change course. The very clear statements by the secretary of defense only underline the absence of equal clarity from the commander in chief.

Israel Hayom | The US and Israel: Classic crisis management.

WRAPUP 1-Rebels turn captured tank on Syrian airbase | Reuters.

By Hadeel Al Shalchi

ALEPPO, Syria, Aug 2 (Reuters) – Syrian rebels turned a captured tank against government forces on Thursday and bombarded a military airbase, a welcome boost to their firepower in the week-long battle for the country’s commercial capital Aleppo.

President Bashar al-Assad’s troops meanwhile pounded the strategic Salaheddine district in Aleppo itself with tank and artillery fire while rebels tried to consolidate their hold on areas they have seized.

In the capital Damascus, troops overran a suburb on Wednesday and killed at least 35 people, mostly unarmed civilians, residents and activist organisations said.

The fighting for Syria’s two biggest cities highlights the country’s rapid slide into full-scale civil war 17 months on from the peaceful street protests that marked the start of the anti-Assad uprising.

World powers have watched with mounting concern as diplomtic efforts to find a negotiated solution have faltered and violence that has already claimed an estimated 18,000 lives worsens.

The rebels’ moral was boosted when they turned a government tank’s gun on the Menakh airbase 35 km (25 miles) north of Aleppo, a possible staging post for reinforcements for the army’s attack on Aleppo.

“We hit the airport using a tank that we captured from the Assad army. We attacked the airport a few times but we have decided to retreat at this time,” a rebel fighter named Abu Ali told Reuters.

The pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said government forces at the airbase had used artillery and rocket launchers to bombard the town of Tel Rifaat, which lies between the airbase and Aleppo.

Reuters correspondents heard heavy weapons fire on Thursday morning from Salaheddine in southwest Aleppo, a gateway to the city of 2.5 million people that has been fought over for the past week.

Heavily armed government troops are trying to drive a force of a few thousand rebel fighters from the city in battle whose outcome could be a turning point in the conflict.

Although government forces have made concerted efforts to take Salaheddine, a full-out assault on the city as a whole has yet to take place.

Mobile phone connections have been cut since Wednesday evening, leading to speculation among residents that an increase in military action might be imminent.

Facing tanks and artillery in Salaheddine, a shattered neighbourhood that straddles a highway into the south, rebels said they planned an offensive elsewhere in the region but did not disclose their objective.

The rebels are consolidating areas they control in Aleppo, attacking police posts and minor military installations with some success. They claim to have seized three police stations this week.

NEW ATROCITIES ALLEGED

In Damascus, still a government stronghold but a scene of combat in the past two weeks, government troops faced new accusations of atrocities after they overran a suburb on Wednesday.

“When the streets were clear we found the bodies of at least 35 men,” a resident, who gave his name as Fares, said by phone from Jdeidet Artouz, southwest of Damascus.

“Almost all of them were executed with bullets to their face, head and neck in homes, gardens and basements.”

Syrian state television said “dozens of terrorists and mercenaries surrendered or were killed” when the army raided Jdeidet Artouz and its surrounding farmlands.

In a rallying cry to his troops on Wednesday, Assad said their battle against rebels would decide Syria’s fate.

But his call-to-arms, in a written statement, gave no clues to his whereabouts two weeks after a bomb attack on his inner circle.

Assad, who succeeded his late father Hafez 11 years ago to perpetuate the family’s rule of Syria, has not spoken in public since the bombing in Damascus killed four of his close security aides, although he has appeared in recorded clips on television.

His low public profile suggests acute concern about his safety since the attack in which his brother-in-law died.

FOOD RUNNING SHORT

Amid growing signs that the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo is getting worse, the World Food Programme said it was sending emergency food supplies for up 28,000 people.

The fighting in Salaheddine district, part of a rebel-held arc stretching to the northeast of Aleppo, has left neither side in full control.

On Al-Sharqeya Street, residents and shop owners looked in awe at the damage. Some searched through what was left of their buildings – huge piles of concrete and twisted metal.

“I saw death before my eyes,” said Abu Ahmed as he abandoned his home. “I was hiding in the alleyway of my building when I heard the whiz of the artillery. Look at my street now.”

They said the damage was caused by helicopter fire targeting a rebel brigade based in a school. It missed the school and hit the residential buildings instead.

“This dog Assad and his men are so blind they can’t even target a brigade properly,” said Abu Ahmed, waving a plastic bag with his meagre belongings inside.

State television said on Wednesday the army was pursuing remaining “terrorists” in one Aleppo district and had killed several, including foreign Arab fighters.

Some foreign fighters, including militant Islamists, have joined the battle against Assad, who accuses outside powers of financing and arming the insurgents.

Aleppo, a commercial hub with a historic Old City, had long stayed aloof from the uprising, but many of its 2.5 million residents are now caught up in battle zones, facing shortages of food, fuel, water and cooking gas. Thousands have fled and hospitals and makeshift clinics can barely cope with casualties after more than a week of combat.

“The humanitarian situation is deteriorating in Aleppo and food needs are growing rapidly,” the World Food Programme said.

U.S. SUPPORT

In a shift toward increased foreign involvement in the war, U.S. President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorizing American support for the rebels, according to U.S. sources familiar with the matter.

The order, approved earlier this year, broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

The lightly armed insurgents are battling a well-equipped army that has overwhelming superiority on paper. But the rebels have managed to capture some tanks and heavy weapons and their ranks are swelled by army defectors.

The rebels, however, are united mostly by loathing of Assad, and have failed to come together despite pressure from the West, Turkey and Sunni-ruled Arab states who back their cause.

Netanyahu to Panetta: Time Running Out on Iran | FrontPage Magazine.

“Will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear program?” is a parlor game played by numerous people who don’t have enough information to know the answer.

It may be that there still is no definite answer; on Tuesday night Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu openly told a national TV audience that he still hadn’t reached a decision on the matter.

Recent events, though, seem to warrant a conjecture that something is afoot.

U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta was in Israel on Wednesday, meeting first with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and then with Netanyahu. His visit came hard on the heels of visits by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two weeks ago and by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon just a few days before that (along with, from the other side of the aisle, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s visit at the start of this week).

And that string of visits by Donilon, Clinton, and Panetta is only part of an ongoing succession of top-level U.S. visitors in Israel over the past several months. David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel, notes that “according to one count” today’s meeting between Panetta and Barak was no less thantheir ninth this year.

The inescapable conclusion is that someone, at least—Washington—relates seriously to Israel’s warnings that it may take action against Iran, and is particularly anxious to reassure Jerusalem that the sanctions-and-diplomacy approach is working and deserves more time.

Barak, though, told Panetta on Wednesday that he saw an “extremely low” probability that sanctions would ever—on any timeline—get Tehran to give up its nuclear program, and that meanwhile Israel’s window to act is closing as Iran keeps brazenly on its course.

Netanyahu, in a joint press conference with Panetta after their meeting, was even more straightforward, telling the defense secretary point-blank:

Neither sanctions nor diplomacy have yet had any impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

…You yourself said a few months ago that when all else fails, America will act. But these declarations have also not yet convinced the Iranians to stop their program.

…Right now the Iranian regime believes that the international community does not have the will to stop its nuclear program. This must change and it must change quickly, because time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out.

On Tuesday night Netanyahu had given interviews to Israeli TV whose immediate purpose was to deflect leftist and populist flak over recent tax hikes and budget cuts. But the follow-up issue on the agenda was Iran, and Netanyahu addressed claims—which are heard from Israel itself to the pages of theNew York Times—that the Israeli defense establishment is opposed to a strike, saying:

In Israeli democracy, just like in any democracy, the political echelon makes the decisions and the professional echelon carries them out.

…I hear [the security chiefs’] evaluations behind closed doors The media debate…on the matter is irresponsible and is detrimental to state security. Appropriate discussions on such sensitive matters are held in private and there are many aspects that don’t even reach [the public]; the external debate is extremely inappropriate and very superficial.

Netanyahu then pointed out that in 1981 some security chiefs opposed Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor—a step now widely admired and appreciated. On Iran, too, Netanyahu said,

[t]he decision that will be made, whatever it is, belongs to the political echelon. I will not allow a nuclear-armed Iran. The regime of the ayatollah is making bombs to destroy us! To the extent that it’s up to me, I won’t let it happen.

Two points are worth making here. First, it’s often claimed, both within and outside of Israel, that Netanyahu and Barak have been bluffing—talking tough about Iran as a way to goad the West to get serious about the sanctions. But, for one thing, it no longer sounds that way if it ever did. And for another, with Barak saying explicitly that he doubts that sanctions will ever work, such bluffing wouldn’t be logical in any case.

Second, Netanyahu and Barak are familiar with the Middle East and know that endlessly making threats without acting on them is not the way to thrive and survive in it. If they don’t really mean what they say, then their statements are detrimental to Israel by eroding its deterrence and projecting it as a paper tiger. In adducing the Begin-Iraq analogy and openly telling the U.S. defense secretary that time is running out, Netanyahu is putting a good deal on the line.

Articles: Obama’s Body Count.

By Michael Widlanski

Iranians should be ‘very fearful for next 12 weeks,’ ex-Mossad chief tells NY Times | The Times of Israel.

Efraim Halevy, who in March told The Times of Israel that there would be ‘nothing else left’ but force if diplomacy did not quickly work, gives stark assessment

Efraim Halevy (photo credit: Flash90)

The former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who told The Times of Israel in an interview in March that there would be “nothing else left” but a resort to force if the diplomatic track with Iran did not quickly produce a breakthrough, hinted Wednesday that the moment of truth on Iran’s nuclear drive was now imminent.

“If I were an Iranian, I would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks,” Halevy, who is also a former national security adviser and ambassador, told The New York Times.

The New York Times report, focusing on Wednesday’s talks here by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, said there was “feverish speculation” in Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “will act in September or early October.”

Apart from Netanyahu’s concern that Israel’s military option would “soon” become redundant, the paper cited several other reasons “for the potential timing.” Among them, it said, was the fact that “Israel does not like to fight wars in winter.” Also, Netanyahu “feels that he will have less leverage if President Obama is reelected” while, were Mitt Romney to win the November elections, “the new president would be unlikely to want to take on a big military action early in his term.”

Still, Wednesday’s article continued, “a number of administration officials say they remain hopeful that Israel has no imminent plans to attack and may be willing to let the United States take the lead in any future military strike, which they say would not occur until next year at the earliest.”

The New York Times further reported that administration officials say “Israeli officials are less confrontational in private” and that Netanyahu “understands the consequences of military action for Israel, the United States and the region. They say they know he has to maintain the credibility of his threat to keep up pressure on the United States to continue with sanctions and the development of military plans.”

In his interview with The Times of Israel in late March, Halevy said that if the then-upcoming international talks with Iran on thwarting its nuclear program did not quickly produce a breakthrough, there will be “nothing else left” but a resort to force.

He also said he had “no doubt that for the past few years Israel has been readying its capabilities to meet the Iranians if necessary by force.

It was “tragic,” Halevy added at the time, that “I don’t see any great effort being made” by the P5+1 group — the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany — to prepare urgently and effectively for those talks. The lights “should be burning through the night” to get a strategy together, he said. “The number one thing the world should be doing [on Iran] is investing enormous preparation into the P5+1 confrontation, because this is really the ‘Last Train to San Fernando.’”

Iran, he predicted, would doubtless try to play for time in the talks. The international community, therefore, needed to be ready with its strategy and tactics, and to be represented by “a very high-level, experienced, wise and creative negotiator.”

For the international community, said Halevy, “there’s no time for, you know, ‘Let’s meet again in two or three months, let’s do our homework, let’s not rush things, let’s look at it, and so forth.’” Rather, he said, “there has to be a breakthrough… If there is no breakthrough, it means to say that the talks have failed.”

Asked if, by a breakthrough, he meant Iran announcing the suspension of its nuclear program, Halevy demurred. “I don’t want to say ‘Iran suspending the program.’ I don’t believe that everything will become public overnight.” But it would need to be clear, he said, “that there is a serious negotiation… They don’t have to spell it all out, but it has to be clear.”

Halevy said he did see signs of greater potential international coordination over Iran. He was encouraged by the growing consensus on tackling Syria, notably including Russia and China, which he said could also be reflected in a coordinated strategy on Iran. He also noted that the priority for the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran is “survival” at all costs.

Nonetheless, if the negotiations fail, “there’s nothing else left” but a resort to force, he said.

Perhaps, it was put to Halevy, Israel could live with a nuclear weapons-capable Iran? Halevy responded: “I don’t think that we should countenance that as long as we can do what we can to remove it. I don’t accept the notion that Israel is destructible. But I think that if Iran retains a nuclear capability, life here is going to be very tough for a very long period to come. Israel will not disappear, but Israel will go through a period which I would not like it to go through.”

Asked whether he believed the Israeli government wanted a diplomatic solution, he answered: “I’m not sure every Israeli wants a diplomatic solution… I’m not sure that the government is entirely behind this support for a diplomatic solution.”

Israeli Leaders Toughen Iran Stance – WSJ.com.

By ADAM ENTOUS And JOSHUA MITNICK

ASHQELON, Israel—Israeli leaders dismissed the chances that a U.S.-led sanctions campaign would convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, but U.S. officials said they were hopeful Israel wasn’t planning a unilateral strike for now after receiving assurances the U.S. would be prepared to act militarily in the future.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surprised Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Wednesday with his public challenge to the Obama administration’s strategy, which has focused on diplomacy and sanctions rather than the threat of military action.

But a senior U.S. official said Thursday the U.S. and Israel appeared to be on the same page, at least in private. The official said Mr. Panetta and other officials, in talks in Jerusalem, made clear the Obama administration was prepared to take military action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Any decision on a U.S.-led strike would depend on intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program and would only come once diplomatic options have been exhausted, officials said.

It is unclear whether the Israeli air force would be able to destroy many of Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear sites without U.S. help, U.S. and Israeli officials say.

“Right now the Iranian regime believes that the international community does not have the will to stop its nuclear program,” Mr. Netanyahu said in Jerusalem on Wednesday, with Mr. Panetta by his side. “This must change, and it must change quickly because time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out.”

Mr. Netanyahu said Iran didn’t appear to believe U.S. statements that all options were on the table.

“You yourself said a few months ago that when all else fails, America will act,” he said to Mr. Panetta. “But these declarations have also not yet convinced the Iranians to stop their program.”

Mr. Panetta, after greeting the prime minister warmly, appeared to have been taken aback by his sharp criticism of the U.S. The defense secretary, in his public remarks, took a more hawkish tone toward Iran, in an effort to ease Israeli concerns.

The friction over strategy underlines the Obama administration’s challenge in heading off a possible Israeli military strike on Iran, which could engulf the region in another major conflict and force the U.S. to act.

At the height of the U.S. presidential campaign, the Obama administration wants to keep Israel from starting a conflict but doesn’t want to appear weak or unsupportive of the country.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who visited Israel this week, has sought to cast himself as a bigger supporter of Israel should it decide to strike Iran.

The Obama administration counters that it has increased security cooperation to new levels. On Wednesday, Mr. Panetta highlighted that cooperation with a visit to a U.S.-subsidized missile-defense system with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

U.S. officials say it is difficult to tell whether Israel is serious about attacking Iran or saber rattling in order to sustain the military threat and increase pressure on the U.S. and European Union to do more to curb Iran’s nuclear program—or both.

Mr. Netanyahu has also been grappling with a lack of consensus within Israel’s security establishment about the need to attack Iran anytime soon.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a television interview on Tuesday night that he hasn’t yet made a decision on an attack, trying to tamp down Israeli media reports that military Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and serving Mossad chief Tamir Pardo are opposed to an attack in the coming months. Mr. Netanyahu said the men should keep their assessments private.

In remarks at the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu said Mr. Panetta was correct when he said sanctions are having a “big impact” on the Iranian economy. “But unfortunately it is also true that neither sanctions nor diplomacy have yet had any impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Netanyahu added.

Mr. Panetta used unusually strong language to make the case that Mr. Obama will do what it takes to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. Iran denies its program is intended to build a nuclear bomb. “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Period,” he said. “We will exert all options.”

But Mr. Panetta added: “We have to exhaust every option, every effort, before we resort to military action.”

The U.S. position reflects a strategic Catch-22: While the Israelis say Iran will only give in if the U.S. makes the threat of attack real, doing so could limit the U.S.’s options by removing the element of surprise and potentially putting the U.S. on a path to war.

So far, talks with Iran, led by the U.S. and other major powers, have gone nowhere, U.S. officials acknowledge. But unlike the Israelis, the U.S. still holds out hope of progress as pressure builds. On Wednesday, the House voted 421-6 and the Senate voted unanimously to approve a round of sanctions on Iran that builds on current penalties targeting Tehran’s central bank.

Such focus on ramping up sanctions represent a challenge to Israeli efforts to prod the Americans to shift strategy.

That tension was evident when Defense Minister Barak said the probability is “extremely low” that U.S. and international sanctions will convince Iran’s religious rulers to give way on their nuclear program.

While Mr. Panetta has acknowledged Iran has yet to agree to give up its nuclear program, he has repeatedly said that the sanctions are working as intended and should be given more time.

That appeared to be a hard argument for Mr. Panetta to sell in Israel.

“We have clearly something to lose by this stretched time upon which sanctions and diplomacy takes place because the Iranian are moving forward” with their enrichment activities, Mr. Barak said at a joint news conference with Mr. Panetta after they toured the Iron Dome missile-defense battery on the outskirts of the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, five miles from the border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Israel says the Iron Dome is the first missile-defense system capable of detecting and destroying short-range missiles in flight. The system, made by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is designed to intercept rockets with ranges of up to 44 miles, those typically used by Israel’s declared enemies Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon, and Hamas.

Mr. Panetta called Iron Dome a “game changer” for Israel’s security and said the U.S. intended to provide funding annually to support the system’s deployment in Israel.

The U.S. has so far committed $275 million to support the Iron Dome, which consists of arrays with about 20 rockets each, a command-and-control center and a radar facility. Each system can cover an area the size of a small city.

The Iron Dome’s radar detects rockets when they are launched. The command-and-control center then quickly determines whether to launch an interceptor missile. That depends if the missile is headed toward an area that is populated or has critical infrastructure.

Mr. Barak said the system has intercepted more than 100 rockets so far fired from Gaza and has a success rate of more than 80%.

Centrifuges continue to spin – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Stalled talks, provocative military exercises indicate Iranian regime will continue defying West

Lawrence, Nisman

On July 25, in a rare public acknowledgement, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shed light on the detrimental impact of international sanctions on Iranian society. During a meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his political rival, Speaker Ali Larijani, Khamenei called for an end to infighting over Iran’s deteriorating economy, stressing the need for national unity.

“The reality is that there are problems, however you must not blame them on this or that party,” Khamenei was quoted as saying by Fars News Agency. “Instead you must solve those problems with unity.”

Pundits and politicians in the West should be in no rush to laud this admittance of Iran’s floundering economy as a sign that the regime’s resilience in pursuit of nuclear capability has begun to waver. For those in Jerusalem grappling with a historic decision, sanctions have failed to achieve their baseline goal – suspension of the Iranian nuclear program.

Current sanctions aim to foment public discontent in Iran by inducing economic hardship, threatening to usher in a Persian edition of the Arab Spring. Recently implemented sanctions by the European Union have been rightfully hailed as the harshest to date, and there are indeed indications that this ban on oil imports has taken a toll on the Iranian economy.

Reduced participation in the international banking system due to American sanctions has forced Iran to trade through barter arrangements of commodities in place of hard currency. As a result, the rial has devaluated, contributing to rampant inflation. Official government estimates place inflation rates at 22.4% annually, but economists assert that it may be higher. This translates into soaring prices for common consumer goods like bread, whose price is 16 times higher than in 2010 when bread subsidies were withdrawn. Inflation has since contributed to domestic discontent, most recently when protests erupted in the northeastern Iranian city of Nishabur over the cost of chicken in July 2012.

On July 4, 2012, an official Iranian website (briefly) displayed the results of a public opinion survey, which indicated that 60% of those polled would forgo their country’s nuclear progress in exchange for an easing of sanctions. However, while the poll illustrates that resentment toward the government for economic hardship is growing, a significant portion of the population still blames the international community for using sanctions that disproportionately impact the public rather than the regime. Included in this group are Iran’s influential merchant and labor sectors. These segments of society played an important role in overthrowing the Shah in 1979, and any successful uprising would be short-lived without their participation.

Clock ticking down

The potential for domestic pressure to spur a decisive shift in the regime’s nuclear program itself currently remains limited as well. The ill-fated uprising attempts in 2008-09 and 2011-12 largely dealt with issues of democratic and political reform, not nuclear policy. Meanwhile, those sectors of society which encompass the regime’s power base view nuclear enrichment as a national entitlement, spelling dire political consequences for any reneging by the Ayatollahs on their pursuit of a seat at the nuclear table.

While sanctions may be gradually stirring discontent amongst the population, the rate at which they are doing so is slower than the progress of Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. Indeed, continued deadlocks in negotiations, provocative military exercises involving long-range missiles, and announcements on nuclear achievements illustrate the regime’s intentions to continue defying the West.

During the same July 25 meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly told the supreme leader that Iran has 10% more centrifuges operating in July 2012 than it had at the time of the last IAEA report in May 2012. With each declaration of progressing enrichment activity, Iran further toes Israel’s red lines for military action.

It is no coincidence that following Ahmadinejad’s statement, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak asserted that current sanctions “are not enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program,” and that Israel would have to make “tough and crucial decisions” about its security.

The endless line of Obama Administration officials rotating through Jerusalem will likely find little success in swaying Israeli policy makers to place their bets on current sanctions. For Israel’s leadership, an Iranian bomb is considered an existential threat to survival of the Jewish State, and the stakes are too high to risk holding out for regime change.

With the clock ticking down toward Iranian nuclear breakout capability, those hopeful for a diplomatic solution for this potentially destructive crisis would be wise to switch time zones. Although the West’s sanctions continue to bite, the Ayatollah’s centrifuges continue to spin, ensuring that a regional conflagration is only a matter of time.

The authors are intelligence analysts at Max-Security Solutions, a geo-political risk consulting firm based in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Don’t overplay your hand on Iran, US officials reportedly warn Israel | The Times of Israel.

Jerusalem’s talk of deadlines and military action is deemed counterproductive, TV report claims, as Panetta vows US will thwart Tehran and White House says it shares PM’s sense that Iran has yet to make the right choice

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tours an Iron Dome battery near Ashkelon with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak on Wednesday. Aug1 (photo credit: Tsafrir Abayov/Flash90)

Iran has ”yet to make the choice it needs to make, which is to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,” White House spokesperson Jay Carney said in a press briefing aboard Air Force One Wednesday.

“We completely agree with the [Israeli] prime minister’s assessment that Iran has failed to make that choice and that is absolutely a disappointment,” added Carney, presenting a united front between the two countries as visiting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta completed a day of meetings with Israeli leaders.

But a Channel 2 news report said irritated American officials are telling Israel that it is overplaying its hand with its constant warnings about time running out on stopping Iran’s nuclear program and its threats to launch military action against Iran

The message being conveyed by Obama Administration officials behind the scenes, the TV report said, is that the US knows what it is doing on Iran, and that while an Israeli strike could damage the Iranian program, an American strike, if deemed necessary, would finish it. Israel ought to stop talking about deadlines, and stop risk being perceived as meddling with domestic American politics ahead of November’s presidential elections.

The report also quoted an unnamed Israeli insider, said to be opposed to an Israeli strike, as saying that if Israel attacked Iran alone, “it would remain alone.”

The Channel 2 report came hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the outset of his meeting with Panetta, had blamed the West for failing to sufficiently impress upon the Iranians that they would not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon.

“Right now the Iranian regime believes that the international community does not have the will to stop its nuclear program,” Netanyahu said. “This must change, and it must change quickly, because time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out.”

Over and over during the day — in public remarks alongside Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres — Panetta reiterated with slightly varying formulations that the US would do everything in its power to ensure Iran dids not attain nuclear weapons.

“We will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, period,” he told Netanyahu. “We will exert all efforts to ensure this does not happen,” he said.

In TV interviews on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he had not yet decided whether to order military intervention to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive. When the time did come to decide, he added, however, objections from military and security chiefs would not prevent him and his government colleagues from ordering a military strike should they deem it necessary. He also said Israel would not subcontract its existential security concerns to its friends — “not even the best of them,” like the US.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu hosted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who declared that stopping Iran must be America’s “highest national security priority.”