Archive for September 6, 2012

America’s second-highest ranking officer arrives in secret

September 6, 2012

America’s second-highest ranking officer arrives in secret | The Times of Israel.

The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in Israel this week amid rising tensions between the two countries

September 6, 2012, 12:20 pm 0
Admiral Winnefeld, left, a former F-14 Navy fighter pilot, with Secretary of Defense Panetta in 2011 (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Admiral Winnefeld, left, a former F-14 Navy fighter pilot, with Secretary of Defense Panetta in 2011 (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

The only unusual thing about the second-highest ranking officer in the US armed forces’ trip to Israel this week is that, apparently, it was a secret.

Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited an Iron Dome battery near Ashkelon Wednesday and, as a guest of IDF Deputy Chief of the General Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh, took part in security meetings that addressed “the cooperation between the two armies,” Army Radio revealed Thursday.

The visit comes amid significant tension between American army brass and Israeli leadership. General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed a possible Israeli strike against Iran last week and said that while Israel had the power to ”clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” he also, according to a report first published in the Guardian, took the unusual step of adding “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”

The remark drew plenty of anonymous ire in Israel. Senior government sources said that it showed “vehement American oppositon” to an Israeli strike before the November 6 elections.

That same week Time magazine reported that the largest joint American-Israeli military exercise, Austere Challenge 12, scheduled to be held in late October and to include missile defense warships and thousands of troops, was significantly reduced in scale. The reduction, the magazine reported, “may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran’s nuclear program.”

Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin of the US Air Force, a former F-16 pilot, will command the joint drill in October (Photo credit: US Air Force website)

Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin of the US Air Force, a former F-16 pilot, will command the joint drill in October (Photo credit: US Air Force)

Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, Commander, 3rd Air Force, Ramstein Air Base, Germany, commander of the upcoming exercise, is slated to arrive in Israel next week.

General Winnefeld’s visit will be formally announced later Thursday.

After Obama intervenes, Democrats return omitted language on Jerusalem to party platform

September 6, 2012

After Obama intervenes, Democrats return omitted language on Jerusalem to party platform | The Times of Israel.

Provision defining Jerusalem as capital of Israel was left out of 2012 document, igniting firestorm of criticism

September 6, 2012, 12:55 am 15
President Barack Obama waves to supporters as he arrives at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday. (photo credit: AP/Chuck Burton)

President Barack Obama waves to supporters as he arrives at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday. (photo credit: AP/Chuck Burton)

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina — Democrats returned language affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to their party platform on Wednesday. According to Obama campaign officials, the change was made following an intervention by the US president.

The party’s platform committee met in Charlotte, the site of this year’s Democratic Party convention, to restore language from the 2008 platform to this year’s platform.

“They are returning the language to the 2008 situation,” Robert Wexler, a top Jewish surrogate for Obama’s reelection campaign and a drafter of this year’s platform, told JTA. “The exact language.”

“Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel” appeared in the 2008 document, along with the caveat that the matter should be left to final status negotiations.

A Democratic National Committee official also confirmed the reinsertion.

The removal of the language caused a firestorm of criticism from pro-Israel groups, Republicans and Democratic lawmakers in Congress, who said it blindsided them.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had said Tuesday it was “unfortunate” that “the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Four years of President Obama’s repeated attempts to create distance between the United States and our cherished ally have led the Democratic Party to remove from their platform an unequivocal acknowledgment of a simple reality. As president, I will restore our relationship with Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our close ally.”

But the Times of Israel reported earlier Wednesday that the Republicans, too, toned down language in their 2012 platform regarding Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The Republican platform changes from 2008 included removing the adjective “undivided” from references to Jerusalem, and cutting the sentence supporting the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Democratic campaign officials had earlier said that the language was removed from their party platform because the overall platform focused on Obama’s achievements — in Israel’s case, the enhancement of security cooperation and the isolation of Iran.

Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy regarding the Jerusalem issue on Tuesday, and of seeking to distract attention from the Democratic National Convention, but they did not deny the Republican account of the changes made to the platform.

“President Bush signed waivers 16 times to avoid moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,” noted David Harris, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, accusing Republicans of “stunning, but not surprising” hypocrisy on the issue.

“Jewish Democrats know full well that Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel,” said the Democrats’ Harris. “We – like President George W. Bush before and leaders of both parties for decades – also know that the final status of Jerusalem will have to be formally decided by the parties. This should come as a surprise to nobody.”

Republican Jewish groups Tuesday listed several changes to the Democrats’ platform that they said were detrimental to Israel — including the exclusion of the express statement that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel”; the removal of a provision insisting that Palestinian refugees will only be resettled in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel; and the excision of a call to isolate of Hamas until it renounces terrorism and accepts the peace process. All those provisions were included in the 2008 Democratic party platform but removed from the 2012 platform.

It was not immediately clear Wednesday whether all these changes would now be reversed by the Democrats. Nor were there indications as to whether the Republicans, too, might now restore excised language on Jerusalem.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Rivlin: Obama only put J’lem back in platform for votes

September 6, 2012

Rivlin: Obama only put J’lem back… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

09/06/2012 10:10
Knesset speaker says Democrats’ reinstatement of J’lem as Israel’s capital in party platform too little too late, claims original omission indicates a “reduction of US government’s strategic commitment to Israel.”

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin [file]

Photo: Courtesy: Knesset Channel

The addition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to the Democratic platform does not make up for the party’s original intentions, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said on Thursday

“I have no doubt that [US President Barack] Obama put Jerusalem back in his party’s platform out of political and electoral considerations and because of the sharp criticism from Israel and the US,” Rivlin stated.

Democrats amended the party platform Wednesday afternoon to include language supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The last-minute change came in the wake of mounting criticism from Democratic members of Congress incensed that the 2008 platform’s declaration backing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had been removed from the 2012 text. Sources close to the platform drafting process said Obama personally intervened on reinstating the Jerusalem language. The whole 2012 platform was originally adopted during the Democratic convention Tuesday night.

The Knesset Speaker said that the DNC did not remove Jerusalem from the platform “by mistake or because of forgetfulness,” and the change was not a coincidence that can be explained away by not paying attention.

“This is a problematic sign, indicating the gradual reduction of the American government’s strategic commitment to Israel,” he explained.

On Wednesday, prior to the reinstatement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in the DNC platform, Rivlin had stated that Obama does not understand the realities of the Middle East.

“The fact that the Democrats removed a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from their platform is more worrying than the argument over Iran,” Rivlin told The Jerusalem Post.

Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.

Turkish officers take command of Syrian rebel brigades. N. Israel on alert

September 6, 2012

Turkish officers take command of Syrian rebel brigades. N. Israel on alert.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 6, 2012, 10:59 AM (GMT+02:00)

 

Syrian rebels under Turkish command
Syrian rebels under Turkish command

Turkish army officers have assumed direct command of the first two Syrian rebel brigades fighting Bashar Assad’s government forces, according to debkafile’s exclusive sources.

This step has sent military tensions rocketing on Israel’s northern borders with Syria and Lebanon in case of a backlash.
The rebel North Liberators Brigade in the Idlib region of northern Syria and the Tawhid Brigade fighting in the Al-Bab area northeast of Aleppo are now taking their operational orders from Turkish officers, who exercise their authority from headquarters outside Syria in the southeastern Turkish city of Gaziantep. Nonetheless, Turkey is considered to have stepped directly into the Syrian conflict marking the onset of foreign intervention.
Western and Arab military circles in the Middle East expect Turkey to extend its command to additional rebel units – not all of them part of the Free Syrian Army.
This first step has already caused waves.

1.  The consequences of Turkish military action in Syria were urgently aired with CIA Director David Petraeus when he arrived in Ankara Monday, Sept. 3, debkafile’s intelligence sources reveal.  After hearing how and when Ankara proposed to expand its role in the Syrian conflict, Petraeus discussed with Turkish military and intelligence chiefs the likely Syrian, Iranian and Hizballah responses.
He then flew to Israel to continue the discussion there.

2.  By then, US, Turkish and Israeli intelligence watchers were reporting unusual military movements in Syria and on Hizballah turf in southern Lebanon – suspected of being preparations for a blowback from the Turkish intervention in Syria.
3. The IDF countered by placing its units guarding the Syrian and Lebanese borders on a state of alert. Wednesday, Sept. 5, an Iron Dome battery was installed in Gush Dan to head off a potential Hizballah missile barrage on central Israel and its hub, Tel Aviv.

4.  Later that day, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan commented: “The regime in Syria has now become a terrorist state.”

Only a few of Erdogan’s listeners understood he was laying international legal grounding for expanding Turkish military intervention in Syria.

debkafile‘s military sources report that Thursday, Sept. 6, military temperatures remained high-to-feverish along Syria’s borders with Turkey and Israel, and along Lebanon’s borders with Syria and Israel.

Israel must act against Iran

September 6, 2012

Fundamentally Freund: Israel must… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

 

09/05/2012 22:41
As frightening as it sounds, Israel has no choice but to act. We need to bomb Iran before it is too late.

US Air Force F-15E releases a GBU-28 Bunker Buster

Photo: REUTERS/Handout

Israel now finds itself at a perilous crossroads.

Despite several rounds of international sanctions, Iran continues to advance its atomic ambitions with dogged determination, defying the world as it marches steadily toward the nuclear finish line.

And yet, even as this existential threat grows ominously more real, the United States, France and other Western countries seem more resolute about thwarting an Israeli pre-emptive strike than stopping Iran from going nuclear.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel now faces a stark choice: either to rely on America to ensure our security or simply go it alone and protect ourselves.

Underlining the sense of urgency was a quarterly report issued late last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency which revealed that the ayatollahs have accelerated their uranium enrichment program.

In the past three months alone, Tehran has more than doubled its underground nuclear production capacity at the heavily fortified Fordow facility, boosting the number of enrichment centrifuges to 2,140 from 1,064 in May.

And they have also taken further steps to conceal aspects of their nuclear program from the prying eyes of international inspection.

AS PRIME Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the cabinet Sunday, “The report confirms what we have been saying for some time: while the international sanctions are indeed making things difficult for the Iranian economy, they are not delaying the progress.”

Nevertheless, in the run-up to the US presidential elections in November, the last thing that Barack Obama wants is a conflagration in the Middle East. As a result, administration officials have sought to emphasize that “all options are on the table” even as they seek to dissuade Israel from launching a unilateral attack.

But if recent history is any guide, there is little reason to take comfort in the soothing assurances of American officials. For all its tough talk about nuclear non-proliferation, Washington has failed miserably to stem the tide of an increasingly nuclear world.

Take, for example, the case of North Korea. Already in the mid-1980s, US intelligence began to pick up signs that the dictatorial regime in Pyongyang was working to develop nuclear weapons.

Throughout the 1990s, America applied a series of sticks and carrots, using a mix of threats, talks and aid in a largely fruitless effort to discourage the Communist hermit kingdom from going down the nuclear path.

When George W. Bush became president, he promised to take an even tougher line, and in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, he singled out North Korea along with Iraq for their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

In his January 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush declared North Korea to be part of the “axis of evil” together with Iran and Iraq, and insisted that their pursuit of nuclear weapons constituted a “grave and growing danger” to the US, which would do “what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.”

On February 18, 2002, as he prepared to travel to South Korea, Bush was even more explicit, telling reporters that, “America will not allow North Korea and other dangerous regimes to threaten freedom with weapons of mass destruction.”

Later that year, in September, the Bush administration issued a paper outlining its national security strategy which said that Pyongyang was the “world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles” and even affirmed America’s right to take preemptive action.

All the bluster didn’t seem to make much of an impression on the North Koreans. At a meeting in Pyongyang on October 4, 2002, a team of US State Department officials presented evidence indicating that their hosts had been acquiring centrifuges to process enriched uranium which could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Without batting an eyelash, the North Koreans acknowledged that to be the case.

They subsequently withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and by June 2005, Pyongyang proudly announced that it had amassed a stockpile of nuclear weapons and was eagerly building more, which it continues to do today.

So for all the assurances and tough talk over the course of nearly two decades, America proved either unwilling or unable to stop North Korea from joining the nuclear club, with the result being that US ally South Korea is forced to live under the shadow of an ongoing nuclear threat.

Is that how we want Israel to end up? If George W. Bush was not prepared to take action to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, does anyone really believe that Barack Obama will be tougher than his predecessor against Tehran? This is more than just a political or philosophical musing. It is a matter of life and death for the Jewish state and we cannot afford to gamble our future and that of our children on the outcome.

Seven decades ago, the nations of the world were prepared to sit back and watch as Jews were incinerated. We cannot risk that happening again.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democratic president who was beloved by American Jews, refused to bomb Auschwitz and allowed countless Jews to die.

Now, Barack Obama, a Democratic president who is adored by many American Jews, appears unwilling to shut down the nuclear Auschwitz that the would-be Hitler of Persia is busy constructing.

Clearly, diplomacy has failed and sanctions and pressure have not succeeded in deterring the ayatollahs.

As frightening as it sounds, Israel has no choice but to act. We need to bomb Iran before it is too late.

Is Netanyahu planning an October surprise?

September 6, 2012

Is Netanyahu planning an October … JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

09/05/2012 22:48
Washington Watch: Is partisan rhetoric is aimed at preventing nuclear Iran and how much at preventing Obama’s reelection?

Obama supporters at Democratic National Convention

Photo: REUTERS

As the Republicans and Democrats held their conventions and the presidential election moved into the home stretch, the rhetoric and pressure coming out of Israel for an attack on Iran intensified like the winds of Hurricane Isaac. It’s difficult to tell how much is aimed at keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and how much at preventing Barack Obama’s reelection.

It is highly unlikely that Iranian scientists will make their nuclear breakthrough by November 6, so why the urgency? Israel’s prime minister and defense minister seem anxious to go to war, and the sooner the better, a determination not shared by most of their own generals and spymasters, past and present, a majority of the public, the current and at least one former president of the country and even a sizeable portion of the inner cabinet. So what’s the rush? It may be that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sees a political window of opportunity closing over the next two months, one that serves multiple purposes for him.

He reportedly worries that the United States may not really want to take military action against Iran at this time so by Israel acting first, especially just before the election, Obama would have no choice but to give full backing to a war he may feel is premature and not in America’s national interest at this time.

An October surprise would also give Netanyahu and the Republicans a platform for saying his failure to solve the problem through diplomacy and economic pressure had “forced” Israel to attack.

Channel 10 News reported two weeks ago that Netanyahu “is determined to attack Iran before the US elections.”

A reelected Obama may not feel the same pressure to follow Israel’s lead, and a new Romney administration would need months to get organized before it could be ready, even if it was still willing to “respect” any Israeli unilateral decision, as candidate Romney’s campaign advisor, Dan Senor, has said it would.

The impact on Israel’s relations with the United States, regardless of who wins the White House, could be most damaging at the Pentagon and the intelligence community because Israel needs and relies so heavily on their friendship and cooperation, and they have consistently advised against any attack in the near future.

Obama understands that limited Israeli or American strikes are unlikely to stop Iran’s nuclear program and certain to ignite widespread retaliation, drawing this country into a broader conflict that would likely kill the current, fragile economic recovery, undercut a US military already depleted by two long wars and damage a range of other American interests.

On the political front, the anti-war Left in Obama’s party and others opposed to a new war might well desert him if he is seen as endorsing an Israeli attack.

Netanyahu has a well-deserved reputation for meddling in American politics and has had rocky relations with Democratic presidents during his two terms as prime minister. He has known Romney since their days in finance in Boston and they share a number of friends, advisors and financial backers. With such an overlap, it is not out of the question that the two camps are coordinating their strategy for maximum political impact.

Netanyahu sees Obama at his most vulnerable right now as he heads into a very close election in which Republicans, who are making support for Israel a partisan wedge issue.

The Israeli leader has said that until Iran sees a clear red line that will trigger an American attack it won’t halt its nuclear project.

As if in response, The New York Times reported this week that Obama is considering steps “short of war” that would “forestall and Israeli attack” while forcing the Iranians to quit stalling and begin taking negotiations seriously.

One Israeli paper reported an “angry and stressed” Netanyahu launched into a “tirade” with the American ambassador last monthly accusing Obama of not doing enough to stop Iran.

The Israeli media is almost in panic with reports such as that and another – since denied and debunked – that Obama has secretly sent word to the Iranians that the US will stand back if Israel decides to attack its nuclear facilities as long as Iran doesn’t hit American facilities in the region.

Reports that joint US-Israeli anti-missile exercises planned for next month have been scaled back were interpreted by some as an ominous sign of diminished American support. Both governments have denied that as well, saying the changes had no political significance, but that won’t slow the rumor mill.

Another stream of stories quoting unnamed “senior Israeli officials,” a term often used to describe Netanyahu’s inner circle, says a second-term Obama will “punish” Netanyahu for meddling in the US elections and “make Netanyahu pay for his behavior.”

It is hard to watch the debate in Israel and not come away with the impression that while the Iranian nuclear threat is the nation’s number one strategic concern, the urgency coming out of the top leadership is motivated in some part by a desire to exploit Obama’s political vulnerability by drawing the United States into a conflict the president feels it – and he – can ill afford.

©2012 Douglas M. Bloomfield. bloomfieldcolumn@gmail.com

It is time to face existential threats

September 6, 2012

It is time to face existential threat… JPost – Opinion – Op-Eds.

By DANIEL TAUBER
09/05/2012 22:56
That Iran would press the button may be unimaginable, but it is not unthinkable.

Ahmadinejad at nuclear ceremony in Tehran

Photo: REUTERS
They have accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of being “Mr. Terror,” but when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, for the past few months, various leftist politicians and ex-security officials have worked hard to make Israelis afraid: afraid that we don’t have the capability to act on our own; afraid that we will lose international support; and afraid of how the Iranians will respond.

The self-proclaimed pragmatists have taken up their old position: we, the Jews, must do nothing. But given the magnitude of the danger, being too afraid to act is a luxury we cannot afford.

That Iran would press the button may be unimaginable, but it is not unthinkable.

Fanatical, authoritarian, publicly genocidal and anti-Semitic: this is not the description of a “rational actor” who would wield nuclear weapons responsibly.

More than the failure of diplomacy, the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran demonstrated that we are indeed dealing with madmen who seek, as the Ayatolla declared last week, a “new international order,” a declaration which mirrors the Axis powers’ pact “to establish and maintain a new order of things.”

Even for “rational actors,” the purpose of nuclear weapons is being prepared to use them when some red line is crossed. Our red line is an existential threat, but that may not be the case for everyone. The US twice dropped the bomb on Japan, for example, long after Japan posed an existential threat to the US. It merely refused to meet the US demand for unconditional surrender.

Definitions of existential threat may also differ. For the Iranian regime, a danger to the regime’s existence might be sufficient.

And even rational actors take actions which can unpredictably escalate. During the Cold War, actions were taken which could have triggered nuclear war, such as when the USSR deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba or when the US flew nucleararmed B-52s just outside the USSR.

The fear of escalation alone would require us to measure each of our own actions against the possibility of triggering a nuclear standoff.

Our self-defense would be further checked by a greater need for international support, which would also create massive pressure on us to make dangerous concessions.

At the same time, a nuclear weapons capability would put Iran on the offensive, leading the Islamic regime to be more brazen in threatening Western interests and Israel itself, in supporting terrorist groups and undermining budding democracies in the region. Iran’s newfound power will draw other states into its orbit and further encourage them to oppose us.

CERTAINLY THIS is not a scenario which the US or the other Western powers desire, and presumably the US can do much greater damage to Iran’s nuclear program than Israel can. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean it will.

American failure to stop proliferation in the past, its reluctance to act militarily against Iran so far, its failure to convince Iran that it will act, the time wasted attempting to renew the peace process, its reluctance to support Iranians who risked their lives to protest rigged presidential elections, the naïve belief that engagement would lead to a diplomatic solution – all of this, as well as America’s general bumbling of Middle East policy since Barack Obama became president indicate that the US will not strike.

Even if the US committed to a strike, as time passes, that commitment would fade. The presumed consequences of Israeli action were the prime motivation for US action thus far. If the window for Israeli attack closes, this motivation will disappear.

Reelection may also dissolve Obama’s political motivation to appear tough on national security and support Israel. His opponent, Mitt Romney, has not committed to striking Iran. Even if he did, his stump speeches and his presidential policy may be quite different. He would also not take office until next January, after our window to act is said to close.

More alarming is the difference between the US and Israel on what must be prevented.

As The Jerusalem Post’s Herb Keinon noted, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, while in Israel, said the US “will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” but did not go as far as the prime minister, who said Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear weapons “capability.”

This difference can be found in many US and Israeli statements.

With weapons capability, Iran need only await the opportune moment to develop a weapon, for example when the US is distracted by an urgent domestic or global problem. Some predict that Iran is developing a “breakout” capability by which it could develop a weapon before anyone can react.

This is not a fate to which we can resign ourselves.

If unilateral action only delays the Iranian program a number of years, that is preferable to the emergence of a nuclear-armed or capable Iran in the coming months. A few years might allow for a change in the strategic dynamic. It may allow for sanctions to work or for another military, cyber or other strike. A strike may even provide time for, even encourage, the regime’s internal opponents to attempt a revolt.

DESPITE IT ALL – the terrorism, the wars, our own mistakes – since Israel’s establishment, our prosperity, strength and international standing continue to improve. Every year that goes by is another year in which more Middle Eastern children are born into a world in which Israel’s existence is just another fact of life. The status quo is not only sustainable, it favors us.

Our stock is rising.

But if Iran develops nuclear weapons capability the tide of history could turn against us. The forces that seek to destroy us will be immensely strengthened.

The number of existential crises we face will increase.

The key to our security and prosperity, the underlying purpose of Jewish statehood, has been our ability to defend ourselves on our own. Now is not the time to naively wait on the benevolence of others or freeze up in fear, whether of our own strength or that of our enemies.

The writer is executive director of Likud Anglos.

Report: Obama, Netanyahu to Meet After Yom Kippur

September 6, 2012

Report: Obama, Netanyahu to Meet After Yom Kippur – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Reports say PM Netanyahu and President Obama will meet the day after Yom Kippur. They will discuss the Iranian issue.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 9/6/2012, 7:14 AM

 

Netanyahu and Obama in NYC

Netanyahu and Obama in NYC
Flash 90

Preparations are currently underway for a meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, Channel 10 News reported on Wednesday.

According to the report, Netanyahu and Obama will meet at the White House a day after Yom Kippur, when Netanyahu arrives in the U.S. to speak at the United Nations General Assembly.

It is believed that the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama will lead to Israel agreeing to postpone an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, for a period of several months to half a year.

Channel 10 reported that during the meeting, Obama will outline for Netanyahu the red lines of the U.S. government on the Iranian nuclear program.

Obama is expected to outline two types of red lines, according to the report. The first one is the red line regarding the possibility of an American attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities and the date of such an attack, which officials estimated would take place no earlier than the summer of 2013.

In addition, said the report, Obama will make it clear to Netanyahu that the United States will intervene in an attack on Iran only if U.S. Army facilities in the region are attacked or if the Israeli population is hurt. It is estimated that, by outlining these red lines, the U.S. government will be able to convince Netanyahu to hold off on an Israeli attack for the time being.

Earlier this week Netanyahu said that the international community must set a “clear red line” in order to avoid a war over Iran’s controversial nuclear program.

“This is a brutal regime that is racing ahead with its nuclear program because it doesn’t see a clear red line from the international community,” Netanyahu said at a meeting with Israeli and U.S. servicemen wounded in conflict.

He added, “And it doesn’t see the necessary resolve and determination from the international community. The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we’ll have conflict.”

The New York Times reported on Monday that the U.S. may declare certain “red lines” that would trigger a U.S. attack if crossed by Iran.

The Obama Administration is trying to put pressure on Iran through tightening economic sanctions, placing of missile defense systems in Qatar, and weighing the launching of more cyber-attacks like Stuxnet, the newspaper reported. In addition, the administration is considering “new declarations by President Obama about what might bring about American military action, as well as covert activities that have been previously considered and rejected.”

The meeting between Netanyahu and Obama might be an implementation of what was reported in The New York Times.

Bibi’s ‘October surprise’ checklist

September 6, 2012

Bibi’s ‘October surprise’ checklist – NYPOST.com.

The headlines never stop: President Obama is secretly contacting Tehran; America’s top general won’t be “complicit” in an Israeli attack; The White House is trying to “calm” Israel.

So will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the election?

According to the latest buzz in Washington and Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is just bluffing: Bibi’s consistent hints that he might launch an attack are merely meant to push a re-election-hungry President Obama to adopt a tougher stance on Iran.

Maybe. But sources tell me that Netanyahu’s Iran decision will largely depend on his late-September pow-wow with Obama during the annual United Nations gabfest. Will Obama follow up by publicly declaring “red lines” for when America’s patience with Iran wears out? Will he secretly promise an American attack on the nuclear facilities, say, after Election Day?

Or will he call Netanyahu’s “bluff” and tell him to stuff it?

At the best of times, Obama and Netanyahu are more Odd Couple than Ozzie and Harriet. Can Felix and Oscar stay nice until Nov. 6?

Obama’s worried about his job; Netanyahu, his nation. Listening to the mullahs’ increasingly genocidal statements, Bibi has reasonably concluded that a nuclear Iran would threaten the existence of the Jewish state.

So he’ll act to stop it if and when he concludes that:

A) Iran is nearing nuclear capability.

B) Efforts by the “international community” won’t stop it.

C) America will never attack.

D) And the Israel Defense Force can significantly retard the Iranian nuke pursuit.

Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency moved the ball on the “capability” question, noting in its quarterly report that Iran’s nuclear program is accelerating. The UN watchdog also identified suspected military components of the program, which Iran is trying to conceal.

And the IAEA reported that Iran is fast relocating its enrichment efforts to Fordow, a facility buried deep in a rocky mountainside.

That’s significant for the IDF: Unlike the US military’s, Israel’s planes and bombs can’t reliably destroy Fordow, so its window for action is closing fast: If it acts, it must strike before the relocation is finished.

The global efforts to stop Iran may impress US diplomats, but Netanyahu says current sanctions have yet to change Iran’s nuclear calculations “one iota.”

Which leaves America. Obama says he’s got Israel’s back and that “all options are on the table,” but what to make of these dizzying headlines?

* Israel’s Yediot Ahronot reported this week that Obama secretly told Tehran (through European emissaries) that if Israel acts, it’d be without US approval, so please spare our troops in the Gulf. (White House spokesman Jay Carney denies it.)

* Last week, Yediot reported that Dan Shapiro, the US ambassador in Tel Aviv, erupted at Netanyahu as he complained about Obama’s Iran weakness during a Jerusalem meeting.(Shapiro calls the story “silly.”)

* Also last week, the Guardian reported that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, told London reporters that he didn’t want to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran. (No one’s denying the account.)

* Time is reporting this week that the US military is scaling back next month’s joint military exercises with Israel. (The Pentagon cites budget constraints).

* The New York Times reported Monday that “to calm Israel” the White House is weighing new Iran options. But sources say one measure — deploying a radar system in Qatar — is meant to signal to Iran that “even if” it develops a nuclear weapon, it would be “countered by antimissile system.”

That last item raises a huge question: What about Obama’s promise to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? “Containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option,” he said.

Netanyahu can be somewhat reassured after Obama’s Democrats yesterday reinstated language in their platform affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Yet the platform flip-flop still shows worrisome signs of erosion in what until very recently was strong bipartisan support of Israel.

So maybe we’ll be spared an October surprise. But whether Obama is re-elected or not, much of his legacy will hinge on that promise to stop Iran’s nukes. Even if he manages to “buy time” with Netanyahu, his own time to act is quickly running out.

Twitter: @bennyavni