Jerusalem official accuses White House of lying about requested Netanyahu-Obama meeting | The Times of Israel.

( i.e. “F—- you, Obama!  You won’t meet us but won’t admit it?!  We’ll win the war.
On the ground and in the court of public opinion.”  – JW )

Despite US denials, senior official insists the prime minister asked to see Obama on sidelines of UN General Assembly

President Barack Obama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, DC in March (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

The Israeli government on Wednesday accused the White House of lying by denying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had requested to meet US President Barack Obama later this month in the US.

The accusation will likely serve to further escalate diplomatic tensions between the two countries, which have ramped up in recent days.

“We requested a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York and also suggested that the prime minister could come to Washington,” for a meeting, a senior government official in Jerusalem told the German DPA news agency on Wednesday.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor had said earlier that no such request was made or rejected.

On Tuesday evening, after reports surfaced claiming Obama refused to meet Netanyahu during his short US trip later this month — reportedly due to a scheduling issue — it seemed like bilateral relations were headed toward a serious crisis.

But later that night, the president called Netanyahu and the two leaders spoke for about an hour, seemingly calming the situation.

According to a statement the White House published after the conversations, Netanyahu and Obama agreed to continue holding “close consultations” regarding the Iranian nuclear program in the future.

Both Jerusalem and Washington fear that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons and agree the regime should be prevented from reaching their goal. The two governments differ regarding the means to achieve that, though. While Netanyahu seems to favor a preemptive military strike some time soon, Obama wants to first exhaust diplomacy and sanctions aimed at convincing Iran to give up on its nuclear ambitions.

Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu launched an unprecedentedly bitter attack on the US administration, saying that countries that refused to set deadlines for Iran to give up its nuclear program have no right to tell Israel to hold back on taking preemptive military action to thwart the regime’s nuclear ambitions.

“The world tells Israel to wait because there is still time. And I ask: Wait for what? Until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,” Netanyahu said.

His statement constituted a harsh rebuttal of comments made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said on Sunday that the US will currently not set deadlines or give ultimatums regarding Tehran’s refusal to curb its nuclear program.

Iran’s Electoral Strategy by Mehdi Khalaji – Project Syndicate.

12 September 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have again hit a wall, but the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appears unconcerned. Indeed, Khamenei seems convinced that neither the United States nor Israel will attack its nuclear facilities – at least not before the US presidential election in November. 

Ironically, while Khamenei is no fan of democracy, he relies on the fact that his principal enemies are bound by democratic constraints. Khamenei controls Iran’s nuclear program and its foreign policy, but the US and Israel must work to reach consensus not only within their respective political systems, but also with each other.

Iran’s leaders, who closely follow Israeli political debates, believe that Israel would not launch an assault on their nuclear facilities without America’s full cooperation, because unilateral action would jeopardize Israel’s relations with its most important strategic ally. Given that an Israeli offensive would need to be coordinated with the US, while an American assault would not require Israeli military support, Iran would consider both to be American attacks.

But Iran’s leaders remain skeptical of either scenario, despite America’s official position that “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. So far, they simply do not feel enough pressure to consider a compromise. In fact, Iran’s leaders continue to deride Israel from afar, calling the country an “insult to humanity,” or a “tumor” in the region that must be eradicated.

Meanwhile, Iran’s citizens – including clergy in the holy city of Qom, near the Fordow nuclear facility – are deeply concerned about the consequences of an attack. Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a former attorney general and a religious authority (marja’), has asked the government to refrain from provoking Israel.

Indeed, critics of the government believe that its incendiary rhetoric might lead to a devastating war. But, from the perspective of Iran’s leadership, the taunting has tactical value to the extent that it reinforces the view among the Israeli public that Iran is a dangerous enemy, willing to retaliate fiercely.

In fact, anti-Israel rhetoric reflects Iranian leaders’ confidence that Israel will not attack – a view that is bolstered by the situation in Syria. They are convinced that, even if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime falls, Iran will be able to destabilize the country in such a way that would pose a major security threat to Israel. According to this view, it is Israel that has an interest in refraining from further antagonizing Iran, not vice versa.

Recent editorials in Kayhan – the hardline Iranian newspaper that serves as a mouthpiece for the Supreme Leader – indicate that Khamenei is looking forward to the US presidential election. Regardless of the outcome, he foresees no threat of military action, at least through next year. A victory by Obama would reinforce America’s unwillingness to attack Iran and renewed efforts to rein in Israel. And, if Republican challenger Mitt Romney is elected, he will need months to form his national security team and assemble his cabinet, leaving him unable to attack Iran immediately.

That said, since the Islamic Republic’s emergence in 1979, Iran’s leaders have generally preferred Republican presidents to Democrats: despite their harsh rhetoric, Republicans have been more willing to engage with Iran in practice. Indeed, given that Iran has so far survived severe international sanctions, its leaders believe that they could get an offer from the US after the election – particularly if Romney wins – that recognizes their right to enrich uranium.

In fact, it is far from certain that Iran will be able to withstand current sanctions-related pressures indefinitely. But its leaders’ confidence that they can remains a crucial element of their strategy, and the West cannot afford to ignore their perceptions. America, whether led by Obama or Romney, must understand that Iran will not negotiate seriously on its nuclear program until it perceives a clear, convincing, and unified consensus in the US and Israel on an approach that addresses both Iran’s ambitions and Israel’s concerns.

Achieving such a consensus in the context of an American presidential election will be no small feat. Nor is it easy to create consensus in Israel, especially as its political parties prepare for elections next year. But only with significantly greater cohesion within the US and Israel will Iran’s leaders even consider accepting a compromise on their nuclear program.

How Syria Might Unleash War between Israel and Iran – The Daily Beast.

In an exclusive interview, a former Mossad chief lays out how Assad threatens the entire Middle East. By Dan Ephron.

by Dan Ephron  | September 12, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

The former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is warning that Israel and Iran may be headed to war over Iran’s increasing military aid to Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Ephraim Halevy said Iran has extended its patronage to the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad, sending weapons and soldiers to help quash an 18-month-long revolt against Assad’s regime.

Israel shares a 45-mile long border with Syria that has been quiet for decades. But Halevy said the presence of Iranian troops just across that border heightens tensions between the two countries—tensions that are already elevated over Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Iranians are becoming ever more involved in Syria and it’s reaching proportions beyond the imagination,” said Halevy, who headed Mossad from 1998 to 2002 and later served as director of Israel’s National Security Council.

“This brings Israel and Iran in danger of a direct military confrontation in Syria,” he said. “It’s not to say that Israel seeks it, or Iran seeks it, but when you have such hatred spewed from Tehran towards Jerusalem, I don’t trust the Iranian capability to control what’s going on there.”

The Syrian conflict, which has spiraled into a civil war with sectarian overtones, has already claimed the lives of more than 26,000 people, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Halevy would not specify what events in Syria could lead to war. But Israeli analysts have raised concerns about everything from a Syrian attack on Israel—aimed at deflecting attention from Assad’s brutal crackdown on protesters—to the transfer of Syrian chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both scenarios take into account the possibility that Iranian troops or advisers in Syria might direct the events.

Iran has denied helping Assad. But American officials have also raised concerns about aid flowing from Iran to Syria, with three U.S. senators saying last week that Iraq was allowing its airspace to be used for the transfers.

“The Iranians have been so explicit, so clear about their unyielding support for the murderous Assad regime,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said last week. “All of this destructive assistance should stop, whether it’s materiel, whether it’s direct training and assistance to help stage manage the repression.”

Israel has fought three wars with Syria since 1948 and continues to occupy the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau it captured from Damascus in 1967. But the border between the two countries has remained calm since the separation of forces agreement that followed the 1973 war.

Syrian leaders have generally preferred to lash out at Israel through proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Halevy’s remarks are especially worrying given that Israel is already contemplating a possible strike on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, where much of the world believes the Islamic republic is developing nuclear weapons.

Iran describes its nuclear program as peaceful.

Halevy said the aid to Syria adds a possible trigger point for conflict. “The nuclear issue is compounded now,” he said.

The Obama administration has raised the pressure on Israel in recent weeks not to strike at Iran, arguing that increasingly harsh sanctions could still persuade the country to dismantle the program.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describes the sanctions as ineffective and wants assurances from Obama that the U.S. will use military force if Iran continues enriching uranium.

“The world tells Israel ‘wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’” Netanyahu told reporters today. “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

The Iran issue has further strained relations between Netanyahu and Obama. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Tuesday that Obama declined an Israeli request to meet Netanyahu at a U.N. conference in New York later this month.

‘The Iranians are becoming ever more involved in Syria and it’s reaching proportions beyond the imagination.’

Netanyahu says Iran is quickly moving its nuclear facilities deep underground and, in a matter of weeks or months, would no longer be vulnerable to an Israeli attack. But an Israeli source familiar with security assessments at the highest levels, said some top intelligence officials dispute Netanyahu’s estimate, believing the window for an Israeli attack extends well into next year. The source, who did not want to be named discussing sensitive deliberations, said top intelligence officials have debated the issue at recent meetings.

Several key Israeli political and military figures—including President Shimon Peres—have spoken out against attacking Iran without American support. Most rank and file Israelis agree, according to opinion polls.

Among Americans, some 70 percent think Washington should not strike at Iran without approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a poll (PDF) published this week.

Time mag’s Joe Kline makes Chamberlain seem like Churchill. – YouTube.

( Been watching the MSM’s coverage of the murder of our ambassador and the refusal by Obama to meet with Netanyahu.  Yikes! 

“Phasers on ‘weasel’ !”  – JW )

–

Jimmy Carter urges Obama not to ‘draw a line in the sand’ for Iran’s nuclear program | The Times of Israel.

Former US president says American influence in the Mideast waning, US electoral process ‘corrupt’

Former US president Jimmy Carter (photo credit: Abir Sultan/Flash90)

The United States, Carter said in an appearance at the Carter Center in Atlanta, has “less influence” over Middle East nations and diplomacy in the region than it has had at any time since Israel was established as a nation-state in 1948.

“Our country’s government has basically abandoned the effort” for peace in the region, Carter said, adding that he still supports a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel.

He said he hopes Israel resists any urge to strike Iran “on its own,” and he discouraged Obama from drawing a “line in the sand” that Iran would almost certainly cross.

The former president said he believed the civil war in Syria would worsen as other nations in the region flood the participants with weapons. “There is little hope of good things coming out of Syria any time soon,” he said.

However, the brunt of Carter’s speech was devoted to a scathing indictment of his country’s presidential election process, which he charged was shot through with “financial corruption” that threatened American democracy.

“We have one of the worst election processes in the world right in the United States of America, and it’s almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money,” he said.

Obama slams ‘outrageous’ Libya attack th… JPost – International.

( Because it’s a religion it’s above criticism?!  Ever hear of “freedom of speech?”  This is an American president saying this… Where am I?  – JW )

Photo: reuters

IAEA to Soften Iran Rebuke, Stress Need for Peaceful Deal – Businessweek.

Muhammad Movie Trailer – YouTube.

The US ambassador was murdered because of “this ? !”

It is time to put an end to radical Islam once and for all.

! ! ! אליי קרב

–

Analysis: Obama, Netanyahu both find themselves in a tight spot.

Aanalysis: Obama, Netanyahu both find themselves in a tight spot
Posted: Wednesday, 12 September 2012 07:10AM

By Arshad Mohammed and Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu appear to have landed in a place neither wanted to be: squabbling about Iran, in public, ahead of a U.S. presidential election.

For the Democratic U.S. president, the dispute risks alienating supporters of Israel in a campaign in which Republican nominee Mitt Romney is eager to drive a wedge between Obama and Jewish voters, and to portray the president as weak.

For Netanyahu, who prides himself on his grasp of U.S. politics, it may further underline the disconnect with his nation’s ally over the imminence of the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran and the advisability of an Israeli strike to prevent it.

The U.S.-Israeli rift, among the deepest in recent decades, has bubbled barely below the surface for over a year, but broke into the open on Tuesday.

In recent weeks, Netanyahu had begun demanding that Obama set “red lines” that Iran must not cross in its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Washington has made clear, in not so subtle diplomatic code, that it is not ready to take such a step – and did not appreciate the advice.

Then on Tuesday, Netanyahu went a diplomatic step further, suggesting the United States had no right to try to stop Israel from using force against Iran.

“The world tells Israel ‘Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?'” Netanyahu, speaking in English, told a news conference in Jerusalem.

“Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,” he added.

Hours later, an Israeli official said Obama had rejected Netanyahu’s request for a meeting in the United States later this month – a fact sure to be read as a snub in Israel. The White House disputed that version of events, saying Netanyahu never sought a meeting in Washington and it never rejected one.

WHITE HOUSE DENIES NETANYAHU SOUGHT MEETING

In an apparent effort to smooth over the disagreement, the White House said late on Tuesday that Obama and Netanyahu spoke by telephone for an hour – which would be a long chat for two world leaders.

“President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed that they are united in their determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and agreed to continue their close consultations going forward,” the White House said.

While loathe to discuss the dispute, U.S. officials said they have labored to try to stay on the same page with Israel on Iran, with the secretaries of state and defense and the White House national security adviser all making trips to Israel.

The central issues between the two countries are how much time to allow for a possible diplomatic solution to end Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons, whether a military strike could durably neutralize Iran’s program and, if so, whether such a strike should be undertaken by Israel or the United States.

Iran denies that it is seeking nuclear weapons, saying its atomic program is solely for peaceful purposes such as power generation and medical uses.

Middle East analysts said the most likely explanations for Netanyahu’s public argument for Obama to set “red lines” are to make a case for an eventual Israeli strike against Iran or to push the United States closer to embracing a military option.

“Even though I think it would be wrong of the president to set red lines, as the prime minister is insisting that he do, nevertheless, it’s very important to calm the Israelis down,” said Martin Indyk, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

“The most important person in this regard is Obama himself because he is the president and is therefore the best one to make it clear that he is absolutely true to his word that he has got their backs and he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” Indyk added.

“The best way for him to do that is for him to meet with the prime minister and come out and say it again,” he said. “It’s in the interests of everybody involved to provide Netanyahu with a ladder to climb down at this point and not meeting with the prime minister is a mistake even though it’s understandable.”

U.S., ISRAELI TENSIONS MAY RISE

Current and former members of the Israeli national security apparatus have publicly argued against an Israeli strike for now and a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces, Dan Halutz, rejected Netanyahu’s call for red lines.

“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk. Don’t put red lines,” Halutz told a Washington think tank.

Haim Malka, deputy director and senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the rift comes at a moment when Netanyahu appears to be losing public support in Israel for a unilateral strike against Iran.

Speaking before the White House issued its statement, Malka said it was not surprising that Obama might not be eager for a meeting.

“Netanyahu used strong language that questioned not just the strategic judgment of the administration but its moral judgment in approaching the Iranian nuclear issue,” he said.

“It’s hard to imagine that the administration would set up a meeting between the president and Netanyahu after such a strong verbal attack,” he added.

However, it is also conceivable the White House might judge it politic to arrange a meeting, if only to quell the impression of a rift and reduce the odds of it becoming an issue ahead of the November 6 election.

Accused by Republicans of showing weak support for Israel, Democrats last week resurrected language in their party platform declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel after Obama objected to its having been dropped from the document.

Negotiations between Iran and six major powers to find a diplomatic solution have gone nowhere and it is conceivable that U.S. and Israeli tensions may rise, particularly as Israel sees its window for a unilateral strike closing.

Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, said the United States could find itself in a more difficult position if Israel abandoned any thought of a strike on Iran.

“I think what would be worse for American-Israeli relations is if the Israelis say to the Americans: ‘OK, we’re not going to strike Iran. We’re going to assume you’re going to take care of this problem,'” he said.

“Then we get into a situation sometime next year when the Israelis think the Iranians are on the brink of having nuclear weapons and the Americans haven’t done anything. That’s going to be a really big crisis,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

US, Russia bridge differences on Iran at nuke meet | wishtv.com.

VIENNA (AP) — The United States and its Western allies have persuaded Russia and China to support a resolution critical of Iran’s nuclear defiance in hope of showing Israel that diplomacy is an alternative to military force in pressuring Tehran, diplomats said Wednesday.

The resolution, which demands that Iran stop activities that could be used to make nuclear arms, cannot be enforced by the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, even if approved by vote or consensus as expected Thursday. But with Israel increasingly floating force as an alternative to failed international efforts to curtail suspected Iranian nuclear activities, the document is significant in seeking to show world-power resolve in pursuing a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iran’s persistent calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, its development of missiles capable of striking Israel, and Iranian support for Arab militant groups.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. But it refuses foreign offers of reactor fuel if it stops making its own through uranium enrichment — a process that worries the international community because it could also be used to arm nuclear warheads.

Concerns also focus on IAEA suspicions that Iran has worked secretly on nuclear arms — allegations Iran dismisses as based on fabricated U.S. and Israeli intelligence.

With fears growing over the possibility of Israeli military attack and other diplomatic efforts on Iran deadlocked, diplomats told The Associated Press that a resolution supported by the six powers seeking to engage Tehran on its nuclear program had become a priority discussed at the highest level.

The text was agreed on only after consultations involving U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterparts in Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, said the diplomats, who demanded anonymity because the negotiating process was confidential.

While the four Western powers had no differences, it was unclear until Wednesday whether Russia and China — which Iran has relied on to blunt harsh U.N. and other sanctions — would agree to join in backing the resolution. The diplomats said that they were persuaded largely with the argument that a signal of big-power unity had to be sent to Israel.

A Russian diplomat refused on Wednesday to discuss how the accord about the resolution came about.

Russia and China have been inconsistent in backing such Western efforts in the past. While joining in a critical resolution at an IAEA meeting in November, they refused to do so in June.

That unity came at a price for the West, however, which had to settle for compromise language in the current text, made available to The AP outside the closed meeting.

While expressing “serious concern” over continued Iranian uranium enrichment in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, the six nations say they back the “inalienable right” of countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. That is a bow to arguments by Iran, an NPT signatory that it has a right to enrich.

The resolution “stresses” that the IAEA has not reported any nuclear material missing from Iran sites it is monitoring. Missing material could mean that Tehran is using it elsewhere for weapons purposes.

It only “notes” that the agency cannot conclude there is no hidden nuclear activity going on because of “lack of cooperation” by Iran on agency requests that it be given greater powers to monitor the country.

Washington considers any signal to Israel that diplomacy is working crucial amid signs of increased jitters by the Jewish state about Tehran’s nuclear progress.

Most recently, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized what he said was the world’s failure to spell out what would provoke a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The comments came in response to U.S. refusals in recent days to set “red lines” for Tehran.

Israeli officials say American politics do not factor into their thinking, but that the sense of urgency is so grave that the world cannot hold its breath until after the U.S. presidential election in November.

“The world tells Israel, ‘Wait. There’s still time,'” Netanyahu said Tuesday. “And I say: ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Also Tuesday, diplomats told The Associated Press that the U.N. atomic agency has received new and significant intelligence over the past month that Iran has advanced its work on calculating the destructive power of an atomic warhead through a series of computer models within the past three years.

The diplomats who spoke to the AP said the information came from Israel, the United States and at least two other Western countries. They demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss classified information member countries make available to the IAEA.