The Entebbe Option – By Mark Perry | Foreign Policy.

How the U.S. military thinks Israel might strike Iran.

BY MARK PERRY | SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

While no one in the Barack Obama administration knows whether Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear program, America’s war planners are preparing for a wide array of potential Israeli military options — while also trying to limit the chances of the United States being drawn into a potentially bloody conflict in the Persian Gulf.

“U.S.-Israeli intelligence sharing on Iran has been extraordinary and unprecedented,” a senior Pentagon war planner told me. “But when it comes to actually attacking Iran, what Israel won’t tell us is what they plan to do, or how they plan to do it. It’s their most closely guarded secret.” Israel’s refusal to share its plans has persisted despite repeated requests from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a senior Pentagon civilian said.

The result is that, at a time of escalating public debate in both the United States and Israel around the possibility of an armed strike on Iran, high-level Pentagon war planners have had to “fly blind” in sketching out what Israel might do — and the challenges its actions will pose for the U.S. military.  “What we do is a kind of reverse engineering,” the senior planner said. “We take a look at their [Israeli] assets and capabilities, put ourselves in their shoes and ask how we would act if we had what they have. So while we’re guessing, we have a pretty good idea of what they can and can’t do.”

According to several high-level U.S. military and civilian intelligence sources, U.S. Central Command and Pentagon war planners have concluded that there are at least three possible Israeli attack options, including a daring and extremely risky special operations raid on Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow — an “Iranian Entebbe” they call it, after Israel’s 1976 commando rescue of Israeli hostages held in Uganda. In that scenario, Israeli commandos would storm the complex, which houses many of Iran’s centrifuges; remove as much enriched uranium as they found or could carry; and plant explosives to destroy the facility on their way out.

Centcom, which oversees U.S. military assets in the Middle East, has been given the lead U.S. role in studying the possible Israeli strike. Over the past year its officers have met several times at Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and with Fifth Fleet naval officers in Doha, Qatar, to discuss their conclusions, the sources say.

The military analysis of Israeli war plans has been taking place separate from — but concurrent with– the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence that the United States present Tehran with a “red line,” which, if crossed by Iran’s nuclear program, would trigger a U.S. military strike. “That’s a political question, not a war question,” the senior Pentagon war planner said. “It’s not in our lane. We’re assuming that an Israeli attack could come at any time.”

But it’s not clear that Israel, even with its vaunted military, can pull off a successful strike: Netanyahu may not simply want the United States on board politically; he may need the United States to join militarily. “All this stuff about ‘red lines’ and deadlines is just Israel’s way of trying to get us to say that when they start shooting, we’ll start shooting,” retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman told me. “Bottom line? We can do this and they can’t, because we have what the Israelis don’t have,” retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner said.

One thing is clear: the U.S. military, according to my sources, currently has no interest in a preventive strike. “The idea that we’ll attack with Israel is remote, so you can take that off your list of options,” former Centcom commander Joe Hoar told me. Nor will the United States join an Israeli attack once it starts, the senior U.S. planner said. “We know there are senior Iranians egging for a fight with us, particularly in their Navy,” a retired Centcom officer added. “And we’ll give them one if they want one, but we’re not going to go piling in simply because the Israelis want us to.”

That puts the military shoulder to shoulder with the president. Obama and the military may have clashed on other issues, like the Afghan surge, but when it comes to Iran, they are speaking with one voice: They don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, they don’t want Israel to start a war over it, and they don’t believe an Israeli attack should automatically trigger U.S. intervention. But, if they are to avoid becoming part of Israel’s plans, they first need to know what those plans are.

Three high-level U.S. military and intelligence sources have told me that Centcom has identified three options for Israel should it decide to take preventive military action against Iran.

The first and most predictable option calls for a massed Israeli Air Force bombing campaign targeting key Iranian nuclear sites. Such an assault would be coupled with strikes from submarine-launched cruise missiles and Israeli-based medium-range Jericho II and long-range Jericho III missiles, according to a highly placed U.S. military officer. The attack may well be preceded by — or coupled with — a coordinated cyber and electronic warfare attack.

But planners for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Centcom have concluded that, because of limits to Israel’s military capabilities, such an aerial campaign could not be sustained. “They’ll have one shot, one time,” the U.S. military officer said. “That’s one time out and one time back. And that’s it.”

While Israel has 125 sophisticated F15I and F16I fighter-bombers, only the roughly 25 F15Is are capable of carrying the bunker-busting GBU-28 guided missile, which has the best chance of destroying Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear installations. And even then, each F15I can only carry a single munition.

This force, while lethal, is also modest. The Israeli Air Force would likely have to carefully pick and choose its targets, settling most probably on four: the heavy-water production plant at Arak, the uranium-enrichment centers at Fordow and Natanz, and the uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan, while leaving out the military site at Parchin and the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which houses Russian technical experts.

The Israeli attack would also likely include the F16Is to knock down Iran’s air defense network, or perhaps drop other, less effective, bunker-busting munitions to reinforce the F15I sortie. Some of these F16Is, but not all of them, would be able to refuel from Israel’s seven to ten KC-707 tankers.

Even with that, and even with the best of luck (good weather, accurate targeting, sophisticated refueling, near total surprise, precise air-to-air interdiction, a minimum of accidents, and the successful destruction of Iran’s anti-aircraft capabilities), senior U.S. military officers say that Israel would only set back Iran’s nuclear capability by one to two years at best — not end it.

Which could be why Netanyahu is so anxious for the Obama administration to say when or if it would join an attack. As Hoar, the former Centcom commander, bluntly put it: “Compared to the United States, Israel doesn’t have a military.”

Included in the U.S. arsenal is the recently developed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the GBU-57, which can punch through 200 feet of hardened concrete before detonating its 5,300-pound warhead. The United States, which recently developed the GBU-57, is rumored to have only about 20 in its inventory — but the Israelis have zero. “There’s a good reason for that,” Gardiner said. “Only a B-2 bomber can carry the 57.” He paused for effect: “You might know this, but it’s worth mentioning,” he said. “Israel doesn’t have any B-2s.”

Israel’s likely inability to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity in a single stroke, even in a best-case scenario, has led U.S. war planners to speculate about a second, out-of-the-box, and extremely dangerous military option: what they’re calling an “Iranian Entebbe.”

In this scenario, the Israelis would forego a massed air attack and instead mount a high-risk but high-payoff commando raid that would land an elite Sayeret Matkal (special forces) unit outside of Iran’s enrichment facility at Fordow, near Qom. The unit — or other elite units like it — consisting of perhaps as many as 400 soldiers, would seize Iran’s enriched uranium for transport to Israel.

The operation’s success would depend on speed, secrecy, simplicity, and the credibility of Israeli intelligence. According to the Pentagon war planner, Israel’s access to intelligence on Iranian military and policy planning is unprecedented, as is their willingness to share it with U.S. intelligence officials.

The Israeli unit would be transported on as few as three and perhaps as many as six C-130 aircraft (which can carry a maximum of 70 troops) that would be protected by a “swarm” of well-armed F16Is, according to the scenario being considered by U.S. military officers. The C-130s would land in the desert near Fordow. The Israeli commandos would then defeat the heavily armed security personnel at the complex, penetrate its barriers and interdict any enemy units nearby, and seize the complex’s uranium for transport back to Israel. Prior to its departure, the commando unit would destroy the complex, obviating the need for any high-level bombing attack. (Senior U.S. military officers say that there are reports that some of the uranium at Fordow is stored as uranium hexafluoride gas, a chemical form used during the enrichment process. In that case, the material may be left in place when the commandos destroy the complex.)

“It’s doable, and they have to be thinking along these lines,” the highly placed U.S. military officer said. “The IDF’s special forces are the best asset Israel has.” That said, “In some scenarios,” the U.S. military planner who told me of the potentialoperation said, “there would be very high Israeli casualties because of nearby Republican Guard divisions. This operation could be quite bloody.”

Bloody or not, the Israeli leadership may not be quick to dismiss such an operation, given Israel’s history of using such units. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are former Sayeret Matkal officers, and recently Israeli Defense Forces head Benny Gantz (himself a Sayeret Matkal veteran) said the IDF had formed an elite special operations “Deep Corps” to strike far inside hostile territory. And, of course, it bears remembering that Netanyahu’s brother Yonatan was the sole casualty in Israel’s Entebbe operation.

The difficulty with the Entebbe-style option is that Israel would be forced to mount “a robust CSAR [combat search and rescue] capability” to support it, a senior JCS planner noted.That would mean landing other C-130s carrying helicopters that could pick up endangered commandos or retrieve downed aircraft crews. Such CSAR units would have to be deployed to nearby countries, “or even land in the Iraqi desert,” this senior officer said.This CSAR component complicates what might otherwise be a straightforward operation, as it involves other vulnerabilities — an “escalatory ladder” that Israel may not want to climb.

Skeptics of this option include Admiral Inman. “The Israelis could get to Entebbe,” he said, “but they can’t get to Iran. My sense is that the fact that the Israelis are even thinking about this operation shows that they realize that their first, bombing option won’t work. They’re desperately grasping for a military solution, and they know they don’t have one.”

But Colonel Gardiner believes this Entebbe-style operation is possible. “It’s a non-escalatory option, it’s entirely doable, and it’s not as dangerous as it seems,” he said. “We have to understand what Israel’s goal is in any attack on Iran. The whole point for Israel is to show that they can they can project power anywhere in the region. So let’s take a look at this from their perspective. There aren’t three divisions near Fordow, there’s one, and it’s dug in. It wouldn’t take the Iranians three hours to respond, it would take them three days. This reminds me of Osirak [the Iraqi nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in a 1981 airstrike]. The last ones who wanted to admit that the Israelis did that were the Iraqis. That’ll be the case here. The Iranians will be embarrassed. It has appeal. It makes sense. If it’s simple, if it’s done fast, if it’s in and out. It could work.”

A third operation is less exotic, but perhaps most dangerous of all: regime decapitation. “The Israelis could just take out the Iranian leadership,” the senior Pentagon war planner said. “But they would only do that as a part of an air strike or a commando raid.”The downside of a decapitation strike is that it would not end Iran’s nuclear program; the upside is that it would almost certainly trigger an Iranian response targeting U.S. military assets in the region, as it would leave the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces in charge of the country. It would be the one sure way, U.S. officers with whom I spoke believe, for Israel to get the United States involved in its anti-Iran offensive, with the U.S. mounting operations in a conflict it didn’t start.

How would the U.S. military respond to an Iranian attack? “It depends,” the Pentagon planner said. “If the Iranians harass us, we can deal with it, but if they go after one of our capital ships, then all bets are off.” Even so, a U.S. response would not involve a full-scale, costly land war against the Tehran regime, but rather a long-term air interdiction campaign to erode Iranian military capabilities, including its nuclear program,the planner said.

But a decapitation campaign would deepen the rift between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government. The war talk in Jerusalem has already eroded the views of many senior U.S. military officers who were once strongly committed to Israel, but who now quietly resent Netanyahu’s attempt to pressure the United States into a war that it doesn’t want. “Our commitment to Israel has been as solid as with any ally we’ve ever had, and a lot of officers are proud of that,” Lt. General Robert Gard, a retired Army officer, said. “But we’ve done it so that they can defend themselves. Not so they can start World War III.”

This U.S. distaste for involvement in an Israeli strike has been percolating for some time. In March, the New York Times detailed a Centcom war game dubbed “Internal Look,” in which the United States was “pulled into” a regional conflict in the wake of an Israeli attack. The results “were particularly troubling” to Gen. James Mattis, the Centcom commander. Among its other conclusions, “Internal Look” found that Iranian retaliation against U.S. military assets could result in “hundreds of U.S. deaths,” probably as the result of an Iranian missile attack on a U.S. naval vessel.The simulation, as well as Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, suggest why Mattis requested that the White House approve the deployment of a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf.

But while Mattis was worried about the Iranians, he was also worried about Israel, whose saber-rattling he views with discomfort, his closest colleagues say. “Internal Look” not only showed that the results of an Israeli attack were unpredictable, as the Times reported, but, according to a Pentagon official, it also showed that the less warning the United States has of an Israeli attack, the greater the number of casualties the United States will suffer. “The more warning we have, the fewer American lives we’ll lose,” a Pentagon civilian familiar with U.S. thinking on the issue told me. “The less warning, the more deaths.”

According to another senior Pentagon official, Obama and Gen. Martin Dempsey “have discussed in detail” the likelihood of an Israeli attack. As early as the autumn of 2011, when Dempsey became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama told him that the United States would “neither help nor hinder” an Israeli strike, this official said. While Obama’s closely guarded formulation hasn’t made it into the American press, his words are common knowledge among Israeli officials and had appeared just six months after Obama took office, in July 2009, in a prominent editorial in the pro-Netanyahu daily Israel Hayom.

Obama, the editorial stated, “will try to have a dialogue with Iran” while knowing that such an effort will probably not succeed. Obama “would prefer that there be no Israeli attack but is unprepared to accept responsibility for Israel’s security if he fails [in a diplomatic dialogue] and the U.S. prevents Israel from attacking,” the editorial added. “Thus it arises that while Israel has no green light to attack Iran, it does not have a red light either. The decision is Israel’s. The U.S. will neither help nor hinder.”

Nevertheless, the U.S. military fears that Iran will assume the United States has approved an Israeli strike, even if it hasn’t — and will target U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf.That may be why Dempsey told a roundtable of London reporters in August that he did not want to appear “complicit” in an Israeli attack. The remark touched off speculation that the United States was softening its stance toward Tehran or pressuring Israel to back away from using military force. In fact, nothing had changed: Dempsey was explicitly telling Iran that any Israeli attack would not have the approval or the help of the United States.So while Israel waited for Obama to explain or correct Dempsey’s statement, no clarification was forthcoming. “Dempsey knew exactly what he was saying,” the highly placed military officer said, “and he wouldn’t have said it without White House approval.” After a moment, he added: “Everything the military says has to be cleared, and I mean everything.”

Those outside the U.S. government who follow these issues closely agree. “The administration’s message has been remarkably consistent,” U.S.-Iran expert and author Trita Parsi said. “We always hear about how America believes war is ‘the last resort,’ but in this case, President Obama really means it.”

Gard, the retired Army officer, agreed: “It’s clear to me that President Obama will do everything he can to stop Iran from getting a bomb,” he said. “But no president will allow another country to decide when to shed American blood. Not even Israel.” Gard has a reputation as a military intellectual, has led several initiatives of retired military officers on defense issues, and is a useful barometer of serving officers’ views on sensitive political controversies. “There is a general disdain in our military for the idea of a preventive war,” he said, “which is what the Israelis call their proposed war on Iran.”

George Little, the Pentagon spokesperson, provided this statement: “The United States is prepared to address the full range of contingencies related to potential security threats in the Middle East. But it’s flatly untrue — and pure speculation — to suggest that we have definitively ruled anything in or out for scenarios that have not taken place. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel are in complete agreement about the necessity of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Still, according to a respected retired military officer who consults with the Pentagon — and who speaks regularly with senior Israeli military officers — Israel’s political elite is likely to be surprised by Obama and the U.S. military’s response should Israel launch a preventive attack on Iranian nuclear sites. “If Israel starts a war,” this retired officer said, “America’s first option will be to stop it. To call for a ceasefire. And, by the way, that’s also our second and third option. We’ll do everything we can to keep the war from escalating. We’ll have 72 hours to do that. After that, all bets are off.”

Guessing Israel’s Iran Plans « Commentary Magazine.

Seth Mandel | @SethAMandel 09.28.2012 – 12:55 PM

Now the rhetoric on Iran must be translated ‘into practice,’ Netanyahu says | The Times of Israel.

Day after his UN cartoon bomb speech, PM claims his red-line message is ‘reverberating around the world’

NEW YORK — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday reinforced his call to stop Iran’s race toward nuclear weapons, saying that the nearly universal consensus on the Iranian question needs to be put “into practice.”

It is important to “translate the agreement and principle of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons to practice,” Netanyahu said at a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “In practice, that means setting red lines on their enrichment process. It’s their only discernible and vulnerable part of their nuclear program.”

“I think that if such red lines are set, I believe that Iran will back off,” he added.

A spokesman for the prime minister told reporters: “The Iranian leadership needs to understand in clear and certain terms that there are actions by them that will cause a reaction by the international community that will not be in their interest.”

Netanyahu said his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday “reverberates now around the world” and is being widely discussed.

At his much-covered speech, Netanyahu set a red line for Iran, and underlined the demand by literally drawing it onto a cartoon bomb. He asserted that the regime, if unhindered, will move to the final stage of uranium enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon “by next spring, at most by next summer.”

On Thursday afternoon, after his speech, Netanyahu met with UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

“The meeting with Clinton was a pure one-on-one meeting,” an Israeli official said, adding that no advisers were present; no direct quotes from the meeting were released.

“They had an in-depth discussion on Iran, and reaffirmed that the United States and Israel share the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,’ a senior US State Department official told reporters about the meeting with Clinton. “They agreed that we will continue our close consultation and cooperation toward achieving that goal.”

With Ban Ki-moon, Netanyahu discussed several issues, including Iran, Syria, and the prospects of peace with the Palestinians, an official said.

Originally, Netanyahu was also scheduled to meet with European Union foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton, but the meeting was cancelled a few days ago, reportedly because of scheduling difficulties.

On Friday morning, Netanyahu’s meeting with Harper was also off-limits to reporters, with only a photo-op after the meeting.

High-ranking diplomats and community leaders did attend, including Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, and his deputy Haim Waxman; one of Prosor’s predecessors, Dan Gillerman; former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton; and Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations head Malcolm Hoenlein.

After his meeting with Harper, the prime minister gave interviews to Israeli television stations, which will be aired on Saturday night.

Later on Friday, the prime minister was scheduled to speak by phone with US President Barack Obama.

The relationship between the two leaders is currently tense — notably over the issue of the timing and urgency of thwarting Iran. Obama’s office rebuffed Netanyahu’s request for a face-to-face meeting with the president on this trip. Netanyahu’s staff suggested that the prime minister travel to Washington to accommodate Obama, but the White House would not arrange a meeting, citing scheduling difficulties.

Netanyahu was also reportedly set to speak Friday with Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney.

Earlier Friday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reiterated the goal that “the US and Israel and the international community can work together” to prevent Iran attaining a nuclear weapon — “hopefully” through peaceful means.

Israel Hayom | A sigh of relief at the White House.

Dan Margalit

White House: Obama, Netanyahu to talk – UPI.com.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (UPI) — President Obama will likely phone Israel’s premier Friday, a day after Binyamin Netanyahu thanked him for warning Iran about nuclear arms, the White House said.

Netanyahu was to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New York Thursday evening, “and I expect the president will have a follow-up phone call with the prime minister probably Friday,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a rare instance of the White House previewing a call with a foreign leader.

Some critics have said Obama snubbed the Israeli leader by not meeting with him in person. The White House denied the allegation. Officials also denied Israeli media reports saying Obama refused an Israeli request for a meeting with Netanyahu in Washington, saying such a request was never made.

The two leaders have had a public dispute over how to confront Iran over its nuclear program.

But Netanyahu Thursday thanked Obama before the U.N. General Assembly for a warning Obama gave Iran in his own General Assembly speech Tuesday.

Obama said he would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and said time was running out before Washington would consider options beyond diplomacy and sanctions to ensure Iran doesn’t obtain nuclear arms.

“I very much appreciate the president’s position, as does everyone in my country,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli leader emphasized Israel’s solidarity with the United States, saying, “Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.”

His remarks were widely viewed as attempting to smooth over differences with the Obama administration over the urgency of what both countries view as an Iranian nuclear threat.

Netanyahu, who said Washington and Jerusalem were working toward a “common goal” on Iran, also said his deadline for a military strike was well past November’s U.S. presidential election — perhaps as late as next summer.

The White House and U.S. military planners had worried about a possible “October surprise” attack by Israel, The New York Times reported.

U.S., Israeli and European officials, supported by U.N. weapons inspectors, maintain Iran plans to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian uses only.

But in meetings with reporters and academics during the General Assembly, Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, refused to rule out the possibility Iran would continue producing 20 percent-enriched uranium, even though it has enough to run its medical reactor for six to 10 years, the Times said.

Twenty-percent enrichment puts Iran on the cusp of weapons-grade uranium.

UN inspectors in ‘… JPost – Iranian Threat – Opinion & Analysis.

Netanyahu meets US officials after UN speech – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Prime minister meets Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New York mayor after General Assembly speech. Michael Bloomberg says Netanyahu made compelling argument

Yitzhak Benhorin

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with senior US officials on Thursday after his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in which he stressed the need to draw a red line for Iran‘s nuclear program.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told Netanyahu that the citizens of Israel stood by New Yorkers after the September 11 attacks and stated that terrorists will never succeed in causing the people of Israel and the US to renounce their beliefs, values and way of life.

“I thought President Obama gave an excellent speech in the UN, and he was absolutely right to say that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons,” Bloomberg said before meeting with Netanyahu.

The New York mayor added that the prime minister made a compelling argument in explaining the need for a red line and expressed confidence that Washington and Jerusalem will shape a joint policy based on common interests.

Netanyahu and Bloomberg in New York (Photo: EPA)

Netanyahu on his part said that it was important “at this critical time” to be clear and determined in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon stressing this could be a turning point in history.

“We’re in close consultations with the United States about this issue, about how to practically prevent Iran from moving ahead, how to make them abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions,” Netanyahu said.

“I believe this can be achieved and we shall continue to work towards this goal,” he told Bloomberg.

Netanyahu and Clinton (Photo: Avi Ohayon, GPO)

Later on Thursday, Netanyahu met with US Secretary of State Hillary. “They had an in-depth discussion on Iran, and reaffirmed that the United States and Israel share the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” a senior State Department official said in a statement quoted by AFP.

“They agreed that we will continue our close consultation and cooperation toward achieving that goal.”

On Friday, Netanyahu is scheduled to talk to President Barack Obama over the phone.

Meanwhile, US officials expressed satisfaction with Netanyahu’s speech. US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said that the prime minister’s speech highlighted the fact that the US and Israel share a common goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and noted that Obama had “said the same things” at his own General Assembly speech two days earlier.

Earlier Thursday the White House stated that President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu share the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and will maintain close cooperation on the issue.

But the White House stopped short of saying Obama would give any ground on his resistance to setting a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program, even after the Israeli leader hammered on the need for such an ultimatum before the UN General Assembly.

AFP contributed to this report

White House irked by Netanyahu’s “red line” speech, reverts to Iran diplomacy.

DEBKAfile Special Report September 28, 2012, 7:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

Netanyahu’s red line shown to the UN

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for the powerful presentation of his case for confronting Iran with red lines instead of hitherto failed diplomacy and sanctions in his speech to the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27. This is reported by debkafile’s Washington sources.
Neither released a statement from their conversation of an hour and a quarter one-on-one shortly after the speech.
Our sources report that Clinton made it clear that President Barack Obama would not tolerate the Israeli prime minister having a say in his Iran agenda. He remained committed to diplomacy regardless of Netanyahu’s warning that it was getting “late, very late” to stop a nuclear Iran.
Clinton accordingly announced a decision by the world powers to go into another round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, although after the breakdown of diplomacy in July, they expected an improved Iranian offer. EU foreign executive Catherine Ashton was directed to get in touch with Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalilee for another attempt to set up talks, although when the two officials met in Istanbul on Sept. 18, they made no headway.
debkafile: US steps early Friday Sept. 28 put the clock back five days to Monday when Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s advocacy of agreed red lines for warning Iran off its nuclear bomb program as “background noises” which he systematically blocked. This reversal came after White House and Israeli officials had begun discussing moving the critical timeline for that program to late spring, early summer 2013, instead of this year.
debkafile reported earlier:

Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27  Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer of 2013.
He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.
The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its program,” he said.

Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together.”
He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring world peace, the prime minister remarked.
debkafile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.
He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness. Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation, leads the team.
Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran following negotiations with the White House on the next agreed steps. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.
According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded to delay by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That timeline extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.
However, we have learned that Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate.  Netanyahu, in his speech, confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof. He was referrng to the Pentagon claim that when Iran was ready to build a bomb, American intelligence would know about it in good time.

Netanyahu’s cartoon wasn’t meant for world leaders, and not even for Obama | The Times of Israel.

Netanyahu is hoping to convince the American voter that Iran is as immediate a threat as he believes it to be. And through the voter, maybe even Obama himself

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shows an illustration as he describes his concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions during his address to the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN Headquarters on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012. (photo credit: Richard Drew/AP)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a torrent of ridicule Thursday when he unfolded before the General Assembly of the United Nations a cartoon bomb and drew a red line on it with a marker he pulled from his pocket.

It was a gimmick that ignited a wave of scorn and “Looney Tunes” jokes on social media sites.

Even some supporters of Israel, such as American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, bemoaned Netanyahu’s use of the cartoon.

@JeffreyGoldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg

Okay, it’s official: #Netanyahu has no idea what he’s doing. He has just turned a serious issue into a joke.

about 7 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

But the image of the Israeli prime minister drawing with a bright red marker before the assembled delegates of the General Assembly – the very image mocked and belittled by pundits, observers and activists – was not meant for the delegates in the hall, or the journalists on Twitter.

Netanyahu’s speech was not even meant for US President Barack Obama, who may ultimately decide the fate of the Iranian nuclear program.

Instead, Netanyahu was speaking over Obama’s head, directly to the American president’s employer and boss: the American voter.

In the wake of his open disagreement with the US president in recent weeks over the timeline for stopping the Iranian nuclear program, Netanyahu has been accused – not least by leading Democratic members of the House of Representatives – of inserting himself into the American presidential election on the side of Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Netanyahu has argued that the timing for his public calls for an American “red line” on Iran is unconnected to the American “electoral calendar,” but rather is driven by the Iranian “nuclear calendar.” Iran, he argued before the General Assembly on Thursday, will be able to build a nuclear weapon by next year.

But it was hard on Thursday to listen to Netanyahu’s speech – delivered in English, couched in simple language full of references to the Bible and Jewish history, and accompanied by what may be the most childish prop ever brought into the General Assembly general debate – and not see his words as intended for American popular consumption.

In fact, in making the case that Iran’s regime is dangerous – too dangerous to be trusted with nuclear weapons – some of the examples offered by Netanyahu clearly pointed to his intended audience.

“Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons… They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. … In the last year, they’ve spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They’ve even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.”

A rumor among journalists suggested – though no source could confirm on Thursday – that Netanyahu was asked by the American administration to thank President Obama for his own rhetoric on Iran in his speech. It is, after all, campaign season.

If the rumor is true, Netanyahu disappointed, giving no ground to indicate he saw eye to eye with the US president.

“Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained,” he began. And while he noted, “I very much appreciate the President’s position as does everyone in my country,” he would only say that “Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.”

In fact, he offered a hinted admonishment, explaining to the American president, “What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved.”

In simple language, Netanyahu then laid out a beginner’s explanation of his position:

“Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it. The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder,” he explained.

“In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator. For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.”

Since for Iran it “takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb,” and the enrichment must take place “in very big industrial plants,” during the enrichment phase, Iran’s program is “vulnerable.”

However, if Iran completes enrichment and is left with only a detonator to build – a device that can be manufactured “in a small workshop the size of a classroom” in a country “bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined” – it will be impossible to locate and destroy the program at that point.

“The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb,” Netanyahu concluded.

Netanyahu’s speech was aired, at least in part, on US cable networks. While pundits mocked, millions of Americans heard a simple, clear argument that Iran was quickly reaching a point when its nuclear program would be beyond the reach of Western intervention.

Netanyahu is electioneering. Whether he is actively working to undermine Obama’s Jewish support and bolster Romney’s candidacy is unclear. But there is little doubt he is using the few weeks left till election day, when a second-term Obama will likely not be as attentive or interested in what he has to say, to drill his point home at every opportunity.

Netanyahu is hoping to convince the American voter that Iran is as immediate a threat as he believes it to be. And through the voter, maybe even Obama himself.

Op-ed: Can Bibi finally overcome his tendency to procrastinate and do what must be done vis-à-vis Iran?

Yoel Meltzer

Published: 09.27.12, 21:28 / Israel Opinion

With the Iranian issue coming to a head, it’s both ironic and a bit worrisome that the weight of the fateful decision is resting squarely on the soldiers of Benjamin Netanyahu. For despite his enormous potential – intelligent, charismatic, superb oratory skills, in-depth knowledge of economic issues – and despite the fact that he’s been given chance after chance to be the type of Jewish leader that is so desperately lacking in Israel, Netanyahu has repeatedly failed to act at precisely those moments where his actions might have propelled the Jewish State in a very different and most likely healthier direction.

For starters, when he was first elected prime minister in 1996 there was anticipation amongst many in Israel that the newly elected Likud premier would stop the Oslo process, which the previous Labor government had initiated a few years earlier. However, rather than acting forcefully to halt an obviously irresponsible political gamble, one which included such insanities as arming Arafat’s “police force” in return for his solemn promise that the weapons would not be used against us, the new prime minister not only failed to stop the Oslo train but he even gave it a push by handing over control of nearly all of the ancient city of Hebron to the Palestinians. Thus a golden opportunity to stop Oslo early on, preventing much of the damage and destruction it eventually caused the Jewish state, was missed.

Then a few years later when all eyes from the right were focused on Netanyahu, waiting for the only man who was believed capable of stopping Ariel Sharon and his Disengagement Plan to finally take charge and lead the revolt, Netanyahu once again failed to live up to expectations and meekly backed down. Thus with no one left to stop Sharon the plan was eventually implemented and roughly 10,000 Jews were thrown out of their homes and into a life of misery, while the Gaza Strip was transformed into one of the largest missile launching pads in the world.

Even now, during his second stint as prime minister, one in which he has been rewarded with a coalition very much to his liking, Netanyahu has continued to shy away from taking decisive action on certain key issues, perhaps most notably vis-à-vis the State Attorney’s office and its total disregard for the government in issues related to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.

Although his propensity to avoid taking a stand on issues which would require him to directly oppose various elements of the establishment has irritated many, on the issue of Iran, and regardless of what they’ll say about him in the New York Times, Netanyahu can no longer procrastinate. Even the United Nations, not exactly a good friend of Israel, has recently stated that by February 2013 Iran will have everything that is required to build a nuclear bomb.

Heavenly justice

True, many will say that having the necessary parts and the ability to build a bomb is not yet a bomb and therefore Israel should not take unilateral action. Of course many of these same people were also big supporters of Oslo and the Gaza Disengagement, political undertakings that led to the death of many Israelis and which in retrospect were based upon assumptions that were clearly wrong. Additionally, some of the statements against unilateral Israeli action are coming from people, many even with good intentions, who are living in countries very far from Israel and from any direct threat from Iran. Whatever the case, for the most part such voices should be discounted, and I can only hope that Netanyahu is not being influenced by them.

Likewise, any opposition to Israeli action from President Obama, the man whose naïve policies have empowered extremist forces in the Arab/Islamic world, or from Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State who displayed her total lack of understanding of the Arab/Islamic world with her recent “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate?” comment, should not stop Israel from doing what is in its best interest.

At the end of the day, Netanyahu is going to have to make a decision and make it soon. Moreover, he will have to do this without the comfort of relying on the United States. Perhaps in some way this is heavenly justice, since for years Israeli leaders have been saying “never again”, meaning that we will never again sit back and passively be slaughtered while waiting for the world to help us, while in reality Israeli leaders for years have been shying away from taking bold action in dealing with various threats and instead have increasingly turned time and again to the United States and the rest of the international community for help.

Although the result of an Israeli strike, either alone or with the United States, will possibly mean war, the cost of Israeli inaction might be far worse. This is certainly clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The question is whether he will finally rise to the occasion and overcome his tendency of failing to act.

Yoel Meltzer is a freelance writer living in Jerusalem. He can be contacted via yoelmeltzer.com

via Decision time – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.