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.

via In unusual snub, Obama to avoid meeting Netanyahu | DefenceWeb.

In a highly unusual rebuff to a close ally as tensions escalated over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, the White House said President Barack Obama would not meet Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israeli prime minister’s U.S. visit later this month.

The apparent snub, coupled with Netanyahu’s sharpened demands for a tougher U.S. line against Iran, threatened to plunge U.S.-Israeli relations into crisis and add pressure on Obama in the final stretch of a tight presidential election campaign.

An Israeli official, who declined to be identified, said the White House had refused Netanyahu’s request to meet Obama when the Israeli leader visits the United States to attend the U.N. General Assembly, telling the Israelis, “The president’s schedule will not permit that.”

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor denied that Netanyahu had ever made such an overture – let alone that it had been spurned – insisting instead that the two leaders were attending the General Assembly on different days and would not be in New York at the same time, Reuters reports.

With U.S.-Israeli differences increasingly laid bare and allies of Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney seizing the chance to slam Obama over his Israel policy, the president phoned Netanyahu on Tuesday night.

Netanyahu has had a strained relationship with Obama, but they have met on all but one of his U.S. trips since 2009. The president was on a foreign visit when the prime minister came to the United States in November 2010.

By withholding a meeting, the Democratic president could alienate some Jewish and pro-Israel voters as he seeks a second term in the November 6 election. Romney has already accused Obama of being too tough on Israel and not hard enough on Iran.

Obama and Netanyahu, according to a White House summary of their call, reaffirmed a “united” determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to continue close consultations. But they mentioned nothing about the “red lines” Netanyahu wants Obama to set for Tehran.

Obama’s avoidance of a face-to-face meeting could signal U.S. displeasure with Netanyahu’s intensifying push a specific ultimatum to Iran. Obama aides say privately they believe Netanyahu favors Romney, a fellow conservative, although the Israeli leader has been cautious to avoid being seen interfering in the election campaign.

Word that the two men would not meet came on the same day that Netanyahu said the United States had forfeited its moral right to stop Israel from taking action against Iran’s nuclear program because it had refused to be firm with Tehran itself.

Netanyahu has argued that setting a clear boundary for Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and imposing stronger economic sanctions could deter Tehran from developing nuclear weapons and mitigate the need for military action.

In comments that appeared to bring the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran closer, Netanyahu took Washington to task for rebuffing his call to set a clear “red line” for Iran’s nuclear program, which has already prompted four rounds of U.N. sanctions.

“The world tells Israel, ‘Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?'” Netanyahu said.

“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, addressing a news conference with Bulgaria’s prime minister.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republican senators and critics of Obama’s foreign policy, said in a joint statement: “It is puzzling that the president can’t make time to see the head of state of one of America’s closest allies in the world.”

“If these reports are true, the White House’s decision sends a troubling signal to our ally Israel about America’s commitment at this dangerous and challenging time,” they said.

‘UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK’

The website of Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz called Netanyahu’s words “an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government”.

Iran makes no secret of its hostility to Israel, widely assumed to be the region’s only nuclear-armed power, but says its nuclear program is purely peaceful.

Netanyahu’s relations with Obama have been tense because of Iran and other issues, such as Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

But he has never framed his differences with Obama – who has pledged he will “always have Israel’s back” and has not ruled out military action against Iran if all else fails – in moral terms.

Obama has been seeking to shore up his advantage over Romney with Jewish voters – who could make a difference in election battleground states like Florida and Ohio – by stressing his support for Israel’s security. He received 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, but a nationwide Gallup poll in June showed him down to 64 percent backing versus Romney’s 29 percent.

While seeking to put Netanyahu in his place might not go down well with pro-Israel voters, the White House may also be trying to avoid an embarrassing encounter. When the two men met in the Oval Office in May 2011, Netanyahu lectured Obama on Jewish history and criticized his approach to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.

Netanyahu’s office had offered a solution to the leaders’ scheduling problems by having him visit Washington before his U.N. speech on September 28, but the White House did not accept the idea, the Israeli official said.

Obama, who is keeping up a busy schedule of campaign rallies across the country, is expected to take a break to address the opening session at the United Nations on September 25.

There was no immediate comment from the Romney campaign, which had curtailed its public statements out of respect for the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Netanyahu’s harsh comments on Tuesday followed U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks on Monday that the United States would not set a deadline in further talks with Iran, and that there was still time for sanctions and diplomacy to work. Clinton – instead of Obama – will meet Netanyahu at the United Nations later in September, the White House said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Tuesday that Washington would have little more than a year to act to stop Iran if it decided to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran has threatened to retaliate against Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf if it is attacked, and any such conflict could throw Obama’s re-election bid off course.

DEADLINE

Netanyahu did not mention Clinton by name, but pointedly parroted her use of the word “deadline,” saying: “If Iran knows that there is no ‘deadline’, what will it do? Exactly what it’s doing. It’s continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining a nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs.”

“So far, we can say with certainty that diplomacy and sanctions haven’t worked. The sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy, but they haven’t stopped the Iranian nuclear program. That’s a fact. And the fact is that every day that passes, Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear bombs.”

Despite the recent tougher Israeli rhetoric, over the past week, Netanyahu, in calling for a “red line,” had appeared to be backing away from military action. Polls suggest a majority of Israelis do not want to strike Iran without U.S. support.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak seemed to criticize Netanyahu’s assault on the Jewish state’s biggest ally.

“Despite the differences and importance of maintaining Israel’s independence of action, we must remember the importance of partnership with the United States and try as much as possible not to hurt that,” a statement from his office said.

By refusing to see Netanyahu, Obama sharpens his Iran dilemma.

DEBKAfile Special Report September 11, 2012, 11:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

At odds – and no longer talking

President Barack Obama’s refusal Tuesday Sept. 11 to see Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu because “the president’s schedule will not permit that,” left Jerusalem thunderstruck – and Washington too.

At one stroke, round after round of delicate negotiations on Iran between the White House, Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, the US National Security Council, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta collapsed. They had aimed at an agreement on a starting point for the meeting that had been fixed between the two leaders for Sept. 28 in New York to bridge their differences over an attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

By calling off the meeting, the US president has put paid to those hopes and publicly humiliated the Israel prime minister, turning the clock back to the nadir of their relations brought about by the comment by Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Aug. 30: “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it” – meaning attack Iran.

By rebuffing Netanyahu, the president demonstrated that the top US soldier was not just talking off the cuff but representing the president’s final position on a possible Israel strike to preempt Iran’s nuclear program.

Tuesday, the US Defense Secretary said: “If Iran decides to make a nuclear weapon, the US would have a little more than a year to stop it.” He added that the United States has “pretty good intelligence” on Iran.

“It’s roughly about a year right now. A little more than a year. And so … we think we will have the opportunity once we know that they’ve made that decision, take the action necessary to stop (Iran),” Panetta said on CBS’s “This Morning” program.

Panetta said the United States has the capability to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. “We have the forces in place to be able to not only defend ourselves, but to do what we have to do to try to stop them from developing nuclear weapons,” he said.

Some optimists in Jerusalem took these comments to indicate that the crisis had become manageable now that the Obama administration was finally prepared to discuss a timeline and red lines for holding Iran back from making a bomb. This hope was soon dashed by word that the US president would rather confront Israel than Iran.
The White House may also have been incensed by the orders given by Netanyahu and Barak to the IDF to keep going on preparations for attacking Iran alongside the forthcoming meeting between the two leaders.
Netanyahu’s comments to a news conference earlier Tuesday are unlikely to have salved angry administration spirits in Washington.
He said that with every passing day, Iran comes closer to a nuclear bomb, heedless of sanctions and diplomac. The world tells Israel ‘wait, there’s still time’. 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,” said Netanyahu on a note of frustration against the Obama administration.
debkafile reported earlier Tuesday:

The wrangling over Iran between the offices of the US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, has been reduced essentially to a battle for the agenda of their meeting in New York on Sept. 28: Netanyahu will be pressing for a US commitment to military action if Iran crosses still-to-be-agreed red lines, while the White House rejects red lines – or any other commitment for action – as neither necessary nor useful.
Israel’s latest rebuttal came Monday, Sept. 10 from former Military Intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin, who argued that even without agreed red lines, Israel was quite capable of coping with its enemies without the United States.

The sparring appeared to have reached a point of no return, leaving Obama and Netanyahu nothing more to discuss. However, just the opposite is true. For both leaders their upcoming tête-à-tête is vital. It is the US president’s last chance to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program before he faces the American voter on Nov. 6, while the prime minister will not forego any opportunity to harness the US to this attack. He needs to prove – not just to the anti-war camp ranged against him at home, but also to assure the military – which has been falsely reported as against an attack – that he bent over backward to procure US backing.
Netanyahu does not feel that even if he fails to talk Obama around (more likely than not), he has lost American support; he counts on the US Congress to line up behind Israel’s case for cutting down a nuclear Iran which is sworn to destroy the Jewish state, as well as sections of the US public and media and some of he president’s Jewish backers, including contributors to his campaign chest.
Those are only some of the reasons why the last-ditch US-Israeli summit cannot be avoided and indeed may be pivotal – both for their participants’ personal political destinies,and for the Middle East at large.
debkafile’s Washington and political sources disclose that their dialogue will have two levels according to current planning:

1. In New York, Obama and Netanyahu will try and negotiate a common framework;
2. At the Pentagon in Washington, defense chiefs Leon Panetta and Ehud Barak will be standing by to render any agreements reached in New York into practical, detailed plans which would then be referred back to the two leaders for endorsement.

The heated dispute between US and Israeli officials over “red lines” was therefore no more than sparring over each of the leaders’ starting-points for their New York dialogue and therefore their agenda and final understandings. Behind the clash of swords, US and Israeli diplomats are working hard to negotiate an agreed starting point. They are putting just as much effort into preventing the row deteriorating into a total rupture before Sept. 28.

Netanyahu discussed another red line Monday when he interviewed President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, their first meeting in three months. Although the Israeli presidency is a largely titular function, Peres has elected himself senior spokesman for the opponents of an Israeli military operation against Iran.

While their advisers sought to establish agreed lines between them ahead of Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, debkafile reports that the confrontation between the two Israeli politicians ended inconclusively, because Peres kept on demanding that the prime minister bend to the will of the White House.

Israel Hayom | ‘US ambassador killed in Libya in riots over anti-Islam film’.

Libyan officials say the U.S. ambassador and three other embassy staffers have been killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The officials, three in all, say Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket-propelled grenades.

The officials who reported the ambassador’s death were Deputy Interior Minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official, Ahmed Bousinia.”The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them,” a Libyan official in Benghazi told Reuters. Asked about the deaths, a U.S. Embassy employee in Tripoli said: “We have no information regarding this.” The employee said the embassy could confirm the death of one person.

The Libyan official said the U.S. ambassador had been on his way to a safer venue after protesters attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and opened fire, killing a staff member, in protest at a U.S. film that they deemed blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad.

The official said the U.S. Embassy had sent a military plane to transport the bodies to Tripoli to fly them to the United States.

Gunmen assaulted the Benghazi compound on Tuesday evening, clashing with Libyan security forces, who withdrew under heavy fire. The attackers fired at the buildings while others threw handmade bombs into the compound, setting off small explosions. Small fires were burning around the compound.

The assault followed a protest in neighboring Egypt where demonstrators scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tore down the American flag and burned it during a protest over the same film which they said insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the film — titled “Innocence of Muslims” — was “directed and produced by an Israeli-American real-estate developer who characterized it as a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam” adding that the movie had also been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who has sparked deadly riots in the past by publicly burning copies of the Quran.

The Wall Street Journal reported further that the film’s 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he had funded the movie with $5 million in donations from “about 100 Jews” whom he declined to identify. “Islam is a cancer,” the paper quoted him as saying. “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.”

The film was also being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. A 14-minute trailer of the movie that sparked the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, depicts Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that one State Department officer had been killed in the protest at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. She strongly condemned the attack and said she had called Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif “to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya.”

Clinton expressed concern that the protests might spread to other countries. She said the U.S. was working with “partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.”

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a statement released by the U.S. State Department. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

The violence at the consulate lasted for about three hours, but the situation has now quieted down, said one witness.

“I heard nearly 10 explosions and all kinds of weapons. It was a terrifying day,” said the witness who refused to give his name because he feared retribution.

Hours before the Benghazi attack, hundreds of mainly ultra-conservative Islamist protesters in Egypt marched to the U.S. Embassy in downtown Cairo, gathering outside its walls and chanting against the movie and the U.S. Most of the embassy staff had left the compound earlier thanks to early warnings of the upcoming demonstration.

“Say it, don’t fear: Their ambassador must leave!” the crowd chanted.

Dozens of protesters then scaled the embassy walls, and several went into the courtyard and took the American flag off a pole. They brought it back to the crowd outside, which tried to burn it, but, failing that, tore it apart.

The protesters on the wall then raised on the flagpole a black flag with a Muslim declaration of faith, “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.” The flag, similar to the banner used by al-Qaida, is commonly used by ultra-conservatives around the region.

The crowd grew throughout the evening with thousands standing outside the embassy. Dozens of riot police lined up along the embassy walls but did not stop protesters as they continued to climb and stand on the wall – though it appeared no more went into the compound.

The crowd chanted, “Islamic, Islamic. The right of our prophet will not die.” Some shouted, “We are all Osama,” referring to al-Qaida leader bin-Laden. Young men, some in masks, sprayed graffiti on the walls. Some grumbled that Islamist President Mohammed Morsi had not spoken out against the movie.

A group of women in black veils and robes that left only their eyes exposed chanted “Worshippers of the Cross, leave the Prophet Muhammad alone.”

By midnight, the crowd had dwindled. The U.S. Embassy said on its Twitter account that there will be no visa services on Wednesday because of the protests.

A senior Egyptian security official at the embassy area said authorities allowed the protest because it was “peaceful.” When they started climbing the walls, he said he called for more troops, denying that the protesters stormed the embassy. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

The Cairo embassy is in a diplomatic area in Garden City, where the British and Italian embassies are located, only a few blocks away from Tahrir Square, the center of last year’s uprising that led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. The U.S. Embassy is built like a fortress, with a wall several meters (yards) high. But security has been scaled back in recent months, with several roadblocks leading to the facility removed after legal court cases by residents.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry promised in a statement to provide the necessary security for diplomatic missions and embassies and warned that “such incidents will negatively impact the image of stability in Egypt, which will have consequences on the life of its citizens.”

One protester, Hossam Ahmed, said he was among those who entered the embassy compound and replaced the American flag with the black one. He said the group has now removed the black flag from the pole and laid it instead on a ladder on top of the wall.

“This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet,” said another, bearded young protester, Abdel-Hamid Ibrahim.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Egyptian police had removed the demonstrators who entered the embassy grounds.

Muslims find it offensive to depict Muhammad in any fashion, much less in an insulting way. The 2005 publication of 12 caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper triggered riots in many Muslim countries.

A YouTube spokesperson said the website would not take down the video at this point. The website’s guidelines call for removing videos that include a threat of violence, but not those only expressing opinions. YouTube’s practice is not to comment on specific videos.

“We take great care when we enforce our policies and try to allow as much content as possible while ensuring that our Community Guidelines are followed,” the YouTube spokesperson said. “Flagged content that does not violate our guidelines will remain on the site.”

Bacile, the American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.

“I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad,” Bacile said.

Speaking from a telephone with a California number, Bacile said he was Jewish and familiar with the region. Bacile said the film was produced in English and he doesn’t know who dubbed it in Arabic. The full film has not been shown yet, he said, and he said he has declined distribution offers for now.

“My plan is to make a series of 200 hours” about the same subject, he said.

Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Christian in the U.S. known for his anti-Islam views, told The Associated Press from Washington that he was promoting the video on his website and on certain TV stations, which he did not identify.

Both depicted the film as showing how Coptic Christians are oppressed in Egypt, though it goes well beyond that to ridicule Muhammad – a reflection of their contention that Islam as a religion is inherently oppressive.

“The main problem is I am the first one to put on the screen someone who is [portraying] Muhammad. It makes them mad,” Bacile said. “But we have to open the door. After 9/11 everybody should be in front of the judge, even Jesus, even Muhammad.”

For several days, Egyptian media have been reporting on the video, playing some excerpts from it and blaming Sadek for it, with ultraconservative clerics going on air to denounce it.

Medhat Klada, a representative of Coptic Christian organizations in Europe, said Sadek’s views were not representative of expatriate Copts.

“He is an extremist … We don’t go down this road. He has incited the people [in Egypt] against Copts,” he said, speaking from Switzerland. “We refuse any attacks on religions because of a moral position.”

But he said he was concerned about the backlash from angry Islamists, saying their protest only promotes the movie. “They don’t know dialogue and they think that Islam will be offended from a movie.”

Israel Hayom | Obama, Netanyahu ‘united’ on Iran despite mounting tensions.