Archive for September 2012

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

September 6, 2012

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

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

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin [file]

Photo: Courtesy: Knesset Channel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.

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

September 6, 2012

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

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

 

Syrian rebels under Turkish command
Syrian rebels under Turkish command

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel must act against Iran

September 6, 2012

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

 

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

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

Photo: REUTERS/Handout

Israel now finds itself at a perilous crossroads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Netanyahu planning an October surprise?

September 6, 2012

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

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

Obama supporters at Democratic National Convention

Photo: REUTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is time to face existential threats

September 6, 2012

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

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

Ahmadinejad at nuclear ceremony in Tehran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our stock is rising.

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

The number of existential crises we face will increase.

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

The writer is executive director of Likud Anglos.

Report: Obama, Netanyahu to Meet After Yom Kippur

September 6, 2012

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

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

By Elad Benari

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

 

Netanyahu and Obama in NYC

Netanyahu and Obama in NYC
Flash 90

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibi’s ‘October surprise’ checklist

September 6, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A) Iran is nearing nuclear capability.

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

C) America will never attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @bennyavni

IAEA shows diplomats ‘Iran nuclear clean-up’ images

September 5, 2012

IAEA shows diplomats ‘Iran nucle… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

 

09/05/2012 20:28
UN nuclear watchdog presents “compelling” evidence of nuclear sanitization at Parchin site; Tehran dismisses claims.

Satellite image of Parchin

Photo: GeoEye-ISIS

VIENNA – The UN nuclear watchdog showed a series of satellite images on Wednesday that added to suspicions of clean-up activity at an Iranian military site it wants to inspect, Western diplomats said, but Tehran’s envoy dismissed the presentation.

The pictures, displayed during a closed-door briefing for member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), indicated determined efforts in recent months to remove any incriminating evidence at the Parchin site, the diplomats said.

In the latest picture, from mid-August, a building where the IAEA believes Iran carried out explosives tests – possibly a decade ago – relevant for nuclear weapons development had been shrouded in what appeared to be pink tarpaulin, they said.

“It was pretty compelling,” a senior Western diplomat said about the briefing by IAEA Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts and Assistant Director General Rafael Grossi.

“The last image was very clear. You could see the pink,” the envoy said.

The purpose of covering the buildings could be to conceal further clean-up work from overhead satellites, according to a US think-tank, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

The IAEA said in a confidential report last week that “extensive activities” undertaken at Parchin since February – including the demolition of some buildings and removal of earth – would significantly hamper its investigation there, if and when it was allowed access to the facility southeast of Tehran.

Iran, which denies Western accusations that it seeking to develop the capability to make nuclear bombs, says Parchin is a conventional military site.

Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, suggested the activities “claimed to be made in the vicinity of these so-called locations which are identified” by the IAEA had nothing to do with the UN agency’s investigation.

“Merely having a photo from up there, a satellite imagery … this is not the way the agency should do its professional job,” he told reporters after the IAEA’s briefing.

Give us the documents, Iran says

“Everybody should be careful not to damage credibility of the agency,” Soltanieh added.

Iran says it must first reach a broader agreement with the IAEA on how the Vienna-based UN agency should conduct its investigation into alleged nuclear bomb research in the Islamic state before it can possibly be allowed access to Parchin.

Last week’s IAEA report said “no concrete results” had been reached in a series of high-level meetings with Iran over the past eight months on such a framework accord.

Highlighting one of the main sticking points, Soltanieh said Iran must see the documents which form the basis for the IAEA’s concerns of possible military dimensions to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Diplomats say the IAEA is not able to hand over some of those files – which it is believed to have received from foreign intelligence services – because of confidentiality reasons.

“They have to deliver the documents,” Soltanieh said, making clear that Iran could not otherwise agree to a deal. “Without documents we cannot prove whether this is baseless or not baseless. We should have the documents.”

The IAEA report also said Iran had doubled the number of centrifuges at an underground uranium enrichment facility in the last few months, in defiance of international demands that it suspends the work.

Refined uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, which is Iran’s stated aim, or provide the explosive core for a nuclear warhead if processed further, which the West and Israel suspect is Tehran’s ultimate aim.

Iran: A game gone too far

September 5, 2012

Iran: A game gone too far | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

 

The story of how Israel reached the – real or perceived – brink of war with Iran is not exactly what it appears to be.

At some point in recent years, Israeli decision-makers decided to play a game. Through a fairly innocuous and innocent lens, the game can be described as “good cop, bad cop.” At worst, it is a dangerous exercise in diplomatic and military brinksmanship that risks catapulting one of the world’s most well-armed regions into an unpredictable and open-ended war.

Either way, the game has gone too far.

Israel is terrified of a nuclear-armed Iran. Although less daunting than the prospect of a second holocaust, the danger Iranian nukes pose is real: they threaten the thus-far unchallenged regional hegemony the IDF has enjoyed for decades.

Earlier this year, the IDF’s top planning officer, Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, explained how an Iran with nuclear weapons would change Israel’s strategic posture:

 

Israel, he said, would be deterred from entering into conventional wars with its traditional adversaries, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria, if their Iranian sponsor became a nuclear power.

Nuclear deterrence, Eshel explained, would dramatically alter Israel’s strategic military posture in the region. “If we are forced to do things in Gaza or Lebanon under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, it might be different.”

But the threat of Israel losing its military hegemony is not sufficient to force the international community into action. Although the West has long been opposed to an Iranian nuclear program, which is slightly augmented by the anti-Semitic rhetoric coming from Tehran, all official accounts still report that Iran’s nuclear program is civilian in nature. Even Israel admits that Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear weapons.

What would be enough to spur the West into action? The prospect of war.

So top officials in Jerusalem decided they should act irrationally. The world must believe that Israel is two hairs-breadths away from launching a desperate and implausible war.

As Haaretz’s Ari Shavit explains it: “Israel must not behave like an insane country. Rather, it must create the fear that if it is pushed into a corner it will behave insanely. To ensure that Israel is not forced to bomb Iran, it must maintain the impression that it is about to bomb Iran.”

While pushing Washington to engage Tehran more aggressively, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has repeated time and again that diplomatic engagement with Iran (a 2008 campaign pledge by Barack Obama) can only succeed if it’s complemented by a “credible military threat.”

Last month, Netanyahu made his strategy clear. “The paradox is that if [the Iranians] actually believe that they are going to face the military option, then you probably will not need the military option,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

This is nothing new. For at least 20 years, Netanyahu has been making dire predictions about the urgent nature of the Iranian threat. In 1992 he was quoted saying that “Iran is three to five years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be ‘uprooted by an international front headed by the US’.”

The problem with Netanyahu’s strategy of paradoxical brinksmanship is how it can end.

By constructing a paradigm in which one of the only possible outcomes is war, Israel’s prime minister has finally created a “credible military threat,” though it is the threat of an Israeli attack instead of US military action.

As Netanyahu explained to a joint session of Congress last year, the only time Iran halted its nuclear program was when the US, whom it regards as “the Great Satan,” invaded Iraq in 2003. Following the invasion of Afghanistan a year-and-a-half earlier, the Islamic Republic was effectively surrounded. Iran, at least in Netanyahu’s mind, was scared it was next. However, Obama pledged to end both wars and redeploy hundreds of thousands of US troops.

So without a credible, or at least perceived, military threat from the US, Netanyahu built his own. Up, down and across Israel’s political and military echelons, officials and officers helped the process along. Unnamed officials leaked an unprecedented amount of intelligence estimates and alleged military capabilities and planning to carefully selected journalists. Meanwhile, on-the-record statements escalated into a crescendo of aggressive, untrusting and apocalyptic language, leaving one logical conclusion: that Israel was planning to hit Iran, and soon.

But after two years, some of those officials who had played along with Netanyahu’s game, either actively or by remaining silent, began to question it. Former Mossad heads, IDF chiefs of staff and a large number of officials from across the security and political establishments started speaking out. One of the first was recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who called strike on Iran “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

Around the same time, the consensus of opinion has been that if Israel strikes Iran, it would only set its nuclear program back by a few years and likely increase its motivation to weaponize it. But none of that put even the slightest damper in Netanyahu’s game; because he knew from the beginning that war was a threat he never intended to follow through on.

The game did, however, begin to pay off as the West and even Russia and China initiated the most serious diplomatic efforts on the issue to date. Earlier this year, the European Union levied unprecedented economic and oil sanctions on Iran.

But where does the game end?

Israeli media headlines in recent days have been full of speculation that Netanyahu is seeking a way to jump off the war path he spent so much time and effort paving.

But Netanyahu has set the bar for his own satisfaction far too high. His recent demands that the US and international community set “clear red lines,” which if crossed would trigger military action, are much more stringent than any other country would ever be willing to commit to. In other words, he has no way to back down.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s inability to end his own game doesn’t make it real; it’s unlikely he ever planned on following through on his threats.

So how does this game end?

Limited freedom of the press

September 5, 2012

Israel Hayom | Limited freedom of the press.

Dror Eydar

 

When it comes to Yedioth Ahronoth’s dirty game over the Iran issue, anything goes. I have spoken with serious contacts who know a thing or two about U.S.-Israel relations, and they know the media well too. They don’t believe the reports by the paper’s top columnist Shimon Shiffer. Do you really think that America would pass on a message to Iran through the “most covert” and “most sensitive” channels only for Shiffer to scupper the move by publishing it? If the leader of the free world really did ask the ayatollahs to spare America and its strategic interests in the Persian Gulf, then we’re in really big trouble. But everyone knows that this report is nonsense. And indeed, the White House vehemently denied the story, saying, “It’s incorrect, completely incorrect” and “false,” reiterating that Israel and the U.S. are in close cooperation on the issue.

In any case, it’s worth taking at look at how this newspaper, which once touted itself as “the nation’s newspaper,” has turned into a channel for statements from liberal sources in the U.S. whose goal is to taint the Israeli government. Everything is permissible for Yedioth. Even this week’s publication of an anonymous letter in which the author pleads for the life of her pilot husband, who may, God forbid, be sent to strike Iran. According to the headline, the letter was penned by the wife of an Israeli air force pilot, but the real identity of the author is absolutely unclear. What next for Yedioth? A letter signed by the wives of pilots who believe that the existential threat posed by a nuclear Iran should come before their own personal interests? Where’s the responsibility?

The same edition brought us a lamenting column from senior commentator, Nahum Barnea. His hopes for a happy new Jewish year are upset by “serious credibility problems … the future does not bode well … we’re at the edge of the abyss.” How typical. Left-wingers are always so ready to believe in villains and dictators. But not when it comes to their own society — it is always on a slippery slope as far as they are concerned. In particular, when they aren’t the ones running the country, and their visions of peace have been refuted through blood and fire. We never came across such statements during the Oslo Accords, even though the future then certainly did not bode well. Who could have seen beyond the euphoria that Yedioth and its associates had left us with armed gangs that had entered into the western side of Israel under the guise of a peace agreement?

According to Barnea, “the necessary battle against the Iranian nuclear program,” has become, “a personal argument between leaders and a diplomatic crisis.” He apparently believes Shiffer’s stories. And in any case, the crisis is not over a serious issue, but rather benefits “[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s American donors who hope for a Republican president, and of course, Iran.” With a few strokes of his keyboard, Barnea creates a venomous correlation between the oppressive Iranian regime and Netanyahu and his supporters.

Wait for it — there’s also a sop to the voodoo doll that Barnea’s clone, Channel 2 TVs Amnon Abramovich, likes to stick pins in during his “analysis”: the settlers. Constructing settlements, didn’t you know, is the sacrifice “of Netanyahu’s relations with foreign governments for the sake of the extreme Right — both in Israel and America.” The settlement of the Land of Israel is not a Zionist, Jewish or security need, but rather a whim of the “extreme right.” Do you need any further evidence of where Yedioth’s top journalist places on the political scale? Deep down on the Left. From there, everything looks extreme — even the Labor party and its leader, Barnea’s loathed nemesis.

When faced with the global recession, according to Barnea, “the government preferred to party.” Let’s look back, shall we? Wasn’t it Yedioth and its internet site that led the social justice protests and egged on the demonstrators against the “capitalist” government that does not heed the public’s cries? And how can we continue without repeating the false propaganda that the Right’s “tycoons suffocates the free press with its money.”

How much longer will the public have to be fed falsehoods? Yedioth Ahronoth is a free press? Can something be written in that paper that publisher Arnon (Noni) Mozes would not approve of? Alongside Barnea’s piece was an article by Emmanuel Rosen of Channel 10, viciously attacking former Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz for his “witch hunt” against former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. While swiping at Mazuz and defending Olmert, Rosen does not forsake another darling of Yedioth, former Minister Haim Ramon, and he slams Mazuz for calling Ramon a “liar” before the ruling in that case. On the surface, a free press, but could you imagine someone at Yedioth publishing an article by Rosen that supported Mazuz and attacked Ramon, for example? There’s no need for an answer.