WarSclerotic

Joel Rubin: Netanyahu Aligns With Obama on Iran.

While most media attention focused on the cartoon bomb presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, something even more newsworthy passed almost without notice:

Netanyahu made it clear that he has endorsed U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy on Iran. By literally drawing a red line to show how far he could tolerate Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu in effect approved of the international efforts led by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

In fact, while he would never admit it in the midst of a campaign, even Mitt Romney picked up on this view and has, in practice, endorsed Obama’s approach. That sudden outbreak of unspoken consensus is the real story of the last week of diplomacy. The real question now is, what can be done with the broad agreement that there is both time and space for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program that has created a new window of opportunity? And that depends on two big wildcards: what Netanyahu’s red lines really are, and Iran’s real intentions and capabilities.

In Netanyahu’s speech, he made it clear that Israel has a red line for the Iranian nuclear program. While this red line for military action has evolved over the years, it now appears to be the point at which Iran has enough low enriched uranium — at nearly 20 percent enrichment levels — to potentially produce one nuclear bomb. In Netanyahu’s estimation, that time won’t come until sometime next year, perhaps in the spring or even the summer. If Iran were to achieve that level, it would be threatening enough for Israel to justify striking Iran, according to Netanyahu.

The prime minister identified this as his red line because it would be the furthest point at which Israel could feasibly attack Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

As the prime minister said:

“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. The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.”

Israel, according to nearly three-dozen bipartisan national security leaders who signed onto a report by the Iran Project, doesn’t have the capacity to conclusively destroy Iran’s nuclear program. However, it does have the capacity to delay it through bombing enrichment facilities. But that would be a disaster, as it would likely unravel the international pressure on Iran to come clean, unleash a devastating war in the region, fuel antagonism toward the United States and fail to permanently end the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Yet if past is prologue, Israel tends to strike its adversaries’ nuclear facilities when it feels vulnerable, not when the international community deems it wise. Israel struck the nuclear facilities at Osirak in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 — but only made limited strikes. In the case of Iraq, the attack drove the program underground and accelerated its push for nuclear weapons — an outcome that Israel would not want today in Iran.

In this case, by appearing to set a red line Netanyahu actually gave a boost to the role of serious U.S. diplomacy to resolve this issue. This is because of what Netanyahu didn’t say in his speech: that any Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable. This little-noticed absence gives a crucial boost to the prospects for a nuclear deal. He only said that Iran should not be allowed to enrich enough uranium to have the makings of a bomb. By implication, this means that — with strict safeguards, commitments to cap enrichment levels, and export or conversion of uranium for reactor fuel plates — Israel could live with an Iranian nuclear program. This is where the international negotiations, led by the Obama administration, have been heading. And now Netanyahu has publicly signed off on this approach.

Of course, Iran has a role to play, and could continue to keep Israel and the international community on the edge of their seats by proceeding to raise and lower the levels of its stockpile as it sees fit. This is because it takes roughly 225 kg of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium to make one bomb’s worth of fissile material — although that material would still need to be purified up to 90 percent levels. It’s important to remember that, according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, Iran recently reduced its stockpile of 20 percent uranium to less than half of that red line, from 101 kg to 91 kg, by converting a portion of the stockpile into fuel plates for use at the Tehran Research Reactor.

But there are severe downsides for Iran to continue to play such games, as the devastating sanctions currently in place will remain. Iran, which needs to get out from under international pressure and isolation, should seize the opportunity to credibly deal at the negotiating table with the United States and its international partners. There is no guarantee that it will do so, but the time will soon come when it must show its cards.

Now that the speeches are over and the threat of immediate war has receded, the real work of diplomacy must step in to resolve this dispute. It’s clear from Netanyahu’s speech last week that a diplomatic deal that allows for some type of Iranian nuclear program is in the cards. It’s also clear that Israel depends on the sanctions that the Obama administration has orchestrated, on the information gathered by IAEA inspectors about Iran’s nuclear program and on the multilateral negotiations underway.

So all eyes are on Washington to guide the diplomacy to resolve this sticky situation without a war. Backing up the support for diplomacy is the fact that the American people oppose getting involved in another war of choice in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the United States and Israel may still decide that they, in fact, have no choice. Yet one thing is certain from last week: U.S. leadership in the Middle East is neither diminished nor irrelevant. If anything, it is clear that it is working, and that it will be counted-on even more in the days to come.

This piece was originally posted on Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel.

Bob Gates and Israel: There He Goes Again | The Weekly Standard.

Elliott Abrams

October 5, 2012 12:15 PM

Israel Hayom | Iran and nuclear deception.

Dore Gold

Assad ‘moved’ chemical weapons, sought cooperation with ‘state of Israel:’ leaks.

Thursday, 04 October 2012

Officially, the Syrian regime and its allies, Russia and Iran, have consistently dismissed allegations that President Bashar al-Assad intends to use or relocate chemical weapons in his ongoing war for survival.

But classified documents obtained by Al Arabiya have revealed that the Syrian regime did move chemical weapons stockpile with the help of Iran and knowledge of Russia.

Furthermore, additional documents also reveal that Assad has also sought cross border cooperation with the “State of Israel” which the Syrian regime often refers to in public as a hostile “entity”.

The confidential files were acquired by Al Arabiya with the assistance of members of the Syrian opposition who refused to elaborate on how they got hold of the documents.

Al Arabiya says that it has verified and authenticated hundreds of these documents and that it has decided to disclose the ones with substantial news value and political relevance.

‘Wareheads ready to be relocated’

Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, told President Assad that the chemical warheads were ready to be relocated. (Al Arabiya)

In a highly-classified — but undated — document sent from Iran, Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, a division of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), addressed President Assad directly, affirming that the chemical warheads are ready to be relocated.

This was in contrary to previous statements by Iran that it would not support any country with plans to use the chemicals.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi had said that Iran could not support any country — including ally Syria — that used such weapons, calling this “a situation that will end everything.”

“If any country… uses weapons of mass destruction, that is the end of the validity, eligibility, legality, whatever you name it, of that government,” he said at a talk given to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had already divulged that the Syrians have moved some of their chemical weapons capability to better secure it.

It was not clear when the movement took place, or even if it was recent, but Panetta told a Pentagon news conference it had occurred in more than one case.

In a recent TV interview, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem accused the United States of seeking a pretext to attack Syria, comparing the tactic to those that preceded the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

“It is a myth they invented to launch a campaign against Syria like they did in Iraq,” he said.

Reason why document was undated

Syrian President Assad issued orders prohibiting writing reference numbers and/or dates on secret official documents. (Al Arabiya)

In another leaked document, also obtained by Al Arabiya; an order sent from the Syrian Presidential Palace and signed by the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service; Maj. Gen. Bassam Marhej discusses the detection of an “administrative error.”

The error, which apparently is a leak of secret documents, was discovered by the Joint Command (Syria-Iran-Russia) in cooperation with the Syrian embassy in Moscow.

The supposed “error” was likely related to information about Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

According to Marhej — and following the discovery of the “error” — Syrian President Assad issued orders prohibiting writing reference numbers and/or dates on secret official documents.

He also ordered that all top-secret (written) instructions to be delivered ‘by hand’ and to be ‘burnt’ following receipt along with all telegram and written communication in all embassies and diplomatic missions.

Assad’s confidentiality instructions were to be implemented immediately, the document said.

Relation with Israel

The Chief of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence, Sakr Mennoun, sent a written order to Col. Suheil Hassan to head to the Syrian-Israeli borders and ensure the safety of the frontiers. (Al Arabiya)

Another batch of leaked files obtained by Al Arabiya were related to the Syrian regime’s secret relations to Israel.

Officially, the two states are at war; particularly since Israel is still occupying the Syrian Golan Heights.

On April 3, 2011, less than one month after the beginning of the popular uprising in Syria, the Chief of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence, Sakr Mennoun, sent a written order to Col. Suheil Hassan to head to the Syrian-Israeli borders and ensure the safety of the frontiers.

Mannoun requests from Hassan to secure the borders “in cooperation with the state of Israel.”

Al Arabiya’s exclusive series on the newly-leaked Syrian security documents continues on Saturday Oct. 6.

Killing of captured Iranians to begin in 48 hours, Syrian brigade warns.

Friday, 05 October 2012

The Al Bara’a brigade claimed that it kidnaped 48 members of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards and denied Iran’s claims that they were pilgrims.(Al Arabiya)

inShare

Commentary: Why Israel May Go It Alone | The National Interest.

“There are two clocks ticking, one in Washington . . . and one in Israel . . . neither of them in sync.”

On the face of it, these words appear as if they were lifted from any report over the past year characterizing the discord over American and Israeli efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program. But in fact they were spoken forty-five years ago by Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban on the eve of the Six Day War.

Eban had just returned to Jerusalem from Washington, where he was anxiously pressing the Lyndon Johnson administration to provide U.S. guarantees for Israel’s security in the event that Egypt attacked. Previously confident that America would have Israel’s back in the event of renewed warfare, Eban was now despondent at the likelihood that Israel would be forced to face the combined Arab armies alone, again.

For two weeks, Gamal Abdel Nasser had been building up his forces in the Sinai peninsula to the point where they posed a credible threat to the young Jewish state’s existence. Now, Nasser had dismissed UN peacekeepers from the Egyptian-Israeli border and closed the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israel’s vital access to the Red Sea, through which it imported a majority of its energy supplies. Nasser had provided Israel with casus belli and then proclaimed that “if war comes it will be total and the objective will be Israel’s destruction.”

Two weeks earlier, President Johnson promised to deliver a consignment of military hardware, food, economic aid and loans to Israel totaling nearly $70 million to demonstrate American support and tide Israel over. The U.S. administration also vowed not to let Nasser close the Straits of Tiran. But as Nasser continued his military buildup, as the Soviet Union egged on Egypt and Syria to war and as the Arab World worked itself into a frenzy over the eminent demise of the “Zionist entity,” the commitments that Washington provided to Jerusalem were not met.

In addition to the backtracking, Johnson poignantly warned Israel against initiating hostilities. “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone,” Johnson wrote to Eban. “We cannot imagine that it will make this decision.”

The wavering of Israel’s only ally in the face of what the Israeli security establishment genuinely felt could be an eminent holocaust had the opposite effect of what Johnson intended. Rather than rely on the noncommittal American administration to provide aid in the event of a combined Arab attack, the Israeli cabinet and army felt they had no choice but to attack first and on their own terms, lest they cede the initiative to Nasser and risk being overwhelmed by Arab forces on three fronts.

That Israeli leaders decided to attack in 1967 should have come as no surprise to anyone who understands the Israeli mentality, which remains largely unchanged.

In the political-security realm, the Israeli psyche is governed by one overriding emotion: fear. This fear is a byproduct not just of the Holocaust, which is still a vivid memory there, but of the wars every generation of Israelis has fought. On a collective level, Israel is a society in a perpetual state of post-traumatic stress. But unlike American veterans who return from war to a “safe” environment, the fear of attack remains a rational constant for Israelis.

Even before Israel’s establishment, collective fear derived from the often tragic Jewish history produced the prime tenant within Zionism that Jews should always be strong enough to defend themselves. With the birth of Israel, this belief was translated into the policy that the Jewish state must never rely on another country for its defense.

During its sixty-four-year history, one partial exception has been made to that rule. Since the end of the Six Day War, Israel has allowed itself to be somewhat dependent on the United States because for forty-five years American leaders, strongly supported by the American people, have stood by Israel’s right to exist as a secure Jewish state.

It is this unique trust and semidependency that convinced Golda Meir to refrain from launching a preemptive attack on Egypt in 1973. It was the security and financial guarantees offered by President Carter that persuaded Menachem Begin to sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1978, despite Begin’s deep reservations to relinquishing land. And it was similar promises made by the George H. W. Bush administration that kept Israel out of the 1991 Gulf War while Scud missiles rained down on Tel Aviv. By contrast, it was a lack of trust Israel had in the Johnson administration in 1967 that produced an aggressive Israeli action.

Forty-five years after the Six Day War, the names have changed, but a remarkably similar scenario is unfolding. Once again, Israel is threatened by an enemy that is developing a military capability that poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. Once again, that enemy’s leaders speak frequently of seeking Israel’s destruction. Once again, Jerusalem is seeking assurances from Washington that the United States will not allow blatant aggression to stand. And once again, an American administration appears, publicly at least, to be wavering on the commitments it made to Israel at the very moment when the stakes are the highest.

In the wake of IAEA reports that Iran has made substantial progress toward enriching uranium and even on preparations to build a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration continues to be ambiguous as to what milestones Iran would have to reach before it decided to act militarily against the Islamic Republic.

As was the case in 1967, Washington is offering rhetorical support for Israel, with President Obama repeating that “Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” But on the other hand, Israel is, once again, being warned by high-level American officials not to initiate hostilities.

Israel may now posses the most powerful military in the Middle East (with a nuclear deterrent to boot), but the Israeli mentality has not changed.

“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,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently.

Netanyahu’s statement should be read in light of rising domestic opposition in Israel to a unilateral strike on Iran and the likely reelection of President Obama—two developments with which Bibi is not pleased. Nevertheless, his words are instructive of the corner into which many Israelis feel they are being painted—no firm material commitments from Washington regarding preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon and yet strongly warned not to act themselves.

If the Obama administration truly wants to prevent a unilateral Israeli attack against Iran, it must take the opposite course. Rather than simply directing Israel not to act, it should give the Netanyahu administration clear guidelines regarding when Washington will decide the diplomatic option to halt Iran’s nuclear program has been exhausted and the military option will be implemented. Otherwise, history tells us clearly how Israeli leaders will resolve this dilemma: by trusting the only people they have ever fully trusted—themselves—and initiating an attack.

As Deputy Israeli Prime Minister Yigal Alon said the night before Israel launched the Six Day War: “They will condemn us . . . and we will survive.”

Rafael D. Frankel was a Middle East correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

‘Iran will overcome currency con… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: REUTERS

As Rial Slides, So Do Iranians’ Dreams – NYTimes.com.

By THOMAS ERDBRINK

TEHRAN — For months, since the imposition of harsh, American-led sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, the country’s leaders have sworn they would never succumb to Western pressures, and they scoffed at the idea that the measures were having any serious impact. But after a week in which the Iranian currency, the rial, fell by a shocking 40 percent and protests began to rumble through the capital, no one is making light of the mounting costs of confrontation.

In the Iranian capital, all anyone can talk about is the rial, and how lives have been turned upside down in one terrible week. Every elevator ride, office visit or quick run to the supermarket brings new gossip about the currency’s drop and a swirl of speculation about who is to blame.

“Better buy now,” one rice seller advised Abbas Sharabi, a retired factory guard, who had decided to buy 900 pounds of Iran’s most basic staple in order to feed his extended family for a year.

“As I was gathering my money, the man received a phone call,” said Mr. Sharabi, smoking cigarette after cigarette on Thursday while waiting for a bus. “When he hung up he told me prices had just gone up by 10 percent. Of course I paid. God knows how much it will cost tomorrow.”

While only a few people actually need to exchange the rial for foreign currency, its value is one of the few clear indicators of the state of the economy, and its fall has sharply raised the prices of most staples.

In Tehran, many residents spend their days calling on money changers and visiting banks, deliberating whether to sell their rials now or wait for a miracle that would restore the rates to old levels, or for even a modest rally from the panic-driven lows of the last week.

“The fluctuations are so large that nobody knows whether it is better to wait or to change now,” said Ahmad, 65, as he shared a taxi to the west Tehran neighborhood of Sadeghiyeh. “I am so fed up,” said Ahmad, a garment seller, who like others here did not want to be identified by his full name for fear of retribution from the authorities. “I want to have a normal life, but from breakfast, to lunch to dinner, everybody only nervously talks of hard currency.”

Like many residents of the capital, Ahmad had tuned in to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s news conference on Tuesday, hoping that he would offer some sort of solution.

Instead, Mr. Ahmadinejad attributed most of the rial’s weakness to currency speculators and the sanctions, saying that it is only natural that the currency should suffer when it is possible to sell oil only in small quantities and when it is hard to make international bank transfers. His opponents say he is trying to avoid blame for his own mismanagement of the economy. He even went so far as to threaten to quit.

“He has made a mess, and now he wants to leave us,” Ahmad said of the president. But a passenger in the taxi named Mostafa interrupted. “No,” he said, “most of our leaders are at fault, but they are trying to blame everything on Ahmadinejad.”

Just a day later, on Wednesday, clashes erupted when riot police officers on motorcycles dispersed sidewalk money changers near Tehran’s main bazaar. The government has accused them of deliberately manufacturing the currency crisis. At the bazaar, an important trade hub, shopkeepers closed their shutters, and hundreds of citizens joined them in a protest against the bad economy.

While life seemingly returned to normal on Thursday, the outburst of public anger exposed the deep feeling of hopelessness that has taken hold among many Iranians.

Experts are divided about whether the crisis has been caused more by Tehran’s longtime mismanagement of the country’s economy or by the American-led sanctions, which have been imposed over Iran’s refusal to halt a nuclear program that the West suspects is a cover for developing weapons. Whatever the cause, members of the once-vibrant middle class have turned into cynics, many of whom say they might be alive, but are not living.

For Maysam, the son of a man who was killed in the Iran-Iraq war, a decade of relative prosperity and technological innovations had enabled him to travel widely and had turned him into a prominent blogger and critic of the system that his father had died defending. Instead of hoping to die on a battlefield, he had planned to run his own Internet start-up company.

But those dreams have been shattered. “We can’t even think of the future, of tomorrow, the day after, or the next week,” Maysam said. Foreign trips are out of the question, as even the price of a cup of coffee in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, or Istanbul — favorite destinations for Iranians — has tripled when calculated in rials. Parents of the legions of Iranians studying abroad are calling their children back to Iran, as rents and college fees in countries like the Philippines and Malaysia have become unaffordable.

“I have told my son to come home,” said Shabaz, 60, who is part owner of a printing house, adding that he had spent his life encouraging his son and daughter to study abroad. “We are all losing. His future is gone; I won’t ever witness his graduation; and he won’t find a job.”

Among the country’s Afghan community, a mix of refugees and guest laborers, some were debating whether to leave Iran. Their currency, the afghani, had gained considerably against the rial, effectively slashing their already meager wages.

After risking his life to get to Iran from Afghanistan, Amin, 18, had thought he was lucky to find a job sweeping the floors of an expensive Tehran apartment building. Now, he said he felt as if he were working for free. “I can make more money working in Afghanistan,” he said shyly, turning his face away. “The people are good to me here, but I have to think of my family back home.”

Mitra, 47, had just returned from the dance class she teaches several times a week and was getting ready to head out for the dress shop that she runs with her husband. Her eyes welled with tears when she heard the rial’s latest rates.

“My only hope is to get my 23-year-old son out of this place,” she said. She had been trying to get him into Canada, where hundreds of thousands of Iranians live, but the Canadian Embassy closed last month. Now, she said, they would have to go to Ankara, Turkey, for his visa interview. “But if he manages to go, it will be worth every cent I have,” she said.

At Tehran’s currency market, traders quietly started buying and selling again after the raid on Wednesday, though few people were willing to part with dollars. While government officials announced that the rial would strengthen as soon as they had their own foreign currency exchange center up and running, many traders were skeptical.

“It all comes down to this,” said a trader named Akbar. “As long as sanctions continue, the rial will continue to lose value.”

Israel Alters Calculus on Tehran Due to Unrest – WSJ.com.

By JOSHUA MITNICK

TEL AVIV—Antigovernment protests in Iran linked to the country’s weakening currency have raised hopes in Israel that international sanctions are working to undermine Tehran, lowering the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear targets in the coming months.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has frequently dismissed sanctions as ineffective in slowing Iran’s enrichment program. But, the unrest that erupted in Tehran on Wednesday—which subsided on Thursday—is causing Israeli officials to reconsider, analysts and officials said.

“Everything has changed” since the outbreak of the demonstrations on Wednesday, an Israeli official said. “You can’t say now that the sanctions are having no impact at all. It is self-evident.”

While the sanctions’ apparent effectiveness could undermine Mr. Netanyahu’s emphasis on the need for a credible threat of force, a faltering Iranian government would nonetheless enable him to take credit for pushing the international community for tougher sanctions.

The Israeli leader’s coalition allies said he is considering calling an election as early as February, from the originally scheduled October 2013. That would allow him to campaign on his hardline Iran position.

Iran’s turmoil is already giving enhanced credence to a report by Israel’s foreign ministry leaked to an Israeli newspaper last week that economic pressure could ignite turmoil in Iran similar to that seen in Arab countries around the region.

On Thursday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, known as a hard-liner on national security, said that Iran was seeing the first buds of a “Persian Spring,” and that Israel has an interest in lobbying the international community to encourage regime change by bolstering internal opposition groups.

Last week, before the unrest broke out, Mr. Lieberman predicted the spread of Arab Springlike unrest in Iran.

“I have no doubt that the Iranian regime is approaching a critical moment,” he said in an interview on Thursday with Israel Army Radio. “The big question is what will come first: the development of a nuclear weapon, or the Persian Spring…We have to be ready for both options.”

Mr. Netanyahu has been lobbying the White House to set a red line that would trigger military action against the country in an effort to convince Tehran to abandon progress toward what the U.S. and Israel believe is nuclear weapon.

Last week, the Israeli leader said in an address to the United Nations General Assembly that such a red line should set before Iran accumulates 90% of the uranium needed for a bomb—a milestone he predicted would be reached by next spring or summer. The U.N. speech prompted diplomats and experts to conclude that an Israeli military attack on Iran before mid-2013 was already unlikely.

A Netanyahu spokesman declined to comment.

The current unrest in Iran is likely to give more momentum to efforts by Western countries to increase sanctions on Iran, while reducing even further the likelihood of an Israeli attack. Meir Dagan, Israel’s former top spymaster, and other top foreign affairs officials have argued that a strike on Iran would strengthen domestic support for the regime and its nuclear program.

“I don’t know if there will be a Persian Spring, but the fact that the Iranian government is under pressure, that is a sign that the sanctions are having an impact,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iran expert at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. “The legitimacy of the calls for immediate military action will be reduced by the recent events.”

‘NYT’: US rejected Iranian plan … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: REUTERS/Stringer Iran