Archive for March 5, 2013

Jordan’s king, Assad and Iran

March 5, 2013

Jordan’s king, Assad and Iran | JPost | Israel News.

By MUDAR ZAHRAN
03/04/2013 20:22
Egypt is in turmoil as the secularists and non-Islamists refuse to accept the fact that the Islamists have hijacked their revolution.

Jordan King Abdullah

Jordan King Abdullah Photo: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
When the revolution was still raging in Egypt, I wrote an article calling on the world to support Egypt’s secularists.

It was they and the leftists that ignited and sustained the revolution which toppled Hosni Mubarak; the Islamists waited until Mubarak was about to fall, and then joined.

When the Egyptian presidential elections took place, the Islamists had the money, the media and the global connections and therefore got one of their own in the presidential palace.

Today, Egypt is in turmoil as the secularists and non-Islamists refuse to accept the fact that the Islamists have hijacked their revolution, all while those concerned about Middle East peace and security stood watching. Now, those who have failed Egypt’s secularists are repeating the same mistake in Syria and Jordan.

Firstly, they argue that both regimes are needed for regional security. It is true that both the Jordanian and Syrian regimes have kept Israel’s borders relatively calm for over four decades, but nonetheless both regimes are deeply challenged and both might fall.

While Bashar Assad’s Syrian regime enjoys Iranian and Russian support, it is rapidly losing ground to the rebels and will most likely keep bleeding to death. The rebels will not stop and the regime’s allies will stop providing cover for Assad when they eventually realize he is beyond rescue. And the Hashemite regime in Jordan will most likely be next, in fact, It would not be surprising if Jordan’s King Abdullah falls before Assad; despite the dearth of global media coverage of ongoing unrest in Jordan, Abdullah faces greater domestic challenges than Assad does.

Both the Palestinians and East Bank Jordanians have joined forces, calling for him to step down, as noted by Al Jazeera and the Independent newspaper back in November.

Unlike Assad who enjoys the support of his million-strong Alawite sect, Abdullah’s clan is made up of only 87 individuals, and he therefore depends on the loyalty of very East Bankers who have been protesting against him and burning his photos in public, as confirmed by the Independent.

Abdullah knows that if Assad falls, he will be next.

Recently, Abdullah met with Assad’s mentor, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Commenting on the king’s meeting with Putin, the Londonbased Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper reported the visit could be the sign of a “major shift in Jordan’s stance on Syria,” noting that the visit took place at the same time Jordan began supplying diesel and drinking water to Assad’s army and reporting that “the King’s intelligence department has been cooperating with Syrian intelligence for the last two months.”

In addition, several Arab media sources reported on Abdullah returning Syrian opposition members who had fled Syria back to Assad’s regime.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi added that Russia and Jordan are now discussing establishing Russian weapons factories in Jordan. Also, Jordanian media is reporting that Iran – Assad’s strong ally – is offering the king financial cooperation and even an interest in developing Jordan’s uranium wealth.

If this is true, it is very reckless of Abdullah to buy time through an alliance that would give Iran political access to Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s borders.

FURTHERMORE, ABDULLAH has allegedly been trying to influence the Western media in Assad’s favor. A renowned Jordanian journalist who spoke to me on condition of anonymity reported that the king has authorized his brother- in-law, Majdi Yassin, to reach out to journalists in the Western and Israeli media and “shower them with gifts” to establish the claim that those fighting against Assad “are mainly Islamist fundamentalists” and “that their main aim is to topple Assad then export their Islamic revolution to Jordan in order to attack Israel.”

Further, over the past few weeks the government- controlled Jordanian media has been claiming Jordan is “full of al-Qaida members affiliated with the fighters in Syria” who would “lead to unrest in Jordan if Assad falls.” This was even claimed by famous pro-Jordanian regime journalist Maher Abu Tair.

A similar claim was also made recently by the pro-Iranian Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Malki, who said: “If the Syrian regime falls, civil wars will break out in Jordan and Lebanon.”

The king has chosen alliance with Assad because he knows the West cannot support him any further, as he has been refusing to execute even minor reforms and has turned the country into a foreign aid black hole – thanks to his unbelievably lavish style and reported passion for gambling – which means any money he gets would not filter down to his people or help calm Jordan.

The only other option is an Israeli occupation of Jordan to keep Abdullah in power, something that Israel would never do for the sake of a falling dictator.

The facts remain that those fighting Assad are mostly non-Islamists. In fact, hundreds of Syrian Christians are involved in the fight against Assad. The major Islamist faction in Syria, Jabhat Al-Nusrah, has a few thousand fighters, compared to an estimated 2 million rebel fighters.

Nonetheless, when Assad falls the Islamists will have the money and media coverage to dominate elections.

The same goes for Jordan; although as the New York Times, the Independent, the Associated Press and Al-Jazeera confirmed those leading the protests are secular – in fact the Muslim Brotherhood there has announced support for the king and says it is “refusing to see him fall” – the Jordanian secularists have no money or media support to win future elections against the wealthy Muslim Brotherhood.

Those concerned for peace and security in the Middle East should stop hoping for Assad and Abdullah to survive, as the chances of that are slim. They should also consider a prompt and practical approach toward supporting the secular forces in both Syria and Jordan – otherwise the Islamists will win.

The writer is a Palestinian-Jordanian who resides in the UK.

US bipartisan bill to make Israel ‘major strategic ally’

March 5, 2013

US bipartisan bill to make Israel ‘major strategic ally’ | JPost | Israel News.

By JTA
03/05/2013 11:13
Bill introduced by Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R.-Fla) in time for AIPAC conference.

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN Photo: Courtesy
WASHINGTON – A Republican and a Democrat in the US House of Representatives introduced legislation that would make Israel a “major strategic ally,” a one of a kind designation.

The bill, introduced Monday by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), was timed for the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, and 13,000 activists are expected to lobby for it and for Iran-related bills on Tuesday.

The “major strategic ally” bill codifies a number of existing facets of the relationship, including annual defense assistance and cooperation on missile defense, energy research and cyber security.

It also calls for Israel to join the program that waives pre-arranged visas for select nationals entering the United States.

The Iran-related bills AIPAC activists will champion would tighten sanctions aimed at forcing that country to suspend its suspected nuclear weapons program and would call for the president to support Israel should it feel “compelled” to strike Iran. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Speaker after speaker at the AIPAC conference called on the Obama administration to make clear that Iran faces a military option if it does not comply with demands to make its nuclear activities more transparent.

“We need to recognize that military action against Iran may become necessary to protect America, Israel and our allies,” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the U.S. House of Representatives majority leader, said in his address Monday night to the AIPAC conference.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the minority whip, sounded a similar call.

“If there is one lesson we have learned about the Middle East in recent years, it is that nuance is not only not effective but can be dangerous,” he said.  “We must speak with unambiguous clarity: the United States will not accept a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran.”

Time to ‘man up’ on Iran

March 5, 2013

Time to ‘man up’ on Iran | JPost | Israel News.

The phrase appears to suggest preparations for military action; but being tough on Iran means acting to facilitate regime change from within.

 

Iran's Ahmadinejad at Natanz nuclear facility

Iran’s Ahmadinejad at Natanz nuclear facility Photo: Ho New / Reuters
“Man up” on Iran? The phrase appears to suggest preparations for military action; but being tough on Iran means acting to facilitate regime change from within.

Teheran pays more attention to domestic threats than international pressures, including sanctions or threats of military action.

There is broad consensus that the Iranian regime is a threat to Israel and the United States. Economic sanctions and threats of military action against Iran’s nuclear program are assumed to be the only tools with which to confront Teheran. But one of the lessons of the Arab revolts against dictatorial regimes is the need to pay attention to opposition groups before radical Islamists seize control during periods of domestic unrest.

This lesson was also manifest in the 1979 Iranian Revolution when a secular coalition including the Mojahedin (now more commonly referred to as Mujahedeen-e-Khalq or MEK) was able to oust the Shah but lacked a plan to stave off the Islamists, who now run the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The lesson for modern-day Iran is that now is the time for the West to give due regard to opposition organizations, particularly in the run-up to the summer 2013 Iranian elections when widespread unrest along the lines of 2009 is expected to increase.

One such Iranian dissident group is the MEK, which is illegal in Iran and under siege in Iraq. The MEK is the largest unit in the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a Paris-based organization that has considerable presence on the Iranian street and to which the Iranian regime pays the most attention because it is the main opposition that rejects clerical rule.

But members of the MEK are under Iraqi and Iranian proxy fire in Iraq at a former American military base ironically called Camp Liberty.

While waiting to be processed by the United Nations as refugees, MEK members were attacked on February 9, 2013, by “unknown” assailants – perhaps by Iran’s proxies in Iraq, such as Hezbollah of Iraq, Badr Brigade, and the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, all of which are enemies of Israel. Insofar as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the pro-Israel community should act to preserve the Iranian opposition that rejects clerical rule without endangering those dissidents with too close an embrace.

In a prior assault on Iranian dissidents in Iraq during April 2011, there was a strong reaction from US Senator John Kerry, then chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and now secretary of state.

He described that assault as a “massacre.”

Kerry called for a “thorough and serious” investigation, and emphasized, “The investigation must hold accountable the responsible parties and ensure that there will be no sequel to these horrific events.”

It is encouraging that Secretary of State Kerry’s department condemned “in the strongest terms the vicious and senseless terrorist attack” on Camp Liberty and demanded that “the terrorists responsible for this attack must be brought to justice.”

WHILE IT makes no sense for Israeli officials to take such a prominent role in supporting Iranian exiles, there is little downside for the pro-Israel community to do so. This is a critical moment for Teheran’s rulers. They are beset with political infighting, their domestic economy is hampered by international sanctions designed to curtail Iran’s emerging nuclear weapons program, the rial is in free fall, and inflation is soaring. Discontent on the Iranian street raises the likelihood of massive protests as the election season approaches.

Although illegal in Iran, the Mojahedin plays an important part in leading, behind the scenes, the peaceful protests on the Iranian street.

Unlike Teheran, the NCRI and the MEK are credibly committed to a nuclear weapons-free Iran, as indicated by their revelations of the regime’s nuclear violations since 2002. Raymond Tanter validated the major revelations with evidence from independent sources. And unlike Teheran, these dissidents are committed to a twostate solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Islamic Republic treats Israel and these Iranian oppositionists in the same way because both are committed to the rule of law rather than to rule by unelected clerics.

President Obama’s State of the Union Address on February 12 was a missed opportunity for him to outline additional steps to address the Iran threat. He assumed that the threat is only a nuclear one and that the Iranian regime is a permanent fixture of the Middle East landscape. But there is no reason why the pro-Israel community should make the same mistake.

Instead, the community could quietly act to strengthen the opposition’s hand and ensure Israel’s interests are protected when the unpopular regime in Teheran begins to collapse.

In the lead-up to Iran’s presidential elections in June, the pro-Israel community should consider the following steps: • Just as non-Jews are members of the pro-Israel community, it would be good to see Jews coming to the assistance of Iranians under siege on moral and national interest grounds.

• The authors are adopting individuals at Camp Liberty as prisoners of conscience while they await safe resettlement to third countries; this is an approach we learned as members of the pro-Israel community regarding Jewish dissidents in the former Soviet Union, and it would be nice to learn of such adoptions by the community.

• Encourage the West to pay more attention to the Iranian people rather than simply to the regime in power, given that its days are numbered in months and not years.

Not only should we seek to protect Iranians under siege in Iraq, we should also not repeat the mistakes of the summer of 2009, when the West stood by as Iranians rose up against their ruthless rulers and were crushed with hardly an objection from any quarter. Now is the time to recognize the factional feuding, economic turmoil and increasing political discontent as an opportunity to support an Iranian summer that will lead to a free Teheran that does not need an external enemy like Israel to justify a dictatorship of clerics.

Raymond Tanter served on the senior staff of the National Security Council in the Reagan White House and is a frequent visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The opinions expressed are their own.

Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the director of the Negotiation and Conflict Management graduate program in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore.

Poll: Large chunk of US voters want more pro-Israel Obama

March 5, 2013

Poll: Large chunk of US voters want more pro-Israel Obama | JPost | Israel News.

03/05/2013 04:22
Obama’s upcoming visit will be be an opportunity for him to underline to American voters his commitment to Israel after poll in DC paper ‘The Hill’ finds 39% of voters think he’s not supportive enough of Jewish state.

US President Barack Obama after ordering cuts in government spending, March 1, 2013.

US President Barack Obama after ordering cuts in government spending, March 1, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Larry Downing

US President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel in two weeks will be an opportunity for him to shore up his pro-Israel credentials with a public that does not think he is supportive enough of the Jewish state: a large chunk of American voters.

A poll Monday in The Hill, a Washington DC newspaper, found that 39% of likely US voters do not feel that Obama is supportive enough of Israel, while only 13% believe he is “too supportive.” Another 34% said his support was “about right,” and 14% said they were not sure.

According to the poll, more people (30%) believe that Obama, who is scheduled to make his first visit to Israel as president on March 20, is generally anti-Israel, than those (28%) who believe he is pro-Israel.  Another 29% said neither, and 13% were not sure.

While Obama’s trip has been billed as an opportunity to build bridges with the Israeli public — polls here have shown consistently that more Israelis believe he is pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli – the trip will also be an opportunity for him to underline to American voters as well his commitment to Israel.

An October Jerusalem Post poll found that 28% of the Jewish Israeli public believes Obama’s Administration is more pro-Palestinian, while 18% said it was more  pro-Israel, and 40% called it neutral.

According to The Hill, the proportion of voters who now say the president does not give strong enough backing to Israel is higher than it was in each of three similar surveys conducted since May 2011.

The poll was based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Feb. 28 by Pulse Opinion Research. No margin of error was given.

Netanyahu mulling minor ‘land transfer’ to Palestinians ahead of Obama visit

March 5, 2013

Netanyahu mulling minor ‘land transfer’ to Palestinians ahead of Obama visit | The Times of Israel.

Package of goodwill gestures — including approval of building requests, release of prisoners and transfer of ammunition — reportedly drawn up by defense establishment

March 5, 2013, 5:17 am Surveyors take measurements of the road leading to the planned Palestinian city Rawabi in 2010 (photo credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)

Surveyors take measurements of the road leading to the planned Palestinian city Rawabi in 2010 (photo credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly mulling transferring responsibility for small areas of West Bank land to the Palestinian Authority as part of a package of major goodwill gestures drawn up by the defense establishment ahead of US President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to the region.

According to a report in Maariv on Tuesday, the gestures will include the transfer of authority over two access roads — one to the new Palestinian city Rawabi, and the other to the West Bank city of Tulkarem — to full Palestinian control, the approval of building plans for 10 Palestinian villages currently deemed illegal and under threat of being demolished, the release of many of the 123 Fatah prisoners arrested by Israel before the Oslo peace talks, and the transfer of small arms ammunition to the Palestinian security forces.

The report states that the gestures were discussed in the past in talks with Quartet envoy Tony Blair, but Netanyahu rejected them. The defense establishment reportedly drew up the plans while explaining to Netanyahu that the moves would not be a major political liability for the prime minister, but could create a positive global public relations effect.

Netanyahu made brief reference to Israeli concessions in his Monday address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, but focused more on Israel’s imperative to ensure its security.

“Israel is prepared for a meaningful compromise, but as Israel’s prime minister I will never compromise on our security,” Netanyahu told the  Washington gathering by satellite feed from Jerusalem, noting that Israel had withdrawn from south Lebanon and Gaza, “and we got terror. That can’t happen a third time.”

“Israel seeks a peace with our Palestinian neighbors, a peace that will end our conflict once and for all,” he insisted, “but that peace must be grounded in reality and in security…. In the Middle East, a peace you cannot defend will not hold for five minutes.”

Netanyahu’s caution was in keeping with US Vice President Joe Biden’s decidedly pessimistic tone on the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“It’s going to require hard steps on all sides, but we all have a profound interest in peace,” Biden told the conference. “We’ve got to get caught trying,” he quipped, quoting former US president Bill Clinton.

“So we remain deeply engaged. As President Obama has said, while there are those who question whether this goal will ever be reached, we have no apologies for continuing to pursue this goal.”

On Sunday, the World Tribute reported that Obama expects to see a timetable for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. The report, citing Israeli sources, indicated that the president had made clear to Netanyahu that his March 20 visit to Israel, his first since becoming president, “is not about photo-ops, but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state.”

The Times of Israel could not independently confirm the report, which contradicted official American comments ahead of the trip, which has been described as a solidarity and consultative mission.

“The implication is that if Israel won’t give him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own,” the website quoted one source as saying. According to the report, an Israeli pullout plan could form part of an imminent US push to form a Palestinian state in the West Bank in 2014.

Last week, it was rumored that Obama may cancel his scheduled trip if Netanyahu is unable to form a governing coalition by March 16. So far, the prime minister has only been able to sign up Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua party, with its six Knesset seats, for the next government, but most political sources believe he will beat the March 16 deadline.

The White House announced Monday that there were no changes to Obama’s schedule and that the President was looking forward to his visit to Israel.

Outgoing Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at the AIPAC conference in Washington on Sunday night, said that, in lieu of a final-status peace deal with the Palestinians, Israel “should consider unilateral steps” in order to prevent the “dangerous” eventuality of a bi-national state.

Haviv Rettig and Greg Tepper contributed to this report

Strategic Ties Between the U.S. and Israel Are as Close as Ever

March 5, 2013

Strategic Ties Between the U.S. and Israel Are as Close as Ever | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

March 3, 2013 4:00 pm 0 comments

Author:

avatar Dore Gold

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey meets with Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Chief of General Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces in Israel in January, 2012. Photo: Wikipedia

A dramatic front-page New York Times story on Jan. 8, 2013 gave readers a rare glimpse into the level of intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. According to the article, written by two of the newspaper’s leading reporters David Sanger and Eric Schmitt, several months earlier senior IDF officers had received satellite intelligence that showed Syrian forces mixing chemical weapons at two sites and filling 500-pound bombs. The chemical munitions were loaded onto vehicles near Syrian air bases and, according to assessments, could be deployed within two hours of an order by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Israel reportedly handed the intelligence it had in its possession over to the Pentagon. After U.S. President Barack Obama was informed, he worked to assemble an international coalition to prevent Assad from employing his chemical weapons against rebel forces in the Syrian civil war. The U.S. reached out to Russia, China, Turkey and even to several Arab states that were undoubtedly concerned with Assad’s behavior on the basis of the intelligence originally received from Israel.

Beyond the details outlined in The New York Times report about the dangers emanating from Syria’s continuing uprising, the article also demonstrated how important U.S.-Israel intelligence sharing had become. On the eve of Obama’s upcoming visit to Israel it is useful to take stock of the nature of the security ties between the U.S. and Israel that have come to light in open sources, like The New York Times report from January.

This report was certainly not the first time that the extent of the security relationship between the U.S. and Israel came to light. During the Cold War, Israel provided the U.S. with data on the performance of captured Soviet weapons systems that had been in Syrian and Egyptian arsenals. As early as 1966, Israel provided the U.S. with a MiG-21 fighter jet that the Mossad had flown out of Iraq; the MiG-21 was to become the workhorse of the North Vietnamese Air Force.

In the years that followed, Israel supplied Washington with whole Soviet radar systems. In a famous remark, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence Maj. Gen. George Keegan Jr. expressed his appreciation for Israel’s contribution to U.S. security by stating that the U.S. could not have received the same kind of intelligence “with five CIAs.”

Not everyone shares this kind of enthusiastic view of the U.S.-Israel relationship. There is a small but vocal school of thought led by Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Prof. Stephen Walt of Harvard University who argue that even if Israel was a “valuable ally during the Cold War,” this aspect of the relationship ended when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since that time, in their judgment, Israel is not a strategic asset but rather it is a strategic liability and the bilateral relationship is only sustained by pro-Israel lobbying in Washington. Despite its flaws, their 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” still influences the discourse on Israel within the U.S.

Yet since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the security relationship between the U.S. and Israel appears actually to be closer than ever. The two countries are collaborating closely in the area of missile defense, as exemplified by the recent testing of the Arrow-3 anti-missile system (tested at Israel’s Palmachim base  on Feb. 25). But the new threat of global terrorism has also transformed the defense ties between the two countries. The key to winning the war on terrorism was obtaining accurate intelligence about the organizations and their leaders, who are waging this new war. It has required a scale of intelligence cooperation that many states had been unwilling to undertake in the past, including Israel.

After he left his position as head of the research division of Israeli Military Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser wrote a paper for the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution in 2007 on how Israel was implementing intelligence reforms. One critical area of reform was intelligence cooperation, which had been restricted in the past. In fact, according to Kuperwasser, Israeli military intelligence was not only focusing on Israel’s intelligence needs; it also was collecting and analyzing intelligence “whose main beneficiary is the U.S.”

In any event, it appears that the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship remains vital in multiple areas for both countries in the 21st century, just as it was during the Cold War. The scale of joint military exercises has also increased, reaching record numbers. Delegations from the U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) regularly study Israel’s lessons from its recent operations in the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip.

While the Pentagon has not made public pronouncements on the application of these lessons to U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not be surprising if one day it is disclosed that some of the tactics used in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq could be traced back to the battle of Jenin in 2002.

Signaling the importance of defense ties between the two countries, visits by chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Israel and the Israeli chief of Staff to the U.S. have become far more frequent in recent years. In 2007, the commander of EUCOM, General Bantz Craddock called Israel the U.S.’s “closest ally” in the Middle East in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. In a speech at the Washington Institute in April 2010, Obama’s first National Security Adviser General James Jones remarked: “I can say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America.”

Despite these statements, Israel’s critics have a built-in advantage when they debate the value of the U.S.-Israeli defense ties to America. The substance of much of U.S.-Israeli strategic cooperation is classified. This is particularly true of the area of intelligence cooperation. So if academics like Mearsheimer and Walt question the value of the defense relationship, what can Israel do? Clearly, it is not worth leaking sensitive information that is classified as “secret” by both countries in order to win a public relations battle. The degree that a strategic partner is perceived as a reliable ally is affected by the extent to which he can be trusted to protect secrets.

American military experts voiced their concern in the past that if aspects of U.S.-Israeli military cooperation were to become public, it would alienate the Arab leaders from Washington. But at present, given the preoccupation of the Sunni Arab states with the threat of Iran, they are not about to refuse the visit of an American warship because it docked several weeks earlier in Haifa.

In fact, U.S. diplomatic cables reporting the visits of senior U.S. officers to Arab capitals, that were published by Wikileaks, show that the leaders of the Gulf states do not spend their time talking about Israel but rather about what the U.S. should do to stop Iran. In many of the new conflicts now erupting, Israel and the Arab states are actually on the same side. Those writing commentary about the Middle East must take into account this new reality and not present outdated stereotypes about the Arab world that were probably never accurate to begin with.

Is war between Israel and Iran inevitable?

March 5, 2013

Is war between Israel and Iran inevitable? – The Express Tribune Blog.

March 4, 2013

Iran is enriching Uranium only to make reactor fuel and medical isotopes, and international law allows them to do so. PHOTO: REUTERS

War drums are beating for Iran and once again, the drummer is Israel, joined by some occidental powers. The facade started last summer but was postponed due to the elections in the US and Israel.

The burning question though remains ‘is war between Israel and Iran looming’?

In an attempt to answer this question, we must look at a few different perspectives.

Israel and Western points of view

Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat that must be stopped by all means, including a military strike. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear bomb by summer 2013.

He has also set a spring 2013 deadline for other options that include an attack on Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he was ready to order a strike on Iran if international sanctions did not stop its nuclear programme.

“I am, of course, ready to press the button if necessary,” he added.

Moreover, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned Iran on Sunday that Israel would never allow Iranian leaders to develop a nuclear weapon.

Pentagon’s former chief, Leon Panetta who recently described Iran as a ‘rogue state’ said the US will use all options including military force to stop Iran. Timing matters here, as the US President Barack Obama will be visiting Israel in two weeks time.

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry believes that Iran with nuclear weapons is “simply unacceptable” and warned,

“As we have repeatedly made clear, the window for a diplomatic solution simply cannot remain open forever.”

Iran perspective

Iran is enriching Uranium only to make reactor fuel and medical isotopes, and international law allows them to do so. Tehran has also assured many times that their nuclear program is peaceful.

Moreover, Iran is already under various rounds of international sanctions over its nuclear programme and insists that its atomic work is peaceful and the West must ‘pull away the gun from the face of the Iranian nation.’

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assures he won’t make a nuclear bomb,

“We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won’t build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads.”

However, Tehran also warned that if Israel begins the war then it will spell their destruction and that will be the end of the story.

What next?

Many experts believe that an Iranian nuclear arsenal could motivate Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region to develop a nuclear program.

The counter argument of that statement is that when North Korea went nuclear, South Korea and Japan didn’t follow.

One more argument is that a nuclear Iran will lead to escalation of animosity with Israel.

However, India and Pakistan went to war three times in 30 years before they had nuclear capability, and have not done so again in the 40 years since going nuclear.

However, Wikileaks’ revelations have shown that Gulf States including Saudi Arabia have urged the US to attack Iran.

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz urged US General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Iraq, in 2008 to take military action against Tehran’s nuclear programme and urged them to “cut off the head of the snake”.

“May God prevent us from falling victim to their evil,” said Saudi King Abdullah.

Russia, China and UN

The world has seen that Russia and China vetoed three times Libyan-style military action in Syria even if it was backed by Arab countries.

So, the UN agrees that an attack on Iran looks improbable because two veto powers (Russia and China) have close relations with Iran. Russia and China are on board as they are traditionally more lenient towards Tehran, with China a major buyer of Iranian oil and Russia having close commercial ties with Iran.

Nevertheless, Israel and the US don’t give any weight to the UN as they have already violated it many times. For example, Israel’s air strikes on Palestine and the US drone attacks.

Is war inevitable?

Political theorist Noam Chomsky insists that it would be difficult for the US to attack Iran as it has a strong military. He believes that the US is not going to attack Iran. They don’t want to attack any country unless it’s completely defenceless.

Newly appointed US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel believes in a dialogue with Iran. US politicians showed their reservation on his appointment and feared that Mr Hagel would be too lax on Iran as he was also against the war in Iraq.

Contrarily, Prime Minister Netanyahu constantly stresses that what he sees is a potential existential threat from Iran. So, the possibility of an attack by Israel is wide open.

He said he would never allow Israelis to “live in the shadow of annihilation”.

So what will happen next? Only time will tell.

Read more by Naveed here of follow him on Twitter @Nidos99

AIPAC panel hints at deep US-Israel divide on Iran

March 5, 2013

AIPAC panel hints at deep US-Israel divide on Iran | The Times of Israel.

Ex-IDF military intelligence chief Yadlin to US: ‘You don’t want another war, understandably. But this is not a war, this is a one-night operation’

March 4, 2013, 6:06 pm
Amos Yadlin at AIPAC, March 4, 2013 (photo credit: JLTV Screenshot)

Amos Yadlin at AIPAC, March 4, 2013 (photo credit: JLTV Screenshot)

WASHINGTON — A panel discussion in Washington Monday hinted at wide gaps between Israel and the US on how to coordinate the two countries’ strategies on Iran.

“We all share the same data, the same intelligence. We are also on the same page on the strategic goal to prevent Iran from being nuclear,” the former head of IDF Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin told some 13,000 participants at the AIPAC policy conference. “But between the floor and the ceiling of the problem, there are doors and windows where we’re not in the same place. We should be much closer on how to prevent Iran to go nuclear.”

Coordination on Iran is expected to be at the top of the agenda during President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel and the region later this month.

In response to Yadlin’s comments, Senator John McCain, a fellow panelist at the conference, said, “It’s vitally important that in Tehran they understand that there’s no space between the US and Israel. They believe right now that there is space between the two countries.”

Yadlin, who today heads the INSS think tank at Tel Aviv University, hinted that the Iranian regime’s sense of the gap between Israel and the US may be justified.

“The time is running out in 2013,” he said. The difference between the United States and Israel on the question could be summed up by “three ‘T’s,” Yadlin said, “a different trauma, a different trigger, and maybe not enough trust.”

“We, the Israelis, come [to the issue] with the Holocaust. We are six million Israeli Jews listening to [Iran’s President] Ahmadinejad calling for Israel’s destruction. You come with a different trauma, Iraq. You don’t want another war, understandably.”

But, Yadlin added, “This is not a war, this is a one-night operation, and we should speak about it.”

“We don’t always agree on tactics,” Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged in his talk to the conference shortly after the panel. But, Biden said, “I’ve been here a long time. We’ve always disagreed on tactics. But we’ve never disagreed on the strategic imperative, that Israel can always protect its own on its own.”

Biden added that the Obama administration had invested heavily in military assistance to Israel, particularly in missile defense to counter a potential Iranian attack.

PM Netanyahu’s Video Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference

March 5, 2013

PM Netanyahu’s Video Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference – YouTube.

Israel warns UN of Syria war spilling over its borders

March 5, 2013

Israel warns UN of Syria war spilling over its borders | JPost | Israel News.

 

By REUTERS

 

03/04/2013 23:31
UN Ambassador Prosor tells Security Council that Jerusalem cannot be expected to “stand idle” as the lives of its citizens are being put at risk by shells from Syria landing in Golan Heights.

Syrian mortar shell explodes in Golan [file]

Syrian mortar shell explodes in Golan [file] Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner

 

UNITED NATIONS – Israel warned the UN Security Council on Monday that it could not be expected to “stand idle” as Syria’s civil war spills over its border, while Russia accused armed groups of undermining security between the states by fighting in a demilitarized zone.

Israeli UN Ambassador Ron Prosor wrote to the 15-member council to complain about shells from Syria landing in Israel.

“Israel cannot be expected to stand idle as the lives of its citizens are being put at risk by the Syrian government’s reckless actions,” Proser wrote. “Israel has shown maximum restraint thus far.”

Israel does not have a reputation for being idle. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that an attack on a Syrian arms complex on Jan. 30 showed Israel was serious about preventing the flow of heavy arms into Lebanon, appearing to acknowledge that the Jewish state carried out the strike.

The United Nations says more than 70,000 people have been killed during a two-year revolt against Syrian President Bashar Assad, which began as peaceful protests but turned violent when Assad’s forces cracked down on the demonstrations.

With nearly 1 million Syrian refugees flooding neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as the conflict worsens, the United Nations has warned that the fighting has developed sectarian overtones and could engulf the region.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, president of the Security Council for March, said the security situation between Syria and Israel was also being threatened by “a very new and dangerous phenomenon” of armed groups operating in a so-called area of separation in the Golan Heights between the countries.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in a 1967 war. Syrian troops are not allowed in the area of separation under a 1973 ceasefire formalized in 1974. Israel and Syria are still technically at war. The area is patrolled by UN peacekeepers.

“It’s something which potentially can undermine security between Syria and Israel,” Churkin told reporters, adding that the UN peacekeeping force, known as UNDOF, was unable to cope with the situation.

“Unfortunately there is nothing in the UNDOF mandate that allows them or equips them to deal with that situation because they are unarmed observers,” Churkin said.

Croatia’s government said on Thursday that it planned to pull out of UNDOF as a precautionary step following media reports that Croatian arms were being sent to Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Croatia has 98 troops in the 1,000-strong force.

The UN peacekeeping department is attempting to find replacements for the Croatians but it will not be easy given the tension in the region, UN officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The UN Security Council has been deadlocked on Syria since 2011 over Russian and Chinese refusal to consider sanctions against Assad’s government. They have vetoed three resolutions condemning Assad’s crackdown on the opposition groups.