WarSclerotic

Nasrallah: Hezbollah will help Syria recapture Golan | JPost | Israel News.

Iran threatens response to alleged Israeli strike in Syria | JPost | Israel News.

( I just can’t help myself… “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke!” – JW )

The Benghazi Playbook: Lies, Betrayal and Cover-Up | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

( The gut-wrenching testimony we  heard yesterday continues to depress and nauseate me.  Now the WH is claiming that Hick’s memory of the phone call from Hillary’s #2 is flawed.  Do they actually expect ANYONE to believe that?  For shame…! – JW )

The emergence of new evidence documenting an alleged cover-up by the Obama administration during the aftermath of the Benghazi attack has accelerated the dissolution of President Obama’s fictitious narrative about an anti-Islam YouTube video, which supposedly inspired throngs of demonstrators to spontaneously assault the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya,  and kill Ambassador Chris Stevens and three brave Americans.

To paraphrase Howard Baker, we may yet find out what the president knew and when he knew it.

Last week, the Weekly Standard obtained “a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence” – evidence that the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice were heavily edited by senior members of the Obama administration to hide the role of Al Qaeda in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the evening of Sep. 11, 2012.

As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes notes in “The Benghazi Talking Points,” the administration knew as early as two hours into the attack that an “al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya” was responsible. That information was known throughout various government agencies. However, by Sunday, Sep. 16, the story had been transformed into the now-infamous lie about an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Later, when the video story began to unravel, the administration issued a statement through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that suggested that new information had come to light about the role of terrorists in the attack.

Yet the information was not new; it had been known from the very earliest stages of the attack. Was this a deliberate attempt to deceive the nation?

Evidently so, that is what three “whistle-blowers” – senior State Department officials with inside knowledge of the Benghazi attack – will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, May 8.

According to CNN, one of the witnesses, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy, has already told congressional investigators that “a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attack was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”

If a force had left Tripoli to head to Benghazi, Hicks said it might have saved the lives of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Instead the attack went unchallenged.

Hicks also questioned Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points that made the rounds on numerous Sunday shows following the attack. Hicks said he was “personally known” to Rice’s staff and that he could have been called before Ambassador Rice conducted her interviews on the Sunday shows.

“You know, it’s jaw dropping that – to me that…I could have been called, and, you know, the phone call could have been, ‘hey, Greg, Ambassador Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah, blah,’ and I could have said, ‘no, that’s not the right thing.’”

Yet, that phone call was never made – and the media never reported any such information.

Later, on April 29, Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for one of the whistle-blowers, told Fox News the whistle-blowers were threatened with “career-ending reprisals” if they disclose new information about the Benghazi attack to Congress. As Charles Krauthammer said Monday night on “Special Report” with Bret Bair, given the allegations made by the Benghazi whistle-blowers, the events that occurred in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack are “by definition a cover-up.”

Meting out appropriate punishment is necessary not only because it is just, but also because rectifying previous mistakes is the only way to ensure that the correct safeguards are implemented in the future.

At the upcoming hearing, therefore, congressional leaders must effectively instill an appropriate sense of moral and military awareness within the Obama administration – for, that alone will keep our great nation and the next generation of American diplomats safe.

It’s certainly the least we can do for them.

Mr. Raskas served in the Israel Defense Forces and is currently a research analyst for SecureAmericaNow.org.

Russia and U.S. trying to move beyond differences to reach solution on Syria – Middle East – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

It’s impossible to tell if Moscow and Washington agree on how the crisis should end, and whether they agree on Syria’s intentions, or possible courses of action; but neither side can allow the future map of Syria to be drawn by militias and gangs that could easily spread the crisis into Lebanon and Iraq.

By Zvi Bar’el | May.09, 2013 | 1:41 PM | 1

Syrian rebels aim during a weapons training exercise outside Idlib, Syria, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Photo by AP

“Syrians, beware of ending your revolution in the conference room,” warned Moaz al-Khatib, who recently stepped down from his position as the leader of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. His remark is in line with the opposition’s stance on the Russian-American proposal to hold another international conference to discuss the Syrian crisis.

Following the press conference held by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, it is impossible to tell if the two nations agree on how the crisis should end. It is also unclear if Russia and the U.S. agree on Syria’s intentions, or possible courses of action should the proposed conference in May or June fail to yield agreements.

The Geneva Conference held on June 30, 2012, meant to create a base for solving the crisis in Syria, is not remembered fondly. The conference recommendations to immediately cease fire and begin negotiations were never adopted. A cease-fire, which was a precondition for talks, was never implemented, and negotiations never began.

After that conference, the vast differences in stance between the U.S. and Russia were revealed, as the two nations could not agree upon Syrian President Bashar Assad’s role in the proposed talks. Russia opposed the opposition’s demand that Assad step down before negotiations, while the U.S. joined in the demand that Assad step down as a precondition for talks.

Has one of the two powers changed its stance? Is Russia ready to oust Assad from his palace? Has Washington suddenly agreed to allow Assad to participate in early negotiations, provided he steps down later? The answers to these questions remain unknown.

Since the Geneva Conference there have been worrisome developments in Syria, which have apparently sparked Russia and the U.S. to try, yet again, to advance the diplomatic process. It’s doubtful that the tremendous amount of casualties, between 80,000 and 90,000, or the half a million refugees, is what has the two nations worried.

Aside from the casualties and refugees, in recent months the crisis has included the strengthening of the Islamist militias which have gained control of many Syrian provinces, including the Al-Nusra Front (an organization affiliated with Al-Qaida), religious and ethnic massacres, infighting within the opposition, increased Hezbollah and Iranian support, the use of chemical weapons and most recently, Israeli intervention. These factors have sparked the renewed American and Russian involvement.

Both nations know that the nature of the conflict’s eventual end will greatly influence their future relations with Syria, as well as their status in the Middle East. They cannot allow the future map of Syria to be drawn by militias and gangs that could easily spread the crisis into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq. Russia is suspiciously examining Washington’s position, as the latter is just a step or two away from arming the Free Syrian Army. The U.S. is weary of Russian military intervention. Both sides don’t know how Israel, the wild card, will proceed.

The two nations must now agree among themselves on the proper end to the conflict – the proper leadership for Syria, and what steps to take to put that leadership in power as soon as possible.

Not only Russia and the U.S. need to agree on these principles, however. The opposition organizations and Syrian militias must agree first and foremost to hold a conference, and then to adopt its decisions. The Free Syrian Army has already stated that it will not take part in preparing the conference, and will not commit to its recommendations. “The solution in Syria is military, not diplomatic,” said Brig. Gen. Salim Idris, Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army, only a few days ago. Idris demanded more weapons and financial support in order to put an end to the Syria’s military. Most of the Islamist militias as well, and primarily Al-Nusra, will not support any political solution that includes Assad.

On the other hand, some Syrian opposition organizations are ready to negotiate with Assad, but their representation is controversial. Opposition leadership will demand that they set the parameters for transferring power, that Assad stays out of the process and that they also set the time frame.

Syria’s Assad must go, Kerry insists – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Thursday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have to step down as part of any political solution in Syria, as he held a third day of talks on the bloody conflict.

Speaking as he met Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, Kerry said all sides were working to “effect a transition government by mutual consent of both sides, which clearly means that in our judgment President Assad will not be a component of that transitional government.”

Kerry also officially unveiled $100 million in additional U.S. humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees, almost half of which will go to help Jordan struggling to cope with a tide of people fleeing the 26-month war.

Washington has now pledged some $510 million dollars in humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, and a further $250 million in non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels fighting to oust Assad.

But the brutal conflict is taking a heavy toll, with some 2,000 people flooding into Jordan every day, and the country now hosts some 525,000 refugees, Judeh said at the start of the talks in Rome.

“We have 10 percent of our population today, in the form of Syrian refugees. It is expected to rise to about 20 to 25 percent given the current rates by the end of this year, and possibly to about 40 percent by the middle of 2014,” he said.

“No country can cope with the numbers as huge as the numbers I’ve just described,” he warned.

Plans for an international conference to try to find a solution to the crisis were also continuing, Kerry said, after he agreed Tuesday in Moscow talks that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would work in tandem on the issue.

There is a “very positive response and a very strong desire” to find a way forward, he said after a round of telephone calls with foreign ministers.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon had also been in touch, so “we are going to forge ahead very, very directly to work with all of the parties to bring that conference together,” Kerry added.

It is hoped the conference, aimed at finding a path towards a transitional government in Syria based on the six-point Geneva accord agreed last June, could be held by the end of May. Although no venue has yet been identified, the Swiss city could again host the talks.

U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, meanwhile also met with the Syrian opposition in Istanbul on Wednesday to discuss the way forward, Kerry said.

Since the war erupted to oust Assad, more than 1.5 million Syrians have fled the country into neighboring nations, including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, vastly straining their resources.

Up to four million more could be displaced within the country as they seek to flee the fierce fighting, which has already claimed some 70,000 lives.

Up for discussion

Kerry and Judeh were also set to discuss efforts to revive the Middle East peace process, with the U.S. secretary of state set to return to Israel for his fourth visit at the end of May.

Jordan, which is one of only two countries to have signed a peace treaty with Israel, would play a key role going forward, Kerry said, adding it had also been instrumental in bringing together the Arab League to help kick start the process.

But Kerry warned time was of the essence.

“Each day that goes by in the Middle East always brings the ability for someone, somehow, to create events that always threaten the ability of the process to continue smoothly,” he said.

Jordan’s Judeh also referred to a row after Israeli police briefly detained a senior Islamic cleric, Jerusalem Mufti Mohammed Hussein, on Wednesday for questioning on an incident at the flashpoint al-Aqsa mosque compound.

“Jerusalem has to be the symbol of peace and I think Jerusalem is a very, very important component of all the final status discussions that will take place,” he said.

Khamenei to Assad: Full and Unlimited Support | Al Akhbar English.

Israel Hayom | Forgetting the past.

Israel Hayom | Assad vows ‘strategic revenge’ on Israel, modeled on Hezbollah.

Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra | World news | The Guardian.

The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders

The flag of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra flying over the main square of the city of Raqqa in Syria. Photograph: Reuters

What Israel Air Strikes on Syria Reveal About Blueprint for Iran Attack – Forward.com.

Will U.S. Get Advance Warning of Attack on Nukes?

getty images

Tensions RIse: U.N. peacekeepers keep wary eye on border area between Syria, Israel and Lebanon after Israel mounted air strikes on a missile facility last weekend.

By Nathan Guttman

Washington — Israel’s punishing air strikes against Syria highlight the delicate dance about sharing information with the U.S. — a balance that provides a blueprint for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Following a pattern set in decades of military cooperation, Israel did not provide the U.S. with advance warning about its intention to launch two strikes on advanced missiles near Damascus, sticking to boilerplate statements about the need to “take any action needed.”

But insiders say prior consulations would be required before any Israeli attack on Iran, because — unlike the Syria attacks — such a strike would likely drag the U.S. into military intervention of one kind or another.

Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official involved in U.S.-Israel relations, called an attack on Iran “the big one” and stressed that Israel would have to share information at the highest level of decision-makers.

“It’s not something that you can come on Sunday and say ‘we’re attacking on Tuesday,’” Miller said, suggesting that approval from the U.S. would take some time.

Still, even in this hypothetical case, the White House would not expect Israel to provide exact details in advance.

“It’s inconceivable that the Israelis will say: ‘We’re going to attack Iran on this day at this hour,” said Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush.

He predicted that the U.S. would not require such specific information and Israel would be reluctant to provide it, fearing leaks from the administration. But Abrams agreed that Israeli officials would tip their hand that an attack was certain, even if they withheld some details.

“Maybe they’ll come and say: ‘we reached the point of high probability,’” said Abrams, who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The air strikes on Syria took place on May 3 and 5 and were aimed at warehouses storing dozens of advanced surface-to-surface Fateh-100 missiles.

The missiles, provided by Iran, were on route to Hezbollah in Lebanon and were viewed by Israel as game changing weapons in its ongoing battle against the Lebanon-based terror group. The U.S. administration was quick to make clear it had received no advance notice about the attacks.

President Obama, in an interview while travelling to Costa Rica, announced his support for Israel’s action, saying he believes “Israelis justifiably have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.”

The decision not to provide advance notification to the United States and not to seek pre-approval fits a long standing pattern of military coordination between the two countries, one that can best be described as following the rule of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Ambiguity is helpful for both sides. For Israel, determined to prove its sovereignty in making security-related decisions, lack of advance notice makes clear all decisions were made independently. For the United States, as it tries to avoid taking responsibility for Israeli actions, this ambiguity provides a safe distance from the events. “The American side wants to be kept in the loop, but at the same time, the U.S. also wants to maintain some deniability,” said a former Israeli official who has dealt closely with this intersection of relations. “The result,” the official added, “is a compromise between the need to know and the need not to know.”

History shows that the calculus about whether Israel needs to provide details to the U.S. depends on the degree to which American interests are directly involved.

In the case of Syria, there was no direct impact on the U.S. Hence, there was no need for any advance warning.

“I don’t think this is terribly consequential to the United Stats,” said Miller, who currently serves as vice president for new initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Even without specific advance warning, the Obama administration was not surprised by the Israeli action. In private conversations with their American counterparts, as well as in public statements, Israelis have made clear they will not tolerate transfer of weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. This was enough to convey the message that an attack could occur.

“We do not have a green light, red light relationship with Israel,” Abrams said.

The policy of ambiguity in sharing exact details of military action has been honed in the crucible of repeated Israeli military actions during Mideast crises.

In 1981 Israel took out Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a bold air strike thousands of miles from its border. Israeli officials had raised their concerns over the Iraqi nuclear program with the highest levels of the Reagan administration, but upon hearing America’s reservations regarding taking action against the nuclear site, Israel launched a surprise attack, triggering a furious response from Washington.

Since, the two nations improved their communications and avoided friction over military actions. The decision to start two widespread military campaigns in Gaza and the second Lebanon war followed the pattern of discussing the policy in general terms with the U.S. in advance while stopping short of actual notification about the exact timing, scope and operational details of the upcoming attacks.

This system was put to its most significant test with the September 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear site, which was being built in northern Syria. Elliott Abrams recalled in his recent book “Tested by Zion: The Bush administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” discussions held between the two governments before the attack. Israel expressed its concerns over the evidence that Syria was building a nuclear reactor and when the U.S. suggested dealing with it by diplomatic means rather than launching a strike, Israel made clear it would consider a military option, but provided no details.

“It took two months before the Israelis attacked,” Abrams said in an interview, “the only advance notice we had was the discussion months before.” Still, the Bush administration did not condemn Israel for the attack.

For America, experts and former officials agree, not knowing the details is, more often than not, the best case scenario. Specific advance knowledge of Israel’s military plan could imply that the United States gave its stamp of approval to the operation and would also suggest that Israel cannot act without prior approval from America. Both would be unwelcome.

“There is a desire on both sides to make clear that these are sovereign national security decisions,” Abrams said.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com or on Twitter @nathanguttman