WarSclerotic

Is Iran widening its shadow war with West? – UPI.com.

Israel’s three gambles on Syria – From Our Inbox – MiamiHerald.com.

BY DANIEL BYMAN AND NATAN SACHS

Foreignpolicy.com

Elliott Abrams: Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics – WSJ.com.

Wednesday’s hearing turned a light on a previously unnoticed player in the story: Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff.

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

‘I was stunned. My jaw dropped,” said Gregory Hicks at Wednesday’s House hearing on the Benghazi terror attack last fall and its aftermath. Mr. Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya under Ambassador Chris Stevens, was referring to the now-famous TV appearances by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

Ms. Rice, blanketing the Sunday talk shows the weekend after the murderous assault on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, spoke of spontaneous protests and linked them to a video insulting Islam. But Mr. Hicks said “there was no report from the U.S. Mission in Libya regarding a demonstration,” and there were no protests. “The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” he added. In the last telephone call that Mr. Hicks received from Stevens, the ambassador said “we’re under attack” and then the cell connection dropped.

The hearing deepened the mystery of how Ms. Rice came to say such things. It added a new political wrinkle in the person of Cheryl Mills, whose role was previously unnoticed. Mr. Hicks testified that when a Republican member of the committee, Jason Chaffetz, visited Libya to investigate what had happened, he was instructed that no State Department officer was ever to be alone with the congressman—and that a lawyer was to attend every meeting he had.

When the lawyer was excluded from one meeting with intelligence officers because he lacked the security clearances, Mr. Hicks received a furious call from Ms. Mills, who was then chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We can be confident that Ms. Mills, who represented Bill Clinton in his impeachment hearings and who was counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, was not calling to guarantee due process. She was calling to protect Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Hicks also told the committee that when he asked the acting assistant secretary for the Near East, Beth Jones, why Ms. Rice had spoken about protests and the video, he was curtly told to drop that line of questioning.

Mrs. Clinton’s role in this matter remains obscure, in part because the State Department’s Accountability Review Board did not interview her, amazingly enough. The review board protected all of the department’s higher-ups and blamed career officials down the ladder. The board is now itself under investigation by State’s inspector general, and Wednesday’s testimony revealed the sore feelings of career officers about the review board’s conduct.

It is now widely known that the “annex” in Tripoli was a CIA location, but the whole story of Benghazi makes little sense unless the CIA role in the affair can be clarified. There were very few security officers at the consulate, and this seems like a huge error by the State Department. But is this because the whole Benghazi set-up was mostly a CIA operation?

That could explain as well why the annex was permitted there, though it did not meet minimal State Department security standards. It may explain why State had a presence in dangerous Benghazi at all—as a cover for the intelligence presence. This may not be fodder for an open hearing, but unless we understand the interplay between State and the CIA, we will not have the full story.

The three witnesses—Mr. Hicks and two other State Department officers who work on counterterrorism and security, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom—came across as civil servants of whom Americans can be proud. Mr. Hicks’s account of the night of the attack and following morning, and the desperate efforts to save the Americans in Benghazi, were gripping.

Gregory Hicks

The hearing room was silent as he told the tale, for the most part without emotion. He named the Americans on his team who had risked their lives to try and rescue Stevens, and others who had performed so well in the intense crisis that gripped the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. At 3 a.m. he gave the order to abandon the embassy building because there were Twitter feeds saying an attack was coming, and he told stories like that of the embassy nurse who started “smashing computer hard drives with an ax” to protect classified information.

The hearing also showed the chasm between the culture of career civil servants ready to risk their lives and the vicious political culture of Washington. No doubt politics motivated some of the Republicans, but due to the nature of the hearing they were cast as investigators. Most Democrats appeared far more dedicated to defending Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration than to finding out exactly what happened, and any criticism of Ms. Rice was rebutted. After all, Chris Stevens is gone but 2016 is just around the corner.

The three witnesses seemed to be visitors from a different reality—different from Rep. Carolyn Maloney and her outrage that anyone could criticize the great Secretary Clinton, or from Cheryl Mills and the anger she expressed at Mr. Hicks for allowing a congressman to escape the presence of the lawyer she had sent.

The Accountability Review Board was also part of that Washington culture, protecting the top levels of the State Department—the secretary and the deputy and under secretaries—and laying blame (and punishment) on the career people below them. This hearing did not ascertain where the buck should stop, but it was a step forward in getting the facts. And it was a reminder that in Washington we should not permit people with political motives to blight the careers of civil servants and blame them for failures of management and policy at the top.

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.

A version of this article appeared May 9, 2013, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics.

The Russian card: S-300 to prevent intervention in Syria – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Russia hopes ground-air missiles sale to Assad will deter US, NATO from action in Syrian civil war and from arming rebels

Ron Ben-Yishai

Russia’s concern that the US and the West are approaching a military intervention in the Syrian civil war is the reason Moscow pulled out its most effective pressure card – the intent to deliver S-300 missiles to Assad’s army. These missiles are capable of damaging long-range aircrafts and ballistic missiles, thus making it difficult for foreign forces in the country.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Syria has already paid for part of the system’s costs. In response, Israel turned to the highest ranks in Russia and the US in order to stop the supply of the missiles to Syria.

It can be assumed that the conversation held between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about the issue of Russian threats to arm the Syrian forces. The Israeli request was made in the last 48 hours to defense and state personnel working directly with President Putin and the White House.

The S-300 is a Russian system made to intercept aircraft at ranges of over 100 km (60 miles) as well as ballistic missiles. It is unknown exactly which model Russia intends to sell to the Syrians, although it is known that Syria has asked in the past for the model referred to by NATO as the SA10.

A few years ago, when it was discovered that Russia was about to supply these missiles to Syria, Israel and the US turned to the Kremlin, which led to the suspension of the deal.

Cyprus on the other hand has received the SA10 missiles and Iran has also been trying for years to get a similar and newer model from Russia – the SA-400.

It is estimated that Russia eventually wants to reach a deal with the US and its NATO allies in which the US will commit not to supply the rebels with weapons against Assad or launch a military intervention in Syria, and in return the Russians would not supply the Syrians with the system or its newer model.

Russia had already signed a deal with Iran for supplying these missiles, and Iranian operators have already trained in their use in Russia. However, following Putin’s visit to Israel and as a result of direct US pressure, this deal was also suspended, yet not canceled altogether.

The US and Israeli argument was that if the Russians supplied Iran with the SA400, it would not be possible to maintain a credible military threat on Iran’s nuclear facilities, since the SA400 system can harm aircrafts within 156 km (97 miles) also in relatively low altitudes. According to the Russians, the system is also capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.

As part of its efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its military nuclear program, Russia accepted the Israeli and US request and suspended the deal.

A similar course of events happened in the past with the supply of SA300/SA10 missiles to Syria. Israel made clear to the Russian that having these anti-aircraft missile systems in Syria would neutralize Israel’s ability to defend itself since the system would be capable of hitting aircrafts not only above Lebanon and Syria, but also immediately when they take off out of almost every base in the center and north of Israel. Russia accepted the argument.

It appears Moscow is now re-considering supplying the system to Syria out of two reasons: the first, to deter the US and NATO allies from an aerial military intervention in Syria, and the second to deter the US from providing the rebels with modern weapons.

Likud MK: Israeli decision on striking Iran by early 2014 | The Times of Israel.

Hanegbi: Israel should not seek, much less rely on, a presidential commitment to hit Tehran; PM in China warns nuclear Iran would ‘blackmail’ the world

By Adiv Sterman and Haviv Rettig Gur May 9, 2013, 11:08 pm

Tzachi Hanegbi, left, with former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Peri in January. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Likud MK Tzachi Hanegbi said Thursday that Israel will come to a final decision over whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities within a year.

“We’re getting closer and closer to the point of no return,” Hanegbi said. “Decisions should be made this year, no later than the beginning of 2014. And I believe that Israel’s future cannot be dependent on others, even on our best allies. We never asked American soldiers to fight for us. We fought for our existence since 1948. Luckily we have the US as our best ally. But we don’t want anybody to spill his blood for us. We have to confront Iran. It should be our mission and our responsibility.”

Hanegbi, speaking at a symposium at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also said that Israel’s leaders could not rely on any American president’s commitment to strike Tehran on Israel’s behalf, and should not seek any such commitment.

A longtime lawmaker, Hanegbi previously served in a number of ministerial posts, including justice minister and intelligence and nuclear affairs minister.

“In respect to the possibility of militarily preventing Iran from getting its nuclear bomb, Israel and the United States work on different timetables. This is due largely to a difference in the capabilities of Israel and the United States, rather than a difference in the perceived capabilities of Iran. The United States can act effectively after Israel cannot,” he noted.

“So if sanctions and diplomatic efforts continue to prove ineffective and the only options left on the table are containment or the use of force, should Israel place its fate in the hands of the United States? Can Israel be assured that its closest ally will act in due time to remove the nuclear threat? ”My answer is no. Such assurance can be given by no president and can be demanded by no prime minister. Israel does not and should not expect such a commitment.”

Hanegbi went on: “Israel’s bond with the United States is unbreakable. And the threat posed to our nations by a nuclear Iran is mutual. But at the end of the day, we are each beholden to our own national security policies and priorities. Just as no president can commit to military action unconditional of (sic) his own nation’s best interest, so can no prime minister forsake his country’s inherent right of self defense.

“President Barack Obama’s successful visit to Israel reiterated that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat,” he said. “And all of us in Israel thank the president and appreciate this message of support.”

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Chinese President Xi Jinping that a nuclear Iran would blackmail the world by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz at will, thereby stopping the oil flow to countries across the globe.

Netanyahu mostly focused on bi-lateral issues during his trip to China, but analysts say convincing Beijing to pull back from its support of Iran was also one of his goals.

In Washington, Hanegbi also backed US efforts to broker peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Hanegbi said that “good conditions” had been created for Israel to progress in peace negotiations, but stressed that Israel will not return to its 1967 borders.

Speaking on behalf of an Arab League delegation to Washington last Monday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani called for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that would be based on Israel’s lines before the 1967 Six-Day War, though with minor land swaps, a significant softening of the body’s stance.

The Arab League’s statement was welcomed by a number of Israeli officials, who called to seize the opportunity and revive negotiations as soon as possible.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit the region later this month in a new round of shuttle diplomacy. He has visited three times since taking office two months ago.

China offers subtle signals of encouragement for Netanyahu | The Times of Israel.

By granting the PM plenty of leadership face-time, a web chat, and the rare privilege to address future leaders, Beijing indicates to Israel that it seeks to be an honest broker with a greater Middle East role

China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu review an honor guard at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on May 8, 2013. (Photo credit: Avi Ohayon/GPO/FLASH90)

China’s media, directed by its government, used the simultaneous visits by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas this week to highlight the country’s ostensibly growing role in the Middle East – in accordance with the effort by its new leaders to expand China’s profile in the international arena. The government’s handling of the visits, meanwhile, signaled Beijing’s desire to be seen by both parties as a fair-minded player, with Netanyahu the recipient of a few subtle bonuses.

As the world’s second-largest economy and the largest crude oil importer from the Middle East, China naturally has vital interests in the region, but traditionally it has been reluctant in seeking the spotlight. In recent years however, with its economic rise and its growing global trade footprint, that reticence is changing. The fact that the US has begun shifting its focus on Asia and downsizing its presence in the Middle East has also created space for China to enter.

China understands that in order to play a weightier role it needs to have Israel’s ear, but it also wants to maintain its close ties with the Arab countries. With both Netanyahu and Abbas ready to visit, the hosts found a typically Chinese polite solution that served their desire for increased influence: invite both leaders, at short notice, to come at almost the same time — Abbas from May 5-7, Netanyahu from May 6-10; kindly offer to arrange a meeting between them should they wish to hold one (a first such gesture by China); but make sure they won’t have to meet if they don’t (Netanyahu arriving in Beijing from Shanghai after Abbas has already left town).

As true masters of ceremony, Beijing did not leave anything to chance. China made sure Abbas arrived first, underlining its support for the Palestinian cause, but granted Netanyahu more “face time” with key figures, and highlighted China’s wish to deepen ties with Israel through actual cooperation in areas such as economy and technology.

In his meeting with Abbas, President Xi Jinping proposed a four-point plan to settle the Palestinian issue, including endorsing the “just cause” of the Palestinians, support for a two-state solution, a demand to halt settlements, and backing the land-for-peace formula. However, seeking to assert its credentials as an honest broker, Xi also made a gesture to Israel by noting “Israel’s right to exist and [that] its legitimate security concerns should also be fully respected,” mirroring the formulations used by American officials.

While Abbas gave an interview to China Radio International, Netanyahu was invited to hold a live chat with Chinese netizens on Xinhua’s website, and gave a speech at the Central Party School, the main academic institution that trains the Communist Party’s future leaders

The Chinese media, owned and controlled by the government, follows a tight script for such high-profile visits; every detail, including photo opportunities — and the subsequent use of the photos — is choreographed to express China’s position. Both Xi and Premier Li Keqiang in turn received Abbas and Netanyahu at the Great Hall of the People and with full military guard. But the article by Xinhua, China’s official news agency, included several photos of a visibly relaxed, smiling Li welcoming Netanyahu — China’s other state news agency, China News Service, ran a whole series of photos — whereas the Xinhua story covering Li’s meeting with Abbas limited itself to two relatively toned down photos.

Nor was the symbolism limited to photo ops. While Abbas gave an interview to China Radio International, Netanyahu was invited to hold a live chat with Chinese netizens on Xinhua’s website, and gave a speech at the Central Party School, the main academic institution that trains the Communist Party’s future leaders. Not every foreign leader is invited to speak at the school. Indeed, Netanyahu is only the second leader this year to speak there, after Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong.

These are not minor niceties. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June last year attended the annual economic summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing, the protocol-conscious Chinese didn’t invite him to hold a press conference while in the capital. When he talked to students at Peking University, he read from a prepared statement, and was not allowed to take questions.

Netanyahu came to China directly after reported strikes by Israel against Syrian military sites holding missiles en route from Iran to Hezbollah. In order not to spoil the visit, Chinese spokeswoman Hua Chunying expressed restrained criticism of the strikes without naming Israel, arguing that any country’s sovereignty needs to be respected. But Xi and Li didn’t mince words in their respective meetings with Netanyahu. Both leaders repeatedly stressed the need to “create the conditions” to restart negotiations with the Palestinians and said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict holds the key for peace for the entire region.

The Chinese media dutifully highlighted what it called China’s objective position on the Middle East and praised its more proactive diplomatic stance. But it’s an open question as to what role, if any, China will actually play.

For now, it has signaled an intention to get more involved at some stage. Its hosting of the two simultaneous Abbas and Netanyahu visits marked a fairly deft first step.

Hagel: Despite shrinking Mideast footprint, US can stop Iran | The Times of Israel.

US Defense Secretary insists region remains ‘top defense priority’ for Obama administration, and that ‘Israel has the right to defend itself’

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speaks at the Washington Institute for Near East policy on Thursday. (photo credit: image capture from YouTube video)

NEW YORK – The United States will still be able to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon despite a shrinking US military footprint in the region and looming defense budget cuts, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asserted in a talk in Washington Thursday.

“The Middle East remains a top defense priority” for the Obama administration, Hagel said, but emphasized that the “most enduring and effective solutions to the challenges facing the region are political, not military.”

“Even as the number of US troops in the region has decreased since the end of the Iraq war, we’ve made a determined effort to position high-end air, missile defense and naval [assets]” in the region, the defense secretary told a symposium of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC.

“Great powers use all of their tools, not just 11 carriers, or carrier battle groups, or air wings,” Hagel said.

The US forces that will remain at the end of the US drawdown, including “the significant US military presence” in Kuwait, Persian Gulf states and elsewhere in the region, will mean the American military will “have the capabilities required” to deal with a potential Iranian nuclear standoff, Hagel vowed.

“Our capabilities in the region will far exceed those that were in place on September 11, 2001,” he noted, and added, “If I didn’t think we had those capabilities, or weren’t going to have them because of the budget challenge, I’d have no choice but to go to the Congress and the president and say [so].”

Even with reduced budgets –- the Pentagon has asked for some $527 billion in its baseline budget for 2014, excluding funds for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — “we can protect the interests of this country with that budget and do the things the American people expect us to do, that we’re committed to do.”

Hagel interspersed his comments about a continued US military presence in the Middle East with repeated references to a burgeoning anti-Iran alliance among states in the region. In recent visits to Persian Gulf countries, he said, “concerns over Iran’s support for the Assad regime, its destabilizing activities [in the Gulf] and its nuclear program were at the top of the agenda.”

He noted US agreements to sell more modern fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and a recent joint demining exercise in the Persian Gulf. These activities reflected a “new arrangement [that] ensures we’re coordinating effectively against Iran,” he said.

Iran’s activities “all pose a clear threat to the United States, to Israel and to the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the wider world,” he added, and vowed the US “will continue to lead” international efforts to end the regime’s nuclear ambitions.

Hagel affirmed the Obama administration’s oft-repeated view that Israel “is America’s closest friend and ally in the Middle East,” and noted US support for its military in fields ranging from missile and rocket defense to Israel’s participation “as the only Middle East nation” in the Joint Strike Fighter program. He took special note of a new arms sales agreement announced last month that will grant Israel advanced missiles, refueling jets and other technologies.

American security cooperation with Arab states would benefit Israel, Hagel added. On his visit to the Jewish state, he had “emphasized” to Israeli leaders “that strong United States security relationships with Arab nations, including particularly Egypt and Jordan and our partners in the Gulf, are not only in America’s strategic interests; they’re also in Israel’s security interest,” he said.

Israeli and American leaders have argued in recent months over the timetable for a possible military solution to the Iranian nuclear program should diplomatic, economic and other peaceful measures prove ineffective. Yet while he asserted that the US was committed to stymieing Iranian nuclear ambitions, “As I emphasized during the trip [to Israel last month], Israel is a sovereign nation. Like all sovereign nations, it has the right to defend itself.”

Netanyahu: Nuclear Iran could disrupt oil supply | JPost | Israel News.

‘Turkey would support US-led no-fly zone in Syria’ | JPost | Israel News.

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