WarSclerotic

Netanyahu’s remarks on Iran: a cheap shot at Obama – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

( The far left hits “critical mass.”  This isn’t cherry picking, it’s cherry pit picking.  Hoisted on their own petard of failed ideology they spew derision on those still left standing.  Truly nauseating, but instructive nonetheless. – JW )

PM Netanyahu is both foolish and plain wrong to criticize President Obama by stating that Israel can only rely on itself to act on Iran in view of the U.S.’s risk-averse Syria policy.

By Alon Pinkas | Sep. 12, 2013 | 3:40 PM | 4

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the weekly gov’t conference in Jerusalem. May 24th, 2013. Photo by Emil Salman

You knew it was coming. After several weeks of prudent and calculated silence; after numerous clarifications that Israel in neither involved nor has a stake in the Syrian civil war; after consenting to a request to assist President Obama in his efforts to muster support in Congress and all that time knowing that a U.S. strike on Syria may not necessarily benefit Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu just had to say something.

And in the best tradition of such statements, both the substance and the timing were off, unhelpful and meaningless.

Evoking just the first half of the sage Hillel’s ancient maxim: “If I am not for myself, who will be?” Netanyahu essentially criticized the U.S., implying that in the case of Iran, Israel will have to rely only on itself since the U.S. approach to Syria can and should be projected into the future in respect to Iran policy.

Conveniently, Netanyahu omitted the second half of Hillel’s existential determination: “…and if not now, when?” immediately soliciting instant-analyses that the Syria crisis incentivizes Israel to strike Iran sooner rather than later.

There are several possible ways to interpret such a statement. The easy one is to dismiss it as “so he said it, so what?” Netanyahu was uttering a general Jewish/Israeli cliche that has cultural foundations rooted in 2000 years of statelessness and persecution. Jews strived for self-reliance and figured out the hard way that they need to control their destiny. In fact, most nations act on this principle, so Netanyahu said nothing profound.

Secondly, self-reliance is a basic tenet of Israel’s national security doctrine. From David Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu Israel always adhered to the principle of defending itself, seeking material support and diplomatic cover from France, Britain and for the last forty five years the US, but always vowing – as a matter of value and policy – to never ask a foreign power to defend it physically. In this respect, Netanyahu said nothing new.

But there is a two-fold foreign and security policy dimension to what Prime Minister Netanyahu said. The first has to do with the possible U.S. strike on Syria and the second, by implication, is the Iran issue.

The odd thing about the Syria crisis was that the U.S., Russia and Israel had a common policy preference: A weakened, hemorrhaging, under-attack Assad in power is better than any other alternative, certainly the chaos, anarchy and inherent instability that would inevitably ensue the regime’s fall from power. Yet none of the three ever admitted that this was their definition of “The best of a host of bad options and scenarios”. Supporting Assad outrightly is unaesthetic, immoral and wrong to pronounce given his unpredictability. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that Israel had no strategic advantage resulting from a U.S. strike, certainly if it had devolved into a ‘rolling operation’ replete with complications and escalation that could have potentially sucked Israel into the fray.

So when President Obama reportedly enlisted AIPAC to help in his Capitol Hill campaign, Israel was less than enthusiastic. Israel’s detractors always see an Israel-AIPAC symbiotic relationship, so had the President failed to gain authorization for a military operation in the House of Representatives AIPAC’s image and perception as an oh-so-powerful lobby would have been dented. Had he managed to get both the Senate and the House to support Israel would, in some quarters, been (falsely) seen and criticized as driving the US to (another) adventurous Middle East war on its behalf, reversing the Hillel-Netanyahu foreign policy principle.

Enter the Iran issue. Undoubtedly, when Mr. Netanyahu said: “If I am not for me, who will be?” he was referring to Iran. Clearly, Netanyahu is making a direct linkage between U.S. Syria policy and pattern of behavior and the future Iran policy. The logic is simple: Obama showed lack of resolve; allowed a red line that he demarcated to be breached with defiance and tease; vacillated on the use of force and capitulated to Russia.

That is a legitimate interpretation. It also happens to be distorted and wrong. There are no U.S. interests in Syria, no political or geo-political objectives, no allies to side with and no clear and present danger to the U.S. A nuclear Iran is the exact opposite. Regional proliferation, regional instability, Israel and Saudi are endangered allies, a nuclear Iran is undeterrable if the regime senses it is in existential danger. Assuming the U.S. will craft an Iran policy based on its risk-averse policy in Syria is a miscalculation. The reason Russia proposed the diplomatic plan is precisely because the Russians saw the U.S. threat as credible and real and were protecting their interests: the alliance with Syria and the naval base in the port of Tartus.

But there is an alarming underlying quality to Netanyahu’s “self-reliance” statement. What if he is taken at face-value and the world, so weary, fatigued and fed up with the Middle East basically ignored him and by implication says: Do what you think you have to do, just leave us out. How could that possibly benefit Israel?

Even if you have reservations about U.S. policy vis-a-vis Syria, President Obama is your ally, indeed your only ally, on Iran. What is the point of effectively telling him: “I don’t trust you”?

Alon Pinkas was Adviser to four Israeli Foreign Ministers and was Consul General of Israel in New York. He is currently a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum.

Has Obama Left Israel on Its Own? « Commentary Magazine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks yesterday about his country needing to rely on its resources to protect itself against potential threats broke no new ground. At another time, his comments might be considered mere boilerplate material since it has been an article of faith for all Israeli leaders dating back to David Ben Gurion, the country’s first prime minister, that if Zionism means anything, it is that the Jewish state must depend on no one but itself on security matters. But coming as it did the day after President Obama’s shocking retreat on Syria, the statement was highlighted in a New York Times article and got major play in the Israeli media. The juxtaposition of the U.S. accepting a dubious Russian proposal that would ensure there would be no Western attack on the Syrian regime over its use of chemical weapons with the Netanyahu statement left many wondering whether Jerusalem thinks it is now on its own when it comes to other threats, such as those from a nuclear Iran. While it would be an exaggeration to claim Washington has completely abandoned Israel, no amount of White House spin about Obama’s zigzag course on Syria changes the fact that his fumbling has left the Middle East a far more dangerous place than it already was.

The reality after the Syria back-down is one in which the prestige and influence of the United States has declined. The president’s inability to make up his mind has not only gotten Bashar Assad off the hook and convinced Vladimir Putin that there is hope for his long-cherished dream of rebuilding the old Soviet empire. It has also made it difficult to envision the U.S. taking on the even more daunting task of a military confrontation with Iran. Since there is no reason to believe further diplomatic outreach to Tehran will be any more fruitful than past efforts, that leaves Israelis with the unpleasant thought that if Iran is to be prevented from going nuclear by force, then they will have to do it themselves. Under those circumstances, what choice is Netanyahu left with other than to try to send a signal of his own to the ayatollahs?

As the New York Times reported:

“The world needs to make sure that anyone who uses weapons of mass destruction will pay a heavy price for it,” Mr. Netanyahu said Wednesday at the graduation ceremony for a naval program. “The message in Syria will also be heard very well in Iran.”

He cited President Obama’s speech Tuesday, in which he said that Israel could defend itself but also had Washington’s “unshakable support,” and quoted a famous saying of the ancient Jewish scholar Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

“The operational translation of this rule is that Israel should always be able to defend itself and will protect itself by its own strengths against every threat,” Mr. Netanyahu told the crowd. “The state of Israel is today prepared to act with great strength.”

In fact Israel has already applied this principle in Syria repeatedly, striking at weapons convoys they feared might be payoffs from Assad to the Hezbollah terrorists in return for the latter’s efforts to boost his side in his country’s civil war. Israel also knocked out Syria’s nuclear reactor back in 2007 over the objections of the Bush administration, a decision that, in retrospect, seems even wiser now than it did then.

However, the current tangle in Syria illustrates both the mutual interests of the U.S. and Israel as well as their differences. While President Obama has been calling for the fall of the Assad regime for years, Israel has no favorite in the confusing fighting in Syria. But the Jewish state and its American friends are invested in the idea of a strong America as a force for stability in the Middle East. That’s why AIPAC and other elements of the pro-Israel community were drawn into the debate on Syria. They were not so much concerned with helping the rebels or punishing Assad (though many sympathize with that effort) as they were with ensuring that a Congress that is increasingly under the influence of isolationist elements didn’t trash American credibility.

Obama’s surrender to the Russians left Israel to ponder a new balance of power in the region in which the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance is stronger than ever and aided by a more assertive Russia, a point that, as I wrote yesterday, was emphasized by the announcement that Putin has approved the sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran.

Despite Israel’s boasts, its armed forces are nowhere near as capable of dealing a crippling blow to Iran as the United States. Moreover, so long as President Obama is pursuing yet another diplomatic initiative with Iran based on the false perception that its new President Hassan Rouhani is a moderate, there is no chance that Israel would attack on its own. That may put any potential strike on hold until long after the Iranians have made it even more difficult to attack their nuclear facilities.

The upshot of all this is not so much that Israel is on its own—something Netanyahu may have already known last year when he was urging Obama to adopt “red lines” on Iran—but that it is essentially helpless to act on that fact. A weaker United States led by a president who is incapable of acting decisively isn’t just a problem for Israel. But right now it looks as if it means there may be no viable option for heading off the threat of a nuclear Iran before it is too late to do anything about it.

Syria will hand over its chemical weapons, says Bashar al-Assad – Telegraph.

Bashar al-Assad has said he will place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control in line with a proposal from Russia.

Syria and Russia deny that President Bashar al-Assad’s military is responsible for the attack Photo: AP

Assad: US military threat did not cause Syria’s decision to cede chemical arms | JPost | Israel News.

Israel Hayom | America’s isolationism and Israel.

Isi Leibler

There is a remote possibility that the Russian strategy will succeed in averting U.S. military action by persuading Syrian President Bashar Assad to hand over his chemical weapons of mass destruction for demolition by international inspectors.

But even if that happens, President Barack Obama’s vacillating response to the horrors in Syria will still be considered another manifestation of America’s ongoing erosion of its superpower role as guardian of the free world against the burgeoning forces of Islamic terrorism.

In the absence of effective presidential leadership, the American people have grown weary of shouldering the burden of policing the world and sending their youngsters to battle extremists in faraway places. Obama’s policies have dramatically revived America’s dormant isolationist inclinations.

This is fortified by the Europeans, who, absorbed by post-modern moral relativism, refuse to share the burden and are now barely willing to even symbolically endorse the engagement of the U.S. in global military initiatives, as well as to contain Islamic terror. Burying their heads in the sand, Western nations seem to deny that jihadism, much like Nazism and communism, represents a fundamental threat to Western civilization, and if not confronted, will ultimately wreak havoc in their own neighborhoods.

Obama’s procrastination and unpredictability have already convinced U.S. allies, including the so-called moderate Arab states, that America has become a paper tiger. Understandably, they no longer believe that they can rely on a vacillating, indecisive commander-in-chief. In their eyes even the ineffective former President Jimmy Carter appears to be a valiant warrior compared to the dithering Obama.

This attitude is unlikely to change, irrespective of whether Congress endorses Obama’s request to punish Assad for gassing his own people. Even if Congress approves an American strike, it will be a limited maneuver, neither intended nor likely to produce regime change. It will probably have negligible deterrent effect and may even enable Assad to portray himself as the heroic victor who triumphed against the mighty U.S.

Israel stands in a difficult position in the midst of the tension. Understandably, it is unwilling to side either with the murderous Assad or the monstrous al-Qaida terrorists now dominant amongst the Syrian rebels. There is little doubt that we would wish a plague on both their houses.

But Israel recognizes that if, after Obama’s repeated promise to act if Assad crossed the “red lines” and employed chemical weapons, Congress rejects his request for a military response, the weakened president would suffer further humiliation, highlighting U.S. impotence and strengthening the isolationist trends that have already dramatically impacted on American public opinion. This would have severe negative ramifications for Israel and the entire region and, above all, embolden the Iranians to continue working toward their nuclear objective.

Conscious of the overriding Iranian issue, Israel does not wish to see Congress humiliating the president in this context. But it neither wants to become embroiled in the Syrian civil war nor lay itself open to accusations of dragging America into a new conflict.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to be credited for acting with diplomatic astuteness. He has muzzled his traditionally outspoken and irresponsible ministers. He has succeeded in walking a diplomatic tightrope in avoiding humiliating Obama while simultaneously sending a clear message to the Syrians that if they implement their threats to attack Israel, it would not remain passive as it did during the Iraqi war.

American Jewish organizations find themselves in a bind. In a bizarre turn of events, the Obama administration has turned to Israel and AIPAC to lobby Congress on its behalf. The major American Jewish organizations reluctantly responded positively and urged Congress to endorse the president’s request, but are attempting to distinguish this from their traditional pro-Israel lobbying. However, this is a no-win situation. Should Congress approve a military strike, it will face accusations of dragging their country into a new conflict. Conversely, should Congress reject Obama, the intervention will result in severe damage to the standing of the Jewish lobby in the American political arena.

For Israel, it is crucial that in conjunction with increasing Islamic fundamentalist threats in the region, it factors the new U.S. isolationism and European indifference into its strategic planning. We must absorb the reality that we are a people who stand alone and can depend on no one but ourselves to deter our adversaries.

Our greatest concern remains Iran. If the U.S. and the West are incapable of deterring Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, we will be obliged to make difficult decisions, weighing the diplomatic consequences and considering the practicality and chances of success in initiating independent action.

This must also serve to strengthen our resolve to bury any remaining delusions that we can rely on third parties to guarantee borders or intervene in a crisis in relation to the Palestinians. In this Alice in Wonderland environment, the U.S. and the Western European countries are unlikely to ease pressures on us to make further unilateral concessions. Even our “friends” are more inclined to focus on the construction of homes in the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem than on Syrians massacring of thousands of their own people.

In the foreseeable future, in the absence of Palestinian leaders genuinely committed to peaceful coexistence, it would be insane for us to succumb to global pressures to make further unilateral concessions, ease security or cede additional territories without genuine reciprocity.

At the same time, we should take solace in the fact that there are also positive developments that benefit us.

Despite the Obama administration’s retreat towards isolationism, the American people and Congress continue to support Israel enthusiastically. This is of critical importance because, whereas we have never asked the U.S. or any other country to engage in wars on our behalf, the U.S. backing ensures that we retain the edge with access to the latest technological military equipment and enables us to defend ourselves and effectively deter the barbarians at our gates.

This also makes it unlikely that U.S. would totally abandon us in the diplomatic and political arena, and would continue acting as a barrier against those seeking to impose sanctions against us.

Despite the active presence of jihadists among our neighbors, at a time when the military power of some of our most committed adversaries has dramatically eroded, our military strength is at an all-time high. This significantly diminishes the threat of a conventional war of aggression against us. In fact, the IDF today is capable of deterring all our adversaries combined. We must of course continue to strengthen and develop our military superiority.

Another important positive development for Israel has been the Egyptian revolt against the Muslim Brotherhood regime, preventing the rise of an Islamic totalitarian dictatorship. This represents a major body blow to Hamas, effectively an extension of the Brotherhood and considered as such by the new Egyptian regime. It has already resulted in military action against the jihadists in Sinai, lessening a major threat to security on Israel’s southern border.

Overall, when one balances the positive developments within the regional turmoil, it is clear that despite frequent gloomy and pessimistic chatter, we can regard Israel’s position as one of strength.

Israel Hayom | America’s isolationism and Israel.

Israel Hayom | Cold War redux.

Israel Hayom | The lion that squeaked.

Iran is Using Syria as a Testing Ground | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

As Congress debates the merits of military action in Syria, concerns are being raised by some observers that hurting the Assad regime could strengthen the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, thereby doing more harm than good to regional and global security.

During these tumultuous and chaotic times in the Middle East, it is more difficult than ever to assemble and update an accurate, comprehensive threat assessment picture, one which takes into account both near and distant dangers, and which can distinguish between security problems based on their level of severity.

There is not one uniform view among Israeli defense experts over what outcome would be best for Israel, in light of the fact that no one can know with certainty what will come in Assad’s place.

Most observers agree that from Israel’s perspective, the al-Qaeda-affiliated organizations in Syria pose a very real and growing threat, but one which is significantly smaller in scope and more easily contained than the threat posed by a far more powerful axis: Iran, the Assad regime, and Hezbollah.

This view is based on the fact that the Syrian regime forms a central component in the Iranian bloc. It is this bloc, on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and with access to unconventional weapons and state-sponsored conventional weaponry, that is the top threat to Israel’s security.

Syria is the bridge connecting Tehran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Bashar Al-Assad has brought Syria closer to Iran and Hezbollah, and today relies on them for his survival. Assad is facilitating the transit of advanced Iranian arms to Hezbollah, as well as supplying it with Syrian-made weapons.

Syria is viewed by the Iranian regime as its critical forward base and springboard to eventual regional domination.

With Syrian help, Iran has armed Hezbollah with 70-80,000 rockets that are pointed at Israeli cities. Hezbollah’s firepower has the potential to paralyze the Israeli home front in a future war.

The most critical threat is the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which is edging forward all the time.

If Iran isn’t stopped, Hezbollah, and other terrorist semi-states like Hamas in Gaza, could try to attack Israel while enjoying protection from an Iranian nuclear umbrella.

The same pattern can repeat itself on an even larger scale in the future. Iranian-sponsored terrorist networks might attack Western cities with impunity if they are emboldened by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The collapse of the Assad regime would deal a serious blow to Tehran and Hezbollah, while significantly improving Israel’s strategic situation.

Furthermore, a Syrian regime that is only weakened by a U.S. strike, yet deterred from deploying a chemical weapon again, could in turn deter the entire Iranian network, and give Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini pause before considering further progress on his nuclear program.

According to former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin,”Iran has all of the capabilities it needs to decide to create a nuclear weapon. The day of the decision could be tonight, when they might choose to break out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

U.S. influence and deterrence has never been more needed in the region, and it has never been more lacking.

If Iran, the world’s most radical state – whose leaders have publicly declared their desire to see Israel destroyed – gets hold of humanity’s most destructive weapons, the effect on regional security would be devastating.

Sunni Arab countries, made up of Gulf states and secular countries like Jordan and Egypt, are all deeply concerned about the potential of nuclear weapons in the hands of Shi’ite Iran.

It is impossible to divorce Syria’s use of chemical weapons from the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guards Corps is fighting with the Syrian army against the rebels, while thousands of Hezbollah fighters are in Syria too, fighting alongside Assad’s forces.

The Iranian-led axis views Syria as a battleground where it can experiment with unconventional weapons and push the boundaries on international prohibitions against weapons of mass destruction.

An indecisive response to August’s chemical massacre in Damascus runs the risk of emboldening Iran and its allies. They in turn will continue in their scheme to emerge as leaders of the Muslim Middle East, acquire nuclear weapons, and confront Israel and the moderate Sunni states.

None of these concerns negate the dangers from a revitalized al-Qaeda network in Syria.

Estimates vary about the number of radical Islamists among opposition fighters. The fact remains that jihadi groups are growing quickly there. They make up some of the most effective fighting units, and are thriving in the power vacuum and deadly battlegrounds of Syria.

The jihadi presence in Syria has begun infecting neighboring states too, such as Lebanon and Iraq, and is likely to spread to other territories experiencing power vacuums, like Egypt’s troubled Sinai Peninsula, while threatening stable countries such as Jordan. A spillover of terrorists to other lands is inevitable.

While the Sunni radical threat is very real, it is also limited in scope at this time, as far as Israel is concerned.

Small terrorist groups can fire rockets and mortars at Israel, and launch cross-border attacks. But this is a threat the IDF can contain, and for which it has spent many months preparing.

In contrast, a war with the Iranian axis would take on a significantly higher magnitude.

When weighing the extent of the danger presented by pro-al-Qaeda groups in Syria, one might also factor in the likelihood that they will be engaged in a power struggle, sectarian warfare, and battles with more moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army for years to come.

This subsequent conflict could hamper their ability to organize serious attacks.

To be sure, the security problem posed by jihadis is no laughing matter. As they continue to raid weapons storehouses once owned by the Syrian army, Israel must think ahead about a scenario involving a raid by al-Qaeda on a chemical weapons facility controlled by the Assad regime.

A reality in which al-Qaeda is armed with chemical weapons can never be accepted.

But right now, Iran is just a few months away from a working nuclear weapon, should it decide to obtain one. Its ally in Damascus massacred more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas, and its ally in Lebanon stockpiles more rockets and missiles than any arsenal in the hands of most modern militaries.

For all of these reasons, a failure to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezballoh axis now could result in a future security deterioration, the outcome of which would be more extensive than any immediate threat posed by jihadis in Syria.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post’s military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

Turkish PM: Assad buying time for more massacres | The Times of Israel.

Erdogan says it’s ‘doubtful’ Syria will follow through on Russian proposal and subject chemical weapons to international control

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses his supporters and lawmakers at the parliament in Ankara, Turkey, Tuesday, June 25, 2013 (photo credit: AP)

In agreeing to a Russian proposal to subject his chemical weapons to international supervision, Syrian President Bashar Assad is buying time to commit massacres against his people, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan charged Thursday.

“The Assad regime has not lived up to any of its pledges. It has won time for new massacres and continues to do so,” Erdogan said in a speech in Istanbul, according to Reuters. “We are doubtful that the promises regarding chemical weapons will be met.”

Assad’s government has publicly accepted a proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control, but there has been little progress in the UN Security Council due to divisions over the content of the resolution relating to it.

The US and France have pushed for a resolution calling for military force if Assad fails to live up to his end, while Russia and China are firmly opposed to such a provision.

The diplomatic flurry follows the threat of US strikes against the Assad regime in the wake of a lethal August 21 chemical attack outside Damascus.

A surprise statement came this week from US Secretary of State John Kerry to the effect that Syria could avert US military action by turning over “every single bit of his chemical weapons” to international control within a week.

Russia, Syria’s most important ally, and Assad’s government quickly agreed on the broad proposal, but details still need to be worked out.

Erdogan has long been advocating for the removal of Assad from power.

On August 31, the Turkish leader says a limited military response to the reported use of chemical weapons by Assad’s regime is not enough, and any kind of intervention should aim to topple him.

“It can’t be a 24 hours hit-and-run,” Erdogan told reporters at the presidential palace in Ankara. “What matters is stopping the bloodshed in Syria and weakening the regime to the point where it gives up.”

Erdogan cited the 1999 NATO air campaign during the war in Kosovo as a good example of the type of action he’d like to see.

“If it is something like the example of Kosovo, the Syrian regime won’t be able to continue,” he said.

There are currently some 500,000 Syrian refugees living in Turkey. The Syrian civil war has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people, according to the latest UN figures.

Erdogan, a former ally of the Syrian president, turned against him several months after the Syrian conflict began in March 2011.