WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | The Russian fox.

Israel Hayom | Netanyahu: Message to Syria will be heard clearly in Iran.

Report: US and Iran laying framework for first direct talks in over 30 years | JPost | Israel News.

LA Times reports that behind the scenes communications between Washington and Tehran on Syria situation have led to thaw in relations; US Officials: Obama and Rouhani may meet on sidelines of UN General Assembly.

US declares victory with Russian plan on Syrian chemical arms | JPost | Israel News.

Obama says military threat put diplomatic deal on table.

Israel says will act if WMDs transferred to Hezbollah – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As global community tries to prevent Syria attack by negotiating surrender of country’s chemical arms, Israel says in favor of diplomatic solution, yet watches warily from side

Atilla Shmolfavi

As the international community tries to reach an understanding regarding Syrian chemical disarmament, Israel closely monitors the actions of President Bashar Assad. Officials made clear Wednesday night that Israel has not withdrawn, and the red lines it set in reference to Assad have not changed. In other words, Jerusalem clarified, if the Syrian president tries to deliver chemical weapons, or weapons that tip the scales in favor of Hezbollah, Israel will act to prevent their transfer.

“Our red lines have not changed,” said an Israeli official. “Assad should understand already that he should not play around with us on this issue. Our policy has not changed, despite what is happening in the international arena. If something looks to us like an unusual step, it will be dealt with.” These words were spoken even as the international effort to reach an agreement went up a level – Wednesday night five members of the UN Security Council were expected to meet to further discuss solving the Syrian crisis.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon hinted in speeches given in recent days that Israel has red lines, but declined to elaborate. Now, given the international community’s efforts to dismantle the non-conventional weapons Assad has collected, Jerusalem emphasized that Israel reserved the right to respond to any attempt to arm Hezbollah with weapons of the sort. According to foreign reports, the IDF carried out operations in Syria several times, hitting shipments of weapons that could have been transferred to the Lebanese terrorist organization and endanger Israel.

Jerusalem views events on the Syrian front with a discerning eye and cautious optimism, as it also does when considering the attitude of the US towards Iran. “We must see what happens in the end,” said an Israeli official, “but it is clear our stance is that a loaded gun must be placed on the table in the form of a real military threat, and this is the appropriate position to take. Once Assad and the Russians realized that the United States was serious, they led the diplomatic process. This policy holds true for Iran’s future as well.”

Even President Shimon Peres said that he believed the current diplomatic efforts to be a better option than a military attack, provided that they lead to the dismantling of chemical weapons Syria.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a jab at US President Barack Obama in comments he made on Wednesday night, emphasizing his position that Israel cannot trust anyone on security issues.

To naval officers at a graduation ceremony in Haifa, Netanyahu said, “These days, perhaps more than ever, the main rule that guides me in my actions as prime minister and on which I am very particular, is: If I am not for myself, who will be? If we are not for ourselves, who will be? We are for ourselves.” Hours later, Ya’alon re-emphasized the same principle, during a ceremony at the Latrun Armored Corps Memorial, “In the fog that covers the Middle East, we must understand that we need to rely only on ourselves.”

The five member states – the US, France, Britain, Russia and China – were supposed to meet Wednesday to consider the French ultimatum draft resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons, but the meeting was canceled because Russia opposed the proposal.

US lawmakers said if diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria according to the Russian program failed, the Senate vote on a military strike in Syria would take place next week.

US President Barack Obama canceled the Senate vote that was supposed to take place this week, in order to allow time to examine the Russian proposal to dismantle Syria’s chemical arms, without military action.

Iran’s nuclear strategy will be sailing full steam ahead, with Russia as facilitator | JPost | Israel News.

Hinting at dismay with Obama, PM says Israel can rely only on itself | The Times of Israel.

Citing Syria and Iran, Netanyahu says he is guided as Israel’s leader, more now than ever, by the saying, ‘If I am not for myself, who will be for me?’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli president Shimon Peres attend a graduation course ceremony for IDF Naval officers at the navy training base in Haifa. September 11, 2013. (Photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO/FLASH90

In remarks whose content and timing implied criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the Syrian chemical weapons crisis, and a concern that Israel could not depend on the US to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday declared that nations that use weapons of mass destruction must pay a price, and said that his own actions as leader of the Jewish state revolved around the conviction that ultimately Israel had no one to rely on but itself when facing enemy threats.

Speaking at an Israeli Navy graduation ceremony, Netanyahu cited a 2,000-year-old saying by the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” And he said this rule “is more relevant than ever these days in guiding me, in my key actions as prime minister.” Its practical application, he said, “is that Israel will always be able to protect itself, and will protect itself, with its own forces, against all threats.”

Netanyahu and the Israeli leadership have been deeply worried that perceived hesitancy and weakness in the US, in responding to the alleged chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that the US says killed 1,429 people in the outskirts of Damascus August 21, may be exploited by Iran to further advance its nuclear program.

Netanyahu made this concern explicit in his speech Wednesday, warning, “The message that is received in Syria will be clearly understood in Iran.”

Amid complex diplomacy to try to resolve the Syria crisis, the prime minister was adamant that “one has to be certain that the Syria regime is disarmed of its chemical weapons. The world needs to ensure that whosoever uses weapons of mass destruction pays a price.”

Netanyahu’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon echoed his theme, stating that, “At the end of the day, we have rely on ourselves, on our forces, on our deterrent capacity.”

At the same event, President Shimon Peres stressed that the Syrian regime could not be trusted. But in sharp contrast to Netanyahu, Peres clearly threw his weight behind Obama-backed, Russia-initiated diplomacy, saying any agreement reached by the US and Russia would ensure the safe disposal of Syria’s WMDs.

“I know both President Obama and President Putin, and I am convinced that if an agreement is reached it will be reliable, explicit and significant,” the president said.

Israel’s Channel 2 news said that, behind the scenes, Jerusalem believed that if diplomacy failed to definitively resolve the crisis surrounding Assad’s chemical weapons, and yet Obama did not resort to military action, Iran would be greatly emboldened.

Another TV News report, on rival Channel 10, said Netanyahu in private had indicated his concern that the Iranians perceive weakness from the US in facing Bashar Assad’s Syria, a far less potent regime than their own. The TV report said Netanyahu was also unhappy that Obama had reached out to Israel and to pro-Israel activists for help in swaying Congress behind military action, only to back away from that course. And finally, it said, Netanyahu was wary that destroying Assad’s chemical stockpiles was a lengthy, complex process, and there was insufficient clarity about how it was to be handled.

Last week, Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, said a plan by Netanyahu to attack Iran in 2012 was canceled due to US objections.

Arab affairs analyst Ehud Yaari noted Wednesday that seven years after Libya agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons stockpiles — which were far smaller than the 1,000 tons he said Assad’s regime held — only 40% of that weaponry had been destroyed.

The process in Syria, said Yaari, would take many years, would require immediate supervision of existing stockpiles by large deployments if forces, the speedy signing and ratification by Syria of the treaty against production and proliferation of chemical weapons, and then the construction of sophisticated facilities to destroy the weaponry.

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria – NYTimes.com.

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

¶ MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

¶ Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

¶ The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

¶ No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

¶ The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

¶ Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

¶ Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

¶ From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

¶ No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

¶ It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

¶ But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

¶ No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

¶ The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

¶ We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

¶ A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

¶ I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

¶ If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

¶ My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

¶