WarSclerotic

“One of the Worst Statements by an American President in History”; Israeli Cabinet Blasts Obama’s UN Speech – Regard d’un Ecrivain sur le Monde.

“One of the Worst Statements by an American President in History”; Israeli Cabinet Blasts Obama’s UN Speech – Regard d’un Ecrivain sur le Monde.

BBC News – Iran nuclear programme: US and China call for response.

The US and China have urged Iran to respond “positively” to an international offer over its nuclear programme, US officials say.

The call came ahead a rare high-level meeting between the US and Iran.

And Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani called for a world without nuclear weapons, hours after saying Tehran wanted a deal in three to six months.

The West suspects Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, a claim strongly denied by Iran.

Iran has been negotiating over the issue since 2006 with the P5+1 – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.

Since Mr Rouhani’s election in June, Iranian officials have reached out to the West, saying they want to address concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.

On Tuesday, Mr Rouhani told the UN General Assembly that he was prepared to engage in “time-bound and results-oriented” talks.

On Thursday, he called for stricter controls on nuclear weapons as part of a global effort to eventually rid the world of them.

“No nation should possess nuclear weapons; since there are no right hands for these wrong weapons,” he said, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement at the General Assembly.

‘Moderate course’

The P5+1 has asked Iran to halt production and stockpiling of uranium enriched to 20% – a step away from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

It also demanded Iran shut down the Fordo underground enrichment facility.

In return, it offered to ease the sanctions that have severely affected Iran’s economy.

“Both the US and China believe that Iran should co-operate with the P5+1 and should respond positively to the proposals that are on the table,” a US official told journalists at the UN on Thursday.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is due to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry as well as diplomats from the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly summit in New York.

It will be the highest level direct contact between the US and Iran for six years.

President Obama has welcomed the new Iranian president’s more “moderate course”.

He told the UN on Tuesday that the US wanted to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully, but was determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Mr Rouhani has said he is fully empowered by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to negotiate on the issue.

Rubin Reports » Syrian Rebels Say: We Demand Radical Islamism; U. S. Says: We Can’t Hear You!.

Barry Rubin

By the way, only one of these groups is an al-Qaida group, Jabhat al-Nusra. There is also the large Salafi Islamist group, Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya. The others include the powerful Liwa al-Tawhid (Aleppo) and Liwa al-Islam. Both groups operated as part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) umbrella.

What about the U.S-backed Free Syrian Army? As the GLORIA Center’s Syria expert Dr. Jonathan Spyer put it: “This is much of the Free Syrian Army.”

The Syrian rebel statement, distancing these militias from the FSA’s leadership said, “These forces call on all military and civilian groups to unite in a clear Islamic context that… is based on sharia (Islamic) law, making it the sole source of legislation”. “The [Syrian] National Coalition and the proposed government under Ahmad Tomeh [the Obama Administration- supported “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood puppet who wields little power] does not represent us, nor do we recognize it,” said 13 of Syria’s most powerful Islamist rebel groups.

In other words, the rebels themselves deny they are “moderates”. Note that when the United States tried to get the Syrian rebels to denounce al-Qaida over a year ago they all refused. They would rather alienate America than al-Qaida.

A question that comes up is would not the people of Syria suffer? The tragic truth is that they will suffer either way. Of course, there will be ethnic massacres. First, the Sunni Muslims will be slain; then the Christians, Druze, Kurds, Shi’ites, and Alawites will be massacred. How many hundreds of refugees will Arab and Western countries absorb?

The current civil war will not be the last war.  There will be a civil war between the victorious partners, at least the Brotherhood-types and al-Qaida, and perhaps the Salafists. Then there will be a war between the Sunni Islamists (al Qaida and Brotherhood-types) and the Kurds. There has already been fighting between al-Qaida style organizations and other Sunni Islamist rebels against the Kurds. Intra-Sunni Islamist rebel infighting is increasingly occurring. Al-Qaida groups have also fought one another and other rebel groups.

War without end, amen. Syria will be turned into a smoking ruin for a generation, perhaps 20 percent of the population will flee. This is no war of liberation but a tragedy.

Will America give hundreds of millions to the Syrian economy? Will it train and reform the Syrian Islamist army? Will it advise the Brotherhood against al-Qaida while ignoring ethnic massacres?

But yes the greater strategic danger by an edge is Iran. Yet why would America be expected to handle this danger, an America that is taking the wrong side in Egypt? Better to keep Washington away from being a rent-an-army for the Arab League in direct engagement in Syria.

There is, however, another factor. There are now boots on the ground of Iranian troops in Syria. You think Russia will take care of that as well? Actually, the regime is in long-range trouble. It is running out of reliable soldiers to fight for it. Iranians and their Shi’ite Islamist proxies will predictably make up for these numbers.

These are the unpalatable choices. That’s why President Obama has now changed a regulation prohibiting U.S. aid from being paid to terrorists, believe it or not.

That doesn’t mean we should want the regime to win. It is certainly in U.S strategic interests for the rebels to prevail.  But have no doubt that when they do defeat the regime, the rebels will blame the United States and Israel–though they opposed the regime and helped the rebel side–as well as Iran, Russia, and Hizballah for their problems. They will fight against peace, be willing to stage anti-American terrorism, and be against U.S interests. This could be justified by the defeat for Iran but don’t be over-enthusiastic

UN Security Council Reaches Deal On Syria Resolution: Officials.

UNITED NATIONS — U.N. diplomats say the five permanent members of the divided Security Council appear to have reached agreement on a resolution to require Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons stockpiles.

Their comments Thursday came a day after Russia’s deputy foreign minister said negotiators had overcome a major hurdle and agreed that the resolution would include a reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security.

The five veto-wielding members of the Security Council have been discussing what to include in a new resolution requiring that Syria’s chemical weapons be secured and dismantled.

The U.S. and Russia had been at odds on how to enforce the resolution.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private.

Assad threatens to ‘blind’ Israel, claims Syria can trust Hezbollah – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Assad says he has no doubts about Hezbollah’s loyalty, claims hubbub regarding chemical weapons connected to Western desire to protect Israel which he says Syria can ‘blind in an instant’ even without chemical arms

Roi Kais

In a boastful interview, the embattled Syrian president claimed that Obama is “hesitant” and “unstable”, and claimed that Syria doesn’t need chemical arms to deter against Israel, because it has newer, more sophisticated weapons which can “blind” Israel in “an instant.”

In addition, Syrian President Bashar Assad was quoted as saying that the relations between his government and the terrorist Shiite group Hezbollah have “consolidated” the Syrian regime’s position regarding “any aggression against Syria.”

“We are confident that the battle we are conducting with our allies is the battle of all of the resistance front… I am confident that the chief of loyalty (Hezbollah Sec.-Gen. Hassan Nasrallah) can contain the repercussions of any aggression against Syria,” Assad was quoted as saying by in Thursday’s edition of the Lebanese paper Al-Akhbar, Now Lebanon reported.

Assad with Russia’s Deputy FM Sergei Ryabkov (Photo: Reuters)

Assad reportedly expressed his optimism regarding the developments concerning his unconventional arms, specifically in regards to the Kerry-Lavrov agreement to secure the regime’s chemical weapon stockpiles.

“We have 1000 tons of chemical weapons that were initially a burden for us. Getting rid of them would have been costly and would have taken years, in addition to the environmental dilemma they pose and other problems that would need to be resolved. Let them then come and take them.”

However, the embattled Syrian president still remained skeptical regarding the world’s true motivation for curbing his chemical stockpiles. “The chemical weapons are not and were not their aim. They wanted to change the balance of power and protect Israel,” he reportedly said.

On a fiery note, Assad warned that Syria owned arms more dangerous than the now-infamous chemical ones.

“Chemical weapons were manufactured in the eighties as deterrence in the face of Israeli nuclear weapons. Today, it is not a deterrence force anymore. We have weapons that are more important and more sophisticated to challenge Israel, which we can blind in an instant.”

The Syrian president also slammed US President Barack Obama, claiming the Obama is a “a hesitant and unstable person… too weak to launch an aggression against Syria.”

No problem

Nonetheless, speaking to Venezuela’s Telesur, the Syrian leader insisted that his regime was complying with a deal under which Damascus will turn over its chemical weapons for destruction.

“Syria is generally committed to all the agreements that it signs,” he said in an interview published in full by the Syrian state news agency SANA on Thursday.

He said Damascus had begun to send the required details of its chemical arsenal to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which is overseeing the deal, and that OPCW inspectors were expected to visit Syria.

“Experts (from the OPCW) will come to Syria in the coming period to look into the status of these weapons,” he said. “As the Syrian government, there are no serious obstacles,” he added.

“But there is always the possibility that the terrorists will obstruct the work of the experts by preventing them from accessing certain places,” Assad added. The Syrian regime calls all those fighting against it “terrorists”.

Syria agreed to turn over its chemical arsenal under a deal thrashed out following an August 21 sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus, which killed hundreds of people.

The attack, which occurred as UN chemical weapons experts were in Syria investigating previous alleged chemical attacks, was blamed on the Syrian regime by Washington and other international backers of the Syrian opposition.

Assad’s government denies involvement, but agreed to turn over its chemical arsenal in the face of threatened US military action in response to the August 21 attack.

Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ | JPost | Israel News.

World powers set to test Iran on nuclear dispute | The Times of Israel.

Iran watchers say Rouhani may have limited time to reach settlement – a year or less – before Khamenei decides negotiations are fruitless

By Lara Jakes and Matthew Lee September 26, 2013, 12:12 pm

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, right, meets with French President Francois Hollande during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Craig Ruttle)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany will meet with Iran’s top diplomat on Thursday to test the Islamic Republic’s apparent willingness to reach a deal to resolve international concerns about its nuclear program after years of defiance.

The meeting on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly is aimed at paving the way for the first round of substantive negotiations on the nuclear issue since April, probably next month. It will also mark the highest-level, direct contact between the United States and Iran in six years as Secretary of State John Kerry comes face-to-face with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany will participate with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton serving as host of the meeting.

Encouraged by signs that new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani will adopt a more moderate stance than his hard-line predecessor but skeptical that the country’s supreme leader will allow a change in course, President Barack Obama directed Kerry to lead a new outreach to explore possibilities for resolving the long-standing dispute. However, Obama and other US officials have said Iran must prove its commitment with actions, not just words.

Rouhani is in New York this week, making his debut on the world stage with an address to the General Assembly and a series of other speeches, news conferences and bilateral meetings.

During his visit, Iran has shown new urgency in reviving the stalled negotiations, seeking to ease crippling international sanctions as quickly as possible. Rouhani said Wednesday that “we have nothing to hide” and Zarif said he hoped his counterparts “have the same political will as we do to start serious negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement within the shortest span of time.”

The West suspects Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and has imposed crippling sanctions on Tehran that have slashed its vital oil exports and severely restricted its international bank transfers. Inflation has surged and the value of the local currency has plunged.

Tehran has repeatedly denied that its nuclear program is for anything other than peaceful purposes.

But since his June election, Rouhani has made clear he is seeking relief from the sanctions and has welcomed a new start in nuclear negotiations in hopes this could ease the economic pressure. He has said he has the full support of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all important matters of state including the nuclear question.

“If there is political will on the other side, which we think there is, we are ready to talk,” Rouhani told editors Wednesday in New York. “We believe the nuclear issue will be solved by negotiation.”

In his speech to world leaders at the UN on Tuesday, Rouhani repeated Iran’s long-standing demand that any nuclear agreement must recognize its right under international treaties to continue enriching uranium. The US and its allies have long demanded a halt to enrichment, fearing Tehran could secretly build nuclear warheads.

Uranium enriched to low levels can be used as fuel for nuclear energy but at higher levels of enrichment, it could be used to build a nuclear weapon.

Rouhani also insisted in his speech that any deal be contingent on all other nations declaring their nuclear programs too are solely for peaceful purposes — alluding to the US and Israel.

Iran watchers say Rouhani may have limited time to reach a settlement — possibly a year or less — before Khamenei decides negotiations are fruitless. That may explain Zarif’s call to reach a deal in the short time span.

“He is not negotiating for the sake of negotiating and dragging it out,” Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Mideast program at the Wilson Center think-tank in Washington, said of Rouhani. “His reputation, and the country’s reputation, is at stake. This is an issue they are willing to work on, and move to take concrete steps to serious negotiations.”

Rouhani in New York has come across as a more moderate face of the hard-line clerical regime in Tehran. In particular, he appears to be trying to tone down the caustic rhetoric of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with regard to Israel — one of the points of friction in relations with the West.

Still his speech to the UN was peppered with Iran’s traditional digs at America and the West — a reminder that a diplomatic warming will not come quickly or easily.

Rouhani condemned “the Nazi massacre against Jews, Christians and others” in his remarks to editors on Wednesday.

“There is no way to ignore Nazi crimes against Jews,” he said. But he added “it is important that those victimized not seek compensation by victimizing other groups” — a pointed reference to what he has described as Israel’s occupation and subjugation of Palestinians.

Citing the Quran, or Muslim holy book, Rouhani said that if any innocent person is killed, it is as if all of mankind has been killed.”

Ahmadinejad, in contrast, once called the Holocaust a “myth” and later said more research was needed to determine whether it had really happened.

Israel’s UN delegation walked out of Rouhani’s speech Tuesday in protest. But in a text message statement sent to reporters on Wednesday, Finance Minister Yair Lapid said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s instruction to Israeli delegates to walk out was a “mistake.” He said it created the impression that Israel was not interested in encouraging a peaceful solution to Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

Rouhani said Iran must be careful in starting a new relationship with the US after three decades of frozen ties, adding that his first goal is to reduce the distrust. He noted that there are radical voices in America and radical voices in Iran who would not like to see that happen, but said that the voices of moderation need to be strengthened and supported.

“The more two countries are apart, the more suspicions, fears and miscalculations creep in,” he said in remarks that were initially supposed to be off the record. However, in response to requests from journalists, Rouhani agreed some of his remarks could be quoted.

He said he has no problem shaking hands with Obama. But he said he thought the first meeting between leaders of their two countries in more than three decades needed to be handled very carefully. There had been heated speculation that the two might meet at the UN on Tuesday and even exchange handshakes and pleasantries. But that did not happen.

The White House said Obama remains open to the possibility of an informal encounter with Rouhani at a future date.

Iran’s Leader, Denouncing Holocaust, Stirs Dispute – NYTimes.com.

By MARK LANDLER and THOMAS ERDBRINK

Published: September 25, 2013 

Mr. Rouhani, in an interview on Tuesday with CNN, described the Holocaust as a “crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews” and called it “reprehensible and condemnable.” It was a groundbreaking statement, given that his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II. Mr. Rouhani largely repeated his comments in a meeting with news media executives on Wednesday.

But a semiofficial Iranian news agency accused CNN of fabricating portions of Mr. Rouhani’s interview, saying he had not used the word Holocaust or characterized the Nazi mass murder as “reprehensible.” Mr. Rouhani spoke in Persian; officials at CNN said they used an interpreter provided by the Iranian government for the interview, which was conducted by Christiane Amanpour.

The dispute over his comments reflects the extreme delicacy of the Holocaust as an issue in Iranian-American relations. More broadly, it speaks to the political tightrope Mr. Rouhani is walking, trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with the United States that will ease sanctions to please everyday Iranians, without provoking a backlash by hard-liners.

Such careful calculations prompted Mr. Rouhani to eschew a handshake with President Obama at the United Nations General Assembly. After weeks of conciliatory moves, including Iran’s freeing of political prisoners, Iranian and American officials said they believed Mr. Rouhani needed to placate hard-liners in Tehran, who would have bridled at images of an Iranian leader greeting an American president.

“Shaking hands with Obama would have won Rouhani huge points with the Iranian public, but it would have caused Iran’s hard-liners a conniption,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Rouhani avoided other land mines at the United Nations. His comments to the General Assembly, though less inflammatory than those of Mr. Ahmadinejad, touched on similar themes and grievances: the lack of respect for Iran, the West’s refusal to recognize its right to enrich uranium, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

But when Mr. Rouhani sat down later with Ms. Amanpour, he moved into fraught territory. Asked whether he shared his predecessor’s belief that the Holocaust was a myth, Mr. Rouhani replied, according to CNN’s translation, that he would leave it to historians to judge the “dimensions of the Holocaust.”

But he added, “In general, I can tell you that any crime or — that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people — is reprehensible and condemnable, as far as we are concerned.”

The Iranian news agency Fars, which has ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, posted its own translation of Mr. Rouhani’s answer, and claimed that he did not use the word “reprehensible” and that he said historians should be left to judge “historical events,” not “the Holocaust.”

That translation resembles more closely the way Mr. Ahmadinejad used to discuss the issue. In an interview with CNN in 2012, he said: “Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn’t taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that?”

In what appeared to be an effort to head off criticism of Mr. Rouhani, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Wednesday that the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, said the president had presented Iran’s clear and revolutionary stands in his United Nations speech.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to recognize the Holocaust became a symbol of Tehran’s implacable hostility. For Israel, it is evidence that Iran is bent on its elimination, and this is why Israel is so determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

While American Jewish leaders characterized Mr. Rouhani’s remarks as a modest step forward, they remained deeply skeptical of Iran’s intentions and its readiness to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

“Assuming the accuracy of the translation, for me his comments are duly noted,” said David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “But he’s only acknowledging, and rather belatedly, the universally acknowledged truth of the last 70 years. That does not warrant a standing ovation.”

Israeli officials reject Mr. Rouhani’s claim that the factual details of the Holocaust are a matter best left to historians. In fact, some analysts say, even raising doubts about the scope of the genocide is itself a form of Holocaust revisionism.

A statement issued last week by the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “It does not take a historian to recognize the existence of the Holocaust — it just requires being a human being.”

Mr. Netanyahu, rattled by Mr. Obama’s desire to engage Iran, has warned that Mr. Rouhani, with his professorial demeanor and moderate tone, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet Iran’s hard-liners, Mr. Sadjadpour said, “probably view him as sheep in wolf’s clothing.”

The complex political crosscurrents were on display in the Iranian news media’s coverage of Mr. Rouhani’s day at the United Nations. A reformist newspaper, Shargh, published pictures of Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Obama during their speeches, with the headline “Perhaps Another Time” — a reflection of the letdown among average Iranians about the missed opportunity for a handshake.

But another paper, Kayhan, which is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed horror over the possibility that “the clean hand of our president would for moments be in the bloody clench” of Mr. Obama.

Advisers and analysts close to the government in Tehran said that after weeks of conciliatory statements and gestures by Mr. Rouhani, the excitement had gotten out of hand.

“We need to gain something from the Americans, before we pose and smile with them,” said Hamid-Reza Taraghi, an official who is one of the few trusted to interpret the speeches of Ayatollah Khamenei. “Of course, Mr. Rouhani also needed to convince some at home that he is not making any wild moves.”

Mr. Rouhani himself suggested that a meeting would have been premature and might actually have jeopardized the longer-term goal of striking an agreement on the nuclear program. Speaking to editors and columnists in New York on Wednesday, he said, “I believe we did not have enough time to make it happen.”

“If we do not take our first steps carefully,” he said, “we may not at the very least be able to obtain mutual goals that are in our minds.”

White House officials, though deflated, said Mr. Rouhani’s decision showed he is an astute political player who knows how to calm hard-liners at home while charming audiences abroad. Those are skills they say he will need to navigate the treacherous waters of Iranian politics.

“The issue of the relationship between the United States and Iran is incredibly controversial within Iran,” said a senior administration official. “For them it was just too difficult to move forward with that type of encounter at the presidential level, at this juncture.”

Skeptical Netanyahu knows he’s ‘spoiling the party’ on Iran | The Times of Israel.

PM doesn’t want anyone easing the pressure until there’s real change in Tehran’s nuclear program. But it’s a stance that isolating Israel, while Rouhani leads his country in from the cold

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius at the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, August 25, 2013 (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/Pool/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers aren’t alone in their skepticism of Tehran’s newly friendly face. But Jerusalem’s refusal to consider giving the Iranians a chance to prove their sincerity, and to do as little as possible to acknowledge the ostensible goodwill gestures — as underlined by the Israeli delegation solo boycott of President Hasan Rouhani’s UN speech on Tuesday — threatens to isolate Israel rather than the Islamist foe it so mistrusts.

Jerusalem is well aware of this. Netanyahu knows he’s “spoiling the party,” an official told The Times of Israel with striking candor. But the prime minister, said the official, sees a “moral obligation” in insisting that Iran be measured by deeds not speeches, in urging the world not to be misled by empty rhetoric.

The Iranian charm offensive has been gathering momentum since Rouhani was elected in June. It has included ostensible respect for Jewish sensitivities, featuring Rosh Hashanah greetings from Rouhani or his Twitter managers. More substantively, it saw (quickly denied) reports last week that Iran might be prepared to close its underground enrichment facility in Fordo.

And on Tuesday, the outreach became an onslaught. In his first appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, Rouhani sought to woo the world with a brief, direct speech in which he used the word “peace” 19 times (and mentioned the Torah). Soon afterwards, in a CNN interview, he starkly separated himself still further from his easy-to-demonize predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by acknowledging the Holocaust, though not its scope, and condemning it.

Much of the international community, though wary of Iran’s new outreach, is “tired of war” as Rouhani put it, and therefore willing to wait and see if Tehran will take actions to match its president’s new fine words. France’s president met with him on Tuesday; America’s would have done.

During his speech, before he had even heard Rouhani’s conciliatory address, indeed, President Barack Obama signalized readiness to engage with Rouhani’s government, speaking of the imperative to test the preferred diplomatic route to thwarting Iran’s nuclear weapons drive. Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to meet his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Thursday, the first meeting at that level in three decades.

But for all that readiness to engage, Obama also declared that Washington “will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction” and clarified that he is “determined to prevent [the Iranians] from developing a nuclear weapon.” The US is prepared “to use all elements of our power, including military force,” to secure its interests in the Middle East, he stressed.

Likewise, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who on Monday met Zarif, said that while London is “open to better relations” with Tehran, the Iranians’ ostensible change of heart must be tested. “The time is now right for those statements [from Iran’s leaders] to be matched by concrete steps by Iran to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s intentions.”

Germany, too, plainly remains thoroughly cautious. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who met Rouhani in New York, said Berlin would use the upcoming nuclear negotiations with the Iranians “to test if recent statements are rhetorical or could lead to action.”

Only Israel has made up its mind, with Netanyahu adamant that Rouhani’s comments and tone are disingenuous, “hypocritical,” “cynical” — designed solely to buy time while Iran inches toward the bomb.

Before Rouhani had even spoken, Netanyahu was declaring that he wouldn’t be fooled by Iran’s “smokescreen” and urging the world not to be fooled either. In a video statement after Obama’s speech, the prime minister, quoting the US president, said he too would “welcome a genuine diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons.” His emphasis was on the words “genuine” and “truly,” and he uttered them in tones that bespoke his immense skepticism.

The decision to then order out the members of Israel’s UN delegation meant Netanyahu was dismissing Rouhani’s rhetoric before even hearing it. And he justified the move as soon as Rouhani had finished his address because, he said, for them to have stayed “would have given legitimacy to a regime that does not accept that the Holocaust happened and publicly declares its desire to wipe Israel off the map.” As Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu said, “I won’t allow the Israeli delegation to be part of a cynical public relations charade by a regime that denies that Holocaust and calls for our destruction.”

As it turned out, from the UN podium, Rouhani vowed that “Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region,” and spoke of ways to go about “ensuring the legitimate rights of all countries in the world, including in the Middle East.” And no sooner was he finished at the General Assembly than he was heading off to tell CNN that “any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created towards the Jews, is reprehensible and condemnable.”

Some analysts had felt the Iranians’ refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust might be the last ace up Netanyahu’s sleeve, as ostensibly peace-loving Rouhani conquered the hearts and minds of the international community. Iran’s enriching uranium and sponsoring terrorism – these are issues that Western countries, especially those that believe they can remain unaffected, think they can live with. But Holocaust denial is a universal red flag.

Netanyahu did not immediately comment on Rouhani’s Holocaust remarks, but his loyal Minister of Intelligence, Yuval Steinitz, was reduced to complaining that Rouhani “didn’t condemn those who have denied” the Holocaust. Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin opined that just because the Iranian president recognized the Shoah, didn’t mean the Islamic Republic is “enlightened and cultivated,” since “Iranian spiritual leaders who have denied the Holocaust are still in place.” Is it Israel or Iran that looks small-minded after those comments? Who seems magnanimous and who petty?

Israel’s position was set out by Netanyahu before Rouhani went to New York and it evidently remains unchanged: unless or until Iran fulfills Israel’s four conditions — halting uranium enrichment, removing already enriched material, shutting down the Fordo facility and discontinuing the plutonium track – there should be no easing the pressure on the regime.

“The prime minister is aware that he’s spoiling the party,” the Israeli official told The Times of Israel, referring to Jerusalem’s insistent skepticism in face of the world’s cautious optimism. “Many people in the international community want to believe in Rouhani’s charm offensive. But the prime minister believes firmly that we haven’t seen change of substance. And he will make his case even if there are those who believe that he’s spoiling the party, even if he risks sounding like a broken record. He believes that’s his moral obligation.”

Maybe so. But so long as Jerusalem holds to that line, its isolation is likely to grow, and Iran’s supporters will be able to depict the Jewish state as the intransigent party.

As Obama showed on Tuesday, it is possible to welcome Iran’s overtures without compromising on core demands, and even without taking the military option off the table, in the likely case that Tehran fails to live up to the expectations its new president is raising.