WarSclerotic

Obama softens on nuclear Iran: Keep components, just promise not to weaponise them.

Omani Defense Minister M. Al Busaidiat

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran:  “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Said Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.
Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.
They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.
This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s  nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:

1) Complete halt of uranium enrichment; 2) Removal of enriched materials from Iran; 3) Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant; 4) Termination of plutonium production at Arak.
Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Netanyahu postpones UN General Assembly speech to meet with Obama – Montreal Politics | Examiner.com.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday morning, Sept. 17, 2013 at the weekly cabinet meeting that he will postpone his speech to the United Nations General Assembly by one day to make time to meet with United States President Barack Obama.

Netanyahu was scheduled to address the General Assembly on Sept. 30 instead he will now meet with President Obama at the White House in Washington D.C. before flying to New York to speak at the U.N. on Oct. 1.

Prime Minister Netanyahu requested to meet with the President, and the only day Obama was available was Sept. 30; Obama is occupied with hearings for the implementation of his health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare. Obama has refused to meet however, with the new Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who will also be speaking at the General Assembly and requested to meet as well with Obama.

The announcement and confirmation comes from Netanyahu’s meeting with his cabinet Tuesday morning Israel time and from senior Israeli and U.S. officials. The cabinet meeting was delayed two days from its usual Sunday date because of the high holiday of Yom Kippur and the Yom Kippur War 40th anniversary ceremony observed this past Sunday. In his opening remarks, PM Netanyahu stated; “In another week and a half I will attend the United Nations General Assembly, and before that I will meet with President Obama. I intend to focus on the issue of stopping Iran‘s nuclear program – a true halt to the nuclear program.” The two leaders will also discuss the crisis in Syria.

The request to meet with Obama comes one day after Netanyahu met with Secretary of State John Kerry at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem. At their meeting on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2013, Netanyahu and Kerry spoke primarily about the Syria chemical weapons disarmament agreement, but also Iran’s nuclear weapons’ threat, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Last year, both Netanyahu and Obama were in New York at the same time to speak at the U.N. General Assembly. They did not meet because Israel and the U.S’s differences over dealing with Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities and possession of uranium to create nuclear weapons. Netanyahu requested to meet with Obama last year, and instead of meeting with Netanyahu, the President chose to campaign for the 2012 President election and made an appearance on the ABC daytime talk show “The View.” This left both heads of state on the outs until Obama’s reelection and first formal trip to Israel in March 2013, resulting in a thaw between the two leaders.

This is the third year in a row Netanyahu will speak at the United Nations General Assembly. He first spoke in 2011 requesting that the U.N. not grant the Palestinians’ request to be admitted to the international body as a non-member observer state. More memorable however, was Netanyahu’s “Red Line” speech from last year, which became well known, not just for the speech itself, but rather more for the graph the Prime Minister used to accompany it.

Netanyahu spoke about a nuclear Iran and the red line in Iran’s nuclear development timeline where Israel will no longer tolerate the Iranian threat to their national security. The Prime Minister requested that the U.N. to adopt this red line, asking; “It’s not a question of whether Iran will get the bomb. The question is at what stage can we stop Iran from getting the bomb.”

Accompanying his address Netanyahu displayed a drawn type graphic of a nuclear bomb indicating before what stage Iran should be stopped from further developing nuclear weapons. Netanyahu stressed the red line that should be adopted in a cartoonish graphic with a literal red line under the bomb’s fuse, dramaticizing and clarifying his and Israel’s position.

Netanyahu plans to speak again at the U.N. about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. At the weekly cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Sept, 17 the Prime Minister discussed the steps that need to be implemented and taken against Iran to end their nuclear development program. Netanyahu explained; “There are four steps. The first is the cessation of all uranium enrichment activity, the second is the removal of uranium from Iran, the third is the closure of the Qom facility and the fourth is the halting of plutonium enrichment. Only all four steps will constitute an actual halt of the nuclear endeavor. Pressure on Iran must be intensified, not withdrawn, until all four goals are achieved.”

Netanyahu making a comparison to Syria’s Aug. 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack emphasized that Israel must step up as the threat to Iran; “Events in recent weeks have strengthened the assumptions under which we operate: A rogue state that develops or obtains weapons of mass destruction may use it, or better yet will eventually use it. Only a credible military threat can allow diplomacy to stop armament. Israel must maintain force so as to be able to defend itself at all times, against any threat.” Concluding with Hillel’s saying; “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”

Netanyahu addressing this topic has become even more relevant in light of Syria’s chemical weapons attack against its citizens and the three weeks in limbo where the U.S. first planned as a response an unpopular limited military attack to the transformation into a diplomPM Netanyahu’s Remarks at the Start of the Weekly Cabinet Meetingatic situation early last week. Kerry made a comment on Monday, Sept. 9 about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad relinquishing his arsenal, prompting Russia’s reaction, a proposal suggesting that Syria actually give their chemical weapons for international control for destruction. Then on Saturday, Sept. 14, the U.S. and Russia came to an agreement in order to dispose of Syria’s arsenal. With the publication of the U.N.’s inspectors’ report on Monday Sept. 16, there is now confirmation of the chemical weapons attack.

Throughout the three weeks, Iran figured prominently when the U.S. considered a military response; they felt they had to demonstrate a strong response to deter Iran from moving forward with their nuclear program. The U.S. was concerned a lack of repercussions would send the wrong message to Iran. Even with the diplomatic solution, the threat of a military action remains if Syria does not comply with all the terms of the arranged agreement. This is partly to show Iran, America still has a strong arm and there are severe consequences in crossing the red lines.

Maybe PM Netanyahu’s planned meeting with President Obama following the recent Syria crisis has opened the eyes of the world of the gravity of the Iranian threat Netanyahu was trying to emphasize a year ago in his “Red Line” speech. Last year Netanyahu stated in his address; “I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme altogether.” This year Netanyahu might have more open audience to his warnings and message at the U.N. in light of recent events; a year later is better than never.

Netanyahu’s deceptive tactics obscure strategic success – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Rather than being bad news for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy, the agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is proof of its success.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: His bluster hides a successful strategy. Photo by AP

The prevailing argument regarding the U.S.-Russian agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is that it’s a bad development, even a failure, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy. Since Israel behaved as though it was hoping for a U.S. attack – both behind the scenes and in the dissemination of reports to the effect that Military Intelligence had intercepted conversations confirming that Syrian President Bashar Assad had deliberately used chemical weapons – the natural conclusion is that the cancellation of the operation is a blow to Israeli policy. A policy that hoped that an attack would send a signal to Iran and undermine its ally.

Even Netanyahu’s “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me” speeches early in the week and anonymous statements by ministers reinforce the sense of Israeli disappointment. And in fact, Iran is presumably watching the behavior of U.S. President Barack Obama and concluding that it won’t be attacked either. Netanyahu therefore remains alone. It is tempting to mock him, as many are doing.

This point of view confuses the prime minister’s tactics and his strategy, which is now in its optimal and most promising stage. The truth is that Israel, in contradiction to Netanyahu’s belligerent declarations, does not want to attack Iran, not alone and not with the help of the United States. That is a last option, whose effectiveness is not guaranteed, even in the opinion of those who favor a military strike. Israel – also in contradiction to Netanyahu’s declarations – does not really fear a second Holocaust, but rather the very fact that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, which weakens Israel strategically and is liable to cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In order to prevent that, Netanyahu is threatening an attack. In order to strengthen the threat, he is using the card of Holocaust awareness. That, in effect, is a deceptive tactic: to create a sense of horrifying danger to the country, which will require the U.S. to defend its ally, or require Israel to embark on a preventive action.

The strategic objective is different: to carry out in Iran what will happen in Syria. Because it’s clear to everyone that Iran’s nuclear program, like the chemical weapons in Syria, cannot be destroyed completely in a military attack. The disarmament agreement in Syria produces a result more effective than any bomb – even if it is not implemented in its entirety. Netanyahu is now at the peak of implementing his strategy – precisely because of the reasons that ostensibly prove that it is weakening.

Nore does the fact that Russia prevented an attack prove the other side of the coin. In effect, Russian President Vladimir Putin has joined the effort against non-conventional weapons. Since Russia’s status in the world has been strengthened as a result of the agreement, it is likely to join a similar move against Iran. Because even Russia is not interested in the proliferation of non-conventional weapons, but in strengthening its diplomatic power.

In addition, Obama’s foot-dragging before the attack also reinforces the threat against Iran. Had the U.S. attacked in Syria – after the tiring process leading up to a vote in Congress and in light of the collapse of his international support – we can reasonably assume that the administration would have been too exhausted to embark on another campaign. In Iran, they are probably concluding that Obama can’t threaten twice and give in both times. Next time, he’ll shoot. That is why the chances that Iran is willing to compromise have increased.

The trap in which Netanyahu finds himself lies in his inability to boast of an achievement. If he declares that he is satisfied, he will lose, He must continue to threaten, and through his ministers to convey ostensible disappointment in the Americans. If the cooperation with the U.S. administration continues to be conducted clandestinely, until in the end Iraq’s nuclear projects are dismantled, the newspapers will continue to mock Netanyahu’s lack of proportion in connection with the Iranian threat – but historians will judge his Iranian policy positively.

A president’s word – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Obama knows if he fails to keep his promise on Iran he will be tossed into trash can of history

Baruch Leshem

Barack Obama was born from words. In 2004 he was elected to the US Senate for the state of Illinois and was still unknown on the national level. John Kerry, the democratic presidential hopeful, asked him to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. The rumor about Obama’s rhetorical abilities had already circulated among the party’s leaders, and he was also perceived as a person who could help recruit black people in the election campaign.

The national channels failed to cover the address as he was still an unknown figure, and it was broadcast on local TV. That’s when the major buzz began among journalists and broadcasters about a new star that had been born. The video of Obama’s performance became a hit on national news programs and everyone spoke about the next big thing in politics. These rhetorical skills helped him close the gap in the polls with Hillary Clinton in Democratic Party presidential primaries and defeat experienced Republican McCain with the glorious military career.

A great speech requires great words. The keywords are “change,” “hope,” “a better future.” For democratic politicians there are of course the words which represent their worldview: “Peace,” “democracy,” “human rights.” Presidency is not a debate club in Harvard. The person holding the highest position in the American nation is also required to perform.

This is the booby trap Obama has fallen into more than once – the gap between words and performance. His first term as president began with a huge speech in Cairo, in which he declared the start of the era of peace in the Middle East. Since then, the sounds of fire in the region’s countries have not ceased. He promised to end the American army’s involvement in Iraq, which took years, and to withdraw the soldiers from Afghanistan. Their number there has only increased ever since.

American public still trusts him

Obama declared in his speeches that he would shut down the Guantanamo detention facility. He realized that an al-Qaeda attack on Americans may shut down his presidency. He promised to take military action against Syria if it used chemical weapons. He delivered another big speech about giving diplomacy another chance.

What does this say about Obama’s presidency? Is he a great speaker but a small statesman whose word cannot be trusted, as Netanyahu rushed to imply? I’m not so sure. Obama is doing the things, but slower than the speed of his punch lines. The US Army is in the stages of pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary of State John Kerry brought about the start of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Obama reached an agreement with Putin to strip Syria of its chemical weapons.

Commentators may have lost their faith in Obama, but the American public still trusts him. Despite the great economic crisis before the 2012 elections, he was re-elected as president. That wasn’t obvious. Jimmy Carter lost his presidency in 1980 following the Iranian students’ takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, and George H. W. Bush lost in 1992 because of the economic situation.

The politician Obama admires the most is President Abraham Lincoln, who wrote: “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” Perhaps Obama has realized that he doesn’t control events either, however he knows that if he fails to manage those events forced on him, including his promise that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, he will be tossed into the trash can of history.

Iran’s supreme leader: We’ll be flexible in nuclear talks | The Times of Israel.

Khamenei says he doesn’t want nukes; reports claim he’s ready to allow surprise inspections and ‘real-time’ oversight of facilities

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left, speaks during his meeting with President-elect Hasan Rouhani in Tehran, Iran, on Sunday, June 16, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Office of the Supreme Leader)

Iran is not opposed to dialogue with the West concerning its nuclear program and will show flexibility in negotiations, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday.

“I am not opposed to correct diplomacy,” Khamenei said. “I believe in what was named many years ago as ‘heroic flexibility.’”

Khamenei’s comments came a day after German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that Iranian President Hasan Rouhani was prepared to shut down Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Fordo in exchange for eased Western sanctions.

“A wrestler sometimes shows flexibility for technical reasons. But he does not forget about his opponent nor about his main objective,” Khamenei added.

Speaking at a meeting with Revolutionary Guards commanders, Khamenei went on to deny that the Islamic Republic strove to acquire nuclear weapons, calling the possession of such weapons contrary to Islamic ideals.

“We do not believe in nuclear weapons because of our beliefs, not for the sake of the US or other countries, and when we say that no country should possess nuclear weapons, we ourselves are definitely not trying to possess them,” he said.

In an apparent reply to Khamenei and Rouhani’s statements, US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would test Iran’s willingness to engage in dialogue about its unsanctioned nuclear program.

“There is an opportunity here for diplomacy,” Obama said. “And I hope the Iranians take advantage of it.”

Khamenei is ready to allow real-time oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities via camera, and surprise visits by UN inspectors, Israel’s Channel 2 news further reported Tuesday night. Assuming Iran did not have secret facilities elsewhere, such oversight, the report said, would preclude a “break out’ by Iran to the bomb, as might be possible in the current situation during periods between scheduled visits by inspectors.

The report also said Iran seeks to maintain its “civilian” nuclear program, but would agree to limit the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at its Natanz facility.

Earlier Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set out his criteria for ensuring Iran did not attain a nuclear weapons capability.

On Monday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney said that the Obama administration continues to “hope that this new Iranian government will engage substantively to achieve a diplomatic solution” and that the United States “remains ready to engage with the Rouhani government on the basis of mutual respect to achieve a peaceful resolution.”

On Sunday, US President Barack Obama revealed that he had exchanged letters with the recently elected Iranian president.

The two leaders will both attend next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York, with Obama expected to address the plenum on Tuesday morning, and Rouhani will speak for the first time on Tuesday afternoon. The White House says no meeting has been scheduled between them.

Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program have hit a deadlock concerning the future of the 20% enriched uranium being produced at the formerly secret Fordo facility. Iran says it simply wants to agree to a freeze in enrichment in exchange for having the stringent sanctions placed against Tehran lifted. The United States wants the plant to be dismantled altogether, and wants Iran to hand over all of its highly enriched uranium.

Uranium for civilian energy purposes requires 5% enrichment, whereas weapons-grade uranium is considered to be 20% enriched or greater.
Washington does not see Iranian suspension of enrichment as meeting its demands, but as a confidence-building measure.

The Obama administration has indicated that it would be willing to consider discussing relaxing some sanctions if enrichment is suspended. It has not publicly signaled how conciliatory it is willing to be.

Ahead of expected ‘gestures’ by Rouhani, PM urges world to remain firm on Iran nukes | JPost | Israel News.

Obama: We should test indications that Iran’s Rouhani open to dialogue | JPost | Israel News.

Analysis: Following US-Russian agreement, Iran will aim for a deal of its own | JPost | Israel News.

Will Syria be Obama’s Rwanda? | JPost | Israel News.

y SHMULEY BOTEACH

Israel Hayom | Israel cool to reported Iranian concession on Fordo.

Der Spiegel: Iranian President Rouhani to demand a reduction in sanctions in return for dismantling Fordo nuclear facility • Elkin: Rouhani is buying time and enriching uranium.