Archive for September 2013

Amos Gilad: Strong Arab Sunni bloc doesn’t see Israel as enemy.

September 8, 2013

Amos Gilad: Strong Arab Sunni bloc doesn’t see Israel as enemy | JPost | Israel News./

Defense Ministry’s political-military director says Sunni axis successfully keeping extremist jihadi terrorism at bay; praises Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi’s counter-terrorism efforts in Sinai.

Amos Gilad [file]

Amos Gilad [file] Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC) by Hanay

A powerful Middle Eastern axis of Sunni states has taken form in the region, which “does not view Israel as a sworn enemy,” and has successfully kept extremist jihadi terrorism at bay, Maj.-Gen. Amos Gilad, Director of the Political-Military Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Defense, stated on Sunday.

Speaking before the Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s international summit at Herzliya, Gilad said that Israel “won’t ever be accepted as a formal member” of the Sunni axis, but that the states that make it up all view the US as the sole super power and that their regional policies are indirectly beneficial for Israel.

“This has a huge importance… and gives us many opportunities,” Gilad said.

Gilad described Egyptian Defense Minister General General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as a new leader “that history will remember,” noting that he is combating the Muslim Brotherhood, a “movement that envelopes the region.” The Brotherhood has not swerved from its ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction and to toppling all of the region’s regimes, he said.

“When [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail] Haniyeh set a meeting with Morsi, he was symbolically received immediately,” Gilad said. “Hamas is officially part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their self confidence was huge when Morsi was in power.” Now, he noted, Hamas has been left without a single ally in the region.

Had the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in its plot for regional domination, a ring of hostility would have been formed around Israel, Gilad noted. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, there are two threats to his country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This was reflected in the billions of dollars donated to Egypt by Saudi Arabia and the UAE after Sissi took power, Gilad argued.

“Sisi didn’t act against them [the Muslim Brotherhood] on behalf of the West or Israel, but only for the good of Egypt. He simply saw that Egypt was falling into the abyss, in terms of repression and the economy… He wishes to save Egypt,” Gilad said.

Jordan, for its part, excels at counter-terrorism due to its own interest to combat radical Islamist interests. As a result, there are no terrorist attacks in Jordan, or attacks from Jordan on Israel, Gilad said. “Their existence as an independent kingdom is impressive,” he added.

“All of the Kingdoms, from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain are surviving [the period of Middle Eastern turmoil]. Not one faces an existential danger,” he said.

“This axis is very heavy-weight. I recommend viewing Egypt as the leader of the Arab world, and I disagree with those who don’t see it this way. There is a mass of 87 million Egyptians who are one nation, with a 5,000 year history,” Gilad said.

“I’m identifying a serious fight against terrorism in Sinai. It’s an impressive fight against al-Qaida organizations,” he continued.

Gilad said that despite many threats, Syria has refrained from sponsoring terrorist attacks against Israel due to Israeli deterrence.

“The reasons [this isn’t happening] are clear,” he said.

Hezbollah too is deterred by Israel, and there has even been a decrease in its attempt to carry out low-signature attacks abroad, though the threat has not vanished, Gilad added.

Israeli deterrence would be harmed should Iran become a nuclear state, or obtain the image of a nuclear-armed state, he warned.

Israeli official: US would notify Israel hours before Syria attack

September 8, 2013

Israeli official: US would notify Israel hours before Syria attack | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS
09/08/2013 17:19
Official says Obama would give Israel advance warning of strike.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile. Photo: REUTERS

The United States would notify Israel hours in advance of an attack on Syria, an Israeli official said on Sunday.

While formally on the sidelines of the Syria crisis, Israel fears coming under reprisals from its northern foe should the United States launch strikes to punish Damascus for alleged use of chemical weaponry.

Asked how much advance notice Israel would get from its US ally about such attacks, the Israeli official, who was briefed on contacts with Washington, told Reuters: “Hours.”

Israel plans to deploy anti-missile systems and troop reinforcements if President Barack Obama, who faces domestic resistance over the military intervention in Syria, gives the green light for US action.

Obama has asked Congress to approve strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government in response to a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 Syrians.

Next week in Washington, hundreds of activists of the influential pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee will lobby Congress for military action in Syria.

At the weekly Israeli cabinet meeting on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made no direct reference to the Syrian debate in the United States.

But Israeli officials have privately voiced concern US failure to attack Syria would embolden Iran, an ally of Damascus, in its defiance of international calls to curb a nuclear program which the West fears is aimed at developing nuclear arms.

Tehran says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.

Assad: Syria’s allies will retaliate in response to US strike | JPost | Israel News

September 8, 2013

Assad: Syria’s allies will retaliate in response to US strike | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 09/08/2013 19:13
Syrian leader denies that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on his people; Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says US will ignite a fire across the Middle East if it attacks Syria.

Syria's President Bashar Assad

Syria’s President Bashar Assad Photo: REUTERS

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD –  Syrian President Bashar Assad warned that if there was a military strike by the United States on his country, there would be retaliation by those aligned with Syria.

CBS reported Assad’s remarks  that he made in an interview with Charlie Rose on Sunday on its news program “Face the Nation.”

Syria was as prepared as it could be for an attack, Assad said.

Assad denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people and said evidence was not conclusive that there had been such an attack.

“There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people,” CBS reported Assad said in an interview conducted in Damascus.

Meanwhile, Iran’s new foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the United States will ignite a fire across the Middle East if it attacks Syria. Zarif made the remarks on a visit to Iraq on Sunday, warning Western powers against warmongering.

After more than two years of civil war, US President Barack Obama is trying to drum up support for limited strikes on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack that Washington blames on Assad’s government.

The Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad has sought to maintain a neutral stance towards the conflict and opposes any Western military intervention in Syria, fearing it will further destabilize Iraq.

“We are concerned about warmongering in this region,” said Zarif at a news conference during his first official trip abroad since taking office. “Those who are short-sighted and are beating the drums of war are starting a fire that will burn everyone.”

Zarif was received by his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari and was also expected to meet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki later in the day.

The Syrian conflict has widened a fault line between Islam’s two main denominations, pitting mainly Sunni rebels, their Gulf Arab sponsors and some Western powers against Assad, whose Alawite sect derives from Shi’ism.

Iraq’s own sectarian balance has come under acute strain from the civil war next door, which has given new momentum to Sunni Islamist insurgents who have been striking with a frequency and on a scale not seen in years.

Sunni and Shi’ite militants from Iraq have also crossed into Syria to fight on opposite sides of the conflict, complicating the government’s official position of neutrality.

“Interference (in Syria) will affect the neighboring countries maybe directly, including Iraq, which will be affected in terms of security and humanitarian issues,” Zebari said at the news conference.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States had intercepted a directive from a senior Iranian official instructing Shi’ite militants in Iraq to attack US interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike.

Alireza Miryousefi, the spokesman for Iran’s UN mission in New York, on Saturday denied the allegations and dismissed them as “baseless”.

“One should remember that reliance on such intelligence reports from anonymous US officials will lead to another disaster similar to the Iraq tragedy,” Miryousefi was quoted as saying by Press TV.

“US Indecisiveness will Cost us Dearly”

September 8, 2013

“US Indecisiveness will Cost us Dearly”.

Israeli defense establishment concerned about Obama’s difficulties in raising support for US attack in Syria
"US Indecisiveness will Cost us Dearly"

The Israeli defense establishment is concerned: the indecisiveness of the USA regarding the attack in Syria will have far-reaching implications in the medium and long run.

Defense establishment sources estimate that if the USA fails to carry out an attack against Syria despite the threats made by President Barack Obama, the regional deterrence of the USA and the confidence of allies in the region will sustain a serious damage.

“The Syrian case is a supreme test of the seriousness of the USA,” said a defense source to Israel Defense.

The Israeli defense establishment was surprised by the indecisiveness shown by the USA regarding the attack. A short while after Obama’s announcement that he intends to order an attack, the IDF announced a raised alert level and mobilization of reserves and emergency vehicles was initiated. In the meantime, most of these processes have been suspended.

Israel monitors with great interest Obama’s efforts to raise support for the attack in the US House of Representatives and in Europe.

It is estimated that over the recent Jewish holiday, the chances of an imminent attack have diminished and at this point it is not at all certain that such an attack will be carried out.

The US Congress will convene to discuss the attack later this week.

“If the USA fails to fulfill her threats, it would be difficult to take her red lines seriously later on. This definitely applies to Iran. It is possible that the USA is putting an end to the era during which it was the world’s only superpower,” said Israeli defense sources, off the record.

Desperation? Misplaced?

September 8, 2013

Desperation? Misplaced? | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

There are signs of desperation in the Obama-Kerry campaign to obtain support for an attack on Syria from the Congress, the public, and European governments..

Or is it a Kerry-Obama campaign?
The Secretary of State has been furthest out in his claims of a moral imperative, and now conjuring up a doubtful Munich comparison.
The Administration is also reaching out to AIPAC, in order to include Israel in Congressional thinking and create a connection between Syria’s use of chemical weapons and Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
Munich might work with respect to Iran, but not with respect to Syria.
If the boys from Washington are serious, they would be preparing an attack on Iran rather than Syria.
Those who have followed several years’ efforts to negotiate with Iran, and weigh Syria’s use of chemical weapons against how the Iranian leadership has threatened Israel ought to reach a similar conclusion.
Ugly as they are, Syria’s chemical weapons kill a thousand or so at a time, if wind and other weather conditions are appropriate. Iran’s nuclear weapons–said by some to be 6 months or even less into the future–would multiply the casualties many times over.
Also in the White House campaign are the ugliest of videos showing civilians suffering from poison gas. These are being shown to Members of Congress and–via CNN–to the American public.
Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident, used by Lyndon Johnson to justify a major escalation of what John Kennedy began in Vietnam. Subsequent research found the story exaggerated or manufactured.
News from Russian media, also circulating from several sources on the Internet, is that a Jihadist brigade massacred a village of Syrian Christians.
How will that fit with Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who owe their seats to voters who take their Christianity seriously, who recognize that an American attack will help those Jihadists who also massacred Alawis, and would do the same to Assad and his family if they could?
Uzi Arad is a skeptical Israeli, as well as having been a senior figure in the Mossad and National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister. He reminds us that Syria is not a signatory to the agreement prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, or transfer of chemical weapons, that it is possible to read the earlier Geneva Convention of 1925 outlawing  chemical weapons (which Syria has signed) as dealing only with their use in “warfare” against the army of another nation, and that the evidence to date does not show that Assad or anyone close to him ordered their use.
These may be minor points for those moved by human suffering. However, the conventional weapons of Assad and his opponents killed and maimed many more, as well as forcing perhaps one-third of the Syrian population to leave their homes for refuge elsewhere in Syria or other countries.
Israel is also not a signatory to the recent ban on development, production, et al of chemical weapons, which might mean that we have something to use against Syrians if the provocation arises, as well as having a population with some experience with defensive measures against gas and to a large part already equipped with masks and an antidote.
Also in the picture are Russian as well as American warships moving closer to one another in the eastern Mediterranean. Vladimir Putin has said that he would defend Assad against an attack. The most dicey scenario sees a repeat of the Cuba crisis. Are Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Vladimir Putin made of the same stuff as the Kennedy brothers and Nikita Khrushchev? They all blinked, and found a way to avoid confrontation in 1962.
One looks hard for signs of support for the Obama-Kerry campaign in the American public or the House of Representatives. Reports are that the US military has taken advantage of the delay by increasing its list of targets and upping its intentions with respect to the destruction of Assad’s military assets.
We also hear that Syrian civilians, along with peace activists from Britain and the United States, are positioning themselves near what are expected to be targets of American missiles and bombers.
Given President Obama’s recent record, there is little assurance as to what he will do if he gets the support that his present campaign is meant to arouse, or what he will do if he does not get it.
Neither is there any assurance of his promise that there will be no American boots on the ground. Not only are they already there–perhaps not technically those of uniformed soldiers but more certainly those associated with other American government entities–but controlling what unfolds from the onset of violence may be beyond the President’s capacity. Imagine that the Iranians respond by closing the Straits of Hormuz, thus shutting off major sources of energy, or send a missile against an American ship, or that Putin does something in defense of his Syrian clients.
Israel and Jordan can also find themselves in the escalation that the US would have trouble ignoring. Various Syrians, Hezbollah, and Iranians have threatened Jordan because it is a staging point for American aggression, and Israel because of what it is. Both Jordan and Israel have put their forces at various levels of alert, but not against one another.
All told, there is a lot of explosive stuff already primed, while Barack Obama and John Kerry are playing with matches.

Assad forces fear rebel rampage in aftermath of US strikes

September 8, 2013

Assad forces fear rebel rampage in aftermath of US strikes | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS
09/08/2013 15:42
Soldiers’ comments reveal a military worried that strikes could reshape the battlefield in a war that has already killed more than 100,000 people and driven a third of the population from their homes.

Assad forces near village of Arjoun near Qusair, May 30, 2013

Assad forces near village of Arjoun near Qusair, May 30, 2013 Photo: Reuters

It isn’t the US cruise missiles that terrify Saleem, a pro-government militia fighter who survived some of the toughest battles of Syria’s civil war. It’s the rebel onslaught that could begin once American bombs start to fall.

Holed up on bases where loudspeakers blare patriotic songs, or scattered for their safety in tented camps, Syrian soldiers are bracing for an attack by a superpower which they have little power to resist.

Orders have been given to stand firm. Headquarters buildings have been evacuated, infantry dispersed into small formations, hospitals stocked with emergency supplies and radar stations placed at the highest level of alert.

“I’m more afraid now than I was ever when we fought in Qusair or Khalidiyeh,” said Saleem, referring to some of the most hard-fought battles of the past six months.

“If a foreign strike comes and the rebels manage to intensify their operations simultaneously, that’s a whole new level of combat. I’m still more scared of rebel mortars than US cruise missiles.”

Interviews conducted remotely with more than a dozen Syrian soldiers, officers and members of militia groups backing President Bashar Assad reveal deep fears as they prepare for US strikes at locations across the country.

Most of the soldiers were contacted by a Syrian journalist working for Reuters, now based in Beirut, who cannot be identified for security reasons. The soldiers he spoke to also requested anonymity or used only their first names.

Their comments reveal a military worried about its prospects after strikes that could reshape the battlefield in a war that has already killed more than 100,000 people and driven a third of the population of 22 million from their homes.

Many said their greatest worry is not the American missiles themselves, but the prospect that outside intervention could embolden their rebel enemies, who could launch an offensive and tip the balance of power in the two-and-a-half year civil war.

Although commanders spoke of unspecified plans to fight back against US attacks, junior service members described the notion of actually taking on US forces as absurd.

“Our small warships are spread around the coast on full alert, and why? To confront the US destroyers? I feel like I’m living in a bad movie,” said a Syrian Navy sailor reached on a vessel in the Mediterranean.

“Of course I’m worried. I know we don’t really have anything to confront the Americans. All we have is God.”

Soldiers celebrated last week when US President Barack Obama announced that he would go to Congress to seek approval before launching strikes to punish Syria for a poison gas attack that Washington says was carried out by Assad’s forces.

A resident the Damascus suburb of Jumayra described soldiers at a nearby military research complex partying in the street, drinking spirits and smoking water pipes after Obama’s speech that put military action off for weeks.

But despite government declarations that Obama’s hesitation was a “political victory”, Syrians still expect that the reprieve will be only temporary. Preparations have been made for deadly strikes.

At a military hospital in Damascus, one medic said doctors had redistributed field clinics and restocked and hospitals and dispensaries. Ambulances had been fitted with supplies for emergency surgery, he said.

“I’ve worked here 10 years. The last major alert we had was during the war on Iraq. We were at 75 percent alert then. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a 100 percent alert.”

Any US attacks will come after months in which the war had been going the government’s way. Last year saw rebels make rapid gains, but this year government forces have fought back with the support of Lebanon’s Hezbollah Shi’ite militant group, recapturing much of the central region of the country.

The main tactic that commanders said they were implementing to protect their forces from US strikes is to disperse them away from sites that would be targets.

In Homs, a strategic central province that is home to important bases and scene of many of this year’s government advances, the colonel of an infantry division said he had spread his 20,000 troops across the territory in small encampments.

Fuel, food and weapons have been discretely shipped at night to previously-agreed secret locations.

“We’re not idiots. We’ve evacuated our headquarters and we’ve spread all our manpower out,” he said.

He also implemented a diffuse “cluster” system of command to temporarily replace the traditional military hierarchy, in which the commanding officer sits atop a pyramid of subordinates.

The structure not only makes units harder to target but also proved effective this year in urban fighting, with government forces learning to operate more like both their Hezbollah allies and their rebel guerrilla foes.

“Now we have small clusters of 20 to 50 men. Each cluster works individually and their leader reports directly to the commanding officer. It makes us more mobile and effective on the ground,” the colonel said.

The central area around Homs, where the government seized back territory from the rebels this year, would be a main area where Syria’s forces will be looking to prevent the rebels from mounting a counter-offensive in the wake of US strikes.

“The area between Homs and Damascus is an area of concern,” he said. “Any attack on Homs is an attempt to divide Syria. If Homs is destroyed, it could open a route for the rebels between the north and the south, or re-open the route to Lebanon.”

Syria’s infantry forces have been hurt by low pay and tension between members of Assad’s minority Alawite sect and conscripts from the Sunni Muslim majority.

Nevertheless, the colonel insisted morale was still high among his troops, and had actually been boosted by the prospect of US strikes.

“We’re stuck in the same trench out here, so the sectarian tensions have been subsiding because we’re all facing the same threat. Cruises missiles don’t differentiate between Sunnis and Alawites,” he said. “I have three Sunni soldiers in my office. I no longer see them as threats, I see them as my children.”

The government will be hoping that attacks will not be enough to shift the momentum against it. Assad’s forces and their Hezbollah allies remain far better armed than their domestic adversaries.

Washington has given mixed signals about its plans. The White House says any assault will be “limited,” and bringing down Assad is not the aim. US officials are also worried about tipping the balance too much in favor of rebels, many of whom belong to anti-Western groups linked to al Qaeda.

But Washington also says any strikes will “degrade” the Syrian government’s ability to defend itself. Among targets could be some of the 26 bases used by Assad’s air force, one of the government’s main battlefield advantages.

There is little Syria can actually do to defend itself from American missiles. Its air force and air defenses would be of little use. Israel has already proven that by bombing Syria several times this year with impunity.

“There are holes in our defense system. Several fronts could be used against us,” acknowledged an air defense colonel in Damascus, who said his forces were on the highest level of alert. Surveillance and air defense systems have been damaged because they have been dismantled in rebel-held areas, the air defense colonel said.

He said he did not know exactly what Syria would do to retaliate against US strikes, but insisted there were plans to fight back.

“We have all kinds of scenarios, we have plans A,B,C and D, so to speak,” he said. “I don’t know what the exact response will be, but I can tell you we won’t just sit and watch.”

Air defenses themselves could be among the first targets.

“My friends here are a bit scared, and I am afraid too,” said Nawrath, a 23-year-old soldier on an air defense base. “We’re on a radar base between Homs and Damascus. Of course we are on the target list. But in the end, death is all the same.”

Nawrath said air force commanders had been scrambling to increase their scope of coverage ahead of a potential attack.

“They are trying to prepare plans to prevent aircraft from entering and to widen our coverage area.”

Whatever will come next, civilians say they are likely to suffer. Those who live in pro-government areas are worried about rebel advances if the military takes too much damage.

“State TV tells us every day that the rebels are taking one big defeat after the other, but we can see that they are around us, just a few blocks away,” said shopkeeper Jamal, in the Damascus Shi’ite neighborhood of Hay al-Amin.

All that stands between the rebels and the old city are a sports stadium being used as a military barracks and an intelligence base, he said. “And if the US hits hard, there will be nothing.”

A woman in Damascus said civilians would bear the brunt no matter what – whether US strikes tip the balance in the rebels’ favor or leave the army with the upper hand.

“Either the American strike could end up too weak and the regime will take revenge against Damascenes. Or it could be too strong and the rebels will take over and make little effort to distinguish between collaborators and those who supported the revolution,” she said.

Middle East tense as moment of truth on Syria draws near

September 8, 2013

Israel Hayom | Middle East tense as moment of truth on Syria draws near.

Jordan deploys forces along Syrian border to prepare for possible attack • Western activists volunteer to defend Assad’s regime as “human shields” • U.S. warship passes through Haifa port, destination unknown.

Daniel Siryoti
The USS San Antonio in Haifa port on Saturday

|

Photo credit: Michel Dot Com

Meanwhile, preparations were underway in Syria for a possible Western attack, Lebanese media outlets reported over the weekend. They said the uncertainty surrounding U.S. plans was having a palpable effect, with food markets and pharmacies in the major cities packed with long lines of customers clamoring to stock up on supplies.

One eyewitness in Damascus told the Lebanese network Al Mayadeen that it was “very difficult to obtain drugs, and even bread and the most basic food items are rapidly running out.”

The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf called on the international community to intervene as soon as possible to prevent the humanitarian collapse of the Syrian nation and to save the people from the current regime. In a statement, the council said, “We place full responsibility for the latest events in Syria on the regime in Damascus because it rejected every attempt to resolve the conflict, and continues its acts of killing, using chemical weapons among other means.”

According to reports, more than 100 people were killed in clashes between rebels and regime loyalists over the weekend.

On Saturday, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos left Damascus following a flash diplomatic visit. The purpose of the trip was to meet with the leadership in Damascus on the issue of refugees and restrictions placed by the regime on humanitarian organizations operating in the area. Amos remarked that more than 2 million citizens had already fled Syria since the beginning of the civil war over two years ago.

Fearing a U.S. strike and a Syrian counter-strike in the foreseeable future, Jordan was also preparing its forces along the border. Saudi-owned network Al Arabiya reported that Jordan had deployed anti-aircraft batteries, armored vehicles and troops along the shared border and that the Jordanian air force was on high alert.

Standing with Syrian President Bashar Assad is Hezbollah, whose fighters are preparing to defend Damascus and the Syrian army’s strategic posts in case of an American strike. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially commands Hezbollah, said Thursday that if the U.S. launched an attack against Syria, it would be defeated. “In the case of Syria,” he said, “the Americans are using the chemical attack as an excuse to intervene.”

The commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards also chimed in, declaring that Iran would stand with Syria to the end.

Another regional nation that opposes a Western strike against Syria is Egypt. Egyptian President Adly Mansour met with American members of Congress in Cairo and beseeched them to oppose the strike. In a statement issued by the president’s office in Cairo, it was reported that Mansour had told the Congress members that an American attack would have extremely negative implications on the entire Middle East and that Egypt was vehemently opposed to any military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

International human shields

Meanwhile, the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reported on Friday that hundreds of peace activists from Britain and the U.S. had volunteered to serve as human shields in regions controlled by the Syrian regime.

The group, which calls itself “International Human Shields,” plans to travel to Syria and deploy in regions controlled by Assad in an effort to prevent a possible attack. Franklin Lamb, one of the attorneys representing the group, said the organization has been approached by activists from Canada, France, Italy and additional countries.

Report: U.S. rejects Assad’s proposed resignation

Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal, affiliated with former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and an outspoken opponent of Hezbollah and Syria, reported over the weekend that, according to an official in Washington, the U.S. had rejected Assad’s proposal to step down. According to the report, the U.S. rejected the proposal because of Assad’s demand to resign under terms set solely by him.

AIPAC in major push for Syria action

September 8, 2013

Israel Hayom | AIPAC in major push for Syria action.

“We plan a major lobbying effort, with about 250 activists in Washington to meet with their senators and representatives,” says source from the influential pro-Israel lobby group • Congressional aides say they expect meetings and calls on Tuesday.
Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff
AIPAC has generally wanted the debate to focus on U.S. national security rather than on how a decision to attack Syria might help Israel

|

Photo credit: Reuters

With Iran there will be no time for games

September 8, 2013

Israel Hayom | With Iran there will be no time for games.

Ron Tira

Everything surrounding Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons a few weeks ago, together with U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech last week, threatens to undermine the U.S.’s strategic claim that Israel should avoid attacking Iran alone because the Jewish state needs to trust the U.S.

The U.S. bases that core argument on the motif of our times. Washington says it has substantial and sound intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program, and if Iran was to manage a “breakthrough” and develop a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would have enough time to respond militarily. But the past few weeks have cast a dark shadow over this claim. While the U.S. under Obama’s leadership has searched through its allies for a broad coalition, the U.S. has been forced to give these countries the necessary time for their political systems to work. And some of these political systems have asked the U.S. to provide further “proof,” as if they need court evidence rather than military intelligence.

But the sort of intelligence that the British and French parliaments demand as proof will be elusive in the future, especially when the intelligence is information gathered by spies rather than legally acquired evidence. Should Iran develop a nuclear bomb, are we going to have the time to wait for back-bench British parliamentarians to be convinced? Assad may have allowed U.N. inspectors to investigate the site of the chemical weapons attack, but what if Iran blocks international inspectors from accessing the facilities where scientists have apparently achieved a nuclear breakthrough? Lacking international inspection, is the argument for a military strike unconvincing?

The past week has also cast a shadow of doubt over the U.S.’s ability to act in a timely manner. The president hesitated before he decided, apparently, that an attack was necessary. Then, on Aug. 31, Obama unleashed the (political) bomb: He announced that he would seek preliminary consultation with Congress and a public debate. Every argument for attacking Syria is all the more valid in the case of Iran, where the dangers and the potential price of inaction are much greater than in Syria. The potential for a serious entanglement is much more acute. So will Obama reject a congressional debate over Iran?

A second claim by the U.S. and other supporters of an international coalition suggests that the Iranian problem is not solely an Israeli concern, but a global and American concern as well. But the past few days have taught us the weakness of such claims. The British Parliament did not approve direct British involvement in a military strike against Syria, despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s wishes. And so membership to the U.S. coalition became thinner until the list comprised, perhaps, just two symbolic partners.

Even more serious than this claim is Obama’s retreat from his own red lines. On Aug. 31, he basically said that while he supported a strike, he would shift the responsibility for making the call to the public and political sectors. He clarified that he could not predict the outcome of this public, political debate. This president, therefore, does not see himself as the leader of the free world. Rather he sees himself more like a clerk writing policy proposals. Former President Harry Truman’s famous quote underling presidential authority, that “the buck stops here,” is fading before our very eyes.

This reality also pulls the rug from under diplomatic negotiations with Iran. A credible military threat is necessary for there to be any sort of substance to negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. But now, it turns out, the U.S. has no alternative to negotiations, effectively draining nuclear talks of all meaning.

Two necessary conclusions can be drawn from the recent developments. First, the Iranians will continue working toward breakthroughs for a nuclear bomb. They will learn how to reach weapons-grade status without providing inconvenient evidence. Second, political complications ensure that nuclear development will happen more quickly than the international community will respond to it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must assimilate the information he already knows — Israel stands alone against a nuclear Iran.

Obama’s dangerous precedent on Iran

September 8, 2013

Israel Hayom | Obama’s dangerous precedent on Iran.

Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi

On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama will address the nation as he makes a last-ditch effort to rally support for his proposed punitive strike on Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus.

Ten days ago he made a speech that should have set the attack in motion, but instead he tied his own hands unnecessarily. Now he will try to get himself out of the corner into which he has backed himself.

Obama would have to put on display virtuoso rhetorical capabilities to undo the prevailing sentiment in Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives.

The public has been largely against military action in Syria, and this sentiment is shared by the House, whose members relish any opportunity to make Obama bleed.

The White House is up against a wide coalition that includes some strange bedfellows: staunch isolationists from the conservative side of the spectrum alongside liberal Democrats who are fed up with the U.S.’s involvement in war zones.

These two political persuasions are willing to defy their own party leaders, who have already said they would support the 44th president as he seeks an authorization for the use of military force.

With the debt-ceiling debate fast approaching, the president’s adversaries on Capitol Hill have turned his policy on Syria into an hors d’oeuvre in their effort to devour the White House.

By the time the main course (the looming fiscal cliff) is served, they hope Obama will have already become a lame duck and a political punching bag. As House members deliberate their stance, they will be attuned to the voices coming out of their home districts. What voters think back home is very much on the minds of lawmakers and should not be discounted, although this is only one of many considerations. Judging from what constituents are telling them, a significant proportion of the public is very much opposed to the idea of a military intervention in Syria.

Obama’s detractors are now even more motivated to see him humiliated. Meanwhile, his supporters, who are all too cognizant of their perilous situation in their home district, are having a hard time falling in line with the administration.

Barring some upset, the American superpower will be dealt a humiliating foreign policy blow on its home turf, rendering Secretary of State John Kerry’s warning of another “Munich moment” moot.

Whichever way the Syria vote goes, Obama’s decision to grant the legislative branch veto power over what should have been an exclusive White House prerogative could turn into a dangerous precedent — a precedent because, when the moment of truth arrives over Iran, a congressional question mark will hover over any military action as lawmakers create a thick fog of uncertainty.