WarSclerotic

Israeli policy statement supports Obama on Syria | The Times of Israel.

‘Israel can defend itself and will respond forcefully to any aggression by Syria,’ Ambassador Michael Oren tells US audience

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States (photo credit: Yossi Zamir/Flash 90)

As Congress began to debate US military involvement in Syria, Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren released Israel’s first official position statement on the subject Tuesday night. At a subsequent event, he dismissed those critics who argue that the US should not retaliate for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons because it would put Israel in danger.

Shortly after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concluded a lengthy session debating the approval of a retaliatory strike, Oren released an official statement in which he said that “Israel agrees with President Obama that the use of chemical weapons is a ‘heinous act’ for which the Assad regime must be held accountable and for which there must be ‘international consequences.’ Israel further agrees with the President that the use of chemical weapons promotes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and encourages ‘governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.’”

In his statement, Oren quoted Obama’s exact language to emphasize Jerusalem’s support for the American president’s position.

An hour after releasing the statement, the outgoing ambassador told major donors at a Jewish National Fund (JNF) event, “I’ve heard it suggested that a reason why the US should not act in Syria is fear of retribution against Israel. In response, I say unequivocally that Israel can defend itself and will respond forcefully to any aggression by Syria.”

Oren told the US audience that Israel’s positions on Syria have been longstanding. With respect to supporting the Syrian opposition, he said, “the only thing we suggest is to have it carefully vetted.”

Oren added that “even regarding the jihadist opposition, we prefer the bad guys who aren’t backed by Iran over those who are.”

As Assad’s fortunes have fluctuated in the face of opposition groups, some of which are believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, the Syrian leader has become increasingly reliant for support on the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.

Oren emphasized that even before the beginning of the civil war in Syria, Israel believed that Assad should be removed from power. He described the dictator as “a prohibitively dangerous, destabilizing factor” in the region, and noted that while “Assad’s father, Hafez Assad, was vicious, his son is both vicious and unpredictable.”

Oren’s comments came as the Obama administration is trying to secure Congressional and popular support for a retaliatory strike in response to a chemical attack on August 21 that the US believes killed over 1,400 Syrians.

Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, both likely GOP candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries, oppose the administration’s call for military action against Assad.

During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Paul pushed US Secretary of State John Kerry on the consequences for Israel if Syria were to retaliate for the proposed American strike.

“I can make it crystal clear to you Israel will be less safe unless the US takes this action,” Kerry responded.

Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Patrick Dempsey, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be back on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Although Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) threw his support behind the president on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers are far from unified on the subject. Boehner’s endorsement may have upped the administration’s likelihood of getting its resolution through the Republican-controlled House, but the House GOP caucus has proven hard-to-control for Boehner on a number of key controversial issues.

In the week before Congress is in session, key committees are debating a White House resolution that would allow for limited engagement in Syria. If the House passes a version of the resolution this week, the House and Senate resolutions would enter a process of reconciliation to make them congruent before a final vote, which is expected early next week.

Obama on Syria response: ‘Int’l community’s credibility is on the line, not mine’ | JPost | Israel News.

PM Netanyahu’s Greetings for Rosh Hashana 5774 – YouTube.

Israel Hayom | US’s biggest pro-Israel groups back Obama on Syria action.

Israel Hayom | Oren: US becoming more isolationist, but support for Israel higher than ever.

Putin: We won’t ‘exclude’ UN-backed Syria action if chemical weapons use proven | The Times of Israel.

In wide-ranging interview, Russian president warns West against one-sided moves, says delivery of S-300 missiles suspended

Russian President Vladimir Putin. (AP/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) — President Vladimir Putin warned the West against taking one-sided action in Syria but also said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a UN resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press and Russia’s state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without UN Security Council backing.

The interview Tuesday night at Putin’s country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit was supposed to concentrate on the global economy but now looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war.

Putin said he felt sorry that President Barack Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. But he expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg.

“President Obama hasn’t been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn’t been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either,” he said of their relationship.

“We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems,” Putin said.

He also denied that Russia has anti-gay policies — an issue that has threatened to embarrass the country as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics in February.

The Russian leader, a year into his third term as president, appeared to go out of his way to be conciliatory amid a growing chill in US-Russian relations. The two countries have sparred over Syria, the Edward Snowden affair, Russia’s treatment of its opposition and the diminishing scope in Russia for civil society groups that receive funding from the West.

Putin said it was “ludicrous” that the government of President Bashar Assad — a staunch ally of Russia — would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

“From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force,” he said.

The Obama administration says 1,429 people died in the Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb. Casualty estimates by other groups are far lower, and Assad’s government blames the episode on rebels trying to overthrow him. A UN inspection team is awaiting lab results on tissue and soil samples it collected while in Syria before completing a report.

“If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the UN Security Council,” added Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB. “And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”

He noted that even in the US, “there are experts who believe that the evidence presented by the administration doesn’t look convincing, and they don’t exclude the possibility that the opposition conducted a premeditated provocative action trying to give their sponsors a pretext for military intervention.”

He compared the evidence presented by Washington to false data used by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“All these arguments turned out to be untenable, but they were used to launch a military action, which many in the US called a mistake. Did we forget about that?” Putin said.

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without UN approval, saying it would represent an aggression.

Putin reinforced his demand that before taking action, Obama needed approval from the UN Security Council. Russia can veto resolutions in the council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said “it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used.”

Putin said it was “too early” to talk about what Russia would do if the US attacked Syria.

“We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise,” he said. “We have our plans.”

Putin called the S-300 air defense missile system “a very efficient weapon” and said that Russia had a contract for its delivery of the S-300s to Syria. “We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn’t been completed. We have suspended it for now,” he said.

“But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world,” he said.

The statement could be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia canceled a few years ago under strong US and Israeli pressure.

Putin praised Obama as a frank and constructive negotiating partner and denied reports that he had taken personal offense at remarks by Obama comparing Putin’s body language to that of a slouching, bored student. Putin said appearances can be deceiving.

Putin also accused US intelligence agencies of bungling efforts to apprehend Snowden, the National Security Agency leader, who is wanted in the US on espionage charges. He said the United States could have allowed Snowden to go to a country where his security would not be guaranteed or intercepted him along the way, but instead pressured other countries not to accept him or even to allow a plane carrying him to cross their airspace. Russia has granted him temporary asylum.

Putin also gave the first official confirmation that Snowden had been in touch with Russian officials in Hong Kong before flying to Moscow on June 23, but said he only learned that Snowden was on the flight two hours before it arrived. Putin once again denied that Russia’s security services are working with Snowden, whose stay in Russia has been shrouded in secrecy.

On another topic, he denied at length charges that Russia has anti-gay policies, indicating that Obama was welcome to meet with gay and lesbian activists in Russia during his visit. He even said he might meet with a similar group himself if there is interest from the gay community in Russia.

Putin rejected the criticism of a Russian law banning gay propaganda that prompted some activists to call for the boycott of the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, arguing that it wouldn’t infringe on the rights of gays.

He also said that athletes and activists would not be punished if they raise rainbow flags or paint their fingernails in rainbow colors at the Feb. 7-23 Olympics.

But he clearly has no intention of allowing a gay pride parade or other such actions: Last month, Putin signed a decree banning all demonstrations and rallies in Sochi throughout the Winter Games.

As for the body language between Putin and Obama that some have said suggested a difficult working relationship, the Russian president urged everyone to avoid jumping to conclusions.

“There are some gestures, of course, that you can only interpret one way, but no one has ever seen those kinds of gestures directed by Obama at me or by me at Obama, and I hope that never happens,” he said.

“Everything else is fantasy.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

House Speaker Backs Obama’s Call for Strike Against Syria – NYTimes.com.

By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JACKIE CALMES

¶ WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner said on Tuesday that he would “support the president’s call to action” in Syria after meeting with President Obama, giving the president a crucial ally in the quest for votes in the House.

¶ Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, quickly joined Mr. Boehner to say he also backed Mr. Obama.

¶ “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.

¶ Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. summoned Mr. Boehner and other Republican and Democratic leaders to the White House as they intensified their push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria. Conservative House Republicans have expressed deep reluctance about the president’s strategy, and winning Mr. Boehner’s approval could help the president make inroads with a group that has not supported him on most issues in the past.

¶ Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said, “I believe the American people need to hear more about the intelligence.”

¶ Ms. Pelosi said she did feel that Congressional authorization was a good thing, although not necessary, and that she was hopeful the American people “will be persuaded of” military action.

¶ “President Obama did not write the red line,” she said. “History wrote the red line decades ago.”

¶ But, she said, people in her district were not convinced that military action was necessary. And she said the administration needed to continue making its case.

¶ “There’s work to be done,” she said. “Some won’t ever be comfortable with it.”

¶ Other Democrats also voiced support.

¶ Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said military action was “key and critical.” She added, “It’s important to the security of the Middle East and to the security of the world.”

¶ Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, said, “Iran is watching us very carefully in Syria as a test of how we’ll respond when they have a nuclear weapon.” He added that the consensus in the White House meeting was to support the president.

¶ For Mr. Obama, who leaves on Tuesday evening for a three-day trip to Sweden and Russia, the meeting was the next phase in a White House lobbying campaign that will have to extend beyond hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to persuade lawmakers who are reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria.

¶ The president’s case will face scrutiny in Congress on Tuesday afternoon when Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

¶ On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel are scheduled to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Winning support in the Republican-controlled House is likely to be harder than in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority and Mr. McCain has a voice.

¶ Mr. Obama also continued shoring up international support for military action, speaking on Monday evening with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who the White House said in a statement agreed with Mr. Obama “that the use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international norms and cannot be tolerated.”

¶ After an hourlong White House meeting on Monday, Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama had given general support to doing more for the Syrian rebels, but that no specifics were agreed upon.

¶ Officials said that in the same conversation, which included Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.

¶ There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.

¶ The senators said they planned to meet with Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, to discuss the strategy in greater depth.

¶ “It is all in the details, but I left the meeting feeling better than I felt before about what happens the day after and that the purpose of the attack is going to be a little more robust than I thought,” Mr. Graham said in an interview.

¶ But Mr. McCain said in an interview that Mr. Obama did not say specifically what weapons might be provided to the opposition or discuss in detail what Syrian targets might be attacked.

¶ “There was no concrete agreement, ‘O.K., we got a deal,’ ” Mr. McCain said. “Like a lot of things, the devil is in the details.”

¶ In remarks to reporters outside the West Wing, he called the meeting “encouraging,” urged lawmakers to support Mr. Obama in his plan for military action in Syria and said a no vote in Congress would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world. Mr. McCain said he believed after his conversation with the president that any strikes would be “very serious” and not “cosmetic.”

¶ Although the words from Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were a positive development for Mr. Obama and a critical part of the administration’s lobbying blitz on Syria on Monday, the White House still faces a tough fight in Congress. Many lawmakers entirely oppose a strike, and others favor a resolution that would provide for more limited military action than what is in a draft resolution that the White House has sent to Capitol Hill. The conflict of opinion underscores Mr. Obama’s challenge in winning votes in the House and Senate next week and avoiding personal defeat.

¶ A Labor Day conference call with five of Mr. Obama’s highest-ranking security advisers drew 127 House Democrats, nearly two-thirds their total number, after 83 lawmakers of both parties attended a classified briefing on Sunday. Pertinent committees are returning to Washington early from a Congressional recess for hearings this week, starting Tuesday with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will hear from Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

¶ “The debate is shifting away from ‘Did he use chemical weapons?’ to ‘What should be done about it?’ ” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview after the Monday conference call.

¶ The push in Washington came as reaction continued around the world to the president’s abrupt decision over the weekend to change course and postpone a military strike to seek authorization from Congress first.

¶ In France, the only nation to offer vigorous support for an American attack, there were rising calls for a parliamentary vote like the one last week in Britain, where lawmakers jolted the White House with a rejection of a British military attack. But the French government, in an effort to bolster its case, released a declassified summary of French intelligence that it said ties Mr. Assad’s government to the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

¶ In Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov dismissed as unconvincing the evidence presented by Mr. Kerry of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. “We were shown certain pieces of evidence that did not contain anything concrete, neither geographical locations, nor names, nor evidence that samples had been taken by professionals,” Mr. Lavrov said in a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

¶ In Israel, President Shimon Peres offered strong support for Mr. Obama’s decision to seek the backing of Congress, saying he had faith in the president’s “moral and operational” position. “I recommend patience,” Mr. Peres said in an interview on Army Radio. “I am confident that the United States will respond appropriately to Syria.”

¶ In Washington, the White House’s “flood the zone” effort, as one official called it, will continue. Classified briefings will be held for all House members and senators on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.

¶ On Tuesday, Mr. Obama has invited the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate defense, foreign affairs and intelligence committees to the White House. But that night, he will depart on a long-planned foreign trip, first to Sweden and then to Russia for the annual Group of 20 summit meeting of major industrialized and developing nations, a forum that is sure to be dominated by talk of Syria, and bring Mr. Obama face to face with Mr. Assad’s chief ally and arms supplier, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

¶ House Democrats on the conference call with administration officials, which lasted 70 minutes, said Mr. Kerry, who has been the most aggressive and public prosecutor for military action, took the lead. Democrats said he had portrayed not only the horrors of chemical weapons inflicted on Syrian civilians in the Aug. 21 attacks outside Damascus, but also the potential threat, if left unanswered, that such weapons posed to regional allies like Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

¶ Mr. Kerry argued that inaction could embolden Iran or nonstate terrorists to strike those allies, and further encourage Iran and North Korea to press ahead with their nuclear programs.

¶ “One of the important propositions that Kerry put to members was, are you willing to live with the consequences of doing nothing?” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.

¶ The secretary of state addressed lawmakers’ concern that the United States should have international support. “The United States will not go it alone,” he said at one point, according to a senior Democrat who declined to be identified. Offers of “military assets” have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, he said, without identifying the assets, and more are expected.

¶ In the week since the Obama administration began moving toward a military strike on the Assad government, Mr. Kerry said, the Syrian military has had about 100 defections, including 80 officers.

¶ General Dempsey reviewed the range of possible targets and how the Pentagon is planning strikes that would minimize risk to civilians. Despite reports that Syrian commanders were moving troops and equipment into civilian neighborhoods, General Dempsey told lawmakers, as he had assured Mr. Obama, that delaying military action would not weaken the effectiveness of any military attack. He suggested that military officials would adjust their targets to address changes on the ground.

¶ The general acknowledged that the United States could not prevent the Assad government from using chemical weapons again, but said the military had “additional options” should a first missile strike not deter a retaliatory strike by Mr. Assad, including in defense of critical allies, presumably Israel, Jordan and Turkey. That possibility, however, describes just the escalating conflict some opponents fear.

¶ “My constituents are skeptical that a limited effort will not mushroom into a full-blown boots on the ground,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat.

¶ Mr. McCain, who has been arguing for two years that the United States should support a moderate Syrian opposition, said he strongly urged the president on Monday to provide anti-tank and antiaircraft systems to the opposition and to attack the Syrian Air Force.

¶ Mr. Obama indicated that “he favorably viewed the degrading of Bashar al-Assad’s capabilities as well as upgrading the Free Syrian Army,” Mr. McCain said in an interview.

¶ Administration officials have told Congress that the C.I.A.’s program to arm the rebels would be deliberately limited at first to allow a trial run for American officials to monitor it before ramping up to a larger, more aggressive campaign. American officials have been wary that arms provided to the rebels could end up in the hands of Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda.

¶

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’ – Telegraph.

The first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.

The US announced in June that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.  Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP

He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.

“There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition,” Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given “a chance to speak directly to the American people” to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

“They’re not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal… to only have al-Qaeda run Syria,” Mr Graham said.

The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.

Obama’s Mindblock on Syria May Ignite a Wider Mideast Crisis | Pennsylvania Avenue.

By Morton Kondracke Posted at 11:28 a.m. Sept. 3

Syria’s deputy foreign minister jibed on Sunday that President Barack Obama was demonstrating “hesitation” and “confusion” in announcing he’d ask Congress for approval for military action against that country.

That’s putting it mildly. Confusion, hesitation — also fecklessness, weakness and indecision — have characterized Obama’s whole approach to the Syrian civil war.

Now, Obama faces the very real possibility that Congress will deny him the authority, justifying the further jibe in state-run Syrian media that the world was witnessing “the start of an historic American retreat.”

Actually, it would be the capstone of a massive American retreat in the Middle East already under way — and massive gains by the despotic Shiite axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, abetted by Russia.

Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq on terms that reduce our influence to zero and maximize Iran’s. His pullout from Afghanistan and abandonment of Pakistan are further examples of retreat.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah already have reduced Lebanon to chaos. They could do the same in Jordan and Turkey. Saudi Arabia is terrified that Obama will let Iran develop nuclear weapons, whereupon it can seek to dominate the Persian Gulf. Would Obama help Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? On the basis of the record, it’s doubtful.

Obama could have delivered a counter-blow to the Iran axis when the Syrian civil war began by giving weapons and training to reasonable elements of the Syrian resistance. Instead, he called for Assad’s ouster, then did nothing to attain it. He let the opposition become dominated by Al Qaeda affiliates getting trained and hardened for future terrorism also directed at Western allies, and the United States, too.

Obama declared that Assad’s use of chemical weapons was a “red line” whose crossing would not be tolerated. The declaration did not deter Assad — and with good reason. Since he crossed it, gassing thousands, there have been no consequences beyond Obama’s ordering the Pentagon to consider military options.

Obama then went out of his way to assure the Syrians that whatever the U.S. did, it would be limited, narrow, temporary, not designed to affect the outcome of the war etc., etc. The administration let Assad know we’d be using Tomahawk cruise missiles and that the target would be his chemical weapons capacity, nothing more.

And, still, nothing happened. Following, not leading, Obama hoped that the British Parliament would give him leave to act. Once it refused, he was forced to ask for congressional permission, though he said he doesn’t really need it. But, exhibiting no urgency, he did not call for Congress to come back from vacation. It’ll be at least 10 more days until a vote.

Secretary of State John Kerry has made a forceful moral and strategic case for military action. Obama’s statements make it sound as though he thinks he’s merely fulfilling an unpleasant duty required by international law.

The only good news to emerge from the briefings the administration has given selected members of Congress is that, to win the support of Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., he’s apparently hinted that he might go further than just token bombing of chemical facilities.

McCain and Graham were ready to oppose him because his planned attacks were going to be so pathetically ineffectual. He won them back and McCain announced — correctly — that a congressional rejection vote would be “catastrophic.”

Still, opposition is building. Tea Party Republicans are against action because they are proving themselves extreme isolationists. Other Republicans are against just because it’s Obama who’s asking — or because they think his handling of Syria demands a vote of  “no confidence.” Democrats are split, with a sizable flock of doves just against military action, period.

If Obama wins permission, he needs to surprise the Syrians and Iranians with attacks that punish and keep punishing, such as keeping Syrian warplanes out of the sky. The U.S. has been so weak up to now that Iran has every reason to think it can proceed apace with its nuclear weapons program despite Obama’s declarations that Iran would not be allowed to have a bomb.

If the Israelis attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, they probably will not succeed in destroying them, and Iran might well unleash Hezbollah on Israel — or worse. If the Israelis do not attack, Iran will have a nuclear shield behind which to commit overt and covert aggression all over the region.  Saudi Arabia will go nuclear and the world will be infinitely more dangerous.

Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his declarations of worldwide good intentions. But good intentions and verbal declarations not backed by the skillful use of power rarely lead to peace. The prize was premature and ill-advised when it was awarded. Now, it’s a dismal joke.

Wink on the way to a bomb – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Washington’s indecisiveness on Syria tells Israel its assurances regarding Iranian threat cannot be counted on

Yaron London

In the background of the debate regarding President Obama’s conduct during the Syrian crisis lies a more critical question: How will the US act when Iran edges toward a bomb? Can we count on the White House’s decisive statement assuring us that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons? The period at the end of this firm statement is suspiciously similar to the red line Obama set for Syria just a year ago.

The evidence that will show Iran is close to a nuclear bomb will be similar to the evidence indicating that the Assad regime poisoned hundreds of its citizens. The evidence will be accompanied by a host of questions which will be logical, but their sole purpose will be to avoid a decision. The questions will deal with the conclusiveness or inconclusiveness of the evidence, the ruler with which the term “close to a bomb” will be measured and the intent and mental stability of Iran’s leaders. The questions will also deal with the effectiveness of a military strike and how such a strike may affect the American economy and public opinion.

And when it turns out, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Iran is a step away from nuclear capability, will the US decide that an Iranian bomb endangers its security to the point where it must immediately launch an operation whose consequences are unclear, or will the US – after months of hesitation – decide that the world can carry on just fine with a nuclear Iran? Experts at the National Security Council and American research institutes may say that if we can live with a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, we can also live with a nuclear Iran.

PM Netanyahu and several strategists who hold his opinion are losing sleep thinking about this possibility. They are certain that an Iranian bomb is an existential threat, not because Iran will rush to fire missiles with nuclear warheads at us, but because an Iran equipped with doomsday weapons will further encourage elements that will provoke us without the fear of a massive response, and also because other Mideast countries will develop nuclear weapons to deter the Shiite superpower. They also fear that these weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists from groups such as al-Qaeda .

If we doubt Washington’s willingness to attack Iran when the moment of truth arrives, and if we are of the opinion that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands will undermine Israel’s security to the point where its very existence will be threatened, then the conclusion is that Israel must attack, even if such an attack will only delay Iran’s nuclear program and result in severe Iranian counter-strikes. I suppose the political-security establishment in Israel is considering this option much more seriously following what has been described as indecisiveness in America’s policy. Many analysts will stress the differences between the decision the White House had to make with regards to Syria and the decision it will be faced with as Iran moves close to a nuclear bomb and say that there is no connection between the two, but no promise made by the White House can allay the concerns of Israel’s leaders or make them less suspicious.

On the other hand, there will be those who will say that attacking would be a gamble Israel cannot afford in any way. So what will happen if we don’t attack? The most likely scenario is the existence of a regime of nuclear deterrence and local wars in the Middle East. We must prepare for such a future.