Archive for October 3, 2013

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

Alan M. Dershowitz: How the New York Times distorted Netanyahu’s UN speech

October 3, 2013

How the New York Times distorted Netanyahu’s UN speech – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Why is the American media trying so hard to present Iranian President Rohani’s remarks in a positive light while bitterly criticizing Israeli PM Netanyahu’s rational and compelling speech?

By | Oct. 2, 2013 | 10:13 PM |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the UN General Assembly

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the UN General Assembly. Photo by AFP

I was in the General Assembly when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his speech about Iranian President Hassan Rohani and Iran’s nuclear program. I heard a very different speech from the one described by The New York Times and other media. Not surprisingly, the Iranians described it as “inflammatory”. More surprisingly, The New York Times described Netanyahu’s speech as aggressive, combative, sarcastic and sabotaging diplomacy, while the only expert it quoted called the speech ineffective and pushing the limits of credibility.

What I heard in the Assembly bore little relationship either to the Iranian or the New York Times characterizations. What the people at the talk heard was a compellingly persuasive speech using Rohani’s own words to prove convincingly that his friendly smile is a cover for far more malignant intentions. Herein are a few excerpts not quoted in the Times report. First, with regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program:

There are those who would readily agreed to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said in his speech to Iran’s…Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005. I quote:…

“A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.”

Precisely. This is why Iran’s nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.

Next, several statements Rohani made with regard to human rights, terrorism and constructive engagement:

Rohani spoke of, quote, “the human tragedy in Syria.” Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad’s murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.

Finally, Netanyahu’s answer to Rohani’s assurance that his country does not engage in deceit and secrecy:

Last Friday Rohani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran – this is a quote – Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.

Nor did Netanyahu reject diplomacy. Indeed he welcomed it, so long as the diplomatic solution “fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.”

The New York Times was particularly critical of Netanyahu’s oft-repeated statement that if Iran were to be on the verge of developing nuclear weapons designed to wipe Israel off the map, “against such a threat Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.” But this statement reflects not only Israel’s longstanding policy but American policy as well. President Obama has told me, as he has told others, that Israel must reserve the right to take military action in defense of its own civilian population. It cannot be expected, any more than we can be expected, to outsource the ultimate obligation of every democracy to protect its citizens from nuclear attack. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy made it clear that the United States would not accept nuclear weapons pointed at our cities from bases in Cuba. Does anybody really expect Israel to accept nuclear missiles directed at its cities and towns from an even more belligerent enemy sworn to its destruction?

Those of us who were in the General Assembly chamber to hear Netanyahu’s speech heard a rational call for diplomacy backed by sanctions and the ultimate threat of military force as a last resort. It heard the leader of America’s ally, Israel, carefully analyze the words and deeds of the leader of a nation that still describes the United States in the most bellicose of terms. It was one of the most compelling and effective speeches ever delivered at the United Nations. It should be read—or watched on YouTube—by every American, who should then compare what they have seen and heard with what the media told them was said.

Several media outlets misinterpreted President Rohani’s speech to make it sound far more acceptable than it would have been had it been correctly translated. The media claimed that Farsi is a difficult language to translate. There was no such excuse with regard with PM Netanyahu’s speech, which was delivered in crystal clear English. The distortion of the Israeli’s Prime Minister’s speech was a deliberate attempt to portray him in a less favorable manner than his actual words warranted.

The question remains: Why would the American media bend over forwards to place Rohani in a positive light while bending over backwards to present Netanyahu in a negative light? Is it because we place our understandable hope for peace over the reality that difficult barriers that still exist? Is it because a “friendly” Iranian head of state is a more interesting story than a realistic Israeli head of state?

Whatever the reason, distorting reality is neither in the interest of good reporting nor in the interest of peace. If diplomacy is to succeed, it must be based on realpolitik and a hardnosed assessment of both our friends and our enemies. Judged against those standards, the media reporting on the Rohani and Netanyahu speeches did not meet the high standards rightly expected of American journalism.

Alan M. Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard, is a practicing criminal and constitutional lawyer and the author, most recently, of The Trials of Zion. His autobiography, “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law”, will be published this month.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 2 Comments

Iran, the Mossad and the power of cyber-warfare

October 3, 2013

Iran, the Mossad and the power of cyber-warfare – Telegraph Blogs.

By World Last updated: October 3rd, 2013

For the first time in almost two years, motorcycle-borne assassins appear to have murdered an Iranian official – this time, Mojtaba Ahmadi, the man reportedly responsible for Iran’s cyber-warfare headquarters. Whoever was responsible, and assuming that Ahmadi did indeed hold that position, this would be a new and dangerous escalation of hostilities. It comes at a highly sensitive moment in US-Iran diplomacy, just one week after the highest-level diplomatic context in years, and could empower hardliners within Iran who are searching for a pretext to close off President Hasan Rohani’s engagement with the West.

Details remain murky. Some Iranian sources suggest that Ahmadi was merely a local commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC itself denies that the death was an assassination. References to his status as cyber-warfare chief are difficult to find. But if that were his remit, it is easy to imagine why he might have been targeted.

Iran is not only the victim of the most prominent cyber-attack to havebeen conducted to date, the US and Israeli initiated Stuxnet virus which targeted Iranian centrifuges, but also a major source of attacks itself. It may only be a “third tier” power in this area, but it can still do some damage. A few years ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt pointed out that “Iranians are unusually talented in cyber war for some reason we don’t fully understand”. The most serious alleged Iranian cyber-attack took place last summer, when the Shamoon virus wiped more than 30,000 computers of the Saudi Aramco oil company. US officials interpreted this attack as Iranian retaliation – for Stuxnet, among other acts of sabotage. In October last year, then US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta warned that Tehran has “undertaken a concerted effort to use cyberspace to its advantage”. Since last September, a wave of attacks on more than a dozen Western banks was blamed on Iran. Only a few days ago, Iran was reported to have hacked unclassified US Navy computers, in one of the most serious infiltrations to date.

Of course, the US, Britain, and Israel continue to penetrate Iranian computers, albeit for more focussed purposes than the Iranians. This is not a one-sided battle. But while the US has been deliberating over how hard it should hit back, the administration’s internal debate has been how to respond electronically, certainly not with bullets.

This is not simply a contest between Iran, the West, and the Gulf. Some analysts have suggested that Iran’s cyber-weapons have also been put to work in the context of the Syrian civil war, particularly to augment the capability of the pro-Assad Syrian Electronic Army (SEA). The SEA has been responsible for a number of of high-profile cyber-attacks, including defacements of Western websites and a hijacking of Associated Press’s Twitter feed, which caused the Dow Jones to briefly plummet when the hackers posted false reports of an explosion at the White House.

But recent research calls into question the idea of Iranian backing. More importantly, Syrian rebels almost certainly lack the capability to plan and mount such a sophisticated operation inside Iranian territory against as senior target. Their foreign backers – Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar – have also shown little sign of having such reach into Iran for lethal operations (although it is always possible that they simply recruited local groups).

So, the immediate focus will be on possible Israeli involvement. The last in the previous series of assassinations of Iranians took place in January 2012. Those attacks were widely attributed – including by US officials – to Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, operating through the dissident Iranian group MEK (until recently, the MEK was a US-designated terrorist group). There is no evidence that the last series of assassinations meaningfully slowed Iran’s nuclear programme, and there is no particular reason to think that the removal of one individual will seriously curb Iran’s capabilities for cyber-attacks.

The method of this attack – particularly eyewitness reports that the assailants used motorcycles – and the nature of the target are consistent with the suggestion of an Israeli operation. However, the evidence is no more than lightly circumstantial. It would represent a sudden and dramatic broadening of objectives after a long lull. Every prior victim has had at least some plausible connection to Iran’s nuclear programme, with the most distant target being a general responsible for Iran’s missile programme. It is possible that those responsible for the previous series of assassinations simply ran out of targets, particularly as senior nuclear scientists are increasingly well protected by Iran. It is possible that the target set is broadening out of desperation.

Some have implied, however, that the escalation is precisely the point: Israel’s motivation, it is argued, might have been to torpedo the emerging thaw between Iran and the United States. After all, Israeli Prime Minister delivered a relentlessly hostile speech to the United Nations at the beginning of this week, warning that Rouhani was “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Israel is concerned that Rouhani’s overtures will result in an unduly generous nuclear deal that sacrifices Israeli interests and strengthens Iran in the region. This assassination provides the president’s domestic political opponents with ammunition against his diplomatic efforts. With nuclear diplomacy scheduled to begin in Geneva later this month, the timing could not be worse.

American (and, for that matter, British) officials were unhappy about the last round of assassinations, and would be especially incensed at attempts to sabotage this round of diplomacy before it even begins. Although they are eager to combat Iran’s cyber-weapons, they do not see assassination as a legitimate, proportionate, or effective means of doing so. Nor do they see the threat from cyber-attacks as being remotely on the scale as that which might arise from Iran’s nuclear programme. They will be concerned about legitimating an escalation in Iran’s cyber-attacks and more traditional forms of retaliation, including through Hezbollah (the last round of assassinations was followed by crude and mostly bungled plots against Israeli diplomats).

Just as Britain publicly declares an expansion in its own cyber-attack capabilities, the last thing that is needed is the suggestion that the line between physical attacks – including Iran-backed terrorist attacks – and cyber-attacks should be so easily blurred.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kerry: US will not be played for ‘suckers’ by Iran

October 3, 2013

Israel Hayom | Kerry: US will not be played for ‘suckers’ by Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State says, however, it would be “diplomatic malpractice” not to test Iran’s willingness to comply with international demands, adding, “I assure Netanyahu and the people of Israel that nothing that we do is going to be based on trust.”

The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attends a news conference in Tokyo on Thursday

|

Photo credit: AP

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday it would be wrong not to test Iran’s willingness to comply with international demands over its nuclear program.

In his first public comments since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United States and the West not to trust Iran in an impassioned address to the United Nations on Tuesday, Kerry said the U.S. would not be played for “suckers” with a charm offensive from new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani adding that the U.S. would not take any Iranian offer at face value. Iran will have to prove it is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, Kerry told reporters in Tokyo after he and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met with their Japanese counterparts.

“We have an obligation,” he went on to say. “It would be diplomatic malpractice of the worst order not to examine every possibility of whether or not you can achieve that before you ask people to take military action and do what you have to do to prevent it.”

“You have to exhaust the remedies before you ratchet up to a next tier of remedies that may have more dramatic consequences,” he said.

However, Kerry stressed that Rouhani’s apparent overtures would be looked at with an extremely critical eye.

“There is nothing here that is going to be taken at face value and we have made that clear,” he said. “It is not words that will make a difference, it’s actions, and the actions clearly are going to have to be sufficient that the world will understand that not only will they not be on the road to get a weapon but there is no ability to suddenly break out and achieve that.”

“I assure Prime Minister Netanyahu and the people of Israel that nothing that we do is going to be based on trust,” Kerry said in response to a question about Netanyahu’s recent warnings. “It’s going to be based on a series of steps that guarantee to all of us that we have certainty about what is happening.”

“We are firmly determined that Israel’s security remains paramount,” said Kerry.

Netanyahu’s speech came a day after the Israeli leader met in the White House with U.S. President Barack Obama. In his U.N. address, Netanyahu disparaged Rouhani as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and suggested it would be foolhardy to put faith in anything he said.

Kerry, who also met with Netanyahu on Monday, said he did not believe Netanyahu was criticizing the U.S. effort to engage Iran, but rather warning of the possibility that Rouhani might not be serious. Kerry says the U.S. agrees with that assessment.

“I did not interpret Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments as suggesting that we are being played, somehow, for suckers,” he said. “I understood it to be a warning: Don’t be played.”

“We are going to look very, very carefully at this. We hope it could work because we think the world would be better off,” Kerry said, adding: “A country that genuinely wants to have a peaceful program does not have difficulty proving that it is in fact peaceful, so this ought to be able to be done.

“The test we face over these next weeks and months, not a long period of time, is to determine whether or not that is in fact what Iran intends,” he added.

Senior diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany are preparing now to meet with top Iranian officials in mid-October in Geneva for the latest round of thus-far unsuccessful talks to get Iran to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

The West will wake up, the question is when

October 3, 2013

Israel Hayom | The West will wake up, the question is when.

Eli Hazan

As a Jew and Israeli, it wasn’t easy reading Wednesday’s New York Times editorial describing Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.N. General Assembly speech as “aggressive,” and suggesting it was controversial. After all, The New York Times is enormously influential. Its problem is that it not only refuses to learn the lessons of others’ history, it refuses to learn from its own experience in the recent past.

There is no better example than North Korea. In 2005, North Korea agreed to a deal to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The New York Times wrote in its editorial that “diplomacy, it seems, does work after all.”

The New York Times must once again ask itself whether diplomacy really does work, just as it worked with countries whose reigning ideologies were nihilistic.

On the other hand, amid the criticism, the editorial also said that “Mr. Netanyahu has legitimate reasons to be wary of any Iranian overtures,” In other words, alongside the criticism, The New York Times legitimizes Israel’s right to self-defense. This is what should be read between the lines.

What is most worrisome is that the newspaper’s position today reflects the stance of a weary West that is not willing to deal with the diplomatic and military challenges it confronts. Not only is it not willing to learn the lessons of Munich in 1938, but there is also repression of the lessons of North Korea in 2005.

Just last March the evil North Korean regime threatened a nuclear attack on the United States over its military cooperation with South Korea. This is after the Americans had transferred food and aid to the suffering North Korean people. Just a few years later the North Korean government threatened to “retaliate” by destroying those who helped them.

Netanyahu’s speech contained facts and truths that cannot be refuted. The West hears but does not want to accept them, because Western leaders are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, Netanyahu revealed the truth, but on the other hand they cannot accept it. The rotten fruit of this behavior will ultimately be eaten not only by Israel, but by the entire West.

Why? Because the Iranian regime’s ideology, just as the prime minister revealed, cannot be tolerant towards other ideologies.

Moreover, it is worth noting that Netanyahu warned against the Iranian nuclear program during his first term as prime minister, in a speech to the U.S. Congress in July 1996.

The reactions he got were chilly. He once again addressed the issue as chairman of the opposition and during his second term as prime minister. Despite the cool response he continued to receive, the West finally understood that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and began to take action. In other words, the West woke up late in the game. One can assume that the same thing will happen this time. We can only hope that it won’t be too little, too late.

As more time passes, Netanyahu may find himself in the shoes of Winston Churchill, and if he takes successful action in Iran, in the same shoes as Menachem Begin. Both leaders took action at a time when the West stood still — each in his own era — the first in the face of Nazi ideologies of destruction and the second against Saddam Hussein’s ideology of destruction.

Just as Netanyahu faces poisonous criticism today, they faced it in the past. What made both leaders special is that they took destructive ideologies at face value and without filters. They also proclaimed the truth at every opportunity even if they were perceived as militaristic.

Both Churchill and Begin, in very different ways, confronted the threat militarily and led the West to where it initially refused to be led. Let us hope that this time we don’t need to use the military option, because Netanyahu’s speech raised the alarm. Unfortunately, in light of the West’s behavior, it may be unavoidable.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran is worried

October 3, 2013

Israel Hayom | Iran is worried.

Dan Margalit

There are articles that stand as monuments of shame or embarrassment for respected world newspapers.

The Times of London does not highlight the praise it heaped on Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when, upon his return to London after signing the Munich Agreement, he said, “I believe it is peace for our time.” Haaretz never repeated the editorial it published in July 1946 after the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

The New York Times had reason to bow its head after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his U.N. speech on Tuesday, quoted from its embarrassing 2005 editorial on the success of diplomatic efforts to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. But instead, The New York Times attacked Netanyahu’s speech. Journalists, like all human beings, do not enjoy being reminded of their humiliations.

The argument put forth by The New York Times is that Netanyahu is hindering U.S. President Barack Obama’s attempt at diplomacy with Iran. But is this the case? Netanyahu merely warned, legitimately, about the malicious intentions of the Iranian regime. Only the future will tell whether this warning was warranted. But Obama, as the head of the world’s democratic coalition, could use Israel’s threats to improve his position in negotiations with the Iranians.

Iranian leaders claimed on Wednesday that Israel’s sword has rusted and that Netanyahu’s anger brings them pleasure. This was a natural reaction. What else could they say? That they are gripped with fear?

Not one word said on Tuesday indicated an impending Israeli attack that could disrupt the line of dialogue established between Obama and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. Netanyahu mentioned Israel’s military strength due to his wish to see sanctions against Iran preserved, if not bolstered. Indeed, the Israeli military threat will bolster, not weaken, America’s hand at the negotiating table.

Iran’s grin, in fact, hides its concern about the fact that Netanyahu’s speech showed that Israel and the U.S. have moved closer to having the same red line regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The potential cooperation between Israel and the U.S. increases the threat facing Rouhani. Netanyahu did not declare that Israel would act alone against Iran. Rather, he said that, even in a worst-case scenario in which it is left standing alone against Iran, Israel would not give up the military option. Iran understands this well.

In Israel Hayom, some writers have hinted that Obama’s weakness regarding the massacres in Syria has led a number of Middle Eastern nations to contemplate forming a new anti-Iran axis. They see America as a broken reed. This is not completely true. But on Tuesday night, Channel 2’s Udi Segal reported that Arab officials have been making pilgrimages to Israel seeking to form a front against Iranian imperialism.

Israel does not have, and must not develop, the megalomania that would be required to take America’s place in defending the sovereignty of other Middle Eastern nations. But if Israel wants to be part of the link, one of the relay stations, and if it wants to strengthen its credibility, then it must echo the message that came from Netanyahu on Tuesday.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Israelis supportive of PM’s go-it-alone attitude on Iran

October 3, 2013

Israel Hayom | Israelis supportive of PM’s go-it-alone attitude on Iran.

Israeli Ami Gat: “I say, as someone who grew up here, if we need to do this on our own, we’ll do it, we won’t have a choice” • Jerusalem resident Bracha: “If we need to fight alone, we will do to it” • IDF conducts drill to simulate chemical attack.

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff
Israeli soldiers conducted a drill in Beit Shemesh on Wednesday to simulate a chemical attack on the country

|

Photo credit: Reuters screenshot

Israelis reacted positively on Wednesday to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that Israel was ready to stand alone to deny Iran an atomic weapon.

In a combative address to the U.N. General Assembly, Netanyahu on Tuesday dismissed a charm offensive by Iranian President Hasan Rouhani as a ruse concocted by a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and assailed the trustworthiness of Iran’s centrist president who has made diplomatic overtures to the United States and spoke by telephone last week with President Barack Obama.

Israeli Ami Gat told Reuters Television in Jerusalem that he is convinced that Israel is willing and capable of attacking Iran on its own “if necessary.”

“I am not a big fan of Bibi [Netanyahu], but the speech was excellent. And I say, as someone who grew up here, if we need to do this on our own, we’ll do it, we won’t have a choice,” Gat said.

Jerusalem resident Bracha, echoing a similar sentiment said: “If we need to fight alone, we will do to it, because we have not another choice.”

Netanyahu’s address, the last at this year’s gathering of world leaders in New York, reflected Israeli worries that the emerging signs of what could become a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement might lead to a premature easing of international sanctions and military threats designed to deny Iran the means to make a bomb.

Meanwhile, in the city of Beit Shemesh, Israeli soldiers conducted a drill to simulate a chemical attack on the country. Soldiers dressed in chemical suits gave first aid to civilians and evacuated the “wounded” on stretchers.

“Today we are taking part in a drill that simulates a Syrian chemical missile landing [in Israel]. The drill is being carried out together with the Magen David Adom emergency medical service and the Homefront Command. As a result of the missile landing, many dozens of people have been hurt and evacuated by Magen David Adom ambulances to hospitals in Jerusalem,” ambulance service official David Koren told Reuters Television.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Interpreting politicians

October 3, 2013

Interpreting politicians | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharansky

Politicians lie, do not tell all the truth, or exaggerate.

One of the first lessons that a child in a politically alert family may learn is not to believe campaign promises.

Years later that child may learn that politicians have to stretch the truth, or hide their intentions, in order to satisfy complex constituencies that are not comfortable with one another. A person seeking to win or stay in an important office must appeal to both A and B, who are interested in different things, and may disagree on something important.
Which raises the question, when to believe what a politician says?

Or at a more sophisticated level, how to interpret what a politician says?

This week we heard two expressions that are more important than usual, and beg interpretation.
In Washington, President Barack Obama said that  Republicans in the House of Representatives must abandon their ideological campaign. He will not compromise for the sake of a budget.
In New York, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu seemed to be giving an ultimatum to President Obama and other heads of major governments intent on negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program. He told the United Nations General Assembly that Israel would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the greater powers did not succeed in doing so via negotiations.
It is not hard to find competing interpretation of both statements.
There are commentators who specialize in American and Israeli politics who assert that both Obama and Netanyahu are blustering, with no intention to endanger either the American economy or world peace.
Associated with that view about the American President is the prediction that some kind of compromise, appropriately fudged to give reasons for both the Republicans and the President to claim victory, will end the budget crisis in a few days.
There are Bibi-watchers who say is he saying the same old thing, i.e., a threat not likely to be implemented, but meant to get as much as possible from those with real power who are dealing with Iran. Some say that Bibi is primarily concerned to prop up a shaky coalition at home, where his right wing has been signalling a lack of satisfaction and maybe even searching for an alternative head of their party and government.
Commentators are also noting that while the Prime Minister devoted something like 33 minutes of his speech to Iran, he spoke for only two minutes about Palestine. And while those two minutes included yet another commitment to work toward a two-state solution, the essence was to blame the Palestinians for not matching Israeli efforts with respect to the concessions necessary for an agreement.
Anti-Netanyahu Israeli commentators are noting that the General Assembly was largely empty when the Prime Minister spoke. He was at the end of the schedule, and almost all the distinguished figures had gone home. Israeli skeptics also note that Americans and at least a few Europeans are more concerned with Washington’s  budget impasse than with Israel, Iran, or nuclear weapons.
Whatever the nasties want to say about him, Netanyahu’s speech has been widely covered in the international media.
The American President delayed scheduled remarks on the budget. According to one interpretation, it was to give American networks an opportunity to cover his comments and the Prime Minister’s speech.
So what should we expect from the two national leaders?
Those with enough clout to move the New York Stock Exchange seemed to think that the Republicans and Obama will find a solution for their problem before too long. On the day that much of the federal government stopped functioning, the S&P 500 climbed by 13 points and the Dow by 62. The market dropped the next day, but–so far– not by anything out of the ordinary.
Israeli commentators are divided, but the tilt may be in the direction of believing the Prime Minister’s threat. Even opposing politicians and chronically anti-Bibi commentators who chide his tactics of speaking so forcefully about Iran and skipping over the issue of Palestine accept his view of the Iranian threat.
Those who wish to interpret Netanyahu’s speech for themselves can begin here.
Among the competing interpretations that are reasonable:
  • Netanyahu will no longer be Prime Minister whenever it is that negotiations between Western governments and Iran end, either well or badly.
  • Neither Netanyahu or whoever is the Israeli Prime Minister will not insist on all the conditions demanded by Netanyahu for a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
  • Western governments, concerned about Israel’s military capacity, will demand serious reversals in Iran’s nuclear program, together with inspections, perhaps by a body more likely to be assiduous than the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed not so long ago by an Egyptian inclined to waffle on the Iranians.
  • Whoever is the Israeli Prime Minister will act forcefully against a stubborn Iran, thinking more like Netanyahu about the Holocaust and continued Iranian assertions of Israel’s illegitimacy, and not tolerant of endless talks or an ambiguous outcome
  • Israel’s military response–in the event that it takes one–may be enough to hurt and delay the Iranian program, or much more severe, depending on how the Israeli leadership judges the risks from Iran and the postures of the US and major European governments..
How to interpret Netanyahu’s few comments about Palestinians and what may be Obama’s greater concern for them is its another problem, with its own set of possibilities.
  • Are the Palestinians out there in the weeds, unlikely to get more than a few economic concessions out of this current round of talks, with who knows what Palestinian violence and Israeli destruction of Palestine that may come later?
  • Are the Israel-Palestinian negotiations important enough to affect how the US or Israel will act with respect to Iran?
As suggested above, interpreting politicians offers more challenges than anything close to certainty.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran gets senior seat on UN nuclear disarmament committee

October 3, 2013

Iran gets senior seat on UN nuclear disarmament committee | JPost | Israel News.

( The UN seems incapable of anything other than self-parody. – JW )

By MAYA SHWAYDER
10/03/2013 00:52

Israeli officials, Jewish groups assail decision.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addresses the UN General Assembly, Septemeber 24, 2013.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addresses the UN General Assembly, Septemeber 24, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

NEW YORK – Hours after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu railed against Iran’s nuclear program from the UN General Assembly’s stage on Tuesday, member states elected Iran to be the rapporteur for the Disarmament and International Security Committee.

Iran’s representative will replace Norwegian diplomat Knut Langeland. The position’s duties include relaying information and reports on disarmament and armament activities between the committee and the General Assembly.

The First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, which is comprised of all 193 member states, “considers all disarmament and international security matters” and “seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime.”

One of its main functions is to draft resolutions that are later debated by the General Assembly; the committee has no power to pass resolutions.

Iran applied for the position on July 30. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor said then that if Iran were to assume such a post, it would be like “inviting Assad, the Syrian dictator responsible for the death of 100,000 of his own people, to be the head of the population census bureau.”

On Wednesday, the American Jewish Committee condemned the UN’s decision, saying it was “appalled” at the election.

“Rewarding Iran for misbehavior is a tragic stain on the UN,” AJC executive director David Harris said. “Nonetheless, this should not in any way deter world powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the US – from standing firm in current negotiations to ensure that Iran comes clean on its nuclear program.”

The Anti-Defamation League expressed similar feelings of astonishment. ADL’s executive directory Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement that this was “the height of hypocrisy,” and “simply unbelievable.”

“Iran’s election to be the face of the First Committee in the General Assembly only serves to further undermine the UN’s credibility,” Foxman said.

Iranian media hailed the decision.

The Islamic Republic News Agency called Netanyahu’s speech “baseless” and the Iranian response to it “powerful and well-reasoned,” and emphasized that Tehran was ready for “a sincere participation” in nuclear negotiations.

Iran is head of the Non- Aligned Movement for the period 2012 to 2015.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addressed the UN General Assembly on Friday, as the head of NAM, after first addressing it in his role as president the previous Monday.

In his address last Monday, Rouhani called for a Middle East that was free of weapons of mass destruction, and reiterated that Iran rejects the development, possession, or use of nuclear weapons.

Without mentioning it by name, he slammed Israel as being the only country in the region to possess weapons of mass destruction, and for not acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a document Iran has signed, though it was found to be in noncompliance.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kerry: Iran must take concrete steps in nuclear negotiations

October 3, 2013

Kerry: Iran must take concrete steps in nuclear negotiations | JPost | Israel News.

( It would appear that the Obama administration, if nobody else, is taking Netanyahu at his word. – JW )

By REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 10/03/2013 11:25

US Secretary of State expressed hope that engagement with Rouhani’s gov’t can succeed but said nothing would be taken “at face value,” and said US was firmly determined that Israel’s security remains paramount.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (L) in Tokyo,

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (L) in Tokyo, Photo: Reuters

TOKYO – US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday that the United States hopes to engage with the new Iranian administration, but that any advances must be based on concrete steps by Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons program.

If Iran intends to be peaceful, “I believe there is a way to get there,” Kerry told a news conference in Tokyo after a meeting of the two countries’ defense and foreign ministers.

Kerry expressed hope that engagement with President Hassan Rouhani’s government can succeed but said nothing would be taken at face value.

Discussions would be based on a series of steps that guarantee “we have certainty about what is happening,” Kerry said.

In a charm offensive at UN meetings in New York last week, Iran expressed willingness to resolve the 10-year-old dispute with the United States over its nuclear program, a move that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed as a ruse concocted by a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

Addressing Netanyahu’s concerns over talks with Iran, Kerry said: “We are firmly determined that Israel’s security remains paramount.”

He dismissed suggestions that the United States was being played by Iran.

“There is nothing here that is going to be taken at face-value and we’ve made that clear,” Kerry said. “The president has said, and I have said, that it is not words that will make a difference, it’s actions, and the actions are clearly going to have to be sufficient.”

The United States, Israel and other countries accuse Iran of using its nuclear program to try to develop the capability to produce weapons. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

“It would be diplomatic malpractice of the worst order” for the United States not to explore opportunities, said Kerry, who met his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations last week, the highest-level official meeting between the United States and Iran in more than three decades.

“We are going to look very very carefully at this. We hope it could work because we think the world would be better off,” Kerry said, adding: “A country that genuinely wants to have a peaceful program does not have difficulty proving that it is in fact peaceful, so this ought to be able to be done.

“The test we face over these next weeks and months, not a long period of time, is to determine whether or not that is in fact what Iran intends,” Kerry added.

On Monday, President Barack Obama said the US remains “clear-eyed” going into direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, and said it is “absolutely clear” that words will not be enough to stop Western sanctions – or his consideration of military action – should Iran choose to continue enriching uranium.

“We have to test diplomacy,” Obama said. “We have to see if in fact they are serious about their willingness to abide by international norms and international law and international requirements and resolutions.”

Following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Israel’s skepticism about Iran and its intentions was “entirely justifiable,”

“As the President has said, we understand, and it is entirely justifiable, that Israel is skeptical about Iran and Iran’s intentions. After all, this is a country whose leadership, until recently, was pledging to annihilate Israel. So their security concerns are understandable. Their skepticism is understandable,” Carney said.

Michael Wilner and Jpost.com staff contributed to this report.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran denies assassination in cyber war officer’s death

October 3, 2013

Iran denies assassination in cyber war officer’s death | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF, YAAKOV LAPPIN
10/03/2013 13:40

Mojtaba Ahmadi reportedly died from bullet wounds to heart, according to the British daily The Telegraph.

Man analyzes computer code

Man analyzes computer code Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters

DUBAI – Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they were investigating the death of an officer in a “horrific incident”, but denied media reports it was an assassination.

Alborz, an Iranian website, reported earlier this week that Mojtaba Ahmadi, an official of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was found shot dead near Karaj, a town northwest of the capital Tehran.

He had left his house on Monday morning and was found a few hours later with a bullet in his heart, it said.

The London-based Daily Telegraph reported that Ahmadi was a commander of the unit’s Cyber War Headquarters and quoted a local police commander as saying it was an assassination.

It speculated that the death could have been an assassination, similar to those of five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007.

“In the wake of a horrific incident involving one of the IRGC officials … the matter is being investigated and the main reason of the event and the motive of the attacker has not been specified,” said an IRGC statement, quoted by Sepah news.

Sepah, which is operated by the Revolutionary Guard, ran its report under the headline “Denial of news reports of the assassination of one of IRGC’s officials”.

The statement did not identify Ahmadi but a local news website published pictures on Wednesday showing his funeral procession, along with text excerpts of the IRGC communique.

“The result of investigation will be announced through official channels and any speculation will not be appropriate before the investigation is over,” an Iranian official said late on Wednesday. Western officials have not commented on the incident.

Iran has been accused of mounting cyber attacks against Western targets in recent years, and has itself been the target of suspected US attacks on computer systems at its nuclear facilities using a virus called Stuxnet.

For their part, authorities in Tehran have accused Israel and its Western allies of carrying out a series of assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists. The last such attack happened in January 2012 when one man was killed by a car bomb.

Israel regards Iran’s nuclear activities as an existential threat and has applied diplomatic pressure on the West to force Iran to curb its nuclear program. Tehran maintains it has only peaceful goals.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries