Archive for November 1, 2013

Pro-Israel Group Denies Iran Deal with White House

November 1, 2013

Update: Pro-Israel Group Denies Iran Deal with White House – JP Updates | JP Updates.

A pro-Israel group on Friday denied a report that it had agreed to refrain from pressing for new Iran sanctions as the White House pursues diplomatic talks.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday that a newly formed “quartet” of pro-Israel groups met with White House officials this week and agreed to a 60-day moratorium on publicly pressing Congress for new sanctions following a “contentious” meeting with senior officials.

Members of the quartet reportedly included AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, The Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

A source at an organization present at the meeting told The Hill his group “categorically denies that any commitment was given for any such moratorium.”

US claims Israel attacked Russian missile shipment in Syria

November 1, 2013

US claims Israel attacked Russian missile shipment in Syria | World news | theguardian.com.

Americans accused of damaging ‘trust between allies’ by revealing Latakia air strike

Israeli F-15I tactical fighter jet

An F-15I fighter jet taking off at the Hatzerim air force base in southern Israel: the country is believed to have aimed air strikes at missiles bound for Syria’s Hezbollah allies in January and May this year. Photograph: Oliver Weiken/EPA

Israeli warplanes have attacked a shipment of Russian missiles inside a Syrian government stronghold, according to US officials. The disclosure could further strain US-Israel relations, which are already under pressure over differences regarding the Iranian nuclear programme.

Neither the Israeli government nor its military made any comment on the US confirmation of an Israeli air strike on a missile base in the city of Latakia early on Thursday, but officials are privately furious at the White House statement.

“This raises very disturbing questions, and affects trust between allies,” said one Israeli official. “Sharing information is embedded in the nature of the relationship between Israel and the US. It’s like a big pipeline that’s open to permanent flow. So disclosing information is a cause for dismay.” He declined to comment on whether Israel was responsible for the air strike.

A US official told CNN that Israel targeted the base to prevent weapons being transferred to the Hezbollah militia, the Lebanese group backed by Syria and Iran. The Al-Arabiya network reported that stores of anti-aircraft missiles, which had been destined for Hezbollah, were destroyed in the attack.

Israel has repeatedly warned that it will take military action to stop the movement of advanced weapons. Several air strikes were carried out earlier this year, although Israel has not acknowledged its actions.

According to Israeli media reports, the US statement had caused “senior officials in Jerusalem to tear out their hair”.

Alex Fishman, defence analyst for Israeli’s biggest-selling daily Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote: “Past experience suggests that we shared information with them on our operational activity so as to prevent embarrassment and surprise, but Washington is selling our secrets on the cheap … This is now dangerous and contemptible behaviour committed deliberately by the administration, with the aim of sabotaging Israeli defence policy.”

The revelation came as the government of President Bashar al-Assad met a key deadline in an ambitious plan to eliminate Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile by mid-2014 and avoid international military action.

The announcement by a global chemical weapons watchdog that the country had completed the destruction of equipment used to produce the deadly agents highlights Assad’s willingness to cooperate, and puts more pressure on the divided and outgunned rebels to attend a planned peace conference.

An Obama administration official confirmed the Israeli airstrike overnight, but provided no details. Another security official said the attack occurred late on Wednesday in the Syrian port city of Latakia and that the target was Russian-made SA-125 missiles.

There was no immediate confirmation from Syria.

Since the civil war in Syria began in March 2011, Israel has carefully avoided taking sides, but has struck shipments of missiles inside Syria at least twice this year.

The Syrian military, overstretched by the civil war, has not retaliated, and it was not clear whether the embattled Syrian leader would choose to take action this time. Assad may decide to let the Israeli attack slide again, particularly when his army has the upper hand on the battlefield inside Syria.

Israel has repeatedly declared a series of red lines that could trigger military intervention, including the delivery of “game-changing” weapons to the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group.

Israel has never officially confirmed taking action inside Syria to avoid embarrassing Assad and sparking a potential response. But foreign officials say it has done so several times when Israeli intelligence determined that sophisticated missiles were on the move.

In January, an Israeli air strike in Syria destroyed a shipment of advanced anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hezbollah, according to US officials. And in May, it was said to have acted again, taking out a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles at a Damascus airport.

The Fateh-110s have advanced guidance systems that allow them to travel up to 200 miles per hour with great precision. Their solid-fuel propellant allows them to be launched at short notice, making them hard to detect and neutralise.

Israel has identified several other weapons systems as game changers, including chemical weapons, Russian-made Yakhont missiles that can be fired from land and destroy ships at sea, and Russian SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles. Israel’s January air strike is believed to have destroyed a shipment of SA-17s.

Syrian activists and opposition groups reported strong explosions on Wednesday night that appeared to come from inside an air defence facility in Latakia. They said the cause of the blasts was not known.

Panetta: US may have to use military force against Iran

November 1, 2013

Panetta: US may have to use military force against Iran | JPost | Israel News.

By MAYA SHWAYDER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
11/01/2013 16:53

“We have to remain strong,” says former US secretary of defense.

Leon Panetta.

Leon Panetta. Photo: REUTERS

NEW YORK — Addressing the Anti-Defamation League’s 100th annual meeting on Thursday night, former US secretary of defense and CIA director Leon Panetta told the ballroom of around 600 people that while the US has “implemented unprecedented sanctions and pressure on Iran, we may very well have to use military force to back up our policy.”

US president Barack Obama has often said that “all options are on the table” when it comes to negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program. Panetta, who was receiving the ADL’s William and Naomi Gorowitz Institute Service Award, said the US needs to “maintain a healthy skepticism” when negotiating to suss out Iran’s true level of commitment to the process.

“It is the Supreme Leader who is key, and he is not likely to give up enrichment,” Panetta warned. “We have to remain strong. We have to remain consistent.”

Panetta reemphasized the American line that the US has “no friend, no better ally in the world than Israel,” but he expressed concern over the “growing sense of isolationism in this country [the US]” over the last ten years of fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the shifting power dynamics among world leaders. “The fact remains that we live in a very dangerous world,” he said. “We continue to have threats from North Korea as they test nuclear weapons. We have instability and fragility in the Middle East. All of this happens at a time when we are imperiled by gridlock in Washington.”

Panetta devoted part of his speech to tearing down DC’s leaders over the recent government shutdown and the budget sequester. “If you ask me what biggest threat to national security is today,” he continued, “it is fact that our political leaders cannot come together to deal with this nation’s problems. This is time when must maintain military strength and our role in the world as a world leader. We cannot retreat from the responsibilities that US has in the world today.”

Panetta was introduced by current secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, who expressed his admiration for his predecessor, and similarly indicated his support for maintaining a firm hand with Iran, while at the same exploring further diplomatic options.

“We are testing Iranian intentions for diplomatic solutions,” he said. “When we engage Iran along with our partners, we are clear-eyed about the reality in the Middle East. Iran is a state sponsor of terror,…but foreign policy is not a zero-sum game.”

Hagel advocated for exploring more ways to resolve disputes, and tried to soothe any audience members concerned that diplomacy would lead nowhere. “Engagement is not appeasement, nor is it containment,” he said. “We know what those are, we know where they lead, and we will not pursue them. And President Obama has repeatedly made clear that words are not enough. Action must match words.”

Hagel also announced that the US would be selling Israel six new V-22 tiltrotor helicopters, and he recognized the “challenges” on Israel’s borders given the crises in Egypt and Syria. “There are no margins for Israel,” Hagel said.

The other big headliner of the first day of the meeting was UN ambassador Samantha Power, who received a gift from ADL national director Abe Foxman: a book with the word “Jew” written in it six million times, as a tribute to her work in the field of genocide, Foxman said.

Power spoke about the importance of ADL and lauded Foxman for his leadership. “When most leaders speak, people listen. When Abe Foxman speaks – what other choice do we have?” she joked.

She went on to address the collaboration between the US and Israeli missions at the UN, and vowed to continue working to expand Israel’s role. “I have made it a priority … to oppose every example of anti-Israeli bias in the UN system,” Power said. “On my watch, we will push ceaselessly for the further inclusion of Israel in regional groups.  We will demand objectivity in resolutions affecting Middle East peace. …There is no basis to exclude Israel from full participation in the United Nations system.”

Anti-Obama Global Uprising

November 1, 2013

( Another worthy piece analyzing Obama’s world-wide collapse. – JW )

President Obama finds himself in the unenviable position of battling US Congress on a variety of issues while simultaneously having to confront 35 US allies and foreign leaders outraged over his policies whether on Syria and Iran or on the NSA eavesdropping on their personal and private conversations.

There is a silent anti-Obama uprising taking place around the world thanks to his lack of leadership and to the inexperience of the advisers around him.

In the case of the often-reserved Saudi Arabia, the chastising was particularly harsh given the patience the Kingdom exercised in its attempts to resolve the Syrian tragedy using US help, to no avail. Thanks to the incompetency of the team Obama, Syria is now the favorite global destination for Sunni and Shia Islamist pilgrims sporting suicide vests and specialized sniper rifles to kill pregnant women and children.

Recent US polls show Mr. Obama hitting new lows in popularity as his domestic agenda unravels on Obamacare (Wonder if Gallup or Rasmussen are able to conduct a global poll on Obama’s popularity). Mass cancellations by insurance companies against the self-insured (Usually small business owners) is shaking things up for the White House and no amount of spin will pay the difference millions of Americans will have to assume as they begin their journey towards carrying the burden of the biggest welfare state system ever engineered by the far-left. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee look better by the day for their marathon filibuster to defund Obamacare.

It took five years of severe drought, but no umbrella will protect Mr. Obama from the cats and dogs raining on him and the people around him today.

While Mr. Obama feigns ignorance on the NSA eavesdropping (As he did with all the other scandals), the storm brewing overseas is gathering momentum. For sure, the 35 foreign leaders are exchanging opinions and ideas, as I write this, on what it would take to send the right message to the US and it is a question of time before many band together to confront the White House as one voice. It is a political bonanza they are not about to miss even though many spy as much against the US and many have sat on the sidelines when it comes to Syria.

Is the White House aware of this global anti-Obama uprising? Apparently not.

Wednesday night, the Israeli Air Force allegedly bombed two sites in Latakya and Damascus to interrupt the delivery of Russian-made SA-8 mobile missile batteries to Hezbollah. To add insult to injury, a US official leaked the information to the press by claiming the Obama Administration did not want to appear having condoned the operations during sensitive talks with Iran.

I really must be experiencing a re-run of Get Smart.

Has that official leaking the information lost his/her mind? Does he/she not know that with such public explanation the Iranians will seek certain guarantees against other attacks before they proceed with negotiations? Maybe the White House is praying for the Iranians to demand these guarantees that would compel this President to freeze Israeli capabilities from protecting its citizenry under the guise of its peace-loving initiative with a mass murderer like Khamenei. I am telling you, Maxwell Smart really works at the White House today.

On the other hand, this US not-so-smart official who leaked the information just fell in his/her own trap. Possibly, Israel may have figured a way to sabotage the US-Iranian talks the country knows it could only lead to disastrous results by making it a habit to hit the Assad regime every few days or so. Of course, I am not saying this is probable because the Israeli leadership is too wise to let the Iranians create a wedge between them and the US.

Too much elitism in the crowd surrounding Mr. Obama is fogging their perception of what is coming down the pike. Instead of looking at themselves in the mirror, they are doubling down on an agenda already causing an uprising against the policies of Mr. Obama on a worldwide scale.

Maybe First Lady Michelle Obama’s invitation to Prince George’s first birthday celebration will have to be lost in Her Majesty’s mail for this crowd to realize how unpopular the Obama Administration has become.

Nothing like banality to shock their nervous system.

via Anti-Obama Global Uprising | Farid Ghadry | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

ADL Chief Abraham Foxman Blasts ‘Weak and Retreating’ America

November 1, 2013

ADL Chief Abraham Foxman Blasts ‘Weak and Retreating’ America – Forward.com.

‘Can’t Count’ on U.S. To Confront Iran, Protect Israel

New Century: Vice President Joe Biden embraces ADL national director Abraham Foxman at the group’s centenary gala.

New Century: Vice President Joe Biden embraces ADL national director Abraham Foxman at the group’s centenary gala.
 

By Chemi Shalev (Haaretz)

Published November 01, 2013.

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said that the world increasingly sees a “weak and retreating” United States that “cannot be counted on.”

Speaking at the ADL’s Centennial conference in New York, Foxman expressed apprehension that the U.S. is undergoing a “deep and dangerous change” that would endanger both Israel’s security and the wellbeing of the American Jewish community.

“It causes me to lose sleep,” he said.

Foxman noted that America’s previous bout of isolationism before World War II “enabled the greatest disaster ever to the Jewish people.” But now, he says, “we are seeing growing indications of a desire for America to retreat from the world once again.”

He lambasted Congressional resistance to U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for a military strike against Syria’s chemical weapons that resulted in U.S. acceptance of the Russian compromise offer. “A huge sigh of relief was heard throughout the nation, but what was also heard was questioning around the world whether America could be counted on.”

And while he didn’t rebuke Obama by name, the Administration’s attitude towards talks with Iran was also a cause for concern, he said. “America seems desperate to avoid a confrontation with Iran and the Iranians, aware of that, are playing it to a fare-thee-well.”

Obamacare victims and Israel

November 1, 2013

Column One: Obamacare victims and Israel | JPost | Israel News.

( Glick details many {not all!} of the reasons I lost it about Obama yesterday after the WH once again betrayed Israel to Syria.  HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. – JW )

10/31/2013 20:57

Obama lies in both domestic and foreign policy.

US President Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama Photo: Reuters

US President Barack Obama views lies as legitimate political tools. He uses lies strategically to accomplish through mendacity what he could never achieve through honest means.

Obama lies in both domestic and foreign policy.

On the domestic front, despite Obama’s repeated promises that Obamacare would not threaten anyone’s existing health insurance policies, over the past two weeks, millions Americans have received notices from their health insurance companies that their policies have been canceled because they don’t abide by Obamacare’s requirements.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board explained that Obama’s repetition of this lie was not an oversight. It was a deliberate means of lulling into complacency these Americans who opted to buy their insurance themselves on the open market, in order to stick them with the burden of underwriting Obamacare.

In the editorialist’s words, “The [healthcare] exchanges need these customers [whose private policies are being canceled] to finance Obamacare’s balance sheet and stabilize its risk pools. On the exchanges, individuals earning more than $46,000 or a family of four above $94,000 don’t qualify for subsidies and must buy overpriced insurance. If these middle-class Obamacare losers can be forced into the exchanges, they become financiers of the new pay-as-yougo entitlement.”

Sure there is an outcry now about Obama’s dishonesty and the way he has used lying to take away from an unwilling public a right it would never have knowingly surrendered, but it is too late. There is no chance of revoking the law until at 2017, when Obama leaves office.

And by then, everyone will have been forced to accept what they consider unacceptable or be fined and lose all health coverage.

Obama’s mendacity is not limited to domestic policy. It operates in foreign affairs as well. Several commentators this week recalled Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez’s angry response to the Obama administration’s attempt to block Senate passage of sanctions against Iran in December 2011. Expressing disgust at the administration’s bad faith to the Senate, Menendez noted that before the White House tried to defeat the legislation, it first forced senators to water it down, making them believe that the White House would support a weaker bill. In the end, despite the White House’s opposition, the Senate and House passed the watered-down sanctions bills with veto-proof majorities. Obama reluctantly signed the bill into law and then bragged about having passed “crippling sanctions” on Iran.

As was the case with Obamacare, the White House knows that most Americans won’t support its policy of doing nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So the White House never says that this is its policy. Obama and his advisers insist that preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a central goal of the administration. But their actions move US policy in the opposite direction. And if they get caught on the lies after Iran gets the bomb, well, Obama won’t be facing reelection, so he will pay no price for his duplicity.

The mendacity at the heart of Obama’s political playbook is something that Israel needs to understand if it to survive his presidency without major damage to its strategic viability. The events of the past week make clear that the stakes in understanding and exposing his game couldn’t be higher.

Three major developments occurred this week.

On Sunday, PLO officials leaked to the media a position paper that Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat presented to Justice Minister Tzipi Livni outlining the PLO’s position on a finalpeace settlement. In a nutshell, the paper requires Israel to destroy itself demographically, democratically, militarily, legally and politically and that it relinquish its water supply. Six months after it does all these things, the Palestinians will agree to sign a peace treaty with it.

The Palestinian document claims not only all of Judea and Samaria, (except for 1.9 percent of the territory that Israel can keep in exchange for money and more land within sovereign Israel), and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. It demands the northern Negev, the Hula Valley, Latrun and the Elah Valley. And it demands them all free of all Jewish presence.

They demand that Israel relinquish its rights under international law to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem by agreeing that they are “occupied.”

They demand full control over the airspace over Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, and over the waters off the Gaza coast. They demand an end of air force overflights of those areas.

They demand control over all the underground aquifiers, and over the electromagnetic spectrum.

Moreover, the Palestinians are demanding that Israel allow 5 million foreign-born Arabs the right to freely immigrate to its remaining territory.

They refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist and claim they have sovereign rights over all of Israel.

The Palestinian document reveals that there is no chance whatsoever that the current negotiations will lead to peace. PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies don’t want peace. They want to destroy Israel.

And yet, to demonstrate Israel’s good faith with the cause of peace, and genuine devotion to the goal of appeasing Abbas, on Sunday the cabinet approved the release of another 26 Palestinian murderers from its jails. On Tuesday night, Abbas threw them a party in Ramallah and pledged that he would force Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists from its prisons.

Then there is Iran. Just as it did in 2011, before the US Senate and House passed veto-proof sanctions bills, the administration is aggressively fighting to block lawmakers from passing new sanctions against Iran. To this end, Obama’s national security advisers summoned American Jewish leaders to the White House to demand that they stop speaking in favor of intensified sanctions.

Also this week, US Secretary of State John Kerry took a swipe at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for daring to question the administration’s total commitment to negotiating with Iran. Kerry indignantly insisted, “We will not succumb to fear tactics” against holding talks with Iran.

The same day that Kerry decried Israel for supposedly sowing fear unnecessarily about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Olli Heinonen, the former deputy head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that the Iranians may have already passed the breakout phase and have the capacity to build an atomic weapons within two weeks.

But in accordance with the Obama administration’s wishes, Democrats in the Senate are now suggesting a four-month pause in sanctions deliberations to give Obama a chance to reach a deal.

Rather than post the Palestinians’ position paper on his Facebook page and instruct Israeli diplomats worldwide to publicize it as proof of the Palestinians’ continued commitment to Israel’s destruction and bad faith at the negotiating table, Netanyahu remained mum on its leaked contents. Netanyahu didn’t use the paper or Abbas’s open support for recent terror attacks, and leadership of the global movement, to destroy Israel’s economy through trade wars and commercial boycotts, as ample justification for keeping the Palestinian murderers in prison.

Instead, he and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon insisted that they had to be released. Israel’s “strategic interests” would be adversely affected, they said, if the government kept them behind bars.

Since Obama first entered the White House, Netanyahu and his colleagues have used the term “strategic interests” as a euphemism for American pressure. By using the term in the context of the freeing of murderers, Netanyahu and Ya’alon made clear that the US has blackmailed Israel into keeping up concessions to the PLO despite the fact that the concessions demoralize the country, destabilize the government, embolden terrorists determined to murder still more Jews, and encourage Abbas to escalate his support for terrorism and his diplomatic war against Israel.

The question is, what are Obama and his colleagues threatening to do to us? What is the “or else” that follows the American demand for Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands? The media claim that Netanyahu continues with the phony peace talks because he doesn’t want to be blamed when they fail in April. But even if Netanyahu were to break with his party and form a new government with Livni and the Labor Party, the Arabs and Meretz, and offered Abbas Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, and some symbolic right of immigration for a few foreign Arabs to the rump Jewish state, Abbas would reject his offer, just as he rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer and just as Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s offer.

And just as Obama has blamed Israel for Palestinian intransigence and radicalism for the past five-and-a-half years, so he will blame Israel for the failure of the current talks. So as unpleasant as it will be to be blamed, the best thing Israel can do is expose Palestinian bad faith to minimize the price it will pay when it is blamed.

The thing is, Netanyahu must know that Obama will blame Israel no matter what the Palestinians say or do. So perhaps the “strategic interests” he is threatening are more strategic than simply blaming Israel for scuttling phony peace talks. Maybe Obama is telling Netanyahu that if he fails to keep faith with the fake talks, Obama will tip Iran off to an impending Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

Here, too, Obama has a track record. According to former national security adviser Giora Eiland, Netanyahu was poised to attack Iran’s nuclear installations in the fall of 2012, but Obama pressured him into standing down. It is hard to believe that Obama’s was a soft sell.

Then there is the issue of military sales. Government officials have whispered periodically that Obama is threatening to curtail weapons sales to Israel. Such a move could quickly paralyze the air force.

There is an argument to be made for keeping silent on the nature of Obama’s blackmail.

Exposing it would also expose the growing fissure between the US and Israel, and much of Israel’s deterrent posture is based on a widespread assessment that Israel’s strategic alliance with the US is unbreakable. But then again, Obama’s weakening of the US alliance with Israel – and with Saudi Arabia and Egypt – is well-known. The damage has already been done.

Given this, the argument for exposing the nature of Obama’s threats becomes more compelling by the day. Congress still plays a supervisory role in foreign policy. And the American public supports Israel deeply. There is a strong probability that if the nature of Obama’s threats is revealed, he will be forced to rescind them before Israel becomes the foreign corollary to the Americans whose health insurance Obama canceled.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Iranian FM: Nuclear talks need new approach

November 1, 2013

Iranian FM: Nuclear talks need new approach | The Times of Israel.

Zarif says a decade of negotiations have led nowhere because both sides have seen nuclear issue as ‘zero-sum game’

November 1, 2013, 2:21 pm Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif speaks during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, on Thursday, September 26, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Craig Ruttle)

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif speaks during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, on Thursday, September 26, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Craig Ruttle)

ISTANBUL — Iran’s foreign minister says that both Iran and the West need a new approach if negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program are to succeed.

Mohammad Javad Zarif said Friday, at a conference on disarmament in Istanbul, that a decade of failed negotiations have led to consequences neither side wanted. To Western dismay, Iran has drastically boosted its ability to enrich uranium. And to Iran’s detriment, international sanctions have hurt its economy.

“We have both seen the nuclear issue as a zero-sum game,” he said, adding that he hopes “we have come to an understanding that the approach was wrong.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, told state TV late Thursday that the Iranian side was “hopeful to make achievements on the content” in the next round of the talks next week.

But Araqchi cautioned the road ahead is “a long and meandrous path.”

The Iranian officials’ statements came ahead of the second round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 world powers — the five permanent members of the Security Council, and Germany — over Tehran’s nuclear program, scheduled for November 7-8. The Iranian foreign minister heads Iran’s negotiating team.

Ties between Iran and Western powers, most notably the United States, have warmed recently as the Islamic Republic has been perceived as being more amenable to negotiate over its controversial program, which it insists is for peaceful purposes.

The West, and especially Israel, remain skeptical.

Israel has said it believes Iran is using the talks as a stalling tactic while it marches forward toward the bomb, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly asserting that Tehran is duping the world and has no intention of halting its rogue nuclear program.

Netanyahu has warned that the West must step up its sanctions regime against Iran in order to push Iran’s leaders to relinquish all enrichment in any future deal.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has pushed for a delay on the imposition of further sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were “an opportunity to put to test” the Islamic Republic’s intentions, and it would be “the height of irresponsibility” to let “fear tactics and forces that suggest otherwise” block those negotiations.

Kerry’s comments appeared to constitute a response to Israel’s repeated warnings to the international community over Iran’s true intentions regarding negotiations.

The US is engaged in “an opportunity to try to put to test whether or not Iran really desires to pursue only a peaceful program, and will submit to the standards of the international community in the effort to prove that to the world,” Kerry said.

“Some have suggested that somehow there’s something wrong with even putting that to the test,” the secretary of state continued. “I suggest that the idea that the United States of America as a responsible nation to all of humankind would not explore that possibility would be the height of irresponsibility and dangerous in itself, and we will not succumb to those fear tactics and forces that suggest otherwise,” he said.

Washington must strike Iran, not bargain with it

November 1, 2013

Israel Hayom | Washington must strike Iran, not bargain with it.

Prof. Efraim Inbar

The Iranians have once again been successful in pushing the West into prolonged negotiations over their nuclear program.

They have done so almost for two decades, and in the meantime have expanded their uranium enrichment program, worked on weaponization, and built long-range missiles. This indicates without a doubt that they are after a nuclear bomb. The belief and hope that Iran has changed are pathetic. It is obviously interested in removing the economic sanctions imposed on it by the international community, but what Iran is really after is not an agreement, as its gullible interlocutors tend to believe, but rather time. Iran needs time, probably months, to present the world with a fait accompli: a nuclear break-out capability, i.e., the infrastructure to assemble a nuclear arsenal within weeks.

Unfortunately, much of the world, including the U.S., is going along with the Iranian procrastination, failing to realize that Iran is a strategic problem of no comparable regional or global significance. No other issue in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe can have as negative an impact on world affairs: nuclear proliferation, the prices of a strategic commodity like oil, international terrorism, and the global stature of the U.S.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear or acquire break-out capability will bring about nuclear proliferation at least in the immediate region. States such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are unlikely to stay behind, which will bring about a nuclear multipolar Middle East — a strategic nightmare in this volatile region. A nuclear Iran is very different from a nuclear North Korea, whose geopolitical environment already includes two nuclear states — China and Russia — to keep it in check. A nuclear Iran will unquestionably bring about the demise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a stabilizing factor on the international scene.

A nuclear Iran will affect the global political energy economy. Iran’s location along the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea — the “energy ellipse” where about 75 percent of the oil reserves are situated — gives it a handle on the price of oil, a strategic commodity. The oil-producing states in the region will inevitably have to consider the desires of an intimidating, nuclear Iran. Iraq is already an Iranian satellite, and Azerbaijan and other Central Asian countries may follow suit. A nuclear Iran might also become more aggressive and take over the eastern province of Saudi Arabia that is mostly populated by Shiites and holds most of the kingdom’s oil. While it is true that Iran and other oil-producing states cannot desist from selling oil, Tehran will be able to decide to whom to sell and at what price.

A nuclear Iran will be emboldened to be more active as a sponsor of international terror. Its terrorist infrastructure is global, with active and dormant cells in Latin American, North America, Europe, Asia, and of course the Middle East. Iranian tentacles have been observed activating terrorist activities all over the world.

An Iran in possession of long-range missiles armed with nuclear bombs could pose a real threat to many countries within a range of over 2,500 kilometers (1,600 miles). This radius includes Eastern Europe, the whole Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. Iran is working assiduously to extend the range of its missiles to hit North America, as well. Hoping for deterrence to be fully effective in the Iranian case is an irresponsible response.

Finally, Iran is the supreme test of American credibility in world affairs. After saying so many times that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, allowing the radical regime of the mullahs to acquire a nuclear bomb or develop a nuclear break-out capability will be a devastating blow to American prestige. Today the U.S. is probably at its lowest ebb in the region. Friends and foes alike are bewildered by the policies of the Obama administration, seeing an extremely weak president who seems to be clueless about Middle East international politics. The American willingness to allow Iran enrichment capabilities and readiness to strike a bargain with Tehran is mind-boggling in this part of the world.

At this stage, after several years of confused and misguided American behavior, the only thing that can salvage U.S. influence in the region is an American military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Without exception, Middle Eastern leaders have a power politics prism to international affairs, and have little patience towards the liberal-inspired speeches of U.S. President Barack Obama, who has become a laughingstock among Middle Easterners. Therefore, the only thing that can win their respect is a muscular response on Washington’s part. This is what America’s allies in the region need and want. They understand, much better than Washington, the current regional realities and dangers of a nuclear Iran.

A military strike is also needed to prevent a nuclear Iran from destabilizing international order. If Washington wants to prevent nuclear proliferation, preserve stability in the energy sector, minimize the risks of international terror, and reduce the nuclear threat from a fanatic regime, it must live up to its obligations as a superpower and the leader of the free world. Going along with the delaying tactics of Iran is dangerous and irresponsible.

Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

White House down for the count…

November 1, 2013

Israel Hayom | White House down.

Ever since his second election win, Obama has been constantly getting into trouble: Egypt’s coup, the red line on Syria, Iran’s charm, Obamacare, the government shutdown, and now the NSA eavesdropping on America’s allies.

Boaz Bismuth
Who’s listening? Germans protest U.S. surveillance in Berlin

|

Photo credit: Reuters

Turkey, Iran signal thaw in ties amid mutual concern on Syria

November 1, 2013

Turkey, Iran signal thaw in ties amid mutual concern on Syria | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS
11/01/2013 14:30

Iranian FM meets with Turkish leadership in Ankara, both countries expressing concern of the rise of al-Qaida in Syria.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Photo: REUTERS/Ruben Sprich

ISTANBUL – Turkey and Iran said on Friday they had common concerns about the increasingly sectarian nature of Syria’s civil war, signalling a thaw in a key Middle Eastern relationship strained by stark differences over the conflict.

Iran has been a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad since the start of the 32-month-old uprising against him, while Turkey has been one of his fiercest critics, supporting the opposition and giving refuge to rebel fighters.

But the election in June of President Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate who says he wants to thaw Iran’s icy relations with the West, and shared concern over the rise of al-Qaida in Syria, have spurred hopes of a rapprochement.

“Sitting here together with the Iranian foreign minister you can be sure we will be working together to fight these types of scenarios which aim to see a sectarian conflict,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a conference in Istanbul.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who held talks with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Istanbul and was due to meet Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan later in Ankara, echoed the comments, saying that sectarian unrest posed an even greater risk than the use of chemical weapons.

“I believe sectarian conflict is even a greater threat and it is not confined to one region,” Zarif said.

“If the flames of sectarianism rage in the Middle East, you will see the results in the streets of London, New York, Rome and Madrid,” he told the conference.

While deep divisions remain between Ankara and Tehran over the conflict in Syria, particularly over the role of Assad in any transitional government, diplomats and government officials say both sides want to mend a relationship which could be key to wider diplomatic efforts towards a solution.

“Both Iran and Turkey are at a point where they think they can work together on Syria,” a senior Turkish official said.

“Both countries believe the situation needs an urgent solution. But the big question is how,” he told Reuters.

Geneva II

A long-delayed international peace conference in Geneva, first proposed in May, would be high on the agenda in Zarif’s conversations with Erdogan, government sources said.

Arab and Western officials told Reuters this week that international powers were unlikely to meet their goal of convening the “Geneva 2” talks later this month, largely due to differences over who will represent the opposition.

Turkey has long argued that Iran and Iraq, another neighbor with whom Ankara has been trying to mend fences, should be involved in the talks if they are to be credible.

Tehran’s desire to participate in a June 2012 meeting on Syria hosted by the United Nations in Geneva was a major bone of contention between Washington and Moscow, Assad’s key ally.

“For Geneva 2 to be meaningful there must be a clear political strategy and there must be Russia and Iran at the table. Both of them must be included and so must Iraq,” a source close to the Turkish government said.

With al-Qaida-linked groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) taking territory in parts of northern Syria near Turkey’s border in recent weeks, pressure for a resolution has been mounting.

“Turkey and Iran’s positions have moved closer, because I think Turkey also has realized the threat of these radical elements on its border,” a regional diplomatic source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“There are still disagreements, but I think these disagreements can and must be overcome because both Turkey and Iran are key to the stability of the region.”