WarSclerotic

How far have Jerusalem and Washington diverged on Iran? – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Congress must prepare the ground for new sanctions to go into play if there is no concrete progress in the talks with Iran, showing America’s allies that Teheran will not be allowed to cross the nuclear goal line.

By David Harris | Nov. 4, 2013 | 1:00 PM | 5

It is becoming increasingly difficult to mask the gap between Washington and Jerusalem on how best to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.

In particular, attention is focused on the P5+1 talks with Iran, the next round of which will take place in Geneva this week, on November 7-8.

The Obama administration wants Congress to hold off  on additional sanctions, at least for a few months. This reflects a desire to demonstrate America’s sincerity in the talks, while testing Iranian intentions. If the talks fail, the U.S. says it will support new legislation.

But it’s clear that, for Israel, such an approach sends the wrong signal to Tehran.
Whatever the rhetoric from the Iranian president and foreign minister, actions speak louder than words. Those actions, Jerusalem insists, show no change on the litmus-test issues – from spinning centrifuges, to plutonium reprocessing, to ballistic missile development; from complicity in war crimes in Syria to massive human rights violations at home; and no shift in the outlook of the top Iranian decision-maker, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Indeed, on November 3rd, he declared Israel to be an “illegitimate, bastard regime.”

Moreover, reading between the lines, there are those Israeli officials – not to mention Saudi, Kuwaiti, and other Gulf leaders – who wonder if the U.S. is risk-averse to any possibility of military conflict, after the costly forays into Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the erratic course on Syria, even if it means a less-than-ideal agreement with Iran.

And still more problematic, they fear, that may be Iran’s conclusion as well, emboldening Tehran to believe that it may have the upper hand in the talks. After all, at the end of the day, in addition to the sanctions, it is the credibility of the U.S. military threat that is most likely to be determinative in Iranian thinking on how best to proceed.

Thus, Israel finds itself in an excruciatingly difficult position.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces what could be the most challenging decision of any Israeli leader since 1973, if not 1948. He is grappling not only with how best to defend Israel’s national security against an ominous threat, but also, at the same time, how to manage his relationship with Israel’s indispensable ally, the U.S.

If he concludes he cannot trust the P5+1 talks, and that a point will come beyond which Israel may no longer have viable military options, he will have to weigh carefully the benefits and costs of going it alone.

To do so risks a clash with Washington, if, for instance, the Obama administration is convinced the negotiations remain worth pursuing. And that could have major consequences, not only bilaterally but also multilaterally.

After all, the P5+1 consists of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany), the only countries with the veto in a UN body that has legally enforceable powers.

Meanwhile, for the U.S. Senate, two options have emerged.

The first, proposed by the administration and cited earlier, is to seek a delay of at least a few months in the consideration of a new sanctions measure. The logic is that a pause will show American good faith to Iran and also assure our partners in the P5+1.

The second, supported by some leading Democrats and Republicans, is to press ahead. The thinking here is that sanctions brought Iran to the table in the first place, and more sanctions will keep it at the table and likelier to compromise on the big issues.

The latter option is the more compelling of the two.

It would send a clear signal that, while the U.S. is prepared to negotiate earnestly, as long as there is no clear evidence of Iran’s change of behavior, the sanctions will continue to be tightened.

Since it is the ever-toughening sanctions that got Iran to negotiate in the first place, there needs to be a reminder that things will get still worse for Tehran if nothing changes soon on the ground. Elaborate efforts on Iran’s part to buy time – with Tehran’s mastery of modulated feints, nods, winks, and hints of openness – just won’t wash.

Even so, the new Senate measure – which is still in committee and needs to be adopted, and then reconciled with House language (adopted earlier this year)  before it can be enacted into law – wouldn’t go into effect immediately, so the administration would be able to point to what lies ahead if the Iranians don’t cooperate now.

And finally, it would offer additional assurances to key U.S. allies – not just Israel, but those Arab countries fearful of Iran’s aims and uncertain of America’s posture – that we intend to hang tough, and ensure, one way or another, that Tehran does not cross the nuclear goal line.

David Harris is the Executive Director of AJC http://www.ajc.org.

Iran redux | JPost | Israel News.

Exactly ten years ago, Tehran promised to open the gates of its nuclear installations and the Europeans promised to assist Iran in developing the peaceful use of nuclear power.

Kremlin announces Netanyahu visit | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

11/05/2013 19:02

Russia demands Iran be included as talks heat up over Syria conference | The Times of Israel.

UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi meeting with US and Russian officials to cobble together confab aimed at ending Syrian civil war

Lakhdar Brahimi at the UN, November 2012 (photo credit: AP/Richard Drew)

Damascus, Syria — The UN’s top Syria envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, headed into meetings with senior Russian and US officials Tuesday to see if a UN-sponsored peace conference bringing together Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government and a united opposition delegation could be convened later this month in Geneva.

Brahimi also planned to meet with officials from Britain, France, China and four of Syria’s neighbors struggling to cope with the conflict, now in its third year. The UN says over 100,000 people have died.

Russia demanded earlier Tuesday that Iran be invited to the conference, even after Syrian National Coalition chief Ahmad Jarba said his faction would not attend if Iran were there, Reuters reported.

“All those with influence on the situation must certainly be invited… this includes not only Arab countries but also Iran,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Lavrov also criticized the SNC demand for a clear time frame for Assad to step down, arguing there should be no preconditions for the talks.

Diplomats are trying to resume the negotiations that created the roadmap for a Syrian political transition adopted last year in Geneva by key nations, including the five Security Council powers — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France. The roadmap for a political transition starts with the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers and ends with elections, but there has been no agreement on how to implement it. One of the sticking points remains Assad’s role in the future.

Syria’s information minister said the government delegation is not ready to negotiate handing over power or forming a transitional government. Members of the exiled and Western-backed opposition group insist Assad be excluded from Syria’s future leadership for any talks to take place.

In an interview with Syrian state TV late Monday, Omran al-Zoubi said Geneva talks are part of a political process, “and not a handover of power or forming a transitional governing body.”

The conflict began as a largely peaceful uprising against Assad’s rule in March 2011 and gradually became an armed conflict, after some opposition supporters took up arms to fight a government crackdown on dissent.

Over the past year, the fighting took on sectarian overtones with predominantly Sunni Muslim rebels fighting Assad’s regime, which is dominated by Alawites, an offshoot Shiite group.

Iran, Israel took part in secret Mideast nuclear talks, sources say | JPost | Israel News.

Talks on nuclear non-proliferation were held in Switzerland at end of last month; diplomats say there was no direct contact between Israeli and Iranian officials; official in J’lem downplays importance of meeting.

Coping with adversity | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

Here we are, with at least 2,000 years of animosity from outsiders, along with quarrelsome Jews. Some believe with great intensity that God gave us everything between an Egyptian river and far to the east. Some believe that the Jews of Palestine then Israel have been responsible for their problems with the Muslims, and the problems that Muslims have among themselves. In their eyes, either greater accommodation or absolute surrender before 1948 or since 1967 would have avoided or solved the problems of the Middle East.

We have an American patron that many or most Israelis (Muslims as well as Jews) do not trust. Muslims see Obama as beholden to the Jews, and the Jews see him as waffling on Israel’s prime needs even while he promises us everything.

No doubt America has a problem balancing all its aspirations, domestic as well as international. We may understand the ambivalences, but it is hard to avoid faulting this administration and its predecessor for naivete and clumsiness. So far more Muslims than Jews have died as a result of American misadventures, but that does not make us happy. We may  be next.

Israelis live better than most. Measures of health place us (Israeli Arabs as well as Jews) in the top tier, along with the better European countries and above the Americans. The World Bank lists us among the wealthiest of nations, albeit closer to the bottom than the top of that elite.

With all our blessings, we worry about disaster. The Holocaust and persecution by Muslims figure in the family histories of virtually the entire Jewish population. Muslim rhetoric, along with the behavior of Syrians toward one another, threaten a mass slaughter if the hordes break through our defenses.

No solutions appear possible. We live with uncertainties, and work to lessen the costs.

Coping is built into the national culture. It’s been there since ancient times, reinforced by the experiences of recent generations. It is no accident that Jewish psychologists have contributed to what is known about coping for personal problems.

Israeli prime ministers have been clumsy and brilliant in dealing with the country’s domestic and international challenges. Perhaps that is inherent in coping, whether done by an individual or a polity in stress. It is closer to an art than a science.

It is reasonable to assume that coping skills improve with experience. A country is better off with leaders who are tested on the way up, rather than relying on a media-hyped popularity contest like US presidential primaries than can boost an attractive candidate from virtually nothing to the top office with responsibilities for the whole world.

Barack Obama has advisers aplenty, but the culture of Washington demands that the President rules–especially on foreign policy–once he has decided. Advisers who continue to express reservations risk their access.

Israel’s struggle is perpetual, even for its experienced politicians. Jewish history assures chronic disputes about religion and a host of other things. Our heritage contributes to our failure to have ever given a majority to one party. We are fated to deal with restive coalitions, as well as activists who see themselves knowing what it will take to satisfy Arabs as well as Europeans and Americans, plus those insisting that we make maximum contributions to environmental protection and even out the disparities among us in income, access to education and medical care, and all the other good things.

At times the ultra-religious appear to be beyond accommodation. With many of them it is all or nothing. The rest of us may be protected only by theological and political rivalries. The saving irony is that those claiming to be most Jewish are also the most inclined to neutralize their influence by the Jewish proclivity to dispute, with each of several overaged rabbis and their followers insisting on their own greater piety.

It is not easy to judge a prime minister in such a context. Giving a score is like shooting at a moving target. Survival in office in a tough democracy is a fair, if inadequate test of success. Benyamiin Netanyahu has done about as well as any, choosing among difficult options,  battered by criticism from all sides domestically and ridiculed internationally as being a caricature of excessive pomposity.

Coping with stress involves management, rather than solution of problems. Israel cannot act like a great power. its leader must recognize the limits, even while  striving to push them for the sake of greater benefits or fewer pains. Netanyahu cannot please all his constituents. The wiser of competing party leaders and other activists recognize this, and play the same game as does Netanyahu. They all demand, hint at threats, and accept less than what they describe as essential.

The unnecessary and damaging revelation by the United States that it was Israel, once again, attacking an arms depot in Syria involved in the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah may have been in retaliation for the prime minister making a nuisance of himself on Iran. Yet Netanyahu and his Israeli constituents have good reason to distrust American promises about Iranian nuclear weapons. If the scenario of Syrian chemical weapons repeats itself, Obama will cave into pressure from Putin to go along with something that gives the Russians an upper hand.

The picture is no more pleasant when looking at American concern for Palestine. Decades of violence and rejection have soured Israelis. Public opinion surveys show a majority favoring the principle of two states, but a larger majority doubting that Palestinians can agree. Continued criticism by the American administration of building even in Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs reinforces Israelis who demand to go alone, both against Iran and the Palestinians, with Americans be damned.

US Jewish groups divided over more Iran sanctions | The Times of Israel.

AIPAC and AJC reject White House call for time-out on new economic pressure, while ADL amenable to administration’s approach

By Times of Israel staff and JTA November 5, 2013, 1:12 am

AIPAC president Michael Kassen, left, and executive director Howard Kohr, meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in January. (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

WASHINGTON — In the wake of an unusual meeting at the White House last week, Jewish organizations in the United States are divided over whether to suspend lobbying for new sanctions against Iran.

The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC stated flatly that there would be “no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts” to seek new sanctions on Iran. The American Jewish Committee said it found the argument in favor of increased economic pressure on Iran “compelling.” And the Simon Wiesenthal Center declared that “only further sanctions, not talk, can stop the centrifuges.”

By contrast, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman told JTA that he favored the administration’s request — made to the Jewish leaders at last Tuesday’s meeting — to suspend for 60 days lobbying for new congressional legislation that would intensify sanctions.

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, was unavailable for comment.

Top National Security Council staffers had made the request for a suspension of lobbying for new sanctions at the hurriedly convened White House meeting.

The message the Jewish leaders heard, The Times of Israel learned, was that while the Obama administration recognizes that military intervention could slow or complicate Iran’s progress to the bomb, it does not believe that military might can completely resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis — since Iran has mastered the technology, and will merely redouble its efforts if it sustains a military strike. Therefore, in the administration’s assessment, every effort must be made to reach an agreement via the diplomatic engagement that resumes in Geneva in the next few days.

In addition, the US Jewish leaders were told, the administration is concerned that if the international community is not demonstrably receptive to the ostensibly moderate outreach efforts of new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, there is a risk that he will be marginalized by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and this rare opportunity for rapprochement will be lost. Thus, in the administration’s view, the last thing that the US should be doing right now is imposing more sanctions on the Iranians — discrediting Rouhani, as the administration sees it.

What’s more, President Barack Obama’s team was at pains to point out, if the US is perceived to be adopting too tough a stance against the Iranians, the international coalition facing off against Iran — the P5+1 countries: the US, China, Russia, France, the UK and Germany — might well start to crumble.

Thus the administration asked the assembled Jewish organizational leaders to stop lobbying for new sanctions, and give diplomacy some time to work. In a couple of months, the White House staffers promised, they would call in the Jewish notables again, and take stock.

AIPAC quickly made plain its opposition to this approach. “AIPAC continues to support congressional action to adopt legislation to further strengthen sanctions and there will absolutely be no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts,” said a statement by AIPAC President Michael Kassen.

And while AJC director David Harris showed some sympathy for the Obama administration’s view that new sanctions could disrupt renewed talks with Iran, he said he found the argument in favor of such sanctions “more compelling.” Writing in Haaretz, Harris noted, “Since it is the ever-toughening sanctions that got Iran to negotiate in the first place, there needs to be a reminder that things will get still worse for Tehran if nothing changes soon on the ground.” He added: “Elaborate efforts on Iran’s part to buy time — with Tehran’s mastery of modulated feints, nods, winks, and hints of openness — just won’t wash.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center on Monday, for its part, urged two leading US Senators to push for the immediate adoption of the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, which earlier passed the House with broad bi-partisan support. In letters sent to Senators Richard Menendez (D-NJ) and Tim Johnson (D-SD), chairs of the Foreign Relations and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committees, respectively, Wiesenthal Center officials disagreed with the White House’s push to give Iranians more time to stop their nuclear program.

“It is important to remember that the Iranians are now celebrating the 10th anniversary of lying about their nuclear ambitions. The world can’t afford to allow them to celebrate another anniversary of obfuscation,” the letters stated. “The only hope of stopping the program in the eleventh hour, is the threat of an even more powerful sanctions program, already approved by the US House of Representatives… The Wiesenthal Center urges the Senate to vote on the bill immediately and for the President to sign it. Unless and until the Iranians can prove they have stopped their nuclear program, they deserve no moratorium on sanctions.”

David Horovitz contributed to this report.

Iran sanctions policy, Syria airstrike leak exacerbate U.S.-Israel differences — JNS.org.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), however, last week said Jewish groups would follow the Obama administration’s lead and take a “time out” in their lobbying efforts following the White House meeting, said the group’s executive director, Abraham Foxman.

In addition to attending the White House meeting with Jewish leaders, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) played host to senior members of the Obama Administration during its own centennial meeting, and presented an award to former Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta. The dinner was attended by Panetta and his successor, current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, as well as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

ADL Director Abraham Foxman was an outspoken opponent of Hagel’s candidacy as Panetta’s successor, but Foxman told reporters, “I guess I changed my mind about what I think of him.”

Hagel announced during the dinner’s keynote address that the U.S. will advance the delivery of six V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor helicopters to Israel. 

“The Israeli and American defense relationship is stronger than ever, and it will continue to strengthen,” Hagel said.

According to Ben-David, the decision to provide Israel with sophisticated weaponry two years from now does little to make up for the differences in policies that may threaten Israel in the short-term. “Israel is not thinking two years down the line right now, it is thinking two months down the line,” he told JNS.org.

“I don’t think any of the Obama administration actions are giving Israel any confidence right now,” he added.

It’s time to reassess Israel’s strategic assumptions | JPost | Israel News.

 CAROLINE B. GLICK

All of Obama’s second term foreign policy goals are harmful to Israel. Everything that is good for Obama is necessarily bad for Israel.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu apparently believes the greatest threat the country now faces is an escalated European trade war. He’s wrong. The greatest threat we are now facing is a national leadership that cannot get its arms around changing strategic realities.

Over the weekend, Yediot Aharonot reported that during Secretary of State John Kerry’s seven-hour meeting in Rome last week with Netanyahu, Kerry warned that the price for walking away from the talks with the PLO will be European economic strangulation of Israel.

According to the newspaper, “[T]he secretary of state told the prime minister that he heard from his European friends… that if the negotiations fail, Israel can forget about participating in the European research and development program ‘Horizon 2020.’ “And that will only be the beginning.

More and far weightier actions to boycott Israel will follow. They are already being prepared. This will cause incalculable damage to the Israeli economy.”

On Sunday, outgoing National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror warned the cabinet that Israel’s diplomatic standing and ability to avert a European economic war is dependent on continuing the negotiations with the PLO.

In his words, “It is absolutely clear that our ability to handle international pressure is dependent on making advances in the negotiations. If the negotiations fall apart, it will give justification to all the forces that want to boycott us to do so.”

In other words, the viability of our economy is dependent on the PLO’s willingness to sit at a table with us.

Actually, according to Amidror, the PLO’s sufferance of our leaders is only half the story. The other half is President Barack Obama. As he sees it, Israel’s international position is directly related to Obama’s position.

“Everyone hoping for Obama to be weakened needs to [understand that]…

Israel will also be weakened. There is a connection between these things.”

Apparently based on fear of angering Europe or weakening Obama, Netanyahu has reportedly agreed that early next year the Obama administration will put forward a bridging proposal in the talks. The proposal will have two parts. First, it will contain the details of a new interim arrangement. Second, it will contain the details of a final settlement.

From Obama’s prior statements and consistent policies that castigate the Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and united Jerusalem as “illegitimate,” it is fairly clear that Obama and Kerry expect Israel to relinquish its legal claims to Judea, Samaria and united Jerusalem in the framework of a final peace.

From a legal and diplomatic perspective, such a move by Israel would be the most disastrous it has ever made. It would empty out our sovereign rights in general. And it would imperil our military viability.

As to the interim deal, from American and European projects on the ground today in Judea and Samaria it is apparent that the plan will require Israel to cede to the PLO its control of planning and zoning in Area C.

Such a move will enable the Palestinians, Europeans and Americans to strangle the Israeli communities in the region and render it practically impossible for the IDF to operate in Judea and Samaria without PLO permission.

THE PROBLEM with the government’s behavior is not simply that it is maintaining allegiance to a policy paradigm that works to our extreme strategic disadvantage.

That’s old news.

The problem is that we are maintaining allegiance to a policy paradigm that is based on inaccurate strategic assumptions.

Amidror spelled them out.

Israel is operating under the assumption that there is a cause and effect relationship between our actions and Europe’s. To wit, if we ditch the phony peace talks, they will destroy our economy.

But there is no cause and effect relationship between Israeli actions and European actions. Europe made hostility toward Israel the centerpiece of its unified foreign policy without connection to Israeli actions. So undertaking strategically damaging talks with the Palestinians to appease Brussels is a fool’s errand.

Then there is Amidror’s assertion that Israel has an interest in strengthening Obama, because if he is weakened, we are weakened.

Certainly such an argument could have been made with regard to Obama’s predecessors in office. But can it be made today? Last week The New York Times revealed Obama’s foreign policy goals for his second term. They are: “negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria.”

Will the achievement of these goals – that is, the success of Obama’s second term foreign policy – be helpful to Israel? Consider Syria. Obama negotiated a deal with Russia regarding Syria’s chemical weapons that leaves Iran’s Syrian proxy Bashar Assad in power, and according to chemical weapons inspectors, likely in possession of parts of his chemical arsenal.

Moreover, the Obama administration’s repeated exposure of Israeli military operations against Hezbollah in Syria has harmed Israel’s national security. The administration’s leaks have increased the prospects of war between Israel and Syria.

So a key part of Obama’s Syria policy involves exacting a huge, unexpected cost for every strike Israel has undertaken to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring weapons systems that will imperil Israel.

Then too, Monday Kuwait’s al Anbaa newspaper reported that the State Department is carrying out talks with Hezbollah in Lebanon. According to Lebanese sources quoted in the article, US Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale has told Lebanese leaders that “a cabinet cannot be formed without Hezbollah participation.”

Israel is a victim, not a partner in the US’s Syria policy. Israel is weakened by Obama’s success.

As for Iran, it is now inarguable that the US’s primary objective is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear installations. Here too, success for Obama requires Israel to be imperiled.

Finally, our experience has shown us that peace is not a possible outcome of Obama’s pro-Palestinian policy. The only beneficiaries of administration’s use of European economic blackmail to force Israel to make strategically suicidal concessions to the PLO are the PLO and Hamas, and the anti-Semitic forces in Europe.

All of these parties reject Israel’s right to exist. Weakening Israel in the manner Obama has laid out will increase their appetite for aggression.

SO HERE we are, three for three. All of Obama’s second term foreign policy goals are harmful to Israel. Everything that is good for Obama is necessarily bad for Israel.

It is easy to understand why our leaders insist on holding on to strategic assumptions that are no longer valid. The region is in a state of flux. In stormy seas, our natural inclination is to go back to what has always worked. Since 1968, the conviction that a strong Israel is consonant with US global interests has guided US policy in the Middle East. It’s hard to accept that this is no longer the case.

But we have to accept it. By clinging to our now outdated strategic assumptions, not only are we engaging in dangerous behavior. We are blinding ourselves to new strategic opportunities presented by the chaos in neighboring countries.

True, the new opportunities cannot replace our lost alliance with the US or Europe as a trading partner. But they will get us through the storm in one piece.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Report: West considering cash offer for halt of Iranian nuclear activities | JPost | Israel News.

( This story feels like an “April Fool’s” joke.  Sadly, it’s Nov. 5.  – JW )

Proposal would permit Tehran “one-time” access to fraction of frozen oil revenues for temporary relief in return for halt of nuclear program, without easing of sanctions during negotiation process, ‘Times of London’ reports.