WarSclerotic

Forward thinking | JPost | Israel News.

By YAA KOV LAPPIN

11/11/2013 12:26

The ‘Post’ military correspondent takes a look at the main security threats facing Israel

Overview The fast-changing Middle East region has led to a dramatic transformation in Israel’s security environment.

Conventional threats posed by hierarchical state armies, such as the armed forces of the Syrian regime, have all but vanished in the chaos sweeping the region, while unconventional rocket, missile and guerrilla terrorism threats to Israel have increased significantly

Zones suffering from failed state or partially failed state syndromes, such as 60 percent of Syria and parts of the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, provide fertile ground for the growth of al-Qaida-affiliated organizations bent on carrying out terrorist attacks and spreading their radical ideology.

On the other side of the spectrum is the Iran-led Shi’ite-Alawite axis, composed of the extremist Iranian regime and its extraterritorial special operations unit the Quds Force, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime and Hezbollah. As radical Sunni forces confront the pro-Iranian axis, the resulting clash unleashes waves of violence and destabilization throughout the whole region.

In failed states like Syria and Libya, advanced weapons are raided from military storehouses and sold on the black market to terrorist organizations.

Yet, all of these threats are minor – and containable – when compared to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear military program.

It is important to keep in mind that for every threat listed below, the IDF has developed a planned-out response, which it is refining continuously. The solutions provided by the IDF are too extensive to enumerate in this article, but are forward-thinking and designed to meet the challenges Israel expects to face in the 21st century.

Iran The Islamic Republic continues to represent the No. 1 threat to Israel’s security. Tehran has enriched enough low-grade uranium for seven to nine atomic bombs, if enriched to military-grade levels (a relatively straightforward process). It is continuing to enrich uranium to the intermediate 20% level at its facilities in Natanz and the subterranean site at Fordow, near Qom, while also pursuing a parallel track to nuclear weapons through plutonium at the heavy water reactor in Arak.

Iran is building an extensive long-range missile capability widely believed to have been designed to deliver nuclear warheads.

Iran’s regime is outspokenly dedicated to the goal of destroying the State of Israel. Iranian political, religious and military leaders have expressed their desire to annihilate Israel repeatedly.

Furthermore, the Iranian regime is filled with quarreling factions that could in the future lead to a destabilization of the government, the military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. In any future destabilization of an Iranian regime armed with atomic bombs, a hard-line faction could seize control of nuclear missile bases and order an attack.

Iran’s territory is 70 times larger than Israel, a disparity that will form a temptation for Iranian leaders to realize their fantasy of destroying Israel. Former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered an Iranian “reformist,” formulated this thinking when he said in 2001: “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the… application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

With 70% of the Israeli population concentrated in cities on the Mediterranean Coastal Plain, Iranian leaders might face the temptation of initiating a nuclear attack based on Rafsanjani’s calculation. Israel has a population of 7.8 million; Iran has a population of 74.8 million.

Once Iran breaks through to the nuclear arms stage, it would automatically spark a Middle Eastern arms race, as Iran’s frightened Sunni rivals would rush to get their own atomic bombs. Sunni states suffering from chronic instability, such as Egypt, as well as other Sunni powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, would likely end up armed with nuclear weapons as well. This would create an intolerable security environment for all actors in the region.

The danger of nuclear terrorism will become tangible if Iran goes nuclear. With Iran sponsoring terrorist attacks throughout the entire region, from Iraq to Lebanon to Georgia, and with Iranian agents involved in attempted terrorist attacks in multiple continents, it would be impossible to rule out the possibility of nuclear terrorism if Tehran acquires the bomb.

Syria Until 2011, the Syrian military posed the most serious conventional military threat to Israeli territorial security.

Today, it is struggling to remain intact in the face of erosion caused by two-and-a-half years of fighting with the rebels. Syria’s inward focus and reduced capabilities have removed it from the list of major threats to Israel.

No Syrian tanks are threatening to invade the Golan Heights or the Galilee, and the Assad regime is keen on reserving its remaining missile capabilities for use in the civil war.

Nevertheless, within Syria, a number of new threats to Israeli security are rapidly developing. Syria has become a transit zone for advanced Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah. The more Assad relies on Iran and Hezbollah for his survival, the closer he grows to them, and he is now in no position to refuse any of their requests for the movement or transfer of sophisticated weaponry.

Israel has drawn clear red lines over the movement of advanced missiles, missile defense batteries and chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Syrian battlegrounds are now filled with Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Quds Force military advisers. Although Iran and Hezbollah have moved military assets to Syria to take on the rebels, their presence also represents a potential new front from which they can also operate against Israel.

Meanwhile, in northern and eastern districts of Syria, where the Assad regime has lost all control, al-Qaida is quickly building up its principal Mideast base.

According to one study carried out by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the Nusra Front, claimed by al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri as an official branch in Syria, is entrenching itself at a rate several times faster than the time it took al-Qaida in Afghanistan to become a serious international terrorist presence.

Groups like the Nusra Front are raiding Syrian army weapons depots and could one day get hold of chemical weapons as well – which would represent a major threat to Israel, and regional and global security.

Lebanon The flames of the sectarian civil war in Syria have begun to spread to Lebanon, Hezbollah’s home base. Despite being heavily involved in the Syrian conflict and losing hundreds of fighters, Hezbollah remains the most powerful military-terrorist entity in Lebanon.

It has amassed some 80,000 to 90,000 rockets and missiles, all of which are pointed at Israeli cities, and the Iranian- backed organization can strike at nearly every location in Israel.

This represents an unprecedented threat to the Israeli home front. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of welltrained fighters within its ranks.

The IDF has been training intensively and is drawing up plans to extinguish rocket fire from Lebanon in any future conflict with Hezbollah, while the IDF’s Home Front Command has been working to ensure the civilian population and infrastructure will be able to cope with large-scale rocket and missile attacks.

According to Israel’s assessment, Hezbollah, despite being heavily armed, is also deterred by Israel’s devastating firepower, and is focusing its efforts for the time being on guarding its status in Lebanon and helping its ally in Damascus survive the civil war.

Gaza The Hamas regime in Gaza is still licking its wounds from last year’s short but intense Operation Pillar of Defense. The conflict began when the IDF surprised Hamas by assassinating its military chief Ahmed Jabari, and launched an air campaign that targeted Hamas’s rocket infrastructure.

The Israeli move came in response to an ever-escalating Hamas campaign to attack Israeli forces patrolling the Gaza border, and to target southern Israeli cities with large rocket barrages when Israel responded to the border attacks.

Today, Hamas has amassed over 5,000 short-range rockets that can strike cities such as Ashkelon and Ashdod, and is in possession of intermediate-range projectiles that can hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Hamas’s rocket arsenal places 70% of the Israeli population within its range. It has some 16,000 fighters, while the smaller Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad in Gaza has about 5,000 armed members and 2,000 rockets.

Since the fall of its fellow Islamist government in Cairo, Hamas – which is a Muslim Brotherhood branch – has found itself completely isolated, with no regional allies in sight.

It is now attempting to rejoin Iran’s orbit, which it left last year due its support of the Sunni rebels in Syria, a move that angered Tehran.

Billions of dollars in Qatari aid have arrived in Gaza for construction purposes, and Hamas seems keen to preserve the cease-fire with Israel to avoid inflicting further damage to its capabilities. A new conflict could also put the regime under intense public pressure from the Gazan civilian population, which may be in no mood for another round of fighting.

West Bank The West Bank sector saw a relative upsurge of violence in late September, when two IDF soldiers were killed in separate terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the IDF believes that the chances of a third intifada breaking out here remain slim, due to a host of factors. These include Israel’s tight intelligence grip, the presence of the IDF in various strategic points on the ground, nightly counter-terrorism raids to break up cells and cooperation with the Palestinian Authority’s security services.

The PA has a vested interest in preventing Hamas and Islamic Jihad from stoking up more violence and undermining Fatah’s rule.

Nevertheless, violent disturbances, Molotov cocktail attacks, rock throwing, and gun and bomb attacks on Israeli military and civilian targets remain a constant threat in the West Bank.

The sector is also the scene of ongoing attempts by Hamas and other terror organizations to launch atrocities on civilian targets in Israel proper. One recent example is the plot by Hamas in the West Bank to bomb the Mamilla open-air mall in the heart of Jerusalem on the Jewish New Year, which was thwarted by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the country’s domestic intelligence body.

Sinai In recent months, Egyptian security forces have stepped up counter-terrorism operations on the growing al-Qaida presence in the Sinai Peninsula.

Jihadis from this region have targeted the Red Sea resort of Eilat with rocket attacks on multiple occasions, and forced the shutdown of Eilat’s airport as well.

With access to Libyan missiles and firearms, the Sinai jihadis, made up of radicalized Beduin and foreign volunteers from Arab countries, have also launched cross-border attacks on the Israeli-Egyptian border, most likely in the hope of provoking an incident that would undermine the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

The radical groups include Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which claimed responsibility for rocket attacks on Eilat.

▶ Made in Israel — Technology – YouTube.

A break from the US selling out to Iran, here’s something to smile about….

–

Kerry: Iran, not France, scuttled nuclear deal | The Times of Israel.

Washington denies daylight with Paris over terms of agreement, moves to reassure Israel, Arab world of commitment to their security

By Spencer Ho November 11, 2013, 11:43 am

US Secretary of State John Kerry during a meeting at at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem on November 6. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

American officials on Monday scrambled to clarify that that there were no differences between the US and France regarding the desired terms for an interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program, and to assure Israel that its security needs would not be compromised by such an agreement with Tehran.

“The French signed off on it, we signed off on it,” Secretary of State John Kerry said, referring to reports that the French had scuttled an agreement with Iran in Geneva over the weekend. On the contrary, he continued, the P5+1 nations presented a unified front versus the Iranian delegation, and it was Iran that could not accept the deal “at that particular moment.”

Kerry batted away acerbic criticism of the proposed agreement from Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that the Israeli prime minister “needs to recognize that no agreement” with Iran had been reached and that his opposition was premature. “The time to oppose [a deal] is when you see what it is,” he said.

The secretary of state was in Abu Dhabi, part of a tour of the Arab world during which he has been explaining the American position to Sunni alies who, like Israel, have been exhibiting growing concern over the prospect of an agreement with Iran. He said that US would defend its allies in the region against any aggression from Iran.

Dan Shapiro, the American ambassador to Israel, also attempted to mollify Israeli qualms over diplomacy with Tehran.

Addressing a plenary session of the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly in Jerusalem, Shapiro stressed the United States’ and US President Barack Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security, calling the alliance between the two countries “as close as it has ever been.” He said that both countries shared the goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

“There is no greater priority for the United States and Israel than preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Shapiro said. “On this issue the United Stated and Israel share an identical objective. [Obama] will not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, period.”

President Shimon Peres, who also spoke at the GA Monday, downplayed reports of divisions between the US and Israel regarding negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program, and expressed confidence in the US’s handling of the issue.

“The United States is our best friend, and the friendship of the United States to us is deep and meaningful,” Peres said. “[Obama] committed himself not to permit the Iranians to become a nuclear power, not just for the sake of Israel but for the sake of humanity.”

Peres’s and Shapiro’s comments contrast with recent speeches by Netanyahu, in which he called a recent deal proposed by the US regarding Iran’s nuclear program “a bad deal.”

“What is being proposed now is a deal in which Iran retains all of that capacity” to build a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu told the GA Sunday. “Not one centrifuge is dismantled; not one. Iran gets to keep tons of low enriched uranium.”

Earlier Monday, the French foreign minister said he was optimistic about a deal with Iran in the coming weeks, but indicated that Tehran still had to make some concessions.

“We are not far from an agreement with the Iranians, but we are not there yet,” Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio, according to Reuters.

He also refuted suggestions by some diplomats that France was putting on a show by torpedoing a deal over the weekend, saying his country was merely acting on its own foreign policy objectives.

Iran and world powers were reportedly on the verge of a landmark deal on Iran’s nuclear program Saturday night, but the negotiations fell apart at the last minute, reportedly due to objections by France to the proposed agreement. The sides are to meet again on November 20.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladmir Putin called Saudi King Abdullah to clear the air over recent tensions between the two countries stemming from Moscow’s support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and for beleaguered Syrian President Bashar Assad, AFP reported.

Despite their differences, the leaders “expressed a mutual interest in furthering (their) cooperation and maintaining contacts at various levels,” the Kremlin said.

Tensions between the two countries came to a head earlier this month when Riyadh rejected a seat on the UN Security Council due to the body’s inability to solve the crisis in Syria, and Russia, a permanent member of the body, responded with sharp criticism.

AP and JTA contributed to this report.

US official leaves Israel without understanding on Iran | The Times of Israel.

Wendy Sherman was in Jerusalem to brief Israelis on substance of talks with Tehran, smooth out disagreements

By Times of Israel staff November 11, 2013, 6:55 am

Wendy Sherman (photo credit: CC-BY dbking, Flickr)

The small US delegation led by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman that arrived in Israel Sunday for meetings with senior government officials on the recent round of Western negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, left Israel overnight Sunday-Monday without reaching an understanding with Jerusalem on an emerging deal with Tehran, Army Radio reported early Monday morning.

Earlier, a senior American official who is intimately familiar with the talks in Jerusalem said that the disagreement between the United States and Israel is tactical in nature and Washington remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, trying to assuage fears that Washington might back a deal that would compromise Israel’s security.

Briefing Israeli journalists in a Jerusalem hotel, the American official said that even after limited sanctions relief in the framework of an interim deal, as proposed by the West, Iran’s economy would continue to deteriorate. The official also said it wasn’t the French but the Iranians who had rejected a temporary deal Saturday in Geneva, contrary to previous reports.

“The United States and Israel have worked very closely and consulted often, in the way to proceed forward — some days we may disagree on tactics,” the senior official said. “But we absolutely agree on the objective and we absolutely agree that we need a comprehensive agreement and we hope to get one very soon.”

Sherman, the third-highest official in the US State Department, served as head of the US delegation to the talks in Geneva over the weekend, conducted between Iran and the P5+1 powers (the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) over Iran’s nuclear program.

Accompanied by State Department officials, Sherman met with Israeli National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen and other senior officials from the Foreign Ministry and security establishment. She did not meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“She will be consulting with Government of Israel counterparts about the P5+1 negotiations in Geneva, and continuing our close coordination with Israel about our ongoing efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” an American official said before the talks.

Netanyahu on Sunday continued his campaign against a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and his war of words with US Secretary John Kerry Sunday night, this time at the Jewish Federations’ General Assembly in Jerusalem.

“What is being offered now, and I’m continuously updated in detail,” he said — it was an allusion to Kerry’s assertion earlier in the day that Netanyahu may not be aware of the terms of the proposed deal — “What is being proposed now is a deal in which Iran retains all” of its uranium enrichment capacity.

Despite reported progress, the latest round of discussions, conducted over the weekend in Geneva, ended without a deal after a proposed agreement was questioned by France. The sides are to meet again on November 20. Netanyahu has been bitterly critical of the emerging deal, and on Friday publicly urged Kerry not to sign it.

In an interview with Channel 10 last week, Sherman said the US would inform and consult with Israel about any nuclear deal world powers arrive at with Iran before it is carried out, because the Jewish state’s security is paramount.

“Whatever agreement we reach Israel will know about, understand and consulted with us on, because Israel’s security is bedrock and there is no closer security relationship than what we have with each other,” she said.

Israel has strongly opposed any deal that would leave Iran with the capability to quickly construct a nuclear weapon, leading Netanyahu and other officials to publicly come out against what they saw as a flawed potential agreement over the weekend.

Israeli official: US wants to sign Iran deal to avoid strike – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Sources in Jerusalem confirm that nuclear deal with Iran is, as Netanyahu noted, bad deal, which the US will only sign ‘because they fear the only alternative left – sans deal – is a strike.’ Reports reveal that Israel is not only nation to oppose deal

Attila Somfalvi

A senior Israeli official addressed on Sunday the nuclear talks between Iran and the West, saying “The Americans are anxious to sign a bad deal because they fear the only alternative left – sans deal – is a strike.”

“The deal really is bad,” the official added. “There’s no doubt that if they sign now, Iran will turn into a threshold state and there won’t be any deal that could stop Iran from developing its nuclear plan.”

World powers are to meet Iranians on November 20, to renew the talks. “We’ve realized they need more time,” a senior US official said. We understand Prime Minister Netanyahu, who takes care of Israel’s defense interests.”

Following reported progression in nuclear deal with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stressed that Israel was not the only country that was against the impending deal.

“There are many, many Arab leaders in the region who are saying this is a very bad deal for the region and the world,” Netanyahu said. “You know, when you have the Arabs and Israelis speaking in one voice, it doesn’t happen very often; I think it’s worth paying attention to us.”

According to reports, nuclear negotiators have indeed been facing resistance from both Israel and Gulf states toward any pact that keeps Iran’s nuclear program generally intact.

It is unlikely that critics could derail international efforts to ease one of the Middle East’s most far-reaching standoffs, which has brought Israeli threats of military action, past warnings by Iran it could block critical oil tanker shipping lanes in retaliation for sanctions and opened rare public discord between the US and Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu said Friday that he “utterly rejects” any emerging nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran, and pledged that Israel would do what was needed to defend itself – a clear reference to past warnings of military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Gulf states

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states consider Iran as their chief rival in the region and – in a rare alignment of views – side closely with Israel’s outlook that Iran should be stripped of its ability to enrich uranium.

For years, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah repeatedly urged the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Now, Saudi officials are dismayed over Washington’s efforts to end the 34-year diplomatic estrangement with Tehran.

Gulf states are major buyers of advanced US military equipment, but Saudi Arabia has hinted it could one day build closer strategic ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan as a way to guarantee its own de facto nuclear weapon status to counterbalance Iran. Washington, which has often said it fears an atomic arms race in the Gulf, would certainly oppose such an alliance.

But Saudi relations with the US have reached a difficult juncture. Saudi officials have openly criticized US President Barack Obama for his outreach to the new Iranian president. Last month, Saudi Arabia rejected a seat on the UN Security Council to reinforce its protest the US-Iranian diplomatic exchanges and the US decision to pull back from possible military strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s forces and instead back a Russian-drafted plan to collect and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons supply. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are key backers of rebels seeking to topple Assad.

Iranian hard-liners

Opposition to nuclear agreements can also be seen from within the Islamic republic. Last month, banners began appearing around Tehran that depicted the US as a manipulative and bullying negotiating partner seeking to undermine Iran any way it can. No group claimed ownership of the messages, but that was unnecessary in a country where it’s already clear the forces that are lining up against any deals that could somehow close the diplomatic chasm with Washington.

Hard-liners led by the powerful Revolutionary Guard and its vast network of backers have strongly opposed the stirrings of rapprochement started by Iranian President Hassan Rohani. Last Monday, they organized the largest anti-American demonstration in years to mark the anniversary of the 1979 takeover the US Embassy after the Islamic Revolution.

The dissent, though, has its limits.

Rouani’s critics are not likely to stand in the way of a possible nuclear deal with the West since the negotiations have the support of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Also, the public largely supports bids to ease sanctions and even hard-liners do not want to be on the wrong side of that issue.

Syrian oposition

Rebels fighting to topple Assad remain divided on whether a nuclear deal would benefit or hurt their cause.

For many, an easing of Western pressure on Iran means Tehran would have a freer hand in the region. Nizar al-Hrakey, a member of the Syrian National Coalition and the group’s representative in Qatar, compared it to the Russian-US deal to try to rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile rather than carry out military strikes.

However, Kamal Labwani, a veteran Syrian opposition figure, said Iranian concessions to the West mean “total surrender,” adding he hoped it would lead to a more sidelined role for Iran in Syria.

Roi Kais, AP contributed to this report

Candidly Speaking: No illusions concerning the Obama administration | JPost | Israel News.

By ISI LEIBLER

11/10/2013 22:09

Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the US, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary.

Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the United States, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary.

President Barack Obama’s policies have led to a US retreat at all levels in the global arena, particularly in the Middle East where his disastrous policy of “engaging” with rogue states coincided with alienating, even abandoning, traditional US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

His administration has also totally failed to mitigate the rampant bloodshed, with hundreds of civilians being killed daily in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

However, despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration persists in its mantra that the principal problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and displays a determination to impose a settlement on Israelis and Palestinians. It does so – even setting aside the problem of Hamas – despite the fact that the undemocratic Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose term expired years ago, is neither willing nor has the authority to make any meaningful concessions to Israel.

The US chooses to disregard to the extreme intransigence of the Palestinians and the massive ongoing incitement by the PA against Israel and continues to pressure the Israelis, their only regional democratic ally, to make additional unilateral concessions, many of which have long-term negative security implications for the future viability of the Jewish state.

US Secretary of State John Kerry presents himself as a “friend” of Israel. Yet his offensive off-the-cuff remarks not only depict him as somewhat of a buffoon, but demonstrate that he now openly sides against Israel in the confrontation with the Palestinians.

He utterly failed to act as an honest broker in his November 6 joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News and PA TV, when he targeted Israel for criticism and failed to even relate to Palestinian intransigence.

He provocatively asked “whether it [Israel] wanted a third intifada,” which he declared would eventuate if the talks failed. He warned that the Palestinians would “wind up with a leadership committed to violence.”

Following a meeting in Bethlehem with President Abbas, brushing aside the venomous incitement to hatred manifested daily by the PA, Kerry stated unequivocally that “President Abbas is 100% committed to these talks.”

He reiterated that the US considers construction in settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, to be “illegitimate,” and went so far as to state that Israel was sending “a message that perhaps you are not really serious.”

He never even referred to the PA demand that Palestinian refugees and their 5 million descendants be given the right of return to Israel. He refused to confront the Palestinian leadership over their refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of Israel as sovereign Jewish entity.

There have been hints, subsequently denied, that if progress was not achieved by 2014, the US would propose bridging proposals – an ominous signal to Israel.

Kerry also threatened that if Israel could not find an accommodation, the US would not be able to deter the rest of the world from imposing real sanctions against Israel.

Such remarks effectively guarantee Palestinian intransigence by declaring that after the talks collapse, the world will in any event seek to impose a solution on Israel and shall not blame the Palestinians for once again reverting to terrorism.

And this is following Israel’s capitulation to intense American pressure resulting in the outrageous release of Palestinian mass murderers who were subsequently glorified by the Palestinians as heroes.

These statements by Kerry parallel other negative vibes from the US: Obama’s failure to condemn Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s provocative anti-Semitic remarks and the repudiation of his commitment to set aside the confrontation with Israel after Netanyahu had been pressured to apologize to him; the US effort to divert attention from its cyber-attacks on the French government’s communications network by hinting that the Israeli Mossad was to blame; and, most damaging of all, despite deliberate Israeli silence over the issue, the formal US announcement that Israel was responsible for bombing the Syrian military base in which missiles en route to Hezbollah were located. That is not how one treats an ally.

Over the past few months, there has been immense pressure directed at Israel and American Jews to ease up on Iran. Although accused of seeking to sabotage American diplomacy with the “moderate” President Hassan Rohani, Netanyahu has never challenged the role of diplomacy. He merely reminded the Americans of the proven duplicity of the Iranians and Rohani himself as he engages in protracted negotiations while proceeding to advance Iran nuclear status.

On the basis of Obama’s recent track record, Israelis were increasingly skeptical as to the fulfillment of his repeated commitment to employ military force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.

These concerns were confirmed when, despite repeated assurances by Kerry that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” the US and the Europeans (other than France) demonstrated a willingness despite all evidence to the contrary to ease the sanctions on the Iranians without receiving anything tangible in return.

Clearly, the US administration lied when it promised to brief Israelis in advance of any deal, so as not to surprise them, and gave repeated reassurances that short of an agreement by the Iranians to end their nuclear objectives, no partial deal was contemplated.

A shocked and distraught Netanyahu publicly admonished Kerry for making a “monumental mistake,” accusing him of providing the Iranians with “the deal of the century” and “in no way reducing their nuclear enrichment capability.”

Netanyahu stated that under such circumstances, Israel did not consider itself bound by any agreement between Tehran and the six world powers and “will do everything it considers necessary to defend itself and the security of its people.” There is of course the outside possibility that by the time the talks resume next week, Netanyahu’s warnings are heeded and a Munich-like capitulation is averted. But we should be under no illusions.

The next three months will be seriously challenging for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will need to marshal all his resources and seek to salvage what he can of the likely capitulation to the Iranian mullahs in a deal which in no way guarantees that the centrifuges will not soon again resume spinning.

In addition, Israel must resist American pressures to make further concessions to the Palestinians which may well have devastating repercussions our future security.

To confront these threats, it is imperative that the prime minister devise a strategic plan, engaging the broadest possible coalition, providing a united front, and work closely with the American Jewish community and other pro-Israel groups to orchestrate a major campaign to enlighten the American public and seek congressional support to rein in the appeasers.

For American Jews, this will be a real test of their commitment to the security of the Jewish state. There have been conflicting reports that leading Jewish organizations and representatives of the administration had agreed to defer for two months efforts to intensify sanctions on Iran, but this was adamantly denied by AIPAC and AJC spokesmen.

Regrettably, American Jews committed to the security of the Jewish state appear to be heading toward a direct confrontation with an administration willing to diplomatically abandon Israel and appease the most lethal global terrorist state.

ADL head Abe Foxman predicted that Kerry’s “outrageous behavior” and his “chutzpah” in lecturing Israel about peace would unite the American Jewish community. The question is will they have the courage to stand up and be counted?

The writer’s website can be viewed at http://www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

Bad deal | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/10/2013 22:17

Criticism voiced by PM, the French, the Saudis and US Democratic, Republican lawmakers have hopefully compelled the P5+1 to reconsider their priorities in negotiating with Iran.

Representatives from the US and other world powers meeting in Geneva have shown a willingness to sign a deal with Iran that would take the pressure off the Islamic Republic without ensuring that its nuclear program is halted at least temporarily. Why? Apparently, the P5+1 – the permanent members of the US Security Council and Germany – are concerned about the ramifications of taking too tough a stance. If they do not meet Iranian concessions with concessions of their own, the reasoning goes, the entire effort to halt Tehran’s nuclear march via peaceful, diplomatic means could be placed in serious trouble or derailed altogether. The Iranians, faced with an overly intransigent P5+1 position, might abandon talks and renew their efforts to attain nuclear weapons capability. Also, if the US and other P5+1 members such as France are perceived as overly intransigent, Japan, China, South Korea and India might back out of the sanctions regime completely.

But this line of thinking assumes that the Islamic Republic has shown any willingness to make concessions, something that is highly doubtful judging from what we know about the materializing deal.

Iran has not, apparently, agreed to significantly reduce the number of centrifuges in operation – including its newer IR-2 centrifuges – that make nuclear breakout a real possibility.

Nor does it seem that Iran has agreed to stop construction of its Arak plutonium reactor, a project with no civilian use that, if completed, would be nearly impossible to attack, since doing so could ignite the plutonium. It has not even agreed, apparently, to significantly reduce the amount of 20-percent enriched plutonium in its possession.

And transparency, perhaps the most crucial element in any agreement, is severely lacking. All promises made by Iran must be verifiable. Sites such as Parchin, near Tehran, where Iran is thought to have conducted nuclear arms experiments, must be opened to inspectors.

If a nuclear deal is reached without these elements, the Islamic Republic would be freed from some crippling sanctions and at the same time be able to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

The US and other P5+1 members should not be concerned about taking too tough a stance. The Iranians face serious domestic pressures. Their economy is a shambles with skyrocketing inflation and unemployment and low growth. Oil exports, their main source of income, have been severely curtailed. The Iranians are in desperate need of relief.

The P5+1 appears to be willing to allow Iran to extricate itself from its dire economic crisis. Instead of restricting its concessions to the release of frozen assets, the P5+1 has reportedly shown a willingness to weaken the sanction regime. The White House says these concessions are “reversible.” But there are too many businesses waiting for a green light to normalize relations with the Islamic Republic. Softening sanctions is easy. Reinstating them if Iran breaks its side of the agreement would be much harder.

Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejected outright the materializing interim nuclear agreement, calling it “a very bad deal.” And Israel is not alone. France is strongly opposed to the proposal, as are the Saudis and other Sunni states on the Persian Gulf. In the US Congress there is bipartisan support not just for keeping in place existing sanctions, but for adding more.

Thankfully, the proposed nuclear deal was not signed in Geneva this weekend. We hope the criticism voiced by Netanyahu, the French, the Saudis and Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the US has compelled members of the P5+1 to reconsider their priorities in negotiating with the Iranians.

As US Secretary of State John Kerry noted recently, a bad deal would be worse than none at all. The agreement considered this weekend in Geneva was precisely such a bad deal.