WarSclerotic

Iran allows for compromise on uranium enrichment | The Times of Israel.

Foreign minister says ‘right’ to enrich under NPT not part of the debate; Netanyahu downplays differences with Obama

By Times of Israel staff and AP November 17, 2013, 8:57 pm

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in an interview with the BBC on November 9, on the sideline of talks in Geneva between the P5+1 world powers and Tehran. (photo credit:

Iran’s foreign minister said Sunday that there was no need for world powers to publicly acknowledge Iran’s “right” to uranium enrichment, offering a potential way to sidestep another sticking point on a possible nuclear deal when talks resume later this week.

Mohammad Javad Zarif’s remarks appeared to give more latitude over previous demands — that the West declare that Tehran has international clearance to produce nuclear fuel — since Iran is a signer of a UN treaty governing atomic technology.

The US and others have balked at supporting Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium.

“Not only do we consider that Iran’s right to enrich is nonnegotiable, but we see no need for that to be recognized as ‘a right,’ because this right is inalienable and all countries must respect that,” Zarif told the ISNA news agency.

Iran’s uranium enrichment program is a key sticking point in negotiations to resolve Western fears that Tehran is working to develop nuclear weapons. The United States holds that under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, the enrichment of uranium is prohibited to Iran, while the latter has insisted it will never completely give up its enrichment process.

Zarif explained that statements made by US officials about not accepting Iran’s right to process uranium do not directly clash with Iran’s point of view.

“These remarks do not mean that countries are not entitled to enrich uranium,” he said. “It is different from our position, based on which enrichment is our inseparable right. It does not mean that they are against Iran’s enrichment and do not recognize it.”

The minister further claimed that Iran has not been asked during negotiations to stop enriching uranium.

“We have not heard it during talks with P5+1,” he said. “No one wants a pause in enrichment. The issue has not been demanded by any side in general.”

Talks between the so-called P5+1 world powers — comprising the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany — and Iran have so far failed to produce even an interim agreement on capping the Islamic Republic’s ability to produce weapons-grade fissile material. In addition to “rolling back” uranium enrichment, the world powers also want to see a halt in ongoing construction of a heavy water facility that could produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

Iran is seeking a partial lifting of sanctions, which have crippled its economy, in return for some compromise on its nuclear program.

Earlier this month, negotiators were rumored to be close to signing a deal, but it eventually fell apart without a result and with both sides blaming each other for demanding too much.

Talks are set to resume later this week in Geneva.

“We want to reach an agreement and understanding,” Zarif said.

However, Israel has have repeatedly denounced the terms of the agreement, as it was presented in Geneva, saying it didn’t remove Iran’s ability to break out to a nuclear weapon. In an interview Sunday with CNN’s Candy Crowley, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the kind of deal rumored to be in the making with Iran was counterproductive.

“This is a bad deal,” he said. “And, in fact, if you do a bad deal, you may get to the point where your only option is a military option. So a bad deal actually can lead you to exactly the place you don’t want to be.”

Nonetheless, Netanyahu stressed that a diplomatic solution was always going to be Israel’s preferred route.

“I prefer a peaceful solution,” he said. “Who wouldn’t? Israel has the most to gain from a peaceful diplomatic solution, because we’re on the firing line, any way you look at it. So we need a good solution, and that’s the main point.

“The problem with the partial deal is that you reduce the sanctions. And in this case, you reduce the sanctions, let out a lot of pressure, and Iran is practically giving away nothing,” he continued. ” It’s making a minor concession, which they can reverse in weeks, and you endanger the whole sanctions regime that took years to make.”

Rather than the strategy of offering a compromise, Netanyahu called for increasing sanctions to squeeze Iran into submission.

“If you continue the pressure now, you can get Iran to cease and desist,” he said.

The unbending position of Israel compared to that of the US — that is, pushing for an interim deal with Iran as a way to slow down weapons development until a permanent solution is settled upon — has generated friction between Washington and Jerusalem. Asked just how far the differences ran between his point of view and that of President Barack Obama, Netanyahu asserted that, ultimately, they had the same goal.

“The best of friends can have different opinions,” he said. “We agree on a lot of things, and some things we disagree on… we all want the same thing.”

Chamberlain, Munich 1938: How… Incredible It Is . . – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

Although Chamberlain threatened that if Czechoslovakia didn’t give the Sudetendland to Hitler, WWII would start, the sad truth is that giving it over is what enabled the war to start. Obama is going down the same path.

In 1938, the quintessential appeaser, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, excoriated the embattled Czech Prime Minister Benes as the cause of a world war if Benes did not accede to Hitler’s demandsand agree to expose his country to occupation by Nazi Germany.

Chamberlain “blackmailed” the self-defensible Benes into becoming an indefensible victim. Chamberlain morphed genocidal war-maker Hitler into a smiling ‘peace-maker.’  Chamberlain intoned the same false ‘logic’ that Obama uses today: Agree to the murderer’s terms, or he will occupy and murder more of you.

William L. Shirer, the greatest of World War II historians, lived the events as a news reporter and later recorded his epic history “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” (“The Rise and Fall”).  In Chapter 12, “The Road to Munich,” Shirer recounts the predatory actions taken by Chaimberlain that forced PM Benes to cede the Czech Sudetenland to Hitler.

The Sudetenland was the mountainous western half of Czechoslovakia that had some ethnic German population.  That mountainous Czech Sudetenland served as a defensive bulwark against a Nazi German attack eastward into Czechoslovakia.  Without its mountain topographic defenses, the eastern remainder of Czechoslovakia was defenseless in the face of further Nazi occupation – which occurred several months later.

Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia was not only the key to Hitler’s overall military strategy, but also specifically Hitler’s Eastern Theater.  Poland is to the immediate north of what was then Czechoslovakia. In fact, at the time, Hitler stated that “Czechoslovakia was a knife pointed at Germany’s heart, or a Soviet aircraft carrier ready to launch air attacks on Berlin.”

This meant that with the Sudetenland mountains in Czech hands, Hitler could not have confidently attacked Poland or the Soviet Union because the Czechs would have, from the Sudetenland, likely helped and allied with the Poles and/or the Soviets to attack Hitler’s supply lines stretching eastward into Poland or the Soviet Union.

Hence, Czechoslovakia had to be occupied by Hitler before any German attack on the Poland or the Soviet Union could be militarily countenanced. Chamberlain’s Munich Pact militarily enabled Hitler’s attack on Poland and assured its occurrence and the ensuing World War II.

To put it bluntly, Chamberlain’s “peace” talk insured Hitler’s war walk.

Shirer records in “The Rise and Fall” that on September 27, 1938:

“Also, the Prime Minister [Chamberlain] promptly sent off a message to Pres. Benes [of Czechoslovakia] in Prague warning that his information from Berlin “makes it clear that the German Army will receive orders to cross the Czechoslovak frontier immediately if, by tomorrow [September 28] at 2 P.M. the Czechoslovak Government have not excepted the German conditions.”

Having warned the Czechs, Chamberlain could not refrain from admonishing then, in the last part of the message, “that Bohemia would be overrun by the German Army and nothing which another power could do would be able to save your country and your people from such a fate. This remains true whatever the result of a world war might be.” ( The Rise and Fall, pg. 402-403)

“Thus Chamberlain was putting the responsibility for peace or war no longer on Hitler but on Benes. And he was getting a military opinion which even the German generals, as we have seen, held as a responsible.” (Ibid)

Shirer continues to relate that later that night at 11 p.m. Chamberlain continued his private harangue of Czech PM Benes and that Chamberlain “added a further warning: The only alternative to this plan would be an invasion and a dismemberment of the country by force, and Czechoslovakia, though a conflict might arise which would leave lead to incalculable loss of life, could not be reconstituted in her frontiers what ever the result of the conflict may be.” (Ibid)

Shirer records that Chamberlain didn’t stop his “Benes will bring the world to war talk” there.  In a public harangue, in radio broadcast to the entire British Empire at 8:30 p.m., Chamberlain stated:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches . . . here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing! . . .

“I would not hesitate to pay even a third visit to Germany if I thought it would do any good.

“However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in a war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. . .”

On 30 September 1938, Czechoslovakia capitulated to Chamberlain’s demands that it be partly occupied by Hitler.

On 10 October 1938, Nazi Germany occupied the Czech Sudetenland.

With the Sudetenland firmly in his pocket, Hitler showed his cards  on November 9-10 by executing Kristallnacht, murdering over 90 Jews and arresting over 30,000 German and Austrian Jews, sending them to their death in Nazi Concentration camps.

On 16 March 1939, without a shot fired, the Nazi German Wehrmacht (army) occupied the remaining eastern half of Czechoslovakia.

On 23 August 1941, as an “unintended consequence” of Chamberlain’s Munich Pact with Hitler, the Western appeasement frightened Stalin into signing the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact so as to gain the Soviets some time, and insure Hitler struck the West first.

On 1 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland with Stalin soon to follow, and World War II began in force.

During the next six years, close to 85 million people died.

Fast forward to 2013.  President Barack Obama, his Press Secretary Carney and the State Department, areall  advocating for Obama’s plans to confirm Iran as a nuclear-state over the strident, reasonable objections of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and all of America’s Persian Gulf Sunni allies.

As did Chamberlain, Obama has cast the embattled Bibi as the “war-maker.”

On November 12, 2013 Carney stated:

“The American people do not want a march to war, . . they justifiably and understandably prefer a peaceful solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This agreement, if it’s achieved, has the potential to do that. The alternative is military action, if pursuing a resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?”

AFP reported Obama’s statements several days later as follows:

“What we have done is seen the possibility of an agreement in which Iran would halt advances on its program, . . .We can buy some additional months in terms of their breakout capacity. Let’s test how willing they are to actually resolve this diplomatically and peacefully, . . .”

And Obama said that his intention “always was to bring the Iranians to the table so we could resolve this issue peacefully.”

But he critically added, “No matter how good our military is, military options are always messy, are always difficult, always have unintended consequences, and in this situation are never complete in terms of making us certain that they don’t then go out and pursue even more vigorously nuclear weapons in the future.”

“If we’re serious about pursuing diplomacy, there’s no need for us to add new sanctions on top of the sanctions that are already very effective and that brought them to the table in the first place.”

AFP interpreted Obama remarks succinctly, stating that Obama appeared to make his most explicit suggestion yet that military action — if diplomacy fails — would have dangerous effects and only fuel an Iranian desire for nuclear weapons.

In other words, it’s Israel’s fault no matter what happens.

On 15 November, the State a Department’s Psaki said, “I think we’re looking at multiple tracks here, including our continued pursuit of seeing whether a diplomatic path is possible. The alternative in our view is a path to war, . . .We think the path to diplomacy is the right path,” she added.

Earlier on 15 November, Netanyahu had tweeted: ”The proposal enables Iran to develop atomic bombs and build long-range missiles to reach the U.S. and Europe.  Iran is getting everything and giving nothing.”

So there you have it.  Obama threatens that Israel is to be the cause of a world war if Israel merely argues for tougher, safer terms.

Israel believes Iran should not be rewarded for enriching Uranium that can only be used to build nuclear bombs.  In fact, Obama is rewarding Iran for its illegal uranium enrichment by not only allowing Iran to keep its enriched uranium stock, but also by recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium in the first place.

Instead of Obama’s discussing the substance of Bibi’s objections to see where some of the deal-sheet terms could be strengthened or clarified, Obama and his henchmen have attacked their ally, Israel.  Obama has escalated the dispute and used a false “talk or war” talking point to cast Bibi, and Israel, as warmongers for opposing what Bibi believes is a dangerous Iran deal.  Tougher nuclear terms don’t mean “war.”

Obama’s cosmetic attack on Bibi only highlights the substantive weakness and failures of an Iran deal that Obama can’t explain because it’s unexplainable.  If Obama had reason and common sense on his side, Obama wouldn’t need his “war” fireworks.

Ironically, Obama is adamant about the need for “Gun control” and issuing laws violating Americans’ constitutional rights to “bear arms.”  But, on granting a terrorist-designated Country the right and ability to have a nuclear weapons that could kills hundreds of millions of people and result in Iranian hegemony over the world, Obama falls all over himself to enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

And ominously , just as Chamberlain’s Munich appeasement of Hitler enabled his successful military attack on Poland, Obama’s Geneva appeasement of Iran enables a military attack on Israel.  Israel is a “one-bomb” country.

Obama’s Iranian “diplomacy” is not a march to peace, but “March of Folly” which will bring nothing less than the eradication of Israel and of Western Civilization.  Or, to ‘paraphrase’ Chamberlain, “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it [will be] that we should be digging [graves] here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom [Obama understood] nothing.”

The writer, who writes on security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at http://www.marklangfan.com.

Hollande: France takes Israel’s position on Iran seriously; we will not cave – Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz.

Trip marks president’s first official visit as head of state; Netanyahu to Hollande: You lead a courageous stand against Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

By Barak Ravid | Nov. 17, 2013 | 2:44 PM

French President Francois Hollande delivers a speech during a welcoming ceremony upon his arrival in Israel, Nov. 17, 2013. Photo by AP

French President Francois Hollande arrived Sunday in Tel Aviv on his first official visit as head of state to Israel, which has welcomed Paris’ tough stance in talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres received the large French delegation, which also includes Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, at Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Netanyahu told Hollande he is leading “a courageous stand against Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.” “Zionism was influenced by the values of the French Revolution,” Netanyahu said. “Israel sees France as a true friend. France. like Israel, aspires for a stable Middle East that lives in peace and security.” He added that France “understands well” the danger of radical elements “that don’t hesitate to use terrorism and violence.”

President Peres welcomed Hollande “to the Holy Land,” saying: “The citizens of Israel owe historic debt to France on its help to build Israel’s defense forces after the state was formed.” He added: “France of the resistance helped to break the arms embargo against Israel in the first years of our state.”

Upon his arrival, Hollande declared that France takes Israel’s position on Iran seriously, adding that his country will not cave in on this issue. Until we are sure that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, said Hollande, we will not relieve sanctions. The French president added that not only would a nuclear Iran be a threat to Israel, but it would endanger the Middle East and the world at large.

With regards to negotiations for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Hollande said any agreement reached between the sides must end the conflict and all its claims.

Hollande saluted Israel as a “great democracy” of which it should be proud, and said, in Hebrew, “I will always remain a friend of Israel.”

Hours before Hollande landed, Netanyahu said he would launch a major push next week to change the “bad deal” that world powers were negotiating with Iran.

He said the issue would dominate Hollande’s 48-hour visit to Israel. The French leader will also visit the West Bank for talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“This visit is important … in light of the talks that are being held in Geneva on the Iranian nuclear issue,” Netanyahu told his cabinet in Jerusalem.

“I hope that we will succeed in convincing our friends this week, and the days after, to reach a much better deal,” he said.

The Iranian issue would also dominate Netanyahu’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Wednesday and with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is due in the region on Friday for his second visit in 10 days.

A continuation, or even intensification, of the sanctions on Iran, rather than a let-up, would yield “much better results” in the diplomatic negotiations, the Israeli premier said.

Hollande is scheduled to first meet Peres at the presidential residence in Jerusalem and tour the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial institute, followed by dinner with Netanyahu.

He is to address Israel’s Knesset, or parliament, on Monday, and Tuesday visit the graves of the victims of a March 2012 terrorist attack on a French Jewish school.

The attack by Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah in Toulouse was the worst assault on Jews in France in 30 years, and led to a tightening of anti-terrorism legislation.

In Ramallah, Hollande will lay a wreath at the mausoleum of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who was exhumed and reburied last year as part of a French murder inquiry into whether he was poisoned with the radioactive poison, polonium-210.

DPA contributed to this report.

France’s Hollande receives warm welcome in Israel as Iran nuclear deal looms large | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

LAST UPDATED: 11/17/2013 15:49

French president’s visit comes on the heels of Paris’s efforts to delay agreement with Iran at nuclear talks; Netanyahu, Peres tell Hollande Israel is grateful to France’s contributions to Israel’s security, development.

“I will always remain a friend of Israel,” French President Francois Hollande said in Hebrew at the end of a brief address he delivered upon landing at Ben-Gurion Airport Sunday afternoon.

Hollande, welcomed with full pomp and ceremony and a great deal of warmth by President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said France will not surrender to nuclear proliferation and that Paris will stand by its demands – and continue with sanctions – until Iran gives up on a nuclear weapon.

Iran, he said, “is a threat to Israel, to the region, and to the whole world.”

Hollande arrived in Israel as head of a massive delegation, including seven ministers and nearly 200 businessmen, aides and journalists, just three days before the P5+1 – of which France is a member  – will meet again in Geneva with Iranian negotiators.

Iran will be a central topic of discussion during his meetings here, and France’s tough stand on Iran means that the visit is taking place at a time where there is a great deal of appreciation in Jerusalem for Paris’ position on this matter.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, Hollande said he pinned a lot of hopes on the current negotiations. “You will need courage,” he said. “But you have courage.”

“I came to deliver a message of support of France, based on our long history, a history of joint fate, but also of suffering, pain and tragedy,” he said.

Netanyahu welcomed Hollande by saying that Zionism was influenced a great deal from the lofty ideals of the French revolution: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité (liberty, equality, and fraternity). He added that other elements Zionism took from the French revolution were the belief in progress, human rights, and the “sovereignty of the people, not of the ruler.”

Israel was the only state in the region that sanctified those values, he said, adding that Israeli-French ties are long-standing and deeply rooted.

“We appreciate France’s decisive contribution to our security during the first and fateful years of our state,” he said, saluting Peres for playing a large role in establishing those ties.

“We are preserving and developing those ties,” he added.

France, according to Netanyahu understands very well the dangers of extremist factors who do not shudder from violence and terrorism to achieve their aims. He praised Hollande for the “courageous decision” to fight Islamic radical terrorists in Mali, and for the tough stance Paris has taken toward Syria and Iran’s continued attempts to get nuclear arms.

“It is forbidden for Iran to get nuclear arms,” he said. “This will not only endanger Israel and other states in the Middle East, but also France, Europe and the whole world.”

Netanyahu said that when he went with Hollande to Toulouse last year after the terrorist attack there, and saw his unwavering stand against anti-Semitism, and his warm relations with the French Jewish community, “I saw in front of me a leader with principles and deep humanity.”

Peres was also effusive in his praise of France.

“The people of Israel owe France a great debt for standing by our side in times of peace and of war,” he said. “For allowing the development of Israel’s defensive force. Especially in the first years of the state, when we needed France more than at any other time.”

Peres, who was instrumental in forging close ties with Paris during the early years of statehood, said that with the support of its citizens, its soldiers, its writers and its leaders, France enthusiastically “allowed us to defend ourselves as a sovereign state and to build a new society. We will never forget it. Thank you from the depth of our hearts. The true historic friendship between our two people is founded upon mutual values and a deep sense of mutual respect. We share a legacy of fighting slavery and rejecting tyranny.”

Hollande told the assembled government ministers and dignitaries that there was great empathy for Israel’s position in his country and that he wished to strengthen relations between the two peoples.

“I want to bring you a message of support from France based on joint history, suffering, pain and tragedy,” the president said. “With 150,000 French Jews living in Israel, I have come to give a new push to our ties, especially in business and cultural spheres.”

After a welcoming ceremony at Ben-Gurion Airport, Hollande will go directly to the President’s Residence in the capital for a formal reception and meeting with Peres.

He will then lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl, visit Yitzhak Rabin’s grave, and go to Yad Vashem.

In the evening he has a private meeting planned with Netanyahu, followed by a joint press conference, and then dinner with the prime minister.

On Monday, following a visit to Jerusalem’s Old City, he will go to Ramallah for some five hours, after which he will return to Jerusalem, address the Knesset and attend a state dinner hosted by Peres.

On Tuesday, after visiting the graves at the Har Hamenuchot cemetery in Jerusalem of the victims of the March 2012 Toulouse terrorist attack, he will take part in a joint economic meeting in Tel Aviv and meet French Israelis at Tel Aviv University.

He will leave Tuesday afternoon.

JPost.com staff contributed to this report.

Israel Hayom | Hollande, be a champion of morality.

Boaz Bismuth

The timing of French President François Hollande’s visit could not have been better. About a week ago in Geneva, during the talks between the West and Iran, France derailed what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “a bad deal.”

The warm reception afforded to Hollande this week is designed to show Israel’s gratitude; but Jerusalem also hopes Hollande will be convinced to stay the course when the nuclear talks with Iran resume this week.

A quick reminder: The talks are expected to resume on Wednesday; if you were to believe the sounds coming out of Washington and Moscow, there is a very good chance that this session would culminate with a signed agreement.

That is, unless the language of Molière once again carries the day.

This week is going to be crucial. Torpedoing a deal would be no easy task because the Americans and the Russians want to have signing ceremony. In September, French jets were already in booster-ignition mode when the American-Russian dictate prevented an attack on Syria; as far as Russia and the U.S. are concerned, it is better to sign a deal with evil regimes than to flex your muscles. The talks will ultimately boil down to a clash between core values on the one hand, and political gain on the other hand. Netanyahu will ask Hollande to keep rooting for he moral high ground by being a champion of values. After all, France has copyrighted some of them — “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Israel and the Gulf States expect France to show some fraternité when the powers show up in Geneva.

People may have high hopes for France, but Paris might have to fall in line with the zeitgeist. Russia and China have never been keen on imposing tougher sanctions on Iran. But the problem lies with the U.S., which has changed its position since the talks commenced a decade ago. The Europeans followed along (with the exception of France).

Washington caters to its own interests. (Just read Thomas Friedman’s recent column in The New York Times.) The U.S. may pursue its own agenda; there is nothing inherently wrong with that — except that it has repeatedly pleaded with Israel, over many years, to have faith in Uncle Sam. The New York Times, which has become one of the more vocal proponents of an agreement, believes it is “not the time to squeeze Iran.”

Over the weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the only thing left to do is come up with the exact language of the agreement; this suggests things are drawing to a close. Netanyahu will pay a visit to Moscow shortly after meeting Hollande, and he will make sure to stay in touch with the White House.

For Netanyahu, the focus now is on damage control — even if an agreement is reached, the persistence and steadfastness on the part of the French would, at the very least, make it into a somewhat better deal. Considering the current state of the talks, that would qualify as an achievement.

The world is preoccupied with its own problems; as far as Israel is concerned, Iran is the main problem (and an existential threat), but world leaders have to attend to what is happening in their neck of the woods. Look at President Barack Obama, whose signature accomplishment — the overhaul of the healthcare system — turned into an embarrassing fiasco.

Even Democratic lawmakers have come up against the implementation of “Obamacare.” One of them, Democratic Congressman Nick Rahall (from West Virginia) said Obama’s conduct on the matter deserved an F-. If there was someone who could promise Netanyahu that Iran’s nuclear program would be as successful as Obamacare, he would have no problem sleeping at night. However, there is no guarantee that the two projects would share the same fate.

Hollande’s approval ratings are less than flattering. The latest Huffington Post-commissioned poll shows that support for the president dropped to 15 percent and that only 3% said his conduct as president was “very good.” Such a nose dive is unprecedented.

Perhaps Hollande should consider staying here a bit longer. His poll numbers in Israel will likely be through the roof in light of the French stance on Libya, Mali, Syria, and most importantly, because of his efforts in Geneva.

Kerry to return to Israel as Netanyahu publicly admits to differences with US on Iran | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

LAST UPDATED: 11/17/2013 12:44

PM says in weekly cabinet meeting that there are differences with US on Iran but disagreements can happen even between the “best of friends.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to arrive in Israel for additional talks on Friday, after a week in which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will meet French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin to try and secure a “better deal” on Iran.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu admitted Sunday to differences on Iran with the US, telling the cabinet that there can be disagreements even between the best of friends, “especially when it comes to our future and our fate.” Netanyahu said it was his responsibility of Israel’s prime minster to look out for the vital interests of the country when faced “with a bad agreement. I hope that we will be able to convince our friends to put forward much better agreement, and that is possible.” Netanyahu said the Iranians are under severe economic pressure, and a continuation of that pressure could lead to a better result.

“I believe that many in the region, and outside of it, agree with this,” he said.

Differences between the US and Israel both over Iran and the Palestinian issue came to the fore during Kerry’s last visit here some two weeks ago. Netanyahu said Kerry is coming here to push forward the negotiations with the Palestinians, but that the talks will also focus on the Iranian negotiations.

Amid a public strain between Jerusalem and Washington, Netanyahu stressed that Kerry “is an old friend of mine, and he is also a friend of Israel.” Netanyahu is scheduled to meet Hollande in Jerusalem on Sunday, and Putin in Moscow on Wednesday, the same day negotiators from the P5+1 and Iran will again be meeting in Geneva for talks.

Last week a senior US official said that the major powers and Iran are getting closer to an initial agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, adding it is “quite possible” a deal could be reached when negotiators meet Nov. 20-22 in Geneva.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday that global powers and Iran are close to a preliminary deal to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program and should not pass up a “very good chance” to clinch it.

Reuters contributed to this report.

On Iran, cavernous tactical gaps separate Israel, US |.

(A comment from our own David… – JW )

Putin controls Middle East – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: As US stalls in regaining Sunni trust, Israel may grow closer to Saudis to prevent bomb

Dr. Yaron Friedman

The entire world was surprised by the outbreak of the Arab revolutions: The Arab Spring in 2011, the Islamic Winter in 2012, and the reaction of the Arab regimes in 2013. Now comes the “Russians are back” era ahead of 2014.

Despite the Sunni world’s great frustration over the American dialogue with Iran, Arab countries’ courtship of Russia is still surprising, in light of its consistent support for Bashar Assad‘s regime since the start of the revolution in Syria. Russia has provided consistent support for a regime responsible for the death of 120,000 Arab Syrians.

Russia, which was the most hated country in the Sunni world at the start of the revolution in Syria, is gaining growing popularity in the Arab world. A series of mistakes by the American government led to the Russians’ return to the Middle East. How serious will the results of the Russian comeback be?

The negotiations between the United States and Iran have yet to yield a thing, but their sub-scores in the meantime are disastrous for America and its democratic vision in the Middle East. The series of mistakes by the US included its agreement not to attack the Syrian regime in return for its (alleged) complete elimination of chemical weapons, its willingness to negotiate with the Iranian regime on the nuclear issue, and cutting aid to the Egyptian regime while it fights the Muslim Brotherhood. The consequences could generate a strategic upheaval in the region.

Up until now, the Middle East was divided as follows: The Shiite world, led by Iran, was supported by Russia; and the Sunni world, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was supported by the US. But the latest American steps are seen as a serious betrayal by the Sunni axis.

As opposed to America, Russia was revealed during the Syrian crisis as a loyal friend of the Assad regime. The Saudi kingdom invested billions in the Syrian opposition and suffered a major disappointment with the cancelation of the American strike. Saudi Arabia’s refusal to be represented in the United Nations Security Council in October signaled its change in policy towards the US.

Saudi Arabia is more concerned than all of the region’s countries that Iran will achieve nuclear abilities. As opposed to the Iranian-Israeli conflict which only began in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian-Saudi conflict has a background of some 1,300 years of struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. If Iran attains a nuclear bomb, the Shiites will gain an advantage over the Sunni world for the first time in the history of Islam. The head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, declared in the past that if Iran obtained nuclear abilities, Saudi Arabia would do the same.

And so, from the moment the Americans began considering easing sanctions against Iran, Saudi Arabia began talks with Pakistan, the only Muslim (and Sunni) country with a nuclear weapon. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stated recently that he would also consider accepting Russian aid. The Russians, on their part, rushed to express their consent to help develop the Saudi reactors. At the same time, discussions began at the Gulf Cooperation Council on the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The Russians are expected to be involved in that project too.

Filling the American void

The Russians are taking very good advantage of the void created by the American policy. The arrival of the Russian foreign and defense ministers in Egypt for talks last week was an unprecedented historical event since the countries severed ties in 1979. In the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat broke off relations with the Soviet Union, turned to the US for help and signed the peace treaty with Israel.

President Hosni Mubarak considered opening a civilian nuclear reactor with Russia’s help, but shelved the idea after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. According to a recent report in the Arab press, a significant part of the aid Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates gave Egypt, which was supposed to help the country’s economy, will be used to purchase modern weapons from Russia, including submarines and MiG-29 fighter aircraft.

Russia and Egypt are expected to sign long-term military agreements soon, which will open a new chapter in the relations between the two countries. A report in one of the Russian newspapers even stated that the future agreements include the establishment of a Russian civilian nuclear reactor in Egypt off the Mediterranean Sea.

The appetite for nukes has not skipped over Jordan, which officially declared about two weeks ago that it is building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. This reactor, which will be utilizable in 2021, was acquired from a Russian company at the approval of the Russian government. The declared goal is to produce energy and reduce the price of electricity. The Russian funding of the project, which amounts to 49%, proves just how important it is for the Russians to build the reactor.

The reactors are allegedly meant to solve the energy problem in the Middle East, especially in countries in distress like Egypt and Jordan. The nuclear energy is supposed to prepare rich countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates to an era in which they will run out of oil reserves. But the nuclear race, both for peaceful purposes and for purposes of war, will eventually lead to the nuclearization of the Middle East.

There is no limit to the dangers this new situation could create in the future. The Jordanian reactor will be built too close to the Great Rift Valley, and its maintenance will be problematic for the poor kingdom. The reactor built in the south of the kingdom, which will need the Red Sea water to cool the centrifuges, will serve as a constant threat on the entire area. The reactors expected to pop up like mushrooms in Saudi Arabia and perhaps in Egypt too later on, could violate Israel‘s strategic advantage over the Arab world.

In the Middle Eastern game of chess between the US and Russia, the former enjoyed a longer advantage of several decades. But one wrong move of sacrificing safe pieces in order to reach vague achievements, changed the situation on the board.

The US is facing a new and unexpected challenge: It must get the Sunni axis back on its side and regain its trust. The more the US takes its time in doing so, the more Russia will deepen its ties in the region.

The crisis created should have brought two old enemies closer, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as they are both frustrated by the US policy and both want to prevent the Iranian bomb at any cost. If the leaders of the two countries are wise enough to realize the power concealed in cooperating with each other, it will be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”

Dr. Yaron Friedman, Ynet’s commentator on the Arab world, is a graduate of the Sorbonne. He teaches Arabic and lectures about Islam at the Technion, at Beit Hagefen and at the Galilee Academic College. His book, “The Nusayri Alawis: An Introduction to the Religion, History and Identity of the Leading Minority in Syria,” was published in 2010 by Brill-Leiden

Hezbollah Wants Iran Deal Almost as Much as Obama | FrontPage Magazine.

November 15, 2013 By Ari Lieberman

On Wednesday, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah announced (from a secret location) that the P5 + 1 group’s failure to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic on sanctions will result in a regional war. Clearly, Nasrallah wants and, in fact, needs a deal. Sanctions have already cost Iran 130 billion dollars. That amount not only puts a serious dent into Iran’s economy, sowing discontent among the masses, it adversely affects Iran’s ability to wage war via its proxies, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas. A cash infusion, the byproduct of sanctions relief, will enable Iran and Hezbollah to carry on with their pillaging.

Strangely, Nasrallah’s “anti-war,” pro-deal stance puts him in the same corner as the Obama administration. Administration officials have even adopted Nasrallah’s rhetoric, claiming that the imposition of stiffer sanctions on Iran, as contemplated by congress, would lead to war.

Reeling from record low favorability ratings, the healthcare fiasco and various foreign policy failures, the administration is desperate for a deal, any deal. According to published reports, however, the French nixed a prospective deal on sanctions for not being tough enough, placing the current state of world affairs clearly within the depths of Twilight Zone territory.

France is not a nation well known for its backbone and its history is replete with examples of French perfidy and spinelessness. From its collaborationist Vichy past to its fiascos in Indochina and Algeria, the French have a rich history of cutting and running. Now, however, the French have suddenly turned into saviors, preventing a deal that would have allowed the mullahs to continue enriching uranium without dismantling any nuclear infrastructure or reducing existing stockpiles of enriched uranium.

So we are now confronted with a bizarre situation where Hezbollah and the United States are advocating the same cause and using the same panicky language, while the French, the traditional authority figures on appeasement, are showing some backbone. If that isn’t strange enough, the leadership void created by the administration’s vacillation and appeasement has generated a peculiar realignment of realpolitik whereby the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris and other Gulf nations are looking to their traditional enemy, the Israelis, to protect their security interests.

All the regional players are acutely cognizant of Iran’s pernicious objectives. They are keenly aware that Iran lied about its enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. That it lied about its heavy water plutonium facility at Arak. That it kept its uranium enrichment activities underground away from prying eyes and that it conducted nuclear implosion experiments and attempted to conceal this from International Atomic Energy Inspectors. The Gulf nations are nervous and with good justification but lacking credible military strength, they are helpless. Abandoned by the administration, they naturally turned to Israel, something that would have been unheard of in times past.

U.S. foreign policy is turning the world on its head in other theaters as well. On August 21, Syria’s serial killer head of state and chief warlord, Bashar Assad, emboldened by a sheepish U.S. president, used chemical weapons against his own people killing at least 1,300, many of them children. The Obama administration hooted and hollered but in the end, it was Russia’s ex-KGB strongman, Vladimir Putin, who came to the rescue and defused the situation in a manner that suited the interests of the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah axis. In the age of Obama, an ex-KGB thug is suddenly transformed into a peacemaker.

The administration claims to seek regional stability but they’re doing their damnedest to create regional conflagration. Administration officials deliberately leaked information that implicated Israel in an October 31 strike against advanced Russian made Syrian anti-aircraft missiles and related equipment near Latakia. The disclosures threatened to back Assad into a corner leaving him no recourse but avenge “Arab honor” and offer some form of military response.

Israeli officials were furious and called the leaks “scandalous.” Israeli protests to the White House were met with muted response and the Israelis were at a loss to describe the administration’s inexplicable behavior, which at best amounted to gross negligence and endangered the security interests of its closest Mideast ally.

This isn’t the first occasion where administration officials leaked damaging information about Israel’s strategic and tactical initiatives. In March 2012 administration officials disclosed damaging information concerning the burgeoning alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan. The disclosure served no purpose except to damage the close relationship carefully cultivated between the two nations and jeopardize Israel’s strategic initiatives. Allies don’t treat each other that way but this administration has a knack for upsetting allies; Honduras, Columbia, Poland and the Czech Republic just to name a few.

Perhaps the most inexplicable behavior of all is the manner in which Secretary of State John Kerry torpedoed any chance of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its duplicitous “peace partner,” The Palestinian Authority. In a scathing commentary last week, one marked by vitriol characteristic of the radical left, Kerry launched into a diatribe blaming Israel exclusively for stalled talks while giving the Palestinian Authority a free pass and even gave implicit recognition to terrorism as a legitimate means to obtain concessions. The net result of his malevolent screed was to harden already implausible and unrealistic Arab demands, diminishing any hope for a peaceful resolution. For an administration besotted by establishing Judenrein in Judea and Samaria, Kerry’s nonsensical talk likely had the opposite effect.

So there you have it. John Kerry and Hassan Nasrallah have teamed up to urge capitulation to the Islamic Republic while the French, historically known as the jellyfish of Europe, are suddenly developing a skeletal structure. The Saudis and the Gulf countries are looking to the Jews for protection and an ex-KGB man has been transformed into a peculiar combination of rainmaker and peacemaker. To top it off the administration is treating its closest regional ally like an adversary and is systematically sabotaging its security interests while providing political cover to its sworn enemies.

We are indeed living in strange times, a product of the leadership void created by the Obama administration. Rod Serling in his finest hour couldn’t conjure up a more convoluted scenario.

In other news, North Korea recently executed 80 people for possessing bibles and watching South Korean films with no protest from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Oh well. It’s good to know that some things will always remain predictable.

Hollande and Netanyahu to consider forming a joint French-Israeli-Arab front against Iran.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 16, 2013, 4:10 PM (IDT)

French President Francois Hollande’s first visit to Israel.

French President Francois Holland and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius arrive in Jerusalem Sunday, Nov. 17. Their talks with Israel’s leaders are likely to determine how France, Israel and Saudi Arabia respond to the Obama administration’s current Middle East moves, with critical effect on the next round of nuclear talks taking place in Geneva Wednesday, Nov. 20 between six world powers and Iran.

France will be given the option of aligning with the Middle East powers – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt – which challenge President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry’s race for détente with Tehran.
If he accepts this option, the next decision facing President Hollande will be whether, how and when this grouping is willing to consider resorting to military action to preempt a nuclear-armed Iran. This option has been abandoned by Washington, a decision succinctly articulated Tuesday, Nov. 12, by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

“The American people do not want a march to war,” he told reporters. Therefore: “…spoiling diplomatic talks with Iran would be a march to war.”

Ergo, opponents of a US-Iranian deal – Carney omitted mention of Iran’s military nuclear program to leave US negotiators a free hand for easy terms – are pushing for war.

Hollande and Netanyahu will have to decide between them whether to create a joint French-Arab-Israeli military option to fill the gap left by Washington’s abdication from the war choice and, if so, whether, how and when to exercise it.
Foreign Minister Fabius, whose vote torpedoed the original US proposal for Iran at the first Geneva conference, analyzed the implications of Obama’s policy in a lecture this week marking the 40th anniversary of the French Policy Planning Staff, which largely shapes Paris government foreign and defense policies.
He said: “The United States seems no longer to wish to become absorbed by crises that do not align with its new vision of its national interest. Because nobody can take the place of the United States, this disengagement could create major crises left to themselves. A strategic void could be created in the Middle East, with widespread perception of Western indecision.”
The self-evident corollary to this diagnosis is that by foregoing resistance to the US-Iranian understanding, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel would share America’s responsibility for the major crises erupting in the region, which none of them would be able to control.
debkafile sees another dimension to this argument: Paris, Riyadh and Jerusalem do not feel guilty of wantonly attacking the Obama outreach to Iran; they rather feel they were driven into a corner by a policy inimical to their interests and from which they were forced to step aside.

Although confronted at home with anger over soaring prices and rated one of the most unpopular French presidents in recent times, Hollande instructed his foreign minister at the six-power negotiations in Geneva on Oct. 9 to stick France’s neck out and challenge the American proposal for a deal with Iran

The French president also chose to visit Israel at a moment of high vocal discord between the Obama administration and Binyamin Netanyahu, with Washington acting to isolate the Israeli leader for his stand-up fight against what he calls “a very bad deal” with Tehran.
However, the French president felt the need to talk to Netanyahu at this stage, before deciding whether or not to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by his foreign minister and continue to pursue an independent French path against the Obama administration – possibly, hand in hand with likeminded Middle East governments.

Hollande’s decision is also of high significance for Netanyahu when he meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next Wednesday, Nov. 20.
It will determine whether he stands alone on the key issues or is backed by France and Saudi Arabia. In any case, the prime minister will try and sound Putin out on how far Russia is willing to go to fill the “strategic void” left by America in the Middle East. He will ask whether Moscow is willing to work ad hoc with Israel, France, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to defeat Obama’s Middle East moves – even though each has its own individual interests to look after.

The decisions reached by the French president and Israeli prime minister are therefore of critical import to the next round of nuclear negotiations with Iran next Wednesday.