WarSclerotic

Trying to smooth over Iran feud, Kerry moves from sticks to carrots | The Times of Israel.

Secretary of state endorses Israeli demand for recognition as Jewish state, presents plan to guarantee border security. Netanyahu likely still unimpressed

By Raphael Ahren December 5, 2013, 5:53 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary Of State John Kerry hold a joint press conference at PM Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem. December 05, 2013.

Photo credit: Matty Stern/US Embassy/Flash90)

Visiting Israel Thursday for the first time since the interim nuclear deal with Iran led to the worst crisis in bilateral relations in recent memory, US Secretary of State John Kerry did his utmost to repair the damage and move on.

Thoroughly aware that his host, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is highly critical of Washington’s latest moves in the Middle East, Kerry went beyond the usual diplomatic niceties, offering rare promises and pledges vis-a-vis Israel’s concerns and demands.

Regarding Iran, the US top diplomat couldn’t offer any concrete steps or policy statements that would satisfy Jerusalem. The interim deal with Tehran — which aims to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief — has been signed though not sealed by the US and five other world powers (technical details must be negotiated before it takes effect), and the next round, with protracted discussions about the nitty-gritty of a final deal, is still far off.

Instead, Kerry asserted that “Israel’s security in this negotiation [with Iran] is at the top of our agenda.” Not Washington’s own interests in the region, not the fate of the nonproliferation regime, but Israel’s security.

“The United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program — a program of weaponization possibilities — is terminated,” Kerry pledged. Attempting to assuage widespread fears that the temporary deal hatched last month in Geneva would become a permanent situation, Kerry said Jerusalem and Washington “agree on what the goal of the final status agreement ought to be.”

The US administration’s idea of an endgame remains shrouded in mystery. But Israel’s demands are clear: Iran must not be left with any enriched uranium and needs to dismantle all facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

While Kerry probably did not bring with him a concrete proposal for the upcoming talks with Iran, he and his team did present Netanyahu and his advisers with a scheme on security arrangements in a future peace deal with the Palestinians. Indeed, in the first leg of his current visit to the region, intended mainly to revive the stalling Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, Kerry tried to address two of Netanyahu’s key concerns thought by Washington to be impeding progress in the talks: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and ironclad security arrangements.

Since Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to restart peace talks with the Palestinian Authority four months ago, he has reiterated numerous times that these two conditions need to be met for him to sign any agreement.

“In order for there to be peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors, they must recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of its own in its homeland,” he said at a cabinet meeting last month. “The second foundation is the security that can defend the peace and will defend the Jewish state in case the peace frays.” These security arrangements “will certainly include many things,” he said, “but first and foremost, the security border of the State of Israel will remain along the Jordan River.”

Speaking at a press conference after his meeting with Netanyahu Thursday morning at the Prime Minister’s Office, Kerry went out of his way to please his host. “I join with President [Barack] Obama in expressing to the people of Israel our deep, deep commitment to the security of Israel and to the need to find a peace that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, that recognizes Israel as a country that can defend itself, by itself,” Kerry said. “That is an important principle with which the prime minister and the president and I are in agreement.”

Kerry’s quasi endorsement of Netanyahu’s demand for Israel to be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state does not signify a reversal on US policy. Back in March, Obama had said in Jerusalem that the “Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state.” But still, it’s music to Netanyahu’s ears every time he hears it, and Kerry knew exactly what to say to try to get back on “my friend Bibi’s” good side.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem, Thursday, December 5, 2013 (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash90)

More concretely, Kerry also had a detailed plan for security arrangements in a future peace deal in his suitcase. Washington is keenly aware of Israel’s worries, Kerry took great pains in explaining. “I understand the challenges to security that Israel faces. I understand it very well,” he said, mentioning that he had visited the rocket-stricken towns in Israel’s north and south, and understands their suffering. To make sure Israel can go ahead and negotiate in earnest with the Palestinians, Gen. John Allen, a former US commander in Afghanistan, “provided the prime minister and his military leadership with some thoughts” about how to guarantee Israel’s safety, he said.

One reason the peace talks have been stalling in recent weeks, analysts surmise, is Netanyahu’s reluctance to produce a map of how he imagines the two future states would look, mainly because he is not willing to discuss borders before his security concerns are allayed. General Allen’s plan can be understood as an effort to show Jerusalem that while the US understands Israel’s legitimate worries, there are ways to address them.

Officials have yet to confirm details of the American proposal. According to Haaretz, it integrates “physical security arrangements” in the West Bank “with American security guarantees for Israel and proposed American military aid to the Israel Defense Forces.”

Netanyahu was probably not impressed by the American initiative. He maintains that Israel needs to keep a security presence in the Jordan Valley, a demand the Palestinians resolutely reject. “Israel is ready for a historic peace, and it’s a peace based on two states for two peoples,” the prime minister said at Thursday’s joint press conference with Kerry, after he had seen Allen’s draft. “It’s a peace that Israel can and must be able to defend by itself with our own forces against any foreseeable threat.”

Danon: ‘We will not allow Kerry to pressure us into another bad deal. We will never compromise on our security, even if it means saying no to our closest ally’

And even in the unlikely scenario that Netanyahu would be inclined to work with the US proposal, the right flank of his Likud party, which is opposed to a Palestinian state on ideological grounds, doubtless has profound reservations about Allen’s ideas.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon rejected the American proposal even before Kerry and Netanyahu emerged from their meeting, because it allegedly includes the “possibility of Palestinian representatives at international border crossings.”

“Israel will not outsource its basic security needs to the Palestinians,” Danon said in a statement. “After the debacle in Geneva [where the interim deal with Iran was signed], we will not allow Secretary Kerry to pressure us into another bad deal… We will never compromise on our security, even if it means saying no to our closest ally.”

Kerry put his all into burying the hatchet with Netanyahu and washing away the bad blood between Jerusalem and Washington, which started with an aggressive television interview last month and escalated in the last two weeks with harsh statements back and forth over the Iran deal. On Thursday, Netanyahu, too, tried to move on, calling Kerry a “welcome friend” and refraining from any open criticism (such as calling the Geneva agreement “a historic mistake.”) But a few nice words, even well-chosen ones, will not be enough to obscure the deep divisions that currently fester between Washington and Jerusalem, on both the Palestinians and Iran.

Kerry: Israel’s security at the top of US agenda in Iran nuclear talks | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

12/05/2013 13:21

US secretary of state meets PM Netanyahu, vows to consult Israel on final nuclear deal with Tehran; Netanyahu says Israel ready for “historic peace,” calls on Palestinians to stop “finger pointing.”

The bond between the US and Israel is “unbreakable,” and while there may be tactical differences between the two countries occasionally, the long term strategy for Israel’s security and peace in the region is the same, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Jerusalem Thursday.

Kerry’s comments, following a meeting with Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu, came after a month of high-profile, public disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem both over the policy toward Iran, and the talks with the Palestinians. The two men, who both referred to the other as “my friend,” took pains to present a common and amiable front.

Netanyahu, who has been unsparing in his criticism of the interim accord the P5+1 reached with Iran in Geneva last month,  toned down his criticism a bit, concentrating on what he believes should be in the final deal with Iran, as well as reiterating his concern that the sanctions regime against Iran is in danger of unraveling.

In a final deal, he said, “we believe it is crucial to bring about a final agreement about the termination of Iran’s military nuclear capability.”  He also said that steps must be taken to “prevent the further erosion of sanctions.”

Kerry, in his brief comments, addressed both these concerns.

“I can’t emphasis enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda, and the US will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear  program, [and] weaponization possibilities are terminated,” he said.

Kerry said that Israel and the US agree fully on what the final status agreement with Iran should look like, “and in the days and weeks ahead we will consult very closely and continually with our Israeli friends, in order to bring about a comprehensive agreement that can withstand everybody’s test.”

Regarding the sanctions,  Kerry promised that the US would be “vigilant” to ensure that they don’t start to unravel.

“We say to any country that contemplates moving ahead of sanctions, don’t; because those sanctions will continue to be enforced,” Kerry stressed. “The fundamental sanctions regime of oil and banking remains absolutely in place, it has not changed. And we will step-up our enforcement through the Treasury Department and appropriate agencies.”

Regarding the negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu said that “Israel is ready for a historic peace” based on two states for two peoples. “It is a peace that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, with our own forces against any foreseeable threats.”

He called on the Palestinian leadership to stop finger pointing and creating artificial crisis, and stressed – an oblique reference to the ever-returning issue of settlement construction — that Israel is honoring “all understanding” reached in the negotiations that led to the current talks.

Kerry, relating to the talks and Netanyahu’s stress on the security issue, said that “Israel’s security is fundamental to these negotiations.” One of the main obstacles in the talks up until now is believed to be the issue of whether Israel will retain a security presence along the Jordan River after any agreement.

Kerry said that retired US general John Allen, who he described as one of the best military minds in the US, has been charged by US President Barack Obama with analyzing the security aspects of any future agreement and “ensuring the security arrangement that we might contemplate in the context of this process will provide for greater security for Israel.”

Allen, Kerry said, provided Netanyahu with “some thoughts about the practical security challenge.” He said that conversation will continue during a dinner meeting, and possibly at another meeting on Friday.

He said that a peace agreement would need to “recognize Israel as a Jewish state” and enable it to be a country that “can defend itself by itself.”

Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Kerry went to Ramallah to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Washington watch: US-Israel rift spreading to Jewish community | JPost | Israel News.

By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD

12/04/2013 22:17

The widening rift between Washington and Jerusalem threatens to create fissures within the Jewish community here.

The widening rift between Washington and Jerusalem threatens to create fissures within the Jewish community here.

There is a growing feeling among some pro-Israel groups that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s strident attacks on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in the wake of their diplomatic opening to Iran may be harmful not only to bilateral relations but to their institutional interests as well as Israel’s.

Recent polls show the American public, by large margins, agrees that the interim Geneva agreement between the leading world powers and Iran to freeze the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is an historic opportunity, and not, as Netanyahu insists, an “historic mistake.”

The agreement calls for six months of negotiations to produce a permanent arrangement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s call to immediately impose tougher sanctions is making a growing number of pro-Israel activists, Jewish leaders and political figures uneasy. Unlike the saber-rattling prime minister they know their constituents don’t want to see another war this country can’t afford.

Jewish activists see a number of problems ahead: • A growing rift within the Jewish community between the mainstream and the hardline Netanyahu supporters on this and other issues, particularly settlements and peace with the Palestinians.

• A potential loss of access to the administration and alienation from important contacts in the government, which means a loss of influence on the broad range of other issues on their agendas.

• An anti-Israel backlash if Israel is seen trying to torpedo a deal with Iran and push the United States into another war.

Many American Jews support the agreement not because they trust Iran but because they want to give diplomacy a chance.

Some of the most vocal opposition to the agreement is coming from Capitol Hill. The Republicans reflexively oppose anything Obama does and may be tempted to try to sabotage the agreement by enacting tough new sanctions for just that reason.

Democrats don’t trust Iran, either, and support tough sanctions, but they are more open to working with the administration.

Netanyahu’s full court press in Congress is putting many lawmakers in a politically awkward spot – another factor jeopardizing Israel’s long-term interests in Washington.

The White House is vigorously lobbying Congress to delay any new sanctions and to give negotiations a chance. After all, they’re telling lawmakers, the purpose of the sanctions was to force Iran to engage in serious talks.

The Geneva agreement requires a halt in any new sanctions for the duration of the negotiations. If the talks succeed, more won’t be necessary, Obama is telling them, and if they fail, he’ll back stringent new measures.

One strategy being considered on the Hill, as reported here earlier, is to enact new sanctions and put them on hold for the duration of the talks. An alternative may be to shelve new legislation for the duration of the talks. But Republicans may press for immediate steps that would force Obama to choose between a signature that would kill the negotiations or a veto they and Netanyahu could use to brand him as anti-Israel.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ), the leader of the sanctions movement, was the first to put some distance between itself and Netanyahu. It has said the negotiations should be given time to work or fail before imposing new measures.

The group may have been warned off by its own failure to muster enough congressional support to force Obama to bomb Syria as punishment for using poison gas. The result was a defeat for AIPAC and Netanyahu but a victory for Israeli security because Syria was forced to give up its chemical weapons arsenal, which was the greatest present threat to Israeli security in the region.

AIPAC also appears to be distinguishing between a civilian and military Iranian nuclear program instead of the zero-tolerance it previously advocated. Netanyahu has been vague on that point.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who likes to describe himself as Netanyahu’s closest friend in Congress and often echoes his views, appears to be following the AIPAC line, as are many mainstream Jewish organizations.

Congress can play bad cop to Obama’s good cop, but it has to be careful not to go farther than the war-wary American public will tolerate. Also Congress can’t ignore the concerns of our European allies, who are critical to maintaining the sanctions regime.

Some of Netanyahu’s former colleagues and rivals are cautioning him to end his strident attacks on the American government and the Geneva agreement. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Netanyahu has “declared war on the US.” He said “picking a fight with Israel’s number one ally and to incite the American congress against the president” is dangerous.

Dan Meridor, a former deputy prime minister under Netanyahu, said “embarking on an offensive of attacks, criticism and scorekeeping” only benefits Iran.

The self-righteous Netanyahu shot back, “I won’t shut up.”

Another recent development that should make Netanyahu and his hardline supporters nervous is the waning influence of the evangelical movement, which AIPAC and the Israeli Right have ardently courted for years and expected to protect their interests in Washington. Overtaking the religious Right is the rising tide of the tea party movement, which is pulling the GOP in a more isolationist direction.

Netanyahu has accepted Obama’s invitation to send a national security team to Washington to discuss the upcoming negotiations. Meanwhile there are reports out of Jerusalem that the prime minister has ordered the Mossad to find the smoking gun that will derail the Iranian deal.

Seeing he wasn’t making progress in that direction, Netanyahu on one occasion tried to take credit for the agreement, saying it is a “bad deal” but better than expected because of his influence. He couched that with another threat to take military action.

Netanyahu risks getting to the point where the administration – and the other big powers – become convinced that nothing they do will satisfy him, so why even bother. That would be the most dangerous development of all – for Israel and for the Jewish groups here that are increasingly uncomfortable with the prime minister’s bellicose leadership.

Yadlin: Scope of Iranian retaliation to potential strike is ‘exaggerated’ | JPost | Israel News.

By YAAKOV LAPPIN

12/05/2013 04:27

Former Military Intelligence chief assesses Iranian strategic calculations, concludes nightmare scenarios unlikely.

An Iranian retaliation to a military strike on its nuclear sites will likely be limited, and significantly smaller in scope than commonly believed in the West, a new study published by the head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said on Wednesday.

Yadlin, formally head of Military Intelligence, and Avner Golov, a senior INSS researcher, published, together, a systematic overview of Iran’s military capabilities and assessed the likely Iranian strategic calculations when choosing a response.

They concluded that the nightmare scenarios of regional full-scale war is exaggerated and “serves Iran as an excellent deterrence mechanism, since it weakens the credibility of the military option and decreases the chances of the Iranian regime agreeing to a diplomatic solution.”

They said that “the option of an attack on Iran, as well as the threat of it, is an important and central mechanism in the service of diplomacy.”

Iran’s main retaliatory strike force is composed of 300-400 surface-to-surface missiles, made up of the Shihab 3 with a range of 1,300 km., and the Ghadir with a range of over 1,600 km., the authors wrote.

“Both of these missiles do not have high accuracy and do not allow for the pinpoint striking of a target,” the paper said.

The Shihab’s Circular Error Probable (CEP), indicating its accuracy, is over two kilometers, and the Ghadir’s CEP is hundreds of meters.

A Shihab can carry a one-ton warhead of conventional explosives, and the Ghadir can carry 750 kg.

Missile strikes can be used to terrorize cities, rather than hitting targets accurately, Yadlin and Golov said.

Actual damage can be contained to a minimum, through early warning alerts for civilians, an efficient use of the Arrow 2 anti-missile shield, and an improvement in projectile defense fortifications for the general population.

Although suspicions exist that Iran can arm its missiles with chemical and biological warheads, their low accuracy and ineffectiveness as unconventional delivery systems, combined with Iran’s understanding that such a move will provoke a massive military response, will prevent such a scenario, said the authors.

An additional threat exists in the form of Iran’s extraterritorial terrorism capabilities, embodied by the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Past Quds Force attempts to carry out attacks in revenge for covert strikes on the Iranian nuclear program show the limitations of this apparatus, the study said.

“These [Iranian] efforts failed and they point to a limited Iranian ability to carry out wide-scale terror attacks, and to a good ability to foil them in the Western world,” the authors stated, before concluding that this threat can be contained.

Other potential threats include Iran’s air force and fleet of drones.

Iran’s fighter jets are inferior to those of Israel, which enjoys two layers of air defenses against hostile intrusions: Interception aircraft and a chain of anti-aircraft weapon systems.

Iran’s most advanced jets, the Sukhoi 24, cannot get to Israel and back without midair refueling and would be vulnerable to air defense radars.

Iran’s drones are also primitive in comparison with their Western counterparts, “and do not allow much operational flexibility after their launch,” the study said.

The most realistic UAV threat consists of “suicide drones from Lebanon or Syria” that could be deployed, and this scenario merits preparations, but is “not the kind of threat that Israel can’t absorb,” the paper continued.

Iran’s long-range naval strike capabilities are “very limited,” the paper said, and consists mainly of Soviet-made submarines that operate in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Ships that can reach Israeli shores would have a hard time crossing the Suez Canal during a conflict, and would likely run into Israel Navy ships armed with advanced sea-to-sea missiles.

An attack boat disguised as a civilian vessel might be used to launch sea-to-shore missiles and mini suicide submarines could be deployed, though this threat can be countered by Israel as well, according to the study.

There is no Iranian ground force option to speak of, due to the 1,200 km. distance between the two countries, Yadlin and Golov said.

Iran’s capabilities are far from “Gog and Magog” scenarios and are limited to missile strikes and terror attacks, the effects of which will be principally psychological, they wrote.

If an initial attack on Iran is surgical and aimed only at nuclear sites, Iran, when weighing responses will wish to preserve its survival and decision makers in Tehran will likely seek to avoid a response that could suck the US into a conflict with Iran.

Similarly, Tehran will likely seek to avoid provoking a large-scale second Israeli wave of attacks that could be used to cause more damage to nuclear sites, as well as targeting regime assets.

Yadlin and Golov set out a scale of five possible Iranian responses, ranging from total restraint to a regional escalation.

One highly likely Iranian response is a “tit for tat” strategy, targeting Israeli nuclear reactors, they said.

This scenario would see “a significant number of missiles fired from Iran and Lebanon towards Dimona or any other target perceived as being ‘nuclear-associated’ in Israel, in order to send a message of parity between Iran and Israel, and maybe even strike the Israeli facilities.”

“There’s a high chance that this method of operation will be included in the Iranian response, as a wider response, or a limited Iranian response,” the authors said.

Alternatively, Iran could widen its response and include the activation of terrorism cells, while also firing off one or two missile barrages at Israeli cities, and target Saudi and Western targets in the Gulf.

Suicide missions from the air and sea are also possible.

“We believe that the chances of such an Iranian response is high if a Western attack hits Iranian nuclear infrastructure but does not harm other regime assets,” the study said.

Such a response would enable Iran to balance out its need to reply to an attack, but avoid an escalation that will threaten regime assets not directly tied to the military nuclear project.

A more serious yet less likely potential response, according to the study, would be sparked by an Iranian desire to avenge its national honor, punish Israel and isolate it from the US.

This would entail a massive launch of dozens of missiles at Israeli cities a day, paralyzing civilian life, and enlarging the psychological pressure against the Israeli population.

In this option, “The Iranians will try to achieve maximum deterrence against the Israeli government in a future conflict.

We assess that the regime in Tehran assumes that such a response will provoke a significant Israeli response, that could lead to an escalation in the conflict between the two countries.

“This could enable an additional strike at nuclear infrastructure, and a large-scale strike of Iranian economic interests and regime assets.

This escalation could spin out of control and encourage US military involvement, which would threaten the survivability of the regime of the Ayatollahs.

As a result, we assess that the Iranian regime will refrain from such a response against Israel, so long as the Western attack focuses on nuclear infrastructure,” Yadlin and Golov said.

Finally, Iran could go for a maximal response aimed at regional escalation, attacking the US, Gulf states and Israel.

This would necessitate a US response, and Iran would only pursue this course if it does not fear a significant attack on its regime assets, since it would already have sensed its survival to be in jeopardy.

In such an extreme scenario Iran would try to “set alight the region” and hope for Russia to achieve a cease-fire, before sustaining more damage.

The study concluded that such a retaliation is unlikely.

In examining potential responses by Iran’s proxies and allies, the authors noted that Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has grown significantly since the Second Lebanon War of 2006, but added that Israel’s defensive, offensive, and intelligence capabilities have increased significantly as well.

Hezbollah is fighting for the Assad regime in Syria, and it remains unclear how this erosion on its capabilities will influence its readiness for a confrontation with Israel, Yadlin and Golov said.

Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria has undoubtedly added many new enemies against it, in Lebanon and outside of it, they said.

“Since the organization was established by Iran, and is managed on the foundation of Iranian funding, arms and training, on the basis that it will act if ordered to do so by Tehran, it may not be able to refrain from acting and the internal-Lebanese pressure will mainly influence the scope of the action, limiting it,” the study said.

Hezbollah will likely take part in an Iranian response, but its response might be relatively small in scale.

Syria’s rocket and missile arsenal poses a strategic threat to Israel, but Syria is not an Iranian proxy and acts according to its own interests, the paper said.

The civil war has greatly reduced Assad’s willingness to take part in an Iranian response against Israel, although growing dependence on the Iranian patron and Assad’s wish to revenge attacks attributed to Israel could allow for a small response.

“Even if Assad responds, it will be symbolic and minimal, such as letting terrorists launch attacks from Syria, and this won’t drag Israel into full-scale war,” they said.

Hamas is out of the Iranian orbit for now, though relations are warming up again, and Islamic Jihad will apparently take part in Iranian response, the paper assessed.

“Israel knows how to deal with the threat to the South,” as Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense have demonstrated, wrote Yadlin and Golov.

They concluded by saying that a surgical strike on Iranian nuclear sites will decrease the chances of regional escalation, as would a message sent to Iran during an attack, that a massive retaliation on its part will provoke a powerful American- Israeli attack on regime assets, as well as economic and military targets.

Israel should strengthen its already advanced missile defenses; and those involved in planning a strike should also plan for the day after an attack as well as continue sanctions to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program, the paper said.