WarSclerotic

Candid on differences with PM, Obama sets out optimist’s Mideast vision | The Times of Israel.

Even Iran can change, the president insists. Indeed so, Netanyahu would likely retort, so why have you not shown more determination to get rid of the Islamists?

By David Horovitz December 8, 2013, 12:41 am

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama embrace at a ceremony held in honor of Obama as he lands at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, on March 20, 2013 (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

As one might expect from an adept, articulate speaker, knowing he was sitting with a mature, respectful audience unlikely to directly confront him too nastily, President Barack Obama was in confident and relaxed mood during his interview with Haim Saban in Washington, DC, on Saturday. But it was still quite striking to see him smile and nod in broad assent when asked, by Israeli journalist Ilana Dayan toward the end of the session, whether he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might analyze the interim deal struck with Iran in Geneva last month rather differently.

“I think that’s probably a good bet,” Obama said, grinning hugely. “That’s more than 50/50.” Cue considerable audience laughter.

Rarely has the president been so candid in setting out his philosophy for grappling with the Middle East, and rarely so open and easygoing in acknowledging the profound differences in approach between him and Netanyahu, albeit while stressing the shared goals of Israeli-Palestinian peace and ensuring Iran not attain the bomb.

Netanyahu has rejected the Geneva deal as a “historic mistake” because he fears the sanctions pressure will now collapse, and because he is concerned that Iran will be left with an enrichment capability that will enable it to break out to the bomb when it so chooses. But most fundamentally, he considers the agreement a mistake because it lets the regime off the hook — ensuring it will survive. And so long as the regime survives, Netanyahu is certain that Islamist Iran will constitute a profound threat to the free world in general, and to Israel in particular.

Obama, in the most illuminating passage of his appearance, set out a dramatically different mindset. Yes, he acknowledged, “one has to assume” that even President Hassan Rouhani holds to an ideology “that is hostile to the United States and to Israel.” But the fact that Rouhani was elected last June — as the least hardline of six presidential candidates — spoke volumes about the Iranian public’s mindset. Ordinary Iranians, said Obama, plainly want “a change of direction,” a shift in the way they “interact with the world.”

The Middle East will undergo a great deal of change in the coming decade, Obama continued, warming to his theme. “Wherever we see the impulses of a people to move away from conflict, violence, and toward diplomatic resolution of conflicts, we should be ready and prepared to engage them — understanding, though, that ultimately it’s not what you say, it’s what you do.”

It was vital not to “be naive about the dangers” posed by the Iranian regime, the president stressed, and to “fight them wherever they are engaging in terrorism or actions that are hostile to us or our allies. But we have to not constantly assume that it’s not possible for Iran, like any country, to change over time.”

Don’t assume the worst? Assuming the worst is precisely what I am duty-bound to do, Netanyahu, had he been in the room, would likely have wanted to retort.

The president peppered his remarks with the customary reiteration of Israel’s right and responsibility to protect its interests, and to determine how to safeguard its security as it sees fit. When discussing the Palestinian issue, he took pains to stress that the US could not and would not “dictate” terms to Israel. And he said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would have to make serious compromises, during what he termed a “transitional period,” in order to ensure that Israel could be confident of its long-term security as a Jewish state.

But his key points of difference with Netanyahu came through loud and clear: The prime minister was unrealistic in the terms he was demanding of Iran — the regime won’t just “cave” under the relentless pressure Netanyahu wants, Obama argued — and the prime minister was sometimes unnecessarily bleak when contemplating the challenges facing Israel in the fast-shifting region.

Of course, Obama noted, Netanyahu would himself soon be addressing the very same forum, via satellite from Jerusalem, and would set out his own positions.

It will be interesting to see whether Netanyahu, who speaks on Sunday, will match Obama for easygoing candor and for open acknowledgement of the yawning gulf between their mindsets.

If he does, the prime minister might remark that, in fact, he fully shares the president’s belief that the Iranian public wants a much improved interaction with the free world. It is for precisely that reason, he might add, that he is baffled and horrified by Obama’s apparent readiness to condemn Iranians to continued oppression by the uranium-enriching regime of the ayatollahs.

Cave under the pressure? That’s exactly what the regime would have done, Netanyahu might feel moved to add (though even candor has its limits), if only Obama hadn’t caved first.

Inflexible on Iran, empathetic on Palestine | The Times of Israel.

In the past, Obama seemed receptive to Israeli concerns over Tehran’s nuclear program — less so to Jerusalem’s peace process demands. Now that seems to have been reversed

By Raphael Ahren December 8, 2013, 1:11 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama in New York, September 21, 2011 (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)

Analysts of American Middle East policy have long wondered about the existence of a “linkage” between the Iranian nuclear threat and the Israeli-Palestinian peace conflict.

At the United Nations General Assembly in September, US President Barack Obama said, “In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.” The obvious juxtaposition of the two not-directly-related issues suggested the president sought to revive a venerable formula known in Hebrew as “Gar’in tmurat Falestin” — the nuclear issue in exchange for Palestine. Routinely rejected by American and Israeli officials, this often-quoted theory postulates that Washington is willing to be tough on Iran if Jerusalem is forthcoming on the Palestinian issue. But statements Obama made Saturday suggest the opposite is now the case.

Speaking at the Saban Forum in Washington, the president defended the interim nuclear deal the US and five world powers struck with Iran in November. While he declared that “nothing in this agreement… grants Iran a right to enrich” uranium, he also made plain that in a permanent agreement, Iran will be allowed to do exactly that.

“It is my strong belief that we can envision a end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity,” Obama said.

For Israel, this is an absolute no-no. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his associates have said as much time and again. “It needs to be clear: In the final agreement Iran will not have the capability to create a nuclear weapon. To assure that, Iran must not have any capacity to enrich uranium or produce plutonium,” Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said later Saturday, in the Israeli government’s first response to Obama’s candid appearance at the Saban event.

The administration, while asserting that Israel’s security is sacrosanct, defends the temporary Geneva agreement -– a deal Israel considers a dangerous and “historic mistake” — and seems determined to reach a long-term arrangement that would essentially allow Iran to remain a threshold state, capable of a breakout to nuclear capability within a matter of months.

“Frankly, theoretically, they will always have some [breakout capacity],” Obama said, because “the technology here is available to any good physics student at pretty much any university around the world. And they have already gone through the cycle to the point where the knowledge, we’re not going to be able to eliminate.”

The Obama administration clearly is not inclined to give in to Israel’s demands vis-à-vis Iran, regarding as unrealistic Netanyahu’s insistence on the dismantling of Iran’s entire program. Said Obama to much laughter Saturday: “One can envision an ideal world in which Iran said, we’ll destroy every element and facility and you name it, it’s all gone. I can envision a world in which Congress passed every one of my bills that I put forward.”

But Washington does seem more willing to accommodate Jerusalem’s requirements regarding the peace negotiations with the Palestinians. To be sure, Obama and his indefatigable secretary of state, John Kerry, are exerting tremendous pressure on Netanyahu to reach an agreement. But recent statements from the two indicate that they respect two of Israel’s key demands: recognition by the Palestinians as a Jewish state and ironclad security arrangements, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.

Obama endorsed Netanyahu’s demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people over a year ago. But on Saturday, he for the first time publicly indicated that even under a final status deal, Israeli troops will remain stationed on the territory of a future Palestinian state, at least for some time.

“Ultimately, the Palestinians have to also recognize that there is going to be a transition period where the Israeli people cannot expect a replica of Gaza in the West Bank. That is unacceptable,” Obama said, referring to the incessant rocket fire on Israeli towns that followed the 2005 disengagement from the Hamas-ruled coastal strip. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas needs to be “willing to understand that this transition period requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well,” Obama said. “They don’t get everything that they want on day one.”

Later on, when asked how Israel can be expected to sign a final status agreement when the PA is currently not in control of Gaza, Obama said that a peace deal would have “to happen in stages.” He reiterated his idea of a “transition period,” during which a deal will have been signed but not all details will have been worked out. “And the security requirements that Israel requires will have to be met.”

Speaking at the Saban Forum right after Obama, Kerry also said that Israel will have to be allowed to maintain a security presence on the territory of a future Palestinian state to secure Israel’s eastern border.

As much as Washington is pushing Jerusalem toward a peace deal with the Palestinians, the Americans seem to accept Israel’s security caveats vis-à-vis the Jordan Valley. They are less understanding when it comes to Netanyahu’s position on the Iranian threat. But while a final-status deal between the international community and Iran seems set to take shape over the coming months — a deal Israel will doubtless ferociously reject — a final-status deal with the Palestinians seems as elusive as ever.

Peres says he’s willing to meet Rouhani: ‘Iran is not our enemy’ | JPost | Israel News.

By NIV ELIS, JPOST.COM STAFF

12/08/2013 10:02

In question and answer session at Globes Business Conference, president says Israel prefers diplomatic solution to Iran threat, claims peace can be achieved in Kerry’s time frame, and comes out in favor of gay marriage.

President Shimon Peres on Sunday said that he would have no problem meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

“Why not?” he said in an interview with CNN’s Richard Quest at the Globes Israel Business Conference in Tel Aviv. Israel and Iran are not enemies, he said.

The important factor was not the man in question, but his policies, and the goal was to turn enemies into friends. Peres compared the decision to Israel’s choice to meet with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat ahead of the Oslo Peace agreements.

Peres said that he had his doubts whether Rouhani could follow through on his promises of moderation given the political climate in Iran and the strength of hardliners, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The president said that Israel, like the United States prefers to stop Iran’s nuclear drive through diplomatic measures.

“We also prefer economic or political pressure before anyone begins to shoot. We are not in a hurry to shoot,” he stated.

He rejected the idea that Israel was isolated on the Iranian issue, stating that there was an “impressive coalition” of countries who do not want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb, including the Russians and the Chinese.

Peres said that while there have been arguments with the United States over the handling of Iran’s nuclear program, “basically the relations have remained as they were and as they should be.”

He also addressed the peace process, saying that he thought it was possible to complete an agreement with the Palestinians in the nine-month period set out by US Secretary of State John Kerry, but that he was not certain it would happen.

Peres said that now, as opposed to in the past, all the major parties in Israel, on the Left and Right, are in favor of a two-state solution.

Peres was asked his stance on gay marriage in Israel during the interview session, and responded that everybody was born equal and had a right to love who they wanted to love.

When pressed, as to whether that was a “yes” or “no” to the whether he supported gay marriage he responded, “I think everybody will take it as a yes.”

Though the question referenced a bill that would give gay male couples equal tax status, which does not explicitly legalize gay marriage, the interviewer specifically used the term “gay marriage” in his question.

Iran forging ahead with uranium enrichment technology | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS

12/07/2013 22:54

Development does not appear to contravene interim agreement but material can provide fissile core of nuclear bomb.

DUBAI – Iran is moving ahead with testing more efficient uranium enrichment technology, a spokesman for its atomic energy agency said on Saturday, in news that may concern world powers who last month agreed a deal to curb Tehran’s atomic activities.

Spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed, underlining Iran’s determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.

Although the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless, as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched to a high degree.

“The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have completed initial tests,” Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.

“The production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian atomic energy) agency’s approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure facilities”.

Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been informed of the development.

Iran’s development of a new generation of centrifuges – machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope – could enable it to refine uranium much faster.

Under the Nov. 24 interim accord with the six world powers, Iran promised not to start operating them or install any more for a period of six months. But the agreement seems to allow it to continue with research and development activity at a nearby Natanz pilot plant.

Iran earlier this year stoked the West’s worries by starting to install a new centrifuge – the IR-2m – at its Natanz enrichment plant. Iran is testing the IR-2m and other models at its research and development facility at Natanz.

Kamalvandi did not specify whether the new centrifuge model he was referring to was the IR-2m.

It is currently using a 1970s model, the IR1, to refine uranium at the main Natanz plant and its efforts to replace this breakdown-prone centrifuge are being closely watched.

Some experts believe the IR-2m can enrich uranium 2-3 times faster than the IR-1.

UN inspectors arrived in Tehran on Saturday and are due for the first time in more than two years to visit a plant linked to a planned heavy-water reactor that could yield nuclear bomb fuel, taking up an initial gesture by Iran to open its disputed nuclear program up to greater scrutiny.

Obama: Iran must shut Fordo, give up making centrifuges. Palestinians must accept framework deal.

Barack Obama at Saban Forum

US President Barack Obama addressed the Iranian nuclear and Palestinian issues in terms sympathetic to the Israeli case at the Saban annual forum in Washington Saturday, Dec. 7.

On the final accord with Iran, he spoke of constraints for making sure Iran was prevented from attaining a nuclear weapon.

He then called on the Palestinians to accept that the current round of talks with Israel would produce, at best, a framework accord without covering in full all the details of their dispute. It would also omit the Gaza Strip and a provide for a transition period before a final settlement.
The negotiations now in progress would therefore only cover the West Bank, for the time being, the US president said. He expressed the hope that Gaza’s Hamas rulers would be inspired by the success of the Palestinian-Israeli deal and want to emulate it.

This was the first time Obama had recognized that the current round of Palestinian-Israeli talks initiated by US Secretary of State John Kerry would not be able to reach a final settlement during his presidency – only, at best, interim agreements on some of the issues.

On the nuclear question, he said Iran would have to exercise “extraordinary restraints.” For a peaceful nuclear program, he said, “they don’t need an underground enrichment plant in Fordo, certainly not a heavy water plant in Arak or centrifuges.”
He did not refer directly to the military dimensions of that program, but insisted that no ideal option exists. “If it were possible to halt uranium enrichment and break up Iran’s nuclear capacity by any other means we would have taken it,” he said. We therefore decided to test Iran by diplomacy.

In contrast to the Palestinian question, Obama was clear that a final and comprehensive accord must be reached in six months time to make it impossible for Iran to attain a nuclear bomb. He promised that the international community would be party to every detail of this deal and Israel would be consulted.

In Obama’s view the final accord must contain four elements:

1. The shutdown of the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo;

2. Give up the heavy water reactor under construction at Arak;
3. Stop manufacturing advanced centrifuges. This was a reference to the extra-fast IR2 machines, without which the Iranians would find it difficult to enrich uranium at high speed to weapon grade.
4. Permission for low-grade uranium enrichment up to the 3.5 percent level.
debkafile’s sources comment that in his answers to the questions put to him by Haim Saban, the US President made an effort to accommodate some of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s objections and views on the two most contentious issues weighing on relations between Washington and Jerusalem: Iran and the Palestinians.
This cut the ground from under Netanyahu’s leading political opponents, such as former prime minister Ehud Olmert, ex-Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin and others, who contest his policies as needlessly antagonizing the United States.

At the same time, neither Tehran nor the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is likely to accept the propositions Obama presented Saturday.

Iran, in particular, will certainly fume over his comment that diplomacy will not only test Iran on its nuclear intentions but may also be used to “ultimately defeat some of its other agendas in the Middle East” to which the US is opposed. He cited terrorism, subversion and threats against “our friends and allies.”

Tehran may even walk away from the diplomatic process for a time in protest.
Obama lowered expectations from the Palestinian-Israeli track because he had seen John Kerry’s account of Mahmoud Abbas’s rejection of the new US security plan when they met in Ramallah Thursday, Dec. 5.

In this plan, Obama said that US Gen. John Allen Gen. Allen had outlined security arrangements for the two sides with which he believed “Israel should be able to feel comfortable in the transition period leading up to a final settlement.” He admitted he was not sure it would be acceptable to the Palestinians.