WarSclerotic

Coed Combat – The Israeli Army – IDF – YouTube.

The women of the unit who stopped the terrorists outside my town, Eilat last year.

It was one woman who took down 3 terrorists.

God bless her and all the others who defend us…

Israeli officials: U.S. admits Iran will get $20b from sanctions relief – Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz.

( Gee… Who woulda thought?! – JW )

U.S. officials admit to Israeli colleagues that they greatly underestimated the economic benefits Tehran would reap from Geneva accord.

The Iranian economy is already showing signs of growth. Photo by AP

Senior officials in the administration of President Barack Obama have conceded over the past few days in conversations with colleagues in Israel that the value of the economic sanctions relief to Iran could be much higher than originally thought in Washington, security sources in Israel told Haaretz.

In official statements by the United States immediately after the agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program was signed in Geneva between Iran and theF six powers at the end of November it was said that the economic relief Iran would receive in exchange for signing the agreement would be relatively low – $6 billion or $7 billion. Israeli assessments were much higher – about $20 billion at least.

The United States had originally intended to make do with unfreezing Iranian assets in the amount of $3 billion to $4 billion. But during negotiations in Geneva, the P5+1 countries backtracked from their opening position and approved much more significant relief in a wide variety of areas: commerce in gold, the Iranian petrochemical industry, the car industry and replacement parts for civilian aircraft. But the Americans said at the time that this would at most double the original amount.

However according to the Israeli version, the Americans now concede in their talks with Israel that the sanctions relief are worth much more. According to the security sources: “Economics is a matter of expectations. The Iranian stock exchange is already rising significantly and many countries are standing in line to renew economic ties with Iran based on what was already agreed in Geneva.” The sources mentioned China’s desire to renew contracts worth some $9 billion to develop the Iranian oil industry and the interest some German companies are showing for deals with Tehran. “In any case, it’s about 20 or 25 billion dollars. Even the Americans understand this,” the sources said.

The interim agreement is to come into force on January 15. Until then, Iran is not restricted in terms of moving ahead on its nuclear program. Israel was surprised by the public statement by Obama at the Saban Forum in Washington late last week, that the agreements allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium. This is seen as an unnecessary concession considering that negotiations with Iran are still underway. However, the Israeli leadership seems to be seeking to somewhat lower its contentious tones toward Washington after two weeks of public scuffling and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most recent speech with regard to Iran, also to the Saban Forum, was relatively moderate.

But along with efforts to renew intelligence and diplomatic coordination between the two countries on the nuclear issue, tussles are expected to continue between Obama and Netanyahu in another important arena – the U.S. Congress. The administration is very concerned about the objections to the agreement in Geneva by senators and congress members on both sides of the aisle. A few prominent opponents of the agreement who are experts in foreign affairs and frequently express themselves on the Middle East have articulated doubts about the deal and have called for additional heavy sanctions on Iran if the accord falls through.

Although Israel has not said so publicly, it is clear that Netanyahu’s representatives have also been in touch with these lawmakers in recent weeks. Among them are Republican senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mark Kirk and Congressman Eric Cantor and Democratic senators Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez and Congressman Steny Hoyer.

The extent of the administrations’ concern can be seen in an editorial in Tuesday’s New York Times. The paper reads as if it is quoting Obama’s messages on the Middle East. The article warned against the initiative of senators Kirk and Menendez to prepare new legislation that would complete the very effective sanctions moves they led against Iran a few years ago. According to the proposal, which has the behind-the-scenes support of senior Israeli officials, new sanctions would be instituted if at the end of the six months set out in the interim agreement a satisfactory arrangement is not reached with the Iranians.

The Times warns that the breakthrough attained in Geneva, which it calls the most positive development in relations between the United States and Iran in 30 years, will be put at risk by the initiatives in Congress. The interim agreement is “unquestionably a good deal,” which is preferable to military action and the paper joins the warnings issued both by the White House and the Iranian government against legislation that would sabotage the agreements implementation. According to the Times, moves by Kirk, Menendez and other senior officials are unnecessary and will “enrage the Iranians.” It seems that the U.S. lawmakers are not impressed by this prospect and Netanyahu even less so. In the American-Israeli dispute, the tones may be more muted, but the scene of the next clash is clear – Congress in Washington.

Israel Hayom | Poll: 43% of Americans oppose Iran nuclear deal.

Top senator says new Iran sanctions will have to wait | The Times of Israel.

( Fathomless nonsense.  Iran needs no “excuse.”  It will back out and blame the other side the minute it suits them. – JW )

Word of delay comes after Kerry warns lawmakers that applying ‘gratuitous’ pressure could give Tehran an excuse to back out of Geneva deal

By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil and AP December 11, 2013, 12:32 am

WASHINGTON — The head of the US Senate’s Banking Committee said Tuesday he is leaning toward delaying any new legislation on Iranian sanctions, hours after Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Congress to hold off on passing new penalties.

Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota, said Kerry and US President Barack Obama had convinced him to put off new sanctions against Iran, pending an interim deal that curbs enrichment activity in return for eased sanctions.

“The president and Secretary Kerry have made a strong case for a pause in Congressional action on new Iran sanctions, so I am inclined to support their request and hold off on committee action for now,” Johnson said in a statement.

“We’ll see. Not this year,” he added to The Hill.

Tim Johnson, right, and Tom Udall at a Senate hearing in 2011. (photo credit: NNWO/Jared King)

The Banking Committee, which oversees international finance agreements, would play an important role in creating and passing new sanctions legislation.

Johnson’s statement came hours after Kerry took a brief break from his rigorous travel schedule to the Middle East to pressure Congress to delay additional sanctions against Iran, describing such legislation as “gratuitous” and potentially damaging not only to any future deal with the Islamic Republic, but also to America’s relations with fellow states in the P5+1 group.

The administration and Tehran both see new sanctions as potential deal-breakers that could undermine the recently signed pact between Iran and six world powers.

Two senators at the head of a drive for new sanctions, Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), are reportedly pursuing language that would legislate new penalties, but give the White House the option of deferring on them, according to The Washington Post, citing a Senate aide. In recent weeks, the administration has strongly indicated that such legislation is not welcome – with or without the added provision.

Speaking to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said Congress needed to tread carefully or risk unraveling diplomatic progress made in Geneva.

“Let me be very clear: This is a very delicate diplomatic moment and we have a chance to address peacefully one of the most pressing national security concerns that the world faces today,” Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “We’re at a crossroads. We’re at one of those really hinge points in history. One path could lead to an enduring resolution in the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The other path could lead to continued hostility and potentially to conflict.”

Kerry’s comments shed light on Washington’s flexibility on the terms of a final-status agreement. While he said that the interim agreement reached last month in Geneva rendered the Arak heavy water facility “frozen stone-cold,” he did not rule out the possibility of future negotiations over the fate of the plant, which could be used to produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

The secretary of state also avoided any commitment to the effect that the final agreement would prohibit Iran entirely from enriching its own uranium.

Kerry assured Congress that during the interim period, while the P5+1 member states are negotiating a final agreement, “Iran’s nuclear programs will not move forward.” Instead, he promised, “this agreement halts the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolls its back in certain places.”

In response to a question by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Kerry said that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia had welcomed the deal because it provided new-found security. He acknowledged, however, that Israel did not find the deal reassuring.

Anticipating being pressed by members of Congress on the repeal of sanctions placed on Iran by Congressional mandate, Kerry told the committee that the estimated $7 billion in sanctions relief that would result from Iran’s compliance with the interim agreement “pales in comparison with the amount of pressure we’re leaving in place.”

Describing additional sanctions as “gratuitous,” Kerry emphasized that he would not rule out such legislation in the future.

The interim deal with Iran prohibits the Obama administration from introducing new sanctions for six months. Kerry and other US officials have warned of dire consequences if Washington breaks its word. And Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has said any new package of commercial restrictions would kill the deal.

“If Congress adopts sanctions, it shows lack of seriousness and lack of a desire to achieve a resolution on the part of the United States,” Zarif told Time magazine.

“I’m just saying ‘not right now.’ This is a very delicate diplomatic moment,” Kerry explained on Tuesday, arguing that were Congress to finalize additional sanctions, it could result in the Iranians pulling out of talks, or disunity among fellow members of the P5+1 negotiating team.

“I don’t want to give the Iranians a public excuse to flout the agreement,” Kerry said. “It could lead our international partners to think that we’re not an honest broker, and that we didn’t mean it when we said that sanctions were not an end in and of themselves but a tool to pressure the Iranians into a diplomatic solution. Well, we’re in that. And six months will fly by so fast, my friends, that before you know it, we’re either going to know which end of this we’re at or not.”

Members of both parties challenged Kerry. Engel, the top Democrat on the panel, specifically asked Kerry why the administration was so strongly opposing sanctions that wouldn’t be imposed unless Iran breaks the agreement. And Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman expressed misgivings about trusting the Obama administration, which he accused of hampering all sanctions efforts against Iran thus far.

As Kerry spoke, reports circulated that the secretary of state will address Iran sanctions before the full Senate on Thursday in an intensified effort to keep the upper house from voting on a sanctions bill before it goes on its winter recess.

Members of Congress generally believe that crippling petroleum, banking and trade sanctions levied on Iran in recent years were responsible for bringing its more moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, to power and his representatives to the negotiating table. Many argue more pressure, not less, could break Iran’s will and secure better terms in a final agreement.

At several points, Kerry and lawmakers talked over each other as they argued about whether the deal recognized Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium — which the administration rejects — and about the details of international inspections on Iranian sites and its non-nuclear weapons programs.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., was perhaps strongest in her criticism of the administration, flatly denouncing the agreement in Geneva as a “bad deal.”

“We may have bargained away our fundamental position,” said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the committee chairman. “Iran should not be enriching and reprocessing,” he said, criticizing what he termed the administration’s “false confidence that we can effectively check Iran’s misuse of these key nuclear bomb-making technologies.”

Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful nuclear energy and medical research.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

Barack Obama, John Kerry and their aspirations | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Sharkansky

One cannot help but be impressed with the focus of the Obama administration with the Middle East, despite expectations that the region would be left to its own miserable self.

Both Kerry and Obama have spent time with the Saban Forum, trying again to convince Jewish doubters about Iran and Palestine.

Kerry has come eight times as Secretary of State.

Talks with the Palestinians ought to be described as the Kerry talks, given his role in getting them started, his tireless prodding of the principals, and his persistent claims of progress.

Each visit has involved repeated meetings with Netanyahu, Abbas, and other ranking Israelis and Palestinians.

We have not heard the term “shuttle.”.

One reason may be to down play the anticipations associated with its use by Henry Kissinger, and his successes.

A more profound reason may lie in the hopelessness of the present talks. Kissinger was dealing with established governments, whose leaders could make agreements and discipline their underlings to go along. That only marks one of the sides in these conversations. The Palestinians are troubled not only by Gaza, but their dependence on who knows how many competitive leaders of Muslim countries and enough internal squabbles in the tiny West Bank to make national leadership and discipline something to dream about, and unlikely to achieve anytime soon, if at all.

Why the American obsession with these talks at this time, when Israel and Palestine comprise such a small part of the State Department’s responsibilities, and clearly offer no key to the region?

The violence not concerned with Palestine in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt, and the Shiite-Sunni conflict focused on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States would seem to preclude any Palestinian daring to concede anything toward Israel, for fear of being abandoned by one or all of its patrons who provide political support and cash for Palestinian public services and the overseas bank accounts of well connected Palestinians

The issue of Palestine is worn out as a slogan among Muslims much busier killing one another. The Lebanese and Syrian hosts of those who have been calling themselves refugees for 65 years are more than tired of their role. Palestinian communities have been suffering at least as much as any other ethnic cluster in Syria and Lebanon. The current Egyptian regime has declared that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are its enemies, and have shut the gates to any movement out of Gaza to  Egypt.

Explanations for the American fascination with Palestine include associations with mystical attractions of the Holy Land, the power of Muslim governments in international forums, and Americans’ continued acceptance of what others seem to be ignoring while fighting one another, i.e., the centrality of the Palestinian issue as the way to produce stability in the Middle East.

This is not a field for hard science. We can identify the elements likely to stimulate American passions, without being  certain about the weight of each.

Kerry wants to talk about moving along the talks about Palestine. This time he has come with proposals, or more vague ideas said to be put together by 160 American experts. One cannot use the term “American proposal” without ratcheting up opposition to any “dictates.”

Netanyahu wants to hear only about Iran.

President Obama has estimated that there is a 50 percent chance of success coming out of the Geneva agreement to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

He may already have a speech conceding his failure, which he may deliver on a golf course a year or two into retirement. “Gee, folks, I tried my best. One can never be certain about these things. But the chances associated with diplomacy are always more desirable than the chances associated with war.”

Among the ideas about Palestine that have leaked out are an American proposal to put foreign troops in the Jordan Valley. There is a retired American general who is certain about his capacity to assure Israel’s security.

Israelis are less than enthusiastic. We know the record of foreign troops after Lebanon II, and the more distant history of the Sinai and Nasser. Various Palestinians have already rejected the idea, but Mahmoud Abbas has talked about the possibility of accepting NATO troops, while rejecting any idea of Israeli troops remaining in what he claims for Palestine.

Courtesy, and even mutual praise has been more apparent at the latest Kerry-Netanyahu meeting than the previous instance of icy disagreement and no photo-op handshake. The Prime Minister expressed his hope that negotiations would deal with the Iranian threat, and Kerry conceded the Israelis’ right to be suspicious and critical of what has been agreed to so far.

At the same time as Kerry was saying “trust us on Iran,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was visiting Gulf States with the same message.

One should not exaggerate the level of confidence in American efforts by calling it “low,” either in Jerusalem or among the Sunni Muslim rulers.

While the American chief diplomat has been in Jerusalem, the Israeli chief diplomat has been in Washington.

That by itself suggests a lack of optimism about anything coming out of these talks with the Palestinians.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been careful to preserve his new found image of moderation. He has not damned talks with the Palestinians as a waste of time, but has expressed the view that they are not likely to solve everything and produce a final agreement. He has said that it is important to keep talking. He has left the door open to progress, and something like another interim agreement. Yet his presence in the US while the supposed action is in Jerusalem and Ramallah is not encouraging.

Lieberman said that the issue of trust between Israelis and Palestinians is more important than the substance of refugees or security. His bottom line is damning by any interpretation. “Now the level of trust is at zero.”

Tzipi Livni may describe herself as hard at work and moving along with the Palestinians, but she labors under the stain of the Lebanese cease fire she negotiated, which has allowed massive shipments of munitions to Hezbollah. This time she is being kept on a leash, with an aide of Netanyahu sitting in all the discussions.

None of the ranking Palestinians or Israelis want to say an overt No to John Kerry who has worked so hard, ostensibly in their behalf. However, many of the Palestinians view Kerry as an Israeli lackey, while Israelis view him and his boss as naive on Palestine and on Iran.

All told, it is not a time to expect much. Except perhaps for yet another Kerry statement about progress. In private he may be kicking a wastebasket or yelling at an underling.

Engaging With Iran Means a More Violent Middle East – Tablet Magazine.

Last week’s assassination of Hezbollah commander Hassan Laqqis in Beirut was a taste of what may come

By Lee Smith|December 11, 2013 12:00 AM

Iran pushes for Saudi isolation in the Gulf amid military buildup in Hormuz.

DEBKAfile DEBKA Weekly December 10, 2013, 10:03 PM (IDT)

The three Iranian-occupied islands claimed by UAE

Two landmark events in the Persian Gulf this week attested to Tehran’s confidence that it has escaped the threat of a military clash with the US and Israel over its nuclear program – certainly in the Persian Gulf. By the same token, Iran is no longer threatening to block the Straits of Hormuz to Gulf oil exports in reprisal for this attack.

One of those events, as noted by debkafile’s military and Gulf sources, is the rapid détente between Tehran and the United Arab Emirates. Tuesday, Dec. 10, unnamed Gulf officials announced that Iran and the UAE were close to an agreement for the return to the Emirates of three Iranian-occupied islands in the Arabian Gulf.

The other event was the conspicuous absence of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit taking place in Kuwait this week.

The Sultan has been a live wire in the back-channel dialogue between President Barack Obama and President Hassan Rouhani, which led up to the Geneva interim accord on Iran’s nuclear program last month. His absence told GCC members that Oman had chosen to stand aside from Saudi dictates for the approval of anti-Iranian resolutions that would derail the deals struck between the US and Iranian presidents. GCC resolutions must be unanimous.
Muscat and Washington were undoubtedly in accord on this step.
In sum, two of the most influential GCC members, the UAE and Oman, have set out on an independent path toward Tehran without regard for Saudi wishes or interests.
They were talked round into isolating Saudi Arabia by Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during his two-day tour of the Gulf emirates last week.

The three islands at issue, Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb, located in the mouth of the Strait of Hormus (see attached map) were seized by Iran in 1971, during the reign of the Shah. The UAE has consistently claimed they are sovereign territory and demanded their return.

Our military sources report that the Islamic Republic of Iran never heeded that demand and instead, its Revolutionary Guards established on Abu Mussa large naval, air force and missile bases. Deployed there are 500 mostly short-range shore-to-sea missiles capable of blocking Hormuz to shipping, including oil tankers.
According to our sources, Tehran is willing to discuss sharing the disputed islands’ future with the UAE, but not to dismantle is military bases on Abu Mussa or evacuate military personnel.

The make this point clear, over Iran has just shipped 10 SU-25 Frogfoot assault planes capable of ground and sea attack to the island air base.

These warplanes are the backbone of the Revolutionary Guards Corps Aerospace Force.
A US military spokesman Sunday, Dec. 8, confirmed their arrival on Abu Musa, but declined to answer questions about a possible American response to the new Iranian military movements in the most sensitive part of the Persian Gulf.

The UAE also refrained from protest while carrying on negotiating with Tehran on the future of the islands. The Emirates are obviously determined to reach an understanding with Iran – not just on the three islands but also over the vast gas reserves under their waters.