WarSclerotic

Obama, anatomy of a failure, Israel Hayom, Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi, March 7, 2014

(President Obama has held office for just over five years. He appears to have learned little about foreign policy or the dangers of relying on the “good faith” of foreign adversaries. There is no apparent reason to assume that he will learn significantly more during the next three years. President Truman became wiser during his presidency, increasingly so after the “unexpected” North Korean invasion of South Korea in June of 1950 –for which we were grossly unprepared due in large part to defense cuts “to the bone and through the bone.” We are doing it again. — DM)

However the Ukraine crisis is resolved, it will no longer be possible to rehabilitate American credibility • Given this situation, how much stock should Israel put in promises made by Washington?

The Obama administration refuses to recognize the violent, cruel, and belligerent nature of the international system | Photo credit: Reuters

On April 12, 1945, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died. Eleven days later, on April 23, his successor, Harry S. Truman, welcomed Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to the White House. To Molotov’s astonishment, Truman bitterly assailed him over the USSR’s violation of the Yalta Agreement, which was signed two months earlier by Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and their totalitarian partner in victory Joseph Stalin.

According to the agreement, the Soviet Union committed itself to holding free, democratic elections in Poland (a country which Moscow essentially controlled through its puppet government in Warsaw). Molotov, who was shocked at the ferocity of Truman’s tirade, responded by saying that he had never been spoken to in such a manner.

The president’s blistering verbal attack failed to have any effect on Moscow’s aggressive, belligerent actions in Poland and the rest of eastern Europe. Nonetheless, it did illustrate the naivete demonstrated by a number of American leaders who mistakenly believed that the Russian bear — with its hostile aggression and its determination to exploit any opportunity to widen its sphere of influence and bolster its power — would honor basic norms of behavior and fairness and abide fully by agreements.

Indeed, one major hallmark of American diplomacy during the Cold War was the excessive reliance on written agreements. Truman’s protestations regarding Moscow’s violation of Yalta was akin to a legal dispute over breach of contract. The debate even descended to semantics, with Truman insisting on a “reorganization” as it pertains to the future structure of the Polish government.

In practice, despite the legal obligations supposedly taken by the Kremlin in upholding the independence and democratic future of Poland, what played the decisive factor was a confluence of the political interests of the USSR and not some signed document. Specifically, given its history of being invaded from the west, Stalin was determined to make sure that in the space separating the superpower which he kept in his iron grip and Germany would lie a docile, satellite Polish state that would seamlessly integrate with the new empire that he built after 1945.

After it became apparent that the American leadership’s initial thinking regarding the importance placed in the written word and signed documents was so disconnected from the cruel dynamic that was beginning to take shape in East-West relations, one would have been forgiven for expecting the American superpower’s leadership to commit itself to a process of divorcing itself from fantasy and delusions.

Going back in time

Here we are, seven decades after that tumultuous meeting between Truman and Molotov, we have Barack Obama’s America going back in time, straight to those distant days in which the U.S. made a hesitant, clumsy, error-filled transition from isolationist to reluctant leader of the free world, which was facing a challenge posed to it by the Stalinist USSR.

Not only has the 44th president learned nothing from Truman’s resounding failures in attempting to dissuade Stalin through legalese and court-styled appeals, but he has managed to bring upon himself more ridicule by going overboard in the same direction. Just two weeks ago, when the “Ukrainian crisis” was teeming, the U.S. president declared during a speech he delivered in Mexico that it was wrong to attribute the disagreements with Russian President Vladimir Putin on issues like Syria and Ukraine to a revival of “inter-power rivalry” similar to the one waged during the Cold War.

Even after Obama’s efforts to minimize the disagreements with the Kremlin led directly to the Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula, the U.S. president has yet to come back to reality. Indeed, during his lengthy phone conversation with Putin, it sounded as if Obama was channeling Truman himself. In the phone call, Obama took on the role of jurist (or a professor of law at the University of Chicago, a position that is much more suited to him than his current occupation) who is calling to order someone who is guilty of breaching a contract.

A short synopsis of the conversation would lead one to the conclusion that the Russian leader was reprimanded for violating the Budapest memorandum of 1994, a document in which Moscow undertook to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. As if he were giving an introductory course in international law, Obama reiterated his well-reasoned argument that the occupation of the Crimean peninsula stands in contradiction to the memorandum and hence a violation of basic norms and principles that are supposed to guide the international community.

It’s hard to believe that such legal rhetoric had an effect on Putin since it was nothing more than a naïve application of American legal and business practices onto the rules of the game on the chaotic international stage. While these norms may be accepted codes of behavior within the United States, they are irrelevant when facing the cynical, shrewd, tough rival from Moscow (which just a few hours later would send thousands of Russian soldiers into the Crimean peninsula).

By the same token, it’s hard to believe that the nonchalant threats made by Obama and his indefatigable secretary of state, John Kerry, this past week regarding the price that Russia supposedly will pay for its aggression — including diplomatic and economic isolation that is the surcharge of Moscow’s blatant disregard for international law — hardly perturbed the Russian president.

On the contrary, particularly in regard to Kerry. Observers clearly recall Kerry’s blustery, dramatic appearances filled with theatrical pathos. The secretary took on the role of prophet of doom — a role played to perfection during the “chemical crisis” in Syria — by warning Bashar Assad of what was to come as a consequence of Damascus’ crimes. His performance was so convincing that Kerry deserves to be nominated for an Oscar. It seems that the more belligerent and threatening his statements, the less chance they will be translated into concrete action.

Indeed, while the president himself proved once again that his legal skills are above reproach in dusting off the forgotten Budapest memorandum, his secretary of state comes across as a marvelous orator whose passion-filled speeches on every available platform would make him a worthy star in Hollywood or on Broadway.

Unfortunately, this is American foreign policy, and not the theater of the absurd. In this vein, we are reminded of a famous phrase uttered by one of America’s greatest presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. Over a century ago, the president counseled that whenever dealing with rivals, it is best to speak softly but at the same time carry a big stick. The stick was to be used for deterrence and, if need be, to mete out punishment.

Judging by the present-day reality, Roosevelt’s statement has undergone a metamorphosis. Kerry, for one, continues with his fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, yet in his toolbox one would be hard-pressed to find even the smallest stick with which to provide credibility and substance to his apocalyptic threats.

In this regard, “all of Obama’s men” come across as completely disengaged from the international arena and its geo-strategic components. From a psychological aspect, it seems as if they have returned to the days of isolationism while refusing to recognize the violent, cruel, and belligerent nature of the international system.

Had they not taken the path of unilateral disengagement — or outright, hasty retreat from points of conflict and war zones — Obama and Kerry would have realized that flowery statements devoid of all meaningful content and empty promises lead to a dramatic erosion in credibility of the country that was supposed to be the guarantor of global stability and order.

The White House’s determination to completely abandon military force as a strategic option in favor of turning inward toward the continental U.S. has brought about a situation where it stands helpless where clearly defined red lines (as in the Syrian case) are crossed in such a blatant manner. Time and again, observers in Moscow and Beijing have become increasingly convinced they are seeing an eagle that has turned vegetarian and is in desperate need of rehabilitation.

The bitter irony of this situation is that if Uncle Sam does eventually awaken from his coma and decides to take determined action (with far-reaching economic measures) against Russian aggression, nobody will believe his threats (just like Hitler didn’t believe Britain would fulfill its promise to Poland in 1939 to wage war against Nazi Germany if Warsaw were to come under attack).

Indeed, just like President Jimmy Carter, who in 1977 prematurely declared an end to the Cold War and the rivalry with the Soviet Union only to be proved wrong two years later with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this week Obama was left standing helpless as he watched his foreign policy go bankrupt.

There’s no need to rehash his failure on the Syrian front. The fact that Obama refrained from taking action even when conditions were ripe for it — and after the U.S. boastfully and ostentatiously declared before the world that it would indeed take military action — was the final indicator of the collapse of the president’s doctrine.

To make matters worse, by shying away from using (minimal) military force, Obama passed the baton and abdicated the leadership role in the crisis in favor of Putin. The Russian leader ostensibly jumped on the chance and midwifed the agreement that quickly bolstered his grip and prestige in the region and throughout the world.

As for Iran, here, too, it is clear that the superpower-in-decline is eagerly rushing toward a final-status agreement on the nuclear issue, irrespective of the price and the repercussions for stability and security in the Middle East.

As if that weren’t enough, in the last three years the Obama administration has abandoned its vegetarian policy of “leading from behind” when it comes to military campaigns involving allies (behind whom the Americans hide). From this standpoint, we have witnessed the end of the “Libyan option,” which entails limited, controlled military operations that are called upon when faced with regional challenges (obviously this option would not be considered in the Crimea or Ukraine).

All of these developments transpired against the backdrop of massive, steep cuts in the Pentagon’s budget which were announced last week. Although one can interpret this as a move intended to do away with excess bureaucracy and wasteful spending in favor of building a more versatile, flexible, hi-tech army, it is in fact a drastic reduction in American might. The U.S. military may soon be trimmed down to a fighting force that would comprise an incomprehensible 400,000 soldiers. This could bring the U.S. back to 1940.

As we all remember, 1940 was a time during which the U.S. was ensconced in its isolationist phase. This was just before it began to marshal its resources and capabilities toward preparing for the coming conflict with Germany, Italy, and Japan. The shrinking of its military is thus perceived as yet another manifestation of its decline and weakened position, a harbinger of yet another era of American non-interventionism.

Yes, the U.S. doesn’t have many tools to work with in Ukraine, which is right in the Russian bear’s backyard and well within its traditional sphere of influence. Still, the option of extending a generous financial aid package to Ukraine (in the spirit of the Truman Doctrine, which called for military aid to Greece and Turkey) would do well in signaling an American commitment to Ukraine’s future, particularly if it included other Western powers.

From this standpoint, it would be unwise to underestimate the package of loan guarantees totaling $1 billion, which was announced by Kerry upon his arrival in Kiev. Given the turmoil engulfing the country, the move does represent a legitimate gambit that indicates Washington’s desire to strengthen the Ukrainian government’s position as it tries to fend off the pressure coming from Moscow.

In any event, with Russia occupying the Crimean peninsula and the West unconvincingly rattling its sabers, the only concrete moves made by Washington thus far beside the loan guarantees, are the de-facto boycott of the G8 meeting due to be held in Sochi, and the thin set of military sanctions, including the freeze of all security cooperation with Russia (similar to what took place under President George W. Bush, who suspended cooperation with Russia after its invasion of South Ossetia in 2008).

What about us?

One must not ignore the Israeli angle in this story. In the past, loan and security guarantees were a major part of American policy because they helped formulate defense and diplomatic agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world.

On more than one occasion, the most glaring example being the 1975 Sinai interim agreement, which was achieved after a year of painstaking diplomacy by then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the Americans have violated a few promises they made to the Israeli government. Nonetheless, Washington has managed to maintain its standing as an honest broker.

Today, given the fact that American credibility is in tatters in the neighborhoods of Damascus as well as in other points of friction, it would be wise to wonder whether Israel should put stock in promises made by Washington to compensate Israel for concessions that it will be asked to make.

However the Ukraine crisis is resolved, even if the regime in Kiev withstands Russian brutality it will no longer be possible to rehabilitate American credibility. The rumors of the impending death of the American era were, therefore, hardly premature.

Column one: Surviving Obama | JPost | Israel News.

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

03/06/2014 23:00

Obama’s newfound courage to begin abandoning his pretense of supporting Israel presents Israel with a new challenge.

Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg minced few words in discussing the interview that US President Barack Obama gave him on the eve of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s latest visit to Washington.

Speaking with journalist Charlie Rose, Goldberg equated Obama’s threat to stop supporting Israel in international forums to the talk of a mafia don. Obama told Goldberg that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, “our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.” He added, “And that has consequences.”

That statement, Goldberg noted, was a “veiled threat” and “almost up there with, ‘Nice little Jewish state you’ve got there. Hate to see something happen to it.’” Goldberg saw the interview as Obama’s way of showing that he is beginning to abandon the pretense of supporting Israel, now that he no longer faces reelection. In Goldberg’s words, “It’s not that the gloves are coming off. It’s more that the mask of diplomatic language is coming off a little bit.”

Goldberg added that due to the fact that Obama “doesn’t have to run again for anything,” he doesn’t need to pretend feelings for Israel that he doesn’t have, by among other things, going to the AIPAC annual policy conference.

And indeed, Obama has achieved a comfort level with implementing anti-Israel policies. His threat to step aside and let Israel-haters have their way in places like the United Nations or in certain quarters of Europe is of a piece with several steps the he is already reportedly undertaking to harm Israel in various ways.

Before he was reelected in 2012, Obama felt it necessary to align his policies on Iran to the preferences of the US public. And as a consequence, although he voiced harsh criticism of congressional sanctions bills against Iran, he grudgingly signed them into law. (He then proceeded to use the sanctions he opposed but signed as proof that he supported Israel in speeches before Jewish audiences.) Now that he no longer has to concern himself with the wishes of the American public and its representatives in Congress, Obama has dropped the mask of opposition to Iran and forged ahead with a diplomatic process that all but ensures Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.

The same is apparently the case with joint US-Israeli missile defense programs. On Wednesday, it was reported that the administration has slashed funding of those programs by two-thirds for the 2015 fiscal year. Obama touted his previous willingness to fully fund those programs – manifested in his decision not to veto congressional appropriations, despite his stated desire to slash funding – as proof of his administration’s “unprecedented” security cooperation with Israel.

Then there are the low-level bureaucratic sanctions that Obama began enacting against Israel last year. These involve State Department activities that are not subject to easy congressional oversight.

For instance, last week it was reported that last year the State Department drastically decreased the number of Israeli tourist visa applications it approved. The rise in rejection rates has prevented Israel from participating in the visa waiver program.

Foreign Ministry officials told reporters they believe this is a deliberate, premeditated policy.

And this week we learned that last year the State Department rejected hundreds of visa requests from members of Israel’s security services.

Although White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to claim that Israel’s interception of the Iranian missile ship en route to Gaza on Wednesday morning was the result of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation, the fact is that the US continues to undermine Israel’s covert operations in Iran. Earlier this week, CBS reported that the Obama administration has demanded that Israel stop its reported covert campaign to kill Iranian nuclear scientists in order to delay or block Iran’s nuclear progress.

Obama’s new willingness to threaten Israel and to take the actions he feels it is safe to take to downgrade Israel’s relations with the US will likely only grow after November’s midterm elections.

After the congressional elections, Obama will feel entirely free to attack the US’s closest ally in the Middle East.

So what can Israel do? How can Israel safeguard its interests at a time when the US president publicly trashes and threatens those interests and privately undermines them? Israel already did the most important thing in this regard when voters reelected Netanyahu to lead the government last year. During his trip to the US this week, Netanyahu made clear that he understands the challenge and is competent to handle it.

Since Netanyahu returned to the premiership in January 2009, he has implemented a policy of waiting Obama out. Over the past five years, the prime minister has only directly challenged Obama when he had no choice. And that has been the right course. Little good comes to Israel from open fights with the White House. Such fights should only be engaged when the consequences of having a fight are less bad than the consequences of not fighting.

In his speech at the AIPAC Conference on Tuesday, Netanyahu rebutted every position Obama has staked out on the Palestinians and Iran without ever mentioning Obama’s name. By doing so he energized Israel’s supporters while denying Obama the ability to claim that Netanyahu is unsupportive of his policies.

In other words, he humored the White House while staking out an independent Israeli policy for which he secured the support of Israel’s American backers.

But Netanyahu’s skill in maneuvering around Obama is not enough for Israel to safely weather his presidency. Israel needs an overall strategy for securing its interests.

Such a multi-pronged strategy begins with Iran.

Israel needs to directly attack Iran’s nuclear installations – by covert action as well as through overt military strikes, as required.

According to CBS, after Obama’s diplomatic capitulation to Iran became public, Netanyahu ordered Israel’s intelligence services to concentrate their efforts in Iran on exposing the fraudulence of Iran’s purported commitment to freezing its nuclear progress. But while this is important, exposing Iran’s duplicity is not nearly as important as incapacitating Iran’s nuclear sites.

With Obama now joining Secretary of State John Kerry in openly threatening to passively support a European trade war against Israel, it is imperative that Israel develop every economic opportunity it has to expand its markets. As Netanyahu made clear in his speech to AIPAC, Israel’s technological prowess has already made it a magnet for global investors. But these opportunities should be maximized through further economic liberalization.

In a conversation with Haaretz earlier this week, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz noted that “President Obama has been the president most hostile to the nation of Israel in modern times.”

In a conversation with this writer on Tuesday, Cruz placed the blame for Obama’s success in implementing his anti-Israel policies on the Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Henry Reid.

In his words, “The challenge we are facing is that the number one protector of Obama’s foreign policy has been Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats.”

On the sidelines of the AIPAC conference, Cruz blasted the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats. “At the same time they block the Kirk-Menendez sanctions [bill against Iran] and blame Israel for the impasse in peace negotiations, they proclaim their support for Israel,” he said.

And Cruz is certainly correct.

There can be no doubt that Israel’s strongest supporters today are in the Republican Party.

But it is important to remember that most Democrats also support Israel. They are simply unable politically to withstand the pressures that Obama has brought to bear to force them to stand with him against Israel.

In his speech to AIPAC, Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee confessed that he was forced to stand down on Iran sanctions due to partisan pressure.

In his words, “When it comes to Iran, I have stood with you and have stood against so many in my own party.”

Menendez’s admission that he couldn’t withstand the pressures that Obama and Reid brought to bear against him indicates that among some Democrats, support for Israel remains strong, but that under Obama, Israel’s Democrat supporters are weak.

While deeply problematic, this is a problem with a limited shelf-life.

If Obama views the midterm elections as the final restraint on his ability to act against the will of the American public, his fellow Democrats likely view the elections as the last time Obama will serve as the head of their party during an election cycle. In the 2016 elections, the Democrat presidential nominee will set the tone for the party, not Obama. Moreover, as the full economic impacts of Obamacare, Obama’s signature domestic policy, become known after the midterm elections, Obama will be even more severely weakened. Consequently, his ability to pressure his Democrat colleagues to toe his line will be diminished.

Finally, given Obama’s obsessive focus on demanding that Israel surrender its land to the Palestinians, it is imperative that Israel develop a strategy for waiting Obama out on this issue.

Obama told Goldberg that Israel must surrender to the Palestinians forthwith, because it has no other option. In his words, “I have not yet heard… a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution.

As I explain in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, which was released on Tuesday, Israel has a viable alternative.

It involves applying Israeli law to all of Judea and Samaria and integrating the Palestinians into Israeli society.

Israel would not be endangered demographically or democratically if it adopted this approach, and it would certainly be better off militarily.

Netanyahu has stated his support for establishing a Palestinian state. But he has made clear that he will only agree to a peace deal that protects Israel’s vital interests. While maintaining faith with that position, it would be prudent for him to discuss publicly and at length the fact while a negotiated peace is his preference, there is a fine alternative to a Palestinian terror state in Israel’s strategic and historic heartland.

If the Palestinians are uninterested in negotiating a viable agreement with Israel, then Israel will feel free to adopt an alternative course of applying its laws to Judea and Samaria.

At a minimum, such a move by Netanyahu would discredit and end Obama’s demographic threats, which are based on falsified Palestinian census data. It would place pressure on the Palestinians to show their hand – either embracing peace in a genuine manner, or demonstrating the basic falsity of their protestations of peaceful intentions. Either way, Israel would be better off.

Obama’s newfound courage to begin abandoning his pretense of supporting Israel presents Israel with a new challenge. But it is far from insurmountable. With the proper mix of policies, Israel can absorb Obama’s blows and even to blunt them, as Obama becomes an independent, unrestrained, and weak lame duck president.

Israel Hayom | Rocking the boat?.

Ruthie Blum

Off Topic: Confronting Putin’s Invasion – The Weekly Standard.

It can—and must—be done.

Mar 17, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 26 • By ERIC EDELMAN

On the last day of February and first day of March, Russia’s mendacious foreign and defense ministers told their credulous U.S. counterparts that Russia had every intention of respecting Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Of course, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is virtually the poster child for Henry Wotton’s famous definition of a diplomat as someone sent abroad to lie for his country. Russian assurances to their U.S. counterparts during the war in Georgia in 2008 were equally deceitful. Lavrov’s duplicity during the Georgia war negotiations that year was so outrageous that French president Nicolas Sarkozy, according to witnesses, at one point grabbed him by the lapels and called him a liar to his face. 

The crisis in Georgia was a serious matter but unfortunately came in the midst of an American presidential election and at the tail end of an administration that was both physically and psychologically exhausted after seven years of war. The serious but unsuccessful effort to impose costs on Russia was complicated by the fact that Georgia’s impetuous president, Misha Saakashvili, had ignored U.S. cautions, risen to the bait, and carelessly stepped into the trap set for him by Vladimir Putin. When Bush administration witnesses testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2008 (full disclosure: the author was one of the witnesses), some Democrats on the committee, notably including then New York senator Hillary Clinton, hinted darkly at a Bush administration conspiracy that had somehow orchestrated the war (implicitly to assist John McCain’s presidential election campaign), although her own experience appears to have soured her a bit on Putin.

The Iranian missile ship’s capture was Israel’s second swipe at al Qods chief Gen. Soleimani.

DEBKAfile Special Report March 7, 2014, 11:10 AM (IST)

Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Al Qods Brigades commander

The Israeli naval commandos’ seizure of the Iranian missile ship KLOS C Wednesday, March 6, was the second time in ten days that the IDF had poked a finger in the eye of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the al Qods Brigades, the intelligence-cum-terrorist arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The first instance was the Israeli air strike on Feb. 24 against Hizballah’s arms convoys and missiles on the Lebanese-Syrian border.

In reference to the ship carrying dozens of Syrian-made 302mm rockets from Iran to the Gaza Strip, Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi said Thursday, March 6, “We know who was behind this operation and who ran it from start to finish, the Revolutionary Guards and al Qods.”

Al Qods supreme commander is Gen. Soleimani. His agents and operatives are planted deeply across the Syrian war front and in Hizballah’s organization in Lebanon.

debkafile reports: Israel does not buy the distinction drawn by Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini  for international consumption between the two arms of the Islamic regime: President Hassan Rouhani’s government for the respectable handling of diplomacy and foreign relations, and the IRGC, which is purportedly barred from nuclear negotiations and confined to running the regime’s military, subversive and terrorist operations in areas of conflict, such as Syria, Lebanon and Israel.

The IDF regards the two arms as artificial and representing the same regime which denies Israel the right to exist.

This week, Israel saw its chance to show that regime up as two-faced and expose its clandestine arm by a spectacle that played well in the United States and on the world stage.

The capture of the missile ship on the Red Sea shortly before it entered Port Sudan served that purpose.

It was also a chance to show Tehran that for Israeli intelligence, the clandestine agencies Iran had crafted over many years, were an open book and no match for its capabilities.

Gen. Soleimani has long been an object of study by Israel’s army chiefs and security agencies. In their estimation he will have his hands full in the short term with finding and plugging the hole in his organization which enabled hostile penetration. He is already taxed with the urgent task of putting a stop to the spate of suicide bombings plaguing the Syrian government and targeting Hizballah and Iranian institutions in Lebanon.

Therefore, in the short term,  Israeli intelligence experts believe the al Qods chief will not have time for revenge on Israel.

debkafile’s security sources beg to differ. Gen. Soleimani is reputedly a brilliant and cautious planner of undercover operations. He was quick to set up low-key yet ominous reprisals within days of Israel’s air strike over the Lebanese-Syrian border. They came as rocket fire and an attempt to rig a bomb on the Israeli border fence – both actions mounted from Syria although Hizballah was held responsible.

The Iranian general may therefore be expected to come up with some form of payback for the ship’s seizure.

Our sources discount the overblown claims that this unquestioned IDF success in capturing dozens of Syrian-made 302mm rockets carried by the ship saved four million Israelis from attack.

For two years, the IDF refrained from cutting short the incessant stream of mobile Grad rockets and other weapons systems flooding into the Gaza Strip from Libya via Egypt. Those weapons had already imparted to Hamas, Jihad Islami and the al Qaeda affiliates in Sinai the ability to strike Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Rishon Lezion, an ability exhibited during Israel’s 2012 Gaza operation.

Two puzzling questions are raised by the Iranian missile ship episode suggesting that there was more to it than meets the eye.

The capture of a small merchant with a crew of 17 unarmed seamen scarcely warranted a naval commando force of the size employed, especially as it sailed without an Iranian naval escort; nor was there any sign of Iranian naval units based in Port Sudan coming to its rescue.

It is also strange that, in their comments on the operation, neither Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon nor any Israeli general offered a word of thanks to Washington for its cooperation, after the White House spokesman Jay Carney described how the US military and intelligence had worked with Israel to track the missile ship and were even under orders to arrange its interception, should the Israeli Navy for some reason opt out.

Is this a sign that US cooperation was inconsequential – or even conjured up post factum?

US bill ‘dramatically strengthens’ Israel alliance | JPost | Israel News.

03/07/2014 11:31

Bill to expand delivery of forward-deployed US weapons to Israel and help commit Congress to further funding of the Iron Dome.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that declares Israel a “major strategic partner” of the United States, reinforcing the broad relationship between the two nations and laying the groundwork for more expansive strategic cooperation.

The bill would expand the delivery of forward-deployed US weapons to Israel, as well as other military technologies, and would commit Congress to further funding of the Iron Dome short-range missile defense system.

Controversially, the bill would also invite Israel into a visa waiver agreement with the US, which has been opposed by members of the intelligence community and the Democratic caucus for multiple years.

The bill passed 410-1 in the House. The Senate has taken up a similar measure, which is still in the committee process.

Just a day after its annual policy conference in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee declared the bill’s passage a victory, and characterized the measure as “dramatically strengthening the US-Israel relationship.”

“This designation lays the foundation for expanded US-Israel cooperation in a wide variety of spheres, including defense, intelligence, homeland security, energy, agriculture and trade,” AIPAC said in a statement, applauding the bill as “critical” and calling on the Senate to act with similar haste.

The second half of the bill, which focuses on US-Israel energy relationships, was authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and aims to strengthen collaboration between the two countries on energy projects.

The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill first passed through the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on December 11, and a Senate companion bill passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on December 20. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was responsible for the Senate companion bill, alongside Se.s Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

This portion of the bill officially determines that “United States-Israel energy cooperation, and the development of natural resources by Israel, are strategic interests of the United States,” recognizing Israel specifically as a partner in water technology, safety and security arenas. Encouraging the US National Science Foundation to collaborate with the Israel Science Foundation, the text also encourages more robust academic cooperation in a variety of energy-related fields.

Advocating “open dialogue and continued mechanisms for regular engagement,” the bill calls for continued energy partnerships among government and academic institutions as well as the private sector from both sides. Some particular topics of interest include identifying priorities for developing Israeli natural resources, discussing best practices to secure cyber energy infrastructure, leveraging natural gas to positively impact regional stability and improving energy efficiency, the bill says.

The bill also acknowledges the important role of the US-Israel Binational research and Development Foundation (BIRD) and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and commits continued multiyear funding “to ensure the continuity of the programs of the foundations.”

“I am pleased this important measure was included in the legislative package and encouraged to see it received such overwhelming support,” Upton said, following the bill’s passage. “With a simple amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, this legislation will help bolster the partnership between Israel and the US on energy production and help enhance energy security.”

With American assistance, Israel will be able to continue making advancements in developing its natural resources, Upton stressed. He also committed to working on future “commonsense energy solutions” with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as occurred while drafting this legislation.

“Today the House passed an important bill that will expand the partnership between the U.S. and Israel,” Waxman agreed. “Israel is a close ally, and it is in our national interest to help the Israelis development their natural resources in a responsible way that protects the environment.”

Netanyahu: Iran’s lies will be exposed when interdicted ship comes to Eilat | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

03/06/2014 22:13

The Jews paid heavy price when the world powers did not take Hitler’s words seriously, PM says in Los Angeles.

The world will see the Iranian leaders for the liars that they are when the captured ship Iran sent to the Gaza Strip with Syrian missiles arrives in Eilat in the coming days, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Thursday.

The prime minister’s comments came in response to remarks Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif posted earlier in the day on his Twitter account.

“An Iranian ship carrying arms for Gaza. Captured just in time for annual AIPAC anti Iran campaign. Amazing Coincidence! Or same failed lies,” Zarif wrote.

“The government in Iran says that everything is lies,” Netanyahu said after visiting the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. “In another few days, the ship will arrive in Eilat, and we will see who is the liar. We will reveal before the whole world the true face of Iran.”

Israel will expose the Iranians, struggle with them and defeat them, the prime minister said.

The IDF’s Wednesday interception of the missile-laden vessel came a day after Netanyahu’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, in which he strongly condemned Tehran for standing on the “other side” of the world’s moral divide – the side “steeped in blood and savagery.”

“Did you ever hear about Iran sending a humanitarian delegation overseas? No?” Netanyahu said during his speech. “You know why? You know why you haven’t heard anything about that? Because the only thing that Iran sends abroad are rockets, terrorists and missiles to murder, maim and menace the innocent.”

Netanyahu, wrapping up his five-day visit to the US at the Museum of Tolerance, said that while there, he had seen the letter Hitler wrote calling for the destruction of the Jews.

“Iran today is calling for the destruction of Israel,” he said. “Then there were also those who did not want to believe. We take them seriously. When someone says they want to destroy the Jews, take them seriously, prepare, and warn the world,” he said.

Israel, he continued, will not let Iran arm itself with the capabilities to “destroy us.”

The Jews paid a heavy price in the last century when the world powers did not take Hitler’s words seriously, Netanyahu said. “The difference today is that we have the strength and the ability to defend ourselves.”

No Separating Iran’s Nukes From Terrorism, Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin, March 6, 2014

(But isn’t it unfair not to negotiate with a terror regime about nukes? Even though the P5+1 deal isn’t about nukes, maybe Iran might learn something. Will supporters of the P5+1 deal learn something? “If not now, when?” — DM)

Rather than dismissing the Iranian arms shipment as irrelevant to the nuclear question, the president must shake off his ideological blinders and try to understand that the seizure of the ship is a clear warning of what lies ahead if he continues to blindly pursue engagement with Iran.

. . . .

[K]eeping the nuclear issue separate from that of the country’s sponsorship of international terror will only confirm the Islamist regime’s belief that it is succeeding in fooling the West.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the idea that there ought to be any connection between the interception of an Iranian arms shipment headed for Gaza and the United States pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. Carney noted that U.S. and Israel had shared intelligence about the sailing of the Kos-C, which was filled with sophisticated and powerful M-302 missiles that had been shipped from Syria and also acknowledged that this provides more proof of Iran’s “bad behavior” as a state sponsor of international terrorism. But he insisted that American efforts to negotiate an agreement with Iran on its nuclear weapons program were a separate issue.

The administration position is that a tough stance on international terror is compatible with a more forthcoming diplomatic effort aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambition. While this sounds like an effort to defend a stance in which one hand of U.S. security policy doesn’t know — or care — what the other is doing, it’s conceit is more sophisticated than that. The subtext of the push for engagement with Iran is that nuclear diplomacy is a wedge by which the U.S. can ease the Islamist regime back into the international mainstream and make it easier for it to start acting like a responsible nation.

That sounds logical but it is exactly the sort of reasoning that Iran is counting on as it pursues its own two-track policy toward the West. The fallacy here is the assumption that Iran’s participation in international terror can somehow be separated from the nuclear threat. In fact, these are two elements of a common strategy aimed at destabilizing the Middle East and increasing Iranian influence. Treating one as if it had nothing to do with the other enables the president to rationalize a diplomatic strategy in which he deeply believes. But diplomacy that is based on willful ignorance of the other side’s goals is one that is doomed to failure. Rather than dismissing the Iranian arms shipment as irrelevant to the nuclear question, the president must shake off his ideological blinders and try to understand that the seizure of the ship is a clear warning of what lies ahead if he continues to blindly pursue engagement with Iran.

Iran’s purpose in shipping missiles to Gaza is no secret. By reviving its alliance with the Hamas terrorists who rule the strip, Tehran is not only hoping to acquire the ability to veto any chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It must be seen in the context of a regional struggle for hegemony in which Iran can add Gaza to Syria and Lebanon as strategic outposts from which it can exert influence as well as inflict pain on Israel and the West. Even an Obama administration that is disinclined to think the worst of Iran or to engage in disputes with its leaders can grasp the danger that comes from Tehran moving its chess pieces around the international board in this manner. The regime’s Revolutionary Guard’s transfer of Syrian missiles to Gaza is not only a sign that it may believe the war it has waged along with Hezbollah (with Russian aid) to keep Iranian ally Bashar Assad is largely won but that it also wishes to open up a new front against the West in Gaza.

But to pretend that this threat can somehow be separated from the nuclear issue is testimony to the administration’s myopia about Iran than anything else. The point of Iran’s nuclear program is not just to create a weapon that would enhance the prestige of the Islamist government and secure its long-term survival despite the unhappiness of the Iranian people. It is also a means to extend and reinforce its effort to dominate the region via auxiliaries and allies. An Iran nuke does constitute an existential threat to Israel that has been repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the theocrats of Tehran. But even if that genocidal intent is never acted upon, a bomb gives the ayatollahs a way of creating a nuclear umbrella over Syria, Lebanon and perhaps Gaza and the West Bank (if Hamas ever succeeds in toppling the Palestinian Authority). That changes the balance of power in such a way as to threaten moderate Arab states as well as Israel. The missiles Iran sends to its terrorist allies may be not as frightening as its uranium enrichment program or heavy water plant but these are differences in scale not in purpose.

That’s why the arms shipment must be understood as more than a sideshow to the main event of nuclear diplomacy. The basis of hope for nuclear diplomacy is that Iran’s government is moderating and wishes to rejoin the family of nations. But what is really going on is a two-track policy in which Iran engages in off-and-on diplomatic activity designed to deceive Western leaders and undermine sanctions on the regime while at the same time actively building a weapon and seeking to dominate the region via terrorism and strategic alliances.

The seizure of the weapons ship ought to serve as a wake-up call to the West that nothing has changed in Iran. More to the point, even if they insist on pursuing the P5+1 diplomatic process, it must be done without any illusions about Iranian moderation or a desire for détente with the West. Iran’s deadly deception has been exposed. If the administration’s willful blindness about this prevails over common sense, it won’t make it any more likely that Iran will surrender its nuclear option. To the contrary, keeping the nuclear issue separate from that of the country’s sponsorship of international terror will only confirm the Islamist regime’s belief that it is succeeding in fooling the West.

Israel Seizes Iranian Rockets—and Pounces on Tehran for ‘Supplying Terrorists’ – The Daily Beast.

The Israeli military seized a boatload of advanced Iranian weapons—and then launched a sophisticated PR campaign to tell the world why they shouldn’t trust Tehran.

On Wednesday morning, the Israeli Navy announced that it had stopped an Iranian cargo vessel with advanced weapons destined for fighters in Gaza. By Wednesday afternoon, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz was telling members of the U.S. Congress that the interception of the sophisticated rockets revealed the “real nature of Iran”—never mind the recent thaw in relations between Washington and Tehran.

The timing of the Steinitz’s briefing to the House Foreign Affairs Committee was fortuitous. Israeli commandos in the Red Sea had only hours before boarded the Klos C, a Panamanian flagged cargo vessel carrying stocks of M-302 surface-to-surface missiles that the Israel Defense Forces said was destined for Gaza.

Israel conducts intelligence and special operations actions frequently, but it does not always publicize these activities. Wednesday’s military action, however, was accompanied by what appeared to be a coordinated public relations campaign as well. The IDF’s official blog for example posted maps and an entry detailing the entire operation.

Steinitz told The Daily Beast that the interdiction “unmasks” Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s and Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s true nature.

“You see on the one hand there is this charm offensive,” he said, “Rouhani and Zarif are coming with messages of peace and security for all nations and all countries. Iran is a peace seeking government and so on and so forth. This charm offensive did have a serious impact in the west. And now you discover underneath the mask of this charm offensive, that Iran is still the same Iran.”

Since November, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly criticized an interim agreement between Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Germany, the United Kingdom and France as a “deal of the century” for Iran in part because Iran would be allowed to keep some enrichment capabilities after the negotiations have concluded.

The rocket shipment seized on Wednesday, according to an IDF spokesman who briefed reporters, began in Damascus. From the Syrian capital, it was shipped to Tehran and then transported by land to the port of Bandar Abbas. It was then shipped by sea to the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr from where it began the journey around the Arabian peninsula to the Red Sea. It’s final port of call was the Red Sea city of Eilat.

U.S. officials immediately confirmed the interdiction. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman said U.S. intelligence agencies assisted the Israelis in the operation. Another Israeli official, however, said the intelligence that led to the interdiction on Wednesday was generated almost entirely by the Mossad and the IDF.

The very public interdiction of the Klos C could put pressure on the delicate negotiations with Iran at the moment. “This will be one more piece of evidence that will legitimately be played by the Israelis and the Congress to suggest that while the Iranians negotiate and portray themselves as peace seekers, they are at the same time continuing to provide weapons for anything by peaceful purposes,” said Aaron David Miller, who was a top State Department peace process negotiator for the George H. W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Miller, who is now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has some experience in these matters. In 2002, Miller said, he was meeting with then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, when he first learned of Israel’s interdiction of the Karine A, an Iranian vessel that contained stores of advanced weapons headed to Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority.

At the time, the Palestinians were engaged in what is known as the second Intifadah and the State Department was trying its best to negotiate a ceasefire with Arafat and Sharon. That arms shipment sealed Arafat’s fate with the Bush administration, according to Miller. He said “it represented the end of the road for the Bush administration to acquiescing in a process where Arafat would be included. This was January, by March after the Park Hotel attack, IDF troops were back into the West Bank.”

But this time around, things are different. While Carney on Tuesday said, “We will continue to stand up to Iran’s support for destabilizing activities in the region in coordination with our partners and allies,” it’s unlikely that the arms shipment from Damascus through Tehran to Gaza will stop the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

“You’ve got a kind of a dormant crisis right now,” Miller said. “Then you had a hot crisis, which was literally on the cusp of exploding. You have a long fuse on the interim agreement with Iran.”

Steinitz, for his part, sees it differently. “I think this exposes that Iran is still the same old Iran that supplies terrorist groups, it is the same Iran that is still deeply involved with troops on the ground in the civil war in Syria and the same old Iran that still aspires to create nuclear weapons,” he said.

Off Topic: “I’m proud to be an American”. Russia Today Anchor Quits on Air. – YouTube.

(WOW. This lady has more balls than all these spineless and gutless sycophants, liars, mouthpieces and propagandists in the main stream media. You give me hope, lady. – Artaxes)