WarSclerotic

Arabs No Longer Take Obama Administration Seriously, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, March 28, 2014

(Who, at least in matters of foreign relations, does? If the report that Israel will not release more Palestinian prisoners is correct, neither do Israel’s leaders. If so, the chances of additional Israeli concessions may well have diminished significantly. — DM)

The extension of the peace talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.

The communiqué issued by Arab heads of state at the end of their summit in Kuwait this week shows that the Arab countries do not hold the Obama Administration in high regard or even take it seriously.

The Arab leaders also proved once again that they do not care much about their own people, including the Palestinians.

The Arab leaders, at the end of their two-day meeting, announced their “total rejection of the call to consider Israel a Jewish state.”

This announcement came despite pressure from the Obama Administration on the Arab leaders to refrain from rejecting the demand.

A top Arab diplomat was quoted as saying that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry contacted Arab leaders on the eve of their 25th summit in Kuwait to “warn” them against rejecting Israel as a Jewish state.

Kerry, according to the diplomat, asked the Arab leaders completely to ignore the issue of Israel’s Jewishness and not to make any positive or negative reference to it in their final statement.

Kerry did not want the Arab heads of state to repeat the same “mistake” that the Arab League foreign ministers made on March 9, when they too issued a statement declaring their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Arab leaders, however, decided to ignore Kerry’s warning and went on to endorse Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal.

The Arab summit’s statement was published shortly before Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with Abbas in Amman in a last-minute effort to salvage the peace process with Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, pictured above on March 26, 2014. (Image source: U.S. Sate Department)

In light of the Arab summit’s announcement, all that is left for Kerry to do is to put heavy pressure on Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the April 29 deadline set by the U.S. Administration.

At the meeting in Amman, Kerry warned Abbas that failure to comply with his demand would result in U.S. sanctions against the PA, including suspending financial aid and closing the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington.

Emboldened by the Arab leaders’ backing, however, Abbas does not seem to take Kerry’s threats seriously, particularly in light of previous threats by the U.S. Administration that were never carried out.

In 2012, Abbas had also ignored U.S. threats and pressure by seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama Administration did not take any retaliatory measures against the PA or against Abbas himself.

Like most of the Arab leaders, Abbas apparently understands that the Obama Administration has been weakened to a point where it is no longer able to impose its will on any Arab leader.

The way things appear now, it is Abbas who is setting new conditions and coming up with new demands, evidently from a conviction that the Obama Administration has no choice but to succumb.

Abbas today seems to feel confident enough to set his own conditions for accepting Kerry’s demand to extend the peace talks.

Abbas has therefore now come up with a new requirement: that Israel release three senior Palestinians from Israeli prison: Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, PFLP Secretary-General Ahmed Sa’dat and Gen. Fuad Shobaki. All three are serving lengthy prison sentences for their role in terrorist activities, including the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

The Palestinians also continue to accuse the Obama Administration of exerting heavy pressure on Abbas to soften his position and accept some of Israel’s demands, including the issue of Israel’s Jewishness. Some senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah have even accused Obama and Kerry of practicing “political and financial blackmail” against Abbas.

Abbas seems assured that Obama and Kerry are so desperate to avoid a collapse of the peace talks that they will be willing to accept anything he or the Arab leaders ask for.

The Arab summit stance on the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a blow to the Obama Administration’s efforts to achieve a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

There is a feeling among many Arabs and Palestinians that the Obama Administration has no clue as to what it wants from the Arab world. They point out that the Obama Administration has failed in its policies toward several Arab countries, especially Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Abbas, in wake of growing US pressure on him, evidently sees the Arab summit as a “victory” for the Palestinians. As one of his aides explained, “The Arab summit’s announcement is a political and moral boost for the Palestinian leadership.”

Abbas might eventually agree to the American demand to extend the peace talks at least until the end of the year. But this does not mean that he is going to change his position regarding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Nor does it mean that Abbas is about to make real concessions on any of the core issues, such as the future of Jerusalem or the issue of borders.

The extension of the talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions and gestures from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.

Rajoub: Israel said it will not release prisoners, Times of Israel, March 28, 2014

Senior PA official says US mediator passed along message as talks teeter; Israel has not commented.

Fatah official Jibril Rajoub (Photo credit: Yossi Zamir/Flash 90)MALLAH (AFP)

Israel told the Palestinians it will not free the final batch of prisoners they had been expecting alongside US-brokered peace talks, a senior Palestinian official said on Friday.Under the deal that relaunched the talks last July, Israel said it would release 104 Arabs held since before the 1993 Oslo peace accords in exchange for the Palestinians not pressing their statehood claims at the United Nations.

Israel has so far freed 78 prisoners, in three batches, but cabinet members had warned they would block the final release, anticipated for the end of March, if the Palestinians refused to extend the talks beyond their April 29 deadline.

“The Israeli government has informed us through the American mediator that it will not abide by its commitment to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday 29,” Jibril Rajoub told AFP.

“Israel has refused to commit to the names that were agreed upon of prisoners held by Israel since before the 1993 Oslo agreements,” Rajoub said.

Israeli officials had no immediate comment.

But Israeli ministers have said previously that the prisoner releases were always conditional on progress in the talks, which had failed to materialize.

A Palestinian woman waits in the northern Gaza Strip for released prisoners to come through the Erez Crossing, December 31, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Hatem Moussa)

Many also balked at the inclusion of Israeli Arabs among the prisoners slated for release.

Rajoub called the Israeli move a “slap in the face of the US administration and its efforts,” and said the Palestinians would resume their international diplomatic offensive.

“Not releasing the prisoners will mark the beginning of the efforts in the international community to challenge the legality of the occupation,” he said.

The talks have been teetering on the brink of collapse, with Washington fighting an uphill battle to get the two sides to agree to a framework for continued negotiations until the end of the year.

US Secretary of State John Kerry met Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman on Wednesday in a bid to salvage the talks, with US special envoy Martin Indyk meeting the Palestinian leader in Ramallah on Thursday.

Israel, Ukraine and NATO – Artaxes’ brainbench.

By Charles Artaxes

This article is a response to an Op-ed titled “Israel must stay out of Ukraine crisis” by Elyakim Haetzni.
Before I begin I want to make clear for the reader not familiar with my writings that the name Obavez refers to the US president who reminds me more of Hugo Chavez than of an US president.
The author of the op-ed made some very good points that demonstrate that Putin is not motivated by hate or negative emotions towards Jews and Israel but that he is rather sympathetic towards Jews and Israel.
I agree with the author. For the time being Israel should stay out of the Ukraine crisis.
At the same time it seems to me that the author is somewhat naive.
It is very believable that Putin has some sentimental feelings and even sympathy for the Jews and Israel BUT he also supports Syria and Iran (both deadly enemies of Israel) very strongly and even doesn’t care if the Iranians get a nuke.
He is not driven by hate but he is a cool strategists who acts in his own selfinterest.
Iran is a figure in his game against the West. He will not let his sympathy for Jews get in the way of his ambitions. If his actions are bad for Israel then so be it. He will not hesitate one second and do what he has to do to win.
Israel for its part will do the same and act in its own self interest and do everything for its survival.
Israel actually has a very strong card: Syria.
If Israel acts decisively in Syria this may even force Putin to stop his expansionist policy in Eastern Europe.
It may even come to the point where Obavez and Putin come closer again and try to negotiate a solution.
While Obavez puts pressure on Israel to stop its action in Syria Putin stops his expansion in Eastern Europe.
As far as Eastern Ukraine is concerned, the party is not over.
The current Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border seems to indicate that Putin wants to invade Eastern Ukraine.
How?
Perhaps he will play the Yugoslavian scenario. There is already an intensive propaganda campaign in the Russian media under way.
With the Ukrainians painted as fasciscts and nazis and reports about violence against ethnic Russians and Russophiles in the eastern parts of Ukraine.
There are reports of armed Ukrainian thugs threatening Russians. Whether these reports are true has not been independendly verified.
But one thing is clear: The Russian media deliberately incites hate and fear. In such a situation where national passions are high it does not take much to ignite an explosion.
Whether by a spontanious outbreak or through a manufactured terrorist attack, once the violence starts Russia will have the perfect pretext to invade claiming that the Russian army is in the Ukraine to protect the people and to restore law and order.
As far as the West is concerned Obavez already has made clear that the US will not act militarily in the Ukraine conflict and so far the US isn’t even willing to give Ukraine support in the form of military hardware thus turning the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which gave the Ukraine security assurances from the US and UK, into a worthless piece of paper.
Since Ukraine is not a NATO member NATO is neither willing nor obligated to help the Ukraine militarily.
In my analysis if Putin wants Eastern Ukraine, it is already gone to Russia. The West will not prevent him from grabbing the parts of Ukraine that he wants.
The real test for NATO would come if Putin thinks he can play the same game in other Eastern Europan countries which are NATO members.
Estonia for example has a 25% ethnic Russian population. If that happens all bets are off. Estonia will invoke article 5 of NATO which obligates all members of NATO to give military assistence.
If, and I stress IF that happens two things will be the possible result:
War between NATO and Russia.
OR
The end of NATO.
The best thing for NATO to do is: impose the strongest possible sanctions and support Ukraine with weapons, military hardware and trainers if Putin goes ahead and grabs Eastern Ukraine and whether he invades Ukraine or not NATO needs to put the militaries in Eastern Europe on a hightened state of alert and a military buildup must also take place (with deployments from other NATO countries).
This would be a signal that this is the red line Putin will not be allowed to cross.
Which moves Putin makes next does not depend so much on his actual strength or NATO’s actual strength (which is definitely greater) but on how much he thinks the West is willing to oppose him.
Going back to Israel, I believe that sooner or later Israel will be in confrontation with Russia. Not a direct confrontation but through his allies Syria, Hisbollah and Iran.
But for the time being, I believe that Israel should stay out of the mess in Europe. The mess in the middle East is already big enough.

Off Topic: Russian Troop Movements Near Eastern Ukraine Trigger Fears of Imminent Invasion – The Washington Free Beacon.

House leaders voice ‘alarm,’ urge Obama to take action

BY: Bill Gertz
March 27, 2014 5:00 am

U.S. intelligence agencies warned Congress late Wednesday that Russian military forces are massing near Ukraine’s borders and appear ready to launch an invasion with little or no warning.

According to defense and intelligence officials, Russian military forces include more than 20,000 troops massing along Ukraine’s eastern border, with some units within 10 miles of the border.

“We’re certainly watching the buildups very, very closely,” said a senior defense official. “They are reinforcing their forces in the southern and eastern portions of Ukraine.”

According to the officials, buildup is alarming because of the numbers and the level of readiness.

“Based on both the size and the types of forces, they certainly have the capability and the readiness level to move into Ukraine should they choose to do this,” the defense official said.

Adding to the war fears are signs the Russians are positioned to carry out an invasion with little or no warning.

Another intelligence indictor was the Russian military announcement Wednesday that an undisclosed section of airspace was closed for “military exercises.”

However, the officials said concerns about the massed troops were heightened by the lack of signs that the troops, tanks and armored vehicles are not conducting in exercises.

“What we’re seeing is not a lot of exercising, but a lot of reinforcing and setting in place,” the defense official said.

One theory of possible Russian military action is that the troops and tanks in eastern Ukraine are preparing to invade and take control of three major eastern Ukrainian cities of Kharkov, Loans, and Donetsk, and then create a land bridge that would allow easy access to Russia’s recently annexed Crimea, on the Black Sea. Currently, Russia has access to Crimea only by ship.

At the Pentagon Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was asked about military action by Russia and said he spoke last week with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu. “I asked him specifically why the Russians were building up their western border, and I asked him specifically what the intentions were as to that buildup,” Hagel said. “He told me that they had no intention of crossing the border into Ukraine.”

Ukrainian military forces have been mobilizing for the past several weeks since the Russians forcibly annexed Crimea. Crimea then held a referendum to join the Russian Federation. Among the Ukrainian military action in recent days has been the digging of an anti-tank trench along borders.

A classified intelligence briefing for members of Congress Wednesday afternoon prompted the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, and seven other committee members to issue an urgent appeal to President Obama for the administration to take steps to head off a military attack.

“We write today with urgency and alarm, based on new information in the committee’s possession,” the lawmakers stated in a letter to Obama. “We are gravely concerned about the aggressive posture of Russian forces along the eastern border of Ukraine, as well as reports that Moscow may be making threatening moves towards allies in the Baltics.”

The congressmen asked the administration to share intelligence with Ukraine’s government to take steps to protect the country.

“We also believe it is imperative that the United States take precautionary steps to improve the posture and readiness of U.S. military forces in the region, and pursue additional measures to bolster the security of our eastern and central European allies and partners,” they said.

Details of the intelligence remain classified. However, a congressional aide said the letter to the president was based on intelligence indicating a military action could take place soon.

The Russian forces include large-scale troop movements under the guise of military exercises, along with the presence of significant numbers of Russian Spetsnaz special operations commandos operating in eastern Ukraine that are engaged in fomenting unrest, the congressmen stated in their letter.

Additionally, there are troop and naval movements by the Russians near the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, they said.

“There is deep apprehension that Moscow may invade eastern and southern Ukraine, pressing west to Transdniestria [near southwestern Ukraine], and also seek land grabs in the Baltics,” the letter stated.

According to the letter, the commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who is also NATO forces commander, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are alarmed by the potential for new Russian military action.

Breedlove has been in Washington this week for congressional testimony and has raised concerns with senior U.S. officials. “The [Russian] force that is at the Ukrainian border now to the east is very, very sizeable and very, very ready,” Breedlove said earlier this week in Brussels. “There is absolutely sufficient [Russian] force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Transdniestria if the decision was made to do that and that is very worrisome.”

The lawmakers urged the president to increase the alert posture of U.S. forces in Europe “without delay” including the stationing of forward-deployed U.S. quick reaction forces.

“A failure to take such deterrent actions in the face of continued Russian aggression will certainly risk the very diplomatic and peaceful outcome that we all desire,” they stated. “Inaction by the U.S. and NATO will only further embolden Russian military planners, making further escalation more–not less–likely.”

The members also called for the United States to call an emergency session of the North Atlantic Council to request that NATO allies bolster their force posture and readiness “in the event that an Article V response is required.”

Article V is the section of NATO’s charter that directs the use of military forces.

“Mr. President, we still have opportunity to deter Russia aggression, but President Putin must see our commitment to Ukraine and to our European allies and partners,” the letter said. “He must visibly see our resolve, including our military resolve, and clearly understand the costs.”

In addition to McKeon, the letter was signed by Committee Vice Chairman Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), Rep. Michael R. Turner (R., Ohio), Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), Rep. Robert J. Wittnam (R., Va.), and Rep. Joseph J. Heck (R., Nev.).

Verification in Iran: No Substitute for Prevention – INSS.

INSS Insight No. 533, March 26, 2014
Ephraim Asculai , Emily B. Landau

The claim by US negotiator Wendy Sherman that “verification” is the key element in ensuring that the Iranian nuclear program is and remains completely peaceful has resonated in a string of US statements in the same vein, aimed to reassure skeptics that the United States will be able to detect and deal in a timely manner with an Iranian breakout to nuclear weapons. However, while verification is no doubt an essential component of any comprehensive deal with Iran, it should not be regarded as the linchpin of a successful agreement. Placing so much weight on successful verification is a dangerous proposition, and raises the concern that the P5+1 may be willing to entertain a deal that does not dismantle all the key components of Iran’s program that support military ambitions. The role of verification is to ensure that Iran upholds its commitment to remain non-nuclear, but verification is no substitute for the commitment itself.
Arriving in Israel after the first round of talks with Iran on a comprehensive nuclear deal, US negotiator Wendy Sherman said, “There is only one measure of success of a comprehensive agreement with Iran, and that is if an agreement means that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon.” While this sounds all very well and good, she also noted that the key element in ensuring that the Iranian nuclear program is and remains completely peaceful is “verification.” Sherman’s remarks on verification are only the latest in a string of US statements in the same vein, aimed to reassure skeptics that the United States will be able to detect and deal in a timely manner with an Iranian breakout to nuclear weapons. The administration has been keen on insisting that it will be in total control of any ominous development in the Iranian nuclear project. From President Obama’s assertion that the US will detect Iran in time if it moves to break out, to statements by other White House and State Department officials as well as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, this theme has dominated the US approach to any agreement with Iran.
While verification is no doubt an essential component of any comprehensive deal with Iran, it should not be regarded as the linchpin of a successful agreement.

Placing so much weight on successful verification is a dangerous proposition, and raises the concern that the P5+1 may be willing to entertain a deal that does not dismantle all the key components of Tehran’s program that support Iran’s military ambitions. Indeed, why insist on dismantling if the nature of all activities can be verified? In fact, however, the true key to a successful deal with Iran is not verification; it is, rather, clear indication that Iran has opted to abandon its military nuclear ambitions. If Iran decides to do so, the problematic aspects of its program would be rendered unnecessary. Moreover, verification, while helpful, is not guaranteed to stop Iran in time. The history of intelligence in general, and of verification in particular, is replete with instances of failure. The limitations inherent in verification attempts as well as past experience in actual verification missions demand extreme caution in this regard.

The role of verification is to ensure that Iran upholds its commitment to remain non-nuclear, but verification is no substitute for the commitment itself. In order to convince Iran to back away from its military intentions, the leverage that accrues from strong international pressure is critical. In addition, it must be made fully clear that for decades Iran has been working on a military nuclear program while cheating on its NPT commitment. Iran’s current and consistent narrative is that it does not have, and never had, military nuclear ambitions. Yet Iran cannot be allowed to hold onto the claim that it has done no wrong; otherwise it can say that it is being required to back away from something that does not exist. As such, clarifying what is known as the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program must be an integral part of any comprehensive deal.

On this critical PMD issue, Sherman has not communicated a determined, unequivocal US stance. She reportedly said that “the more” Iran works with the IAEA on the PMD, “the better chance” of getting a comprehensive deal. That is not the same as saying that the PMD are an essential (sine qua non) component of any final comprehensive deal. And in another report, an unnamed US official (likely Sherman herself) diluted this less-than-resolute message even further by adding (to a statement almost identical to that attributed to Sherman above) that “we don’t want to do the job that belongs to the IAEA.” This should go without saying. Does this mean, then, that it is not certain that the P5+1 will demand that Iran provide answers to the IAEA? As the leading entity confronting Iran, the P5+1 should make it clear that while the IAEA will handle the PMD investigation, the interest of the P5+1 in getting those answers is identical to that of the IAEA. Ironically, in 2013 the P5+1 actually weakened (at least implicitly) the hand of the IAEA: according to recent reports, the Agency inexplicably scrapped a new report on Iran’s PMD – with additional information corroborating its previous conclusions regarding Iranian military activities – due to the election of Rouhani and a new round of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.

IAEA verification is based on the Agency’s own verification mechanism, conducted by its inspectors, supplemented by information provided by IAEA member states, and carried out according to agreements concluded with the inspected state. With Iran, this is still based on the outdated “Full Scope” mechanism. In the 1990s this mechanism was superseded by the more advanced Additional Protocol (AP); however, while Iran signed the AP in late 2003, it still does not adhere to its requirements. Moreover, even the AP lacks two major conditions: it does not permit the IAEA to conduct general searches for undeclared facilities, activities, and materials, nor does it cover the weaponization and delivery aspects of the development of nuclear weapons.

These shortcomings serve Iran’s interests quite well. For example, Iran did not declare concealed facilities until it was forced to admit their existence, and Iran has indeed been consistent in not acknowledging or revealing any details of its military-related nuclear project, even after evidence to this effect was disclosed by the IAEA in an open report in late 2011. Iran has admitted to falsifying facts and misleading the IAEA inspectorate because of allegations that the IAEA does not keep essential information secure.¹ There can be no doubt that this kind of behavior will continue even if a permanent agreement is signed. Vital information could be withheld by the Iranians, causing the world to be complacent when the agreement is actually breached.

IAEA verification activities are carried out only with the goodwill of the inspected state and with its consent. Moreover, consent can be withdrawn, including in cases where verification is part of a binding international treaty. The inspectors must be accepted by the inspected state, and are subject to visa requirements that can be withdrawn, or denied in the first place. There have been cases in which Iran (ab)used its privileges and accused inspectors of wrongdoings, including withdrawing their accreditation. In short, if goodwill and cooperation are lacking, verification suffers.

Acting in a timely manner on the basis of information received is another thorny issue for effective verification, especially if the information is provided by an international organization, which necessitates ascertaining the facts, their correct interpretation, and the agreement of many partners to the discussion. All of the shortcomings, loopholes, and imperfections of IAEA verification mechanisms, as well as their dependence on intelligence information, mean that putting one’s confidence in these mechanisms to provide timely warning of an Iranian nuclear breakout is highly problematic.

Exaggerated and unwarranted expectations regarding the ability of the IAEA to verify Iranian compliance with a nuclear deal could end in disaster. The only true basis for a comprehensive deal with Iran is if it owns up to its military program and agrees to dismantle – as Assad did in the chemical realm last summer. Excessive reliance on verification as the key to a successful deal is an illusion. There is no basis in reality for the expectation that verification and intelligence – which are not actions in and of themselves, but only the basis upon which international actors can then take action – will enable these actors to coordinate and respond to an Iranian breakout in time.
_______________________________________________
¹See Steven Ditto, “Iranian Suspicions About the IAEA,” PolicyWatch 2227, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, March 21, 2014, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iranian-suspicions-about-the-iaea.

Key Envoy Leaves Open Possibility of Unaccounted Syrian Chemicals – Global Security Newswire.

Workers handle a mock grenade during a March demonstration at a German facility expected to support the destruction of warfare chemicals from Syria. A U.S. diplomat on Wednesday avoided publicly stating whether the international community is aware of the full extent of Syria’s chemical arsenal. (Nigel Treblin/Getty Images)

A senior U.S. envoy declined to publicly say if the full extent of Syria’s chemical arsenal is known to other governments, ABC News reports.

Thomas Countryman, U.S. assistant secretary of State for international security and nonproliferation, on Wednesday told lawmakers that he would discuss the matter only in a classified briefing. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government last year gave international authorities what it said was a comprehensive declaration of its chemical arms as part of a plan to eliminate the entire inventory by June. But outside issue experts have surmised that small numbers may remain unaccounted for, even after the disarmament effort draws to a close.

Countryman issued the statement in response to Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who had asked “whether there are undeclared weapons we need to isolate and identify.”

The diplomat said he could “only offer to brief [Kaine] on that in a closed session.”

“It will be illuminating,” Countryman added during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria’s three-year-old civil war.

Assad’s regime agreed to give up its chemical arms late last summer, as it faced threats of an international military response to a nerve-agent strike weeks earlier in an opposition-controlled area near Damascus.

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said two March rocket strikes on a Syrian coastal city “did not stop the removal” of chemical weapons through the port, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.

The U.N. chief issued the assurance in his introduction to a new report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is overseeing the disarmament operation. The document notes that more than 49 percent of Assad’s declared chemical inventory has left Syria through the regime-controlled Latakia seaport.

Ban warned, though, that “the precarious and unstable nature of the security situation further underlines” a need to quickly transfer out the remaining warfare chemicals.

Opposition forces seized portions of the port city’s province over the last week, the Christian Science Monitor reported on Wednesday.

Iran Oil Sales May Outstrip Sanctions Cap for Fifth Month – Global Security Newswire.

A technician works as a helicopter lands at an Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf in 2004. Iran appears poised for a fifth month to sell more oil than the average it is permitted to export under an interim nuclear deal with six world powers, according to observers. (Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images)

Iran appears poised for a fifth month to sell more oil than the average it is permitted to export under a short-term nuclear deal, Reuters reports.

An industry observer said Iran has sent out oil at an overall pace of 1.3 million barrels a day this month, the news agency said on Wednesday. However, the nation agreed not to average more than 1 million barrels in sales each day for the six-month duration of the atomic accord that took effect on Jan. 20.

The limits are intended to help pressure Tehran to accept restrictions on its nuclear program, which Washington and other Western capitals consider a potential vehicle for achieving a nuclear-weapons capability.

Obama administration officials expect Iran to cut its petroleum sales in coming months to bring its average exports down to the cap it accepted in November, according to Reuters.

Still, advocates of stringent economic penalties said Iran’s burgeoning oil sales show that the interim accord has loosened financial restrictions on the country more than negotiators intended. Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but agreed to limit the atomic effort in return for sanctions curbs under the agreement with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

“Iran will have to reduce exports by over 40 percent over the next three months in order not to exceed the average of last year,” said Tim Wilson, an analyst with the pro-sanctions Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Tehran sold an average of 1.1 million barrels of oil each day in 2013.

Meanwhile, a high-level Iranian government insider said his nation intends to boost its purchases of gasoline within the next 12 months, Reuters reported in a different article. U.S. economic penalties have separately targeted Iran’s ability to obtain gas from abroad.

Israel must stay out of Ukraine crisis – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Our relationship with Russia is not perfect, but Putin combats anti-Semitism, has kept his promise not to complete delivery of anti-aircraft systems to Iran and Syria.

Elyakim Haetzni

In the cold war between the West and Russia, there is also a battle for global public opinion, an issue that has an impact – mainly from a moral perspective – on the Jewish state’s stance.

Now is the time to plead with our decision-makers to resist temptation and remain completely neutral at all costs. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living both in Russia and in Ukraine, and each community sides with its own country. Only the independent Israel is in charge of what is called “the Jewish people,” and there is no black and white here.

Putin‘s claims on the issue have yet to be countered. For example, he says that when Crimea was handed over to Ukraine, “the residents were not asked and were dragged about like a sack of potatoes. They went to sleep in one country, and woke up in another.” He has also questioned why Ukraine was allowed to secede from the Soviet Union, but Crimea was not allowed to secede from Ukraine. After all, there is no disputing the fact that that is what the majority in Crimea had wanted.

Putin has also raised difficulties on the issue of Kosovo – indisputably a sovereign Serbian territory conquered by NATO armies, which later ma de a Western-sponsored declaration of sovereignty.  “Why are the Russians banned from doing what the West is allowed to do?” Putin has asked.

Granted, there was a reason for the NATO invasion – the expulsion of thousands of Kosovo Muslims by the Serbs – but Putin is arguing that the coup in Kiev, the strings of which were largely pulled by the West, ousted a legally elected ruler in order to “get NATO to station its forces on the border.”

Putin stated that, “Crimea is part of Russia’s national ethos. It was and has remained in our hearts. Many places in it are full of Russian history, in addition to being a strategic territory. In the people’s hearts and spirit, Crimea is an inseparable part of Russia.”

We will still remind him of these words, although instead of 250 years of Russian history in Crimea, we have 3,000 years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, next to the Western Wall beside which Putin, on his second visit to Israel, warmly wished a Russian immigrant that he would get to see the construction of the Temple.

The comparison to Hitler’s annexation moves is unfounded. Crimea was conquered by Catherine the Great, and was henceforth part of Russia until 1954, when Khrushchev “handed it over” for administration by Ukraine, as part of an internal arrangement within the Soviet Union. Austria, on the other hand, was never part of Germany, and the German speakers in Sudetenland never belonged to Germany.

Nor are Putin and his regime suspected of an ideology of expansion to “conquer the world.” They are acting out of a position of weakness and in defense of a country that has already lost the Baltic states, not to mention the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland to NATO. In Georgia too, Russia only used force after Georgia fired first and invaded South Ossetia.

Today, unlike during the Cold War, Russia is not hostile towards Israel. On the contrary. Putin is vigorously combating anti-Semitism, he is not withholding any gestures of affinity and friendship toward his country’s Jews, and is popular among many of his Jewish subjects. Putin’s Passover greeting to the Jewish people included warm words that we never heard from either the tsars nor the Bolsheviks.

He was one of the first visitors to the new Jewish museum in Moscow, the biggest in the world, and donated to the museum – as a public symbol – one month’s salary. He bought an apartment in Tel Aviv for his Jewish German teacher, an old woman whom he encountered years later in Israel.

Immediately after his reelection, Putin found a reason to visit Israel again, and until now he has kept his promise to our prime ministers and has not completed the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Iran and Syria.

Of crouse, none of this is anywhere near our special relationship with the US, and our relationship with Russia is not perfect. And yet, we must not get dragged into this cold war.

Could the Peace Process Be Destroying Israel’s Legitimacy? Commentary Magazine, Tom Wilson, March 26, 2014

Once Israel establishes that it has the land by right, only then can it effectively confront Arab rejectionism, which negotiations and land withdrawals actually spur on. It would seem that if Israel cannot tolerate the status quo then it must either unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank or annex it. But it’s possible that further withdrawals might actually damage Israel’s legitimacy more than annexation would. 

In the world of hasbara–Israel advocacy–it is usually suggested that the best way to make Israel’s case is by emphasizing that Israel wants peace: pointing to Israel’s willingness to negotiate, its withdrawals from territory, its evacuation of settlements, its prisoner releases, the settlement freezes, the moves to help establish and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. It’s true that Israel has done all of these things, but how is Israel’s standing in the world doing? Have peace talks and the surrender of territory done anything to placate those who only ever respond to these moves by calling for still more Israeli concessions? The hard truth is that today, in many circles, Israel’s legitimacy is in a worse place than it’s ever been. Israel negotiates and concedes, yet the movement to boycott and demonize Israel has only grown increasingly strident.

Israel has been locked down in the latest round of negotiations for months now. To make these talks happen Israel was first compelled to consent to the release of 104 convicted Palestinian terrorists. In the past Israel has been forced to freeze Jewish communities in the West Bank and even projects in Jerusalem. In both cases these concessions were to no avail. President Obama and Secretary Kerry regularly threaten Israel that should this current round of allegedly last-chance negotiations fail, Israel will be cast asunder to meet its fate in a cold world of boycotts and diplomatic isolation. Concessions and goodwill from Israel are rarely cause for praise from Western allies, they have simply come to be expected.

The boycott threat that Obama and Kerry try to use to panic Israel into doing whatever they instruct is really a case in point. Israel doesn’t await a wave of calls for boycotts if these talks fail; it faces them now. If anything, while this past round of Israeli concessions and negotiations have dragged on, the call for the boycott of Israel has only become louder. Across Europe and on American campuses, the campaign for boycotts is becoming frenetic. Oxfam’s attack on Scarlett Johansson and SodaStream made the headlines but there have been many cases that didn’t. In Europe a Dutch pension fund and several Scandinavian banks have already divested from Israel, while on both sides of the Atlantic the student campaign for boycotts has become particularly ugly. As Jonathan Tobin wrote about yesterday, the BDS campaign has even come to propagate racist hate speech. During a boycott vote only last night at King’s College, London, Jewish students were first hectored and reduced to tears, then mocked and taunted by BDS students.

At the very least, the fact that all of this goes on while Israel is in negotiations to try and end its presence in the West Bank should convince us that this has nothing to do with the “occupation.” Omar Barghouti, one of the leading founders of BDS, has been unequivocal in saying that the creation of two states would not end calls for boycotts. Yet if it is true that none of this is about creating a Palestinian state but rather opposing a Jewish one, then where does this leave notions about land for peace? Indeed, it would seem that on this point the boycotters are consistent with the Palestinians’ own refusal to let go of the desire to end Israel, even if it prevents them from getting a state themselves.

In a hard-hitting follow-up piece for Mosaic, Yoav Sorek tells us that since the beginning of the Oslo peace process, when Israel reneged on its pledge to itself not recognize or negotiate with the terrorist PLO, the net result has not only been unprecedented waves of carnage and violence, but the onset of deep self-doubt about Israel’s own national legitimacy. By promoting the idea that the conflict is a territorial one, Israel at once legitimized the PLO and undermined its own legitimacy before itself and the world. Accepting the land-for-peace equation meant that Israel was now saying it was the problem, not Arab annihilationism toward the Jewish state, but rather its occupation of “Palestinian land.”

Israel has put itself in the dock by endorsing land-for-peace. By promoting this idea Israel accepts that its activities over the 1949 armistice lines are illegitimate if not illegal. For the international community, land for peace means that Israel withdraws from territory and gets peace in return. By that logic the absence of peace is on account of the presence of Israelis in occupied land. Israel knows that it can’t hand over territory to those who will only use it to advance warfare against its people. So Israel is forced to say one thing and do another; the debate becomes fixated on whether or not the Palestinians are really a partner for peace and the Israelis just appear dishonest. Nor does Israel get any praise for the withdrawals it makes for, as Evelyn Gordon has argued previously, by denying its claim to the land Israel earns the status of a thief partially returning what never belonged to her.

Sorek suggests that asserting to the world Israel’s legal rights in the West Bank is the only viable option left. Once Israel establishes that it has the land by right, only then can it effectively confront Arab rejectionism, which negotiations and land withdrawals actually spur on. It would seem that if Israel cannot tolerate the status quo then it must either unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank or annex it. But it’s possible that further withdrawals might actually damage Israel’s legitimacy more than annexation would.

Apology politics, inexcusable policies, Jerusalem Post, Michael Widlanski, March 26, 2014

(January of 2017? — DM)

America’s leaders need to stop seeking apologies, making apologies and looking for excuses.

US President Barack Obama. Photo: REUTERS

America’s first president to go abroad during office and make a mark on the world scene was Teddy Roosevelt – a man of good phrase and sound action.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick,” Roosevelt once said, “and you will go far.”

Roosevelt grasped the gritty power politics of the “Old World” and the soaring rhetoric of the “New World.” He understood power balances, how to balance strong ideals and strong actions. This separates Roosevelt from subsequent presidents and candidates like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Carter was the first US leader to make apology a major part of policy, regretting America’s leading role, promising to lead less and consult more.

“We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our great Nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems,” said Carter in his inaugural. His words had validity but were meant not just to bury the Vietnam era but to hint at a US pull-back from the rest of the world.

President Carter wrapped himself in idealism untroubled by reality. He promised to aid those who claimed to support democracy and human rights, even if this meant helping Iranian ayatollahs and Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

Carter naively invited Leonid Brezhnev and the Soviet Union to impose jointly an Arab-Israeli peace at a Geneva Conference. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin thought differently. They found peace in direct Egyptian-Israeli talks. Indeed, Israel and Egypt made peace despite Carter, not because of him. No thanks to Brezhnev. The Soviets did not help peace anywhere. They invaded Afghanistan, and they kept backing terrorists.

History is repeating, 1977-1979 sounds like 2009- 2014: Russian invasions, trying to engage supposed Iranian moderates and half-cocked American attempts to impose Arab-Israeli peace.

Obama, Clinton and Kerry use Carter’s playbook.

They often apologize for America, but their policies have been inexcusable. Obama’s much-touted “flexibility” and “re-start” with Russia became Russia’s invasion of Crimea. “Engaging” Iran led to increased Iranian nuclear bomb planning.

Clinton wants everyone to forget her star role in the TV tragi-comic show “Russian Re-Start,” where Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov lectures Clinton about how her staff cannot even get the word “re-start” correct in Russian.

Clinton-Obama want us to forget how they bragged terror had been vanquished on their watch. That was before the 9-11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, the details of which they have covered-up. Obama-Clinton did not apologize for criminal neglect. They apologized to Muslims for a video that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.

Obama wants us to remember how cool he was in his role on Jimmy Fallon’s late night show. Obama wants us to forget his comic appearance with Russian puppet Dimitri Medvedev, promising “flexibility” to puppet- master Vladimir Putin.

“I can be more flexible after the election,” said Obama, talking to the puppet president of Russia.

“I will tell Vladimir,” said Medvedev.

Someone should apologize to Sara Palin, the GOP vice-presidential candidate in 2008. Obama-Clinton- Kerry loved the performance of Tina Fey, from Saturday Night Live, lampooning Palin as a country bumpkin. “I can see Russia from my window,” laughed Tina Fey-as-Palin.

But whether it was from her window or from her reading of history, Palin saw Russia a lot more clearly than Obama-Clinton-Kerry or Tina Fey.

Obama should apologize to election rival Mitt Romney. Obama ridiculed Romney for warning about Russia. Romney urged the US to restore global reach, energy independence, and its navy. Obama said Romney was living in the past. Obama ignores the past, evades the present and mortgages the future. And not just in Russia.

Obama-Clinton engaged Bashar Assad of Syria, and tens of thousands of Syrians died. Millions became refugees on the borders of Turkey, Israel and Jordan. Obama threatened and caved on Syrian chemical weapons. Obama accepted a face-saving retreat worked out by the peace-loving Putin.

President Obama speaks loudly and carries a tiny stick.

In recent days, the Obama administration has demanded an apology not from Putin, not from Assad, but from Israel, because its defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, claimed America has lost its direction as a major power.

Israel’s defense minister, an ex-commando and army intelligence chief, also offended Obama and Kerry by saying the US is wasting time by trying to cultivate PLO leaders as peace partners and as the key to Middle East stability. The PLO leaders, according to Ya’alon, are not real partners, interested in peace or important as a regional factor.

This is the truth. America’s leaders need to stop seeking apologies, making apologies and looking for excuses.

The writer is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat, published by Threshold/ Simon and Schuster. He teaches at Bar-Ilan University, was strategic affairs advisor in Israel’s Public Security Ministry, and is the Schusterman Visiting Professor at University of California, Irvine, for 2013-14.