Pollard’s ‘Handler’ Says Obama Likely to Free Him

Pollard’s ‘Handler’ Says Obama Likely to Free Him
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Former Mossad officer Rafi Eitan said Monday “there is a good probability” President Barack Obama will pardon Jonathan Pollard before the presidential elections in November and free him from prison by the end of the year.

Eitan was Pollard’s “handler” before the American Pentagon worker was arrested for passing on classified information on Israel’s behalf. The offense, which is not in the classification of “spying,” generally carries a 2-4 year sentence in prison, but a federal United States court handed down a life sentence.

President Obama, like those before him, have refused to grant Pollard clemency, despite his deteriorating health.

“There is a change in the air among senior American officials,” Cabinet Minister Yuli Edelstein said Monday.

Several unconfirmed rumors have circulated the past several months that President Obama will try to score points with Jewish voters and free Pollard, who has been incarcerated for more than 27 years.

More than 20,000 academics, artists and intellectuals recently have signed a petition calling on President Shimon Peres to refuse a scheduled “Freedom Medallion” award from President Obama later this year unless Pollard is released.

The petition said: “As citizens of the State of Israel, we congratulate you on President Obama’s decision to grant you the American Freedom Medallion, which symbolizes justice and freedom. Nevertheless, because of the very same values represented by the medallion, we cannot agree with your receiving the medallion at the same time the United States holds Yonatan Pollard in jail for more than 27 years when senior American leaders already have admitted that the life term in prison is immoral and unjust."

The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran's threat

Watch the Segment »

In a rare interview, ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan speaks out against a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities anytime soon. He says the Iranian regime is rational in its own way. Lesley Stahl reports.

Web Extras

• The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran's threat
• Could Israel successfully attack Iran?
• The assassination of Imad Mughniyah
• More »

(CBS News) Meir Dagan has been described as "hard-charging" and "stops at nothing." For more than eight years, Dagan made full use of those qualities as chief of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, where he focused on keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. When that job ended, Dagan did something unheard of for an ex-Mossad chief: he spoke out publicly, voicing opposition to Israel launching preemptive airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities anytime soon. Dagan believes the Iranian regime is a rational one and even its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has called for Israel to be annihilated - acts in a somewhat rational way when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Lesley Stahl reports.

---

The following script is from "The Spymaster Speaks" which aired on March 11, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Shachar Bar-On, producer.

When President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this past week, the subject was how, when and if to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu saying Israel can't afford to wait much longer; Mr. Obama arguing there's still time to let sanctions and diplomacy do the job. And he said some top intelligence officials in Israel side with him.

Actually, you'll hear from one of them tonight: Meir Dagan, former chief of the Mossad, Israel's equivalent of the CIA. It's unheard of for someone who held such a high-classified position to speak out publicly, but he told us he felt compelled to talk, because he is so opposed to a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran anytime soon.

Dagan headed the Mossad for nearly a decade until last year. His primary, if not his only mission was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And he says there is time to wait, perhaps as long as three years.

Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you've ever heard. That's a direct quote.

Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.

Stahl: The dispute seems to come down, though, to whether you are at the end of everything that you can try or whether you have a lot of time left to try other things, which seems to be your position.

Dagan: I never said it's a lot of time but I think that-

Stahl: Well, more time.

Dagan: More time.

For nearly a decade buying more time was his job. The Iranians say Dagan dispatched assassins, faulty equipment and computer viruses to sabotage their nuclear program. All the while, he was poring over the most secret dossiers about the Iranian regime, gaining insights and a surprising appreciation.

Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.

Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?

Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.

Stahl: Do you think they're rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?

Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.

Stahl: Other people think they're not going to really stop until they have this capability.

Dagan: They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it. And I think the Iranians, in this point in time, are going very careful in the project. They are not running in it.
Stahl: If they're that rational as you suggest and that logical, then why can't you, Israel, and the world live with a nuclear Iran?



Dagan: In the Israeli case, they have said they want to destroy Israel.



He says one sign of Iran's logical thinking is how they cunningly stall through diplomacy.



Dagan: I think that the Iranians are masters at negotiation. They invented of what I call the "bazaar culture" of how we are negotiating.



Stahl: So if there are negotiations, how concerned would you be that the Europeans, for example, would say, "Ah. We're talking. Let's weaken the sanctions"?



Dagan: I have to admit that's a concern. Yes.



Stahl: People are going to want to lessen the tension so that the oil prices will go back down.



Dagan: Do you think that Iran armed with a nuclear capability is going to create stability in the region? They have an interest, a basic interest to raise the prices of oil, cause this is the most important source of income for Iran. If Iran will be armed with a nuclear capability, their ability to create instability in the region, and by this indirectly to increase the price of oil, that'd be much worse than it is now.



Dagan says the best solution is to push the mullahs out by supporting Iranian students and minorities. According to a leaked State Department cable, he told his American counterparts as early as 2007, more should be done to foment regime change.



Dagan: It's our duty to help anyone who likes to present an open opposition against their regime in Iran.



Stahl: Has Israel done anything to encourage, help, support the youth opposition groups that have been marching against the regime?



Dagan: Let's ignore the question.



Dagan argues that a preemptive Israeli strike this year would be reckless and irresponsible. The Obama administration agrees that there's time to wait.



[Obama: Already there's too much loose talk of war.]



Dagan: I heard very carefully what President Obama said. And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.



Stahl: So let me try to sum up what I think you're now saying. And you're saying, "Why should we do it? If we wait and they get the bomb, the Americans will do it."



Dagan: The issue of Iran armed with a nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem; it's an international problem.



Stahl: So wait and let us do it.



Dagan: If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it.



In his memoir, former Vice President Dick Cheney says that in 2007 Dagan came to Washington with intel to make the case for bombing the Syrian nuclear reactor that Israel later took out in a surprise attack. Syria did not retaliate. This time, Dagan thinks it'll be different. He worries about a rain of missiles which some estimate could be as many as 50,000.

Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.



We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.



Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.

Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.



Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.



Dagan: There are dozens of sites.



Stahl: Dozens?



Dagan: Dozens.



Stahl: Not four?



Dagan: Not four.



Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?



Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.



Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."



Dagan: Yes, I agree.



It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."



Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.



Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."



Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.



Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?



Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.



Stahl: Any with your bare hands?



Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.



Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.



Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.



Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.



His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.

Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.



We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.



Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.

Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.



Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.



Dagan: There are dozens of sites.



Stahl: Dozens?



Dagan: Dozens.



Stahl: Not four?



Dagan: Not four.



Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?



Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.



Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."



Dagan: Yes, I agree.



It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."



Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.



Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."



Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.



Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?



Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.



Stahl: Any with your bare hands?



Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.



Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.



Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.



Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.



His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.

Stahl: It's a very sad picture. And that's propelled you?



Dagan: I think that should propel everyone in this country.



Stahl: When the Iranians, when Ahmadinejad talks about wiping Israel away, this is what you're thinking?



Dagan: No doubt that I have to take into consideration a scenario that a majority of Israelis are going to be killed if they're going to use a nuclear capability against Israel.



He came to Mossad with the Holocaust motto of "never again" on his mind. Soon after, Iranian cargo planes started falling from the sky, nuclear labs were catching fire, centrifuges were malfunctioning. And then, one by one, Iranian nuclear scientists started disappearing and getting killed, blown up by shadowy men on motorcycles. But no matter how hard we tried, whenever we asked about any of this, he stonewalled.



Dagan: I'm not going to discuss anything about this issue.



Stahl: Okay, but that's pretty well known.



Dagan: Nice try.



Stahl: Nice try! That must kill you not to take credit for it. I mean, even in the Arab world, do you know what they call you? They call you Superman!



Dagan: I don't have my costume.



In Superman's time, Mossad was credited with a string of daring, exquisitely executed, covert missions and assassinations from Damascus to Sudan.

But glory turned to scorn at a Dubai hotel in 2010 during an operation to kill a top arms courier for Hamas.



What the 27 Mossad agents didn't know was that the hotel was full of security cameras and while they succeeded in the assassination, the whole world got to watch their comings and goings including the two agents who conspicuously hung around the elevator in their tennis shorts. Pictures of the "secret agents" were on front pages around the world.



Stahl: This is considered kind of a disaster for the Mossad.



Dagan: I never heard that any Israeli was arrested.



Stahl: No, but the chief of police in Dubai called for your arrest. He challenged you to, quote, "be a man and take responsibility."



Dagan: What do they want? That I really would take seriously what the chief of police of Dubai is saying?



Stahl: I wonder if it is the reason that you are no longer at the Mossad. That it was seen as such a botched operation, that that basically ended your career.



Dagan: First of all, not true. I was requesting the prime minister to leave my office. After more then eight years, I believed it's enough.



Dagan says he retired, but it's widely believed in Israel that Netanyahu refused to renew his term and that's one reason Dagan has broken the Mossad code of silence to criticize the prime minister's stand on Iran.



Stahl: This is payback.

Dagan: Payback? It's not even serious that I will reply. I have really the great admiration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak. I'm not sharing their point of view. But it's not a payback. I don't see it as a personal issue.



Stahl: I've heard of talk that people want to put you on trial. They think what you're doing is treasonous.



Dagan: Let them put me on trial. I'll be very happy to go on trial. It'll be fun.



But we wondered if he had any regrets about not completing his mission at the Mossad.



Stahl: So you were dealing with the possibility of Iran getting a bomb for eight years.



Dagan: More than eight years.



Stahl: More than eight years. Did you fail?



Dagan: I could say one thing that when I ended my role in Mossad, they still didn't have a bomb.



So now the spymaster who spent his entire career in the shadows is out in the open as a public figure and a businessman.



Stahl: So you travel? You travel all the time?



Dagan: A lot, yes.



Stahl: Do you travel freely? Do you use your own passport with your name on it?



Dagan: Yes.



Stahl: Do you ever look over your shoulder?



Dagan: Never.



Stahl: You don't think there's a target on you? Do you think you're recognized?



Dagan: I'm assuming theoretically that there are a few groups of people around this world who will be happy to see me perish. But I'm not going to provide them the pleasure of doing so.

The Bin Laden Plot to Kill President Obama

Posted on March 19, 2012

Before his death, Osama bin Laden commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus.
The scheme is described in one of the documents taken from bin Laden’s compound by U.S. forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official.
The man bin Laden hoped would carry out the attacks was the Pakistani terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri. A month after bin Laden’s death, Kashmiri was killed in a U.S. drone attack.
The plot to target Obama was probably bluster, but it’s a chilling reminder that even when he was in hiding, bin Laden still dreamed of pulling off another spectacular terror attack against the U.S.
(David Ignatius - Washington Post)

Israeli officials: No final decision by Tehran to build bomb

Defense sources say they see eye-to eye with US on intelligence assessments of Iranian nuclear progress, but worry about leaving Iran ‘on the cusp’

March 18, 2012, 10:46 pm

 

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with US president Barack Obama in the White House (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/FLASH90)

Related Topics

• Iran's nuclear program
• Israeli strike on Iran
• Iran sanctions

J

ERUSALEM (AP) — Despite saber-rattling from Jerusalem, Israeli officials now agree with the US assessment that Tehran has not yet decided on the actual construction of a nuclear bomb, according to senior Israeli government and defense figures.

Even so, there is great concern in Israel about leaving Iran “on the cusp” of a bomb — explaining why Israel continues to hint at a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations before it moves enough of them underground to protect them from Israel’s bombs.

Israel’s leaders have been charging in no uncertain terms for years that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Though officials say they accept the more nuanced American view, they warn that it is just a matter of semantics, because an Iran on the verge of being able to build a bomb would still be a danger.

The United States is playing up its assessment that Iran has not made its final decision in a public campaign to persuade Israel to call off any attack plan and allow the increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran time to persuade Tehran to back down.

The concern — which is widely shared in Israel as part of a complex calculation — is of an Iranian retaliation that might spark regional conflict and send oil prices soaring, at a time when the world economy is already struggling and US presidential elections loom.

Also in the equation are concerns about the ability of the Israeli home front to withstand a sustained barrage of Iranian missiles fired in retaliation. Iranian surrogates Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip could also bombard Israel with thousands of rockets, and U.S. troops in the Gulf region could also become targets.

Several senior Israeli officials who spoke in recent days to The Associated Press said Israel has come around to the U.S. view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran. The officials, who are privy to intelligence and to the discussion about the Iranian program, said this is the prevailing view in the intelligence community, but there are also questions about whether Tehran might be hiding specific bomb making operations.

The concern, they said, is about allowing the Iranian program to reach the point where there is enough enriched weapons grade material that a bomb could quickly be assembled, within a year.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday, “Iran, whose leader foments terrorism and violence around the globe and calls for our destruction … this regime must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

Israel officials have said that with Iran moving its installations underground, Israel’s level of bunker-busting capability leaves it with a window of no more than several months to act effectively. The United States, with more powerful bombs, would have a much longer period — but leaders here are loathe to be entirely dependent on U.S. determination on the issue.

The suspicion in Israel is that the Iranians have held off on a decision in order to deny Israel — and other countries — the pretext for an attack, officials said, noting that to a certain extent the matter is semantic and therefore secondary.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is deemed too delicate to be discussed on the record, and the government has ordered silence.

Israel views Iran as a threat to its survival and, like the West, sees Tehran’s ramped-up enrichment of uranium, a key element of bomb making, as undercutting its claims that its nuclear program is purely civilian. The U.N. nuclear agency cited its concerns about Iran’s ultimate designs in reports, but notes its inspectors have found no direct evidence that Iran is moving toward an atomic weapon.

Netanyahu ratcheted up the tough talk this month, emphasizing during a White House visit and in a high-profile speech at home that Israel was prepared to act alone if necessary, even over U.S. objections.

In advance of Netanyahu’s White House visit and during a speech to a powerful pro-Israel lobby, President Barack Obama took an increasingly assertive tone about U.S. refusal to tolerate a nuclear Iran and willingness to block that militarily.

Still, he tempered this tone by saying there was “too much loose talk of war” and emphasized his preference for diplomacy and sanctions. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated shortly before Netanyahu arrived in Washington the prevailing U.S. view that Tehran has not decided to produce weapons.

Iran reported in February that it possesses up to 100 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent, which would be enough for four bombs if further processed. Uranium must be enriched to 90 percent to be military grade.

Israeli intelligence officials, like other intelligence agencies worldwide, estimate that once a decision to build a bomb is reached, it would take months to upgrade the enrichment and months more to build a crude bomb — in all, a year to 18 months.

Then, to fit a bomb to a Shahab-3 missile capable of striking Israel would take Iran two years, Israeli defense officials say.

Israeli officials who favor a strike do not want Iran even to reach the point where work on a bomb could begin.

Israeli leaders have invoked the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, when 6 million Jews were killed, in their warnings about Iran, citing its nuclear program, repeated references to Israel’s destruction, support for anti-Israel militants on the southern and northern borders and development of missiles capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads.

There is also fear of an Iranian bomb sparking a nuclear arms race across an already volatile region with an active illicit, cross-border weapons trade.

Israel itself is widely believe to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, though it has a policy of neither confirming nor denying that.

Israel has been warning of an Iranian nuclear threat since the 1990s and has been working on a possible military strike for years.

Leaders here have welcomed the increased sanctions on Iranian oil exports and banks, but they remain skeptical of an Iranian climbdown, especially because Russia and China refuse to join the effort.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

Pro-Israeli Groups Differ on Approaches Toward Iran

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK LANDLER

Published: March 18, 2012

 

WASHINGTON — Even before President Obama declared this month that “I have Israel’s back” in its escalating confrontation with Iran, pro-Israel figures like the evangelical Christian leader Gary L. Bauer and the conservative commentator William Kristol were pushing for more.

 

In a slickly produced, 30-minute video, the group that the two men lead, the Emergency Committee for Israel, mocked Mr. Obama’s “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security” and attacked his record on Iran as weak. “I’ll be brutally honest: I don’t trust the president on Israel,” Mr. Bauer, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, said in an interview. “I think his record on Israel is abysmal.”

With Israeli leaders warning of an existential threat from Iran and openly discussing the possibility of attacking its nuclear facilities, pro-Israel groups on all sides have mobilized to make their views known to the Obama administration and to Congress. But it is the most hawkish voices, like the Emergency Committee’s, that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of some critics, pushed the United States closer to taking military action against Iran and another war in the Middle East.

“It’s not about Israel,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader and a key Congressional ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. “It’s about the U.S.,” Mr. Cantor said in an interview. “It’s about our interests in the region. There have been a lot of conflicting messages coming out of the White House.”

Among those advocating a more aggressive approach toward Iran are prominent Republicans in Congress, like Mr. Cantor and Senator John McCain of Arizona; the party’s presidential candidates; groups like the Emergency Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac; the so-called “neocons” from the George W. Bush administration who were strong proponents of the war in Iraq; pro-Israel evangelical Christians like Mr. Bauer, who is also active in the group Christians United for Israel; and many Democrats.

Urging diplomacy are liberal groups like J Street, which is helped by $500,000 a year in contributions from the liberal philanthropist George Soros, and Tikkun, a Jewish journal that has begun running newspaper advertisements here and abroad that urge, “NO War on Iran and NO First Strike!” Tikkun, based in Berkeley, Calif., is hoping to link its antiwar message with the Occupy protests.

“A lot of people talk about the ‘Israel lobby’ as if it’s a monolithic thing,” said Dylan Williams, head of government affairs for J Street, which is advocating a less confrontational approach with Iran. “It’s a myth. There is a deep division between those who support military action at this point and those who support diplomacy.”

Clear fissures have developed among pro-Israel groups — not only between hawks and doves over whether to use military force against Iran, but among hard-liners themselves over just how aggressively to confront it.

Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner who is a staunch supporter of Israel, was once a major donor to Aipac. But because of Aipac’s support for American aid to the Palestinian Authority, he has broken from the group. This year, Mr. Adelson gave $10 million, along with his wife, to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, Mr. Gingrich has pushed for stronger support of Israel and attacked Mr. Obama’s policies on the Iranian issue as weak. He also described the Palestinians as an “invented people.”

The disagreements over what to do about Iran reflect the divisions among Jews themselves. In a survey of American Jews last September by the American Jewish Committee, 56 percent of those polled said they would support American military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions failed, while 38 percent opposed it. Support was down slightly from a year earlier.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leader of Tikkun and an affiliated antiwar coalition of religious groups, said backers of diplomacy want to slow what they have seen as a “drumbeat to war” in recent weeks. He and other opponents of military action say the debate over Iran echoes the political climate in 2002 before the United States-led invasion in Iraq.

Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who opposes military action against Iran, said, “The rhetoric is overblown.”

Those advocating military intervention “whip up fear and whip up doomsday scenarios,” Mr. Ellison said in an interview. “It has an effect. If nothing else, they’re making Obama talk about military options with regard to Iran.”

But Mr. Ellison is in the minority on Capitol Hill, where the debate over Israel and Iran was largely settled long ago.

Even in the oft-divided Senate, a measure last fall to impose tough economic sanctions on Iran passed 100-0 despite White House concerns. Beyond antiwar activists like Mr. Ellison and the recently defeated Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, or neo-isolationists like Representative Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidate from Texas, there is almost no constituency in either party for anything other than tougher sanctions against Iran and clear expressions of solidarity with Israel.

 

 

In the standoff with Iran, it is the hawkish groups supporting military action that wield more money, political clout and high-profile names than do the advocates of a diplomatic solution.

In all, pro-Israel political action committees and donors affiliated with them have given more than $47 million directly to federal candidates since 2000, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. They rank among the top contributors to a number of prominent Democrats and Republicans, and pro-Israel groups have hosted many lawmakers on expense-paid trips to Israel. When Aipac featured Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu at its conference this month, more than half the members of Congress were in attendance.

Richard N. Perle, an influential neoconservative voice who served as a senior Defense official in the Bush administration, said he saw a growing “sense of urgency” among Republicans over the need to consider all options — including military intervention — to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb that could be used against Israel. The “noisy public debate” has now made military operations more politically viable for Mr. Obama, he said in an interview.

The president himself has warned against “loose talk of war” in the public debate over Iranian policy, even as he has left open the possibility of military action. At the Aipac conference, Mr. Obama reassured Israeli officials and supporters that he had “Israel’s back.” He referred explicitly to military action as an option for dealing with Iran and rejected a policy of containment. The harder line that Mr. Obama articulated also happens to be good domestic politics, according to experts. The president’s statements, they said, calmed the jitters of some Jewish voters about his support for Israel and defused the effort of Republican presidential candidates to use Iran as a wedge issue against him.

Steve Rabinowitz, who served in the Clinton administration and now advises Jewish groups, said that an issue that Republicans “hoped would be a major weapon in turning Jews against the president was all but taken away from them.”

The Obama Administration's Pro-Islamist Syrian Opposition "Leadership" is Collapsing

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Obama Administration's Pro-Islamist Syrian Opposition "Leadership" is Collapsing

By Barry Rubin

Five months ago, I wrote here and here detailing how the U.S. government collaborated in creating an anti-American, Islamist-dominated leadership for the Syrian revolution. This leadership group, assembled by the Islamist Turkish regime as the Obama government’s subcontractor, failed immediately. Now it is collapsing openly.

Of the nineteen announced members of the top leadership, I explained, ten of them were Islamists, either Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist. A reliable Syrian opposition source tells me that two more members are secretly Islamist tools. This was far in excess of the proportion of those forces in the revolution. In short, the U.S. government was helping to turn Syria’s revolution over to the Islamists. If this group had succeeded, the West would be facing still another radical Islamist regime that hated the West, wanted to go to war with Israel, and would be imposing a new dictatorship on its country.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,898. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

-----------------------

But the Syrian National Council (SNC) has failed. The Islamist angle and the Obama Administration's responsibility for this fiasco is being far underplayed.

Several SNC members, including Kamal al-Labwani and Haitham Maleh, have announced their resignations. They are both elderly veteran dissidents who are not Islamists. The reason being given most often for this crack-up is that the group’s leadership is “autocratic," excluding most of the membership from any role in decision-making. Leaving aside the element of personal ambition, however, why is it autocratic? Because it is imposing the Muslim Brotherhood line rather than responding to the preferences of the activists within Syria, that’s why.

As the New York Times admits, al-Labwani, “accused Muslim Brotherhood members within the exile opposition of `monopolizing funding and military support.’” Yet there is not a word about how the Obama Administration pushed this Brotherhood-dominated leadership onto the Syrian opposition.

To read the entire article click here

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Why Israel must strike

Why Israel must strike

Op-ed: Main Shoah lesson is that active anti-Semites must be stopped when they're small

Hagai Segal

Published: 03.09.12, 15:00 / Israel Opinion

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC conference was a spectacular and inspiring display. We can even characterize it as the best speech ever delivered by our PM.



The combination of the words, images, essence and body language was deeply convincing. Not to mention the level of English, of course.

Perspective

A different view on Iran / Yair Lapid Op-ed: Yair Lapid presents surprising scenario of what Israelis can expect after Iran strike Full story

Should the principles outlined in the speech be realized one of these days, and Netanyahu will shift from words to actions and from threats to bombings, his AIPAC 2012 address may be included in the list of the 21st Century’s most important speeches.



As usual with Netanyahu, he linked the Iranian issue to the Auschwitz horror, yet this time it was necessary. Holocaust imagery is a despicable thing in domestic arguments between Jews, yet not when we face an external enemy planning a final solution for us.



If in Arafat’s case there was a slight doubt as to whether he hates Jews or only settlers, in Ahmadinejad’s case there is no doubt. Iran’s president openly aspires to collectively annihilate us. He is also vigorously preparing the required nuclear infrastructure to carry out his wishes.



Or as Netanyahu said this week: What looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck – is a duck.

Never Again

It is possible that Ahmadinejad is less capable than his spiritual fathers in the Arian Europe and may have trouble implementing his pans, yet it would be illogical to premise our future on such fragile operational assumption. If we do it after all, we shall render all our Yad Vashem rhetoric, memorial ceremonies and March of the Livings in Poland empty of all substance.

In the distant past we promised ourselves not to forget and not to forgive, yet a short while later we reconciled with Germany. We referred to it as “The Other Germany” and fooled ourselves a little. Yet we must not give up the “Never Again” pledge as well.




The main lesson of the Holocaust is that active anti-Semites must be stopped when they’re still small. We can’t wait for them to prepare a nuclear Auschwitz for us.

Why Obama go back

U.S. denies Obama promised bunker busters to Netanyahu

White House statement comes after Israeli media reports claim U.S. President agreed to give Israel the GBU-28 bombs; Netanyahu: Strike on Iran could be matter of weeks or years.

By Natasha Mozgovaya and ReutersTags: Barack ObamaBenjamin NetanyahuSyriaIranIran nuclearIran threat

 

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not discuss in their meetings this week a reported Israeli request for advanced U.S. military technology that could be used against Iran, the White House said on Thursday.

"In meetings the president had there was no such agreement proposed or reached," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Obama and Netanyahu meet in the Oval office for two hours on Monday and then had lunch together.

	Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama.
	Photo by: Reuters

Carney's comment came after an Israeli official quoted by the Maariv newspaper earlier on Thursday indicated that Israel has asked the United States for advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran's underground nuclear sites.

On Tuesday, Haaretz quoted a U.S. official as indicating that Netanyahu had asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for the GBU-28 bunker busting bombs as well as for advanced refueling aircraft.

The source added that Obama then instructed Panetta to start work on a request to work directly with Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the matter, indicating that the U.S. administration was inclined to look favorably upon the request as soon as possible.

However, Carney's comments on Thursday seemed to specifically relate to those meetings participated by Obama and Netanyahu, while failing to comment about the content of other lower-level talks.

"We have obviously high-level cooperation between the Israeli military and the U.S. military, and at other levels and with other agencies within their government and our government", Carney said, "adding: "That was not a subject of discussion in the president's meetings."

The White House official then pointed to the U.S.'s extensive cooperation "with the Israeli military. We have provided material to the Israeli military in the past, and I'm sure we will continue to do that as part of our cooperation with and partnership with the Israeli military."

Carney noted that "there is agreement between this administration, this government and the Israeli government on what Iran is doing and where it is in the process of its nuclear program. And there is great coordination between this government and the Israeli government, between our militaries and between our intelligence officials, and that will continue."

Finally, the White House spokesperson commented on apparent praise given to Obama by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the U.S. president's apparent ability to stem Israel's intention to attack Iran.

"The president's policy toward Iran is focused in a very clear-eyed way on Iranian behavior, certainly not on rhetoric of any kind", Carney said. "We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and Iran continues to violate its obligations and has not yet demonstrated the peaceful intent of its nuclear program."

Referring to the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu told Channel 10 earlier Thursday that a strike of Iran's nuclear facilities could be a matter of years, saying:" If I don't make the right call [on Iran] maybe there won't be anyone to explain to."

"Who will I explain it to? The next generations? The ones that will not come?" the PM asked.

From the Jewish Voice

At Pro-Israel Conference, Republicans and Democrats Trade Barbs Over Obama’s Record
Wednesday, 07 March 2012 18:14 Analysis by Jacob Kornbluh




in
Share


“The current administration has distanced itself from Israel and visibly warmed to the Palestinian cause,” Mitt Romney, current Republican front-runner, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. (Photo credit: Jeff Malet – www.maletphoto.com)
The race to the White House in an incumbent year, is always referred as a referendum on the sitting President’s record. But this year, as the battle for the Jewish vote is growing into a heated debate, both sides are using the same method to win the argument. While the President is urging the pro-Israel community to take a close look at his record, his Republican contenders are highlighting that same record as proof of failure on the president’s part, and indicative of an historic low point in the unique American-Israel relationship.

While the theme of this year’s policy conference was centered on America and Israel’s shared values, the differences on policies, which have a profound effect on both Israel’s security and U.S.-Israeli relations, could not have been more visible.

The line that every speaker on the podium or at the breakout sessions repeatedly reiterated, was – “Israel’s security is unshakable,” and that “Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.” But the approach that each side took as they brandished their pro-Israel credentials and were applauded by the 13,000 Jewish and pro-Israel attendees, attested to a partisan battle over the degree of American commitment to Israel and its security.

The most noticeable difference between this year and the last was President Obama’s record on Israel with regard to Iran heading into a heated election cycle. On one hand, the Republicans are seizing the opportunity to capitalize on Obama’s perceived weakness in this area, tilting the Jewish vote towards the GOP, while the Democrats are aggressively pushing back the critics and defending the president’s record. In a year where every vote could decide the election in swing states with a larger Jewish population, this places President Obama in a somewhat precarious position.

In an attempt to win over disappointed pro-Israel voters, President Obama sought to bolster his position by emphasizing his commitment to Israel. Anxiously proclaiming that his record over the past three years in office is very noticeable, “at every crucial juncture, at every fork in the road, we have been there for Israel. Every single time,” he noted.

“You don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds,” he said, noting increased U.S. spending on defense aid to Israel, improved sharing by the two nations on intelligence and military matters, and his administration’s support during diplomatic crises in the Middle East.

Not letting the President set the stage and narrative of the argument, The Republican leaders and presidential candidates clearly dismissed that notion, by suggesting that the Obama administration had abandoned Israel by allowing the Islamic regime to go on enriching uranium as one step ahead before obtaining nuclear capabilities.

“This president not only dawdled in imposing crippling sanctions. He has opposed them,” Romney said in his speech on Tuesday.

“The current administration has distanced itself from Israel and visibly warmed to the Palestinian cause,” Mitt Romney, current Republican front-runner, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“As I’ve sat and watched this play out on the world stage, I have seen a president who has been reticent,” Rick Santorum assailed the President. “He says he has Israel’s back. From everything I’ve seen from the conduct of this administration, he has turned his back on the people of Israel.”

The DNC anticipated the Republican claim by releasing an online video to members of the media and specifically Jewish press and activists that shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying, “President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented, and he has backed those words with deeds.” The video aims to quell concerns over Obama’s approach to Iran and his commitment to Israel. “The bond between the U.S. and Israel—it’s always been beyond politics. But now Washington Republicans are breaking that tradition,” the voice-over says. “Launching negative ads that the Associated Press says ‘ignore reality.’ The facts? Under President Obama U.S. funding for Israel is at an all-time high. Billions for Israel’s security.”

Another online video included clips of Obama telling AIPAC on Sunday that he, like Romney, would try to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In a DNC conference call on Tuesday morning, Senator Chuck Schumer defended President Obama’s clear and strong commitment to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, and at the same time took a shot at Mitt Romney, saying “Romney’s critics of Obama is a “deliberate distortion of the truth, dishonest and dangerous.” emphasizing that his positions are - “empty rhetoric, which are recklessly dividing Americans. That doesn’t serve the national interest of the U.S. and Israel.”

Robert Wexler, also on the conference call graded Obama’s record on Israel as an A+ - for simply “being there for Israel, at moment when it was greatly needed”.

Matt Brooks, the Executive Director of the Republican Jewish coalition, when asked to respond to the Democrats defense of the President and their dismissal of the Republican criticism, noted that “there is a degree of concern about Iran, not only among Israelis but also among the American Jewish community, as for the resolve of the President to confront the Iranian issue with an effective approach.”

“Basically, the President in his AIPAC speech was advising Israel to hold back on any military action, in order to allow some more time for diplomacy and sanctions to convince the Iranians to abandon their intentions. This has been going on for 10 year and is not working.” And it’s the sole responsibility of Prime Minister, Brooks points out, noting Netanyahu’s commitment that “Israel is unwilling to outsource their own security to anyone, even to its closest ally.”

As for the Jewish vote in the general election, Brooks is convinced that in the battleground states that contain a large amount of Jewish voters, not necessarily historical Republican voters that have voted for Obama in 2008, are now deeply committed in voting for the eventual Republican nominee. And by that, the Republican Party might be able to score electoral victories, all depending on the message and the prime focus of the pro-Israel/Jewish electorate.

Expert: Israel “Testing Ground” for Lawfare

Washington, Mar. 7- Israel is a major target for activists who abuse the Western legal system for political ends, human rights attorney Brooke Goldstein said Wednesday.

“Israeli s the number one victim of this kind of lawfare attack,” Goldstein said. Lawfare is the term increasingly used to describe the strategic manipulation of legal systems for political or military ends.
In a conference call sponsored by The Israel Project, Goldstein discussed how activists around use lawfare to delegitimize Israel and silence who speak out against radical Islam.
Goldstein is the director of The Lawfare Project, which raises awareness and facilitates a response to lawfare.
Israel is singled out in an overwhelming number of UN human rights resolutions and Israeli officials abroad have been targeted by activists for arrest in a practice known as “universal jurisdiction,” a practice Goldstein says is widely abused.
“The people who use it don’t understand the purposes of it,” Goldstein said, and urged Israel “to go on the offense, asserting its right in international courts of law.”
Current defense minister Ehud Barak and current Kadima Party Leader Tzipi Livni have both been the target of attempted prosecutions during visits to the United Kingdom by Palestinian activists using universal jurisdiction in recent years. Both
Israel’s harassment in Western judicial systems has inspired those want to spread the phenomenon of lawfare in other political arenas, Goldstein said.
“It’d be a great shame to think this doesn’t have other consequences,” Goldstein said. “Israel is merely a legal testing ground.”
The Palestinian Authority, which last fall made a unilateral bid for statehood recognition at the United Nations, has threatened to use legal bodies like the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israel for military actions in the Palestinian territories. In October, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, despite pressure from Israel and the United States, accepted Palestine as a member. Many commentators saw the admission of the PA as a gateway for the Palestinians to other world bodies, including the ICC.
Goldstein also pointed to the questionable legality behind the Goldstone Report as an example of lawfare, which singled out Israel for criticism rather than the terrorist group Hamas for the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza in late 2008 and 2009. The namesake and lead author, Justice Richard Goldstone, later said in a Washington Post Op-Ed that he regretted the final document.
Most troubling about lawfare, however, is the legal cover it provides to terrorists, Goldstein said.
“We send a green light to these types of terrorists, they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing because we’re not going against them,” she said.
More information:
Palestinians Seeking to Avoid Talks by Joining More UN Agencies

White House: U.S Won’t Attend ‘Durban III'

From Jerusalem Post...

What the IDF’s Iran wish list would look like

By YAAKOV KATZ

03/07/2012 21:12

If the IDF were to present the Pentagon with a wish list to ensure a military attack against Iran's nuclear program succeeds, this is what it might ask for.

By Baz Ratner / Reuters

New smart bombs with extended ranges and greater penetration as well as landing rights on aircraft carriers are just some of the requests that would appear on an Israeli military wish list, if one was presented to the Obama administration as a way to ensure that Israel succeeds in a potential attack against Iran.
While US President Barack Obama voiced clear opposition earlier this week to such a strike, Israel has been noncommittal. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech to AIPAC comparing Iran's nuclear facilities to Auschwitz leaves little doubt about Israel's seriousness when it comes to the military option.

Related:

• PM returns home from 'very important' trip to US
• 'Israel must be aware of danger behind Iran strike'

And while the question of whether Israel can go at it alone against Iran remains up in the air, it would likely request some specific assistance from the United States ahead of a strike in order to make one - if it is launched - more effective.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz will head to the US in late March and if he had to present a wish list to the Pentagon, it might look something like this:
Currently, one of the main pitfalls of Israel's strike plan is in its mid-air refueling capability, based on a small fleet of Boeing 707 aircraft. The last 707 arrived in Israel in early 2011 and while the official size of the fleet is classified, various reports have placed it at around nine.
Due to the distance the Air Force's F-15 and F-16 fighter jets would need to fly to attack Iran, the need for mid-air refueling is critical, particularly considering the possibility that the planes will be engaged by Iranian interceptors or air defense systems and will need to burn fuel to outmaneuver them.
If the US loaned Israel or quickly sold it a few tankers, that could increase Israel's ability to reach Iran and carry out the required number of sorties needed to do the necessary damage to its nuclear facilities.
The second gap is in Israel's arsenal of bunker buster weapons. The IAF has a relatively significant stockpile of GBU-28s that are said to be capable of penetrating either 30 meters of earth or over six meters of reinforced concrete before detonating its warhead. Israel is also believed to have developed some of its own penetrators, which it has manufactured only a small amount of in recent years due to the high costs.

Israel has, however, closely followed Boeing's development of the GBU-43 nicknamed the "Mother of all Bombs" (MOAB) as well as the more recent disclosure of the GBU-57, better known as the "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" (MOP).
While the MOAB is not specifically designated to penetrate hardened targets, it would make the destruction of targets above surface easier since it can be done in one sortie with a C-130 Hercules. The MOP though, was specially developed to eliminate underground and fortified targets in North Korea and Iran and is said to be able to penetrate around 60 meters.
In other weapons, Israel could potentially ask for additional Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits and particularly ones with an extended range called the JDAM-ER.
This kit, which is installed on bombs like regular JDAMs, comes with an additional set of wings which extends the bombs range from about 30 km to close to 100 km, meaning that aircraft would be able to attack Iranian facilities from a greater standoff position and possibly even out of range of Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems.
The third request that Israel could potentially ask of the US would be to station search and rescue teams - possibly from the IAF's 669 Unit - aboard aircraft carriers the US Navy has stationed in the Persian Gulf or alternatively in bases it maintains nearby. This would help Israel tremendously if it needed to launch a rescue mission to retrieve a downed pilot.
Due to the possibility of mechanical malfunctions in such a complicated mission, the ability to land, repair, refuel and rearm its aircraft in bases near Iran could also be something Israel would ask for.
But why would Obama agree to any of this?
This would depend on the timing of Israel's request. While the president currently appears to be opposed to military force, he did stress at AIPAC that Israel has the right to act in self defense and to do what it feels it needs to do as a sovereign state.
In addition, if Israel informed the president that it had decided to attack and that there was no alternative, it would ultimately be in the US's interest that Israel succeeds and that the damage it causes be surgical but also extensive. All of these different capabilities would increase the chances.

Dal Jerusalem Post

PM returns home from 'very important' trip to US

By HERB KEINON

03/07/2012 14:11

Netanyahu says that he returns on the eve of Purim, "when the Jews were not masters of their fate and were unable to defend themselves... we're in another era now when we're strong and sovereign."

By HERB KEINON

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returned to Israel on Tuesday afternoon from a five-day trip to the US and Canada, which he described as "very important."
Netanyahu said that he was returning on the eve of Purim, "when the Jews were not masters of their fate and were unable to defend themselves."

Related:

• PM: Israel has acted against US advice before
• Obama: Iran strike would have 'consequences'

"We're now in another era where we are strong and sovereign," he said, adding that though this threat has not disappeared, what has changed is Israel's ability to defend itself.
He also said that Israel has many friends in the world who will stand by its side in a time of need.
During his trip to the US, the prime minister addressed the AIPAC conference and met privately with US President Barack Obama, as well as other US and Canadian senior officials. The US president gave a very warm speech regarding relations with Israel at the conference. In a subsequent speech, however, he warned against an Israeli military strike on Iran, saying that there would be consequences for the United States as well as Israel if a premature strike was launched.

Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report

Da blog.jta.org

Amb. Rice: ‘Relentless, obsessive’ campaign against Israel at U.N. ‘has got to sto

By Zach Silberman · March 5, 2012

Speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, discussed the importance of stopping the campaign against Israel at the world body.
“Nobody is above fair criticism. But what Israel faces is something very different. It’s relentless, it’s obsessive, it’s ugly. It’s bad for the United Nations, it’s bad for peace and it has got to stop,” Rice said at a session for Jewish religious leaders.
Rice used her speech to highlight what she called “the principles” and “commitment” of the United States to fight for Israel’s safety and security at the United Nations.
“Not a day goes by-not one when my colleagues and I do not work hard to defend Israel’s security and legitimacy at the United Nations,” Rice said.
Rice read off a list of actions by the U.S. Mission at the United Nations, particularly its efforts to prevent the Palestinian Authority’s effort to unilaterally achieve statehood.
“We remain determined not to rest until a secure Jewish and democratic state of Israel lives side-by-side with a viable Palestinian state established through direct negotiations. Two states for two peoples living in peace and security,” Rice said.
In addition, Rice discussed the subject on everyone minds this weekend: Iran. She highlighted the efforts of the U.S. to ensure the passage of targeted sanctions against Iran and noted that the U.S. will “remain determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Obama e Netanyahu

Embassy of Israel‏@IsraelinUSA

Moments ago: President Obama and #Israel PM #Netanyahu in the Oval Office (via @IsraeliPM) http://pic.twitter.com/KSWSWsZI

fornito da Photobucket

Dal sito Al Jazeera

Netanyahu: Israel to make its own decisions

Israeli prime minister tells US president that his country reserves the right to act unilaterally against Iran.

Netanyahu said that Israel reserved the 'sovereign right' to act against Iran [EPA]

Israel "reserves the right" to act unilaterally against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told US president Barack Obama on Monday. The two leaders are meeting at the White House for talks that could subdue - or amplify - the growing calls for war with Iran. Both said little in their brief public statements delivered before a longer private meeting, where aides say Netanyahu will push the US government to take a more aggressive stance on Iran's nuclear programme. There has been widespread speculation, in the press and in public statements by Israeli officials, that Israel could attack Iran this summer. The Obama administration has not said whether it would support such a move, and in recent weeks has said it sees no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. In his statement, Obama largely echoed points he made on Sunday night in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. He said that America "reserves all options" regarding Iran's nuclear programme, but wanted more time to pursue diplomacy. "I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically," he said. "We understand the costs of military action." Netanyahu left the door open to unilateral military action, saying that Israel reserves the "sovereign right" to "defend itself, by itself." Their meeting comes against the backdrop of AIPAC's annual conference; the group's members will fan out across Capitol Hill this week to pressure legislators in the leadup to this year's elections. No 'policy of containment' In his remarks on Monday, and his speech the night before, Obama urged Israel to allow time for sanctions against Iran to work, but promised to leave "all options on the table." "Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment," he said in the AIPAC speech. "I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." Netanyahu's government, and AIPAC's leadership, wanted Obama to go further. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to lay down "red lines" - a clear statement of when the United States would attack Iran over its nuclear programme. Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver his own speech to the AIPAC conference on Monday night. AIPAC, meanwhile, is circulating flyers which describe an Iran with even the capability to build nuclear weapons as "unacceptable." Any country with a well-developed peaceful nuclear programme has a degree of "breakout capacity," the ability to quickly build a nuclear device. AIPAC's position, which is shared by many in Netanyahu's inner circle, would call for a strike on Iran once its nuclear programme reached a certain point, even if the Iranian leadership was not actively building a nuclear weapon. James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, testified before Congress in January that he believed Iran had not yet decided whether or not to build a bomb. International negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme have been stalled for more than a year, but the Iranian government abruptly announced last month that it would be willing to resume talks without any preconditions. Israeli officials want Iran to completely suspend its uranium enrichment programme before the West resumes negotiations. But the White House has apparently rejected that demand, which Iran would almost certainly refuse; Obama told AIPAC he still believed a diplomatic solution was possible. 'Dating teenagers' The Obama-Netanyahu meeting has been the subject of intense speculation in the Israeli and American press. Yediot Aharonot called it "Netanyahu's moment of truth," forcing the Israeli prime minister to decide whether to support Obama or "collide" with him. The Jerusalem Post likened the two world leaders to courting teenagers, "sending messages to each other through emissaries before their big rendezvous." Gideon Levy, a columnist for the liberal newspaper Ha'aretz, argued that Netanyahu's aggressive lobbying on Iran could eventually undercut US support for Israel. "Netanyahu's Israel has dictated the global agenda as no small state has ever done before, just as its international standing is at its nadir and its dependence on the United States at a zenith," he wrote. Obama sought to tone down some of that speculation during his AIPAC speech; Netanyahu, too, has reportedly instructed his aides to stop talking to the press about Iran. "Already there is too much loose talk of war," Obama said. "For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster." The Iranian nuclear programme has also become an election-year issue in the United States, where all of the Republican presidential candidates have been sharply critical of Obama's approach to Iran. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the front-runner in the Republican primary race, told an audience shortly after the president's speech that "if Barack Obama is re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon." Three of the Republican candidates - Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum - will address the AIPAC conference on Tuesday.

Source: Al Jazeera

Dal Washington Free Beacon

Netanyahu to Obama: Israel ‘reserves the right’ to strike

Netanyahu: 'MY SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY AS PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL IS TO ENSURE THAT ISRAEL REMAINS THE MASTER OF ITS FATE'

BY: Adam Kredo - March 5, 2012 11:56 am

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Obama that Israel would decide for itself whether to strike Iran.
“My supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate,” Netanyahu told Obama.

In a sit-down earlier today with the president in the Oval Office, Netanyahu pushed back against the administration’s repeated attempts to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran.
“Israel must reserve the right to defend itself and after all, that’s the very purpose of the Jewish state to, restore to the Jewish people control of our destiny,” said Netanyahu, who is meeting with the president in advance of his speech later today before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.
Israel reserves the right to strike Iran if need be, Netanyahu said.
Obama, in a speech to AIPAC on Sunday morning, chastised those engaged in “loose talk of war” with Iran and urged for a policy of diplomacy towards Iran, which continues to enrich uranium and is suspected of clandestinely building a nuclear weapon.
The administration has also been pressuring Israel to hold off on an attack against Iran’s nuclear sites, arguing that economic sanctions require time to take hold.
AIPAC Executive Howard Kohr flatly rejected this assumption earlier today, when he told conference delegates that the U.S. “must increase the pressures on the mullahs to the point where they fear failure to comply will lead to their downfall.”