…Obama’s first presidential visit to Israel comes at the onset of spring – the “red line” previously set by Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s nuclear sites…
“We think that it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” Obama said.
Asked if he would order an attack on Iran should diplomacy fail, Obama said: “When I say that all options are on the table, all options are on the table. The United States obviously has significant capabilities but our goal here is to make sure that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon that could threaten Israel or could trigger an arms race in the region.”
…Netanyahu, victorious in a January election, only clinched a coalition deal on Thursday, and Obama said any breakthrough in peace negotiations with the Palestinians would be unlikely until the Israeli government stabilised.
“My goal on this trip is to listen,” he said.
Obama stopped short of calling for a freeze in settlement building in the occupied West Bank, but suggested a change in Israel’s policy would empower moderate Palestinian leaders.
He said “it’s a matter of both parties coming together and recognising that their futures in some ways are going to inextricably linked and that Israel will be safer, more secure, more prosperous if the issue can be resolved”.
“Obviously Israel can’t resolve it by itself, but it can’t stop trying.”
In a direct appeal to the Israeli people, Obama said he regretted that he would not have an opportunity to walk the streets and hear what average folks have to say…
President’s three-day Middle East trip heavy on sight-seeing but will not involve any new drive for peace, White House confirms
Barack Obama will present no new Middle East peace initiative when he makes his first visit as president to Israel next week, the White House confirmed on Thursday.
Obama is due to arrive in Israel on Wednesday at the start of a three-day trip that will also take in the West Bank and Jordan, a tour critics have said is largely devoid of substance…
The news about the security breach of the military contractor Britam Defense was not reported by any Western media outlet. Instead it was shared through blogs, communities of hackers and social platforms…
…One particular email was of special interest. In it Dave Goulding reminded his fellow co-founder Phil Dougherty about an offer made by Washington via a group of Qataris: to transport what seemed to be a Soviet era chemical weapon into Syria, using sub contracted Russian speaking Ukrainian mercenaries.
Phil
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
David
The fans of conspiracies and hackers started discussing whether the documents were genuine or fake.
Eventually, the community of hackers came to conclusion that the whole case was either genuine or VERY elaborate hoax with thorough attention to little details…
Why the leak, with a single email? Why now? Why only one email? It’s clear. A single email is very easy to dismiss as fake. In fact, during the Stratfor hack, anonymouSabu’s henchmen planted an email by CEO George Friedman claiming he had resigned, when in fact he had done no such thing. When you control a server you are able to fabricate any kind of email you want to “leak”. Only a long conversation with realistic time stamps follow ups and reference emails to check for the writer’s style, can possibly be used to confirm the authenticity of an email.
And BritAm has been silent!
Which means that this leak can be quickly dismissed as nothing more than a fabrication. The hack will of course be acknowledged as in the case of Stratfor. Who will you believe, BritAm or the hacker?
That’s the problem. Soon, by undermining the validity of the leak in the minds of the media consumers, it will by extension, undermine the validity of the SEA leaks even though the latter is comprehensive and includes signed, scanned documents and a huge amount of cross references. That won’t matter, a single “fake” can spoil all the real leaks.
But not this time! By anticipating this strategy and demanding a complete archive from “JAsIrX” before discussing the leak any further, we can burn this possible Trojan horse before it enters our gates…
Reddit had labeled it Bullshit and removed it…! b at MOA had quipped: “I looked at the Britam case and while the general hack may have been genuine that email smells of fake.”
The U.N. atomic watchdog made clear on Tuesday it had seen no sign of any explosion at one of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear plants, backing up Tehran’s denial that such an incident hadn’t taken place last week.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an unusual move, made a brief statement following media reports at the weekend of significant damage at the underground Fordo uranium enrichment site.
IAEA inspectors regularly visit Iranian nuclear sites, including the one at Fordo, and the U.N. agency suggested in its comment that they had been at the site -after- the reports were published in some Israeli and Western media.
“We understand that Iran has denied that there has been an incident at Fordo. This is consistent with our observations,” IAEA spomkeswoman Gill Tudor said in an emailed comment in response to a question…
Funny how quickly, the IAEA, was able to inspect the Fordo Nuclear plant, eh…?
“We have no information to confirm the allegations in that report, and we do not believe the report is credible,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
The reports cited the conservative American news website WND, which reported that an explosion at the Fordo facility on January 21 had caused major damage and trapped workers.”
…If recent media reports have left an impression that Syrian President Bashar Assad might already have used chemical weapons against his own people, think again, says arms expert Jeffrey Lewis.
The scholar on weapons of mass destruction is assailing the credibility of Syrian opposition allegations that the chemical “Agent 15” was dispensed in the restive northern city of Homs on Dec. 23.
“No one has bothered to mention that Agent 15 doesn’t exist,” Lewis said in a Foreign Policy blog post last Friday.
Beyond a passing reference to the substance in a document discovered in pre-war Iraq, neither Baghdad nor Damascus appears to have ever produced or weaponized this type of chemical agent, he said. Yet the name “Agent 15” has developed a life of its own on the Web, which might help explain the genesis of claims relating to Syria, according to the WMD expert…
…“These appear to be U.S.- and U.K.-funded groups that produce anti-regime propaganda,” Lewis said in his Friday post. “Are we really surprised that they are alleging chemical weapons use?”
Same Oh, Same Oh…!
Aren’t ya just touched by the Oily Bomber’s personal plea to the Syrians…?
President Barack Obama has approved another $155 million in humanitarian aid for Syria and took the unusual step of taping a message with Arabic subtitles explaining the U.S. position.
“Here, I want to speak directly to the people of Syria,” he says in the message. “This new aid will mean more warm clothing for children and medicine for the elderly; flour and wheat for your families and blankets, boots and stoves for those huddled in damaged buildings. It will mean health care for victims of sexual violence and field hospitals for the wounded. Even as we work to end the violence against you, this aid will help address some of the immediate needs you face each day.
“…We’re under no illusions. The days ahead will continue to be very difficult. But what’s clear is that the regime continues to weaken and lose control of territory. The opposition continues to grow stronger. More Syrians are standing up for their dignity. The Assad regime will come to an end. The Syrian people will have their chance to forge their own future. And they will continue to find a partner in the United States of America.”
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday there was still time to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff through diplomacy, but that the window for such a solution was closing.
Obama reiterated his position on the Iran nuclear issue after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on the eve of a nuclear security summit in Seoul.
“I believe there is a window of time to solve this diplomatically, but that window is closing,” Obama told reporters.
Obama has pressed Israel to hold off on any attack on Iran’s nuclear sites to give sanctions and diplomacy time to work, but has said military action remains an option if all else fails. {snip}
Obama and Erdogan also discussed providing medical supplies and communications support to the Syrian opposition but there was no talk of providing lethal aid for rebel forces, a U.S. official said. {snip}
“We worked on a common agenda in terms of how we can support both humanitarian efforts… (and) the efforts of Koffi Annan to bring about much needed change (in Syria),” Obama said after his meeting with Erdogan, a sharp critic of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
With regard to Iran, the U.S. president made similar remarks in a joint press conference British Prime Minister David Cameron a week and a half ago, when he warned window for a diplomatic solution was “shrinking”.
In those remarks, he encouraged Tehran to seize the opportunity of talks with world leaders to avert “even worse consequences.”
Here’s a recent snapshot of the economic sanctions…
…Royal Dutch Shell is struggling to pay off $1 billion that it owes Iran for crude oil because European Union and U.S. financial sanctions now make it almost impossible to process payments, industry sources said.
Four sources said the oil major owes a large sum to the National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) for deliveries of crude, with one putting the figure at close to $1 billion. A debt of that size would equate to roughly four large tanker loads of Iranian crude or about 8 million barrels.
“Shell is working hard to figure out a way to pay NIOC,” said an industry source, who requested anonymity. “It’s very sensitive and very difficult. They want to stay on good terms with Iran, while abiding by sanctions.” {snip}
‘Pressure working’
Rigorous U.S. and European financial measures, aimed at punishing Iran for its nuclear program have already come into force, making it increasingly difficult to pay for and ship crude from Iran, say oil executives.
“There are big frustrations with the payment route – the U.S. pressure is really working,” said a senior oil source.
“It’s now nearly impossible to use the banking system.”
“Amano’s director-generalship began under a bad star.”
That’s Julian Borger at the Guardian quoting Mark Hibbs, the journalist who helped take down the AQ Khan nuclear-weapons black market and is now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Yukio Amano, the “head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog at the heart of the growing Iranian crisis,” Borger explains, “has been accused by several former senior officials of pro-western bias, over-reliance on unverified intelligence and of sidelining sceptics.” {snip}
Previous director Mohamed ElBaradei was noted for his objections to IAEA findings being used as a pretext for ultimatums and/or war with Iran. Borger also reminds us of those WikiLeaks cables that confirmed suspicions about Amano almost too perfectly.
[They] revealed Amano’s assiduous courting of American support. In an October 2009 cable, the US charge d’affaires, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote: “Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”
Not sure of the exact motivations for Amano’s bootlicking, but there it is for the world to see. Confirming Amano’s toadyism toward the United States
… the IAEA’s reports on Iranian behaviour have become steadily more critical. In November, it published an unprecedented volume of intelligence pointing towards past Iranian work on developing a nuclear weapon, deeming it credible.
However, some former IAEA officials are saying that the agency has gone too far. Robert Kelley, a former US weapons scientists who ran the IAEA action team on Iraq at the time of the US-led invasion, said. … “Amano is falling into the Cheney trap. What we learned back in 2002 and 2003, when we were in the runup to the war, was that peer review was very important, and that the analysis should not be left to a small group of people,” Kelley said. “… Just like [former US vice-president] Dick Cheney, Amano is relying on a very small group of people and those opinions are not being checked.”
…Compared to Dick Cheney, shamed by WikiLeaks, Yukio Amano is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time. ElBaradei won the Nobel Prize; Amano is angling for the Ignoble Prize.
…“The most important thing is to make very clear to the Iranians that we really will not allow them to get a nuclear weapon. That means that you have to have a military option that you are prepared to use and that the Iranians know that you are prepared to use. And you can’t send mixed signals about that,” the former secretary of state said on “Fox & Friends.” “It’s got to be a very strong message and it’s got to be unequivocal.”
Asked to explain what she meant by the “mixed signals” coming out of the Obama administration, Rice noted, “The president has said he has a military option and he means he will use it, but then you do get the back stories and the whispers here and there and occasionally someone questioning whether or not the military option is a real option — and the Iranians just eat that up.”
She added, “So let’s have one message from the president that we will use military force if necessary.”
Now in an ironic twist, the rabid Zionist Rabbi Eliezer Melamed advocates against striking Iran, but, for all the wrong reasons…
…Even if the State of Israel succeeds in destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities, such an action apparently will not cancel this dangerous phenomenon, but merely postpone the date that Iran and other hostile states acquire nuclear weapons.
Today, countries such as India, China, Pakistan, and North Korea already possess nuclear weapons. The entire world must learn to deal with threats of this magnitude, and in this respect, our situation is not significantly different from that of many other countries. Given this fact, the statements of the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister that Iranian nuclear weapons are an existential threat to the State of Israel are simply not true. They are one threat in a chain of many others… {snip}
…In other words, precisely with regard to Iran’s main threat against us, via Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations in Gaza operating on their behalf, the State of Israel reveals incompetence, eroding its deterrence to an absolute minimum, until our enemies have the nerve to liken the State of Israel to a “cobweb”.
Our weak image was intensified as a result of the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and our ongoing incompetence against the rocket attacks from there.
In order to deal with the threats and dangers, we have to create deterrence built less on the verbal bravado of Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Binyamin Netanyahu, and based more on determined actions against those who actually attack us.
Strengthening Our Control of the Land
Nevertheless, painful military punishment is not enough. As a result of a lack of clarity concerning our ambitions in the Land of Israel, we invite threats and dangers upon ourselves, leading our enemies to believe that we will continue to withdraw until the State of Israel is eradicated, God forbid.
Therefore, the correct response to a missile attack from Gaza or Lebanon should also include applying Israeli sovereignty over additional parts of the Land of Israel, and strengthening construction in Judea and Samaria…
I wonder if we in the news media aren’t inadvertently leaving the impression that there is a genuine debate among experts about whether an Israeli military strike on Iran makes sense this year.
There really isn’t such a debate. Or rather, it’s the same kind of debate as the one about climate change — credible experts are overwhelmingly on one side… {snip}
…Let’s also remember that as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bangs the drums of war, that may empower Iranian hawks. “The continual threat of a military strike is as likely to convince them to move ahead as to deter them,” Slaughter notes.
Whether Israel will attack Iranian nuclear sites is one of this year’s crucial questions, and people in the know seem to think the odds are about 50-50. We don’t know that the economy would be harmed or that a war would unfold, but anyone who is confident about what would happen is a fool.
So as we hear talk about military action against Iran, let’s be clear about one thing. Outside Netanyahu’s aides and a fringe of raptors, just about every expert thinks that a military strike at this time would be a catastrophically bad idea. That’s not a debate, but a consensus.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is gearing up for massive protests and possible infiltration attempts along its borders as part of the Global March to Jerusalem rallies on Friday, local media reported on Sunday.
IDF’s preparations are based on the “Summer Seeds” operation prepared by the army to contain any riots during last year’s Palestinian statehood bid.
Soldiers have been deployed along Israel’s borders in order to prevent any infiltration attempts, after pro-Palestinian activists called for a Global March to Jerusalem the coming Friday.
The call urges participants to try to storm into Israel by sheer force, such as during the Palestinians’ Nakba (disaster in Arabic) and Naksa (setback) day events, on May 15 and June 5 respectively, when dozens of protesters were killed trying to infiltrate into Israel from Syria and Lebanon.
Soldiers have also been instructed to cause minimum harm, if needed, to protesters in order to avoid any more flare-ups, the Ynet news service reported.
Thousands of pro-Palestinian activists arrived in Damascus on Sunday to participate in the protest, and it is expected that there will be infiltration attempts on the borders with Lebanon and Syria, where the IDF has already reinforced the fences.
Haaretz’s editor-in-chief, Aluf Benn, wrote recently…
Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran
In response to Netanyahu’s AIPAC speech, Haaretz’s editor-in-chief says that what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war.
…”Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama’s tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: “I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel’s right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved.”
This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn’t even a mechanic in the armored corps – but only on ourselves. “Difficult, daring, but possible,” Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War – unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!“
…Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the United States would intervene if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, although he did not indicate the extent of the possible military involvement.
“Obviously Israel is an independent country, and they’ll make whatever decisions they make on their own based on what they think is in their national interests,” Panetta told Al Hurra, an Arabic news outlet, today. “If they should make that decision, then obviously the United States will — would take action to protect our facilities in this area and protect our interests in this area.” Panetta had been asked specifically if the United States would “intervene with Israel” in the event of an attack.
“We think we have the room and the space to try to conduct diplomacy,” Panetta also said. “Military action should always be a last resort.”…
Top officials and legislators from both the Democratic and Republican party have expressed public support for the Obama administration’s drone strikes against American citizens who were suspected of terrorism abroad. It’s not just legislators either—a majority of Democrats and liberals approve of Obama’s targeted killing policy.
“The president of the United States has a responsibility, consistent with his legal authorities, to keep the country safe. And that’s what he did,” Bush-era Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith told NPR’s Tom Ashbrook Monday, while discussing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected member of Al Qaeda and US citizen who was killed in a US government-directed drone strike. “Americans have been targeted and killed in past wars, in the Civil War, and in World War II as well, nothing like this kind of scrutiny has ever occurred before.” Read the rest of this entry →
Haaretz published a blistering critique of Bibi’s performance at this year’s AIPAC/DC three-ring Circus show…
Israel must remember U.S. is part of its ‘right to defense’
Netanyahu is puffing up his chest with his own rhetoric. That’s a common syndrome among our friends on the right – to strike without considering the consequences.
…Had Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu been a cub reporter who wanted to impress the new editor with his statement “If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck … it’s a duck … but this duck is a nuclear duck,” this brilliant cliche would have been thrown in the garbage with the reprimand: “too banal.” But when it’s said at an AIPAC convention, in Bibi’s basso-profundo voice, it rouses a standing ovation.
While he was speaking, only the TV viewers could notice that a bald spot was beginning to show through his graying hair. Yes, time marches on. It’s hard to believe that on his way to his third term as prime minister and during Israel’s seventh decade of existence, Bibi mentions the Holocaust as a basis for his government’s policy, to win applause. What do our cynics say? “There’s no business like Shoah business,” especially when the United States is gearing up for presidential elections.
Doesn’t Bibi understand that when he talks about the Holocaust in contemporary terms he encourages the younger generation to flee the country? In Bibi’s equation, which made headlines in Haaretz this week – that he prefers missiles on Tel Aviv to nukes in Iran – it’s not clear whom he’s threatening: Iran or the residents of Tel Aviv… {snip}
…Security experts say the government is playing with fire. Anyone who thinks we can solve the Iranian threat by ourselves is mistaken and misleading others. What we need to neutralize the threat entirely – including protecting our home front against a missile barrage – is the action of a great power. Samson’s last words, “Let me die with the Philistines,” is not what Israelis have in mind during these times of war over the price of a Pesek Zman candy bar…
Speaking of that Bipartisan push for War on Iran, check out this Dim-witted response…
…An international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports should be considered before any resort to air strikes against the country’s disputed nuclear program, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee said on Friday.
“That’s, I think, one option that needs to be considered” to boost pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program in line with UN Security Council resolutions, Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in an interview taped for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program… {snip}
…Levin was responding to a question about possible ways of increasing pressure short of combat, including imposition of a “no-fly zone” over Iran.
Such moves “could be very effective,” he said. “I think (these are) options that whoever is willing to participate should explore, including Israel and including the United States.”… {snip}
“Not because it doesn’t want a nuke – I think it does – but because the price that it’s going to have to pay” in terms of isolation would be too high, said Levin, whose committee has an oversight role for the US Defense Department.
Levin said US President Barack Obama should seek congressional authorization before any US resort to military action against Iran. But he noted that presidents from both parties had maintained they were not bound to do so as commander in chief of US armed forces…
It ain’t just Carl, beating those Iranian war drums, check out Difi’s response… “Israel will Attack Iran”
…Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein, said Israel would attack Iran based on the decisiveness of PM Netanyahu on the subject.
Speaking to CNN she said, “Israel believes it can carry out the attack, but the question remains, what will happen afterwards. She added that it was important to give diplomacy, sanctions and negotiations a chance to influence Tehran.
And, here we are questioning the Rationality of the ‘Mad Mullahs‘ in Tehran…?
Even, Israeli-Firster, former IDF jailor, Jeffery Goldberg, raised some serious doubts…
…Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited President Obama in the White House. Many words were exchanged, but they all might have been superfluous.
Netanyahu delivered his overriding message almost wordlessly, in the form of a gift to the president… {snip}
…The prime minister of Israel is many things; subtle is not one of them. The message of Purim is: When the Jews see a murderous conspiracy forming against them, they will act to disrupt it.
A further refinement of the message is: When the Jews see a plot forming against them in Persia, they will act to disrupt it, even if Obama wishes that they would wait for permission.
From what I understand about the meeting between the two leaders, the prime minister stressed Israel’s sovereign right to act against plots forming against it. The president doesn’t disagree with this, of course — he has repeatedly said Israel has the right to act on its own against the Iranian nuclear program.
But he had another message for Netanyahu. As Obama put it to me in an interview last week, the message is, “I have Israel’s back.”
In his news conference Tuesday, Obama clarified that he wasn’t signaling to Israel his permission to attack Iran, but instead a more general feeling of solidarity. His words mean something. They don’t, however, mean enough to stop Netanyahu…
Before the summit between the two leaders, I thought Netanyahu would probably agree to delay an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear program in order to let the sanctions imposed by Obama — in concert with much of the world — work to convince Tehran that the nuclear path is a foolish one.
But watching Netanyahu’s actions this week, and listening to his rhetoric, particularly before the annual meeting of the lobbying group AIPAC, I’m more convinced that his timetable for action against Iran doesn’t align at all with Obama’s…
Maybe, the Oily Bomber did delay Bibi til after the November, ’12 elections, however, what about shortly afterwards…?
Ongoing nuclear advances and developments in Iran pose a growing serious threat to the existence of the state of Israel, our most critical ally.
We call upon you to unequivocally support Israel in this time of great upheaval and uncertainty. Since first recognizing Israel as a state in 1948, America has resolutely stood by the Israeli people. Despite this rich and storied friendship, recent events have given detractors an apparent reason to call that relationship into question. Your perceived wavering and equivocal support, coupled with anti-Israel developments in Iran and countries that have experienced Islamist and Salafist upheavals in government related to “arab spring” have left many in Israel feeling isolated and abandoned…
Netanyahu tells Obama: I have yet to decide whether to attack Iran
U.S. president and Israeli premier agree to increase their coordination on Iran, in two hour White House meeting.
…During their meeting, Obama told Netanyahu that Israel and the United States have an identical goal with regard to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“I have no intention of trying to contain the Iranian issue,” Obama reportedly told Netanyahu.
“I think that there’s time for diplomacy and in any case I am not taking any options off the table, including a military option.”…
…”When it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right, to makes its own decisions,” Netanyahu said before the meeting. “My supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.”
Obama agreed that Israel had the right to defend itself, adding, “I want to assure both the American people and the Israeli people that we are in constant and close consultation … and I intend to make sure that that continues during what will be a series of difficult months, I suspect, in 2012.”
Netanyahu told Obama he believed Iran’s leaders were determined to wipe out Israel.
“They mean it,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying to Obama. “If this will be resolved by diplomacy, great. But we have to prepare for the worst-case scenario. The pressure on Iran has indeed increased, but time is getting short.”…
…”We’ve succeeded in persuading the international community that this is a real threat to the whole world,” Netanyahu told journalists. “The positions I presented on the Iranian issue were accepted with understanding in the White House. What [Obama] said outside to the cameras is what he said to me during the closed meeting.“…
‘We’ve succeeded in persuading the international community that this is a real threat to the whole world’… you had best think again, Bibi…!
…No matter what the rhetorical gymnastics performed by Obama, a case can be made that Bibi the Bully wags the American dog full-time. Worse; the Likud-dominated Israeli administration, single-handedly, is playing with dispatching vast spheres of the global economy into total depression, as its hysterics progressively hurl oil prices towards the stratosphere.
The world is a hostage of Israel’s whims even as the 120-plus members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) support Iran’s right to enrich uranium and BRICS members Russia, China and India, as well as Turkey, dismiss the US and the EU’s oil embargo – a true declaration of economic war – on Iran.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) get-together in Washington takes place in an intimidating, cavernous Colosseum where the wealthy crowd ululates in unison for Iranian blood. A passable tactician but a lousy strategist, Bibi the Bully’s only game in town is “Bomb Iran”.
This is justified by the “existential threat” posed by non-nuclear Iran to a nuclear-armed garrison state/settler colony that is literally, graphically wiping a whole people (the Palestinians) off the map…
…Yet once again, the graphic proof that Israel exercises virtual complete control of US foreign policy was the sight of an American president defensively addressing the AIPAC Colosseum. Apart from a festival of Orwellian intimations, to his credit at least Obama emphasized the word “diplomacy”, did not specify any “red lines”, nor endorsed the mere “capability” of Iran to build a nuclear weapon as a casus belli. After all, he knows he already has more American Jewish voters in the bag than among the US electorate as a whole.
But ultimately Obama did cave in to Bibi the Bully – as the rhetoric was not unlike Tony Soprano’s and the ominous “military component” remained very much on the table…
Col. Lang had a few choice words for Scarborough…!
I’ll wrap up with Phil Giraldi’s excellent comment on Col. Lang’s thread…
That Obama is standing as firm as he is is a tribute to the pushback by the Pentagon and intelligence community. But it seems to me that the only thing that can actually stop Netanyahu is a firm statement that the US will in no way and under no circumstances get involved if Israel starts a war with Iran. Such a statement will not be forthcoming not only because it is an election year but also because Obama cannot relish a battle with AIPAC and its close supporters, which includes his own Chicago Mafia.
Bibi has to know that minus such a statement if he starts a war the US will get involved,dragged in by congress and the media over possible WH-Pentagon-CIA objections. But he might also be thinking in the long term and might want to replace Obama with a completely compliant Republican. That would mean delaying any attack while turning the Iran issue into a cause celebre to beat Obama over the head with prior to November using a friendly media and plenty of congressional voices from both parties. It would be interesting to see how some of the Dem congressman would line up. Tricky, but probably doable if Bibi wants regime change in the US.
Israeli press wary over Obama’s ‘Zionist’ UN speech
Israeli newspapers were unanimous Thursday in characterizing US President Barack Obama’s UN speech as hugely supportive of Israel, but some argued it was perhaps too much of a good thing.
“The American embrace” was the front-page headline of the Maariv daily, while the top-selling Yedioth Aharonoth took a similar line, summing up the impact of Obama’s remarks for Israel and the Palestinians as “The hug and the snub.”
“Obama not only adopted all of the Israeli arguments against recognising a Palestinian state by means of the UN, he adopted the basic Israeli narrative,” Yedioth said.
“It is no wonder that Abu Mazen, who sat in the auditorium during the speech, hung his head in his hands in disbelief and despair,” it said, using the nom-de-guerre of President Mahmoud Abbas.
Most papers made veiled reference to next year’s US presidential elections as a major factor in determining the tone and content of Obama’s address.
The right-leaning Jerusalem Post reprinted large chunks of his speech and, in a commentary entitled “Obama tells Israelis what they’ve been waiting to hear,” said it contained “a dose of empathy and understanding” which had been missing from his previous addresses.
“That is not an insignificant message,” the paper said.
U.S. Jews give Obama mixed reviews for ‘pro-Israel’ UN speech
AIPAC lauds U.S. President for seeing Israelis deserve ‘normal relations with their neighbors’; Americans for Peace Now: U.S. position as defender of rights cannot stand as Israeli-Palestinians conflict ‘left to fester’.
I think Laura Rozen best summed it up in a single tweet:
Worst month in US since Katrina? Feels like Obama has basically abdicated any moral authority on anything.
¶1. (S) Summary: As part of the 40th Joint Political Military
Group (JPMG), U.S. and GOI counterparts discussed security
issues in the Near East region. GOI officials expressed
support for the P5 plus 1 engagement process with Iran, but
doubted the process would lead to any change in Iranian
behavior — Iran will use the engagement process as an
opportunity to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs Andrew
Shapiro stressed that engagement with Tehran was not “open
ended”; the United States is preparing sanctions in the event
engagement does not prove successful. GOI interlocutors
continued to express concerns regarding U.S. support of the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF); U.S. participants reiterated
U.S. support of the LAF as a counterweight to Hizballah. A/S
Shapiro noted NEA, with PM participation and support, plans
to brief the GOI on the U.S. policy regarding Lebanon in the
near future. In a continuation from the JPMG Executive
Session, GOI interlocutors made the argument that U.S. arms
transfers in the region could potentially arm future enemies
of Israel. GOI officials expressed frustration over the
Goldstone Report; U.S. officials advocated sharing lessons
learned regarding confronting terrorists in
civilian-populated areas. GOI officials noted improved
counter-smuggling efforts from Egypt regarding arms transfers
to Gaza via the Sinai. However, they argued that Egypt can
and should do more to prevent the flow of arms. U.S.
delegation members also briefed on U.S. policy in Iraq, and
expressed concerns about the current situation in Yemen.
This is the third of four cables (septels) reporting on the
JPMG. End summary.
The participants in that Politburo meeting, in Tel Aviv, is a veritable “Who’s Who” list of all the Zionists/Neocons that dictate our Foreign Policy…
Anyways, imagine my shock when I’d read this headline…
…Abbas has warned he may dissolve his self-rule government and ask Israel to resume full control of the West Bank if troubled peace talks fail.
Dismantling the Palestinian Authority would be a last resort, Abbas told Palestine TV in an interview broadcast late Friday. However, his comments marked the most explicit warning yet that he’s considering a step that could crush lingering hopes for a Mideast peace deal.
If Abbas were to take such a step, Israel, as a military occupier, would have to assume full responsibility again for 2.2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel was relieved of that financial burden with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, as part of interim peace deals.
Still, Abbas might face considerable domestic opposition to dismantling the Palestinian Authority, since it employs some 150,000 Palestinians, a large chunk of the work force.
The Palestinian self-rule government, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year in foreign aid, has limited authority over 40 percent of the war-won West Bank, while Israel has final say over the entire area and exclusive control over 60 percent of the land.
I’m sure all your cronies employees might be a little pissed at ya, Abu…
Ma’an puts it a little bit more into it’s proper context…
Abbas hints at PA dissolution over settlements
…President Mahmoud Abbas threatened Friday to end autonomy in the Palestinian territories if Israel insists on going ahead with settlement construction on lands that would be a Palestinian state.
Speaking with Palestine TV, Abbas said he would not “afford to remain the president of a nonexistent Palestinian Authority” if the Israeli occupation of the West Bank continued, and along with that settlement construction .
When asked if the comment meant that he could actually disband the Palestinian Authority, the president said, “I am telling the Israelis that they can continue as occupiers, but as for me, I will not accept the status quo
F*ck ya, Abu…! About frigging time…!
Now, let’s look at what our tax payer subsidized, UN has been up to of late…
…Speakers Say Israel’s Intransigence Harms Peace Effort, United States’ Delegation ‘Disheartened’ by One-Sided Focus
Convinced that a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the question of Palestine — the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict — was imperative for lasting Middle East peace, the General Assembly today stressed the urgent need for sustained international involvement, including by the Middle East diplomatic Quartet, to support both parties in resuming stalled peace negotiations.
That position was echoed in a broad-based resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, adopted by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States), with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Tonga). (See Annex VI) The text was one of six adopted by recorded vote in a flurry of action that capped the Assembly’s two-day discussion of that issue along with the broader quest for peace in the Middle East.
By the terms of the text, the Assembly reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions intended to change the status of Jerusalem, and expressed deep concern at closures and severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, the establishment of checkpoints and the imposition of a permit regime throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, which had created a humanitarian crisis. Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, the Assembly also stressed the need for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.
In a related text on Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 166 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Panama, Tonga), the Assembly expressed grave concern about Israel’s continued illegal settlement activities, including the so-called “E-1 plan”, construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem, restrictions on access to and residence in East Jerusalem and isolation of the city from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.
Explaining his delegation’s position after the vote, the United States’ representative said it was impossible to see how supporting the resolutions before the Assembly would contribute to a just and lasting peace. His Government was working towards a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and was disheartened to see unbalanced resolutions that failed to ask for the difficult steps required by both sides. The United States saw no contradiction between support of the Palestinians and support for Israelis. “These resolutions were wasteful and do nothing to halt the conflict, which was the goal we all seek,” he said.
Only six voted against that UN language…
As well as this ‘resolution’…
…adopted by a vote of 166 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Panama, Tonga), the Assembly expressed grave concern about Israel’s continued illegal settlement activities, including the so-called “E-1 plan”, construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem, restrictions on access to and residence in East Jerusalem and isolation of the city from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.
Don’t ya just love our taxpayer subsidized ‘Nay’ vote…?
…In a blunt assessment of the war in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal declared in a TV interview Thursday that "nobody is winning," though he also pointed to progress in stopping the momentum of insurgents.
The assessment by McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, comes a day after President Obama, while hosting Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the White House, predicted the war will get worse before it gets better.
McChrystal was responding to a question posed in an interview that aired on PBS’ "News Hour."
"I think I would be prepared to say nobody is winning, at this point," McChrystal said. "Where the insurgents, I think, felt that they had momentum a year ago, felt that they were making clear progress, I think that’s stopped."
Now it is the U.S. and Afghan forces that have "made a lot of progress," he said.
WTF…? Why would you be offering ‘Courageous Restraint’ medals, for pete’s sakes if you actually thought your COIN tactics were working…? If a Platoon Leader decided not to man a checkpoint, does he merit an AAM…? Checkpoints, of course, currently constituting the largest spike in civilian casualties in Afghanistan…
…Shootings of Afghan civilians by American and NATO convoys and at military checkpoints have spiked sharply this year, becoming the leading cause of combined civilian deaths and injuries at the hands of Western forces, American officials say.
The steep rise in these convoy and checkpoint attacks — which the military calls “escalation of force incidents” — has prompted military commanders to issue new troop guidelines in recent weeks that include soliciting local Afghan village and tribal elders and other leaders for help preventing convoy and checkpoint shootings.
Now, today, Spencer and Jim posted two poignant posts…
…On Thursday, however, Karzai, McChrystal and Clinton sounded harmonious notes about what McChrystal described as not an operation but a “rising tide of security” into the city. All three expressly forswore the use of the word “operation” — the word conjured up inappropriate images of “tanks, troops moving” through the city, Karzai said — and instead said Kandahar would be a “process” featuring more out-governing the Taliban than out-fighting it. Karzai suggested he became more comfortable with the “process” in Kandahar in the last week.
“This is the consequence of consultations that we have had” with the Americans, Karzai said. “The effort in Kandahar and the surrounding area has to be explained better, the modality of it has to be explained better, so we’re not calling it at all an operation.” Instead, the “process” would feature “bringing conditions to the Kandahar region and around where there is better governance, better resources and more active, vigorous vibrant intelligence activity and then, if and when and where needed, an operation militarily, in consultation with the community and backed by the community.”
McChrystal told reporters at the Pentagon not to expect a “D-Day and an H-hour and an attack” on the city, calling it “a process, not an event.” Instead, he will surge forces — NATO and Afghan — into Kandahar and its surrounding areas “without lapsing into major fighting” that he said “the insurgents would love to see.”
While McChrystal did not specify his battle plan at his briefing, informed sources indicated to TWI that McChrystal would seek to raise the current force mix in Kandahar from 6900 NATO troops and 5300 Afghan troops currently to 11,850 NATO forces and 8500 Afghans by September, with an emphasis on more than doubling the Afghan police presence there. That “rising tide” will coincide with planned rapid assemblies of local jirgas to “reconnect” Kandaharis to national, provincial and local government representatives — something to which Karzai said today he is committed. By November, McChrystal’s command expects to see subtle and favorable changes in Afghan perceptions of the capabilities of the government to provide a better life and for Afghan security forces to keep the peace.
McChrystal said in his press briefing that one of the lessons of months’ worth of difficult fighting in Helmand province is that change is measured in Afghan perceptions of which side offers a better future — and can’t be easily observed. “If you go every day, each day, it’s not a dramatic change,” McChrystal said. “If you go months’ difference, then it is.” That raised the prospect of months of ambiguous progress, at best, occurring alongside what McChrystal forecast would be violent and bloody contests with the Taliban.
US: Success of Afghan Anti-Taliban Surge Won’t Be Known Until End of Year
…The commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan says it will likely be the end of the year before it is clear whether the effort to assert Afghan government control in the key southern city of Kandahar is succeeding.
U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal says the Afghan and coalition effort in Kandahar has been going on for several months and will continue for several more, with a combination of military and civilian operations to expand the areas controlled by the Afghan government and to deliver security and services to the people.
And the general says just as the effort is gradual, without a formal starting date or a major military offensive, evidence of its effectiveness will also come slowly.
"I think it is going to be the end of this calendar year before you will know," he said. "I may know and feel before that. But I think that it will matter when the Afghan people know, and when the Afghan people have made that judgment. That will be the key point."
At a news conference near the end of the Washington visit by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, General McChrystal stressed the difficulties that lie ahead as the surge of U.S. and international forces continues and their operations, along with Afghan forces, intensify.
"This is a process that takes time," he said. "It will demand courage and resilience. We should expect increased violence as our combined security forces expand into Taliban-controlled areas."
*heh* It always gets lost amongst the noise of the MSM’s reporting that Kandahar is the Spiritual home of their much touted Taliban…! But, I digress…
Jim noticed a seismic shift in the Fawning Corporate Media’s reporting bias…
As Afghanistan Night Raid Protests Turn Deadly, NATO and US Forces Lose Press Credibility
One can only hope it’s a Cronkite-level paradigm shift…
I would like to add to the general discourse, that, there are two operations ‘Processes’ in motion aimed at Kandahar…
As I’d noted shortly after ‘success’ was declared in Marja… Operation Omid was launched with some fanfare…
Then, I’d noticed another name mentioned in the Operation Process on Kandahar, announced later on…
OPERATION HAMKARI UNDER WAY IN KANDAHAR
Karzai’s visit comes as U.S. defense officials say they are expanding the Afghan and international effort to assert Afghan government control beyond Helmand province to Kandahar.
Army General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the MSNBC television channel May 6 that “we have already long since commenced the operations in Kandahar” to expand security and establish local governance “that can be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people.”
“This is not going to be an operation like Fallujah [in Iraq], where you start at one side of the city and fight your way to the other and clear it of insurgents. Rather, it’s going to be an expanding tide, if you will, a rising tide of security,” Petraeus said.
In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee May 5, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General John Paxton Jr., who is director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the effort in Kandahar is named Hamkari, which means “cooperation” in Dari, and was “planned and will be conducted with our Afghan partners in the lead.”
As with Operation Moshtarak, which has been conducted in Helmand province, the coalition is integrating military efforts to improve security with civilian projects that are focused on improving local governance, development and agriculture.
“The focus of Hamkari is on providing Kandahar with credible and effective governance that gives the population hope for the future. More effective government will deliver security, basic services, development and employment. If these ends are achieved, the people of Kandahar will reject the insurgency and support the government,” Paxton said.
“A more capable, representative and responsive government will be able to bring the economic development and rule of law that the area so badly needs,” he said.
…The success or failure of Hamkari, the coalition’s make-or-break gambit in Kandahar, will define the future of the Afghan war, so some may puzzle over why so much is being given away so early. Won’t revealing information about the forces and the political plan for Kandahar endanger coalition lives and allow the insurgents to develop an informed counter-strategy?
In non-conventional warfare, the information campaign is everything and the psychological effect will be far greater than that of bombs and bullets. There are plenty of precedents for civilians and enemy forces being informed of an army’s intent — not least in Helmand during Operation Moshtarak.
In most cases the objectives are simple: to encourage civilians to leave and prevent innocent casualties. In Kandahar the priorities are more complex but can be decoded easily enough.
Emphasis has been placed by diplomats and commanders on the narrow window of opportunity — between the peak of troop numbers in August and the US midterm elections in November.
I would posit that both ‘Processes’ are still underway in Kandahar, Hope and Co-operation…! (Ironic, no…?)
GlobalPost’s Jean MacKenzie, further mentioned Hope (Omid) today…
Karzai’s US visit yields cold comfort
…The ostensible goal of the visit was to brush up Karzai’s image in the United States, where recent polls show that Americans are feeling more and more reluctant to continue supporting the war in Afghanistan. The United States needed to demonstrate that earlier criticism of the Afghan president had been put aside.
The Afghan president was also intent on securing Washington’s commitment to negotiations with the Taliban, a topic that will be the subject of a Peace Jirga in Kabul later this month.
Despite brave attempts to put the best possible face on the proceedings, the Obama-Karzai “summit” yielded little in the way of real progress, and failed to fully rehabilitate the problematic Afghan president, either at home or abroad. [...]
Eikenberry, a retired general who had a close relationship to the Afghan president in his former capacity as commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, would not say outright that he had laid his earlier fears to rest. The closest he would come, before Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stepped in to save him, was to acknowledge that “President Karzai is the — he’s the elected president of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a close friend and ally, and of course I highly respect President Karzai in that capacity,”
Talk about damning with faint praise. [...]
“Now, obviously, there are going to be tensions in such a complicated, difficult environment,” said Obama during the pair’s joint press briefing on Wednesday.
The topic of reconciliation with the Taliban also did not move off ground zero.
The U.S. position has always been that any Taliban who renounce violence, break with their ideological mentors and accept the Afghan constitution are welcome to a seat at the negotiating table.
This has always been a non-starter with the armed opposition, who want any negotiations to address some of their conditions — such as the withdrawal of foreign troops.
As Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the former Taliban foreign minister, put it in an earlier interview with GlobalPost: “Once we have put down their arms and accepted the constitution, what is there to talk about? That is not negotiation, that is surrender.”
Karzai was hoping for something a bit more substantive in advance of his Peace Jirga in Kabul in late May, during which he will try to forge a broad consensus among the Afghan people on the way to a negotiated settlement with the insurgency.
Instead, he got warmed-over assurances that the United States firmly supported peace — on its previously stated terms, of course. [...]
Probably the most worrying aspect of the visit, in the Afghan president’s eyes, were frequent references to the proposed U.S. drawdown of forces, set to begin in July 2011. Many observers have traced Karzai’s new eagerness to reach an agreement with the Taliban to his angst over being left to deal with them on his own once his American backers go home.
The stated plan has been to hand over security to Afghanistan’s own security forces — to “make Afghanistan masters in their own house” according to a NATO summit in Tallinn last month.
But police training has stalled badly, and even the army is not up to snuff, despite Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s remarks during a press briefing that the growth of the Afghan national army and police was “largely on track.”
In the end, the visit was an extended exercise in public relations, designed to reassure audiences in Washington and Kabul that the war is being won, the end is in sight, victory is in the air.
But judging by the reaction in Kabul, the message fell flat.
MyFDL is the community site of progressive political blog Firedoglake. Anyone can participate by writing a diary, commenting on others’ diaries, or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.
