Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.

*
By BRET STEPHENS


Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellu

Si vis pacem, para bellum "If you wish for peace , prepare for war" (usually interpreted as meaning peace through strength).

In my opinion Israel will not risk going solo into Iranian airspace, for an aerial bombing, without being able to hide behind the trousers of the USA. The timing of a new conflict with Iran, could not be worse for the fragile and unstable middle east and world economy. Israel has had undercover ground commandos in situ in Iran for almost a year now, gathering intelligence for a strike.
Pakistan, India, and Israel have nuclear capability, and so does North Korea, and they have shown restraint and never used nuclear weapons, because of the tremendous retaliation consequences and international condemnation their use would ensue.
I say let Iran have their bomb, an air strike at this time will not guarantee the evaporation of the targets, as the Iranians have been preparing and evading for this possibility for years. One thing is to have a crude nuclear weapon and another to be able to mount in a missile accurately and hit a target miles away, this will take years. Iran wants the security of having a nuclear weapon, not for imaginary offensive purposes, but just to have as a deterrent for any foreign invasion, present or future.
The alternative of another middle east conflict at this time, is not a possibility, for any sane person, but in that part of the world, sanity is rare and scarce, so you never really know what is in the cards.

The Latest on Bombing or Talking to Iran
By Eric Etheridge

Let’s start with the bombing. Ace at Ace of Spades HQ points to a Jerusalem Post story today in which a former Israeli official floats a conditional timeline for bombing Iran.

Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if Western powers do not impose serious sanctions against Teheran by the end of 2009, former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday.

He also points to a second Post story, a report on Nicholas Sarkozy’s comments earlier today on the true goal of Iran’s nuclear program. “It is a certainty to all of our secret services,” said the French President. “Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program.”

Michael Ledeen excerpts those sentences and a few more from Sarkozy’s remarks, and swoons: “He really has his moments, doesn’t he? And he’s really got an intelligence service . . . sigh.”

Jeffrey Goldberg picks up another remark from an AFP story, which reported that Sarkozy “said he would not ’shake the hand of someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map’, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Back to Goldberg:

In reading that last paragraph, I have to say that I felt some jealousy; I wish the American President would make a bit more clear his outrage at Iran’s desire to see Israel eliminawted. I don’t doubt that he finds it outrageous, but sometimes a little emotion would be useful.

All signs of emotion, for now, are on the right, at least according to Robert Dreyfuss at the Nation: “The hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli hardliners are squealing, but the US and Iran are set to talk. The talks will begin October 1, among Iran and the P5 + 1, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.”

President Obama is doing precisely what he campaigned on, namely, to open a dialogue with Iran. It’s an effort that began with his comments on Iran during his inaugural address, his videotaped Nowruz message to Iran last winter, a pair of quiet messages to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Leader, and Obama’s careful and balanced response to the post-election crisis over the summer. Once started, the talks aren’t likely to have a swift conclusion, but the very fact that they’re taking place will make it impossible for hawks to argue successfully either for harsh, “crippling” sanctions on Iran or for a military attack.

Where Dreyfuss sees “impossible,” Brett Stephens sees possible, even likely. Writing in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Stephens says that in insisting on talks at all costs, the Obama administration is “doing everything it can to speed the war process along,” though his tentative start date is “probably by next spring.”

Just look at the steps leading up to the October talks, says Stephens, to see why the Israelis find them so precipitous.

At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights of nations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

“The conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won’t lift a finger to stop Iran,” hence Israel will be forced to act. That’s wrong for severals reasons, writes Stephens, among them:

For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. . . .

Most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

More "Israeli saber rattling" intended to put pressure on the US and western powers. This "cry wolf" technique may have worked in the past, but will not work any more.
I will say it again, Israel will not risk a unilateral attack on Iran without the blessing and backing of the US and major powers, as well as the backing of domestic Israeli political allies.
Time now is for peace not unilateral "preventive war" discredited techniques. Only a madman or blinded far right hawkish government, would risk bombing Iran nuclear facilities. It would be like igniting a cigar with a blowtorch while riding in a rubber boat in a lake full of gasoline.

By Parisa Hafezi and Firouz Sedarat

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised the stakes against Israel on Friday and called the Holocaust a lie, just as world powers try to decide how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of an Iran in political turmoil.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty."

Ahmadinejad's anti-Western comments on the Holocaust have caused international outcry and isolated Iran, which is at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear programme.

The hardline president warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

Britain was swift in condemning Ahmadinejad's remarks, calling them "abhorrent as well as ignorant".

"It is very important that the world community stands up against this tide of abuse. This outburst is not worthy of the leader of Iran," Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006, defended Ahmadinejad and said he was criticised for supporting "the 'resistance', the people of the region and Palestine."

"Our belief and creed ... remain that Israel is an illegal entity, a cancerous tumour, that must cease to exist," he said in a televised address.

Ahmadinejad's fresh comments came ahead of his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly next week and before Tehran attends talks on Oct. 1 with major powers worried about the Islamic Republic's nuclear strategy.

Western powers are concerned by what they have called Tehran's defiance and "point-blank refusal" to suspend uranium enrichment and address the issue as demanded by U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006.

Instead of directly addressing those demands, Iran handed world powers this month a proposal that spoke generally of talks on political, security, international and economic issues but was silent on its nuclear programme.

Diplomats familiar with the Iranian proposal said it was vague and did not appear to pass "the smell test".

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was time Iran showed it is serious about addressing international concern. "There will be accompanying costs for Iran's continued defiance: more isolation and economic pressure," she said.

NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

Ahmadinejad repeated on Thursday that Iran would "never" abandon its disputed nuclear programme to appease critics.

In an NBC-TV interview, he also offered no direct response when asked whether there were any conditions under which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

"We don't need nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad said, speaking through an interpreter. "We do not see any need for such weapons. And the conditions around the world are moving to favour our ideas," he added.

The major powers suspect Iran's uranium enrichment programme is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly said it is enriching uranium only to generate electricity, not for fissile bomb material, although it has no nuclear power plants to use low-level enriched uranium.

Next month's major powers talks with Iran offer no clear relief to Israel, which wants world powers to be prepared to penalise Iran's vulnerable energy imports but sees Russia and China blocking any such resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

The major powers, which include permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as Germany, offered Iran trade and diplomatic incentives in 2006 in exchange for halt to uranium enrichment.

They improved the offer last year but retained the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, something Tehran has ruled out as a precondition.

President Barack Obama, who came to office pledging to engage with Iran, has suggested Tehran may face harsher sanctions, possibly targeting its gasoline imports, if it does not accept good-faith talks by the end of September.

But Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, last week ruled out oil sanctions against Iran.

Iran, the world's fifth-biggest crude producer, is seen as vulnerable to oil sanctions because it imports 40 percent of its gasoline to supply the cheap fuel Iranians see as a birthright.

TURMOIL AT HOME

At home, Ahmadinejad is facing strong opposition which erupted into unrest following his disputed re-election in June.

On Friday, Iranian security forces clashed with supporters of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi and arrested at least 10 of them during annual anti-Israel rallies in Tehran.

Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, wearing green wristbands or shawls, were among crowds marching in the "Qods Day" rallies.

The state news agency IRNA said Mousavi and reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi, both defeated candidates in June, had been forced to leave the rallies after being attacked by "angry people".

Reformist former president Mohammad Khatami took part in the rally, but was attacked by hardliners and had to leave after his robe was ripped and his turban fell to the ground, an ally of Khatami who accompanied him told Reuters.

The June vote, which was followed by huge opposition protests, plunged Iran into its worst political crisis in three decades and revealed deepening rifts within its ruling elites.

Opposition leaders say the poll was rigged to secure Ahmadinejad's re-election. The authorities deny it.

The opposition says 70 people died during protests after the vote. It contradicts the official death toll of 36 people.

Amid Large Protests, Iran Leader Calls Holocaust a Lie
Associated Press



BEIRUT, Lebanon — Tens of thousands of green-clad protesters chanted and carried banners through the heart of Tehran and other Iranian cities on Friday, defying tear gas and truncheons as they turned large swaths of a government-organized anti-Israel march into the largest opposition rally in two months.
Amid the protests, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a fiery anti-Israeli speech in honor of the annual Jerusalem Day ceremonies, calling the Holocaust “a lie,” among his harshest statements on the topic, and impugning the West again for its criticisms of Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential election.

Through a tumultuous day of street rallies, police were often on the sidelines as protesters faced off against huge crowds of government supporters — many of them bused in from outside the cities — and chain-wielding Basij militia men. There were reports of arrests in Tehran and the southern city of Shiraz, but no shootings or deaths, with the police apparently showing greater restraint than at earlier protests.

Conservatives had warned against using the annual pro-Palestinian march as an excuse for renewed protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose election plunged Iran into its worst internal crisis in three decades.

But the protesters turned out anyway, often walking alongside larger groups of state-sanctioned marchers bearing huge banners denouncing Israel. The protesters even flouted the day’s official message, chanting “No to Gaza and Lebanon, my life is for Iran.” And when government men shouted “death to Israel” through loudspeakers, protesters derisively chanted “death to Russia” in response. Many opposition supporters are angry about Russia’s quick acceptance of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory.

Opposition leaders Mir Hussein Moussavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Muhammad Khatami joined the crowds in Tehran, drawing appreciative cheers and chants of support. Later, Basij militia members tried to attack Mr. Khatami and Mr. Karroubi, but defenders fought them back, opposition Web sites reported.

The government had largely halted street protests in July, with a harsh government crackdown that left dozens of marchers dead and thousands in jail. But the authorities have been unable to silence the opposition’s leaders, who have kept up their criticism of the election and the government’s violent response. The opposition leaders raised tensions when they leveled accusations that some protesters were tortured and raped in prison. The rape accusations have been especially embarrassing for the government, which has denied them while acknowledging that some prisoners were tortured.

There were reports of similar demonstrations and clashes in other cities Friday, including Isfahan, Tabriz, Yazd, and Shiraz, where protesters skirmished with Basij militia men, and freed a group of fellow protesters who were being arrested, opposition Web sites reported.

In the capital, police and huge crowds of government supporters blocked most protesters from approaching Mr. Ahmadinejad as he arrived in a bullet-proof car at Tehran University to deliver a speech before the formal Friday prayers sermon. But as he began his remarks, chants of “Resign! Resign!” could be heard, according to witnesses cited on opposition Web sites.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said confrontation with Israel was a “national and religious duty” and that the Holocaust was “a lie” used as a pretext for the country’s creation in 1948. Although he has called the Holocaust a “myth” in the past, provoking angry reactions in the West, he does not appear to have used the word “lie” in connection with it before.

In Washington, the White House responded sharply to the remarks about the Holocaust from the Iranian leader. The president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that by denying that the Holocaust took place was “ignorant, hateful and would isolate Iran further from the world.”

“Obviously, we condemn what he said,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters.

The speech came a day after President Obama, in a major national security reversal, scuttled his predecessor’s missile-shield plan to focus instead on protecting Israel and Europe against short and medium-range Iranian missiles. The Iranian government has not responded to that announcement, which came during the Iranian weekend and just before the start of the Jerusalem Day ceremony.

Both the revised missile plan and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel rhetoric are likely to elevate the tensions surrounding his visit to the United Nations for its General Assembly meeting in New York next week.

The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, said Friday that President Obama would not meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad next week when world leaders meet in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly meeting.

“I don’t think there is much likelihood that there will be an interaction,” Ms. Rice said. “There is no obvious venue where that would occur.”

Iran’s government has canceled a number of public gatherings over the past month, apparently fearing a renewal of the vast rallies that took place in the weeks after the election. As Jerusalem Day approached, a number of conservative figures, including Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that the day should not become an occasion for domestic discontent. On Thursday, the Revolutionary Guard issued an especially fierce statement, declaring that all protesters would be treated as Israeli spies.

But the government appears to have treated the widespread protests with relative leniency. Although tear gas was fired at some crowds in central Tehran — it was not clear by whom — there was no renewal of the fierce crackdown that took place in June and July, when dozens of people were killed and thousands jailed.

Although the marchers celebrating Jerusalem Day generally outnumbered the protesters, there were parts of the city where the opposite was true. Often, the protesters slyly distorted the traditional rallying cries of the pro-government crowds. When the marchers chanted “The blood in our veins is a gift to our leader,” protesters countered with “The blood in our veins is a gift to our nation.”

At one point thousands of protesters chanting “death to the dictator” as they walked down Valiasr Street, the broad avenue that runs across much of Tehran, collided with an equally large crowd of pro-government marchers chanting slogans against Israel, the United States, and Britain.

A tense standoff ensued. Police officers standing nearby refused to take sides, and in some cases even stepped in to break up fights. Finally, several trucks full of government supporters arrived, and the protesters began withdrawing in the direction from which they had come.

Iranian state television ignored the protests, showing thousands of marchers clad in checked Palestinian-style scarves, carrying posters of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Jerusalem Day, held on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, is an important occasion for the government, which uses its support for Palestinian militants and the Lebanese Hezbollah to burnish its street support in an Arab world that is largely hostile to Iran.

Israel has no choice but to bomb and they will, with or without the USA. If you do not know that you do not know Israel. They have done it before....

Arabs an cowards when it comes to a fair fight, as history proves many times.

do you believe SHTF will happen within the next months?

Israel is playing a dangerous game..

One of the biggest mistake made by a seating president on foreign affair have to be Truman allowing the jewish to take over Israel. Most of this country problem right now the roots is coming from Jewish taking over Israel from the palestine. simple as that.