Jerusalem -The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, located at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, has issued a stinging report which indicates that Iran could easily deliver radiation or nuclear weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah in an effort to bolster Teheran’s deterrence against Israel.
The report, authored a by a former Israeli senior official, Chuck Freilich, asserted that a nuclear weapon could be slipped into the Jewish state through airports, sea ports or over the land border.
“Hezbollah especially, but also Hamas in the future, might seek a minimal nuclear capability as a means of deterring Israel from attacking them, or from pursuing other objectives.”
The report, entitled “The Armageddon Scenario: Israel and the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism,” said, “Furthermore, even a minimal nuclear capability would enable Hezbollah and Hamas to conduct ongoing low-level attacks -- even severe ones -- against Israel, in the confidence that Israel would be deterred from massive retaliation. This would require a declared capability, or at least a strongly suspected one.” Mr. Freilich, a former member of Israel’s National Security Council, said Hamas or Hezbollah could smuggle a bomb into Israel through ships, airlines or an unmanned aerial vehicle. Other options included the smuggling of a nuclear suitcase bomb or the firing of a nuclear missile into Israel.
“Rockets and missiles, such as those already in the possession of Hezbollah, could be fitted with nuclear warheads, a delivery threat which is largely unique to Israel,” the report said. “While the missiles’ small payloads and basic inaccuracy make them inappropriate delivery vehicles for ordinary nuclear-military purposes, they are effective weapons of terror. The large size of Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ rocket arsenal and their dispersal in civilian neighborhoods make detection and elimination of the threat a particularly severe problem.”
The report said a nuclear Hamas and Hezbollah would gain the confidence to sustain low-level attacks on Israel. Another scenario was that Egypt and Jordan would exploit a Hamas and Hezbollah nuclear threat and further weaken the Jewish state.
“Many Israelis believe that the Arab countries, even Egypt and Jordan, remain implacably opposed to Israel’s existence and that they are pursuing a long-term strategy designed to weaken Israel’s determination to live in the region as a Jewish and democratic state,” the report said. “A terrorist nuclear capability would certainly be commensurate with this perception and would greatly strengthen it.” Hamas and Hezbollah could also use nuclear weapons in an attempt to eliminate Israel’s political and military leadership. The report said the two Iranian proxies would also make Tel Aviv a leading target.
“The affects of the attack would be further magnified if the perpetrator could threaten additional military, symbolic, or normative targets,” the report said. “The nuclear reactor in Dimona is one such example. An attack could even be “justified” on the grounds that it was merely designed to eliminate the source of Israel’s alleged nuclear capability.”
See the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this and related stories at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Iran Accepts Brazil's Proposal for Nuclear Fuel Swap in Principle
JERUSALEM - An official Iranian government news agency has announced that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a telephone conversation with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez in which the Iranian leader announced the country’s agreement with Brazil’s proposal on nuclear fuel swap for its research reactor in Tehran.
During the conversation on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said that he announced his agreement in principle on Brazilian President Lula Da Silva’s proposal and called for continuation of talks on technical issues in Tehran.
President Chavez told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Venezuela supports his stances on international issues.
Earlier last week, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, on a visit to Tehran, had said that he hopes an Iran nuclear fuel swap deal could be revived to end disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.
Meantime, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said on
Tuesday he is still optimistic that a long awaited nuclear fuel swap between
Tehran and the West would eventually take place.
“The grounds that we have observed indicate that this [swap] is possible and show our strong logic,” Mr. Mehman-Parast said in his weekly press conference.
“If the opposite sides are really ready to swap fuel, then we will do the swap,” Mehman-Parast added.
He reiterated Iran’s conditions for nuclear swap - simultaneous swap of certain amounts of enriched uranium inside the Iranian soil - and stated, “We are still ready for swapping fuel. And such an exchange may build some confidence between the two sides.”
After Iran announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it had run out of nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran, the Agency proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent-enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, all through the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.
The proposal was first introduced on October 1, when Iranian representatives and diplomats from the Group 5+1 held high-level talks in Geneva.
But France and the United States, as potential suppliers, stalled the talks soon after the start. They offered a deal which would keep Tehran waiting for months before it can obtain the fuel, a luxury of time that Iran cannot afford as it is about to run out of 20-percent-enriched uranium.
Iran had rejected the proposed deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any less than seven months.
Iran put forward its own proposal that envisages a two-staged exchange. According to Tehran’s offer, the IAEA safeguards nearly one third of Iran’s uranium stockpile inside the Iranian territory for the time that it takes to find a supplier.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
During the conversation on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said that he announced his agreement in principle on Brazilian President Lula Da Silva’s proposal and called for continuation of talks on technical issues in Tehran.
President Chavez told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Venezuela supports his stances on international issues.
Earlier last week, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, on a visit to Tehran, had said that he hopes an Iran nuclear fuel swap deal could be revived to end disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.
Meantime, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said on
Tuesday he is still optimistic that a long awaited nuclear fuel swap between
Tehran and the West would eventually take place.
“The grounds that we have observed indicate that this [swap] is possible and show our strong logic,” Mr. Mehman-Parast said in his weekly press conference.
“If the opposite sides are really ready to swap fuel, then we will do the swap,” Mehman-Parast added.
He reiterated Iran’s conditions for nuclear swap - simultaneous swap of certain amounts of enriched uranium inside the Iranian soil - and stated, “We are still ready for swapping fuel. And such an exchange may build some confidence between the two sides.”
After Iran announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it had run out of nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran, the Agency proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent-enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, all through the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.
The proposal was first introduced on October 1, when Iranian representatives and diplomats from the Group 5+1 held high-level talks in Geneva.
But France and the United States, as potential suppliers, stalled the talks soon after the start. They offered a deal which would keep Tehran waiting for months before it can obtain the fuel, a luxury of time that Iran cannot afford as it is about to run out of 20-percent-enriched uranium.
Iran had rejected the proposed deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any less than seven months.
Iran put forward its own proposal that envisages a two-staged exchange. According to Tehran’s offer, the IAEA safeguards nearly one third of Iran’s uranium stockpile inside the Iranian territory for the time that it takes to find a supplier.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Bolton Comments On Obama Push For A Nuclear Free Middle East
JERUSALEM - A proposal for a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East is seeing new life as the Obama administration pushes for a Middle East with no nuclear weapons, which places new pressure against Israel about its nuclear arsenal.
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that President Obama’s consent to discuss demilitarizing the Middle East of nuclear weapons endangered Israel. He said that Mr. Obama was playing into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands. He told Army Radio: “The president is not happy with Israel’s nuclear capability. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons. The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he will exert on Israel to do just that. But part of that pressure is being exerted right now by even considering the possibility of a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.”
The Obama administration’s newfound opposition to Israel’s formally undisclosed nuclear program reverses nearly 50 years of American silence on the subject.
President John F. Kennedy pressured then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to drop Israel’s plans for nuclear weapons in a May 1963 communiqué delivered by the U.S. ambassador.
Dr. Avner Cohen details the Kennedy administration’s efforts in his seminal 1998 book, Israel and the Bomb.
He wrote that Ben Gurion defended Israel’s need for nuclear weapons in the context of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the “scenario of a united Arab military coalition launching a war to liberate Palestine and destroy the Jewish state.”
He documents in his book how Ben Gurion tried in vain to convince President Kennedy that the surrounding Arab states posed just such an existential threat to the Jewish state, conjuring up memories of the Nazi threat from World War II.
In a letter to President Kennedy, dated May 12, 1963, Ben Gurion told the president: “I know that it is difficult for civilized people to visualize such a thing - even after they have witnessed what had happened to us during the Second World War... I cannot dismiss the possibility that this may occur again... if the Arab leaders continue to insist on and pursue their policy of belligerency towards Israel.”
President Kennedy refused to budge and continued to push Israel to abandon its nuclear option until his death on Nov. 22, 1963. No American president had made an issue of Israel’s nuclear capability - until now.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that President Obama’s consent to discuss demilitarizing the Middle East of nuclear weapons endangered Israel. He said that Mr. Obama was playing into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands. He told Army Radio: “The president is not happy with Israel’s nuclear capability. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons. The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he will exert on Israel to do just that. But part of that pressure is being exerted right now by even considering the possibility of a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.”
The Obama administration’s newfound opposition to Israel’s formally undisclosed nuclear program reverses nearly 50 years of American silence on the subject.
President John F. Kennedy pressured then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to drop Israel’s plans for nuclear weapons in a May 1963 communiqué delivered by the U.S. ambassador.
Dr. Avner Cohen details the Kennedy administration’s efforts in his seminal 1998 book, Israel and the Bomb.
He wrote that Ben Gurion defended Israel’s need for nuclear weapons in the context of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the “scenario of a united Arab military coalition launching a war to liberate Palestine and destroy the Jewish state.”
He documents in his book how Ben Gurion tried in vain to convince President Kennedy that the surrounding Arab states posed just such an existential threat to the Jewish state, conjuring up memories of the Nazi threat from World War II.
In a letter to President Kennedy, dated May 12, 1963, Ben Gurion told the president: “I know that it is difficult for civilized people to visualize such a thing - even after they have witnessed what had happened to us during the Second World War... I cannot dismiss the possibility that this may occur again... if the Arab leaders continue to insist on and pursue their policy of belligerency towards Israel.”
President Kennedy refused to budge and continued to push Israel to abandon its nuclear option until his death on Nov. 22, 1963. No American president had made an issue of Israel’s nuclear capability - until now.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Sunday, May 2, 2010
by David Bedein
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
Confirmed Israel Intelligence Study: Saudis Will Now Pose a Nuclear Threat - Yet It Goes Virtually Unreported in Israel
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at: http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=3973
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
View this story at Israel Behind the News
That report can be found at: http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=3973
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Monday, April 5, 2010
Hoyer-Cantor Letter in Support of Israel: DOCUMENT
327 Representatives were signatories to the letter.
Dear Secretary Clinton:
We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts. The announcement during Vice President Biden's visit was, as Israel's Prime Minister said in an apology to the United States, "a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred." We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu's commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises, however unintended, will not recur.
The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.
From the moment of Israel's creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special bond between the U.S. and Israel. For decades, strong, bipartisan Congressional support for Israel, including security assistance and other important measures, have been eloquent testimony to our commitment to Israel's security, which remains unswerving. It is the very strength of this relationship that has, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who sought Israel's destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.
In its declaration of independence 62 years ago, Israel declared: "We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land." In the decades since, despite constantly having to defend itself from attack, Israel has repeatedly made good on that pledge by offering to undertake painful risks to reach peace with its neighbors.
Our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement. As the Vice-President said during his recent visit to Israel: "Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space." Steadfast American backing has helped lead to Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And American involvement continues to be critical to the effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations. We believe, as President Obama said, that "Israel's security is paramount" in our Middle East policy and that "it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained." In that spirit, we look forward to working with you to achieve the common objectives of the U.S. and Israel, especially regional security and peace.
Sincerely,
STENY HOYER
Majority Leader
ERIC CANTOR
Republican Whip
HOWARD L. BERMAN
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
GARY ACKERMAN
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
DAN BURTON
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
See this and related postings at Israel Behind the News
Dear Secretary Clinton:
We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts. The announcement during Vice President Biden's visit was, as Israel's Prime Minister said in an apology to the United States, "a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred." We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu's commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises, however unintended, will not recur.
The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.
From the moment of Israel's creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special bond between the U.S. and Israel. For decades, strong, bipartisan Congressional support for Israel, including security assistance and other important measures, have been eloquent testimony to our commitment to Israel's security, which remains unswerving. It is the very strength of this relationship that has, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who sought Israel's destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.
In its declaration of independence 62 years ago, Israel declared: "We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land." In the decades since, despite constantly having to defend itself from attack, Israel has repeatedly made good on that pledge by offering to undertake painful risks to reach peace with its neighbors.
Our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement. As the Vice-President said during his recent visit to Israel: "Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space." Steadfast American backing has helped lead to Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And American involvement continues to be critical to the effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations. We believe, as President Obama said, that "Israel's security is paramount" in our Middle East policy and that "it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained." In that spirit, we look forward to working with you to achieve the common objectives of the U.S. and Israel, especially regional security and peace.
Sincerely,
STENY HOYER
Majority Leader
ERIC CANTOR
Republican Whip
HOWARD L. BERMAN
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
GARY ACKERMAN
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
DAN BURTON
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
See this and related postings at Israel Behind the News
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Former Israel Deputy Defense Minister: Israel Will Attack Iran by November
by Ken Timmerman at NewsMax
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Iran: The Time Has Come (INSS Insight No. 158, January 25, 2010)
If its domestic situation were not so serious, Iran's government could be
very happy indeed. Iran managed to gain another crucial year in its quest
for a nuclear weapons capability, and every passing day brings it closer to
its ultimate goal: having the potential to produce deliverable nuclear
weapons in short order, if it so decides. It successfully delayed the West
from pursuing a more severe sanctions regime, and the West is behaving as if
it has all the time in the world. It does not.
How did this come about? Several factors combined to achieve the net result,
most of them not of Iran's doing: the election of a new US president who
believed in engagement as the sole way to resolve conflicts (and may still
want to believe this); the unwillingness, for years, of the IAEA to
acknowledge Iran's ultimate goal; the (unclassified) 2007 US National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that raised the possibility that Iran abandoned
its quest for nuclear weapons; the reluctance of the US to assume the lead
role in confronting Iran, and letting the EU-3 deal, albeit ineffectively,
with the situation; the contrary attitude of Russia and China, which are
watching the West struggle to find a solution while throwing it a bone from
time to time in supporting some sanctions resolutions that are not achieving
their aim; and the exceptional spanner in the works embedded in the quite
unproductive suggestion to transfer some of Iran's low enriched uranium
(LEU) outside the country and return it as medium enriched uranium fuel for
its Tehran Research Reactor. This last statement needs some explanation.
On October 1, 2009, the P5 +1 (the five permanent Security Council members
plus Germany) and Iran began talks in Geneva that were supposed to deal with
a host of issues, including the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment
activities. Meantime, the US proposed the said uranium transfer idea. The
rationale was, apparently, to remove the major portion of the LEU from Iran,
thus delaying Iran's potential to produce the core of its first nuclear
explosive device. The talks were then postponed for more than a month, the
IAEA produced a text of an agreement accepted by the Russian, US, and
Iranian delegations, and the Iranians went home to obtain the approval of
the agreement by their government. The government probably never had any
intention of approving this. The deadline for an Iranian reply came and went
and nothing happened. Meanwhile, Iran continued to enrich uranium.
Evaluating the proposal objectively, little would have been achieved, even
if the Iranians had agreed to it. The LEU stockpile would have been reduced,
and its quantity would be below what is needed for a complete nuclear weapon
core, but this would remain so for a short time only, since enrichment would
continue. Thus, the uranium transfer proposal bought precious time for the
Iranians, and no uranium enrichment suspension was even discussed.
Meanwhile, the end of the 2009 deadline set by the US for resolving the
Iranian nuclear issue also came and went, and nothing happened. The Iranians
are enriching, the US is hesitating, and the East seems to be quite happy
with the situation. The US year's end deadline proved to be devoid of
substance. The US administration apparently had no fallback plan to deal
with such a situation, and if it had, it did not execute it. Although Iran
formally rejected the above plan, the IAEA director general was quoted as
saying that the plan was still on the table. One wonders what this would
achieve if it were now accepted by the Iranians, except for a further delay
of a comprehensive solution to the issue and a continuing enrichment of
uranium by Iran. Time is running short, and action is needed if Iran's
almost inevitable achievement is to be thwarted.
The main solution, agreed to by almost all involved, is to level strong
sanctions. However, there is a lack of consensus on what these should be and
how to apply them. Recently, the idea has been floated that sanctions should
be applied mainly on those who are involved in Iran's nuclear project - the
Revolutionary Guards. It is a worthy notion, but almost impossible to
implement. It is worthy, because it would not affect the man in the street,
who is anyway oppressed by the regime. It is impossible to implement,
because it is quite difficult to think of any effective sanctions that would
target only the Revolutionary Guards.
The only sanctions that make sense that could influence the Iranian regime
to cave in and at least suspend the uranium enrichment program and agree to
institute the inspections according to the Additional Protocol are the
Iraqi-type sanctions. These should limit imports into Iran of anything but
foodstuffs, medicines, and other humanitarian aid, if and when necessary. No
other imports including oil distillates or technical equipment would be
supplied to Iran until it agrees to the above conditions. It is a mistake to
assume that any less severe sanctions would do the trick. Iran would go on
and continue enriching without giving much thought to the outside pressure.
If this is not undertaken by the Security Council, the US should implement
it with all the friends it can muster.
What would happen if this is not done? The one remaining way to prevent Iran
from becoming a nuclear power is military action against Iran's nuclear
installations. This is a route fraught with dangers and uncertainties.
Depending on how successful the attack would be, the Iranian program could
suffer a severe setback. However, there is a high probability that Iran
would attempt to retaliate. Moreover, the Iranians would be able to
reestablish their facilities within a few years and the vicious cycle would
recommence. If both suggested routes of action are not applied or they fail
to achieve the expected results, then within a few years a nuclear Iran will
likely emerge and begin activating its plans for regional hegemony. This
would cause a major upset of power distribution in the region, possible new
wars, and possibly the complete loss of American hegemony in the Gulf
region. On a global scale, the nuclear non-proliferation regime would
suffer, perhaps beyond repair.
Unfortunately, it is the latter possibility that seems to be in the offing.
Unless the US - which for all its rhetoric seems resigned to this outcome -
takes strong sanctions action now, this is probably what will happen. Iran
should not be given the time to accomplish this.
--
Mission
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. Through its mixture of researchers with backgrounds in academia, the military, government, and public policy, INSS is able to contribute to the public debate and governmental deliberation of leading strategic issues and offer policy analysis and recommendations to decision makers and public leaders, policy analysts, and theoreticians, both in Israel and abroad. As part of its mission, it is committed to encourage new ways of thinking and expand the traditional contours of establishment analysis.
Conceiving of security studies as a dynamic interdisciplinary field that involves military, intellectual, economic, and social resources, the Institute strives to reflect that diversity and complexity through research and policy recommendations of the highest standard. Complementing the traditional areas of defense, security doctrine, and politics, INSS has expanded its focus to include the “softer” components of national security, such as domestic trends and social processes.
The Institute is non-partisan, independent, and autonomous in its fields of research and expressed opinions. As an external institute of Tel Aviv University, it maintains a strong association with the academic environment. In addition, it has a strong association with the political and military establishment.
Ephraim Asculai worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) for over 40 years, mainly on issues of nuclear and environmental safety. In 1986, he went to work at the IAEA in Vienna on issues of radiation protection of the public. During 1990-1991 he was the Scientific Secretary of the International Chernobyl Project.
In 1992, Dr. Asculai returned to Israel and became heavily involved in the deliberations leading to the conclusion of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In his final period at the IAEC he served as the Director of External Relations. During his sabbatical at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. he authored Verification Revisited: The Nuclear Case, published by the ISIS Press.
Dr. Asculai retired from the civil service in 2001. In 2002 he joined the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (now incorporated into the Institute for National Security Studies). He has since published several papers dealing with WMD non-proliferation in general, and Middle East issues in particular, including the monograph Rethinking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime in 2004.
He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
View the original publication at the Institute for National Security Studies
View this article on www.israelbehindthenews.com
very happy indeed. Iran managed to gain another crucial year in its quest
for a nuclear weapons capability, and every passing day brings it closer to
its ultimate goal: having the potential to produce deliverable nuclear
weapons in short order, if it so decides. It successfully delayed the West
from pursuing a more severe sanctions regime, and the West is behaving as if
it has all the time in the world. It does not.
How did this come about? Several factors combined to achieve the net result,
most of them not of Iran's doing: the election of a new US president who
believed in engagement as the sole way to resolve conflicts (and may still
want to believe this); the unwillingness, for years, of the IAEA to
acknowledge Iran's ultimate goal; the (unclassified) 2007 US National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that raised the possibility that Iran abandoned
its quest for nuclear weapons; the reluctance of the US to assume the lead
role in confronting Iran, and letting the EU-3 deal, albeit ineffectively,
with the situation; the contrary attitude of Russia and China, which are
watching the West struggle to find a solution while throwing it a bone from
time to time in supporting some sanctions resolutions that are not achieving
their aim; and the exceptional spanner in the works embedded in the quite
unproductive suggestion to transfer some of Iran's low enriched uranium
(LEU) outside the country and return it as medium enriched uranium fuel for
its Tehran Research Reactor. This last statement needs some explanation.
On October 1, 2009, the P5 +1 (the five permanent Security Council members
plus Germany) and Iran began talks in Geneva that were supposed to deal with
a host of issues, including the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment
activities. Meantime, the US proposed the said uranium transfer idea. The
rationale was, apparently, to remove the major portion of the LEU from Iran,
thus delaying Iran's potential to produce the core of its first nuclear
explosive device. The talks were then postponed for more than a month, the
IAEA produced a text of an agreement accepted by the Russian, US, and
Iranian delegations, and the Iranians went home to obtain the approval of
the agreement by their government. The government probably never had any
intention of approving this. The deadline for an Iranian reply came and went
and nothing happened. Meanwhile, Iran continued to enrich uranium.
Evaluating the proposal objectively, little would have been achieved, even
if the Iranians had agreed to it. The LEU stockpile would have been reduced,
and its quantity would be below what is needed for a complete nuclear weapon
core, but this would remain so for a short time only, since enrichment would
continue. Thus, the uranium transfer proposal bought precious time for the
Iranians, and no uranium enrichment suspension was even discussed.
Meanwhile, the end of the 2009 deadline set by the US for resolving the
Iranian nuclear issue also came and went, and nothing happened. The Iranians
are enriching, the US is hesitating, and the East seems to be quite happy
with the situation. The US year's end deadline proved to be devoid of
substance. The US administration apparently had no fallback plan to deal
with such a situation, and if it had, it did not execute it. Although Iran
formally rejected the above plan, the IAEA director general was quoted as
saying that the plan was still on the table. One wonders what this would
achieve if it were now accepted by the Iranians, except for a further delay
of a comprehensive solution to the issue and a continuing enrichment of
uranium by Iran. Time is running short, and action is needed if Iran's
almost inevitable achievement is to be thwarted.
The main solution, agreed to by almost all involved, is to level strong
sanctions. However, there is a lack of consensus on what these should be and
how to apply them. Recently, the idea has been floated that sanctions should
be applied mainly on those who are involved in Iran's nuclear project - the
Revolutionary Guards. It is a worthy notion, but almost impossible to
implement. It is worthy, because it would not affect the man in the street,
who is anyway oppressed by the regime. It is impossible to implement,
because it is quite difficult to think of any effective sanctions that would
target only the Revolutionary Guards.
The only sanctions that make sense that could influence the Iranian regime
to cave in and at least suspend the uranium enrichment program and agree to
institute the inspections according to the Additional Protocol are the
Iraqi-type sanctions. These should limit imports into Iran of anything but
foodstuffs, medicines, and other humanitarian aid, if and when necessary. No
other imports including oil distillates or technical equipment would be
supplied to Iran until it agrees to the above conditions. It is a mistake to
assume that any less severe sanctions would do the trick. Iran would go on
and continue enriching without giving much thought to the outside pressure.
If this is not undertaken by the Security Council, the US should implement
it with all the friends it can muster.
What would happen if this is not done? The one remaining way to prevent Iran
from becoming a nuclear power is military action against Iran's nuclear
installations. This is a route fraught with dangers and uncertainties.
Depending on how successful the attack would be, the Iranian program could
suffer a severe setback. However, there is a high probability that Iran
would attempt to retaliate. Moreover, the Iranians would be able to
reestablish their facilities within a few years and the vicious cycle would
recommence. If both suggested routes of action are not applied or they fail
to achieve the expected results, then within a few years a nuclear Iran will
likely emerge and begin activating its plans for regional hegemony. This
would cause a major upset of power distribution in the region, possible new
wars, and possibly the complete loss of American hegemony in the Gulf
region. On a global scale, the nuclear non-proliferation regime would
suffer, perhaps beyond repair.
Unfortunately, it is the latter possibility that seems to be in the offing.
Unless the US - which for all its rhetoric seems resigned to this outcome -
takes strong sanctions action now, this is probably what will happen. Iran
should not be given the time to accomplish this.
--
Mission
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. Through its mixture of researchers with backgrounds in academia, the military, government, and public policy, INSS is able to contribute to the public debate and governmental deliberation of leading strategic issues and offer policy analysis and recommendations to decision makers and public leaders, policy analysts, and theoreticians, both in Israel and abroad. As part of its mission, it is committed to encourage new ways of thinking and expand the traditional contours of establishment analysis.
Conceiving of security studies as a dynamic interdisciplinary field that involves military, intellectual, economic, and social resources, the Institute strives to reflect that diversity and complexity through research and policy recommendations of the highest standard. Complementing the traditional areas of defense, security doctrine, and politics, INSS has expanded its focus to include the “softer” components of national security, such as domestic trends and social processes.
The Institute is non-partisan, independent, and autonomous in its fields of research and expressed opinions. As an external institute of Tel Aviv University, it maintains a strong association with the academic environment. In addition, it has a strong association with the political and military establishment.
Ephraim Asculai worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) for over 40 years, mainly on issues of nuclear and environmental safety. In 1986, he went to work at the IAEA in Vienna on issues of radiation protection of the public. During 1990-1991 he was the Scientific Secretary of the International Chernobyl Project.
In 1992, Dr. Asculai returned to Israel and became heavily involved in the deliberations leading to the conclusion of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In his final period at the IAEC he served as the Director of External Relations. During his sabbatical at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. he authored Verification Revisited: The Nuclear Case, published by the ISIS Press.
Dr. Asculai retired from the civil service in 2001. In 2002 he joined the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (now incorporated into the Institute for National Security Studies). He has since published several papers dealing with WMD non-proliferation in general, and Middle East issues in particular, including the monograph Rethinking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime in 2004.
He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
View the original publication at the Institute for National Security Studies
View this article on www.israelbehindthenews.com
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Iranian General Threatens Revenge against America
by David Bedein
Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said Wednesday that Tehran will take revenge on the U.S. for its involvement in recent events, including the assassination of a renowned nuclear scientist and university professor, according to Iranian government news agencies.
“People are angry at those who staged the scene of recent events and terror attacks, but revenge should be taken from the U.S. itself for these crimes and, God willing, this will happen,” Mr. Naqdi said, addressing a gathering of commanders in Tehran.
Referring to the assassination of the Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi, he said the attack proved that the West is opposed to the production and development of sciences and technology in Iran.
“The terror attack against martyr Ali Mohammadi showed that the Democrats ruling the White House have reached a dead-end and are staging a scenario which (Former U.S. President Jimmy) Carter performed 30 years ago,” Mr. Naqdi said.
Iran has been presenting what it refers to as “documents proving West’s interference in Tehran’s affairs and its role in stoking the unrests” which allege “Western powers had played a direct role in the unrests.”
On Aug. 1, Iran launched the trials of a large number of dissidents, who it has accused of being agents, with certain foreign countries, which “contributed a role in fomenting unrest,” according to an Iranian government press release.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said Wednesday that Tehran will take revenge on the U.S. for its involvement in recent events, including the assassination of a renowned nuclear scientist and university professor, according to Iranian government news agencies.
“People are angry at those who staged the scene of recent events and terror attacks, but revenge should be taken from the U.S. itself for these crimes and, God willing, this will happen,” Mr. Naqdi said, addressing a gathering of commanders in Tehran.
Referring to the assassination of the Iranian university professor and nuclear scientist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi, he said the attack proved that the West is opposed to the production and development of sciences and technology in Iran.
“The terror attack against martyr Ali Mohammadi showed that the Democrats ruling the White House have reached a dead-end and are staging a scenario which (Former U.S. President Jimmy) Carter performed 30 years ago,” Mr. Naqdi said.
Iran has been presenting what it refers to as “documents proving West’s interference in Tehran’s affairs and its role in stoking the unrests” which allege “Western powers had played a direct role in the unrests.”
On Aug. 1, Iran launched the trials of a large number of dissidents, who it has accused of being agents, with certain foreign countries, which “contributed a role in fomenting unrest,” according to an Iranian government press release.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Iran Launches Largest Air Force Exercise
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Iran launched its largest air force exercise this past week.
The air exercise is part of an effort to introduce new indigenous platforms and systems and protect nuclear facilities. They said the five-day exercise, titled “Seal of the Prophets,” began last Sunday and would integrate operations by the regular air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
“The Iranian Air Force and IRGC will hold the largest air exercise in the history of the country,” Iranian Air Defense Commander Brig. Gen. Ahmed Miqani said Nov. 21.
Mr. Miqani told a news conference that Seal of the Prophets is taking place in central and western Iran and focus on air space protection and air defense. He said the exercise tested new systems, including air defense and electronic warfare. He said Iran has deployed air defense batteries around its nuclear facilities.
“The Air Defense Command is responsible for sensitive installations in the country, including nuclear facilities and will shoot down any plane that violates Iranian air space,” Mr. Miqani said. “This week’s air defense maneuvers will be held with the intention of protecting the country’s nuclear facilities.”
The exercise would also seek to enhance interoperability between fighter jets of the regular air force and IRGC. They said Seal of the Prophets would also test integration of operations by combat and reconnaissance platforms.
“Our unit will be in charge of the maneuver, but there will be units from IRGC and the Basij militia,” Mr. Miqani said.
Seal of the Prophet would contain three stages and envisioned an attack by an unnamed enemy, officials said. They said the exercise would test Russian-origin air defense systems, including the TOR-M1 and Pantsyr-S1.
Iran has been awaiting the longer-range S-300 system from Moscow. Mr. Miqani said Iran would test S-300 interceptors, but did not elaborate.
“In various maneuvers, new and modern missile networks will be used and evaluated, including the advanced S-300 missiles, for which production capability exists in Iran,” Mr. Miqani said.
IRGC has asserted that Iran reached the capability to defend against any Israeli air strike. IRGC Air Force Chief Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the military has developed an air defense umbrella that combined surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and fighter jets.
“Be assured that in case of aggression, the Zionist F-15 and F-16s will be trapped by our air defense and destroyed,” Mr. Hajizadeh said. “And, if one of their aircraft manages to escape Iran’s air defense, the bases from which these aircraft took off will be struck by our destructive ground to ground missiles.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Iran launched its largest air force exercise this past week.
The air exercise is part of an effort to introduce new indigenous platforms and systems and protect nuclear facilities. They said the five-day exercise, titled “Seal of the Prophets,” began last Sunday and would integrate operations by the regular air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
“The Iranian Air Force and IRGC will hold the largest air exercise in the history of the country,” Iranian Air Defense Commander Brig. Gen. Ahmed Miqani said Nov. 21.
Mr. Miqani told a news conference that Seal of the Prophets is taking place in central and western Iran and focus on air space protection and air defense. He said the exercise tested new systems, including air defense and electronic warfare. He said Iran has deployed air defense batteries around its nuclear facilities.
“The Air Defense Command is responsible for sensitive installations in the country, including nuclear facilities and will shoot down any plane that violates Iranian air space,” Mr. Miqani said. “This week’s air defense maneuvers will be held with the intention of protecting the country’s nuclear facilities.”
The exercise would also seek to enhance interoperability between fighter jets of the regular air force and IRGC. They said Seal of the Prophets would also test integration of operations by combat and reconnaissance platforms.
“Our unit will be in charge of the maneuver, but there will be units from IRGC and the Basij militia,” Mr. Miqani said.
Seal of the Prophet would contain three stages and envisioned an attack by an unnamed enemy, officials said. They said the exercise would test Russian-origin air defense systems, including the TOR-M1 and Pantsyr-S1.
Iran has been awaiting the longer-range S-300 system from Moscow. Mr. Miqani said Iran would test S-300 interceptors, but did not elaborate.
“In various maneuvers, new and modern missile networks will be used and evaluated, including the advanced S-300 missiles, for which production capability exists in Iran,” Mr. Miqani said.
IRGC has asserted that Iran reached the capability to defend against any Israeli air strike. IRGC Air Force Chief Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the military has developed an air defense umbrella that combined surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and fighter jets.
“Be assured that in case of aggression, the Zionist F-15 and F-16s will be trapped by our air defense and destroyed,” Mr. Hajizadeh said. “And, if one of their aircraft manages to escape Iran’s air defense, the bases from which these aircraft took off will be struck by our destructive ground to ground missiles.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Venezuela, Iran to Cooperate, Trade
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced his country's preparedness to export 20,000 barrels of gasoline to Iran as soon as October.
Speaking in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad here in Tehran on Sunday, Chavez reiterated that the two countries have signed an agreement in this regard.
Chavez's remarks came as the US tries to put energy sanctions on Iran and cut off the country's fuel supplies in a bid to force Tehran to halt its peaceful nuclear program.
To force Tehran to halt its nuclear activities, the US Senate has approved a bill to put pressure on companies selling gasoline to Iran.
According to the bill, companies that continue to sell gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran will be banned from receiving US Energy Department contracts to deliver crude to the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Despite lying on large oil reserves, Iran only produces 60 percent of its domestic gasoline demand and imports the remaining 40 percent.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced his country's preparedness to export 20,000 barrels of gasoline to Iran as soon as October.
Speaking in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad here in Tehran on Sunday, Chavez reiterated that the two countries have signed an agreement in this regard.
Chavez's remarks came as the US tries to put energy sanctions on Iran and cut off the country's fuel supplies in a bid to force Tehran to halt its peaceful nuclear program.
To force Tehran to halt its nuclear activities, the US Senate has approved a bill to put pressure on companies selling gasoline to Iran.
According to the bill, companies that continue to sell gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran will be banned from receiving US Energy Department contracts to deliver crude to the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Despite lying on large oil reserves, Iran only produces 60 percent of its domestic gasoline demand and imports the remaining 40 percent.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Reaction to North Korea - 'We Told You So'
by David Bedein
From Israel’s perspective, North Korea’s nuclear test, conducted Monday, was almost old news. Although the world was shocked when the news broke, Israeli security and Foreign Ministry officials could have said: “We told you so.”
Sources in the Israeli security establishment say they have been reporting on the connections between North Korea and Iran since the mid-1990s, when they started warning that North Korean technology was behind Iran’s Shahab missile. North Korean military, missile and nuclear experts have roamed the planet, mainly in the Middle East, seeking to sell their technologies to the highest bidder.
“And two years ago we reported - and backed it up with documentation - that North Korea was building Syria a nuclear reactor, and after we told them, we also attacked and destroyed it, to make sure that the threat was removed,” the sources said.
From Israel’s perspective, this is an existential issue: If the Americans blink, that will be sensed very clearly, and it will tell North Korea that it can continue to go about its nuclear weapons business. The North Korean developments likely will lead to Syria gaining improved missile technology and Iran accelerating its nuclear program.
Another senior Israeli official angrily chastised the United States for its lack of action after it learned North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.
“What did the Americans do with all that? Not much,” the official said. “The Syrian reactor ought to have taught them that North Korea had lied throughout the entire affair, but Washington nevertheless preferred to persevere with its critical dialogue.
“The result of that is that the missiles were fired, the tests continued. Yesterday was a resounding slap on the cheek, which ostensibly is supposed to indicate to all of us that the time has come for the administration either to sober up, or for us to despair of it.”
Barak: ‘Talk And Sanctions Don’t Stop Rogue Regimes’
Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the United States and the international community to learn lessons from North Korea’s nuclear defiance.
“It is incumbent upon the United States and the international community to learn the lessons so as to convey a clear message to Iran,” Mr. Barak said. “Israel is concerned by the free world’s failure to stand up to North Korea.
“Talk, declarations and soft sanctions do not stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test is a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”
Mr. Barak also expressed skepticism about the United States’ ability to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
“The chance of the dialogue between the United States and Iran producing an end to the Iranian effort to advance towards the attainment of a military nuclear capability is very low,” said Mr. Barak. “The Americans understand that the chance is very low, just that they think that there is a logic to this dialogue and yet, if that doesn’t happen, they are going to have to cope with the significance of that further on.”
The Defense minister says he believes the dialogue between the United States and Iran needs to be time limited, but the Obama administration has refrained from setting a firm timetable so far.
Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Israeli Knesset Parliament Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was more explicit, saying: “The North Koreans’ flaunted nuclear test was registered not only by the seismographs, but mainly by the Iranian regime of ayatollahs. If the United States surrenders unconditionally to the axis of evil, the entire world can expect to face difficult and demanding moments.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
From Israel’s perspective, North Korea’s nuclear test, conducted Monday, was almost old news. Although the world was shocked when the news broke, Israeli security and Foreign Ministry officials could have said: “We told you so.”
Sources in the Israeli security establishment say they have been reporting on the connections between North Korea and Iran since the mid-1990s, when they started warning that North Korean technology was behind Iran’s Shahab missile. North Korean military, missile and nuclear experts have roamed the planet, mainly in the Middle East, seeking to sell their technologies to the highest bidder.
“And two years ago we reported - and backed it up with documentation - that North Korea was building Syria a nuclear reactor, and after we told them, we also attacked and destroyed it, to make sure that the threat was removed,” the sources said.
From Israel’s perspective, this is an existential issue: If the Americans blink, that will be sensed very clearly, and it will tell North Korea that it can continue to go about its nuclear weapons business. The North Korean developments likely will lead to Syria gaining improved missile technology and Iran accelerating its nuclear program.
Another senior Israeli official angrily chastised the United States for its lack of action after it learned North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.
“What did the Americans do with all that? Not much,” the official said. “The Syrian reactor ought to have taught them that North Korea had lied throughout the entire affair, but Washington nevertheless preferred to persevere with its critical dialogue.
“The result of that is that the missiles were fired, the tests continued. Yesterday was a resounding slap on the cheek, which ostensibly is supposed to indicate to all of us that the time has come for the administration either to sober up, or for us to despair of it.”
Barak: ‘Talk And Sanctions Don’t Stop Rogue Regimes’
Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the United States and the international community to learn lessons from North Korea’s nuclear defiance.
“It is incumbent upon the United States and the international community to learn the lessons so as to convey a clear message to Iran,” Mr. Barak said. “Israel is concerned by the free world’s failure to stand up to North Korea.
“Talk, declarations and soft sanctions do not stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test is a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”
Mr. Barak also expressed skepticism about the United States’ ability to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
“The chance of the dialogue between the United States and Iran producing an end to the Iranian effort to advance towards the attainment of a military nuclear capability is very low,” said Mr. Barak. “The Americans understand that the chance is very low, just that they think that there is a logic to this dialogue and yet, if that doesn’t happen, they are going to have to cope with the significance of that further on.”
The Defense minister says he believes the dialogue between the United States and Iran needs to be time limited, but the Obama administration has refrained from setting a firm timetable so far.
Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Israeli Knesset Parliament Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was more explicit, saying: “The North Koreans’ flaunted nuclear test was registered not only by the seismographs, but mainly by the Iranian regime of ayatollahs. If the United States surrenders unconditionally to the axis of evil, the entire world can expect to face difficult and demanding moments.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Majority of Israelis Believe Iran will Develop Nuclear Bomb
by David Bedein
Although 49 percent of the Israeli public believes that Israel must wait and see whether American policy succeeds regarding Iran, 74 percent of the public does not believe that the policy of dialogue will succeed, according to a new poll conducted by the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University on the evening its two-day research conference this week.
According to the poll, the Israeli public is divided on the question of whether Israel should attack or not. The poll says Israelis of 42 years of age and over are significantly more concerned about the Iranian bomb than their younger counterparts.
Eighty-nine percent of those 42 and over are concerned, compared with 61 percent of the young people.
There is a similar gap between the age groups regarding possible emigration from Israel if Iran should develop a nuclear bomb (89 percent and 64 percent, respectively, will consider emigrating). The secular population of the Israeli much more concerned than the religious population: 88 percent of the secular population is worried, while 67 percent of the religious population is concerned.
In all, that has to do with possible Israeli policy in response to the Iranian threat, 61 percent of Israeli men support an attack, as compared with 47 percent of the women.
Professor David Menashri, the head of the center, said: “The unbridled language of President Ahmadinejad and his threats to wipe Israel off the map of history, accompanied by a program to develop nuclear capability and the upgrading of ballistic missiles, together with Iran’s increasing involvement in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip - all these have created real concern among Israelis. In addition, it appears that the declarations of Israeli leaders that regard Iran as an ‘existential threat,’ which were meant to make Israel’s concern clear to the world, only raised the threshold of fear among the Israeli public.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Although 49 percent of the Israeli public believes that Israel must wait and see whether American policy succeeds regarding Iran, 74 percent of the public does not believe that the policy of dialogue will succeed, according to a new poll conducted by the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University on the evening its two-day research conference this week.
According to the poll, the Israeli public is divided on the question of whether Israel should attack or not. The poll says Israelis of 42 years of age and over are significantly more concerned about the Iranian bomb than their younger counterparts.
Eighty-nine percent of those 42 and over are concerned, compared with 61 percent of the young people.
There is a similar gap between the age groups regarding possible emigration from Israel if Iran should develop a nuclear bomb (89 percent and 64 percent, respectively, will consider emigrating). The secular population of the Israeli much more concerned than the religious population: 88 percent of the secular population is worried, while 67 percent of the religious population is concerned.
In all, that has to do with possible Israeli policy in response to the Iranian threat, 61 percent of Israeli men support an attack, as compared with 47 percent of the women.
Professor David Menashri, the head of the center, said: “The unbridled language of President Ahmadinejad and his threats to wipe Israel off the map of history, accompanied by a program to develop nuclear capability and the upgrading of ballistic missiles, together with Iran’s increasing involvement in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip - all these have created real concern among Israelis. In addition, it appears that the declarations of Israeli leaders that regard Iran as an ‘existential threat,’ which were meant to make Israel’s concern clear to the world, only raised the threshold of fear among the Israeli public.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli PM Called Meeting With Obama Successful
by David Bedein
Netanyahu Still Questions Timetable For Iran Talks
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a briefing yesterday regarding Monday’s meeting with President Barack Obama.
The prime minister called the meeting successful as far as he was concerned.
First and foremost, it is clear Mr. Netanyahu had interpreted Mr. Obama’s seemingly contradictory words relating to a timetable for dialogue with the Iranians over their nuclear program as a deadline in every sense of the word.
Although Mr. Obama said he would not commit to an artificial deadline, he made it clear the U.S. was giving itself until the end of the year to make progress in talks with Tehran.
“If only these negotiations succeed,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Obama talked about re-evaluating at the end of the year. Is that a deadline or not?”
He said setting the end of the year as a clear target date for re-evaluating progress equaled setting a time limit for the dialogue.
The prime minister left the meeting with Mr. Obama pleased, particularly relating to what was agreed upon on Iran.
“I didn’t ask him for a green light or an orange light,” the prime minister said. “What’s important is that we reached agreement on a commitment to the outcome - that Iran not develop nuclear military capability. He stated this clearly.”
As for the Palestinian issue, it was apparent that the White House meeting did not exactly end according to Mr. Netanyahu’s expectations. The prime minister again clarified his belief that discussions with regard to establishing a Palestinian state should focus on restrictions that would guarantee Israeli security.
“All those who talk about the solution don’t stress the constraints enough - that it not have an army, about how to ensure that this be an entity that does not threaten Israel. That is the emphasis for us,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu said the meeting between them had taken place in a very friendly atmosphere.
“At first, there was a meeting of an hour and 45 minutes, and that was very important to solidify the personal connection between us,” the prime minister said.
The president’s verbal ability and good English definitely helped, but it was not the only thing that solidified this important connection between the leaders.
“There is a deep commitment to the connection between Israel and the U.S.,” Mr. Netanyahu said, summing up the summit.
Predictions About Tense Meeting Were Proved Wrong
The Israeli political establishment had braced for a disastrous meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.
Once the results of the meeting became known last night, members of the prime minister’s Likud Party expressed their happiness with the outcome.
“The predictions about a tense meeting were disproved,” said Likud Knesset member Ophir Okunis, who heads the party’s public response team. “The Obama-Netanyahu meeting proved once again the might of the relationship between the United States and Israel.
“The government is committed to the peace process with the Palestinians not on the basis of two states for two peoples, but, rather, on the basis of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.”
However, Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a Knesset member of the opposition National Union Party, said he was troubled by Mr. Obama’s statements about Iran.
“There is cause for real concern because the United States is shrugging off its historic duty to guarantee Israel’s security. The United States is willing, in practice, to resign itself to a nuclear Iran, so that Israel has been left facing Iran alone.”
Dr. Eldad said that Israel might not have any choice, in light of Mr. Obama’s statements, but to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
Labor Knesset member Yuli Tamir said: “Netanyahu has insisted on ignoring the unequivocal policy that has been introduced by the president of the United States, who regards the principle of two states for two peoples to be the key for stability in the Middle East...”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Netanyahu Still Questions Timetable For Iran Talks
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a briefing yesterday regarding Monday’s meeting with President Barack Obama.
The prime minister called the meeting successful as far as he was concerned.
First and foremost, it is clear Mr. Netanyahu had interpreted Mr. Obama’s seemingly contradictory words relating to a timetable for dialogue with the Iranians over their nuclear program as a deadline in every sense of the word.
Although Mr. Obama said he would not commit to an artificial deadline, he made it clear the U.S. was giving itself until the end of the year to make progress in talks with Tehran.
“If only these negotiations succeed,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Obama talked about re-evaluating at the end of the year. Is that a deadline or not?”
He said setting the end of the year as a clear target date for re-evaluating progress equaled setting a time limit for the dialogue.
The prime minister left the meeting with Mr. Obama pleased, particularly relating to what was agreed upon on Iran.
“I didn’t ask him for a green light or an orange light,” the prime minister said. “What’s important is that we reached agreement on a commitment to the outcome - that Iran not develop nuclear military capability. He stated this clearly.”
As for the Palestinian issue, it was apparent that the White House meeting did not exactly end according to Mr. Netanyahu’s expectations. The prime minister again clarified his belief that discussions with regard to establishing a Palestinian state should focus on restrictions that would guarantee Israeli security.
“All those who talk about the solution don’t stress the constraints enough - that it not have an army, about how to ensure that this be an entity that does not threaten Israel. That is the emphasis for us,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu said the meeting between them had taken place in a very friendly atmosphere.
“At first, there was a meeting of an hour and 45 minutes, and that was very important to solidify the personal connection between us,” the prime minister said.
The president’s verbal ability and good English definitely helped, but it was not the only thing that solidified this important connection between the leaders.
“There is a deep commitment to the connection between Israel and the U.S.,” Mr. Netanyahu said, summing up the summit.
Predictions About Tense Meeting Were Proved Wrong
The Israeli political establishment had braced for a disastrous meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.
Once the results of the meeting became known last night, members of the prime minister’s Likud Party expressed their happiness with the outcome.
“The predictions about a tense meeting were disproved,” said Likud Knesset member Ophir Okunis, who heads the party’s public response team. “The Obama-Netanyahu meeting proved once again the might of the relationship between the United States and Israel.
“The government is committed to the peace process with the Palestinians not on the basis of two states for two peoples, but, rather, on the basis of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.”
However, Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a Knesset member of the opposition National Union Party, said he was troubled by Mr. Obama’s statements about Iran.
“There is cause for real concern because the United States is shrugging off its historic duty to guarantee Israel’s security. The United States is willing, in practice, to resign itself to a nuclear Iran, so that Israel has been left facing Iran alone.”
Dr. Eldad said that Israel might not have any choice, in light of Mr. Obama’s statements, but to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
Labor Knesset member Yuli Tamir said: “Netanyahu has insisted on ignoring the unequivocal policy that has been introduced by the president of the United States, who regards the principle of two states for two peoples to be the key for stability in the Middle East...”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Study - Iran Issue Will 'Make or Break' US President
by David Bedein
A report issued on the eve of today’s summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama says U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program could determine the outcome of the president’s administration.
The report, published by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), warns the issue could be “the Cuban missile crisis all over again.”
“It will test the ability of the newly-elected U.S. president to confront the adversary and better him. In a way, this is a make-or-break situation for Obama,” analyst Ephraim Asculai wrote in the INSS report, titled “The Game with Iran.”
The INSS report said Tehran would test Mr. Obama’s resolve by continuing uranium enrichment and other activities required for nuclear weapons development.
It also says the United States will likely be forced to confront rising instability in the Middle East sparked by Iran’s nuclear program, as well as by Tehran’s support for insurgency groups. The report cited Egypt’s capture of an alleged Hezbollah network, which reportedly planned attacks throughout the Sinai Peninsula as an example.
“Egypt is confronting Iran and instability is in the air,” the report said. “Perhaps more than the recent U.S. elections, the timetable is now dictated by the closing deadline of Iran’s nuclear progress.”
Earlier this month, CIA director Leon Panetta held a meeting with the Israeli prime minister and reportedly demanded Israel not take any military action against Iran.
Officials said Mr. Obama ordered Mr. Panetta’s visit because he wanted to avoid a long discussion on Iran during today’s meeting in Washington.
Mr. Asculai, a former official in the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, said the Obama administration likely will pursue a diplomatic solution to Iran’s outlawed uranium enrichment program. But the report advises Mr. Obama to set a deadline for obtaining diplomatic results.
“In setting the time limit, the president must remember that any time gained by the Iranians during the negotiation process would be used to further advance their project,” the report warned.
The report said Iran could exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic endeavors by insisting its nuclear project is nonnegotiable. Doing so, the report said, would harm U.S. influence throughout the Middle East, particularly among the Gulf Cooperation Council states, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Mr. Asculai urged Israel to delay plans to attack Iran and instead recommended the Netanyahu government give Mr. Obama time to discover how receptive Iran is to diplomacy.
“Should engagement fail, Israel would be in a better position to convince the United States, if not to actively support, then at least not to interfere, with any military action,” the report said.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
A report issued on the eve of today’s summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama says U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program could determine the outcome of the president’s administration.
The report, published by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), warns the issue could be “the Cuban missile crisis all over again.”
“It will test the ability of the newly-elected U.S. president to confront the adversary and better him. In a way, this is a make-or-break situation for Obama,” analyst Ephraim Asculai wrote in the INSS report, titled “The Game with Iran.”
The INSS report said Tehran would test Mr. Obama’s resolve by continuing uranium enrichment and other activities required for nuclear weapons development.
It also says the United States will likely be forced to confront rising instability in the Middle East sparked by Iran’s nuclear program, as well as by Tehran’s support for insurgency groups. The report cited Egypt’s capture of an alleged Hezbollah network, which reportedly planned attacks throughout the Sinai Peninsula as an example.
“Egypt is confronting Iran and instability is in the air,” the report said. “Perhaps more than the recent U.S. elections, the timetable is now dictated by the closing deadline of Iran’s nuclear progress.”
Earlier this month, CIA director Leon Panetta held a meeting with the Israeli prime minister and reportedly demanded Israel not take any military action against Iran.
Officials said Mr. Obama ordered Mr. Panetta’s visit because he wanted to avoid a long discussion on Iran during today’s meeting in Washington.
Mr. Asculai, a former official in the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, said the Obama administration likely will pursue a diplomatic solution to Iran’s outlawed uranium enrichment program. But the report advises Mr. Obama to set a deadline for obtaining diplomatic results.
“In setting the time limit, the president must remember that any time gained by the Iranians during the negotiation process would be used to further advance their project,” the report warned.
The report said Iran could exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic endeavors by insisting its nuclear project is nonnegotiable. Doing so, the report said, would harm U.S. influence throughout the Middle East, particularly among the Gulf Cooperation Council states, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Mr. Asculai urged Israel to delay plans to attack Iran and instead recommended the Netanyahu government give Mr. Obama time to discover how receptive Iran is to diplomacy.
“Should engagement fail, Israel would be in a better position to convince the United States, if not to actively support, then at least not to interfere, with any military action,” the report said.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Biological Weapons, Instead of Nuclear Weapons, Keep Syria within Axis of Evil
by David Bedein
Syria has reportedly rebuilt the structure that housed the reactor bombed by Israel last year and has turned the site into a facility for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
Official sources stated Syria had significantly expanded its biological and chemical weapons program by doing so.
According to a CBS News report, the discovery of the Syrian program was one of the reasons President Barack Obama decided to renew the sanctions against Syria. An American source said [the U.S.] had received information that had altered the situation in U.S.-Syrian relations. After Sunday night’s report on CBS, it was clear what this information was.
A senior American intelligence source in Washington told the Israeli media Syria had denied having rebuilt the structure and also denied it was part of its biological and chemical weapons program. American satellite imagery, however, showed unequivocally that Syria was lying.
The discovery of the renewed Syrian biological and chemical weapons program adds to a series of differences of opinion that has left the Syrians and Americans in a deadlock.
Syria’s relationship with Iran, arming of Hezbollah and hosting of Hamas and other terror groups greatly troubles the Obama administration.
As a result, Mr. Obama announced a change in his Syria policy after his two envoys returned to Washington on Sunday.
The envoys went to Syria with the new intelligence showing the site that formerly housed the nuclear reactor had been restored and had become a structure housing an expanded chemical and biological weapons program.
Syria, however, denied the existence of the new program at the facility despite being shown the satellite footage, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
After Mr. Obama consulted with his advisers, he reached the conclusion that Syria had not done anything to justify removing the sanctions.
“The concerns we had about Syria’s actions have not changed, so renewing the sanctions was the right thing to do,” a senior White House source told the Voice of Israel Radio.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Syria has reportedly rebuilt the structure that housed the reactor bombed by Israel last year and has turned the site into a facility for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
Official sources stated Syria had significantly expanded its biological and chemical weapons program by doing so.
According to a CBS News report, the discovery of the Syrian program was one of the reasons President Barack Obama decided to renew the sanctions against Syria. An American source said [the U.S.] had received information that had altered the situation in U.S.-Syrian relations. After Sunday night’s report on CBS, it was clear what this information was.
A senior American intelligence source in Washington told the Israeli media Syria had denied having rebuilt the structure and also denied it was part of its biological and chemical weapons program. American satellite imagery, however, showed unequivocally that Syria was lying.
The discovery of the renewed Syrian biological and chemical weapons program adds to a series of differences of opinion that has left the Syrians and Americans in a deadlock.
Syria’s relationship with Iran, arming of Hezbollah and hosting of Hamas and other terror groups greatly troubles the Obama administration.
As a result, Mr. Obama announced a change in his Syria policy after his two envoys returned to Washington on Sunday.
The envoys went to Syria with the new intelligence showing the site that formerly housed the nuclear reactor had been restored and had become a structure housing an expanded chemical and biological weapons program.
Syria, however, denied the existence of the new program at the facility despite being shown the satellite footage, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
After Mr. Obama consulted with his advisers, he reached the conclusion that Syria had not done anything to justify removing the sanctions.
“The concerns we had about Syria’s actions have not changed, so renewing the sanctions was the right thing to do,” a senior White House source told the Voice of Israel Radio.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
