Here I am to eat crow, willingly and happily. Cheryl was right and I was wrong – after Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC tonight it’s pretty clear Israel won’t be unilaterally launching a preventative attack on Iran’s nuclear program just yet.
Sources confirm to Reuters what Barak Ravid of Haaretz had already written today:
Netanyahu told Obama that he had not yet made any decision about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, though he made it clear he did not rule out such a move in the future. In statements to the press both before and after the meeting Netanyahu said Israel has the sovereign right to defend itself against Iran.
“When it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right, to makes its own decisions,” Netanyahu said before the meeting. “My supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.”
Obama agreed that Israel had the right to defend itself, adding, “I want to assure both the American people and the Israeli people that we are in constant and close consultation … and I intend to make sure that that continues during what will be a series of difficult months, I suspect, in 2012.”
Netanyahu told Obama he believed Iran’s leaders were determined to wipe out Israel.
“They mean it,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying to Obama. “If this will be resolved by diplomacy, great. But we have to prepare for the worst-case scenario. The pressure on Iran has indeed increased, but time is getting short.”
But as today’s New York Times editorial points out, the talk is increasingly tending towards war.
Mr. Obama has long said that all options are on the table. In recent days his language has become more pointed ”” urged on, undoubtedly, by Israel’s threats to act alone.
Last week he told The Atlantic, ”œwhen the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” In a speech on Sunday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he declared that his policy is not to contain Iran, it is ”œto prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
The United States military is far more capable of doing serious damage to Iran’s facilities than the Israeli military, but the cost would still be high, with many of the same dangers and uncertainties.
Mr. Obama is right that military action should only be the last resort, but Israel should not doubt this president’s mettle. Neither should Iran.
Obama has clearly said he has Israel’s back, repeatedly, in the last couple of days. Reports a month ago that Israel had been told it would act alone if it attacked Iran without US permission are now just old newsprint. Another Haaretz writer, Sefi Rachlevsky, suggests this state of affairs suits Netanyahu just fine.
Those Israeli planners who believe in an attack have one hope only – that the United States will be dragged in and complete the Israeli move.
The Israeli operation is meant to be a hydrogen bomb, with the Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities serving as the detonator. If numerous missiles land on Tel Aviv and American assets in the region are hit, the carefully chosen timing, right before the U.S. elections, is supposed to compel Obama to send the only military force capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear program.
Sometime between early June and mid-August, just before the Republican nominating convention, will be the ideal moment to drag the United States into war, the planners believe.
…The goal of the Israeli maneuvering is simple – to generate American chatter that will prepare the ground for dragging the United States into the battle following the Israeli strike. That’s all.
The ground is now prepared, I’d say. If I was Obama, I would not be feeling too comfortable.
I guess the world doesn’t include Russia or China anymore?
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
conveniently keeps the international scene and democrats from focusing any energy on Palestine. Plus plus for Bibi and Obama.
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
Iran should invoke the Ghandi response:
Invite in Observers from all nations.
Ask for help from the UN.
Take the matter to the ICC.
Demand reparations.
Then what’s a superpower to do? Invade? (That’s gone well recently).
and the NYT is not to be trusted on this matter. They were so objective in the run up to Iraq.
Iran to allow IAEA visit Parchin military site: ISNA
Tehran | March 6
Reuters – Iran said it will give the U.N. nuclear watchdog access to its Parchin military complex, ISNA news agency reported on Tuesday, a site where the agency believes Tehran pursued high explosives research relevant to nuclear weapons.
An International Atomic Energy Agency report last year said that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, to conduct explosives tests that are “strong indicators” of efforts to develop an atom bomb.
The IAEA requested access to Parchin during high-level talks in Tehran in February, but the Iranian side did not grant it.
“…Parchin is a military site and accessing it is a time-consuming process, therefore visits cannot be allowed frequently … We will allow the IAEA to visit it one more time,” Iran’s diplomatic mission in Vienna said in a statement, according to ISNA.
more
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
was extraordinary and directed at the March 5, 2012 meeting. As I said, Russia has actually been acting as the intermediary.
Today, in fact, is the announcement of a renewed negotiation. They are down to the percentage of uranium Iran can enrich. The big fear for Iran has been that additional sanctions include their being kicked out of the global electronic currency exchange. It is like canceling your checking account, the end of trade for Iran.
They are running low on certain food stocks, gasoline and diesel. It has been played very very well.
As to Syria, the next step will be Turkey beginning to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. Also satellites will be positioned to provide intelligence to rebels in the country. Syria is generally seen as Iran’s last ally.
World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
…Russia is acting as the intermediary?
As a technical note, there’s little need to tailor the orbits of the birds for collection on Syrian targets – already baked in.
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
…for Israel? We’re talking boycott and the market is taking that into account. Here ya go Bibi – here’s our dollars going to petro-traders all so we can’t be called ‘anti semitic’ by Abe Foxman and AIPAC.
1. Iran legitimately wants a civil nuclear program to supplement electricity which is in shortage.
2. Hardliners want that nuclear program to also produce a weapon, or weapons to enhance Iran’s stature. This group, being in power, has hijacked the legitimate program. But this leadership also knows the importance of civil nuclear.
3. Western coalition governments do not want a nuclear weaponized Iran
4. Hardline Israel and Western conservatives are also opposed to Iran having ANY nuclear capacity, civil or otherwise.
So here is the chess match. Can a military strike prevent Iran’s nuclear weapon ambition? The consensus is that a surgical strike only can delay nuclear weapon programs by only one to two years. Hence, Iran can saber rattle, knowing no country wants to go to war and knowing surgical strikes don’t work.
However, maybe the delay argument is not true. Maybe surgical strikes can destroy a weapons program, and the civil nuclear program as well. There is a precedent for this. The Osirak surgical strike in Iraq in 1981 was a success, but powers believed it would only delay their program by one to two years.
However, it is now known that after the Osirak attack in 1981, the Iraqi nuclear programs were never fully recovered. This was not fully known in the 1990s, but it is now. The lesson of Osirik is that a surgical strike followed by sanctions can entirely wipe out a nuclear development program.
The Syrian nuclear reactor attack in 2007 is another example of a nuclear program ending strike. That reactor also has never resumed, and Syrian weapons ambitions have ended.
So, there is a new calculus. Iran must weight whether it wants its program ended. With the possibility that surgical strikes and sanctions could wipe out the entire program.
Today they have begun to blink. Sanctions are already in place, and the importance of a civil nuclear program for electricity is likely more important than a weapon. They could lose everything. The diplomatic offer to to state they have a legitimate right to civil nuclear power, with the right to enrich under 20% uranium (the non weaponized standard), and to operate a reactor with UN oversight. This would be the likely outcome of the current diplomacy. I also know Iran is countering with the US supplying the uranium, if there is to be oversight (something we would not likely agree to).
The precedent definitely exists showing military strikes can DESTROY nuclear programs without war, and the sanction structure to ensure a strikes effectiveness is already in place. Obama has baked that into the pie. This is why I believe diplomacy is the outcome.
And Diplomacy is turning out to be the path that is being followed.
The US has no formal contacts with Iran, nor has the EU. China is not really in the diplomacy business. Russia yet maintains formal contact. They are the channel we have been using. The successful resumption of talks was orchestrated, in conjunction with Clinton in the US and with Turkey, by Lavrov the foreign minister of Russia.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/94821-russian-fm-calls-for-resumption-of-iran-51-talks
is no different than out of China. They both want diplomatic solutions.
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
The diplomacy on the ground is being orchestrated by Russia. This stuff takes a lot of groundwork. It’s not magic. I’m talking about the actual process that has been at play here for the past 60 days. Russia has BEEN the diplomatic conduit.
way at all. China and Russia have been pushing back against the extensive and heated rhetoric of Israel and the west forever. To imply they(Russia) are working in concert with Obama is bull, Obama’s caving to increasing sanctions says more of his administrations diplomatic inadequacies than him mouthing the words diplomacy. The fact that Obama can not even get his own administration on the same page shows his own personal failings on the subject.
Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart. ~ Phil Jackson
Steve, I don’t think you need to boil up that crow just yet.
It does look like Obama has cooled Netanyahu off a bit, but we do have these Israeli tantrums every couple of years. And of course our Republican candidates do like to beat those war drums. (Volunteer for the military? Mitt’s boys? Yeah right)
I’ll be writing some more on the subject. Couple of good articles today on Israel’s nuclear arsenal and their secrecy about it. It’s possible that this whole uproar could lead to greater pressure to consider those nukes on a more equal basis.
This isn’t it.
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
that Lavrov is actually in Turkey and Iran meeting and organizing a means for inspections in concert with Hillary Clinton and folks associated with the Eu?? I mean I am talking about actual events here. This has not been abstract in any sense. The russians have been like physically, on the clock, gumshoe, working on this thing.
…it means that the intermediary is responding to someone else’s agenda, not their own. It’s Party A talking to Party C, using Party B [the intermediary] as the medium of communication. Based on what you’re describing and what I’ve been seeing in the coverage, this is Party B pursuing its own agenda with Party A and Party C. The distinction is pretty key, particularly with these players and these circumstances. Both Russia and Turkey have played the non-intermediary role of Party B before and it hasn’t worked out so hot.
The key thing that we don’t have a lot of insight into in all this is how much will there is on the part of Iran and the United States to resolve the situation. Imprecise use of “intermediary” can give false indications of that key data point.
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
…current understanding. See the following: pdf.
Reiter, Dan (2005) Preventive Attacks Against Nuclear Programs and the “Success” at Osirak, Nonproliferation Review 12(2):355-71.
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
but facts on the ground is they could not get the program fully back on the rails. It was always assumed they were, but based on all the inspections I’ve seen it just never got back to anything like an achievable goal. That error of assumption is the error of the 2003 invasion. There simply was no weapons program at that time. The takeaway is that sanctions with a strategic takedown of a nuclear plant target ends the weapons program.
That fear I believe has to be playing out in Irans leadership.
I persist in living the illusion that folks can actually learn and on the basis of new data change their minds. I seem to recall you making the same observation in the past.
“In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes
The Israelis can’t launch a traditional, standing army invasion of Iran unilaterally and be successful. Of course they can do a lot of damage to Iran, but it’s an unwinnable situation, militarily, and (not that Israel cares, at least not the hardliners) a catastrophic disaster politically.
The US, of course, knows all this, so we’re aren’t willing to do it for them.
Israel doesn’t like it, but that’s how it stands right now.
They will have to settle for a cold war at this point.
Iran, I think, gets it too. They are spared a ravaging, humiliating military defeat on their own soil for now.
But the truth is, and all players know it, Iran can not even come through a low-intensity conflict without collapsing. As pointed out, it doesn’t take a full-on war to decimate their nuclear ambitions, civic or otherwise. Even isolated air-raids could be a severe setback to Iran right now. As pointed put, not a setback they could bounce back from, not in their already economically weakened state.
Iran needs to be talking peace, which is not politically popular to be sure.
But the alternative for them may well end in coughing up blood, and they need to take that possibility for the reality that it is into consideration.