Love of the Land: Muddling the Iran Issue

Muddling the Iran Issue

Jonathan Schachter, Emily B Landau
and Ephraim Asculai
INSS
Insight No. 177
26 April '10

On April 17 the New York Times revealed that in January US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote a memo to National Security Adviser James Jones on the need to develop policy options regarding Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons. One senior White House official is quoted as describing the memo, which came after President Obama’s end of 2009 diplomatic deadline had come and gone, as “a wake-up call” testifying to the US's lack of a workable long term policy for confronting the Iranian nuclear challenge. The day after the Times’s publication, Gates acknowledged that he had indeed written the memo, but disputed the characterization of its content and intent, saying that his goal was “to contribute to an orderly and timely decision-making process.”

The absence of a clear American strategy to deal with an aggressively nuclearizing Iran has been apparent for some time, and thus this revelation comes as no surprise. In addition, Gates’s own description of the memo strongly suggests that “an orderly and timely decision-making process” was eminently lacking. The only real surprise, it seems, is the blunt assessment coming from within the administration.

It is possible that the memo was leaked in order to document Gates’s concerns about the increasing likelihood that Iran would achieve nuclear weapons capability before long and on his watch. It is also possible that as an appointee of President George W. Bush, Gates might be setting the stage for his own resignation. Alternatively, the memo might reflect simple disagreement or for that matter much more heated battles between the Pentagon’s civilian and military leadership. Whatever the true reason or reasons, the leak of the memo and the multiplicity of plausible interpretations and explanations are indicative of the real problem with US policy on Iran: mixed and confused messages.

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Muddling the Iran Issue

Love of the Land: Israel Prepares for the Enemy It Faces

Israel Prepares for the Enemy It Faces

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
21 April '10

In contrast with the Obama administration, which perpetually talks down the potential for a military strike, Israeli officials are beginning to talk openly about such action. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Israeli security establishment is divided over whether it needs Washington’s blessing if Israel decides to attack Iran, Israeli officials say, as the U.S. campaign for sanctions drags on and Tehran steadily develops greater nuclear capability.

Some senior Israeli officials say in interviews that they see signs Washington may be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, an eventuality that Israel says it won’t accept. Compounding Israeli concerns were U.S. statements this past weekend that underscored U.S. resistance to a military option. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday discussed a memo to National Security Adviser James Jones warning that the U.S. needed new strategies, including how to contain a nuclear Iran—suggesting that Iran could reach nuclear capability without any foreign military force trying to stop it.

Until now Bibi has played along both with the Obama engagement gambit and the sanctions effort, but we now hear that “Israeli officials have increasingly voiced frustration over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts to get sanctions in place.” We are, after all, running out of time. The concern for the Israelis tells us much about the state of U.S.-Israel relations and the real weak link in going after Iranian nuclear capabilities:

Many Israeli military experts say Israel can easily cope with any military retaliation by Iran in response to a strike. Iran’s medium-range rockets would cause damage and casualties in Israel, but they aren’t very accurate, and Israel’s sophisticated missile-defense system would likely knock many out midflight.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Israel Prepares for the Enemy It Faces

Love of the Land: Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

JINSA Report #: 980
19 April '10

According to The New York Times, "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability."

A journalist wrote to JINSA, "It seems to me the Jewish community has contributed to that (lack of policy) by making the very mention of 'containment' politically toxic-as if even planning for that contingency, however much it is unwanted, is an act of appeasement. Where's the error in my reasoning?"

The short answer is that the Obama Administration has not taken seriously Jewish concerns regarding any foreign policy area. It is an error to think he gave credence to what "the Jews" said about Iran.

The longer answer is the reason we don't have a policy for containing a nuclear Iran, if indeed we don't, is because President Obama appears not to have believed we might have to do it. As a candidate and as President he said a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable." And because it was unacceptable, it wouldn't happen. He would engage the regime, he said, and then be prepared for "crippling sanctions" with international support he said, and then leave "all options" on the table.

He appears not to have anticipated the failure of his first two options.

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

Love of the Land: The Obama Administration's Conflicting Messages on Iran

The Obama Administration's Conflicting Messages on Iran

Alan M. Dershowitz
Hudson New York
19 April '10

The Obama Administration is sending conflicting and confusing messages both to Iran and to those who fear an Iranian nuclear weapon. According to The New York Times, defense secretary Robert M. Gates sent a top secret memorandum to White House officials bemoaning the fact that the United States simply has no policy in place to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At the same time, it is telling Israel that although Iran has threatened to wipe it off the map, the Jewish state should not take military action to prevent a second Holocaust. Indeed former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has participated in White House discussions concerning the Middle East, has threatened that if Israel tries to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon facilities, the United States is fully capable of shooting Israeli jets out of the air.

Although Gates subsequently denied that his memo, which he acknowledges writing, was intended as a "wake up call," a senior White House official has confirmed that it was just that. There is no evidence, however, that the White House is prepared to confront the grave threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The policy that seems to be emerging from the White House is one called "containment." But what is containment? It is little more than an acknowledgement of failure. Containment implies that the United States will not succeed in preventing Iran from securing nuclear weapons, but rather it will accept such an eventuality and seek to deter the use of nuclear weapons by threats and by the deployment of defensive measures. The analogy that proponents of containment point to is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons but has thus far been "contained" from using them. But there are vast differences between North Korea and Iran.

North Korea is a secular Communist regime that is risk averse and that has no sworn existential enemies. The goal of its leaders is simply to remain in power and maintain their totalitarian control over their people. Iran is a theocratic, apocalyptic regime that believes that it has a religious obligation to destroy Israel and threaten the United States. Iran, unlike North Korea, also operates through surrogates, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and other smaller terrorist groups. They could hand-off nuclear material to such groups, or to sympathetic individuals, for use as dirty bombs directed against its enemies.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The Obama Administration's Conflicting Messages on Iran

Israel Matzav: Gates to resign and be replaced by ... Chuck Hagel?

Gates to resign and be replaced by ... Chuck Hagel?

This is more bad news for supporters of Israel.

Power Line reports on a rumor that Defense Secretary Robert Gates - the one holdover in the Obama cabinet from the Bush administration - is on his way out. The problem is Gates' rumored replacement: Chuck Hagel. This is from a New York Sun editorial cited by Ed Lasky of The American Thinker last October.

One indicator came on July 24, 2001, when the Senate voted 96 to 2 to renew the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The act helps deny Iran and Libya money that they would spend on supporting terror or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The two senators who opposed the measure? Messrs. Lugar and Hagel.

Another indicator came on November 11, 2003, when the Senate, by a vote of 89 to 4, passed the Syria Accountability Act authorizing sanctions on Syria for its support of terrorism and its occupation of Lebanon. Mr. Hagel - along with Mr. Kerry - didn't vote. Mr. Hagel met in Damascus in 1998 with the terror-sponsoring dictator, Hafez Al-Assad, and returned to tell a reporter about the meeting, "Peace comes through dealing with people. Peace doesn't come at the end of a bayonet or the end of a gun."

Feature, as well, the lineup on April 6, 2001, when 87 members of the Senate sent President Bush a letter saying Yasser Arafat should not be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington. The letter also faulted the Palestinians for using violence against Israel. Messrs. Lugar and Hagel did not sign the letter. When, on May 22, 1998, the Senate, by a vote of 90 to 4, passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, imposing sanctions on foreigners who help Iran's missile program, Mr. Lugar fetched up among the four senators who voted against the measure.

These columns, in a July 10, 2003, editorial headlined "Ayatollah Lugar," have already reported on how Mr. Lugar watered down the Iran Democracy Act that was introduced by Senators Brownback, Schumer, Kyl, Inouye, and others. On April 18, 2002, when the Senate, by 88 to 10, voted to ban the import to America of Iraqi oil until Iraq stopped compensating the families of Palestinian Arab suicide bombers, Messrs. Lugar and Hagel were among the handful who voted to bring in the oil.

The bottom line is that Messrs. Hagel and Lugar (Hagar, is how their names can be contracted) want a weaker stance than most other senators against the terrorists in Iran and Syria and the West Bank and Gaza and against those who help the terrorists. They are more concerned than most other senators about upsetting our erstwhile allies in Europe - the French and Germans - who do business with the terrorists.

Chuck Hagel (pictured) is bad news. Lasky suggests googling "Chuck Hagel," Israel. I did. This is the top result.

Here is what the Jewish Democrats said about Hagel in March 2007:

As Senator Hagel sits around for six more months and tries to decide whether to launch a futile bid for the White House, he has a lot of questions to answer about his commitment to Israel. Consider this:

# In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

# In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

# In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

# In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

# In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

Here's what the National Review wrote about Hagel's stance on Israel in 2002:

"There's nothing Hagel likes less than talking about right and wrong in the context of foreign policy. Pro-Israeli groups view him almost uniformly as a problem. 'He doesn't always cast bad votes, but he always says the wrong thing,' comments an Israel supporter who watches Congress. An April speech is a case in point. 'We will need a wider lens to grasp the complex nature and consequences of terrorism,' said Hagel. He went on to cite a few examples of terrorism: FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Palestinian suicide bombers. Then he continued, 'Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism.' He didn't exactly say he shares this view - but he also failed to reject it."

And here's what the anti-Israel group, CAIR, wrote in praise of Hagel:

"Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel ?" [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06]

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Gates to resign and be replaced by ... Chuck Hagel?

Love of the Land: Are the Iranians Worried About That New Deadline?

Are the Iranians Worried About That New Deadline?

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
25 September 09

Along with the leaders of Britain and France, President Obama was forced today to take time out of the G-8 Summit to react to the announcement that Iran has been building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel. What followed was the announcement that Iran had a deadline of two months to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear program or it would face sanctions. This makes it sound as if real pressure is about to be ratcheted up on Tehran. Supposedly, this means that unless the Iranians allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, the West will press for new, tougher sanctions on Iran. Obama hopes that his recent appeasement of Russia by breaking faith with Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense will mean that the Putin/Medvedev regime will finally play along on sanctions and drag the Chinese with them.

It’s a nice theory, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fresh off another vile Holocaust-denying speech at the United Nations, may not exactly be shaking in his boots about the prospect of Western resolve. Years of feckless Western diplomacy (outsourced by the Bush administration to France and Germany) did nothing but convince the Iranians that no one outside of Israel was serious about stopping them. And after months of outreach from the Obama administration, including an astonishingly weak response to their brazen theft of a presidential election and brutal crackdown on dissidents, it’s not clear that the threat of sanctions is one the Iranians take seriously.

As for what would happen after the two months if the deadline is not adhered to, Tehran understands all too well that the negotiations between the United States, its Western allies, and Iran’s erstwhile friends in Moscow and Beijing would be long, tedious, and likely to produce something short of the draconian measures necessary to produce significant leverage.

Just as important is that the two-month deadline, though seemingly indicative of some spine on behalf of the West, is hardly the sort of ultimatum likely to spur panic among the leaders of the Islamist regime. It is, in fact, not the first multi-month deadline Iran has recently received. When U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Israel over the summer, he attempted to placate his anxious hosts by saying that America had given Tehran only until the United Nations General Assembly to respond to Obama’s overtures before the clock would start on stronger sanctions. So, far from being the harbinger of a new era of resolve on the issue, the new two-month deadline is in effect an extension on the previous demand placed on Iran. This must lead Ahmadinejad to reason that no matter what his government does or doesn’t do between now and the end of November, it may be a reasonable bet that this date will be merely the beginning of a new period during which Washington will say diplomacy must be given just one more chance.

We may hope that Obama’s rhetoric today is the beginning of a new era of American seriousness about the threat from Iranian nukes. But when seen in the context of what has recently preceded it, and the clear preference on the part of the president and our allies for “engagement” rather than action on the issue, optimism in Tehran about their chances of further successful defiance of international opinion may well be justified.

Love of the Land: Are the Iranians Worried About That New Deadline?

Israel Matzav: Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?

Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?

In an interview with Al-Jazeera's English-language channel that was aired on Monday, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged US allies in the Arab world to strengthen their military capabilities and defense cooperation with Washington as a means of pressuring Iran to back off its nuclear program.

Gates said "one of the pathways to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security, not enhance it.

"So the more that our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it," he said.

I will have video of the interview (which for some reason does not included the quoted statements) further down in this post, but first I want to discuss Gates' call to Arab countries.

Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.

Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.

America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.

That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?

Israel Matzav: US and Israel divided on Iran

US and Israel divided on Iran

When Defense Secretary Gates was here earlier in the week, an effort was made to downplay differences between the US and Israel over how to deal with Iran. True, there was that moment at the press conference when Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel was leaving 'all options' on the table, clearly implying that one option was a military one, but Gates pandered to Israel, saying that 'engagement' with Iran would not be open-ended and that Iran would not be allowed to 'run out the clock.' The Wall Street Journal's Yochi Dreazen reports that the differences between the US and Israel on how to deal with Iran are still significant.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: US and Israel divided on Iran

Israel Matzav: Uh oh: Gates promises 'defense umbrella'

Uh oh: Gates promises 'defense umbrella'

In a joint news conference with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (pictured) referred to a 'defense umbrella' against Iran for US allies, the same phrase that got Secretary of State Clinton into trouble in Thailand last week because it implies American acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Acknowledging Israel's concerns, Gates said the US administration's attempt to engage Iran diplomatically was "not an open-ended offer" and that the US was aware Iran might try to "run out the clock."

Israel Matzav: Uh oh: Gates promises 'defense umbrella'