Britannia Radio

'Israel attack on Iran could hurt US'

Jul. 19, 2009
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, Jerusalem Post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST

Amid reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to Israel next week for talks on Teheran's nuclear program, a senior US defense official has told The Jerusalem Post that an Israeli strike on Iran could be profoundly destabilizing and would affect US interests.

 

Israel needed to take its relationship with America into account in contemplating any such attack, he warned.

Gates, who last week described the Islamic republic's nuclear drive as the greatest current threat to global security, is set to spend six hours here next Monday, discussing the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He will also visit Jordan, according to officials involved in planning the trip.

 

In his interview with the Post at the Pentagon, the senior US defense official also suggested that Syria might be ready to "fundamentally" reorient its position toward the United States, which would include restarting talks with Israel, at a time when Hamas and Hizbullah have been put "on the defensive" by Obama administration policies and events in Iran.

Those events, said the official, who insisted on anonymity, hadn't been seen to affect Iran's timeline on developing nuclear weapons. What was clear, he indicated, was the negative effect an Israeli strike would have.

"A unilateral third-party attack on Iran's nuclear program could have profoundly destabilizing consequences, and it wouldn't just affect the general level of stability in the region. It would affect Israel's security and it would affect our interests, and the safety of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere," the official said, when asked if the US expected Israel to inform it of any decision to strike Iran.

 

"It's a pretty big deal, and given the closeness of our relationship with Israel, I think we would hope that they would take those strategic calculations into account."

His comments in the interview, conducted on Friday, came on the heels of conflicting signs from the Obama administration about whether it had given Israel a so-called "green light" to attack Iran, after Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else" on July 5.

 

Obama clarified on CNN later in the week that he had "absolutely not" given Israel permission to strike Iran.

The comments also followed a report in The Washington Times that Israel had not asked the US for permission for a possible military attack on Iran out of fear America would say no.

 

The senior Pentagon official said Israel and the United States shared a similar estimate on the timeframe for Iran developing a nuclear weapon. He ascribed discrepancies in press accounts largely to differences in what deadline is being referenced, such as gaining nuclear capability versus building an actual bomb.

 

"There may be some disagreement about how quickly the Iranians could weaponize," he noted of Israeli versus American assessments, "but the general timeframe about when the Iranians might cross a threshold of a nuclear weapons capability is broadly in that one-to-three year timeframe that the chairman [Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] has noted on a number of occasions."

 

The official said that even with the turmoil in Iran, as opposition groups continue to protest a presidential election they believe is fraudulent, "We don't see any evidence that there's been a political decision made to accelerate or decelerate" the nuclear program.

 

He did assess, though, that three scenarios were likely to emerge which would have implications for the nuclear program and the chances of success for America's efforts to engage Iran diplomatically on the subject.

He said in two, the conservatives in the regime emerge successful in their crackdown but take different tacks afterwards.

 

In the first case they could "hunker down" and focus on stamping out dissent, relating to the international community only as a "scapegoat" on which to blame all their internal problems.

"If that's the scenario that plays out, it's going to be very difficult to have a successful diplomatic engagement with Iran," he said.

 

But in the other case, the conservatives in power could feel the economic pinch of international isolation and decide to take steps not to alienate the West further. In this scenario, "rational calculators" in Iran could comprise a dominant faction "that pushes for actually a gradual improvement of relations with the West."

 

The US official said it was "too early" to assess which scenario was more likely. He also allowed for the possibility of a third scenario of "muddle" to result instead, in which nothing about the government or its postures were clarified for quite some time.

 

But one indicator that has emerged so far, he said, was that Teheran had not stoked its proxies, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, in the short term.

Instead, he contended, the problems in Iran, the rejection of Hizbullah in the Lebanese elections, the Palestinian Authority's strides in the West Bank and Obama's overtures through the region were "all things that put Hamas and Hizbullah on the defensive."

 

He continued, "In looking where the region was a year ago, you would have said that there was a lot of momentum on the side of Iran and its allies. I think if you would assess the situation right now, that the momentum is probably going in the opposite direction."

He said that when it came to Syria, the US still hadn't seen "on the Hamas or Hizbullah front that there's been any improvement," and "we're approaching a time where it's pretty clear the Syrians need to start showing pretty concretely that they're ready to start changing their behavior, not just their words," though he did note the country's help in limited the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

 

Still, he said, "There is a change in that Syria is increasingly willing to have a productive conversation with us" and "there's reason to be cautiously optimistic."

He elaborated, "I think the Syrians have expressed a genuine desire that I think raises the possibility that they may be open to fundamentally changing their relationship with us and reentering the Arab fold."

 

Part of that, he indicated, would include restarting peace talks with Israel that Damascus called off during the Gaza war this winter.

In the meantime, though, he pointed to the serious threat facing Israel from the extremist groups that Syria supported, and stressed that America must be cognizant of that reality when it urged Israel to take steps toward peace, as well as translate that awareness into support for missile defense and other programs to help provide Israel a more secure environment.

 

"One of the issues that's important as we're asking Israel to lean forward in the peace process is to recognize that from their perspective, there are risks associated with handing over territory and we need to work with them to address those risks so the Israeli government feels more confident in pursuing peace." [Note to Freemanlist readers: It was Gates who prevented the return of Pollard (as CIA head) when Bibi negotiated the Wye agreement on Hebron. He is not a friend of Jews or Israelis, no matter how much he lies about it.]

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443850435&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

~~~~~~~~~~

An editorial from the May 1999 issue of The Maccabean

 

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND ISRAEL

A Maccabean Perspective

 

This article is quite critical of American Foreign Policy, therefore, I would like to say a few positive things up front. The American people when properly polled come out consistently in support of Israel. There are at least 50 million Evangelical Christians who are friends and dedicated supporters of Israel. Many of America's presidents have bucked the US State Department to help Israel with arms and money. The US Congress and Senate have consistently been friends of Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed his love of Israel many times. My own grandfather, for whom the Freeman Center was named, expressed his love of America upon his arrival on our shores:

 

"But what a change in life upon arriving in America - Free America. Here I suddenly found myself unbridled, the air free, no stifling, atmosphere - I could give free expression to the cravings of my soul! Life began to have a different meaning. What a blessing to have free assemblage, free speech free press! Can an American who has always enjoyed these blessings appreciate what it means to one who was deprived of them until manhood?"

 

Unfortunately there are institutions in America that don't love Israel as much as most of us do. Israel's relations with America go back even before statehood in 1948. During the critical years of WWII, the Zionist community of both America and Israel appealed to President Franklin Roosevelt to take action to stop the Holocaust. They were rebuffed at every turn. It was apparent that neither America nor any of its allies were very interested in saving Jewish lives. England was the most persuasive when arguing that the Jews saved would want to go to Palestine. This would anger the Arabs and should be avoided at all cost. It is true that European Jewry would have been a vast reservoir of new citizens for the emerging State of Israel. Their sheer numbers would have eliminated the Arab demographic problem in the new State. American policy came down solidly on the side of dead Jews as opposed to live Jews.

 

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, we were all pleased that the American president, Harry S. Truman, made America the first nation in the world to recognize the Jewish State. Yet even here there was a dark side to American Foreign Policy. The State Department had argued in vain against the recognition of Israel. When they didn't succeed at that they successfully placed an embargo of arms to Middle Eastern States.

 

Seemingly neutral it only affected Israel since the British and French were arming the Arabs. So we have the spectacle of American recognition of Israel's independence while at the same time refusing the arms it needed to survive, to defend their lives.

 

Following Israel's Sinai Campaign in 1956, Eisenhower and Dulles forced Israel to withdraw with little political gain. Two "benefits" appeared to be: a UN Force in Sinai to guarantee free passage for Israel in the Gulf of Eilat; and an American promise to guarantee such free passage. In 1967 the UN Force disappeared, as did the American promise, which the State Department claimed they could not verify.

 

In the period since 1967, the US State Department has devoted an excessive amount of time developing and promoting plans to force Israeli withdrawal to the 'suicide' borders of pre-1967. With amazing regularity, the State Department has failed to be honest about violations of the agreements it has negotiated between the Arabs and Israelis. The US has been blind to Arab violations from the failure to see missile movements in Egypt (1970-76) to the failure to see Palestinian violations of the Oslo and Wye Agreements. This US blindness has always been one way. The Israelis are subjected to constant misinterpretations of agreements. For example, never having agreed to a freeze in Jewish building, US spy satellites are active daily counting houses in YESHA. And then publicly rebuking Israel for a normal activity of a sovereign country.

 

In order to pressure Israel, stories appear on a regular basis claiming that Israel is transferring American technology to third parties. In every case they are proven false, but the constant repetition is meant to weaken Israel diplomatically. The State Department has orchestrated a media campaign to damage Israel's reputation in general and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. A few examples:

 

1. Netanyahu is the "hardline" PM of Israel while other world leaders are Statesman. Arafat is a 'leader'

2. Ethnic cleansing is bad in Kosovo but the ethnic cleansing of Jews from YESHA is good

3. All disputed land in YESHA 'belongs' to Arabs even when Israel has clear title

4. All foreign capitals are recognized 'except Jerusalem'

5. Israeli soldiers defending themselves from attack have been treated by the media as the 'bad guy'

6. Rock throwers who can crush you skull have been treated as 'demonstrators or protesters' by the media

7. Jewish villages are 'settlements' and 'illegitimate' while Arab villages are all considered legitimate

 

The list could on but now we must say something that should have been said years ago. It is very important for Israel to disengage from its close embrace with American diplomacy. It should be obvious to all that American and Israeli interests differ markedly in relation to the negotiations with the Palestinians. America has by its own admission ceased to be either pro-Israel or a neutral mediator (the Americans claim to be 'even-handed'). American policy in the final analysis will leave Israel with indefensible borders and an irredentist Palestinian neighbor yearning for all the land "from the river to the sea." Then, of course, they will also want Jordan.

Much more can be gained for Israel by negotiating directly with the Arabs. This used to be Israeli policy. In reality, Arafat has ceased negotiating with Israel and now is negotiating only with Washington.. It may be necessary to give up American aid dollars and possibly weapons to break out of the current US embrace. It will certainly be difficult, but in the end, there will exist a truly free and sovereign Israel. The alternative is to learn nothing from history: placing Israel's destiny in America's hands as was done during WWII. America won the war, but 90% of Europe's Jews were already dead. I would prefer Israel to survive.

 

.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Chairman and Editor

Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

 

 Arab Media: US May Allow Building in Return for Setting Borders

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu -Arutz Sheva

 

 

The Arabic-language Al Quds newspaper based in Jerusalem reported Monday morning that the United States has proposed to agree to Israel’s building a hotel on Jewish-owned property in eastern Jerusalem and several hundred homes elsewhere in return for the American government's setting new borders for Israel and the proposed Palestinian Authority state.

The U.S. also will include a provision that 300,000 foreign Arabs can immigrate into areas that Israel would cede to the PA in return for retaining Jewish towns and cities in Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and possibly Ariel and nearby communities. The PA previously has rejected the idea.

Neither Israel nor the Obama administration has commented on the report.

The issue of the proposed hotel in Jerusalem has left all three sides – the Obama and Netanyahu government and the PA –entrenching themselves into positions that have left virtually no room for compromise.

All sides agree on one critical point with different conclusions: They see no difference between the status of a hotel in eastern Jerusalem and the building of homes in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods populated by more than 250,000 Jews in the capital. The PA, with Obama’s backing, has demanded sovereignty over all of the areas – including Ramot, French Hill and Gilo – that were restored to the Jewish State in the Six-Day War in 1967.

The Netanyahu government, with wide support from virtually every party except Meretz and Arab factions, considers all of the areas part of a united Israeli city that will continue to serve as its capital, without a PA presence.

The current crisis began in early June, when U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo and said that a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria is “illegitimate.” The State Department later widened the definition of “settlements” to the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, located directly across the road from Gilo.

President Obama sent U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell to try to reach an agreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but their positions were so far apart that the meeting was canceled. Instead, Mitchell met at least three times with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also has explicitly ruled out Israel’s right to build anywhere in eastern Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria, refused to comment on the dispute and Mitchell’s postponement of another trip to Israel.

The Prime Minister’s public statements on Sunday that Israel will not consider sacrificing its rights in Jerusalem were an attempt “to pre-empt further American efforts to stop Jewish building in east Jerusalem," according to Israeli officials quoted by The New York Times.
Comment on this story