Posted in Iran, tagged Arms Control Association, Barack Obama, Farideh Farhi, Hassan Rouhani, Iran, Iran and the P5+1: Solving the Nuclear Rubik’s Cube, iran nuclear enrichment, Iran nuclear negotiations, Iran sanctions, Iranian Hardliners, Iranian Politics, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama administration, P5+1, Russia, Wilson Center on September 19, 2014|
Leave a Comment »
Once upon a time, it seemed that the Obama Administration had held off opponents in Congress as well as pressure from Israel in order to press forward with negotiations with Iran. It seemed that President Barack Obama’s penchant for diplomacy was finally bearing fruit and that the United States and Iran were coming to the table with a sense of determination and an understanding that a compromise needed to be reached over Iran’s nuclear program.
These days, the story is different. Almost halfway through the four-month extension period the parties agreed to in July, the possibility of failure is more prominently on people’s minds, despite the fact that significant progress has been made in the talks. Right now, both sides have dug in their heels over the question of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities. Iran wants sufficient latitude to build and power more nuclear reactors on their own, while the United States wants a much more restrictive regime. Read more at LobeLog
Read Full Post »
Posted in Israel, tagged AIPAC, Aviv Kochavi, Barack Obama, Benny Begin, Benny Gantz, Dan Meridor, diplomacy, Ehud Barak, FDD, foreign policy, foundation for defense of democracies, IAEA, Iran, Iran nuclear, Iran sanctions, Iran threat, Iraq, Israel, Jennifer Rubin, Moshe Ya'alon, Mossad, Naftali Bennett, Neoconservatives, Netanyahu, New York Times, nuclear, Obama, P5+1, Sanctions, Shin Bet, Tamir Pardo, Tzipi Livni, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Yair Lapid, Yoram Cohen on March 28, 2013|
Leave a Comment »
This article originally appeared at LobeLog.
The new Israeli government features a security braintrust that might be a bit more reasonable on Iran, but is likely to be even more hawkish both in the immediate region
Netanyahu has a new and untested cabinet
and within the country itself. Gone are voices from the Israeli right who favored a more reasoned and diplomatic approach to their right-wing agenda. They have been replaced by figures who want more direct action and refuse even the pretense of a two-state solution.
On Iran, the retirement of Ehud Barak removes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leading supporter in his effort for a strike on Iran sooner rather than later, whether that be carried out by Israel or, preferably, the United States. He is replaced by Moshe “Bogey” Ya’alon. Bogey is also an Iran hawk, but is not in favor of Israel launching an attack other than as a last resort. He is far more content than Barak to allow the United States to take the lead and wants Israel to act only if it becomes apparent that the US will not. That puts him pretty well in line with the Israeli military and intelligence leadership in practice, though he sees Iran as more of a threat than they do.
In fact, no one in the current or even the outgoing inner circle came close to matching Barak’s eagerness for military action against Iran. Only Netanyahu himself could match him, and he remains daunted by the lack of support for his position in Israel. The ongoing hawkishness in the US Congress and President Barack Obama’s repeated statements holding firm to a military option and refusing a policy of containment also blunt Netanyahu’s resolve. It would seem that, at least for the time being, the calls for war on Iran will be fueled more in the United States than in Israel.
Ya’alon is a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, but he did not have a distinguished term of service there, was not well-liked and returns without a great deal of good will among the military and intelligence services’ leadership. In fact, colleagues in Israel tell me there is a good deal of consternation in those services regarding Bogey’s appointment. But for now, they will wait and see how he acts. For a deeper look at Ya’alon, see my recent piece on him here. (more…)
Read Full Post »
Posted in US-Israel Lobby, tagged AIPAC, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, diplomacy, Ed Royce, eliot engel, Iran, Iran diplomacy, Iran nuclear, Iran nuclear capability, iran nuclear program, Iran nuclear talks, Iran nuclear weapon, Iran sanctions, Israel, Israel Lobby, Lindsey Graham, OPT, P5+1, Robert Menendez, Sanctions, Sense of Congress resolution, sense of the congress joint resolution on Israel, sequester, Trita Parsi, US-Israel relations on March 3, 2013|
1 Comment »
This piece was initially published at LobeLog. Please check it out, as it’s an indispensable source for foreign policy news and analysis. You won’t regret it!
The annual Israel-Congress orgy dubbed as the AIPAC Policy Conference kicked off today. It might just as well be called the War on Iran conference — that’s sure to be the
President Obama speaking at a previous AIPAC conference, He won’t be there this year.
issue that dominates the proceedings. The US-Israel relationship is taking the second spot. And the Palestinians? More than ever before, they will be invisible.
There are a few sessions at the conference that deal with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in very general terms. But Iran will be the focus, as evidenced by related bills which AIPAC had some of its most loyal members of Congress introduce in advance of their lobbying day. Those bills work to give Israel a green light to attack Iran if it feels the need to and puts the “special relationship” between the US and Israel on paper.
Last week a Senate resolution was introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The two senators are widely known as AIPAC favorites and have led bipartisan actions like this in the past, working with AIPAC quite closely to develop legislation favorable to the lobbying organization. The resolution states that if Israel decides to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, this would be considered an act of self-defense and that “…the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel…”
The bill is a “sense of Congress” resolution, so it is not binding; hence the word “should” rather than “will” is used. Still, it is a very clear expression that the Senate expects and desires that President Obama provide a full range of support to Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. It certainly sends a signal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will have Congress behind him if Obama tries to restrain Israel from taking such a step. While the bill’s wording clarifies that it should not be understood as a declaration of war in the event of an Israeli attack, a commitment to military support of Israel in the event of a purely Israeli decision to attack Iran could well amount to the same thing. (more…)
Read Full Post »