Obama, Iran Israel

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure
Dec 28, 2011 4:45 AM EST
The Obama administration is trying to assure Israel privately that it would strike Iran militarily if Tehran’s nuclear program crosses certain “red lines”—while attempting to dissuade the Israelis from acting unilaterally. Eli Lake reports exclusively.

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opined earlier this month that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could “consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret,” the Israelis went ballistic behind the scenes. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, lodged a formal diplomatic protest known as a demarche. And the White House was thrust into action, reassuring the Israelis that the administration had its own “red lines” that would trigger military action against Iran, and that there is no need for Jerusalem to act unilaterally.


Panetta’s seemingly innocent remarks on Dec. 2 triggered the latest drama in the tinder-box relationship that the Obama administration is trying to navigate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. With Republicans lining up to court Jewish donors and voters in America in 2012, Obama faces a tricky election-year task of ensuring Iran doesn’t acquire a nuclear bomb on his watch while keeping the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike that could inflame an already teetering Middle East.

The stakes are immensely high, and the distrust that Israelis feel toward the president remains a complicating factor. Those sentiments were laid bare in a speech Netanyahu’s minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave on Christmas Eve in Jerusalem, in which he used Panetta’s remarks to cast doubt on the U.S.’s willingness to launch its own military strike.

Ya’alon told the Anglo-Likud, an organization within Netanyahu’s Likud party that caters to native English speakers, that the Western strategy to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons must include four elements, with the last resort being a military strike.

“The fourth element of this combined strategy is the credible military strike,” Ya’alon said, according to a recording of the speech provided to The Daily Beast. “There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West, saying, ‘this is not a real option,’ saying, ‘the price of military action is too high.’”


US President Barack Obama shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a bilateral meeting September 21, 2011 at the United Nations in New York City., Mandel Ngan, AFP / Getty Images

The lack of trust between the Israeli and American leaders on Iran has been a sub-rosa tension in the relationship since 2009. Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.

The sensitive work of trying to get both allies on the same page intensified this month. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Washington last week to go over Iran issues; and the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, and a special arms control adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn, were in Israel last week to discuss Iran as well. Panetta for his own part has revised his tone on the question of Iran’s nuclear program, telling CBS News last week that the United States was prepared to use force against Iran to stop the country from building a nuclear weapon.

The new diplomacy has prompted new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers—called “red lines” in diplomatic parlance—would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Matthew Kroenig, who served as special adviser on Iran to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between July 2010 and July 2011, offered some of the possible “red lines” for a military strike in a recent Foreign Affairs article he wrote. He argued that the U.S should attack Iran’s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Kroenig also noted that Iran announced in 2009 that it was set to construct 10 new uranium enrichment sites. “I doubt they are building ten new sites, but I would be surprised if Iran was not racing to build some secret enrichment facilities,” Kroenig said. “Progress on new facilities would be a major factor in our assessment of Iran’s nuclear program and shape all aspects of our policy towards this including the decision to use force.”

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

Obama Incompetence on Iran and Russia

The wages of appeasement
By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, December 15, 8:09 PM

“Ask Osama bin Laden . . . whether I engage in appeasement.”

— Barack Obama, Dec. 8

Fair enough. Barack Obama didn’t appease Osama bin Laden. He killed him. And for ordering the raid and taking the risk, Obama deserves credit. Credit for decisiveness and political courage.

However, the bin Laden case was no test of policy. No serious person of either party ever suggested negotiation or concession. Obama demonstrated decisiveness, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one’s foreign policy. That comes into play when there are choices to be made.

And here the story is different. Take Obama’s two major foreign policy initiatives — toward Russia and Iran.

The administration came into office determined to warm relations with Russia. It was called “reset,” an antidote to the “dangerous drift” (Vice President Biden’s phrase) in relations during the Bush years.

In fact, Bush’s increasing coolness toward Russia was grounded in certain unpleasant realities: growing Kremlin authoritarianism that was systematically dismantling a fledgling democracy; naked aggression against a small, vulnerable, pro-American state (Georgia); the drive to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence in the near-abroad and; support, from Syria to Venezuela, of the world’s more ostentatiously anti-American regimes.

Unmoored from such inconvenient realities, Obama went about his reset. The signature decision was the abrupt cancellation of a Polish- and Czech-based U.S. missile defense system bitterly opposed by Moscow.

The cancellation deeply undercut two very pro-American allies who had aligned themselves with Washington in the face of both Russian threats and popular unease. Obama not only left them twisting in the wind, he showed the world that the Central Europeans’ hard-won independence was only partial and tentative. With American acquiescence, their ostensibly sovereign decisions were subject to a Russian veto.

This major concession, together with a New START treaty far more needed by Russia than America, was supposed to ease U.S.-Russia relations, assuage Russian opposition to missile defense and enlist its assistance in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

Three years in, how is that reset working out? The Russians are back on the warpath about missile defense. They’re denouncing the watered-down Obama substitute. They threaten not only to target any Europe-based U.S. missile defenses but also to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad. They threaten additionally to withdraw from START, which the administration had touted as a great foreign policy achievement.

As for assistance on Iran, Moscow has thwarted us at every turn, weakening or blocking resolution after resolution. And now, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency has testified to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia declares that it will oppose any new sanctions.

Finally, adding contempt to mere injury, Vladimir Putin responded to recent anti-government demonstrations by unleashing a crude Soviet-style attack on America as the secret power behind the protests. Putin personally accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of sending “a signal” that activated internal spies and other agents of imperial America.

Such are the wages of appeasement. Makes one pine for mere “drift.”

Even worse has been Obama’s vaunted “engagement” with Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably. Most egregiously, he adopted a studied and scandalous neutrality during the popular revolution of 2009, a near-miraculous opportunity — now lost — for regime change.

Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development.

For his exertions, Obama earned (a) continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, (b) a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant, (c) the announcement just this week by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and (d) undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

How did Obama answer that one?

On Monday, he politely asked for the drone back.

On Tuesday, with Putin-like contempt, Iran demanded that Obama apologize instead. “Obama begs Iran to give him back his toy plane,” reveled the semiofficial Fars News Agency.

Just a few hours earlier, Secretary Clinton asserted yet again that “we want to see the Iranians engage. . . . We are not giving up on it.”

Blessed are the cheek-turners. But do these people have no limit?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
www.converttojudaism.net

Obama won't stop iran

World Jewish Digest

Despite maintaining a veneer of happy collaboration, Israeli officials are deeply unhappy with the Obama administration's approach to the Iranian nuclear program.

It has long been assumed by observers that this is the case, but thus far there has been no public confirmation of it. That changed on Sunday night, when officials speaking under the cover of anonymity told YNet that all is definitely not well behind the scenes.

"While the House of Representatives and the Senate are promoting (anti-Iran) legislation," said one of the officials,

the White House is operating according to an ideology which could be defined as "hesitant." The Iranian issue calls for a clear stance, but the administration has yet to take the necessary measures to significantly hurt the ayatollahs' regime.

Especially cutting was the officials' praise for the French and British governments, who normally tend to wait for American leadership on such issues as Iran. Instead, Israel appears to believe that the two leading nations of Europe are well out in front of the U.S.

"France and the UK," said one official, "have begun to act determinedly, while Obama's administration has yet to formulate a policy that is sufficiently severe."

Such criticism not only reinforces a longstanding impression of Obama as being soft on Iran and on foreign policy in general, something often described with the expression "leading from behind," but also rubs salt in the wound by praising French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has also criticized Obama on the Iran issue.

France has increasingly taken on a leadership role in regard to Western policy on the Middle East as America appears to be disengaging. Sarkozy lead the push for NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war, which eventually toppled the Qaddafi regime, and has been the leading European voice for a tougher policy toward Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Dan Shapiro, Obama's ambassador to Israel, sought to maintain the facade of a united front, saying, "There is no issue that we coordinate" with Israel "more closely on than Iran."

Such public reassurances are par for the course in international politics, but if the reports of Israel's behind the scenes sentiments are accurate, then it appears that the security and foreign policy establishments are beginning to give up on the possibility of U.S. resistance to Iranian nuclear ambitions, at least so long as Obama is president.

If this is so, then it is very likely that Israel is beginning to seriously consider its military options. Thus far, the possibility of U.S. intervention has stayed Israel's hand, given the obvious advantages America enjoys in a military conflict with Iran, however brief.

Now, however, the Jewish state may finally be losing patience with its closest ally.

Obama ok with iran nuclear bomb

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-policy-shifts-to-containment/2011/12/09/gIQAUD8DjO_print.html



Obama’s Iran policy shifts to containment

By Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal, Published: December 9

As recent events underscore the growing Iranian nuclear threat, the Obama administration appears to be pivoting toward a policy of containment. The emphasis of its rhetoric has shifted from preventing an “unacceptable” nuclear Iran to “isolating” it. When coupled with recent weaker action against Iran, we fear it signals a tacit policy change.
A few days after his election, President Obama called a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” In February 2009, he pledged “to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” By the next year, after a first round of negotiations with Iran had failed and the United Nations and Congress passed tougher sanctions, that pledge had softened. “The United States,” Obama said in July 2010, is “determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
The administration did not dwell publicly on Iran until the Oct. 11 announcement that it foiled an Iranian terrorist plot on U.S. soil — against the Saudi ambassador — and the International Atomic Energy Agency presented damning evidence of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The president’s response, a Nov. 21 statement announcing new sanctions, marked another subtle, yet significant, rhetorical shift. It downgraded the Iranian threat from “unacceptable” to one of the several “highest national security priorities.” Obama concluded: “Iran has chosen the path of international isolation. . . . [T]he United States will continue to find ways . . . to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.” Yet isolation now appears a goal in its own right, uncoupled from the objective of preventing nuclear capabilities.
The same rhetoric was more explicit in a speech the next day by national security adviser Thomas Donilon. “Iran today,” he declared, “is fundamentally weaker, more isolated, more vulnerable and badly discredited than ever.” Left unsaid was that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced, more capable and closer than ever to achieving nuclear weapons.
Despite citing Obama’s July 2010 speech, Donilon’s overwhelming theme was isolation. He used some form of the word “isolate” 17 times, “prevent” only three and “unacceptable” not once. Donilon’s thesis was: “We will continue to build a regional defense architecture that prevents Iran from threatening its neighbors. We will continue to deepen Iran’s isolation, regionally and globally.” Reminiscent of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2009 promise to extend a “defense umbrella” over Iran’s neighbors, Donilon’s comments reveal a focus on managing, rather than neutralizing, the Iranian threat.
Administration actions reflect this rhetorical shift. Initially, while pledging to prevent a nuclear Iran at all costs, the administration focused on diplomacy and then a dual-track approach, including sanctions. The latter reached its apogee in mid-2010 with tough U.S. and international sanctions. The administration has not sufficiently enforced these sanctions, nor pressed for full-fledged sanctions against Iran’s central bank, a move backed this month by all 100 senators. Faced with international resistance, the administration’s resolve weakened, and it failed to persuade China, Russia and other countries to support measures firm enough to potentially compel Iran to cease its nuclear program.
Moreover, the administration’s lack of support for a military option undermines its commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and undercuts its ability to achieve broader international support for sanctions. Despite repeated assertions that they are keeping “all options on the table,” officials seem to be conditioning Americans to view the prospect of a military strike negatively. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his predecessor, Robert Gates, have effectively ruled out U.S. military action by constantly highlighting its risks. Twice recently, Panetta emphasized a strike’s “unintended consequences.” He listed five categories of them in a Dec. 2 speech in which he also referred, many times, to some form of “isolation.” This suggests the administration isn’t prepared to prevent a nuclear Iran at all costs. Nor has it made any credible preparations, such as military exercises and deployments, for a strike.
The administration’s alternative to prevention — isolation — implies containment. But a nuclear Iran could not be contained as the Soviet Union was. Containment requires credibility, a resource United States will have drained if, after numerous warnings to the contrary, we permit Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold. And no matter how isolated, a nuclear Iran is likely to spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation. Despite its own isolation, North Korea shares its nuclear technology. Iran might, too. Tehran’s enemies, led by Saudi Arabia, would seek safety behind their own nuclear deterrent. And Iran and Israel, as former defense undersecretary Eric Edelman has argued, would have incentives to initiate a nuclear first strike, potentially dragging the United States into the conflict. All this would severely diminish U.S. influence and drive up oil prices.
The Obama administration needs to regain its clarity and refocus its rhetoric and action toward preventing a nuclear Iran. It should do so, if necessary, by “all elements of American power.”
Michael Makovsky, a Pentagon official during the George W. Bush administration, directs the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Project, including its Iran initiative. Blaise Misztal is associate director of the center’s National Security Project.

Obama urging US lawmakers to soften Iran sanctions'

Even if the committee passes the Kirk-Menendez amendment with the stiff penalties will the Obama administration even enforce the new round of sanctions? Recall, 80 Senators signed a letter calling out the lack of enforcement of existing sanctions regarding Iran.





http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=248396





'Obama urging US lawmakers to soften Iran sanctions'

By REUTERS
06/12/2011


Senator Mark Kirk, co-author of proposal approved 100-0 by Senate to penalize foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, says Obama administration trying to undermine sanctions.





WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is urging US lawmakers to soften proposed sanctions targeting Iran's central bank, Senator Mark Kirk said on Tuesday.

Kirk, a Republican, is the co-author along with Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of a proposal to penalize foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, the main conduit for its oil revenues.


The Senate approved the proposal last week 100-0 despite lobbying against it by Obama administration officials, who argued that threatening US allies might not be the best way to get cooperation in action against Iran.

A similar measure is pending in the House of Representatives; both chambers must agree on the same version before it can become law.

Kirk said on Tuesday that the administration had written to some lawmakers' offices and "proposed what they describe as technical fixes" to the Kirk-Menendez amendment.

But Kirk complained: "They are not technical fixes at all. They are meant to undermine the amendment." He and Menendez have written to fellow lawmakers as well, urging them to "stick with" the Senate-passed proposal, Kirk said at an event on Iran's nuclear program, sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.

The United States and its western allies have supported multiple rounds of sanctions on Iran, seeking to persuade it to curtail its nuclear work. Washington suspects Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program to develop weapons, although Iran says its program is solely to produce electricity.



The Kirk-Menendez proposal would dissuade foreign banks from dealing with Iran's central bank by threatening to cut them off from the US financial system. The United States already bars its own banks from dealing with the Iranian central bank.

Last week, administration officials testified on Capitol Hill that they were indeed looking for more ways to sanction Iran's central bank, but in a calibrated manner, to avoid roiling oil markets or antagonizing allies.



A senior Senate Republican aide said the document that the administration sent to lawmakers' offices proposed lengthening, from 60 to 180 days, the grace period in the Kirk-Menendez proposal before sanctions would kick in for non-oil transactions with Iran's central bank.

The administration also sought to "water down the penalties" on foreign banks that do business with Iran's central bank, the Senate aide said. The administration favored imposing "strict conditions" on such foreign banks, rather than the all-out cutoff from the US financial system that is in the Kirk-Menendez amendment.

Kirk charged that the Obama administration was simply trying to find "a way out for the administration, to say that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but to take no effective action against the central paymaster" of the country's nuclear architecture.

The Kirk-Menendez proposal passed the Senate last Thursday as an amendment to a huge bill authorizing defense programs. A similar proposal to target Iran's central bank has passed a House committee and the House is expected to vote on it soon.

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Wrong signals to Iran

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wrong-signals-to-iran/2011/12/06/gIQAvzNYgO_story.html?hpid=z3


The wrong signals to Iran
By Editorial Board, Thursday, December 8, 5:25 PM

IRAN HAS BEEN showing signs of increasing nervousness about the possibility that its nuclear program will come under attack by Israel or the United States. From the West’s point of view, this alarm is good: The more Iran worries about a military attack, the more likely it is to scale back its nuclear activity. The only occasion in which Tehran froze its weaponization program came immediately after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when it feared it might be the next American target. That’s why the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, regularly repeats that “all options are on the table.”

What doesn’t make sense is a public spelling out of reasons against military action — like that delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last Friday before a U.S.-Israeli conference in Washington. Mr. Panetta said that a strike would “at best” slow down Iran’s program for “maybe one, possibly two years”; that “some of those targets are very difficult to get at”; that a now-isolated regime would be able to “reestablish itself” in the region; that the United States would be the target of Iranian retaliation; and that the global economy would be damaged.

Some of Mr. Panetta’s assumptions are debatable: For example, would Arab states — many of which have been quietly hoping for a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran — really rally behind a regime they regard as a deadly enemy? And if bombing destroyed thousands of Iranian centrifuges, which are manufactured from materials Tehran cannot easily acquire, would it really be so simple to rebuild?

But even if every point were true, there is no reason for the defense secretary to spell out such views in public. No doubt President Obama and the Israeli defense ministry are well aware of the Pentagon’s views, but alarmed Iranian leaders could well conclude that they have no reason for concern after all.

The public disparaging of the force option is not the administration’s only waffling signal to Tehran. Though Mr. Obama boasted Thursday that his administration has orchestrated “the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever experienced,” he is resisting pressure from allies such as France and from Congress to sanction the Iranian central bank. Last week the Senate passed 100-0 an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would sanction foreign banks that conduct transactions with the Iranian central bank, with an option for a postponement if the White House determines that the effect on the oil market would be too severe. The administration opposed the measure and is trying to narrow its scope in a conference committee.

Officials say they worry about the damage such sanctions could cause to the economy or to relations with allies such as South Korea and Japan. Iran, they argue, could end up benefiting if oil prices spike. While these are not unreasonable concerns, the administration’s stance resembles Mr. Panetta’s message. In effect, it is signaling that it is determined to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon — unless it means taking military or diplomatic risks, or paying an economic price.

www/rabbijonathanginsburg.com

don't exaggerate danger of attack on Iran

Michael Singh in FP:



"Given the alarms that have increasingly been sounded in recent months about Iran's nuclear progress and furor over its alleged plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington and the storming of the British embassy in Tehran, one might think that Iran's leaders would be worried about the prospect of a Western attack on their country. However, their remarks suggest just the opposite. In recent days, Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei has boasted of 'shatter(ing) the resolve' of the West, and the commander of Iran's paramilitary Basij forces -- who were responsible for the embassy rampage -- predicted that the U.S. would be too weak even to respond to an Iranian attack. Perhaps this is just bluster; however, U.S. officials have done little to dampen the regime's overweening self-confidence and the proclivity for escalation which is fueled by it.



While Obama administration officials continue to assert that the military option remains 'on the table' with respect to Iran, they have a counterproductive tendency to simultaneously undermine those assertions and thereby undermine our efforts to deter Iran and muster support for tougher sanctions. The latest disquisition on the inadvisability of military action came from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who on Friday described five reasons why the U.S. should not strike Iran. All of them were debatable. First, Panetta claimed that an attack might only set back the regime 'one, possibly two years' because 'some of [the nuclear] targets are very difficult to get at.' Putting aside the advisability of broadcasting the limits of our military capabilities to Iran and others, this analysis is questionable. Presumably Panetta is in a position to know whether it would actually be difficult to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, though recent unexplained explosions such as the one which nearly obliterated an Iranian missile complex suggest they are vulnerable. In any case, even partial damage could be difficult for Iran to recover from quickly. Centrifuge manufacturing, for example, depends critically on specialized, hard-to-acquire components, which would make reconstituting the program difficult with vigorous sanctions enforcement.



Second, Panetta asserted that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would result in increased support for the regime in Iran and the region. However, it is far more likely that our Arab allies -- especially those in the Gulf, who see Iran as the chief threat to their security -- would at least privately cheer a successful attack. Among Muslim-majority populations, a mid-2010 Pew poll found that only in Pakistan is there majority support for Iran's nuclear program. In Iran itself, far from bolstering the regime an attack may undermine it. Khamenei himself recognized this recently, warning in a speech to the Iranian navy that two previous Iranian regimes -- the Qajars and Pahlavis -- had shown vulnerability in the face of foreign powers and had been swept aside as a result. Panetta's third, fourth, and fifth assertions all concerned Iranian retaliation -- that Iran would target U.S. ships and bases; that an attack would carry economic consequences, presumably because Iran would target oil shipping or seek to close the Strait of Hormuz; and that an attack would lead to Iranian escalation and a conflict that would 'consume the Middle East.' It is a risk of any military activity that one's adversary will retaliate; the question is how capable he is of doing so. While the threat posed by Iran and the uncertainties inherent to any conflict should not be discounted, neither should they be exaggerated." http://t.uani.com/tqz3Pb

Prepare to bomb www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

Bachmann: Pentagon should prepare war plan with Iran

By NBC's Jamie Novogrod

November 21, 2011
NEW YORK -- On Sunday, Michele Bachmann urged the Pentagon to develop a war plan “immediately” that would evaluate ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
"We must accelerate our covert operations and our cyber operations in Iran, and order ... the CIA director to take all means necessary to stop Iran from getting the bomb before it’s too late," said Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

“And the Pentagon should prepare a war plan immediately to tell us what to do to prevent Iran from gaining those nuclear weapons,” she continued.
But these remarks, which came during a speech at the annual dinner of the Zionist Organization of America, a pro-Israel group, stopped short of calling for immediate military action against Iran.
“I do not take lightly the prospect of committing the United States troop to stop Iran,” Bachmann said. “Only a fool would ever wish for war."
Bachmann repeated that theme during a press conference following her speech, telling reporters it would be “foolish” to rush into war, before adding,: “We must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran. They are the threat to Israel, they are the threat to the United States.”
Iran's nuclear program, though long a concern inside conservative circles, is again in the spotlight since a United Nations report released earlier this month showed Iran has made further steps toward achieving a nuclear weapon.
Finding a medium between “wishing for war” and being “prepared” could mark a new way Bachmann will talk about managing the threat -– allowing her to strike hawkish and practical tones in equal measure on the issue that has become the centerpiece of her foreign policy agenda.
It also sets her apart from Republican opponents who draw a harder line on both sides of the issue. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has called for a joint American-Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Herman Cain has said he doesn’t support the idea of military action against Iran.
Bachmann called on Sunday for a variety of measures against Iran that stop short of military action, including public support for Iranian dissidents, a naval blockade, and a regime of “crushing” economic sanctions that would seek Russia and China’s aid in shutting down Iran’s central bank. (Both countries have financial relationships with Iran.)
Election politics also made a brief appearance Sunday, when Bachmann was forced to address her work as a young lawyer at the IRS.
ZOA’s president, Morton Klein, had woven that biographical detail into his introduction, setting off boos in the crowd.
“To everyone that was mortified in this room to learn that I was a tax lawyer and worked with –- on behalf of –- the IRS,” Bachmann said, “I actually wore a white hat and was trying to be an advocate for lower taxes in that position, not for higher taxes. “
It was a unique reference to her former employer, which Bachmann often eludes mentioning by describing herself as a “former federal tax attorney.”
Bachmann wasn’t the only high-profile speaker Sunday. Glenn Beck received a “defender of Israel” award from the group, delivering a speech that included teary tributes to leaders of the resistance against the Nazis, and a sweeping reproach of the American political left.
“I’ve said George Soros is no friend to Israel,” Beck said, referring to the prominent liberal philanthropist who is Jewish. “Let me add to it: neither is this administration.”

Obama and the world www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

When Obama took over, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan all had good relations with Israel, and Iran was 4 years away from nuclear bombs. Libya was ruled by a madman but who had given up nuclear ambition. Russia was at least on reasonable terms with us. Egypt and libya will soon turn over to Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and worse, Turkey has turned into Islamic anti Israel nation, Jordan is going that way and Iran is very close to nuclear bombs if not already has them. A Russian newscaster gave a literal middle finger to a newscast to Obama the other day, which is what their president basically did in response to our missile plan. He betrayed our one solid ally i the Arab world-Mubarak. Israel feels betrayed by him. Obama has done much to accelerate this anti-Israel development among these important nations and destroying our relations with many nations, while drawing closer to anti-American leaders like Chavez and Assad. Is he just incompetent or purposely doing this? You'd have to try really hard to to blow things this much.

Stopping Iran www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Who’s best to take on Obama on Iran?
By Jennifer Rubin

The Huffington Post’s Jon Ward reports that the Mitt Romney campaign “recently decided to make Iran the centerpiece of their foreign policy strategy, believing it to be the most sensible point of attack, as well as a potent counterpoint to the inevitable Obama campaign boasts about bin Laden and Libya.”

Ward observes:

Romney’s Iran strategy clearly depends on sending a message to Tehran that, if elected president, he would not shrink from using military force to destroy their nuclear weapons program.
“Mitt Romney will make clear to the Iranian regime through actions — not just words — that a military option to deal with its nuclear program remains on the table,” the campaign said in a recent release detailing the steps Romney would take to put additional pressure on Iran. “Only if Iran understands that the United States is determined that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable will there be any possibility that Iran will give up its nuclear aspirations peacefully.”

Romney further points out, correctly, that Russia’s foot-dragging on Iran sanctions is further evidence (in addition to a worsening human rights record, involvement in bombings in Georgia, etc.) that the Obama administration’s Russian reset policy is a bust.



Dan Senor, a principal adviser to Romney on foreign affairs, told me this afternoon that the opportunity for sanctions to be effective is passing. He explained, “The administration’s sanctions policies are unlikely to stop Iran’s progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran is unlikely to enter serious negotiations toward a resolution of this problem. As we’ve learned from the IAEA report, the overall trajectory will almost certainly not change. And the Russian response, which was to dismiss the IAEA report and any possibility of further sanctions, highlights the failure of Obama’s ‘reset.’ Moreover, we have evidence that Iran is getting more, and not less, aggressive.”



Senor added, “The failed attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, in an operation that could have killed scores of Americans, is a significant ratcheting-up of Iranian terrorist activities. It is not the first such attempt on American soil, but it is by far the most ambitious. It makes clear that as Iran moves closer to possession of nuclear weapons, it is also becoming bolder in the use of terrorism against targets in the U.S. The combination is a nightmare scenario.”



Our actions in Iraq and our stance toward Syria have only made things worse, Senor told me: “The Obama administration’s precipitous and unexpected total withdrawal of American forces from Iraq has given Iran an enormous opportunity in that key neighboring state. The entire region views our pullout as an American defeat and an Iranian victory, which has shaken the confidence of our allies. The fact that Obama made this decision within days of the revelation of the Iranian terrorist plot is especially damaging.”



And as for the butcher of Damascus, Senor warned that “getting our Syria policy right is crucial because [Bashar al-]Assad’s regime is Tehran’s only Arab-world ally; it’s Tehran’s only port on the Mediterranean; and it’s Tehran’s path to arming Hezbollah. The fall of Assad would be a strategic blow to Tehran. So Syria is important not only because of the human catastrophe, but also due to the strategic imperative of setting back Iran.”



At the debate tonight, we will see other candidates’ views on Iran. Rick Santorum has also offered a comprehensive approach to Iran. The issue for voters will be to determine who has the determination, the judgment and the smarts to construct a foreign policy that effectively disarms Iran. Rhetoric is nice, but it is much harder to discern who is most capable.



To Romney’s credit, he’s already revealed the sorts of people he’d select as advisers on foreign policy. (His foreign policy team includes serious voices, such as Senor, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan and Michael Hayden.) Part of Romney’s argument for his own candidacy is that — in contrast to President Obama, who selected feckless aides (retired Gen. James Jones, among them) and fell down in executing an effective policy — he will have a capable team, experienced in national security and with clear direction. (Contrast the Romney team with the hodgepodge of odd voices assembled by Newt Gingrich, including Robert McFarlane, whose claim to “fame” was the Iran-contra debacle and was part of a team assembled to push for an imposing a peace plan on Israel.)



But ultimately we don’t know for certain how a candidate will react under pressure in a foreign-policy crisis. Few expected that George W. Bush would become a wartime president. Jimmy Carter boasted Navy credentials but turned into a wet noodle in office. It’s perhaps the most important element in electing a president and the one which is arguably the toughest to assess. We’ll get at least some insight tonight.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/iran_policy_the_problem_is_obama.html
Iran Policy: The Problem Is Obama

By Ed Lasky
Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. Years of sanctions have not stopped them, and now President Obama will not use his most effective tool short of acts of war.
The administration opposes new sanctions on Iran's Central Bank, despite the overwhelming support that measure (spearheaded by Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk) enjoys on both sides of the aisle in Congress. The administration says such a measure would lead to a spike in oil prices and harm the world economy. That is speculation.
What is not speculation is that sanctions on the Central Bank would impose crippling costs on a weak Iranian economy and be an effective measure to help dissuade Iran to end its nuclear weapons program. Iran's Central Bank plays a crucial role in Iran's economy. Sanctioning the Central Bank makes it difficult for companies to pay for oil purchases -- and oil sales represent 50-75 percent of the government budget.
Many Iranians are disgusted with the economic stewardship shown by the theocrats and terrorists running the nation. Any additional sanctions that are actually enforced would exacerbate the tensions within Iran and widen the schisms between merchants and mullahs.
Not only does the Obama team oppose this type of sanction, but they have inverted, twisted, and perverted the logic of its proponents.
In the past few days, a Treasury official, Adam Szubin, testified before Congress that sanctions on Iran's Central Bank would actually help Iran and therefore should not be passed. Huh? His reasoning is that it may lead to a spike in oil prices.
A milder version of an amendment promoted by Senator Robert Menendez (Democrat-New Jersey) would give Barack Obama broad waiver authority to give a pass to central banks of other nations that continue to do business with Iran's Central Bank.
This is a classic "national security" loophole that often allows presidents to blithely ignore the legislation Congress has passed. Of course, Barack Obama is wont to do this anyway, but the loophole allows him a fig leaf of legality. The stronger Kirk Amendment does not contain this broad waiver authority and would make it far tougher for President Obama to evade the intent of the law.
If the measure does pass with a national security waiver, no one can rest assured that the waiver will be used. The Obama team clearly did not want to cut off American money to UNESCO in the wake of its admission of the Palestinians as a member. However, the legislation governing this issue was passed years ago without the waiver loophole, so the administration was forced to stop funding UNESCO (it has subsequently tried to enlist businesses in trying to get Congress to eliminate the waiver, an effort that is dead on arrival).
Where is the logic, then, of the administration periodically trotting out the statement that "all options are on the table"? This is a codephrase for a military option. It is also used to try to garner support among supporters of Israel in America. It is a campaign slogan and political strategy; it is not a real threat, and the Iranians know this fact. Why some Americans are gullible enough to believe Obama's latest campaign slogan is the topic of another column.
If the White House will not impose legal sanctions on the Central Bank because of putative economic concerns, how likely is a military strike against nuclear installations? It has a zero likelihood of happening.
That is a certainty. The Iranians know this logic, know Obama will do nothing, and know they can act with impunity -- as they have for years, 　murdering our soldiers in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Most recently, they have stepped up their game and tried to bring terrorism to our nation's capital (plotting to murder the Saudi and Israel ambassadors and any innocent Americans who happened to be near them).
The Iranians can see the Obama administration's clear resistance to more potent sanctions. They can reasonably assume that stronger actions -- such as a military strike -- are definitely off the table. In fact, they were never on the table.
If Obama won't impose sanctions on Iran's Central Bank, he certainly won't order military strikes on nuclear installations.
Furthermore, President Obama said he wants a "common response" to Iran's nuclear program with Russia and China. Since Russia has dismissed the IAEA report as "biased and unprofessional," that common response would be the "lowest common denominator" response -- meaning little or no response. The best that can be hoped for is the steady drip, drip, drip of individual small companies or individuals being named as subject to sanctions. In other words, more of the same weak measures that have failed to work in the past and will fail to work now and in the future.
We periodically hear that President Obama signed the strongest Iran sanctions legislation of any U.S. president. Of course, the passage of that legislation took quite a long time to pass through Congress -- as it met resistance from certain quarters allied with Barack Obama.
Furthermore, legislation is merely a scrap of paper if the sanctions are not enforced by the Executive Branch. The Obama administration has been all but feckless in enforcing the existing sanctions on Iran. There are reasons why so many members on both sides of the aisle signed onto the Kyl-Menendez letter calling on the administration to actually enforce the legislation Congress already passed. A House letter (spearheaded by Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski) also called on the Executive Branch to enforce the sanctions on Iran.
We have a president overseeing a policy that is bankrupt, feckless, weak, and immoral.
Meanwhile, the centrifuges are not the only things spinning these days...so is the Obama administration when it comes to Iran. Richard Grenell writes in the Wall Street Journal of "Obama's Failing Diplomacy":
On Nov. 13, President Obama made some remarkable statements. "When I came into office," he said at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Honolulu, "the world was divided and Iran was unified around its nuclear program." Now, he said, "the world is united and Iran is isolated. And because of our diplomacy and our efforts, we have, by far, the strongest sanctions on Iran that we've ever seen." Mr. Obama added, "China and Russia were critical to making that happen. Had they not been willing to support those efforts in the United Nations, we would not be able to see the kind of progress that we've made."
This was pure spin. The United Nations Security Council actually began instituting resolutions and sanctions in 2006, agreed to and voted on by all 15 members, that called upon Iran to stop enriching uranium.
In its nearly three years in office, the Obama administration has helped pass just one of those resolutions -- in June 2009. Only 12 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in favor of it. Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon did not.
The simple fact is that the world is less unified on Iran now than it was under President George W. Bush. True enough, Mr. Obama may hear fewer complaints about hard-charging U.S. foreign policies than his predecessor. But silence is not cooperation.
The Bush administration got five Security Council resolutions passed on Iran starting in 2006. Three were sanctions resolutions. The Security Council was unanimous on two of the votes and lost only one country's support (Indonesia) in the third vote in 2008. In total, the Bush team lost the support of one country in its three sanctions resolutions while the Obama team lost the support of three countries in one resolution.
Ultimately, President Bush got five Security Council resolutions passed on Iran, and Obama has had one. Granted, Bush's were done over a two-term period, but the threat is even more critical now, and certainly more actions at the Security Council could have been taken had there been the will in the White House.
Lest we forget, the mullahs loathe America as much as they hate Israel and have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States. They are possessed of an apocalyptic vision that nuclear war will bring about the return of the "Twelfth Imam" and millennial bliss (for those few left).
The problem is that there is no will to stop them. The problem is Obama.

ask CNN this question

Jonathan Ginsburg via CNN Politics
please go there and ask this question "It seems clear sanctions have not worked nor will realistically ever be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms. At what point in time should the USA stop Iran by force? Should it be a bombing campaign only or an invasion?"

Submit your questions for the CNN Republican National Security Debate
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
‎(CNN) -- Help shape the debate in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Use the form below to submit your brief question to CNN’s Republican National Security Debate, co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Like · · Share · a few seconds ago

He blew Iran www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

HE MAGAZINE Weekly Standard
Obama’s Iran Failure
Israel turns up the heat.
NOV 21, 2011, VOL. 17, NO. 10 • BY LEE SMITHSingle PagePrintLarger
The Obama administration’s Iran policy rested on three pillars​—​the peace process, engagement, and containment. The first would win the newly elected president credit with the Arab people of the Middle East and empower the Arab states to gather in a robust coalition against Tehran. As for the second, even if engagement failed to bring Iran back into the community of nations, it would prove to Washington’s European allies and, more important, to Russia and China, that the Obama White House had gone the extra mile, which would, in turn, make containment possible.

All three efforts have now failed, which may explain why recent Israeli news reports suggest Jerusalem is moving toward a decision about a military strike of some sort against Iran’s nuclear program.

After more than half a year of relative quiet as the Arab Spring rolled through the Middle East, the Israeli government has helped shift the regional conversation back to Iran. It’s hardly surprising that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are reportedly in favor of a strike since their historical legacies might rest on how the Iranian issue is resolved. However, the fact that Israel’s president Shimon Peres now calls military action “more and more likely” suggests that, regardless of the eventual decision, Israel has embarked on a public diplomacy campaign intended to seize international attention.

WHO IS SERIOUS about Iran? www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs
GOP hopefuls challenge Obama on Iran
By BRADLEY KLAPPER | AP – Wed, Nov 16, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopefuls are focusing on Iran as a weak spot in President Barack Obama's foreign policy record, and they're reviving many of the arguments that neoconservative proponents of armed intervention against Tehran lost in the latter years of George W. Bush's presidency.
Spurred by a recent United Nations report on Iran's nuclear weapons research, the leading GOP candidates are presenting themselves as hawkish alternatives to Obama and his administration's two-track policy of pressuring and engaging the Islamic republic. They propose more drastic approaches to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb — from funding armed rebel movements to launching military attacks.
"If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon," Mitt Romney said during Saturday's foreign policy debate in South Carolina. "If you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."
The former Massachusetts governor and Republican front-runner said the U.S. should be "working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change." But, if "there's nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action."
"There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and relatively few ways to be dumb, and the administration skipped all the ways to be smart," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said at Saturday's debate. He called for "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program" and backed Romney's call for possible military action. If "the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon."
Seeking to one-up Gingrich, longshot candidate Rick Santorum said there "isn't going to be enough time" for tougher sanctions on Iran and more support for pro-democracy groups. He acknowledged the Obama administration's possible involvement in some of the covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program.
But he suggested an even tougher approach alongside Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities pre-emptively — similar to the operations the Jewish state conducted against Iraq in 1981 and Syria four years ago.

For all the early talk of engagement, Obama has stuck largely to the Bush administration's latter-year policies of negotiations with Iran alongside international pressure — without the inflammatory rhetoric such as accusations of Tehran's membership in an "axis of evil."
Republicans see the policy nevertheless as a failure and seem to be harkening back to the hard-line American posture taken after U.S. troops toppled Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 and many conservative foreign policy thinkers made Iran's regime the next bogeyman that needed to be taken out.
Then, as now, the argument held that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a mortal threat to U.S. forces in the region and to U.S. ally Israel, whose U.S. backing is wide and deep. Then, as now, the more hawkish voices said time is running out for talking and the U.S. must make clear to Iran that it will use its overwhelming military advantage.
The most likely strategy would be a missile strike on one of Iran's known nuclear facilities, or sabotage from within the country.
Either is clearly within U.S. power, but Obama's calculation has thus far been the same as Bush's: A strike isn't yet worth the risks it carries. Iran could retaliate against U.S. interests or allies, and the Pentagon assesses that if Iran is bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon, a strike would delay but not prevent it.
GOP candidate Herman Cain said he wouldn't pursue a military conflict.
"The only way we can stop them is through economic means," he said.
Libertarian Ron Paul also held back, saying war powers were vested in Congress.
Over the weekend, Obama argued that U.S. and international sanctions against Tehran have had "enormous bite" and said he'd consult with other nations on further efforts to stop Iran from acquiring an atomic weapon. Without specifically mentioning military action, he insisted, as Bush always did, that U.S. officials "are not taking any options off the table."

Connect the dots

Connect the dots

Israel: Iran Closer to Atom Bomb than IAEA Report Indicates
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday the full extent of Iran's nuclear program was not reflected in a recent UN report, which said that Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atomic bomb. "Iran is closer to getting an (atomic) bomb than is thought," Netanyahu said in remarks to cabinet ministers, quoted by an official from his office. "Only things that could be proven were written (in the UN report), but in reality there are many other things that we see." At the start of the meeting, Netanyahu repeated his call for the world "to stop Iran's race to arm itself with a nuclear weapon before it is too late." (Reuters)

Yesterday The president says sanctions are having a big impact, but all options remain on the table.
Either he is willfully and naively optimistic about the sanctions, which have not stopped Iran, or he is just plain lying and wants Iran to get nuks.

Romney said in the debate on Sat night that under Obama, Iran will get nuks. He is obviously right.

http://schnellmann.org/a-time-to-betray.html
(book) "A Time To Betray" --- CIA Spy Reza Kahlili: Iran Will Use Nukes Against Israel

My question: This is a desperate time. Why are Jewish organizations silent about pressuring the USA to bomb Iran’s nuclear plants. This is not Israel’s job to do. It si the USA’s, as leader of the free world.
They have to know the sanctions are a joke. This is 1938 all over again and Jewish organizations are timid. It is a nightmare. What is the point of Jewish power if we can’t even open our mouths to try and do what we can to stop Iran?


www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Time to bomb Iran wwwrabbijonathanginsburg.com

THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR MAZE by Ambassador (ret.) YORAM ETTINGER
forwarded by Gail Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator
THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR MAZE by Ambassador (ret.) YORAM ETTINGER, "Second Thought" "Israel Hayom" Newsletter,November 11, 2011
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=811

The assumptions that tougher sanctions could deny Iran nuclear capabilities,
could pacify Iran's nuclear programs, and could produce a regime change in
Teheran, defy reality. These assumptions and the suppositions that Mutually-Assured-Deterrence (MAD) would enable the Free World to co-exist with a nuclear Iran, and that the cost of a military preemption would be prohibitive, reflect a determination to learn from recent history by repeating – and not by avoiding – critical errors; a victory of delusion over realism.

US and UN sanctions against North Korea – which were initiated in 1950 - failed to prevent the nuclearization of Pyongyang. Sanctions could not abort the development of impressive North Korean weapons of mass destruction
capabilities and its exportation – along with terrorism - to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Asia, Africa and the American continent. Sanctions have not toppled the Kim Jong-il regime and haven't ended its relentless pursuit of the takeover of South Korea.

Sanctions against North Korea instilled a false sense of success, relieving Western policy-makers of taking tougher action, thus facilitating Kim Jong-Il's attainment of nuclear power. While sanctions brought down the comfort-driven White regime of South Africa, they generally do not deter rogue repressive Third World regimes, such as North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, Cuba and Burma, which has been targeted by US sanctions since 1990.

US and UN sanctions against Iran have been ineffective for 16 years! US sanctions were initially legislated in 1995, and UN Security Council sanctions were initially approved in 2006. They intended to end Iran's nuclear program and its support of Islamic terrorism and to bolster the Iranian opposition. Additional US legislation has tightened the sanctions and intensified punitive policy towards violators. However, systematic non-compliance has been demonstrated by Russia and China, as well as by Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Japan, South Africa, Venezuela and some of the European countries.
Disengagement from delusions and engagement with realism constitute a prerequisite for averting Iran's nuclearization, which constitutes a clear and present danger to the US, then to NATO, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, as well as to Israel and to global sanity. Therefore, the prevention of a nuclear Iran should constitute a top US national security priority.
In other words, Iran's mega-goal, since the 7th century, has been the domination of the Persian Gulf, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, Israel's policy or Israel's existence. Iran's mega-hurdle has been the US and NATO presence in the Gulf. Therefore, the development of Iran's mega-(nuclear) capability is primarily designed to force the US evacuation of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, through deterrence and intimidation in the Gulf region, through beachheads in Latin America and the US mainland. Iran's mega-capability would allow it to occupy Iraq – its arch rival since the 7th century – and Saudi Arabia, which Iran considers an apostate regime. All Gulf States are perceived by Iran as key prizes, required to control the flow and the price of oil and to bankroll Teheran's megalomaniac regional and global aspirations.

Iran's geo-strategic goals are energized by its current Islamic zeal, viewing Jihad (Holy War) as the permanent state of relations between Moslems and non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous. Iran demonstrated its zeal to obtain the mega-goal at all cost, sacrificing some 500,000 people on the altar of the 1980-1988 War against Iraq, including approximately 100,000 children who were dispatched to clear minefields. Moreover, Teheran’s Mullahs are emboldened by the pending US evacuation of Iraq, which they consider an extension of the US retreats from Lebanon (1958
and 1983), Vietnam (1973) and Somalia (1993).

An Iranian nuclear cloud, hovering above the US and Israel, would not require the launching of nuclear warheads, in order to acquire significant extortion capabilities and produce economic, social, moral and national security havoc. Therefore, one cannot afford to await a smoking nuclear gun in the hand of Teheran; one must prevent the nuclear gun from reaching Teheran's hand. That excludes the options of deterrence, coexistence and retaliation. It highlights the option of a swift and a disproportional preemptive military operation, whose cost would be dwarfed by the cost of inaction.

The Iranian nuclear challenge constitutes the ultimate test of leadership. Will the US and Israel be driven by long-term conviction and realism, or will they succumb to vacillation, oversimplification and short-term political convenience, thus facilitating the surrender of Western democracies to rogue Islamic regimes!?

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative",

Russia and China are not any help of course

Russia Rejects Further Sanctions of Iran over Nuclear Program - Julian Borger
Russia has rejected as "unacceptable" EU calls for further sanctions against Iran in the wake of a UN report that Tehran had experimented with nuclear weapon designs. Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Wednesday, "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Tehran....That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals." (Guardian-UK)
See also China Supports Dialogue, Not Coercion, with Iran
China says UN sanctions against Iran cannot fundamentally resolve tensions over the country's nuclear program. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Friday that China continues to hold dialogue and that cooperation rather than coercion is the most effective approach to Iran. He defended China's economic dealings with Iran against critics who say this props up the Iranian regime and allows it to continue its nuclear program. (AP-Washington Post)

Mofaz: Iran Nukes Are Obama's Litmus Test

Mofaz: Iran Nukes Are Obama's Litmus Test
MK Shaul Mofaz says Iran's nukes are not just a "Jewish problem" and that no one is safe -- adding that the time for talk is past.
By Gavriel Queenann
First Publish: 11/9/2011, 1:15 AM


MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), a former IDF Chief of Staff, on Tuesday said that Iran's nuclear program was the ultimate limtus test for US President Barak Obama's foreign policy.

"We are approaching the point where there is a balance of terror in the Middle East," Mofaz said during a speech to the heads of Jewish Federations in Denver, Colorado at their yearly General Assembly.. "Iran's missile umbrella already covers most European capitals. Anyone who thinks he is safe is making a mistake."

"The Iranian nuclear issue is not just a Jewish problem, and leaders can no longer hide behind that excuse. It's time to for the nations of the world to stop talking and eradicate the problem posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions," Mofaz said.

"It's time to deepen economic sanctions on Iran, to its intellectual institutions and its critical economic engines," said Mofaz, stressing "Israeli military action is the last option - and worst - at the moment, but all options should remain on the table."

Mofaz added that "the world must understand we cannot accept the reality of a nuclear Iran."

Mofaz said he who ignores the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program needs "to open his eyes."

"Nuclear weapons in Iranian hands cannot be allowed," Mofaz said. "This is the task before the American government, which must do its duty. A nuclear Iran is not just a Jewish problem, but a a problem for the entire free world."

"The efficacy of the American response will be the ultimate litmus test of President Obama's foreign policy," Mofaz concluded.

Mofaz's comments echoed those of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beteinu) earlier on Tuesday.

Mofaz is a former IDF chief of staff who has also served both as Israel's minister of Defense and Transportation. He is expected to challenge Kadima faction head Tzipi Livni in the upcoming party primaries.

Where is the pressure from Jewish Organizations?

No can pretend anymore that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Obama stupidly first tried to talk them out of it. Then he stalled on sanctions. Then signed some that Congress pushed and now is stalling on them again. Anyway they are a JOKE. Iran is laughing at our feeble sanctions efforts. This is 1938 right now all over again. So where are the Jewish organizations? Jewish organizations have been beating the drums on Iran for a decade but now when push comes to shove, NO PRESSURE on Obama to stop them militarily. Only the Repub candidates (except Paul) understand this but by Jan 2013 it may be too late. This is the most important issue in the world today and silence from Jewsh organizations except me about militarily stopping them. Iran can fit a nuke in a suitcase. They have Hezbolah agents coming across the Mexican border all the time. Obama can care less, I get that. But where are the Jewish organizations? Israel is obviously maneuvering to pressure the USA to act. Why don't we help them out. The ONLY WAY to stop Iran is the USA to bomb their 37 sites with our heavy bombers and bunker busters. What good will it do after the nuks go off to say :I told you so?" STOP THEM!! Jewish organizations, where are you? why are you silent on this?

Obama willfully allowing Iran to go forward

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/192447-white-house-iaea-report-raises-concerns-about-irans-nuclear-program

Ah..that all purpose “raises concerns”….

Spinning like centrifuges….”sporadic”, “report certainly doesn’t assert that Iran has mastered all the necessary technology [to make a weapon] and we agree with that”, “no evidence”, “does not draw any conclusions” etc.

I guess the “smoking gun” that seems to be required will have to be a “ mushroom cloud”.

Now comes the “consulting with the international community” but don’t worry:

Administration officials said Obama expects Iran “to respond to this report by demonstrating to the world the peaceful nature of its program by answering the questions that are raised, very directly, by this IAEA report.”


Hasn’t this been going on for years now? Hasn’t Iran been asked constantly to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its program and to answer questions. The IAEA report itself brings up the fact that Iran has REFUSED to answer many questions. Did the WH even read the IAEA report?

Tick..tock..tick tock…

From ed Lasky

Options on Iran

Obama Still Has Options on Iran
Seth Mandel | @SethAMandel 11.07.2011 - 11:50 AM

The Washington Post’s write-up of the upcoming report from the UN’s nuclear watchdog confirms the two key elements of Iran’s nuclear program: they have “mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles,” and the Iranians intend to use this capability for “weapons-related” purposes.
None of this is particularly shocking, nor is the Iranian government’s yawn in response: “Let them publish and see what happens.” As Jonathan noted yesterday, sabotage (either through the Stuxnet worm or assassinations of nuclear scientists) were never considered a silver bullet to stop the Iranian program; sanctions that would do the trick will be blocked by Russia and China; and sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran​ would be helpful but not conclusive. So what should President Obama do? He has three options.
First, he should take action that could collapse the Central Bank of Iran anyway. It’s true this is not going to stop the program, but it would help and it would send a message. If the U.S. cannot effectively sanction the Iranian Central Bank, it will have no credibility to enact tougher sanctions. The Republican currently holding Obama’s old Senate seat, Mark Kirk, has been pushing the president on this and called a press conference today to continue doing so. Kirk and Charles Schumer​ have been rallying their respective caucuses behind the effort, and a letter calling for such action received the signatures of 92 senators in August. The purpose of Kirk’s press conference today is to outline an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill under consideration this week. “We have to use the strongest non-military means available to reduce the coming danger to America, Saudi Arabia, and Israel,” Kirk said.
Second, the U.S. should stop pretending it has no leverage over Russia. The last hurdle to Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization–Georgian opposition–has been cleared. But the U.S. can still block it. If Obama wants an indisputable success with regard to the “reset,” getting Russia to stand down and allow real sanctions on Iran would be an especially good place to start. Of course it benefits the American economy to have Russia in the WTO, but so does doing business with Iran. So far, the U.S. has wrung zero concessions from Vladimir Putin​ over Russia’s long-awaited accession to the WTO, and in fact has ignored its illegal behavior toward Georgia in order to welcome Russia to the club. Iranian sanctions wouldn’t be too much to ask from an authoritarian country looking to join a global organization dedicated to ethical trade practices.
Third, Obama should keep the pressure up on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad any way he can. He should start by figuring out what can be done to stop the American and European companies currently outfitting the Syrian regime with surveillance equipment to help their brutal crackdown on Syrian opposition and civilian protesters, as Bloomberg Businessweek reported a few days ago. Every Iranian ally in the Middle East relies on Syria as well in some form or another, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. And those allies are key to Iran’s deterrent capability, through its terrorist proxies with thousands of missiles aimed at Israel in case of attack. Any weakening of that nexus will weaken Iran.
Obama cannot stop the Iranian nuclear program with any of these measures, but they will all do more than simply describing the news as “unhelpful” and changing the subject, as this administration likes to do.

He forgot to add

Obama could order a month long sustained bombing campaign targeting all known sites
:-)

Jonathan Ginsburg

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org

sanctions and war

Stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs
the NYT is reporting that sanctions on Iran's Central Bank will not be pursued by the WH. This is an idea being supported by a bipartisan group of politicians-including Mark Kirk. Obama-what are you up to here?

Stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs
Obama-pay attention!
President Peres: Iran ‘greatest danger’ for Israel
Shimon Peres says Iran also 'greatest danger' for 'entire world'; remarks come amid Israeli debate over military action against Iran nuclear facilities.
·

New Syria nuk plant? www.jonathanginburg.com

AP Exclusive: New signs of Syria-Pakistan nuke tie

ShareThis PrintE-mail
By GEORGE JAHN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — U.N. investigators have identified a previously unknown complex in Syria that bolsters suspicions that the Syrian government worked with A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to acquire technology that could make nuclear arms.


This Aug. 14, 2011, satellite image provided by GeoEye, shows a facility in Al-Hasakah, Syria. Invesigators at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency have asked Syria about this complex, in the center of the image, in the country's northwestern city of Al-Hasakah because they believe it closely matches plans for a uranium enrichment plant sold by the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb A.Q. Khan. (AP Photo/GeoEye Satellite Image)
More Nation & World stories »

Tenn. gov: 'Occupy' arrests necessary for safety
Ill. powerbroker convicted in shakedown trial
Court unlikely to allow private prison to be sued
Plan says California high-speed rail to cost $98B
The buildings in northwest Syria closely match the design of a uranium enrichment plant provided to Libya when Moammar Gadhafi was trying to build nuclear weapons under Khan's guidance, officials told The Associated Press.

latest on Israel bombing Iran

The Forward
Previous
The Political Dividends of the Shalit Deal October 28, 2011, 6:05pm
Israeli Brass Astir Amid Pressure for Iran Strike
By J.J. Goldberg
“Have the prime minister and defense minister sealed a deal between them, one on one, to attack the nuclear reactors in Iran?” So asks Nahum Barnea, commonly described as Israel’s senior and most respected political journalist, in an article leading the top of the front page of today’s Yediot Ahronot. He writes that growing rumors to that effect have created a quiet but urgent buzz within Israel’s political and military elites. They’re also troubling foreign governments, which “have a hard time understanding what is going on here”: a fateful decision that could “seal the fate of the Jewish state” for good or ill, and yet near-total silence on the topic in the public arena.

Barnea writes that the question of whether or not to attack divides Israel’s leadership into four camps. One camp says the benefits would be slim and the risks “insane,” given Iran’s ability to bombard Israel with deadly missiles from Lebanon, Gaza and Iran itself and touch off a regional war “that could destroy the state of Israel.” This camp says it’s better to focus on international sanctions, bearing in mind that if they fail and Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, “it won’t be the end of the world” — while an Israeli attack just might be.

The second camp says there’s no rush. Iran is still at least two years away from a weapon, which leaves plenty of time to let other options play out, reserving a military attack as an absolute last resort. Barnea quotes a senior American diplomat who told him Israel should back renewed negotiations on international inspections. If and when Iran turns out to be lying, an Israeli attack will have a lot more international understanding and support, which could be crucial in determining how well Israel survives the ensuing onslaught. Some Israeli cabinet ministers subscribe to this view, and suspect that the growing pressure for an immediate attack stems from “outside motives, whether personal or political.” More on that later.

The third camp consists of the heads of the military and intelligence community: IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz, military intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo and Shin Bet chief Yoram Cohen. All four, he writes, are opposed to the military option, just like their predecessors: respectively, Gabi Ashkenazi, Amos Yadlin, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin. The difference is that the current chiefs are all new in their posts and lack the standing, experience, self-confidence and temperament to “bang on the table” and restrain Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak, as their predecessors repeatedly did.

Finally, he writes, there are “the Siamese twins,” Netanyahu and Barak, who appear to be in a distinct minority, yet have the power to make the final decision. Netanyahu, he writes, has been warning since he entered office that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler and a new Holocaust is looming. “There are those who describe Netanyahu’s passion on the topic as an obsession,” Barnea writes. “All his life he’s dreamed of being Churcill. Iran offers him the opportunity.” As for Barak, he looks at Israel’s past attacks on nuclear installations in Iraq and (“according to foreign reports”) Syria, and figures the pattern has been set. It’s not just a strategy, he writes, it’s a legacy. Moreover, some cabinet ministers suspect Barak is driven at least partly by personal motives: with no party or constituency behind him since he left Labor, he may see a military triumph as his best ticket to a continuing role in politics.

For more details on the increasingly urgent debate on Iran inside the Israeli brass—and the role it played in the sweeping changeover in the senior command engineered by Barak and Netanyahu over the past year, here’s some of my own coverage of the struggle from August 2010, December 2010, January 2011, May 2011 and June 2011

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/145227/#ixzz1cDH94nZm

More reason not to get complacent re Iran www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org

Iran's Nuclear Program: The Full Picture - J.E. Dyer
A widely referenced Washington Post story has got folks feeling complacent about Iran's nuclear program. The piece, crediting Stuxnet and sanctions, speaks of a "sharp decline" in the output of low-enriched uranium (LEU) at the Natanz enrichment facility, along with the aging and low-performing condition of Iran's original Pakistani-design centrifuge cascades. Meanwhile, sanctions have apparently made it impossible for Iran to import high-strength maraging steel, forcing the Iranians to manufacture their newest centrifuges from less reliable carbon fiber.
But one of the most important facts is that, according to the September 2011 IAEA report, Iran had - as of mid-August 2011 - piled up a total of 4,543 kg. of LEU. By Western intelligence estimates, that is enough for 4 nuclear warheads. While the efficiency of production has declined and the Iranians are now using more centrifuges to produce the same amount of LEU, between May and August 2011, Iran still produced enough LEU on an annualized basis for a nuclear warhead per year. The writer is a retired commander who served in U.S. Naval intelligence. (Hot Air)
See also UK: Iran Nuclear Issue to Grow More Urgent - Adrian Croft
Tackling Iran's nuclear program will become more urgent over the next year and the world must not be distracted from it by the focus on the Arab Spring popular uprisings, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday. This was because Iran had stepped up its nuclear work by increasing the fissile content of its enriched uranium to the 20% level and moving centrifuge machines to a previously secret underground bunker near Qom. (Reuters)
See also Iran's Nuclear Program Suffering New Setbacks, Diplomats and Experts Say - Joby Warrick (Washington Post)
See also Report: Iran Could Make Atom Bomb Material Despite Hurdles
Iran's nuclear program is struggling with low-performing enrichment machines but it would still be able to produce material that could be used for atomic bombs, according to a U.S. think tank. "Is the Iranian enrichment program on a trajectory toward being dedicated to producing weapon-grade uranium for nuclear weapons?" the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) asked and replied: "Unfortunately, despite its severe limitations, this program is able to do so." (Reuters)

How awful iran is

UN Report Rips Iran's Human Rights Record - Barbara Slavin
A UN report by Ahmed Shaheed, the new UN "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran," condemns the Iranian regime for wide-ranging human right abuses, including the secret killings of hundreds of prisoners under mysterious circumstances. Hundreds of political activists, journalists, students, filmmakers, lawyers, environmentalists, women's advocates, members of ethnic and religious minorities, dissident clerics, and Iranians with ties to Western countries have been swept into the prisons of the Islamic Republic since the disputed 2009 presidential election.
There have been more than 200 "officially announced" executions in 2011 and at least 146 secret ones in a prison in the eastern city of Mashhad. Last year, 300 people were secretly executed there, the report says. More than 100 Iranians under age 18 remain on death row. (Foreign Policy)
Read the Report: Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (United Nations)
News Resources - Israel an

But don't get complacent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/irans-nuclear-program-suffering-new-setbacks-diplomats-and-experts-say/2011/10/17/gIQAByndsL_print.html

Iran’s nuclear program suffering new setbacks, diplomats and experts say

By Joby Warrick, Monday, October 17, 4:33 PM

Iran’s nuclear program, which stumbled badly after a reported cyber attack last year, appears beset by poorly performing equipment, shortages of parts and other woes as global sanctions exert a mounting toll, Western diplomats and nuclear experts say.
The new setbacks are surfacing at a time when Iran faces growing international pressure, including allegations that Iranian officials backed a clumsy attempt to kill a Saudi diplomat in Washington. Analysts say Iran has become increasingly frustrated and erratic as political change sweeps the region and its nuclear program struggles.
Although Iran continues to stockpile enriched uranium in defiance of U.N. resolutions, two new reports portray the country’s nuclear program as riddled with problems as scientists struggle to keep older equipment working.
At Iran’s largest nuclear complex, near the city of Natanz, fast-spinning machines called centrifuges churn out enriched uranium. But its output is steadily declining as the equipment ages and breaks down, according to an analysis of data collected by U.N. nuclear officials.
Iran has vowed to replace the older machines with models that are faster and more efficient. Yet new centrifuges recently introduced at Natanz contain parts made from an inferior type of metal that is weaker and more prone to failure, according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington nonprofit group widely regarded for its analysis of nuclear programs.
“Without question, they have been set back,” said David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although the problems are not fatal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they have “hurt Iran’s ability to break out quickly” into the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers, Albright said.
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s clerical leaders are seeking to rapidly acquire the technical capability to make nuclear weapons, though there are indications that top officials have not yet firmly committed to building the bomb. Iran maintains that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.
Western diplomats and nuclear experts say Iranian officials have been frustrated and angered by the program’s numerous setbacks, including deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists. Four Iranian scientists have been killed by unidentified assailants since 2007, and a fifth narrowly escaped death in an attempted car-bombing.
Feeling besieged
Some U.S. officials have suggested that the alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington was emblematic of the frustration and disarray within Iran’s ruling elite at a time when internal unrest has destabilized the nation’s closest Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
U.S. officials have said that the alleged assassination plot originated from elements within Iran’s elite Quds Force, a covert paramilitary group. But it is not clear whether the nation’s top leaders knew about or approved the plan.
The alleged $1.5 million scheme fell apart when an Iranian American accomplice sought to hire a Mexican hit man who in reality was an undercover informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It could be an outgrowth of the fact that we’ve crossed a red line in the Iranians’ eyes,” said a senior administration official involved in high-level discussions of Iran policy.
“We’re used to seeing them do bad things, but this plot was so bizarre, it could be a sign of desperation, a reflection of the fact that they’re feeling under siege,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he had not been cleared to discuss the matter publicly.
Albright noted that Iran has behaved erratically in other arenas as well, using novel tactics to try to gain advanced materials and technology for its nuclear program and weapons systems.
“Their procurement efforts are less thought-through, and they’re getting caught a lot more, which suggests that they are becoming more desperate,” he said.
The Obama administration has sought to use the revelations of the alleged plot to rally international support for stronger sanctions and other measures to discourage Iran from seeking to become a nuclear power.
In Tehran, officials said Monday that they were ready to investigate allegations by the United States that the Quds Force plotted to kill Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. “We are ready to patiently investigate any issue, even if it’s fabricated,” Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. “We also asked America to give us the information related to this scenario.”
Salehi and other Iranian officials, however, continued to maintain that Iran had nothing to do with the alleged plot, which they dismissed as a ‘bad Hollywood script.” The plot allegations have seriously strained Iran’s already fragile relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.
In an interview on al-Jazeera English on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Obama administration made the allegations to divert attention from its own economic problems.
“Why has the U.S. administration leveled this accusation?” Ahmadinejad said. “The truth will be revealed in the end.”
Sharp decline in output
The studies of Iran’s struggling uranium program draw on data collected by U.N. officials who conduct regular inspections of Iran’s facilities to ensure that the nation is not diverting the enriched product into a military weapons program.
The inspectors’ report documented a sharp drop in output in 2009 and 2010, providing the first confirmation of a major equipment failure linked to a computer virus dubbed Stuxnet. Western diplomats and nuclear experts say Stuxnet’s designer intended to attack and disable thousands of first-generation centrifuges at Natanz, undercutting Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. Many experts suspect Israel created the virus, perhaps with U.S. help, but neither nation has acknowledged any role.
Iranian scientists replaced more than 1,000 crippled machines. Afterward the Natanz plant appeared to quickly recover, and production rates soared to surpass levels seen before the attack. Yet, the gains have not lasted, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security.
Although Iran has managed to squeeze enriched uranium from the plant at a consistent rate, it needs many more centrifuges to produce the amount of enriched uranium the plant was making two years ago.
The decline could stem from the lingering effects of the cyber attack, or it could indicate that Iran’s centrifuges are simply wearing out. In any case, the decline is so significant that Natanz is incapable of fulfilling the needs of the country’s only nuclear power plant, the report said.
Iran has boasted about the performance of its next-generation centrifuges, which its scientists began installing over the summer. The upgraded equipment — at least four times as efficient as the older models — were to be installed at Natanz and in a bunker near the ancient city of Qom, where they would be less vulnerable to airstrikes.
In prototypes, critical components of the machines were made of a high-strength metal known as maraging steel. But the machines that arrived at Natanz in recent weeks had parts made of a less robust material known as carbon fiber, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.
Correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.

why no conversation? www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Iran Iran Iran in all the discussion about the Iran backed effort to kill Saudi ambassador on US spoil note 1. virtually no conversation about the effort was also to bomb the Israeli Embassay and much much worse, 2. notice how virtually no talk about the impending Iran nuclear weapons developement and their determimnation to destroy Israel and the US? Sanctions are a joke. why is no one in this country talking about going to do the responsible thing and stop them with force?

Iran's continuing terror

Obama Says Facts Support Accusation of Iranian Plot - Helene Cooper
President Obama vowed on Thursday to push for what he called the "toughest sanctions" against Iran, saying that the U.S. had strong evidence that Iranian officials were complicit in a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Obama insisted that American officials "know that he [the alleged Iranian-American perpetrator] had direct links, was paid by, and directed by individuals in the Iranian government." "We would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment." Obama promised to "apply the toughest sanctions and continue to mobilize the international community to make sure that Iran is further and further isolated and pays a price for this kind of behavior." (New York Times)
See also U.S. Talks Tough to Iran, But Holds Off on Harsher Moves - Mark Landler and Helene Cooper (New York Times)
Intelligence Links Iran to Saudi Diplomat's Murder - David Ignatius
U.S. and Saudi officials believe Iranian operatives were behind the May 16 murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi, Pakistan - adding more evidence that Tehran has engaged in high-risk covert actions beyond the allegations of a Washington assassination plot made in a Justice Department indictment Tuesday. Hassan al-Qahtani, a Saudi security official working at their consulate in Karachi, was gunned down in July about 200 feet from his office by a man on a motorbike. A Saudi official said Thursday that his country and the U.S. agree that Iran's Quds Force was involved in the Karachi killing. The official said that Pakistani intelligence had identified the killer as a member of the Shiite dissident group known as Sapih Mohammed, which has connections with the Quds Force.
The Saudi official also said that Gholam Shakuri, the Quds Force official named in Tuesday's indictment, was an important Quds Force case officer who had helped organize militant Shiite protesters in Bahrain. (Washington Post)
See also Text of Indictment in Iranian Plot to Murder Saudi Ambassador (U.S. Department of Justice)
Militants Aided by Iran Fired at American Forces in Iraq - Michael S. Schmidt
Militants trained and financed by Iran's Quds Force attacked U.S. forces in Iraq on Wednesday, American officials said. The militants fired rockets at American forces at Contingency Operating Station Garry Owen in the southern province of Maysan, which borders Iran. The military said three soldiers were wounded in the assault.
The Quds Force has one goal, according to the officials and analysts: weakening Iraq so it is even more dependent on Iran. "The Quds Force is the Iranian government's arm that deals directly with Iraq," said Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert on national security issues at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "Since 2006, all of Iran's relations and operations in Iraq have been in the Quds Force's portfolio." (New York Times)
U.S. Accuses Syrian-Born Man of

Santorum willing to go to war to stop Iran www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Stop-Iran-from-getting-nuclear-bombs/275578969135142

Santorum on the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program
Posted by
CNN's Diana Ozemebhoya
Washington (CNN) – GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Thursday that as president he would use "whatever means necessary" to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear program, including going to war.

In an effort to halt the steps he says Iran is taking to grow a nuclear weapons program, the former Pennsylvania senator said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" that in addition to using covert operations he would order "actual operations within the country to make sure the program does not continue."

Obama responds limpedly about Iran again www.RabbiJonathan

bama responds limpedly about Iran again www.RabbiJonathanGinsburg.info
He is mad about Iran trying to kill Saudi ambassador in US. Lauds his efforts so far to curb Iran. But
1. White House Wants to Stall Iran Sanctions
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009 09:59 AM
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
Even before the House overwhelmingly passed long-stalled legislation Tuesday to impose sanctions on foreign suppliers of refined petroleum products to Iran, the Obama administration had asked the Senate to hold off on approving new sanctions on Iran until early next year.
In a little-noticed move Friday, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg wrote to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, D.-Mass., urging him not to move similar legislation in the Senate because it “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts.”
The Obama White House has used similar arguments in the past to forestall the House sanctions bill, which Democrats held for six months before finally voting it out of committee in frustration mid-October.
2. Obama to Iran: U.S. offer of dialogue still stands
By Jeff Mason And Ross Colvin Sat Mar 20 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama renewed his administration’s offer of dialogue and diplomacy with Tehran on Saturday, a year after his offer of a new beginning with Iran failed to achieve concrete results.
Obama, who addressed Iranians in a new videotaped appeal to mark the observance of Nowruz — a festival celebrating the arrival of spring — has pledged to pursue aggressive sanctions to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
"We are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations," Obama said in the address released by the White House.
"But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands." …
During his first year in office, Obama marked Nowruz with an unprecedented message offering Iran a "new beginning" of diplomatic engagement with the United States.

3. Why is there no mention of the plot including bombing the Israeli embassy too? Doesn't Israel matter at all to him?
By JOHN STEVENS and OLIVER TREE
Last updated at 8:36 AM on 13th October 2011
House Speaker John Boehner today called on Obama to 'hold Iran's feet to the fire' in the wake of the thwarting of a 'significant terrorist act' by agents working for the Iranian government to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to America in Washington DC.
Vice President Joe Biden this morning said that 'nothing has been taken off the table' as the U.S. discusses possible sanctions and military action. He said the consequences for Iran will be 'serious'.
Retaliation: House Speaker John Boehner called on Obama to 'hold Iran's feet to the fire' after the plot was uncovered
He is accused of plotting to kill Adel Al-Jubeir by bombing a restaurant, before setting off blasts at the Saudi and Israeli embassies.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047939/US-foils-Iran-terror-plot-kill-Saudi-ambassador-Washington-D-C.html#ixzz1agJRoLYA

France warns Iran

France warned Iran on Wednesday to halt its nuclear program or risk a "disastrous" military operation.

Speaking on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, where talks are underway to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, Ambassador Gerard Araud refused to say which country may strike but said such a blow would "have disastrous consequences in the region."

"If we don't succeed today to reach a negotiation with the Iranians, there is a strong risk of military action," he said. "All the Arab countries are extremely worried about what is happening."

An International Atomic Energy Agency report released earlier this month suggested that Tehran has enhanced its nuclear facilities to defend against cyber attacks similar to the Stuxnet virus that slowed its atomic development over the past several years.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney believes Israel may have the best reason to take military action against the Islamic Republic, whose leaders continue to drag their feet in resuming dialogue with world powers while threatening the Jewish state on a regular basis.

"Iran represents an existential threat and [the Israelis] will do whatever they have to do to guarantee their survival and their security," he said.

Email to a friend, Sh

The Yizkor sermon Every Rabbi in the World Should Give This Year Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg

The Yizkor sermon Every Rabbi in the World Should Give This Year


Last month it was disclosed that Golda Meir, before the State of Israel existed, asked the allies to bomb Auschwitz. They did not and six million Jews died. Why do I mention that today, towards the end of the Holiest Day of the year?
There are several unique features of the Yom Kippur Service which will hel explain why.
First is the Kol Nidre prayer we heard last night, which actually not a prayer at all as you know, but a legal formula asking God to let us annul all vows to GOD we made last year, or will make this year depending on what version we use. The idea behind it is God not wanting us to make viows to God rashly, that we cannot keep. Our words and vows must be considered carefully and if we make one, we need to fulfill it. My question for 5772-is there ONE vow every Jew in the world should make this coming year, of which God would approve? Is there one issue so compelling that the fate of the world rests on it? One that cannot wait until 5773? The answer is yes. Stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That threatens Israel very existence and 6 million Jews directly, and threatens us with dirty bombs smuggled in our borders by Hezbollah terrorists. Israel is now, or will shortly be totally surrounded by Islamic Jihadiost states. Egypt soon will be, Libya will fall into Jihadist hands, Gaza is controlled by Iran backed Hamas, Hezbollah too in Lebanon in the north with 60,000 Iranian missiles, Syraia will shift from Assad to something even worse, Jordan is staring to shake and that does not even count the worst of all IRAN,
There are three other special features of Yom Kippur day we note. First is the last biblical portion our Sages determined we read on this day-the book of Jonah. Jonah was ordered by God to take action to save a city. He tried to duck his responsibility until forced to see the error of his ways and do as God commanded. The Torah says do not stand idly by while the blood of your neighbor is spilt. Isaiah says God reflects “I looked down and saw iunjustice and wondered why no one would intervene?” When the two and a half tribes in the Torah wanted to avoid entering Israel, Moses and God finally allowed them to outside of Israel, if they first helped Israel insure its ability to live inside the Land. The Torah has Moses saying “will your brothers go to war and you remain not helping them.” We can do no less.
Second, in the morning Musaf service, we find special unique features. One is the Avodah service, the magnificent depiction of the royal service of the High Priest, elegantly dressed, in great awe that one day a year entering the Holy of Holies and pleading for Israel. Throughout the two thousand years of Jewish powerlessness, hearing that Service each Yom Kippur uplifted the Jewish spirit and heart. It still moves us, plus we are blessed with Jewish power. Every Prime Minister of Israel sees it as their number one sacred task to stop another Holocaust and keep Israel safe. A very tough job, and they need our help.
Third, the second unique aspect of the Yom Kippur musaf, Eleh Ezkara,
This ancient poem depicts the brutal massacre of 10 great rabbinic Sages at the hands of the Romans, including the flaying of the flesh off the body of Rabbi Akiva, who helped lead the rebellion in 135 against the tyranny and yoke of Rome. Many sysnagogues insert reading about the Holocaust in this service.
If we don’t stop Iran, their deaths were even more in vain, and the slogan “NEVER AGAIN” means nothing.
What musty we do? What is the most important thing you can do in 5772 to insure world peace and the survival of the State of Israel?

Supporting Israel When she bombs Iran

The clock is ticking closer and closer towards the Iranian nuclear bomb capability. Rationale people realize one must take the Iranian leaders at their word when they state they plan to obliterate Israel in a “sudden storm.” "Mutually Assured Destruction does not work with a suicide bomber mentality government, as DAVID HOROVITZ said. "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post. The Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that's a real threat."
The West’s efforts to stop Iran, through Obama’s misguided and absurd idea that diplomacy could stop them, followed by fruitless sanctions follow fruitless sanctions, has proved worthless. Aipac and Cufi are still talking about more sanctions. But a top terrorism expert, author of several key books on the subject of Iran, after a speech trotting out the idea of how more sanctions COULD work, told me when I pressed him privately asking "not if they COULD, but if there was any chance they WOULD stop Iran", he said “no.”
There you have it. Former VP Chaney was quoted in Israel News saying “Israel is likely to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if it proves necessary in order to prevent it from acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction...I think Iran represents an existential threat, and (Israel) will do whatever they have to do to guarantee their survival and their security,” the former vice president told Newsmax's Chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler.”

THE USA should and could do this. We should try and convince Wahington but that may be a zochen vay-hopeless.


Israel is currently running training exercises over an island equidistant from Israel as Iran, and which has the same anti-aircraft Russian equipment as Iran.

Suppose Israel does decide to attack.
1. They have no bombers, just fighter bombers.
2. Each plane would need to be refueled twice to get back safely.
3. They would get one bomb run most likely
4. There are over 35 sites, many on the far east side of Iran, buried a mile down in hardened sites.
5. So how much damage can they really do vs. a several month long USA attack with our bombers?
6. Why is this Israel’s responsibility anyway? Do you not believe Iran represents a nuclear threat to the USA? They’ll have intercontinental ballistic missiles which can reach us within a few years, and dirty bomb fit-into-a-terrorists-backpack capability soon.
7. But Obama is reluctant, the military is tired after two wars in that part of the world. Some of the Republican candidates are discussing it. On Fox news Sept 13. Romney said Obama's biggest failure as President has been his failure to stop iarn and his seventh point of his seven point plan to stop them is the US having a "serious military option on the table." Of course then there is Ron Paul who says who cares if Iran gets nuclear weapons.
It appears Israel will have to do it if their Air Force generals believe they can. There will be horrible results most likely. Gas prices may go through the roof because Iran will shut down the Gulf with mines or sunk ships, maybe the 60,000 Iranian missiles in Lebanonon under Hezbollah control and the 15,000 in Gaza will be shot at Israel, maybe the Hezbollah terrorists who have snuck into the USA illegally will be unleashed etc. Israel will be blamed, maybe Egypt, Syria etc will decide it’s a good time to pour it on. Who knows what would be unleashed. The PR against the attack will be ferocious. Two term US Senator Ruby Boschwitz R-Minnesota who served when when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear site in 1981, told me he was accosted by a fellow Republican Senator the next day and was asked “what did you people do?” To which Sen. Boschwitz retorted a. They are not my people. I am a USA Senator and that was the sovereign state of Israel and b. You’ll thank me in a week”. Sure enough, that happened.

I attended a dinner a few years ago where Pat Robertson was the keynoter. Even then he said that when Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear sites, we need to be prepared to defend her because the pr blast vs Israel will be atrocious. Now we need to be prepared. The evidence is overwhelming that
1. Iran wants to develop nuclear bombs and is getting close. No one knows exactly how close..
2. It has stated it wants to destroy Israel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false "Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty." "This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.Will Obama allow this man to control nuclear bombs and missiles? Looks like he will. “History will judge this [Obama] administration when it comes to the end of its term whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Fox News in an interview. He also said sanctions are not enough to stop Iran from reaching nuclear capability.
3. Diplomacy and sanction have not and cannot stop them.
4. Even if our Navy destroyer off Iran's coat can shoot down 95% of Iran's missiles, and Israel in a few years could shoot down most of the rest, are you SO sure of technology and no human error that 0 nuclear bombs will get through? And how do we know that the US would shoot them down?
5. The USA has given no sense it feels a military campaign is urgent and Washington is now settling on “containment.”
6. Many other Arab nations have said they want nuclear bombs if Iran gets them. Is that something the USA can live with?
7. Wikiliks has shown the Saudis are begging the USA to stop Iran.
8. Golda asked the allies to bomb Auschwitz. They did not. 6 million Jews died.


Jewish and general war ethics demand that in such a scenario, a preemptive strike to forestall genocide is a mitzvah-a commandment. The Torah does not expect us to submit to armed aggression, to stand silently and passively when others seek to conquer and dominate us. The people of Israel have the right to defend themselves from attack. Indeed, we are commanded to do so: the obligation to defend and preserve our lives overrides virtually every other religious duty. Every nation must possess the right to take up arms if necessary to protect itself and its citizens against military attack.
When diplomacy fails, when our foes spurn the offer of peace that our tradition bids us to make them, when they are clearly bent upon their aggressive course, then the time to initiate preemptive action is sooner rather than later.

And if and when they do, we must make defense of that action our top priority. Save one life, you save a universe.

On Rosh Hashanah we read that Abraham thought God wanted him to kill his beloved son Isaac, but found out no, it was a test. God does not want Isaac to be sacrificed. This is our holy test. To Save Isaac and his descendants. Iran can be saved only by destroying its nuclear program until there is regime change.

If Am Yisrael chai means something
Then today, VOW
I will be the Jonah who did God’s bidding to make the world better, not flee from my responsibility
I will not let the death of the martyred sages of Israel be in vain.
I will not be like the 2 ½ tribes originally wanted to be, let those in Israel carry all the burden.
I will remember the 2000 years of powerless Jews listening to the Avbodah service of the High priest and remind myself that today, thank God, Jews are not powerless.

Stop Iran at all costs. Save Israel. Save the Middle East. Save the USA. Save the world.

Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Rabbi Rodfei kodesh Congregation Chicago
President ZOA Chapter Chicago (identification purposes only)
Blogger www.israelgreatest.blogspot.com