Prime Minister Netanyahu to Panetta: Time Running Out on Iran

P. David Hornik..
frontpagemag.com..
02 August '12..

“Will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear program?” is a parlor game played by numerous people who don’t have enough information to know the answer. It may be that there still is no definite answer; on Tuesday night Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu openly told a national TV audience that he still hadn’t reached a decision on the matter.

Recent events, though, seem to warrant a conjecture that something is afoot.

U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta was in Israel on Wednesday, meeting first with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and then with Netanyahu. His visit came hard on the heels of visits by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two weeks ago and by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon just a few days before that (along with, from the other side of the aisle, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s visit at the start of this week).

And that string of visits by Donilon, Clinton, and Panetta is only part of an ongoing succession of top-level U.S. visitors in Israel over the past several months. David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel, notes that “according to one count” today’s meeting between Panetta and Barak was no less thantheir ninth this year.

The inescapable conclusion is that someone, at least—Washington—relates seriously to Israel’s warnings that it may take action against Iran, and is particularly anxious to reassure Jerusalem that the sanctions-and-diplomacy approach is working and deserves more time.

Barak, though, told Panetta on Wednesday that he saw an “extremely low” probability that sanctions would ever—on any timeline—get Tehran to give up its nuclear program, and that meanwhile Israel’s window to act is closing as Iran keeps brazenly on its course.

Rosett - Panetta’s Biggest Worry

Claudia Rosett..
Rosett Report..
pjmedia.com..
03 February '12..


So, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta just told told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius that his biggest worry right now is that Israel will attack Iran in the next few months. Panetta then spelled out that the likeliest window for an Israeli attack would be April, May or June, before Iran stores enough enriched uranium deep enough underground so that only the U.S. would have the ability to stop the bomb-making. Perhaps Iran should send him a thank you note for the information?

Let’s hope that Panetta had some brilliant hidden agenda in talking like this to the press; perhaps a secret plan for imminent American air strikes that would render an Israeli attack unnecessary, or cover for an Israeli plan to attack tonight. But more likely Panetta simply meant what he said, and he meant to say it. In other words, while Iran keeps building the bomb, his biggest worry is how to stop Israel from acting in its own defense.

That’s fine if you’re dead certain that within the next few months Iran’s regime is either going to collapse, or throw wide open its nuclear program — a la Qaddafi — and invite the U.S. in to pick up the entire nuclear kit and haul it off to be examined at leisure in Tennessee. Does anyone believe that? The immediate collapse of the Tehran regime is a long shot. The notion of the Tehran regime amiably surrendering its nuclear program is utterly improbable, especially after the NATO-assisted demise of Qaddafi — who, had he held on to his nuclear kit, in the manner of North Korea, might have avoided being killed like a rat near a Libyan drainpipe. (Note: Qaddafi survived for years under sanctions. What persuaded him to give up his nuclear program was fear of suffering the fate of Saddam Hussein. What finally brought him down was use of force.)

Ignatius, in his column on Panetta’s big worry, writes that “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the [nuclear] threshold.” And if sanctions are helpful, but not sufficient, then what? It can’t be reassuring to Israelis to read, in the same Ignatius column on Panetta, that administration officials do insist that “if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States would feel obliged to come to Israel’s defense.” If Israel’s population centers were hit… ? That would be more than a tad too late.

Bryen - Panetta, Friedman and "The Damn Table"

Shoshana Bryen
Hudson New York
26 December '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2699/panetta-friedman-damn-table

Criticism of Leon Panetta's demand that Israel "return to the damn table," and Tom Friedman's lament that Prime Minister Netanyahu's ovation before Congress "was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" has been broad and deep. Writers from right to center (forget the left, who applauded both) denounced them, parsed them and tried to put them "in context." It is the context that is worrisome rather than their less-than-lovely language. The context is that if Israel and the Palestinians would both negotiate seriously, they would get to the "Two State Solution" beloved of the US and the Quartet.

Grant Panetta and Friedman the "damn table" and see what happens:

IF Israel sat at the table; IF Netanyahu agreed to a permanent settlement freeze; IF the Palestinians returned to the table; IF the Palestinians came under the "moderate" mandate of Fatah rather than "extremist" mandate of Hamas; IF they started with the 1949 Armistice Lines (the so-called 67 borders); IF they talked themselves blue in the face, they STILL would not get where Panetta, Friedman, et. al. want them to go.

Israelis and Palestinians have incompatible bottom lines that cannot be satisfied with a split and hostile rump State of Palestine (and a split, rump state would be hostile) wedged between the Mediterranean Sea, a nervous Israel and a more-nervous Jordan. No "peace process" can negotiate away the actual interests of the parties. No matter how much outsiders (Friedman and Panetta are just the tip of the iceberg) try to redefine those interests as something else, or demand that they be something else, or insist that they are, in fact, something else, the two stupid parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians, simply do not realize it -- hence the need for the ever-so-much-smarter Panetta and Freidman to pontificate.

Fresnozionism - Why they aren’t at “the damn table”

Leon Panetta: his fury
is misdirected

Fresnozionism.org
05 December '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/12/why-they-arent-at-the-damn-table/

One of the themes of the Obama Administration’s policy is that Israel is responsible for the non-progress of the ‘peace process’ between Israel and the PLO.

For example, last week the US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, said this directly:

“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view,” Panetta said.

He said Israel needed to take risks, including by breathing new life into moribund peace talks with Palestinians. When asked by a moderator what steps Israel needed to take to pursue peace, Panetta said: “Just get to the damn table.”

But yesterday, as if more evidence were needed, a Palestinian Authority/PLO spokesman proudly announced that it was they who did not want to sit at the table with Israel:

Abrams - Panetta’s Dangerous Mistake

Elliott Abrams
cfr.org
03 December '11

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/03/panettas-dangerous-mistake/

Secretary of Defense Panetta addressed the Saban Forum, the annual meeting of Israeli and American journalists, officials, and former officials, on Friday evening. What he said is no mystery; why he said it is a considerable one. The transcript is here.

What he said was that Israel is largely to blame for its troubles. No doubt he and other Obama administration officials and spokesmen would deny that, but the journalists present had it right. The Washington Post headline was “Panetta Chides Israel Over Stalled Peace Process.”

The New York Times reported that “Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta spoke sternly on Friday to America’s closest ally in the Middle East, telling Israel that it is partly responsible for its increasing isolation and that it now must take “bold action” — diplomatic, not military — to mend ties with its Arab neighbors and settle previously intractable territorial disputes with the Palestinians.”

“Get to the damn table,” Mr. Panetta shouted, as if it were Israel rather than the PLO that has been refusing to come to the table.

But there was worse.

Secretary Panetta repeatedly said Israel should trust the United States to stop Iran from getting a bomb and said again, in the old mantra, that all options are on the table. Then he was asked how long a military attack might postpone Iran from getting a bomb. Here was the reply:

Rubin - Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Shows How the Obama Administration Is Selling Out Israel…And U.S. Interests

Rubin Reports
03 December '11

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/12/03/secretary-of-defense-leon-panetta-shows-how-the-obama-administration-is-selling-out-israel/

Charlie: “You coulda been another Billy Conn, and that skunk we got you for a manager, he brought you along too fast.”

Terry: “It wasn’t him, Charley, it was you. Remember that night in the Garden you came down to my dressing room and you said, `Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the price on Wilson.’….I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit….” == Arthur Miller, “On the Waterfront”

By Barry Rubin

Let me state this in undiplomatic language: U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is a clown. True, this will not be the kind of thing written about in the mainstream media but it is true nonetheless. Panetta has no knowledge of the Middle East, no experience in grand strategy, no concept of Islamist politics, no awareness of Israel’s defense needs, and doesn’t know much about military issues generally.

All that would be forgivable if it weren’t for one more problem: He has no understanding of what has happened in the last year either.

Panetta has now bashed Israel based on a premise. Here it is:

“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”

First, there is a peculiar phrase that I have not seen used even once to describe the Middle East events of 2011. How did that phrase get into Panetta’s vocabulary? Obviously, from a briefing and I don’t believe it came from anyone at the Defense Department. That phrase is “Arab awakening” instead of “Arab Spring.”

Every Middle East historian—well, every Middle East historian who knows something about the Middle East—knows that The Arab Awakening was the famous book written by George Antonius (subsidized by a U.S foundation to do so, by the way) advocating Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism in 1938. I can’t prove it but it gives me an idea of the views of whoever wrote those talking points.

This phrase also gives Panetta’s statement a strangely contradictory tone. If The Arab Awakening began a half-century pan-Arab struggle against Israel’s creation or existence might this not give us a hint of what the new “Arab Awakening” is going to do? Oh, and 1938 marks the year when Great Britain desperately tried to sell out the Jews in order to gain Arab support (for the coming war with Germany and Italy). Within two years of Antonius’s book the form the Arab Awakening took was an alliance with Nazi Germany. One of the main allies of Berlin was the Muslim Brotherhood, now coming into power in Tunisia and Egypt.

Hornik - Panetta to Israel: Don’t Touch Iran

P. David Hornik
frontpagemag.com
21 November '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/21/panetta-to-israel-don%E2%80%99t-touch-iran/

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has given Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak a clear warning: don’t attack Iran. Panetta

pointed to a U.S. analysis that a strike on Iran would set back its nuclear program, which Iran says is only for peaceful purposes, by one or two years at most. It would also have implications for U.S. forces in the region.

He added that “thirdly, there are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy.”

What to do, then, if a military strike would be both pointless and harmful?

“The United States feels strongly,” Panetta says, “that the way to deal with [the problem] is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts that would further isolate Iran.”

Barak, for his part, doesn’t seem reassured by that. He said it would “probably” take no more than “three-quarters” of a year before

no one can do anything practically about [Iran’s nukes] because the Iranians are gradually, deliberately entering into what I call a zone of immunity, by widening the redundancy of their plan, making it spread over many more sites with many more hidden elements.

Barak also warned that “a nuclear Iran would have deep repercussions for the Middle East, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to ‘turn nuclear’ and starting a countdown to putting nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists.”

Tobin - Panetta Seems More Interested in Stopping Israel Than Iran

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
18 November '11



http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/18/panetta-iran-attack-israel-prevent/

Last week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did Iran a favor by publicly pouring cold water on the possibility of the United States using force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In doing so, the Pentagon chief removed whatever lingering doubts the ayatollahs may have had about America’s long-term intentions. This peace of mind will, no doubt, spur them to redouble their efforts to go nuclear. But in case they missed that message, the secretary doubled down on it yesterday. According to Reuters, Panetta told reporters (who had accompanied him on a trip to Halifax, Canada, where he will attend a security forum and meet with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak), the same points he mentioned last week about the unintended consequences of an attack on Iran and how it would only delay their nuclear program. He added that such hostilities would also hurt the world economy.

While there are good reasons to be cautious about embarking on a military campaign against Iran, Panetta’s concerns are overblown. But more importantly, with this second statement in a week against an attack, Panetta’s priorities on the issue are becoming clear. At this point, he’s not so much trying to stop Iran from going nuclear as he is doing all he can to make sure Israel doesn’t attack them.

As for Panetta’s worries about the use of force, it’s true even a full-scale American bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear targets would not end the threat for all time. But the use of force would delay their nuclear project for years; if the U.S. military’s job was thorough, perhaps quite a long time. But however much time was bought, it would not be in vain. Because an Iranian nuclear presents a strategic challenge to the entire region as well as an existential threat to Israel, every day of peace purchased by such an offensive would be precious. In the meantime, a lot could happen to prevent further mischief, such as regime change in Tehran or the development of even better anti-missile defenses. Even a few years could make the difference between life and death for millions.

Lee Smith - Loner

Lee Smith
Tablet Magazine
05 October '11

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/79953/loner/

Leon Panetta says Israel is increasingly isolated. But the big problem is that Washington is running away from its influence in the Middle East.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is only the latest American to join the chorus of government officials and opinion-makers suggesting that the Arab Spring has left Israel more isolated than ever. “It’s pretty clear, at this dramatic time in the Middle East when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated,” Panetta said Sunday on his way to Israel. “And that is what has happened.” In fact, it’s the United States—not Israel—that’s losing power in the region.

Since its founding 63 years ago, the Jewish state has been relatively isolated from much of the international community. The United States has typically used the diplomatic and political clout befitting its superpower status—including its veto at the U.N. Security Council—to shelter Israel from the slings and arrows of its adversaries. So, why is the Obama Administration jumping on the bandwagon of those who peck away at Israel’s legitimacy?

When Panetta and others talk about Israel’s increasing isolation, they are essentially referring to Israel’s faltering relationships with Egypt and Turkey and the absence of a peace process with the Palestinians. As to the first, Egyptian and Israeli officials insist that while former President Hosni Mubarak is gone, relations between the two governments remain unchanged. Egyptian officials have repeatedly stated that they have no desire to break the peace treaty and forfeit $2 billion a year in U.S. aid. Of course, the Egyptian masses that toppled Mubarak have a rather different attitude toward the Jewish state, which is why they painted swastikas on the battering rams they used to storm the Israeli Embassy in Cairo last month. It would be useful to know what sort of policies Panetta thinks Jerusalem might pursue to earn the friendship of such mobs.

Fresnozionism - Obama Administration joins the bullies

Schoolyard bullies (from
 the film "Back to the Future").
Why is the Obama
Administration joining them?

Fresnozionism.org
03 October '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/10/obama-administration-joins-the-bullies/








The Obama Administration has joined the schoolyard bullies:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, The Associated Press reported.

Panetta added Israel must restart negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.

Panetta made the comments as he was traveling to Israel, saying the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.

“There’s not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge,” AP quoted Panetta as having told reporters traveling with him. “But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you’re isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength.” – (my emphasis)

Let’s compare the implications of Panetta’s remarks to reality:

“Israel must restart negotiations.” Why is the onus on Israel? It was the Palestinian Authority (PA) that broke off negotiations and then violated the agreements it had signed by seeking UN sanction for a unilateral declaration of statehood. It was the PA that insisted on one precondition after another, and Israel that agreed to talk without preconditions.

Making Israel give in to PA demands on the grounds that then there will be productive negotiations has exactly the opposite effect. The Arabs pocket the latest concession and demand more. Negotiations are never ‘productive’ because the PA will never agree to end the conflict.

“Israel must work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.” This is Kafkaesque. A terrorist attack which killed 7 Israelis was launched from Egyptian territory, Egyptian soldiers or police murdered at least one of the victims and were themselves killed when the Israelis returned fire. Israel apologized — for self-defense — and had its embassy destroyed, and barely avoided having security officers who were trapped inside ripped to bloody bits. Now Israel needs to “work” to restore relations? With a country that while allegedly ‘at peace’ with it, continues its vicious incitement against Jews and Israel?

Tobin - Panetta’s Pointless Warning to Israel

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
03 October '11


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/03/panetta-israel-risks-for-peace/#more-769790

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Israel yesterday that its increasing isolation in the region means it must take “risks for peace.” This shot fired over the bow of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was made in comments to reporters traveling with Panetta, who is on his first trip to the Jewish state since assuming the leadership of the Pentagon.

But it is not likely to make much of an impression with the Israeli people for the simple reason that, unlike either the Obama administration and the international press corps, they understand Israel has been taking risks for peace for 18 years. Panetta’s statement, like so much of the rhetoric that has come out of the administration, seems to reflect a mindset that treats the events of the last 18 years as meaningless. After the Oslo Accords, the peace offers that both Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas rejected and the withdrawal from Gaza that turned that area into a terrorist state, how can any American speak as if Israel has stood pat all this time rather than, as the historical record proves, taken terrible risks for which it has gotten little reward?

The Panetta visit is meant to reassure the Israelis who are understandably worried about the way in which the Arab Spring has led to more hate for the Jewish state rather than democracy for the Arabs. It is an unfortunate fact that there is nothing Israel can do to repair relations with countries like Turkey and Egypt, whose governments are whipping up antagonism for reasons that have little to do with the policies of the Netanyahu government. As dangerous as this is, it is the helplessness of the United States in the face of these trends that is most troubling.

RE: What Is Israel to Do?

Emanuele Ottolenghi
Contentions/Commentary
30 June '10

As Jennifer points out, Admiral Mullen’s remarks about Iran are disconcerting.

I am no military expert and, like most of us in the blogosphere and the policy community, lack the actionable intelligence to make the kind of judgment that Admiral Mullen makes on whether a military strike against Iran would yield the kind of benefits desired without the kind of consequences one may reasonably fear.

Maybe Admiral Mullen is in a position to know better and his public assessment is correct. But why announce it? To make the Mullahs sleep better?

What is remarkable, and remarkably shocking, about this procession of military and intelligence personnel coming to say what politicians have now said for a while, is that they do not seem to appreciate how these comments have damaging consequences.

Perhaps a military strike is not in the cards anymore — who knows? Perhaps the risks involved are considerable. Maybe the hour is late. Understandably, there is little appetite for war. And, frankly, one should underestimate neither the operational difficulties nor the political fallout.

But there is a world of difference between entertaining skepticism about the military option in private and ruling it out in public. Whether it is politicians or uniformed personnel, their public dismissal of the military option — perhaps the only thing Iran’s regime truly fears — undermines the effectiveness of all non-military alternatives.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

What Is Israel to Do?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
29 June '10

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is at it again. In the past he’s spoken about his aversion to military action against Iran. At a swank Aspen gathering, he made clear just how averse he is — and the dearth of other options for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran:

A military strike against Iran would be “incredibly destabilizing” to the region said the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. He believes Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, even if sanctions against the country are increased.

Speaking Monday at the Aspen Security Forum, Mullen said it would be “incredibly dangerous” for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons, and that there’s “no reason to trust” Iran’s assurances that it is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, especially after the discovery of a secret nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. …

Mullen said there was no reason to expect Iran to conform to international norms, given its past behavior, but he declined to describe what measures the US was considering. He has often said that all options remain on the table.

He explained that the hardest part about trying to decide what to do about Iran is how much the US does not know about the country’s nuclear progress.

When asked whether he thought Israel would give the United States time to see whether tougher sanctions or talks would produce more cooperation from Iran, he would only say that he believes the US and Israel are “in sync” with their current policies.

Following on Leon Panetta’s troubling interview, this should certainly unnerve you — on multiple counts. First, we again see that the Obami consider the prospect of a strike on Iran to be ”destabilizing” — apparently more so than a nuclear-armed Iran. Second, Mullen confesses he really doesn’t know how far Iran’s nuclear program has progressed. Is this strategic ambiguity to keep Israel at bay? Or is it evidence that our intelligence is deficient and Israel will need to gauge for itself when time has run out on the feckless attempts to engage and sanction Iran? Third, like Panetta, he thinks economic sanctions will be ineffective. Finally, and worst of all, even if Mullen believes these things, why in the world would he say them? Giving comfort and encouragement to our adversaries isn’t part of his job description.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Is a military strike on Iran imminent? The G8 thinks Israel will do it

Robin Shepherd
robinshepherdonline.com
28 June '10

Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, is an unconventional politician and he is difficult to predict. But even Berlusconi is surely too well versed in the customs of international diplomacy to make predictions about Israel attacking Iran without very good grounds for doing so. On the sidelines of the G8* summit in Canada on Saturday he said the following:

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react pre-emptively.” (My italics)

Unless Berlusconi is being completely irresponsible, this sounds like a warning that something may be imminent. It is also worth noting that Berlusconi’s remarks came the day before CIA director Leon Panetta said Iran probably has enough uranium to build two nuclear weapons within the next two years.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.