Israel Political Brief May 19, 2013: Yair Lapid: Fresh Israeli Face Plays Down Dimming of Political Star

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Fresh Israeli Face Plays Down Dimming of Political Star

Source: New York Times, 5-19-13

To say Yair Lapid has been on a roller coaster would be an understatement. One recent headline blared about his “meteoric rise and fall,” another said he had gone from “political darling to national whipping boy….READ MORE

Advertisements

Israel Political Brief January 25, 2013: Ehud Barak: US Could Strike Iran

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Barak: U.S. Could Strike Iran

If sanctions fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear weapons development, the Pentagon has plans for a ‘surgical operation’ to end the threat, the Israeli defense minister told The Daily Beast in a wide-ranging interview at Davos….READ MORE

Israel Political Brief December 23, 2012: PM Benjamin Netanyahu: Western Wall belongs to Israel despite UN pronouncements

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Netanyahu: Western Wall belongs to Israel despite U.N. pronouncements

Source: JTA, 12-23-12

The Western Wall belongs to Israel, despite what the United Nations says, Israeli Prime Minister said in interviews with Israel’s three major networks….READ MORE

Israel Brief October 11, 2012: Gilad Shalit gives first interview in Israel since release

ISRAEL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Shalit gives first interview in Israel since release

Source: JTA, 10-11-12

Gilad Shalit in his first interview in Israel since his release spoke of how he passed the time in captivity and his sense of great “relief” upon being set free….READ MORE

Full Text Political Brief March 7, 2012: PM Benjamin Netanyahu Fox News “On the Record with Greta Van Susteran” Interview — Iran’s nuclear weapons a ‘threat to the peace of the world that must be stopped’ — Transcript

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Featured Videos

Netanyahu: Heed the ‘jarring gong of danger’ from Iran

Source: Fox News, 3-7-12

– 16:22 –

Uncut: Israeli prime minister warns that Iran’s nuclear weapons threat must be taken seriously by the world before it’s too late

This is a rush transcript from “On the Record,” March 7, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: It is no secret nations are terrified that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel, including a threat to wipe it off the map. Is Israel going to do anything about it?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, here in Washington, meeting with President Obama, and then going “On the Record.”

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Mr. Prime Minister, nice to see you, sir.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you. It’s good to be with you again, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: And welcome back to the United States.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

VAN SUSTEREN: We had fun talking — I enjoyed talking to you last fall when you were here.

NETANYAHU: Indeed.

VAN SUSTEREN: Last night, I listened very carefully to your speech, very carefully. And in fact, I have a transcript of it in front of me. And it says that the international community’s tried diplomacy, that hasn’t worked, that the community has applied sanctions, that hasn’t worked, either, that there are efforts to impose tougher sanctions, but Iran’s nuclear program continues in spite of that.

You said Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons, and as prime minister, you will never gamble with the security of Israel. It sounds like war is inevitable.

NETANYAHU: Oh, I don’t think so. I mean, we’ve seen, in fact, that Iran backed off from its nuclear program, its nuclear weapons program, really only once in the 15, 16 years that I’ve been warning the world about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. And the only time they backed away was in 2003, when they thought there’d be a credible military threat against them.

So in fact, the paradox is that if they actually believe that they’re going to face the military option, you probably won’t need the military option.

VAN SUSTEREN: And I guess that’s why — I suppose that Secretary of Defense Panetta’s statements that military options are on the table and President Obama’s statement, as well, is helpful to discourage Iran.

NETANYAHU: I think these are important statements. I think that the idea that containment vis-a-vis a nuclear Iran is not an option are important statements. Just remember what it means. You try to contain a regime that is fostering terror worldwide, that could use nuclear terror here at any city, any port. That’s a very dubious proposition.

So I think all these things are important, as was the president’s statement of something that is very true about the ethos of what Israel is all about, that Israel, as a sovereign country, must have the ability to defend itself by itself against any threat. And as a sovereign country, we have the right to decide to act in our own defense.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anyone that disputes that, though, that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself, doesn’t have a right to its sovereignty? I mean, obviously, the sovereignty (INAUDIBLE) but the right to defend yourself.

NETANYAHU: Well, you know, it’s a question of the assessment of when have you to activate that right. I think that’s the real important thing. I think the reiteration of that basic proposition was important. I think it — you can’t repeat that too often.

VAN SUSTEREN: I guess that means a little bit in terms of preemptive, whether you preempt Iran taking nuclear action, building a bomb, is whether you go in there ahead of time? Is that what you mean?

NETANYAHU: Well, I mean that — I mean that the Jewish people were faced often in our history with a situation that people try to destroy us. In fact, they did destroy millions of Jews in the last century. And we could do nothing about it because we had no sovereign state.

Now they still try. They still threaten to destroy us, but this time, there’s a state of Israel, and if necessary, we’ll act in our own defense. And I think it’s very important to repeat that clearly. And obviously, this is something that is perhaps the most — the primary — the supreme responsibility that I, as the prime minister of Israel, have, to — to guarantee that the future of the Jewish state, the Jewish future, is secure.

VAN SUSTEREN: You talk about the Jewish future, but you also touched on last night that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, obviously you are in the direct line of fire and Ahmadinejad has made very derogatory marks and stated his very ugly intentions towards Israel.

NETANYAHU: Now you are being a diplomat. He said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth and they are developing nuclear weapons to do it, for that purpose. Not only for that. They could shut down the Straits of Hormuz. They are threatening that. You are worried about the price of oil today. Think about what it would mean if Iran, this radical regime that chants “Death to America! Death to Israel!” A, they get their hands on atomic bombs. They could use it against any one of us, b, they could give it to their terrorist proxies to use against any one of us, three, they could threaten credibly to block the Straits of Hormuz, which would send the price of oil skyrocketing, not anything that even remotely resembles what we have now, and they will pocket the dough because they are oil producers.

So these are things that could change the world. It could be like a hinge of history. We could live in another time. We have never had since the advent of nuclear weapons a regime that could act with such irresponsibility having those weapons of mass death.

So I think this is something that we should — we should talk about. Everybody talks about the — you know, the costs of taking action, to stop Iran. I think it’s important to start on the cost of not acting to stop Iran, of a world in which the ayatollahs would have atomic bombs. I think that would be catastrophic.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have a sense that other nations have that sense of seriousness that you have about this issue? Or do you think many nations think we can talk our out of this a little bit?

NETANYAHU: I think they would like it see Iran agree to the dismantling nuclear program. I think they are trying to press them to do that. The pressures have been applied. They have intensified. The economic sanctions hurt Iran, economically, no question about that. But so far, it hasn’t — these sanctions haven’t achieved the one goal they have, which is to make Iran stop their nuclear weapons program.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have any doubt they have a nuclear weapons program?

NETANYAHU: God, I said yesterday, what do you think Iran is doing all of this — developing these underground halls with thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium, underground nuclear facility. They’re building ICBM, intercontinental ballistic missiles, to carry, what? Medical isotopes? That’s their explanation? They are absorbing these crippling sanctions. And I said yesterday, what are they doing it for? I said yesterday, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck — it’s a duck. It’s a nuclear duck.

So I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that Iran is doing all of this, going through all of this huge investment, taking huge risks for anything but a nuclear program, and I think we should recognize that.

And the second thing we should recognize is that so far we have not been able to stop their nuclear program, notwithstanding the tough sanctions that have been applied. They are still going away. And, by the way, that’s not what I am saying. That’s what the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, just said yesterday. They published a report and said that Iran is continuing and in fact accelerating its program. For god’s sakes, Ahmadinejad is taking people on guided tours of these facilities. People, the international inspectors are actually saying there is material near low enriched uranium for five bombs and they are enriching uranium now at a higher level to give them their nuclear weapons. I think there is no question.

VAN SUSTEREN: I guess I asked because is one of the things that the more we talk and have diplomacy, there is more of a chance to build more, develop more. So diplomacy does have its drawback that way, spending a lot of time talking if they don’t stop the program.

And the other problem too is in 2003, with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was so much certainty and it turned out, our intelligence was wrong on that. So I am trying to balance the two.

NETANYAHU: First of all, there is no question. There is no comparison. In the case of Iraq, I was on the Israeli cabinet when we discussed this issue. We didn’t know. We couldn’t say that they didn’t have a nuclear weapons program, we couldn’t say if they did. In the case of Iran there is absolutely no question. We share all of that information. We know the stockpiling of enriched uranium. We know the development of ICBMs. We know a lot more. And we share this information. I don’t think that’s comparable to —

VAN SUSTEREN: What’s the timeline? How much time do we have?

NETANYAHU: Every day that passes makes it closer and closer.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is it weeks, months, or years?

Israel Political Brief March 2, 2012: President Barack Obama to Iran and Israel: ‘As President of the United States, I Don’t Bluff’ — Interview with the Atlantic

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Obama to Iran and Israel: ‘As President of the United States, I Don’t Bluff’

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Source: The Atlantic, 3-2-12

Dismissing a strategy of “containment” as unworkable, the president tells me
RTR2MOEAjjg.jpg
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States “has Israel’s back,” and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.” He went on, “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”

The 45-minute Oval Office conversation took place less than a week before the president was scheduled to address the annual convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, and then meet, the next day, with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House. In the interview, Obama stated specifically that “all options are on the table,” and that the final option is the “military component.” But the president also said that sanctions organized by his administration have put Iran in a “world of hurt,” and that economic duress might soon force the regime in Tehran to rethink its efforts to pursue a nuclear-weapons program.

“Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested,” Obama said. “It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to to be the best decision for Israel’s security.”

The president also said that Tehran’s nuclear program would represent a “profound” national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran’s violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.

“You’re talking about the most volatile region in the world,” he said. “It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.” He went on to say, “The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.”

“When I say this is in the U.S. interest, I’m not saying this is something we’d like to solve. I’m saying this is something we have to solve.”

The president was most animated when talking about the chaotic arms race he fears would break out if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. “Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” he told me. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?”

He also said he would try to convince Netanyahu that the only way to bring about a permanent end to a country’s nuclear program is to convince the country in question that nuclear weapons are not in its best interest. “Our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily,” he said, “and the only way historically that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That’s what happened in Libya, that’s what happened in South Africa.”

And though broadly sympathetic to Netanyahu’s often-stated fear that Iran’s nuclear program represents a Holocaust-scale threat to the Jewish state, and the Jewish people, Obama suggested strongly that historical fears cannot be the sole basis for precipitous action: “The prime minister is head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously.”

But when I asked the president if he thought Israel could damage its reputation among Americans with an attack on Iran — an attack that could provoke Iranian retaliation against American targets, and could cause massive economic disruption — he said, “I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel.” President Obama also shared fascinating insights about his sometimes tension-filled relationship with Netanyahu — and spoke at length about Syria — but for that, you’ll have to read the entire interview. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: From what we understand, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to ask you for some specific enunciations of red lines, for specific promises related to the Iranian nuclear program. What is your message to the prime minister going to be? What do you want to get across to him?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, it’s important to say that I don’t know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven’t gotten any indication that there is some sharp “ask” that is going to be presented. Both the United States and Israel have been in constant consultation about a very difficult issue, and that is the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been one of my top five foreign-policy concerns since I came into office.

We, immediately upon taking over, mapped out a strategy that said we are going to mobilize the international community around this issue and isolate Iran to send a clear message to them that there is a path they can follow that allows them to rejoin the community of nations, but if they refused to follow that path, that there would be an escalating series of consequences.

Three years later, we can look back and say we have been successful beyond most people’s expectations. When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we’ve ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.

At the same time, we understand that the bottom line is: Does the problem get solved? And I think that Israel, understandably, has a profound interest not just in good intentions but in actual results. And in the conversations I’ve had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I’ve emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we’re not taking any option off the table, we mean it. We are going to continue to apply pressure until Iran takes a different course.

GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, ‘All options on the table.’ You’ve probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don’t entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that’s been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you’re going to give them?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran’s military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us.

In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government — if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation.

GOLDBERG: What would your position be if Israel weren’t in this picture?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it’s not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel’s plight and potential vulnerabilities — that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel’s potential vulnerability.

But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that’s not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports — which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran — had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world’s interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country.

GOLDBERG: Is it possible that the prime minister of Israel has over-learned the lessons of the Holocaust?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the prime minister has a profound responsibility to protect the Israeli people in a hostile neighborhood, and I am certain that the history of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism and brutality directed against the Jewish people for more than a millennium weighs on him when he thinks about these questions.

I think it’s important to recognize, though, that the prime minister is also head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously.

GOLDBERG: Do you think Israel could cause damage to itself in America by preempting the Iranian nuclear program militarily?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t know how it plays in America. I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel, and I think political support for Israel is bipartisan and powerful.

In my discussions with Israel, the key question that I ask is: How does this impact their own security environment? I’ve said it publicly and I say it privately: ultimately, the Israeli prime minister and the defense minister and others in the government have to make their decisions about what they think is best for Israel’s security, and I don’t presume to tell them what is best for them.

But as Israel’s closest friend and ally, and as one that has devoted the last three years to making sure that Israel has additional security capabilities, and has worked to manage a series of difficult problems and questions over the past three years, I do point out to them that we have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated; that we have a world that is about as united as you get behind the sanctions; that our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.

In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That’s what happened in Libya, that’s what happened in South Africa. And we think that, without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested. They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now. It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel’s security.

These are difficult questions, and again, if I were the prime minister of Israel, I’d be wrestling with them. As president of the United States, I wrestle with them as well.

GOLDBERG: Could you shed some light on your relationship with the prime minister? You’ve met with him more than with any other world leader. It’s assumed that you have a dysfunctional relationship. What is it like?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The fact of the matter is, we’ve gotten a lot of business done with Israel over the last three years. I think the prime minister — and certainly the defense minister — would acknowledge that we’ve never had closer military and intelligence cooperation. When you look at what I’ve done with respect to security for Israel, from joint training and joint exercises that outstrip anything that’s been done in the past, to helping finance and construct the Iron Dome program to make sure that Israeli families are less vulnerable to missile strikes, to ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge, to fighting back against delegitimization of Israel, whether at the [UN] Human Rights Council, or in front of the UN General Assembly, or during the Goldstone Report, or after the flare-up involving the flotilla — the truth of the matter is that the relationship has functioned very well.

GOLDBERG: Are you friends? Do you talk about things other than business?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, the truth of the matter is, both of us have so much on our plates that there’s not always a lot of time to have discussions beyond business. Having said that, what I think is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions. This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this.

But one thing that I have found in working with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other. For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go. At any given moment — as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader — there’s not going to be perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives.

GOLDBERG: In an interview three years ago, right before he became prime minister, Netanyahu told me that he believes Iran is being run by a “messianic apocalyptic cult.” Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. referred to the Iranian leadership as “rational.” Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you feel that the leaders of Iran might be so irrational that they will not act in what we would understand to be their self-interest?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think you’re right to describe it as a continuum. There is no doubt they are isolated. They have a very ingrown political system. They are founded and fueled on hostility towards the United States, Israel, and to some degree the West. And they have shown themselves willing to go outside international norms and international rules to achieve their objectives. All of this makes them dangerous. They’ve also been willing to crush opposition in their own country in brutal and bloody ways.

GOLDBERG: Do you think they are messianic?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it’s entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our worldview or our values. I do think, and this is what General Dempsey was probably referring to, that as we look at how they operate and the decisions they’ve made over the past three decades, that they care about the regime’s survival. They’re sensitive to the opinions of the people and they are troubled by the isolation that they’re experiencing. They know, for example, that when these kinds of sanctions are applied, it puts a world of hurt on them. They are able to make decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective. So if they’re presented with options that lead to either a lot of pain from their perspective, or potentially a better path, then there’s no guarantee that they can’t make a better decision.

GOLDBERG: It seems unlikely that a regime built on anti-Americanism would want to appear to succumb to an American-led sanctions effort.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the question here is going to be: What exactly are their genuine interests? Now, what we’ve seen, what we’ve heard directly from them over the last couple of weeks is that nuclear weapons are sinful and un-Islamic. And those are formal speeches from the supreme leader and their foreign minister.

GOLDBERG: Do you believe their sincerity?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My point here is not that I believe the sincerity of the statements coming out of the regime. The point is that for them to prove to the international community that their intentions are peaceful and that they are, in fact, not pursuing weapons, is not inconsistent with what they’ve said. So it doesn’t require them to knuckle under to us. What it does require is for them to actually show to the world that there is consistency between their actions and their statements. And that’s something they should be able to do without losing face.

GOLDBERG: Let me flip this entirely around and ask: Why is containment not your policy? In the sense that we contained the Soviet Union, North Korea –

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s for the reason I described — because you’re talking about the most volatile region in the world. It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.

The only analogous situation is North Korea. We have applied a lot of pressure on North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable of shaping the environment [around it] than Iran is. And so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.

GOLDBERG: Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don’t think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very intentional. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won’t name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, “We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons.” And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold.

GOLDBERG: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

GOLDBERG: What I’m getting at specifically is, let’s assume there’s a Hezbollah attack on Israel. Israel responds into Lebanon. Iran goes on some kind of a nuclear alert, and then one-two-three –

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The potential for escalation in those circumstances is profoundly dangerous, and in addition to just the potential human costs of a nuclear escalation like that in the Middle East, just imagine what would happen in terms of the world economy. The possibilities of the sort of energy disruptions that we’ve never seen before occurring, and the world economy basically coming to a halt, would be pretty profound. So when I say this is in the U.S. interest, I’m not saying this is something we’d like to solve. I’m saying this is something we have to solve.

GOLDBERG: One of the aspects of this is the question of whether it’s plausible that Barack Obama would ever use military power to stop Iran. The Republicans are trying to make this an issue — and not only the Republicans — saying that this man, by his disposition, by his character, by his party, by his center-left outlook, is not going to do that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, if people want to say about me that I have a profound preference for peace over war, that every time I order young men and women into a combat theater and then see the consequences on some of them, if they’re lucky enough to come back, that this weighs on me — I make no apologies for that. Because anybody who is sitting in my chair who isn’t mindful of the costs of war shouldn’t be here, because it’s serious business. These aren’t video games that we’re playing here.

Now, having said that, I think it’s fair to say that the last three years, I’ve shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks. And obviously, the bin Laden operation is the most dramatic, but al-Qaeda was on its [knees] well before we took out bin Laden because of our activities and my direction.

In Afghanistan, we’ve made very tough decisions because we felt it was very important, in order for an effective transition out of Afghanistan to take place, for us to be pushing back against the Taliban’s momentum.

So aside from the usual politics, I don’t think this is an argument that has a lot of legs. And by the way, it’s not an argument that the American people buy. They may have complaints about high unemployment still, and that the recovery needs to move faster, but you don’t hear a lot of them arguing somehow that I hesitate to make decisions as commander in chief when necessary.

GOLDBERG: Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? Talk about it as a humanitarian issue, as well. But it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran’s only Arab ally.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Absolutely.

GOLDBERG: And so the question is: What else can this administration be doing?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, there’s no doubt that Iran is much weaker now than it was a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. The Arab Spring, as bumpy as it has been, represents a strategic defeat for Iran, because what people in the region have seen is that all the impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by Iran. [The Iranian leadership is] no friend of that movement toward human rights and political freedom. But more directly, it is now engulfing Syria, and Syria is basically their only true ally in the region.

And it is our estimation that [President Bashar al-Assad’s] days are numbered. It’s a matter not of if, but when. Now, can we accelerate that? We’re working with the world community to try to do that. It is complicated by the fact that Syria is a much bigger, more sophisticated, and more complicated country than Libya, for example — the opposition is hugely splintered — that although there’s unanimity within the Arab world at this point, internationally, countries like Russia are still blocking potential UN mandates or action. And so what we’re trying to do — and the secretary of state just came back from helping to lead the Friends of Syria group in Tunisia — is to try to come up with a series of strategies that can provide humanitarian relief. But they can also accelerate a transition to a peaceful and stable and representative Syrian government. If that happens, that will be a profound loss for Iran.

GOLDBERG: Is there anything you could do to move it faster?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, nothing that I can tell you, because your classified clearance isn’t good enough. (Laughter.)

This is part of, by the way, the context in which we have to examine our approach toward Iran, because at a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons?

That’s an example of factors that — when we are in consultation with all our allies, including the Israelis, we raise these factors, because this is an issue of many dimensions here, and we’ve got to factor all of them in to achieve the outcome that hopefully we all want.

GOLDBERG: Do the Israelis understand that? There have been disagreements between Israel and the U.S. before, but this is coming to a head about what the Israelis see as an existential issue. The question is: In your mind, have you brought arguments to Netanyahu that have so far worked out well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that in the end, Israel’s leaders will make determinations based on what they believe is best for the security of Israel, and that is entirely appropriate.

When we present our views and our strategy approach, we try to put all our cards on the table, to describe how we are thinking about these issues. We try to back those up with facts and evidence. We compare their assessments with ours, and where there are gaps, we try to narrow those gaps. And what I also try to do is to underscore the seriousness with which the United States takes this issue. And I think that Ehud Barak understands it. I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu, hopefully when he sees me next week, will understand it.

And one of the things that I like to remind them of is that every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept. I mean, part of your — not to put words in your mouth — but part of the underlying question is: Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

GOLDBERG: That’s a good way to phrase it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And my answer is: there is no good reason to doubt me on these issues.

“Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”

Some of it has to do with the fact that in this country and in our media, this gets wrapped up with politics. And I don’t think that’s any secret. And if you have a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy, then it’s good to try to fan doubts and raise questions.

But when you look at the record, there’s no “there” there. And my job is to try to make sure that those political factors are washed away on an issue that is of such great strategic and security importance to our two countries. And so when I’m talking to the prime minister, or my team is talking to the Israeli government, what I want is a hardheaded, clear-eyed assessment of how do we achieve our goals.

And our goals are in sync. And historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it’s also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. And the flip side of it is that, in terms of Israeli politics, there’s been a view that regardless of whether it’s a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we’ve got Israel’s back. And that’s something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of.

GOLDBERG: Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister — we’ve got Israel’s back?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That is not just my message to the prime minister, that’s been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It’s hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history — not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. So that actually won’t be my message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.

Israel Political Brief March 2, 2012: President Barack Obama on Iran: ‘I don’t bluff’ Interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Obama on Iran: ‘I don’t bluff’

Source: JTA, 3-2-12

President Obama rejected the notion of simply containing a nuclear Iran, saying in an interview that such a prospect was intolerable.

“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” Obama said in an Oval Office interview earlier this week with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”

In the interview, which was published online Friday morning, Goldberg pressed Obama on whether he thought Iran could be “contained,” a strategy the Israeli government opposes and that activists at next week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference will lobby Congress to reject.

Obama, who will address the AIPAC conference on Sunday, insisted that containment was not on option.

“It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.”…READ MORE

Israel Political Brief October 26, 2011: Gilad Shalit Was Not Checked by Red Cross Prior to Egypt TV Interview

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Shalit Was Not Checked by Red Cross

Source: Virtual Jerusalem, JTA, 10-26-11

Red Cross doctors did not interview freed Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit before his notorious interview with Egyptian state television, contrary to what the interviewer said.

Investigative journalist Richard Behar writes in Forbes magazine Wednesday that a Red Cross spokesman reported thatgilad shalit released an International Committee of the Red Cross doctor did not examine Shalit before the Oct. 18 interview, as the interviewer, Egyptian journalist Shahira Amin, claimed in an e-mail to Behar and in an open letter published in The Jerusalem Post.

Amin defended her decision to interview Shalit, saying that the interview was conducted “AFTER [her caps] he had been released by Hamas and had a medical checkup by the Red Cross.”

The Red Cross disputes the claim.

“ICRC representatives met Mr. Shalit briefly after his transfer to the Egyptian authorities,” Red Cross spokesman Hicham Hassan told Behar. “However, he was not met by an IRC doctor as this has [sic] not been solicited.”

In a statement issued by the Red Cross on the day that Shalit was released, the ICRC said that it “helped ensure that the release operation ran smoothly. ICRC delegates interviewed each detainee in private prior to his or her release to verify that they accepted their release. The ICRC also facilitated the transportation of the detainees into the West Bank and from the Kerem Shalom crossing into the Gaza Strip.”

Shalit was seen in the interview breathing heavily and having trouble focusing.

via jta.org

Israel Political Brief October 18, 2011: Egyptian TV Interview Asks Gilad Shalit to Join Campaign to Free Palestinian Prisoners

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Egyptian TV Asks Shalit to Join Campaign to Free Palestinian Prisoners

Source: Virtual Jerusalem, 10-18-11
In an interview Egypt conducted with with Gilad Shalit before releasing him to Israeli custody, an interviewer asked Shalit if he would join a campaign to help the more than 4,000 Palestinian prisoners still held “languishing” in Israeli prisons. The interview was aired on Egyptian and other Arab stations.

Israeli news carried the interview at the same time that it was first being aired on Arab television. The interview questions were asked in English, then translated. Gilad responded in Hebrew and English, which was promptly translated to Arabic.

After asking Shalit if Hamas treated him well, and “what he missed most,” the interviewer looked directly at Shalit, saying: “You’ve known what it’s like to be in captivity. There are more than 4,000 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, will you now join the campaign for their release?”

“I’ll be very happy if they are released, but only if they don’t go back to fight Israel, to more wars.” Shalit responded. Shalit, who appears to be in good physical health, though very pale, and breathing heavily, waited a moment before adding that they should join the fight for peace.

This statement was apparently not translated into Arabic for their viewing public.

gilad shalit released

The general consensus in the Israeli media is that while this strange interview was disturbing and borderline abusive, Shalit responded beautifully, especially under the difficult and uncomfortable circumstances.

Gilad was still in Egyptian custody when he gave this interview. The interview began with the question: “Gilad Shalit, you look fine! How are you?”

It has been confirmed that Shalit has had a very emotional conversation with his family on the phone.

UPDATE: After undergoing a medical examination, Gilad Shalit was taken home to Mitzpeh Hila where he was greeted by thousands of supporters.

Israel Political Brief September 1, 2011: PA Statehood Bid Could Jeopardize Oslo Agreement

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF

ISRAEL POLITICAL BRIEF: ISRAEL NEWS

Source: Virtual Jerusalem, 8-31-11

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren said Tuesday the PA statehood bid at the United Nations would likely jeopardize all existing agreements between the PA and Israel.

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Oren said, “We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine.’

“It’s just a fact – we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine.’ It puts us in a different realm,” said Oren.

Oren added the move would render invalid economic treaties, including export, import and water sharing, as well as security cooperation agreements.

“America is a cosignatory to the Oslo Accord and this would seriously undermine it…Unilateral steps would have legal, economic, and political ramifications for us and for America as a cosignatory,” Oren added.

According to Oren, the statehood declaration will provide the Palestinian Authority with “lawfare” against Israel in the international arena, which will further diminish the chances for reaching a negotiated agreement.

“We want to be able to negotiate but we won’t be able to negotiate if they are attacking our legitimacy in every international court. We’re not going to negotiate under fire and it’s a mistake for the Palestinians to think that we would,” the ambassador said.

Oren warned that in the absence of a negotiated solution, Israel’s support for the creation of a PA state might be jeopardized. “The Palestinians risk all that has been achieved if they go forward with this … and that would be a great tragedy.”

Oren’s comments on the heels of Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz telling reporters the PA Statehood Bid was more dangerous than Hamas and would force Israel to “respond.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has already said a unilateral declaration of statehood by the PA would render the Oslo Accords ‘null and void’ and would result in a ‘diplomatic eye for an eye’ on Israel’s part.

Earlier, Florida’s Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced she is advancing a measure to block US funding to any UN member or group that supports the PA bid.

via israelnn.com

%d bloggers like this: