"In an interview in Saturday's 'The Australian' newspaper, Netanyahu said: 'For the first time I see Iran wobble ... under the sanctions that have been adopted and especially under the threat of strong sanctions on their central bank.'
An official in Netanyahu's office confirmed to Reuters the accuracy of the quotes in the interview that was conducted on Tuesday."
However, Obama is now also wobbling, notwithstanding recent tough talk from US Secretary of Defense Panetta (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/us-secretary-of-defense-reverses-course.html). As reported by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577159202556087074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj):
"President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week."
Remarkably, the article in The Wall Street Journal concludes by observing that "Israel represents a blind spot in U.S. intelligence" and that some US intelligence officials believe that "the U.S. should devote more resources to divining Israel's true intentions."
"Israel's true intentions"? Apparently the US intelligence community is unfamiliar with the truism cited in the past by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion: "For every two Jews, there are three opinions," which doubtless adds to their confusion.
Nevertheless, allow me to assist my friends in Arlington: Israel, which is facing a replenished arsenal of Qassam rockets and Grad missiles in Gaza, is now reportedly also being threatened with Fajr-5 missiles (see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2523488/posts), supplied by Iran to Hamas, which can strike Tel Aviv (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/sources-iran-gave-hamas-missile-that-can-hit-tel-aviv-1.4868). In addition, some 50,000 Katyushas, Fajrs and Scuds are being pointed by Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, at Israel. Assad, who has been receiving arms from Iran to suppress the year-long rebellion in Syria (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/report-iran-sending-forces-to-assist-in-syria-crackdowns-1.364543), also possesses an arsenal of Scuds and short-range ballistic missiles which could be used against Israel. Finally, Iran itself is armed with medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which carry a payload of between 750 and 1,200 kilograms.
Yes, Israel is currently facing an existential threat from Iran, which is still a year away from developing nuclear weaponry, and yes, Israel cannot afford to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear warhead.
Incidentally, yesterday's editorial in The New York Times, the official mouthpiece of the Obama administration, calling for negotiations with Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-york-times-dangerous-tension-with.html), came as no surprise.
I don't read the WSJ, but last week I had a close encounter with it (sort) of.
ReplyDeleteBrian Lehrer of NPR invited the senior staff writer for The Wall Street Journal covering the Middle East, Farnaz Fassihi, to discuss the killing of Iranian nuclear scientist. Fassihi offered ... you guess it ... Iranian propaganda. Moreover, it was an open, blatant, non intelligent PROPAGANDA which remained mostly unchallenged by Lehrer. When asked why aren't scientists protected, Fassihi responded that Teheran's a big city and that it's impossible to protect EVERYONE. When Brian delicately suggested that in a police state such as IRAN it's difficult for outsiders to conduct killings, she responded with: "Yes, it's a police state. Yes, it's difficult. Yes, Israel did it."
So, it's Iranian/Wall Street propaganda.