Mohammad Javad Zarif,"‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace": Quintessential Horse Manure

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace," Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif begins:

"As President Trump was being feted in the palaces of the Saudi royal family after concluding a historic arms deal, Iranians were celebrating the outcome of a hard-fought election. The vote manifested the determination of Iran’s electorate to continue on the path of moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect that brought the world the nuclear deal in 2015."

Ah yes, "moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect" from a nation that savagely persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Christians, regularly threatens Israel with annihilation, hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, and executes more persons per capita each year than any other country in the world. And if that isn't enough to cause your hair to stand on end, consider President Rouhani's statement earlier this week to an Iranian cabinet meeting:

"The remarks by the enemies of the Iranian nation against Iran's missile power are out of ignorance. We need missiles and the enemy should know that we make everything we need and we don’t pay an iota of attention to your words."

More? As reported by Reuters yesterday in an article entitled "Iran says it has built third underground ballistic missile factory" by Parisa Hafezi:

"'Iran's third underground factory has been built by the Guards in recent years ... We will continue to further develop our missile capabilities forcefully,' Fars quoted Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guard’s airspace division, as saying."

Still more? In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Are the U.S. and Iran on a Collision Course in Syria?" published on Wednesday, Dan De Luce and Paul McLeary informed us:

"Iran has grown alarmed over the growing presence of U.S. special operations forces in southern Syria, and the progress of Syrian Kurdish and Arab troops on the battlefield. Iran is keen to secure a corridor linking Tehran and Baghdad to Syria and Lebanon, and Tehran state-run media have claimed the U.S. forces are in the border area to block any supply routes for Iran.

In response, Tehran has deployed thousands of Afghan and Iraqi Shiite fighters, and in recent weeks has sent 3,000 Lebanese Hezbollah troops to the southeastern region between al-Tanf and Deir Ezzor, according to reports from Fars news agency, affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Hezbollah troops were sent to the al-Tanf area 'to prepare the Syrian army and its allies for thwarting the US plots in the region and establish security at the Palmyra-Baghdad road,' Fars wrote, just hours before the U.S. air raid [against a Hezbollah convoy approaching the al-Tanf base used by the US to train militias fighting ISIS]. They could also serve as a blocking force to keep U.S.-backed fighters from moving north out of al-Tanf."

Bottom line: Only Obama and Kerry could ever place their faith in Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif.

New York Times, "New Tensions Over the Iran Nuclear Deal": Another Obscene Editorial From the Times

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "New Tensions Over the Iran Nuclear Deal," The New York Times worries that Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is unravelling, as a consequence of restrictions on the entry into the US of persons who visited Iran in the last five years. Failing to mention that the "deal" was never signed, the Times would have us know:

"Restricting visas for people who travel to Iraq and Syria makes sense, given that both are home turf for the Islamic State, and Sudan has been a transit point for extremists heading to Syria and Iraq. It is hard not to view Iran’s inclusion as another attempt by Congress to sabotage the nuclear deal, which most lawmakers opposed.

While Shiite-led Iran is on the terrorism list because of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, it is fighting the Islamic State, a Sunni group, in Iraq."

The editorial board of the Times would do well to read a March 28, 2015 Foreign Policy article entitled "The U.S. Is Providing Air Cover for Ethnic Cleansing in Iraq," subtitled "Iran’s Shiite militias aren’t a whole lot better than the Islamic State," by Michael Weiss and Michael Pregent, which informs us:

"Sunni villages in Amerli and Suleiman Bek, in the Salah ad-Din province, have been looted or destroyed by militiamen operating on the specious assumption that all inhabitants once ruled by IS must be IS sympathizers or collaborators. Human Rights Watch has also lately discovered that the 'liberation' of Amerli last October — another PMU/Iranian-led endeavor, only this one abetted by U.S. airstrikes in the early stages — was characterized by wide-scale abuses including the looting and burning of homes and business of Sunni residents of villages surrounding Amerli. The apparent aim was ethnic cleansing. Human Rights Watch concluded, from witness accounts, that “building destruction in at least 47 predominantly Sunni villages was methodical and driven by revenge and intended to alter the demographic composition of Iraq’s traditionally diverse provinces of Salah al-Din and Kirkuk.'

. . . .

The Obama administration’s counterterrorism-driven policy for the Middle East, and a quietly pursued diplomatic reconciliation with Iran, has resulted in America’s diminishment of grave war crimes committed by Iran’s clients and proxies, and the problem is hardly just confined to Iraq. In Syria, for instance, the National Defense Force, a conglomerate of militias trained and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force (IRGC) — a U.S.-designated terrorist entity — has been accused by the Syrian Network for Human Rights and the Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights, of '[burning] at least 81 people to death, including 46 civilians; 18 children, 7 women, and 35 of the armed opposition fighters,' along with other pro-Assad forces. The State Department has offered condolences to Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani on the death of his mother; to date, it has not said a word about the immolation of these Syrians at the hands of a Quds Force-built guerrilla army."

Shame on the Times!

Washington Post Editorial, "For Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, a bond of power-hungriness, vulgarity and cynicism": When East Meets West

Tweet

Yesterday, in a Times of Israel article entitled "Did Hitler really only have one ball?," we were informed:

"Prof Peter Fleischmann, of Erlangen-Nuremberg University, said he had studied medical records of an examination the Nazi leader underwent in November 1923, when he was jailed at Landsberg Prison following the failure of his Munich Beer Hall Putsch.

The records, thought to have been lost, surfaced at an auction five years ago, were confiscated by the Bavarian government, and have only now been studied properly. According to Fleischmann, they show Hitler to have suffered from 'right-side cryptorchidism' — an undescended testicle. 'The testicle was probably stunted,' Prof Fleischman said, according to Bild Friday.

. . . .

A Soviet autopsy, released in 1970, bizarrely asserted that 'the left testicle could not be found.'"

So which was it, left or right? Without the answer, will any of us sleep tonight?

Meanwhile, a new Washington Post editorial entitled "For Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, a bond of power-hungriness, vulgarity and cynicism" does not tackle the issue of Hitler's "cryptorchidism." Rather, it ponders the exchange of amenities between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The editorial hypothesizes:

"What the two men share, and recognize in each other, goes beyond strong polling numbers, an affinity for incendiary language and a contempt for those (with President Obama leading the list) they regard as weak. What really attracts them is a common worldview in which money talks and democratic norms are for suckers."

Hey, boys and girls, even you called into issue Obama's cojones in Thursday's editorial entitled "On regime change in Syria, the White House capitulates to Russia." Today, who isn't troubled by an American president who has trashed the country's credibility and deterrent power? Even former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is now saying that when Obama ordered him to stand down after Assad's chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians in Damascus, "it hurt the credibility of the president’s word when this occurred."

And money also seems to talk for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

WaPo's editorial board misses the obvious: Trump and Putin are narcissists gone wild, probably fascinated by their mirror images a half world away. All that is lacking now is for Donald to explain to Vladimir his spectacular comb-over technique.

Gail Collins, "Take a Bow, H.C.": Congratulations to Hillary on 570 Airplane Meals! It Shows!

My last transatlantic flight was pure hell. With no points left for an upgrade to business, I sat in the middle seat beside a person of significant girth which oozed over our mutual armrest. Worse still, during our turbulent voyage, I watched in pain as this man consumed every bit of trans fat and gooey sugar that he was offered by our stewardess. I long ago learned that airplane meals ("Chicken or beef?") are a ticket to an early grave and must be avoided whenever possible.

Gail Collins, in a fawning New York Times op-ed entitled "Take a Bow, H.C." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/opinion/collins-take-a-bow-hc.html?_r=0), today marvels over the consumption of airplane meals by America's outgoing secretary of state:

"Friday is Hillary Clinton’s final day at the State Department. As we’ve all been reminded, over the past four years she’s traveled 956,733 miles to 112 different countries in order to conduct 1,700 meetings with world leaders. While consuming 570 airplane meals."

My goodness, 570 airplane meals? Indeed an accomplishment! And it shows!

But on the diplomatic front? Hillary and Obama are claiming "credit" for the transition from Mubarak to the "enlightened" (Jews are descended from pigs and apes) Muslim Brotherhood regime, as riots rage in Cairo and Egypt teeters on the brink (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/28/think_again_the_muslim_brotherhood_egypt?page=full&wp_login_redirect=0).

And then there was that pearl of wisdom from Hillary's lips concerning Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad:

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities [as in Libya] and police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

And let's not talk about Benghazi, and how she allowed Susan Rice to take all the heat.

Indeed, Hillary, take a deep bow, but given all those airplane meals, be careful not to fall again on your head.

Thomas Friedman, "Give Chuck a Chance": Friedman Is Far Worse Than "Disgusting"

In 2006 Chuck Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American soldiers. In 1984, Hezbollah also kidnapped and tortured to death William Francis Buckley, who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. And then there was also Hezbollah's bombing, at the behest of Iran, of the Jewish community center building in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Give Chuck a Chance" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/friedman-give-chuck-a-chance.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman advocates on behalf of the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Friedman writes:

"I find the opposition to him falling into two baskets: the disgusting and the philosophical. It is vital to look at both to appreciate why Hagel would be a good fit for Defense at this time.

The disgusting is the fact that because Hagel once described the Israel lobby as the 'Jewish lobby' (it also contains some Christians). And because he has rather bluntly stated that his job as a U.S. senator was not to take orders from the Israel lobby but to advance U.S. interests, he is smeared as an Israel-hater at best and an anti-Semite at worst. If ever Israel needed a U.S. defense secretary who was committed to Israel’s survival, as Hagel has repeatedly stated — but who was convinced that ensuring that survival didn’t mean having America go along with Israel’s self-destructive drift into settling the West Bank and obviating a two-state solution — it is now."

Although Friedman and I both spent much time during 1983 in Lebanon, Friedman conveniently forgets to mention in his opinion piece the Beirut Barracks Bombing, Hezbollah or Hagel's refusal to ask the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hagel is an appropriate choice for Secretary of Defense? The US servicemen who fell victim to Hezbollah will roll over in their graves if Obama proceeds with this nomination.

How could Friedman forget Hezbollah's involvement in the Beirut Barracks Bombing and Hagel's 2006 position regarding this heinous organization? I suppose you should also be asking how Friedman earlier this month falsely declared that Israel's planned E1 settlements "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html).

It is no accident that even The Washington Post opposes the appointment of Hagel as Secretary of Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html):

"Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him."

With respect to Iran's nuclear development program, J. Dana Stuster examines Hagel's 2008 book, "America: Our Next Chapter" in a December 14, 2012 Foreign Policy article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/chuck_hagel_wants_to_be_dwight_eisenhower):

"'Isolating nations is risky,' he writes. 'It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.' The answer, he says, is engagement. 'Distasteful as we may find that country's rulers, the absence of any formal governmental relations with Iran ensures that we will continue to conduct this delicate international relationship through the press and speeches, as well as through surrogates and third parties, on issues of vital strategic importance to our national interests. Such a course can only result in diplomatic blind spots that will lead to misunderstandings, miscalculation, and, ultimately, conflict.'

So Hagel supports direct negotiations with Iran. He laments the lack of diplomatic ties and toys with the idea of a consulate in Tehran. He also reflects fondly on meetings he had with Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations in New York.

Hagel even flirts with the idea that an Iranian bomb wouldn't be the end of the world. '[T]he genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does. In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability (as opposed to stateless terrorist groups) will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior. These governments, however hostile they may be toward us, have some appreciation of the horrific results of a nuclear war and the consequences they would suffer.'"

When it acquires its first nuclear weapon, Iran will "respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior"? And for that reason, the US and Israel should ignore almost daily declarations out of Iran, calling for Israel's annihilation? Given how Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, and oppresses its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities, I don't share Hagel's blithe optimism concerning Tehran's future conduct. Nor do the Saudis.

America's ally, Israel? Those who read this blog know that I support a two-state solution along the 1967 lines with necessary land swaps, but first there needs to be a Palestinian leader willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Friedman, by chance, also fails to mention that existing Israeli settlements are are built on less than two percent of the total territory of the West Bank.

Friedman lumps those who oppose Hagel's nomination into "two baskets: the disgusting and the philosophical." I believe that there are more than two adjectives that best describe Friedman's opinion pieces, including abominable, odious, abhorrent, contemptible, fetid, invidious, nauseating and sycophantic.

Enough said.

Chuck Hagel's Nomination As Defense Secretary: A Message of Forgive and Forget from Obama to Khameini

There is a reason why former New York mayor Ed Koch is concerned about the likely nomination by Obama of former senator Chuck Hagel as the next US secretary of defense (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/15/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-as-defense-secretary-it-would-be-a-terrible-appointment/). According to Koch:

"Such an appointment would give great comfort to the Arab world that would think that President Obama is seeking to put space between Israel and his administration."

In fact, the nomination of Hagel has little to do with "the Arab world" and everything to do with Iran. The nomination of Hagel, which according to a democratic source quoted by The Algemeiner is "almost a done deal," is a conciliatory message from Obama to Iran's Supreme Leader Khameini, signaling that the US is seeking to avoid confrontation.

Hagel's history:

• In 2000 Hagel was one of four Senators who wouldn't sign a Senate letter supporting Israel.

• In 2004 Hagel wouldn't sign a letter asking Bush to focus upon Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

• In 2006 Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American soldiers.

More specifically, with respect to Iran's nuclear development program, J. Dana Stuster examines Hagel's 2008 book, "America: Our Next Chapter" in a December 14, 2012 Foreign Policy article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/14/chuck_hagel_wants_to_be_dwight_eisenhower):

"'Isolating nations is risky,' he writes. 'It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.' The answer, he says, is engagement. 'Distasteful as we may find that country's rulers, the absence of any formal governmental relations with Iran ensures that we will continue to conduct this delicate international relationship through the press and speeches, as well as through surrogates and third parties, on issues of vital strategic importance to our national interests. Such a course can only result in diplomatic blind spots that will lead to misunderstandings, miscalculation, and, ultimately, conflict.'

So Hagel supports direct negotiations with Iran. He laments the lack of diplomatic ties and toys with the idea of a consulate in Tehran. He also reflects fondly on meetings he had with Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations in New York.

Hagel even flirts with the idea that an Iranian bomb wouldn't be the end of the world. '[T]he genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does. In this imperfect world, sovereign nation-states possessing nuclear weapons capability (as opposed to stateless terrorist groups) will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior. These governments, however hostile they may be toward us, have some appreciation of the horrific results of a nuclear war and the consequences they would suffer.'"

When it acquires its first nuclear weapon, Iran will "respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior"? And for that reason, the US and Israel should ignore almost daily declarations out of Iran, calling for Israel's annihilation? Given how Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, and oppresses its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities, I don't share Hagel's blithe optimism concerning Tehran's future conduct. Neither do the Saudis.

Hagel's nomination by Obama would be an insult to the memory of the 241 US servicemen who died in Beirut. Not only friends of Israel, such as Ed Koch, should be offended and distraught by this gesture to the mullahs.

All this comes as no surprise. In his heart of hearts, Obama is no friend of Israel, and with November out of the way, it's payback time for Netanyahu. Koch should have seen this in the cards.

Maureen Dowd, "Why Not Debtors’ Prison?": The Queen of Snark Declares that Obama Has a Foreign Policy

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not Debtors’ Prison?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/dowd-why-not-debtors-prison.html), Maureen Dowd would have us know that Romney and Ryan "haven’t spent time thinking and speaking a lot about foreign policy" and take their marching orders from "their neocon advisers." Regarding Obama, Dowd declares:

"At least the president has a foreign policy."

Obama has a foreign policy? Oh really.

Where is there any mention by Dowd of Obama's inane escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan? Hundreds of American soldiers have laid down their lives for this blunder, which is currently costing the US $6 billion per month.

Why doesn't Maureen say anything about Obama's courtship of Syrian President and mass murderer Bashar al-Assad? Do you remember how Senator John Kerry befriended this monster at the behest of Obama? Do you recall how Hillary declared in 2011, "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-20047627.html)?

And where does Maureen refer to Obama's unconscionable conduct during the Green Revolution? When Iranians took to the streets in July 2009 to bring down the Ahmadinejad regime, Obama, wishing to cozy up to the mullahs, did nothing as protesters, calling out his name, were gunned down, imprisoned and tortured. What did Obama gain by turning a blind eye to these outrages? Tehran has raced ahead with its nuclear weapons development program, notwithstanding Obama's conciliatory posture throughout much of his first term, leading to the current imbroglio involving Iran and Israel.

Consider also Obama's refusal to honor his promise to acknowledge Armenian genocide; his profound friendship with Turkey's Erdogan who has thrown a record number of journalists into prison; his demeaning bow to Saudi King Abdullah; his kowtowing to China notwithstanding devastating human rights abuses in that country; his ejection of the Dalai Lama out of a garbage strewn side door of the White House; his joyous embraces with Chavez and Qaddafi; his shameless attempts to mollify Russia's Putin (e.g., the open microphone gaffe when speaking with Medvedev) without receiving anything in return; his alienation of Poland and the Czech Republic in order to appease Putin; his denigration of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when speaking with Sarkozy (yet another open microphone gaffe); and the list continues ad infinitum.

Dowd further observes:

"And on the day world leaders gathered at the United Nations, President Obama’s only high-level sit-down in New York was with the ladies of 'The View,' teasing, 'I’m just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys.'

Romney said he was very troubled that Obama went on 'The View' and skipped meeting other leaders, especially Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

Netanyahu did not deserve a meeting and neither did President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt."

So you need to "deserve" a meeting with the One. Well, I believe that after an Egyptian mob earlier this month attacked the US embassy and burned its flag, Obama should have met with Morsi and read him the riot act.

Regarding a meeting with Netanyahu, Obama would have been wise to put personal differences aside in order to discuss a coordinated approach to the Iranian nuclear menace, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledges as a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/17/238533.html).

But Obama was too busy having fun on "The View" and "The Late Show with David Letterman."

Obama has a foreign policy? If so, perhaps the Queen of Snark would care to enlighten us as to its virtues.

David Brooks, "Dullest Campaign Ever": That Changed on Sunday

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dullest Campaign Ever" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/brooks-dullest-campaign-ever.html), David Brooks contends that this year's US presidential election is "incredibly consequential and incredibly boring all at the same time." Brooks supports this conclusion by alluding to nine characteristics of both candidates' campaigns:

1) emphasis on gaffes.
2) absence of "intellectual innovation."
3) "increased focus on the uninformed."
4) "lack of serious policy proposals."
5) "negative passion."
6) "no enactment strategy."
7) "ad budget myopia."
8) technology to make the campaigns "dumber."
9) numbing dishonesty.

Yes, all this is frustratingly true, yet Brooks ignores something significant that happened on Sunday: Romney declared from Jerusalem that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and also indicated that he would move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (see: http://news.yahoo.com/israel-romney-declares-jerusalem-capital-162843104.html).

Note that Obama has refused to visit Israel since becoming president. He has visited nearby Cairo, Riyadh and Istanbul, but has refused to set foot in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. This avoidance by Obama of a trip to Israel is very much in keeping with the observation made by veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller in a recent Foreign Policy article entitled "Warning: Turbulence Ahead" (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead?page=full), in which the subheading states that Obama is "no Israel-lover," and if Obama is reelected, "expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu."

Also note the recent refusal by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to state where the capital of Israel is located (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/ap-warm-reception-expected-as-romney.html).

Romney's acknowledgement that Jerusalem is indeed Israel's capital has Obama fuming. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Tuesday (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=279487):

"Well, our view is that that’s a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties."

Obama holds to the view that the US should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Did it ever occur to Obama and his foreign policy advisers, including Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw), that his refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital adds credibility to Arab attacks on Israel's legitimacy?

Those who read this blog know that I have been critical of both candidates' refusal to address the US financial crisis with specific proposals. Here, however, with regard to Israel, a staunch American ally, there can be no mistaking the candidates' forthright positions, which differ in the extreme.

Foreign Policy, "Israel's Secret Staging Ground": Will Israel Use an Air Base in Azerbaijan to Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities?

Is the cat out of the bag?

In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Israel's Secret Staging Ground" (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/28/israel_s_secret_staging_ground?page=full) written by Mark Perry, various US diplomatic, intelligence and military officials are anonymously quoted as voicing concern that Israel intends to use an airbase in Azerbaijan as part of a planned attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that an air base in Azerbaijan would resolve refueling problems inherent in such an Israeli air strike. According to the article, Obama administration officials are worried that an Israeli presence in Azerbaijan "complicates U.S. efforts to dampen Israeli-Iranian tensions," and Turkey is also fuming.

Where is Azerbaijan, which is approximately the size of Maine? See the map below (Azerbaijan in red perched over Iran's northern border), courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency:

Why does Azerbaijan, whose population, like that of Iran, consists mostly of Shiite Muslims, maintain a warm relationship with Israel, including expanding economic ties? The answer is easy: There are some 16 million Iranian Azeris, or 24 percent of Iran's population, making them Iran's largest ethnic minority, and there is occasional reference to secession of "South Azerbaijan," i.e. the Iranian Azeri territories. Recently, Iran accused Azerbaijan of assisting Israel in assassinating its nuclear scientists, and Azerbaijan accused Iran of plotting terrorist acts against the embassies of Western governments.

As for the annoyance of the Obama administration with Israel for making preparations for a possible air strike against Iran, did anyone really think that Netanyahu could afford to ignore repeated Iranian threats against Israel's existence (see: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1524218)? Given Obama's open microphone gaffe when speaking with Russia's Medvedev, Netanyahu must also be wondering what messages of "flexibility," after the US elections in November, were also conveyed to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.