TToI:‘"Sparks fly"’ over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

Look for Israel to attack Iran in the weeks leading up to the Presidential Election.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/sparks-fly-at-meeting-between-netanyahu-and-us-envoy/

‘Sparks fly’ over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

Prime minister bashes Obama’s ineffectual stance, US Ambassador Shapiro says he’s misrepresenting president’s position, newspaper claims

Tensions between the Israeli and United States governments reached fever pitch over the issue of Iran’s nuclear program in a recent high-level meeting between the prime minister and the American ambassador, Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Friday.

Last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a closed-door meeting with visiting Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and American Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. Netanyahu opened the discussion by lambasting the Obama administration for what he considered its ineffectual policy vis à vis Iran.

Netanyahu then expressed his belief that the US should be pressuring Iran to stop its nuclear program rather than pressuring Israel not to attack.

“Instead of effectively pressuring Iran, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,” he reportedly said. He concluded by saying that the time for diplomacy had run out, the Yedioth report said.

At one point during the meeting, Shapiro grew enraged by Netanyahu’s remarks, broke diplomatic protocol, and snapped at the PM, saying he was misrepresenting Obama’s position on Iran.

According to a source at the meeting, “sparks and lightning were flying.”

The US embassy did not comment on the Yedioth Ahronoth report.

A couple of updates on the nuclear situation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621411976060708.html

Enrichment Capacity Seen to Double at Site

Tehran has doubled its capacity to produce higher-enriched uranium at an underground facility seen as impervious to attack, and continues to block international inspectors from another suspect site, according to the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its quarterly report Thursday on Iran's nuclear program, accused Iran's government of seeking to cleanse the military site south of Tehran, known as Parchin, to prevent the agency from verifying that it wasn't used for atomic-weapons development.

The agency also said it had obtained additional information over the past year that Iran conducted weapons research after 2003, the year that U.S. intelligence agencies believe Tehran halted a structured weapons program.

The report reflects the inspection agency's rising alarm over Tehran's nuclear activities and its refusal to cooperate with inspectors or adhere to international demands.

On Wednesday, the IAEA said it was establishing a special task force on Iran's nuclear program, signaling its growing unease.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/iaea-report-on-iran-bleak-but-no.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Report on Iran Nuclear Program: Situation Not Yet Hopeless

As predicted, the latest report on Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has contributed to a push in Israel and parts of the US for preventive military action. Since May, Iran has installed more than a thousand new centrifuges in the underground facility at Fordow, doubling the number there since the last IAEA report in May.

In a pre-emptive move of their own, White House officials gave their own spin to the latest developments several days before the IAEA released the report. While not underplaying their concern over Iran’s continued defiance, the Obama team noted that the new numbers are not a "game changer." The new centrifuges are not (yet) being used for enrichment and the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium has not grown since May because half of it has been converted to an oxide form for use in fuel plates.

The danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program is heightening incrementally: The numbers grow arithmetically, not by orders of magnitude. In response to those advocating military action, one must ask how it is justifiable to launch a war, with all the predictable costs, over a 10% increase in centrifuge machines.

A proportionate response would be to incrementally increase the sanctions pressure on Iran. The EU, for example, is likely to tighten its sanctions against the Iran Central Bank, which to date have been partial. Additional companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines may be subject to an asset freeze. The US also will likely impose sanctions on more Iranian institutions, adding to the designations announced on July 31.

Why Iran is not operating the newly installed centrifuges is uncertain. Technical difficulties offer one possibility. Iran may also be seeking to calibrate the tempo of its enrichment activity so as not to goad its antagonists. Tehran has proven to be adept at such salami-slicing tactics, gradually increasing the size of its enrichment program to the point where it now has a stockpile of low-enriched uranium sufficient for at least four weapons (some say more than six) if further enriched.

Every couple weeks a report of Israel's imminent attack on Iran pops up somewhere in the media. The same thing can be said for Iran's nuclear program which seems to be moments away from completion, every other month.

Every couple weeks a report of Israel's imminent attack on Iran pops up somewhere in the media. The same thing can be said for Iran's nuclear program which seems to be moments away from completion, every other month.

Ha ha! There is a lot of hot air in the Middle East.

I do think the nuclear production is moving along though.

Where that will eventually end up...who can say?

Every couple weeks a report of Israel's imminent attack on Iran pops up somewhere in the media. The same thing can be said for Iran's nuclear program which seems to be moments away from completion, every other month.

And this is what is causing me to be less and less interested in either topic as each year goes by. I'm not even saying that to be negative or cynical. It's just that eventually, "the boy who cried wolf" won't be heard.

Wait, why isn't this bomb pointy? If it's round at the top, how do we know it won't bounce back up when it hits the ground and hit us?

He says "instead of effectively pressuring". What specific additional steps would Netanyahu like the USA (or the rest of the World) to do short of bombing Iran?

He says "instead of effectively pressuring". What specific additional steps would Netanyahu like the USA (or the rest of the World) to do short of bombing Iran?

Get out of the way, clear a corridor for Israeli flight operations, maybe ship over more missiles...

---------- Post added August-31st-2012 at 02:23 PM ----------

Every couple weeks a report of Israel's imminent attack on Iran pops up somewhere in the media. The same thing can be said for Iran's nuclear program which seems to be moments away from completion, every other month.

It will happen around the US elections. Israel has a history of taking actions they know we don't want, when our leadership is politically most preoccupied.

http://thehill.com/video/events/246213-intel-chairman-no-doubt-in-my-mind-israel-considering-us-election-when-weighing-iran-strike

Intel chairman: 'No doubt in my mind' Israel considering US election when weighing Iran strike

By Niall Stanage - 08/28/12 06:06 PM ET

TAMPA, Fla. — House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) on Tuesday said he believes the Israeli government is likely to wait until after the U.S. election to take military action against Iran.

There was “no doubt in my mind,” Rogers said, that the U.S. election cycle was part of the Israelis’ calculations after a recent trip where he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials.

The government of Iran says it is seeking to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but the claim is met with deep skepticism by the United States and other members of the international community.

War in Gaza, December 27, 2008 – January 18, 2009

Obama takes office January 20, 2009

Get out of the way, clear a corridor for Israeli flight operations, maybe ship over more missiles...

Get out of the way? Aside from flying the planes themselves, America is currently getting impeding the Israeli mission how? Unless the CIA is secretly manning Iranian air defenses.

Clear a corridor? Israel would need to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and or Iraq. It's the USA that is denying Israel permission to do this?

Buy the missiles somewhere else or build them yourself Israel. You've stolen enough technology over the years to do this.

Get out of the way? Aside from flying the planes themselves, America is currently getting impeding the Israeli mission how? Unless the CIA is secretly manning Iranian air defenses.

Israel would have to fly 1000 miles across Maybe Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and into Iran... Jordan, Saudi, and Iraq are all using US air defense systems.... That Path is about 1000 miles. A different Path would be over water up the Persian Gulf, that path is even longer. Both path's would require air refueling capabilities and likely munitions which Israel doesn't have and we would have to provide.

If they decided to go missiles along and get into a slug fest with Iran, then Israel would need the missiles and assurances those missiles wouldn't stop coming during the shoot out.

Clear a corridor? Israel would need to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and or Iraq. It's the USA that is denying Israel permission to do this?

Yes, unless you know someone else who would be willing to give Israel the transponder codes so they aren't identified as an enemy when they pass through US allies using US radar feeding to US command and control centers in Jordan, Saudi, and Iraq. Or someone else who has access to stealth capabilities, or even knows how to jam those US installations. Hell wikileaks had the US ambassador negotiation with the Saudi's for Israeli fly over rights.

Buy the missiles somewhere else or build them yourself Israel. You've stolen enough technology over the years to do this.

Israel would need access to pretty sophisticated micro munitions to hit the Iranian bunkers and do damage with fighter planes. It's not like Israel has strategic bombers to call on and or access to US intermediate range missiles.

We don't generally give Israel enough munitions to take action independent of US approval. Any type of sustained action requires us arms transfers.

Gaza Invasion of December 27, 2008 – January 18, 2009

Unusually large Arms Shipments to Israel Jan 11 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11743

Lebanon Invasion 12 July – 14 August 2006

During the 2006 Lebanon War, the United States provided a major resupply of jet fuel and precision-guided munition to replenish depleted Israeli stocks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

July 22, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-russia-iran-bushehr-idUSBRE87U0T320120831

Russia says Iran's nuclear power plant fully operational

Iran's first atomic power plant, a symbol of what the Islamic Republic says is its peaceful nuclear ambition, is now operating at full capacity, Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom said on Friday.

The Russian-built 1,000-megawatt reactor near the Gulf city of Bushehr, was plugged into Iran's national grid last September, ending years of delays and suspicions that Moscow was using the project as a diplomatic lever.

Oil-rich Iran says electricity generation is the main motivation for nuclear work that its adversaries say is really aimed at getting atomic weapons capability.

However, the Bushehr plant is not considered a major proliferation threat by nuclear inspectors whose concern is focused on sites where Iran enriches nuclear fuel, in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding it stop.

Bushehr was started by Germany's Siemens before the 1979 Islamic Revolution and was taken over by Russian engineers in the 1990s.

So by "effectively pressuring" Netanyahu actually means "do everything for us apart from piloting the ****ing plane during the attack"?

It would help if he was clearer on that, or we told him no to that specific request, because claiming that there is some other "effective pressure" we could be applying plays into the Right's bull****.

So by "effectively pressuring" Netanyahu actually means "do everything for us apart from piloting the ****ing plane during the attack"?

Yes it means enabling them, It means doing what is necessary to allow Israel to strike, and likely continue to strike as it is estimated such an attack would take quite a while to sufficiently degrade Iran's capabilities. US military estimated it would take us months using bases right on Iran's boarders with assets which Israel does not possess. Ultimately we (Bush Jr) estimated such action wouldn't sufficiently degrade Iran's capabilities beyond a few years. Israel 1000 miles away would be a much harder job.

It would help if he was clearer on that, or we told him no to that specific request, because claiming that there is some other "effective pressure" we could be applying plays into the Right's bull****.

Why is that? I think the facts are Obama has curbed Israel's intentions to act against Iran, and by Romney's own words he would not.

Why is that? I think the facts are Obama has curbed Israel's intentions to act against Iran, and by Romney's own words he would not.

I don't think that's the general view. I think there most people think there's a difference between applying more "effective pressure" against Iran's nuclear enrichment program and ... active and direct military support of another nation in a committing an act of war against Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-russia-iran-bushehr-idUSBRE87U0T320120831

Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational power plant!

I don't think that's the general view. I think there most people think there's a difference between applying more "effective pressure" against Iran's nuclear enrichment program and ... active and direct military support of another nation in a committing an act of war against Iran.

Romney is on record saying he would go to war himself. which is even more ambitious than just clearing the decks for Israel to take action.

So we were supposed to deploy a bunch of anti missile batteries and two Aegis class destroyers which are the most advanced air defense systems in the US navy... They typically protect our aircraft cariers.... But looks like we are pulling the plug on that.

http://world.time.com/2012/08/31/exclusive-u-s-scales-back-military-exercise-with-israel-affecting-potential-iran-strike/

Exclusive: U.S. Scales-Back Military Exercise with Israel, Affecting Potential Iran StrikeA smaller U.S. contingent may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's nuclear program.

By Karl Vick and Aaron J. Klein .

Israeli soldiers are seen during a military exercise in Golan Heights, Aug. 21, 2012. Israeli Armed Forces have been conducting maneuvers amid raising tensions in the region.

Seven months ago, Israel and the United States postponed a massive joint military exercise that was originally set to go forward just as concerns were brimming that Israel would launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The exercise was rescheduled for late October, and appears likely to go forward on the cusp of the U.S. presidential election. But it won’t be nearly the same exercise. Well-placed sources in both countries have told TIME that Washington has greatly reduced the scale of U.S. participation, slashing by more than two-thirds the number of American troops going to Israel and reducing both the number and potency of missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise.

(PHOTOS: The Ultra-Holy City of Jerusalem)

“Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you,’” a senior Israeli military official tells TIME.

The reductions are striking. Instead of the approximately 5,000 U.S. troops originally trumpeted for Austere Challenge 12, as the annual exercise is called, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 service members, and perhaps as few as 1,200. Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, but the crews to operate them will not. Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships being dispatched to Israeli waters, the new plan is to send one, though even the remaining vessel is listed as a “maybe,” according to officials in both militaries.

(MORE: Will Iran’s Third-World Jamboree Hasten an Israeli Attack? Probably Not)

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to discuss specifics of the reduced deployment, noting that planning for the exercise was classified. But in an e-mailed statement, Commander Wendy L. Snyder emphasized that the Israeli military has been kept informed of the changes. “Throughout all the planning and coordination, we’ve been lock-step with the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and will continue to do so,” Snyder said.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/08/31/exclusive-u-s-scales-back-military-exercise-with-israel-affecting-potential-iran-strike/#ixzz25HPpLY00

I'm not convinced Israel or the US has the military capability. Hitler poured concrete in 1944 that held out on the Normandy beach until d-day+3. Third world dictators have built bunkers all over the globe that are immune to air strikes.

So I am to believe the Iranians built this thing out in the open given Israel's history? Personally, IMO, if Israel had the capability she would have done it already.

Romney is on record saying he would go to war himself. which is even more ambitious than just clearing the decks for Israel to take action.

So has Obama

I'm not convinced Israel or the US has the military capability. Hitler poured concrete in 1944 that held out on the Normandy beach until d-day+3. Third world dictators have built bunkers all over the globe that are immune to air strikes.

So I am to believe the Iranians built this thing out in the open given Israel's history? Personally, IMO, if Israel had the capability she would have done it already.

Every analysis I have seen has indicated that Iran's nuclear sites cannot possibly be wiped out with airstrikes alone. Period. They learned the lesson after what happened to Syria's reactor a decade ago, and have been preparing for years. Plus, several of the sites are underground in the middle of heavily populated cities.

I wonder if Netanyahu is hoping to involve the US in another full scale Iraq style invasion. That is the only military solution that would actually stop the Iranian nuclear program.

I'm not convinced Israel or the US has the military capability. Hitler poured concrete in 1944 that held out on the Normandy beach until d-day+3. Third world dictators have built bunkers all over the globe that are immune to air strikes.

So I am to believe the Iranians built this thing out in the open given Israel's history? Personally, IMO, if Israel had the capability she would have done it already.

No you are absolutely right. Iran has bunkers all over their country. we know of about a dozen of them, but their could be three times that many... Their nuclear program is very well dispursed. The US military estimated it would take us using airpower about 100 times what Israel has six months to degrade Iran's nuclear program. And even then it would only buy us a few years respite.

Still Israel's famous for thinking out of the box and coming up with good solutions for stuff like this.

The reason why the US is anti strike though, was we see no reasonable chance of sucess via a strike. Which is really odd then that Israel is so dead set it seems to strike. Israel's miltary people aren't dumb, I can't remember the last time they did something militarily dumb.

So I don't know what we are misssing, but evidently we are missing something. Maybe Israel has developed nuclear bunker busters like we have and are thinking about using those. Boy would that hose up our elections.

---------- Post added September-2nd-2012 at 12:03 AM ----------

So has Obama

Obama said it would be as a last resort... Romney's declaration was much stronger. Stronger in a really frightenning irresponsible bad way. Romney has said as president he would addopt any policy Israel comes out with. He's made a statement like our only role in the ME is to back up Israel. ( and pay the bills of coarse. )

The GOP has made Irael a wedge issue trying to gain jewish votes and increase evangelical votes by trying to out pro Israel the Democrats.

It's pushed both parties to the right on Israel and has really hurt the peace process.

Read Thomas Friedman's "Why Not in Vegas"..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/opinion/friedman-why-not-in-vegas.html

A irresponsible way is one the Iranians won't believe.

The Iranians don't believe O.

A irresponsible way is one the Iranians won't believe.

The Iranians don't believe O.

Iresponsible way to to paint yourself into a corner and make US foreign policy subserveint to a foreign state who has their own interests in the region independnet from Ours.

If we have learned anything in the last 70 years it's that Israel does what's best for Israel; and what's best for ISrael is not always best for the United States, and sometimes it's not even best for Israel.

So you are saying Obama's promise that Iran would not be allowed nuclear weapons was a empty one?

Gee the Iranians seem to agree with you(as does Israel), welcome to where we find ourselves

So you are saying Obama's promise that Iran would not be allowed nuclear weapons was a empty one?

Gee the Iranians seem to agree with you, welcome to where we find ourselves

So you want to invade Iran to keep them from developing a technology which we developed 70 years ago? I'm not so sure that's a winning strategy. I think Obama is right to call that a last resort frankly.

I think we've been down this road before with North Korea. Bush Sr, brought us to the brink of war to keep them from obtaining nukes. Didn't help.

Clinton constructively engaged and kept them from developing nukes for 8 years. Bush Jr. gets into office, rips up Clinton's game plan and ups the rhetoric; North Korea develops nukes.six years after Bush takes office.