ERIN Digital & Phone net Canceled for Tuesday December 24 and 31st, 2024; Go HERE for Current SOI
When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opined earlier this month that an Israeli attack on Iran?s nuclear facilities could ?consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret,? the Israelis went ballistic behind the scenes. Michael Oren, Israel?s ambassador to Washington, lodged a formal diplomatic protest known as a demarche. And the White House was thrust into action, reassuring the Israelis that the administration had its own ?red lines? that would trigger military action against Iran, and that there is no need for Jerusalem to act unilaterally.Panetta?s seemingly innocent remarks on Dec. 2 triggered the latest drama in the tinder-box relationship that the Obama administration is trying to navigate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?s government. With Republicans lining up to court Jewish donors and voters in America in 2012, Obama faces a tricky election-year task of ensuring Iran doesn?t acquire a nuclear bomb on his watch while keeping the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike that could inflame an already teetering Middle East.The stakes are immensely high, and the distrust that Israelis feel toward the president remains a complicating factor. Those sentiments were laid bare in a speech Netanyahu?s minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Ya?alon, gave on Christmas Eve in Jerusalem, in which he used Panetta?s remarks to cast doubt on the U.S.?s willingness to launch its own military strike.Ya?alon told the Anglo-Likud, an organization within Netanyahu?s Likud party that caters to native English speakers, that the Western strategy to stop Iran?s drive for nuclear weapons must include four elements, with the last resort being a military strike.?The fourth element of this combined strategy is the credible military strike,? Ya?alon said, according to a recording of the speech provided to The Daily Beast. ?There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West, saying, ?this is not a real option,? saying, ?the price of military action is too high.??The lack of trust between the Israeli and American leaders on Iran has been a sub-rosa tension in the relationship since 2009. Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country?s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu?s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.The sensitive work of trying to get both allies on the same page intensified this month. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Washington last week to go over Iran issues; and the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, and a special arms control adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn, were in Israel last week to discuss Iran as well. Panetta for his own part has revised his tone on the question of Iran?s nuclear program, telling CBS News last week that the United States was prepared to use force against Iran to stop the country from building a nuclear weapon.The new diplomacy has prompted new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers?called ?red lines? in diplomatic parlance?would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran?s nuclear facilities.Matthew Kroenig, who served as special adviser on Iran to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between July 2010 and July 2011, offered some of the possible ?red lines? for a military strike in a recent Foreign Affairs article he wrote. He argued that the U.S should attack Iran?s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.In an interview with The Daily Beast, Kroenig also noted that Iran announced in 2009 that it was set to construct 10 new uranium enrichment sites. ?I doubt they are building ten new sites, but I would be surprised if Iran was not racing to build some secret enrichment facilities,? Kroenig said. ?Progress on new facilities would be a major factor in our assessment of Iran?s nuclear program and shape all aspects of our policy towards this including the decision to use force.?
