Israel, Iran, US, NATO, Russia - Nuclear War? Is Washington Deaf As Well as Criminal?

[Magda Hassan]

Did Foreign Policy' plant false Israeli embassy story leading to diplomat's reassignment to Copenhagen?

by Philip Weiss on October 13, 2012

Here's some high level intrigue, with the stakes being no less than Our Next War.
You might have seen the bombshell piece by Foreign Policy editor David Rothkopf, "A Truly Credible Military Threat To Iran," saying that Obama and the Israelis are at last getting on the same page for a surgical strike on Iran that would only last a couple of hours and bring regional benefits to everyone.
The article was a bombshell because it seemed the first real evidence of joint military planning. But it has apparently mislanded, and led to a clash inside the Israeli embassy between Michael Oren and his former deputy, Baruch Bina, and in turn led Israeli P.M. Netanyahu to dismiss Bina.
Here's the story as I understand it.
Rothkopf's piece electrified D.C. because it had the kind of detailed, nuanced language that usually accompanies a well-sourced and authoritative account. And indeed, Rothkopf is a Washington insider. He is the former roommate of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren.
The money graf:

Indeed, according to a source close to the discussions, the action that participants currently see as most likely is a joint U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities. The strike might take only "a couple of hours" in the best case and only would involve a "day or two" overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support. Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful -- meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties -- it would have regionwide benefits.

Of course we Americans would be doing the heavy lifting:

While this approach would limit the negative costs associated with more protracted interventions, it could not be conducted by the Israelis acting alone.

And here's the rosy neocon vision. A joint strike, Rothkopf wrote, would have a

"transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come."

Rothkopf's article first made headlines in Israel as a piece of investigative journalism, but doubts ensued. "A Truly Credible Threat" was soon being retailed as an opinion piece. It slid off the front page of the Times of Israel; and even Foreign Policy seemed eager to let the scoop disappear. Comments on the piece were turned off.
What happened? I've been told that military officers in the US and Israel privately denied the report: the U.S. military not only opposes Israeli military action but sees the possibility of a joint strike as remote at best.
This led to speculation that Rothkopf's piece had been planted by the Israeli embassy.
That's when the other shoe dropped. I'm told that the piece sparked a major confrontation between Oren and Baruch Bina, Israel's number two man in Washington, with Bina arguing that it was inappropriate of the ambassador to feed such a line to Rothkopf, because it could only damage U.S.-Israeli relations.
A career-limiting-move, indeed. Oren is said to have called Netanyahu to say that he could no longer work with Bina. And Netanyahu took his ambassador's side. Yesterday Bina was run out of town. Haaretz:

Deputy ambassador to the United States Baruch Bina was on Wednesday appointed Israel's man in Denmark, in a move that is expected to end the strained relations in Washington between the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, and Bina.

So: He's being sent to Copenhagen. That's Siberia. It's what happens to diplomats who cross Netanyahu.
And here's the weird kicker: one of the reasons Netanyahu got rid of Bina is not because he's not trusted in Washington but because he is: the White House likes working with Bina more than Oren. The same holds true for Ehud Barak. The White House likes working with the former Labor leader more than Netanyahu.
Where this leaves David Rothkopf is anyone's guess. He's the editor of Foreign Policy. But the "plant" tale is now being murmured about all over town; and I can't imagine that the bosses at that shop like being used for neoconservative propaganda purposes. Been there, done that.
Update: A friend told me something about Baruch Bina that fills this story out a little. During the Republican convention in Tampa in August, the American Jewish Committee sponsored a panel on the Middle East at the St. Petersburg Art Museum. Bina was on the panel and cited the leading Palestinian writer George Antonius and compared the Arab Spring to a "third Arab awakening." My friend says Bina was thoughtful in a way that the other two panelists, Republican congressman Chris Smith and former congressman Mark Green, were not.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/did-foreig...hagen.html

[Adele Edisen]

(If you may remember, Congress did not declare war in Vietnan. This action in the Cpngress appears to be a sincere effort to restrain any rush to war by restoring the power to declare war to Congress, as specified in the US Constitution. - AE)


Adele

??????????

The US Congress is making a sincere effort to restrain any rush to war?

Are we living on the same planet?

It is quite bizarre. In Israel a war crazy Prime Minister and in America a President trying to restrain a war crazy legislature.

Ron Paul's piece was good.

It's important to distinguish amongst differing members in Congress. Congress is not a uniform body, being composed to Democrats, Republicans,and Independents, and performing its actions by majority voting rules.

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

New Senate Push to Pledge Unconditional Support for Israeli "Preventive" War on Iran
By Jamal Abdi

October 13, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - - Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is planning to press the Senate next month to pledge U.S. troops, money, and political support to Israel should Bibi Netanyahu launch a preventive war on Iran.

Graham claims his effort would merely make explicit that the U.S. has Israel's back. But when your friend is drunk, you don't hand them the keys. If Graham has his way, he will hand Bibi the keys and lend him our car, while the rest of us ride shotgun.

Graham's planned measure would outsource the decision about whether the U.S. goes to war to the Israeli prime minister, pledging that if Bibi decides to act -- regardless of the consequences and our own calculations -- the U.S. will provide money, troops, and political leverage (presumably at the UN and IAEA where there will be a push to shred the sanctions and the Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Those who support the measure will likely claim that a "credible threat" of war must be issued in order to prevent an actual war. But U.S. military leaders understand the difference between a credible threat, which is already very much on the table given the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, and outsourcing the decision of whether the U.S. goes to war to Bibi Netanyahu.

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey pointedly said just weeks ago about potential Israeli strikes on Iran, "I don't want to be complicit if they decide to do it." Graham's resolution is about as clear a signal of complicity as you can get. (Emphasis mine - AE)

Graham's mendacity on Iran policy should by now be notorious. His most recent victory was to convince Congress to endorse Netanayhu's redline for war with Iran instead of the redline laid out by the president. The trick was that, in pushing that measure, Graham disingenuously claimed that Obama's redline was nuclear weapons "capability." And Congress bought it. In reality, the president very clearly rejected that redline and said the U.S redline was to prevent Iran from actually getting the bomb, not getting an amorphous "capability."

But Graham (and Bibi) won the battle on the Hill. Both the House and the Senate voted to endorse Netanyahu's redline, not Obama's. To be fair, many in the House and Senate who supported the resolution still have no idea that there is a difference. They read the talking points circulated by Graham and AIPAC (the measure's chief advocates), and to this day think they were simply voting to endorse what Obama had already said.

Now, Graham is herding his willfully ignorant colleagues to support another incremental step towards war with Iran, under the guise of being "pro-Israel" and supporting the president. His new resolution would twist Obama's words that the U.S. "has Israel's back" to mean the U.S. is on call to jump into war with Iran if and when Netanyahu decides it's go time.

According to CQ, Graham said having Israel's back means, "if you get into a fight, I'm coming to help you." He continued:

"There are two different clocks here, the Washington clock and the Tel Aviv clock," he said. "The Israelis are not going to let the window close on their ability to slow down this program. They're going to act... They're going to control their own destiny."

Graham's resolution would make it clear that the United States would provide assistance to Israel "if they have to go because they've decided they are not going to turn their window over to us or anybody else."

Sorry, but there is a difference between not getting in Israel's way and actively supporting a disastrous decision with American servicemembers, money, and international political leverage. Graham is hoping that, yet again, no one notices the difference.

Having Israel's back does not mean supporting preventive war that the entire national security establishment says would be a disaster for everyone involved and could guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon. Having Israel's back does not mean goading them into making stupid decisions and pledging to bail them out unconditionally.

The Senate should not be handing out promises to enable foreign leaders to decide whether and when the U.S. goes to war. This would not be a mutual defense pact -- it would be a suicide pact

Jamal Abdi, Policy Director, National Iranian American Council.

This article was originally posted at Huffington Post

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

US and Israel Recognize Iran Not Near a Bomb

Video: 11:25 minutes long

In spite evidence Iran directing much of its supply of 20% enriched uranium for
scientific purposes, "killer" sanctions continue.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e32726.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0019cbU6KAJB...XH4-zbPoZ]

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

Netanyahu Agreed to Ceasefire after Obama Promised US troops in Sinai Next Week?
By RT

US troops are expected in Egypt early next week. Meanwhile, American forces have
all but surrounded Iran and are stationed in countless bases across the Middle
East.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e33133.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001niQOXCZRU...aLTuDKAQv]

Adele