Talk on Iran ‘Red Lines’ Comes After U.S. General Distances Himself from Israeli Strike
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Digg
Stumble
PrintTags:
Barack Obama Iran Barack Obama red lines Binyamin Netanyahu Iran Fordow Israel General Martin Dempsey International Atomic Energy Agency Iran Centrifuges Iran nuclear threat Israel Iran Israel Iran strike Israeli military strike Jacob Kamaras John Bolton Iran Mitt Romney Iran Moshe Ya’alon Iran Nuclear Iran Dempsey nuclear program Iran nuclear weapons development Obama Administration Iran Parchin Iran uranium Iran Yukiya Amano
U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. Photo: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Following U.S. General Martin Dempsey’s statement that he won’t support an Israeli strike on Iran and the report that the Islamic Republic has doubled its uranium enrichment capacity at Fordow, Israeli officials and others are expressing concern over America’s commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and helping to defend Israel against that threat.
Dempsey, chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the following in London on Aug. 30 regarding the possibility of a unilateral Israeli military strike: “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.” He also said the “international coalition” applying pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”
However, the New York Times reported Monday that U.S. President Barack Obama is now considering setting “red lines”—points that, if reached, would prompt America to take military action against Iran.
The report comes just a day after Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet that the international community is failing to set a “clear red line” for Iran over its nuclear program. Netanyahu said Sunday that Iran “doesn’t see determination” from other countries that they will do what it takes to stop its nuclear quest.
Netanyahu’s warning followed that of Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who said Aug. 31 that “our friends in the United States” are “in part responsible” for the fact that Iran doesn’t fear international action against its nuclear program.
“There are many cracks in the ring closing tighter on Iran,” Ya’alon said.
According to the quarterly report issued last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has doubled its uranium enrichment capacity at its underground facility in Fordow.
Fordow, located 130 kilometers from Tehran, is the location where many in the West suspect that Iran is secretly carrying out its nuclear program. The IAEA report states that the number of centrifuges at Fordow increased to 2,140 from 1,064 in May, but adds that the new centrifuges are not operational yet.
The IAEA also expressed concerns about Parchin, a military site south of Tehran that it wants to inspect for evidence of past nuclear weapons development.
“Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano wrote in the report.
Netanyahu said Sunday that the IAEA report “confirmed what we have been saying for some time” in Israel.
While the Obama administration has repeatedly stressed that there is still time for diplomacy and sanctions to work in Iran, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton told Ma’ariv that “time is on [Iran’s] side and they will continue with what seems like a well thought-out plan, mostly because they believe that the United States under Obama’s leadership will do nothing.”
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial Saturday stating that while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to wipe you off the map have “the ring of honesty,” Obama—who has said the U.S. “will always have Israel’s back”—leads an administration that is trying “to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years.”
“Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action [against Iran] on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November,” the editorial said.
White House Spokesman Jay Carney said last week that Obama “has made clear frequently he is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”Obama has said the U.S. position on Iran is that “all options are on the table” to prevent a nuclear Iran.
The president’s critics, on the other hand, question whether his administration would seriously consider a military option. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney highlighted the Iranian issue in his address to the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, saying every American “is less secure today because [Obama] has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.”
“In [Obama’s] first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran,” Romney said. “We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.”
The Democratic incumbent has also said America “will always have Israel’s back.” Romney, however, said at the convention that Obama has “thrown allies like Israel under the bus.”
“I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed,” Romney said. “But his promises gave way to disappointment and division.”
12:19 pm
Thank God for Martin Dempsey. So the U.S. is not Israel’s complicit poodle after all. For too long has the Israeli far-right disastrously dictated American Middle-East policy – to the complete detriment of the U.S.
In fact in many respects the Iranians appear more rational than the Israeli far-right, armed to the teeth with 400 nukes. THEY are the dangerous ones.
12:59 pm
I’m afraid that we Jews are kidding ourselves if we think that either a Democratic or Republican President will launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran’s nuclear assets in any circumstance short of a tangible threat or action by the latter against U.S. fundamental interests. This is clear from all the statements and “body language” we’ve seeing coming out of the White House and U.S. military and civilian leadership, and it is unrealistic to think a Republican administration would do otherwise though they could be expected to show greater sympathy, empathy, and suport. Which means that it comes down to the simple fact that if this issue is believed to a genuine existential threat to the state of Israel, then its political leadership will have to be prepared to act alone, if they are capable of doing so, to stop the threat,despite all the potentially horrific consequences that may follow. Terrible choices, but the U.S. cannot be counted on to take the actions that Israelis feel may be required. And if the rest of the world, including the U.S., beats and bullies them over such an action, well, what good did their sympathy do while six million Jews were being exterminated by Hitler. Israel and Jews worldwide will just have to tough it out as best as they can. It seems from a distance that the only real calculation Israelis must consider is whether they’re in a more difficult place launching an attack against Iran now, and relaunching it again and again if need be, to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons, or living with an Iran that possesses these. If they do choose the former, I hope they will have the military resources to also take out Iran’s oil capabilities and thereby destroy their economic capability to wage war and suppress their own population.