| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: IRAN'S DANGEROUS NUKE GAME |
| IRAN'S DANGEROUS NUKE GAME
By PETER BROOKES
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01032008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_dangerous_nuke_game_337511.htm
January 3, 2008 -- IRAN turned up the heat this week on still-sim mering concerns about its atomic aspirations. It crowed that its 1,000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear-power plant would be "online" as early as this spring, putting in place another important building block of its nuclear program.
That sort of news can't help but rattle the steadiest of nerves, no matter what the (narrowly focused) US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear-weapons program said about the current state of affairs.
Seemingly not swayed one iota by the NIE's conclusions, you have to wonder if Israel - the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear (weapons) breakout - might take matters into its own hands.
It has done so twice before - and the time may be here again.
In a 1981 dawn raid lasting less than 90 seconds, Israeli Defense Force fighters attacked the nearly completed 40-megawatt Iraqi Osirak nuclear-reactor complex, setting back Saddam's ability to produce fissile material for nukes.
And again last September, the IDF allegedly struck a nascent Syrian nuclear program, which possibly was benefiting from outside help, in a preventive airstrike that may have also been meant as a warning to Iran of unpleasant things to come.
But why strike now?
Well, within about a year of Bushehr becoming operational, some of its spent nuclear fuel could be stripped of enough plutonium to produce a handful of nuclear weapons if the rods aren't returned to their owner/provider, Russia.
Because the production of fissile material is the long pole in the nuclear-weapons tent, the diversion of material at Bushehr is potentially as big a problem as the 3,000 centrifuges that Iran has whirring at supersonic speeds, enriching uranium.
Attacking Bushehr - like Osirak - before it comes online would not only stop it from being used to produce bomb material, but would also prevent radiation from the reactor being spewed into the atmosphere after a strike.
Also possibly spurring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to put the IDF into action is other recent news: Iran is reportedly buying the highly capable Russian S-300 air-defense system to bolster the Tor-M1 surface-air missile systems Moscow supplied last year.
The Iranians purchased the Tor-M1 to prevent a modern-day Iranian version of Israel's successful Osirak strike. The lethal S-300s - likely a response to the Syrian strike - will enhance Iran's ability to protect its nuclear sites scattered around the country.
(Curious the extent to which Iran is willing to go to protect its so-called "peaceful" nuclear program, isn't it?)
But despite these reasons for giving a go-ahead for an attack on Bushehr before it's up and running, dealing militarily with Iran's nuclear program is a lot more complex than just that.
While Bushehr is a key element of the program because of its ability to produce large amounts of bomb-worthy fissile material (i.e., plutonium) for weapons use, it isn't the be-all and end-all of that program.
To cripple Iran's nuclear program, the IDF would have to hit other major nuclear sites: The Natanz uranium-enrichment plant, the Arak heavy-water facility and the Isfahan uranium-conversion complex - plus possibly tens of other nuclear-related sites.
But while some facilities like Natanz are "hardened," well-protected by air defenses and often buried as deep as 70 feet down, IDF fighters could hammer them using GPS/laser-guided and penetration weapons such as the American JDAM.
There's also the tyranny of distance. Iran is a lot farther from Israel than Iraq - and the targets aren't clustered like they were at Osirak. They're spread across Iran - a country nearly four times California's size.
Even a surprise IDF air raid would likely be known to others such as the United States, which "owns" the airspace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf with its vast array of land, sea and air sensors.
(Of course, it is always possible Israel's small fleet of cruise-missile-capable, Dolphin-class diesel submarines, deployed to the Persian Gulf, could play a role in a strike, especially against Bushehr in southern Iran.)
A strike would bring Iranian retaliation, including terrorist attacks by Tehran's allies, such as Hezbollah, as well as missile strikes against large Israeli cities. By association, US interests could come into Iran's crosshairs.
The new year will likely bring more unwelcome news about Iran's nuclear program as it cascades toward a weapons option. It will also be a fateful year for Israel, one that may require action - no matter what the latest NIE says.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
peterbrookes@heritage.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
| Bush gives unconditional
support to Israel against Iran
Bush: We would defend Israel against Iran
Reuters Sunday, 6 January 2008
WASHINGTON — An Iranian attack on Israel isn't imminent,
but the US would defend its ally in such an event, United
States President George Bush told Channel 2 television just
days before he begins a Mideast visit.
A recent US intelligence report suggesting that Iran suspended
its nuclear weapons program in 2003 did not mean that Iran
wasn't a danger, because Iran can restart the program or use
its civilian nuclear program for military purposes, Bush said in
an interview broadcast yesterday.
"If I were an Israeli, I would take the words of the Iranian
president seriously, and as president of the United States
I take them seriously," Bush said.
If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush said, "We will defend our ally,
no ands, ifs or buts."
GEORGE W. BUSH: Standing tall for Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941814.html
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:37 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
| As Bush heads to Mideast, questions on Iran
Israeli, Arab leaders doubt U.S. resolve
By Michael Abramowitz and Ellen Knickmeyer
The Washington Post
updated 8:11 p.m. PT, Sun., Jan. 6, 2008
President Bush intends to use his first extended tour of the Middle East to rally support for international pressure against Iran, even as a recent U.S. intelligence report playing down Tehran's nuclear ambitions has left Israeli and Arab leaders rethinking their own approach toward Iran and questioning Washington's resolve, according to senior U.S. officials, diplomats and regional experts.
Bush is to leave Tuesday for Israel, where he hopes to jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations he launched in Annapolis late last year. But in Jerusalem and some of the Arab countries Bush plans to visit, Iran's growing regional influence looms larger than the peace process or the Iraq war. Leaders in the region are gauging whether the lame-duck administration has the interest and ability to cope with Iran, or whether they should pursue their own military and diplomatic solutions.
"Part of the reason I'm going to the Middle East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the [National Intelligence Estimate] in no way lessens that threat, but in fact clarifies the threat," Bush said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot released Friday.
Administration officials have been alarmed by what they see as Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear weapon and intimidate its Sunni neighbors. But their efforts to build support for sanctions and other pressure on Tehran took a serious hit last month when a National Intelligence Estimate -- representing the shared view of U.S. intelligence agencies -- concluded that Iran halted its nuclear arms program in 2003.
Administration officials insist that the estimate showed Iran remains capable of, and interested in, developing a nuclear weapon. But Israel, which is believed to have nuclear weapons, saw the report as a sign that Washington is flagging in its zeal to confront Iran, which they regard as a threat to its existence. And in Arab Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, which feel threatened by the rising Shiite power that Iran represents, the NIE renewed doubts over whether the United States might be seeking an accommodation with Tehran.
‘Why punish Iran, now?’
In an interview yesterday, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa cited recent overtures between Iran and Arab countries and said Arab nations are exercising a prerogative to set their own course on Iran. "As long as they have no nuclear program . . . why should we isolate Iran? Why punish Iran, now?" he asked.
One senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the trip said many Middle Eastern governments were "confused" by the NIE. "No Arab regime understands why the United States would publish an intelligence estimate." The official said Iran will be an important focus of Bush's conversations with regional leaders, with the president seeking to reassure them of U.S. staying power in the Middle East.
"Iran, for Israel, is topic Number One," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian expatriate living in Israel who runs an economic and political analysis company, and has written a book about Iran's nuclear program. "Most of the Israeli politicians and population see Iran as a greater threat than Hamas," he said, comparing Iran to the Islamic movement that controls Gaza. "And the Israeli government will be eager for Bush to show them that he is still committed to stopping Iran."
In Tehran yesterday, an Iranian government spokesman said Bush had failed to create an anti-Iran coalition. "The aim of these repeated trips is to compensate for the failed policies of America in the region," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini, according to wire reports.
Bush is planning stops in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several smaller Gulf countries during his eight-day trip. While in Kuwait, Bush will meet for the first time in four months with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, to discuss Iraq.
In Israel, which he is visiting for the first time as president, Bush is likely to be greeted as one of the country's greatest friends. But in the Arab world, his presidency has been perceived as damaging to the region and to U.S. prestige.
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arab regime in Iraq, which long served as a counterweight to Shiite Muslim Iran, has allowed Iran's influence to grow. At the same time, Arab leaders blame the breakdown, until recently, of Israeli-Palestinian talks on Bush's refusal to assume the U.S. president's traditional hands-on role in Middle East peace negotiations.
Arab dissidents were elated and then devastated when Bush called for democracy in the region in 2005, only to appear to back away after election victories in Iraq and the Palestinian territories by religious blocs -- the only groups that had built popular support under autocratic governments. Bush plans to offer something of a report card on his Middle East "freedom agenda" when he stops in the United Arab Emirates' capital, Abu Dhabi, next week.
In Arab streets, many blame Washington for the plight of Iraqis and Palestinians. Bush's presidency has been "disastrous," said Hisham Kassem, an Egyptian journalist who received a National Endowment for Democracy award from him last fall. "America's neither feared nor loved. It's neither feared by the regimes anymore, and it's hated by the people of the Middle East. . . . That's the Bush legacy."
Complicating matters has been the effort by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, buoyed by soaring oil revenues, to expand Tehran's clout. The United States also sees Iranian meddling in Lebanon and Palestinian affairs through ties to Hezbollah and Hamas. But many Arabs blame U.S. actions for Iran's influence. In Iraq, where the 2003 U.S. invasion led to a Shiite government, "Iran got the best help" possible from Washington, Moussa said.
Diplomatic trifecta
In December, Ahmadinejad scored a diplomatic trifecta: He spoke before the Gulf Cooperation Council, an Arab bloc formed to counter Iran, in the first such appearance by an Iranian president. He also visited Mecca for the haj religious pilgrimage at the invitation of Saudi King Abdullah, another first for an Iranian president.
Ahmadinejad closed the year by sending envoy Ali Larijani to Egypt, a country that has frozen ties with Iran for 28 years, offering to help Cairo develop nuclear energy. Talk of resuming diplomatic relations followed.
The challenge for Bush, according to analysts in Washington and the Middle East, is to convince Arab countries that their best hope for minimizing the Iranian threat is to stick with the United States -- while dissuading Israel from a unilateral, preemptive strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities.
"The real question is what can the president say or do to reassure them about Iranian power?" said Richard N. Haass, a former senior State Department official and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bush's key stop may be in Riyadh, where Bush will hold a rare face-to-face meeting with King Abdullah, who has been alternately critical and supportive of U.S. efforts on Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian talks and the rest of the Middle East. The Saudi royal family, which rules in alliance with hard-line Sunni clerics, is concerned about the spread of Iranian influence and is unhappy with the new Shiite dominance of Iraq.
But Abdullah prefers to co-opt enemies, not confront them, and appears to be seeking a deal with Ahmadinejad, said Bruce Riedel, who worked on Middle East affairs in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "I think there is a great effort on both Riyadh and Washington's part to obscure that because they do not want the public spat," he said.
The senior U.S. official was skeptical, saying that the Saudis do not invite the Iranian president to their meetings -- "he invites himself."
"They are going to have a relationship with Iran," this official said. "Saudi diplomacy is traditionally quite cautious and conservative, but don't mistake caution and conservatism for sympathy."
But some Arabs suspect the Bush administration may decide it has to work with Iran to preserve security gains in Iraq. Khalid al-Dakheel, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said "some people here think, or have the jitters, that this administration or the next administration . . . might find themselves in a position to reconcile themselves with the Iranians."
Knickmeyer reported from Cairo. Correspondent Jonathan Finer in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22531798/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
| Iranian boats "provoke" US Navy ships in Hormuz: CNN (Reuters)
20 minutes ago
Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route off the Iranian coast, over the weekend, CNN reported on Monday.
Citing unidentified U.S. officials, CNN said the Iranian vessels came within 200 yards (meters) of the U.S. ships in international waters in the strait on Saturday, and U.S. sailors came close to opening fire.
Oil prices rose about 30 cents to over $98 a barrel after the CNN report, with traders citing increased risk of disruptions to oil shipments along the key shipping route.
U.S. military officials told CNN the boats were "attack craft" that they believed were operated by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.
The Iranian boats made threatening maneuvers against the U.S. warships and threatening radio transmissions, the officials told
CNN.
The captain of one U.S. vessel was in the process of giving the order to shoot when the Iranian ships began turning away, CNN said.
A radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," CNN reported, citing a U.S. official.
After the threatening radio communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were very close to opening fire, it said.
There was no immediate U.S. comment.
In Tehran, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman had no immediate comment when asked about the CNN report.
The incident occurred on the eve of a visit to the Middle East by U.S. President George W. Bush, who said last week that one of the aims of his trip was to counter Iran's ambitions in the region.
Washington has been engaged in a long standoff with Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
In what is being called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, officials said Monday.
U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats ended the incident and turned and moved away, said a Pentagon official.
"It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
The incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday as a U.S. Navy cruiser, destroyer and frigate were transiting the strait on their way into the Persian Gulf.
"Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive maneuvers," the Pentagon official said.
"There were no injuries but there very well could have been," he said, adding that the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that U.S. forces were preparing to open fire" in self defense.
He said he didn't have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but the Iranians radioed something to the effect that "we're coming at you and you'll explode in a couple minutes."
Historical tensions between the two nations have increased in recent years over Washington's charge that Tehran has been developing nuclear weapons and supplying and training Iraqi insurgents using roadside bombs — the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.
In another incident off its coast, Iranian Revolutionary Guard sailors last March captured 15 British sailors and held them for nearly two weeks.
The 15 sailors from HMS Cornwall, including one woman, were captured on March 23. Iran claims the crew, operating in a small patrol craft, had intruded into Iranian waters — a claim denied by Britain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran plays down Gulf incident with US
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago
Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday that a confrontation between Iranian boats and U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend was "something normal" and was resolved. It suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels.
The Pentagon said that in the incident early Sunday, five small Iranian boats repeatedly "charged" U.S. warships in the Gulf's Hormuz Strait and dropped boxes in the water. The boats warned the U.S. ships that they would set up "explosions," a U.S. Defense Department official said.
The U.S. craft were on the verge of opening fire when the Iranian boats fled, the official said, calling the incidident "the most serious provocation of its sort" in the Gulf. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident, suggesting it was an issue of mistaken identity. He did not comment on the U.S. claims of the Iranian boats' actions.
"That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties," he told the state news agency IRNA.
The incident was "similar to past ones" that were resolved "once the two sides recognized each other."
U.S. Navy and Iranian officials have said in the past that vessels from the two rival nations frequently come into contact in the waters of the narrow, heavily trafficked Gulf. They often communicate by radio to avoid incidents.
But the latest incident was the first time U.S. officials have spoken of such a direct threat from Iranian boats.
The incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday as Navy cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham were on their way into the Persian Gulf and passing through the strait — a major oil shipping route.
Five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, the Pentagon official said.
There were no injuries but the official said there could have been, because the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that U.S. forces were preparing to open fire" in self defense.
The official said he didn't have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but said the Iranians radioed something like "we're coming at you and you'll explode in a couple minutes."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the vessels, U.S. officials said Monday.
In the most serious such incident in years, U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats during the incident early Sunday, when the boats — believed to be from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy — turned and moved away, a Pentagon official said.
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman called it a "serious incident." Another U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet."
Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday the confrontation was "something normal" and was resolved, suggesting the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the Bush administration urges Iranians "to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future."
The incident raised new tensions between Washington and Tehran as President Bush prepared for his first major trip to the Middle East.
A statement issued by the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain said the incident occurred at about 8 a.m. local time Sunday as Navy cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham were on their way into the Persian Gulf and passing through the strait — a major oil shipping route.
Five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, said the Pentagon official. The boxes floated by, and officials said they didn't now what was in them because U.S. sailors didn't pick them up.
There were no injuries but the official said there could have been, because the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that U.S. forces were preparing to open fire" in self defense.
The official, who asked to speak on grounds of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said he didn't have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but said the Iranians radioed something like "we're coming at you and you'll explode in a couple minutes."
At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said he was not aware of any plans to lodge a formal protest.
"Without specific reference to this incident in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States will confront Iranian behavior where it seeks to do harm either to us or to our friends and allies in the region," McCormack told reporters. "There is wide support for that within the region and certainly that's not going to change."
Whitman said the Pentagon will work with State and National Security Council officials to determine "the appropriate way to address this with the Iranian government."
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident, suggesting it was an issue of misidentification. He did not comment on the U.S. claims of the Iranian boats' actions.
"That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties," he told the state news agency IRNA.
The incident was "similar to past ones" that were resolved "once the two sides recognized each other," he said.
An Iranian Revolutionary Guard official also described the incident as nothing unusual.
"No unusual confrontation has taken place between the Guard's patrol vessels and U.S. ships," state-run television quoted the official as saying. The official was speaking on customary condition of anonymity. The Guard official said the Guard's vessels were conducting normal patrols in the Strait of Hormuz when they saw three U.S. ships enter the waters of the region.
"The Guard's navy vessels, as usual, asked the ships to identify themselves and they did so and continued their path," the TV quoted the official as saying.
At the Pentagon, Whitman said the U.S. vessels were in international waters, making a normal transit into the Gulf. He said the Iranian boats were operating at "distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent — reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent."
The episode lasted 15 to 20 minutes, Whitman said, but he wouldn't say whether officials know for certain whether the were vessels were Iranian Revolutionary Guard or regular Iranian navy. The Revolutionary Guard forces have been known to be more aggressive than the regular navy.
"At least some were visibly armed. Small Iranian fastboats made some aggressive maneuvers against our vessels and indicated some hostile intent," Whitman said.
Historical tensions between the two nations have increased in recent years over Washington's charge that Tehran has been developing nuclear weapons and supplying and training Iraqi insurgents using roadside bombs — the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.
At about this time last year, Bush announced he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf region in a show of force against Iran. The U.S. Navy quietly scaled back to one carrier group several months later. But while the two were there, they staged two major exercises off Iran's coast.
As one of the world's most vital chokepoints for oil shipping, the 30-mile-wide Hormuz strait has been the subject of previous armed confrontations between the United States and Iran, most notably during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s.
___
Associated Press reporters Matthew Lee, Robert Burns and Jennifer Loven in Washington and Richard Pyle in New York contributed to this report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iranian TV airs video of Gulf encounter
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago
Iran aired video Thursday of its boats and U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf in an apparent attempt to show that there was no confrontation between the vessels.
The grainy 5-minute, 20-second video showed a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. It appeared to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least 100 yards from the American warships.
The footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels or any provocation. But the short clip likely did not show Sunday's entire encounter, which U.S. Navy officials described as threatening, and said lasted about 20 minutes.
A Pentagon official said the video appeared to have been taken around the time of Sunday's confrontation but that the controversial parts of the incident were edited out. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the video.
The clip aired on Iran's state-run English-language channel Press TV, whose signal is often blocked inside Iran. It also aired on the state-run Al-Alam Arabic channel, with an announcer saying the video showed "a routine and regular measure."
At first, the footage was broadcast without sound, but state TV later aired it with audio of radio transmissions between the boats.
"Coalition warship 73, this is (an) Iranian navy patrol boat, how do you copy?" a man's voice said in heavily accented English.
"This is coalition warship 73, I read you loud and clear. We are operating in international waters," an American voice replied.
The Pentagon has released its own video of Sunday's incident, showing small Iranian boats swarming around U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
In the recording, a man threatens in English, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after ... minutes."
The incident, which ended without any shots fired, has heightened U.S.-Iranian tension as President Bush visits the region. Bush was in the West Bank on Thursday, and heads next to Arab Gulf nations where he is expected to discuss strategy on Iran.
Iran has denied its boats threatened the U.S. vessels, and accused Washington of fabricating its video. The Pentagon dismissed that claim and warned its ships would respond with force if threatened.
On Thursday, the Web site of the Iranian state broadcasting company quoted a top Revolutionary Guards commander as calling the Pentagon's video "unusual and illogical."
"This attention by the U.S. media and officials to a routine encounter means Americans are taking an unusual approach to very ordinary issue," Gen. Ali Fadavi, the Guards' acting naval chief, was quoted as saying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
US protests Iran harassment of US ships
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago
The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest with Iran over a weekend incident in which Iranian speedboats harassed U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, the State Department said Thursday.
The protest, which repeats public U.S. complaints about the "provocative" action, was sent to the Iranian Foreign Ministry through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which represents U.S. interests in Iran, deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. He could not say if the Iranians had actually received and acknowledged receipt of the protest
"We have ... prepared and given to the Swiss a diplomatic note formally protesting this incident," he said. "It reiterates the points that we have made publicly in the last few days."
"We certainly don't want to see the Iranians taking any kind of provocative actions or provocative steps against our ships or against any ships that are transiting what is a primary international waterway," Casey said.
He dismissed Iranian claims that there was nothing unusual about Sunday's incident in the Strait of Hormuz as well as a videotape aired by Iranian television on Thursday that appeared to be an attempt to show that there was not a confrontation between the vessels.
"We all understand what happened in this incident," Casey said.
The Pentagon maintains that Iranian naval speedboats swarmed around U.S. warships in a threatening manner and released its own video of the incident in which a man in accented English says, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after ... minutes."
President Bush has warned Iran not to repeat such actions, which he said would draw "serious consequences."
Iran denies its boats threatened the U.S. vessels, and accused Washington of fabricating its video. The Pentagon has dismissed that claim and warned that its ships would respond with force if threatened.
The grainy 5-minute, 20-second Iranian video shows a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. It appeared to be shot from a small boat bobbing at least 100 yards from the American warships. But the footage does not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels or any provocation.
The entire incident lasted about 20 minutes, according to the U.S. Navy, and a Pentagon official said that while the Iranian video appeared to have been taken around the time of the confrontation, controversial parts had been edited out.
The clip aired on Iran's state-run English-language channel Press TV, whose signal is often blocked inside Iran. It also aired on the state-run Al-Alam Arabic channel, with an announcer saying the video showed "a routine and regular measure."
The incident, which ended without any shots fired, has heightened U.S.-Iranian tension as Bush visits the region. Bush was in the West Bank on Thursday, and heads next to Arab Gulf nations where he is expected to discuss strategy on Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen: Clash may signal Tehran shift
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago
The recent confrontation between Iranian and U.S. navy forces in the Persian Gulf reflects a shift in military strategy by Tehran to use its Revolutionary Guard's fast boats in a more aggressive manner in the region, the top U.S. military officer said Friday.
And while Adm. Mike Mullen — chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — said he could not himself tell if verbal threats heard in a U.S.-aired tape of the incident actually came from the Iranian boats, he said the clash was the most "provocative and dramatic" he's seen to date.
"The incident ought to remind us all just how real is the threat posed by Iran and just how ready we are to meet that threat if it comes to it," Mullen said.
His comments came as the Pentagon was poised Friday to release the entire video of the event, which is as much as 36 minutes long. Defense officials have been peppered with questions about the origin of a voice on the initial video that warns in English: "I am coming to you" and then, "You will explode after ... minutes."
The top military commander in the Middle East told The Associated Press on Friday that the U.S. was still trying to determine the source of the threatening radio call, but remained convinced that it was related to the actions of the Iranian boats.
"The voice is very strange. I don't know whether it came from the boats or one of the shore stations," said Adm. William J. Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command, in a telephone interview from his headquarters in Florida. "But the timing of it is pretty suspicious. In my mind it is related to the maneuvers."
"It certainly doesn't sound like a third party that just happened to say something threatening at that moment," he added.
Mullen, speaking at a Pentagon briefing, also said that while it is unclear where the radio transmission came from, it was equally threatening if it originated from the boats or from someone coordinating with them from shore.
If the assumption is that it was the Iranians, "that, to me gets to a level of sophistication that also is something that we ought to be concerned about," Mullen said.
Regarding the Iranian strategy, Mullen told reporters that the U.S. has been focused "for several years" on this shift to greater use of small, fast boats by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has taken over patrols in the Gulf from Tehran's regular navy.
"It's clearly strategically where the Iranian military has gone," Mullen said in his first solo Pentagon press briefing. "There's a projection they were going to do that over a number of years.... That was a big concern to me because of the history and the background with the IRGC (Revolutionary Guard.) This fit that mold, as far as I was concerned."
Fallon added that the Navy believes the Revolutionary Guard now has responsibility for the whole Gulf, and has moved the Iranian Navy further out into the Indian Ocean.
"The Revolutionary Guards have been the actors exporting trouble in the region," said Fallon. "If they intend to increase tension or ratchet up the level of confrontation, these are the guys who are going to do it. The Iranian Navy has been better behaved and much more professional."
Mullen said that what bothered him most about the incident was that the boats swarmed so close to the U.S. ships and were dumping boxes into the water.
"We've been concerned for years about the threat of mining those straits," Mullen said.
And sometimes at sea, it can be pretty difficult to determine "what they really did put in the water, depending on the range and the other kinds of conditions," he said.
In the initial four-minute, 20-second video released by the Pentagon, boxes could not readily be seen in the water.
Mullen said he would "prefer Iran to take a more productive, positive role in the region."
After reviewing the reports about last Sunday's incident, Mullen said, he believes the sailors and commanders acted "exactly right" given the behavior of the Iranian boats.
Iran and the U.S. have both released video of the encounter between Iranian fast boats and U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf early Sunday.
The U.S. has condemned the incident, calling the Iranians' actions provocative and dangerous. Tehran has denied its boats threatened the U.S. vessels, and accused Washington of fabricating its video.
The Pentagon's video of the incident, shows the small Iranian boats swarming around U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. And it includes the audio of a man making the threatening statements in English. The video and audio were recorded separately.
In response, the Iranians put out their own five-minute clip showing a man speaking into a handheld radio, with three U.S. ships floating in the distance. The footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels nor any provocation.
Neither video showed Sunday's entire encounter, which U.S. Navy officials described as threatening, and said lasted more than 20 minutes.
___
Associated Press writers Sebastian Abbot and Robert Burns contributed to this report. Abbott reported from Cairo.
On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf of Tonkin, meet Straits of Hormuz
by 8ackgr0und N015e
Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:27:35 AM PST
Breathless reporting:
Iranian boats 'provoke' U.S. Navy ships
Five Iranian boats provoked three U.S. Navy ships in international waters on Saturday, CNN reported on Monday.
Interesting....
There are also reports of a "threatening" radio transmission.
"I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," CNN reported, citing U.S. officials.
but wait
At one point a radio message from one of the Iranian boats warned, "You are going to blow up within minutes."
Ok, sounds about the same... why is this an issue?
8ackgr0und N015e's diary :: ::
Check out the reporting on this... why equivocate and put 'provoke' in quotes? Either they were provoked or they weren't. But beyond that semantic hedge is a whole bunch of problems. Unidentified sources. Inconsistent reports. Unconfirmed events. Ah the dulcet tones of The Mighty Wurlitzer ring across the land....
Now... lets look at the Straits of Hormuz, an extremely narrow waterway chock full of ships, both military and civilian.
Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles wide, including two two-mile-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile wide separation median.
No one reports where in the straits this event allegedly occurred. No one reports whether the US ships were in a lane, out of a lane, near Iran's shore, or any other information.
The fact is these sort of close encounters are routine. The claimed radio transmission is suspicious to me. Why? Because telegraphing an attack on a fully armed set of ships is a good way to get sunk. If someone really wanted to start a conflict they would actually pull a trigger without any warning. Oh, and by the way, Iran has surface to surface Silkworm missiles they can use to sink anything they want in that narrow body of water.
Now this is serious stuff. How serious?
"It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet,"
Really? Who said that?
said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Oh.
Of course this is not happening in a vacuuum:
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been higher than normal for months as the Bush administration has called for sanctions against Tehran because of its nuclear research. Washington believes Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons.
Gee.... all of Washington? As in the 16 Intelligence Agencies that said they have no reason to believe there is an active program? Interesting bit of overstatement.
Additionally, the U.S. has accused Iranian agents of fostering uprisings and attacks against American forces and their allies in neighboring Iraq. The two nations haven't had formal diplomatic ties since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.
Interesting. So now we are back to Iran is the threat to Americans in the Front on the Global War on Terrorism. That brings up another thread from the President, in an interview that was embargoed until today
Mr. Bush said he is "not willing to credit the Iranians yet" with ceasing to supply weapons to insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
"I don't have enough evidence," Mr. Bush said. "I think so long as we're finding sophisticated (roadside bombs) — that could only have been manufactured in Iran — that are killing innocent people inside Iraq, that's cause for concern."
Last week, the spokesman for Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told The Washington Times that he had seen a decrease in attacks using weapons provided by Iran.
Makes sense to me... the number of attacks are decreasing so...let's INCREASE tensions with Iran. Apparently "There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns" will be trotted out once again to support the newest "one percent solution" this administration is going to foist on us.
The fact this is being circulated in the media right before Bush's trip to Israel, where we know they are claiming "rock solid" evidence of a nuclear program fuels my suspicions.
I'm sorry. Color me skeptical. No one is speaking on the record, the details are not consistent, inflammatory claims are being made to infuse this with an alarmist tone, and we know the Israelis are pitching "rock solid" evidence to support a plan of attacking a nation no one has declared war on.
Of course the ratcheting up of the tone is supported directly by the President who worries about a potential threat due to the
government's decision not to be honest with the
world, not to be transparent, not to listen to the IAEA
Taken out of context, you might be forgiven for wondering why he is worrying about Israel's nuclear arsenal. The point here is this is the same "He has ignored UN resolutions" argument in new clothes.
The same press conference concerns me because Bush is adamant that
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First of all, I'm going to get a lot done next
year.
Q Of course.
THE PRESIDENT: I really am. You know, there's this great myth
about how the President, because there's an election, or because it's
the last year of his presidency, not much is going to get done. Quite
the contrary. We'll get a lot done.
Given gridlock in Congress it is only my speculation at this point that starting a third (world) war is about all he can do to get "a lot done" in the next few months. Unfortunately, by the time I can recast my suspicion as a "slam dunk," the smoking gun will be a bunch of mushroom clouds over parts of the Middle East.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/7/95833/37585/113/432106
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:30 pm; edited 3 times in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: Ron Paul mentioned going into Iran on Leno last night |
| Ron Paul to Haaretz: Israel can get by without American aid
By Shmuel Rosner
After an impressive showing in Iowa, the isolationist representative should do well in the 'live free or die' state.
The slight wound to Ron Paul's pride was visible as he recalled the decision by Fox News not to invite him to yesterday's Republican debate, but he hopes to gain even from his absence. "When there's an exclusion, it energizes the supporters," Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, said. He'll use the time freed up in his schedule for more appearances, more speeches. He was in Nashua, New Hampshire, yesterday, speaking to the Liberty Forum. No venue could be more fitting for this extraordinary Republican candidate. He stood out from the field in Saturday night's ABC news debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, particularly where U.S. foreign policy is concerned.
The Republican candidates are careful not to be too highly identified with the administration that will be leaving office in a year. Still, when it comes to terror and the war in Iraq, they give President George W. Bush considerable credit.
"The president got the big decision of his presidency right," Rudy Giuliani said. He meant the decision to "go on the offense" against terror. John McCain agreed, Mitt Romney agreed, Mike Huckabee agreed - albeit with slightly less enthusiasm - and Fred Thompson noted that this was a "global war." Afterward, the five began arguing with Paul, a Republican candidate who blamed American foreign policy for inviting and encouraging terror.
Advertisement
Paul rejects the "isolationist" label, but it's difficult to describe his positions in another manner. In Iowa he took 10 percent of the votes, way ahead of Giuliani's 3 percent and slightly behind McCain's 13 percent. No one believes he can win, but nevertheless in the final quarter of 2007, he raised the amazing sum of nearly $20 million, allowing him to remain in the race. The vast majority of the money came from hundreds of thousands of people who each gave less than $100. Most of them are young - allowing Paul to compare his draw to that of Democratic candidate Barack Obama - and very devoted. In New Hampshire, a state whose citizens have a strong tendency to believe that that government is best which governs least, and are among the most anti-tax people in the country, Paul hopes to do well - at least as well as he did in Iowa.
The most interesting political question about Paul concerns whether he will run as an independent after he loses the Republican nod. Paul refuses to promise that he won't, and one can already hear how would frame an independent run: "The investment was made by the supporters," he notes. They gave the money, they'll decide what to do with it. In other words, if they demand it, he will have no choice but to go forward.
Paul made time for a brief conversation with Haaretz a few days ago, after an appearance at Des Moines University, in Iowa. He spoke to students before holding a short press conference, and then stopped to talk about Israel a little. Much has already been written about Paul and Israel. Some have accused him of being anti-Israel and have found anti-Semitic sentiments among some of his supporters. A few of Paul's statements have teetered on the thin line between sharp criticism and dangerous conspiracy theories. For example: "The assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the Iraq war."
Representatives of Israel in the U.S., who make a point of maintaining contact with all of the candidates' campaign headquarters, have not bothered much with Paul. What could they say to a candidate whose supporters believe that Israel plays a central role in trying to provoke a U.S.-Iran war? How much schmoozing could they do with those who want the U.S. to get out of the Middle East?
Still, Paul is polite to the Israeli nudnik attempting to trip him up: "I'm not anti-Israel in any way," he says. Paul has no problem with the idea of America's maintaining good trade relations with Israel, or with with seeing Israeli tourists in the U.S. and vice versa. The suspicions about him, he assumes, come from the fact that he opposes economic and military aid to Israel. But, he stresses, it's not just Israel, it's any country. In fact, Paul explains, Israel only stands to gain from his position. "It's a good deal," he says, since when aid to Israel stops so would the aid to all the Arab states currently enjoying American patronage. It is true that Israel receives more than any of the Arab states, but, Paul notes, it receives less than they do put together. "The enemies would also be denied the money," he says.
"I believe in the sovereignty of Israel," Paul says. If Israel stops receiving U.S. aid, then it could do whatever it wants. If it wants peace, then it will make peace. In any event, Paul is certain that "It will do quite well." Israel doesn't really "need us."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942091.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417
Firebrand Republican Congressman Ron Paul, the only GOP presidential candidate opposing the war in Iraq, also made big gains in the closing day of the campaign before the primary election. In both the Republican and Democratic races, five percent of likely voters said they remained undecided about whom they would support.
This is the last of five three–day tracking news reports that have been released in advance of today’s New Hampshire primary.
The GOP and Democratic three–day rolling tracking surveys were conducted using Zogby International’s live operator call center in Upstate New York. The GOP rolling sample included 859 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.4 percentage points. The Democratic rolling sample included 862 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.4 percentage points. Both tracking survey samples were taken between Jan. 5-7, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul on Leno ('Tonight Show') last night
From: "Karl"
Subject: Fwd: did you see Leno yet???
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:37:35 -0500 (EST)
Begin forwarded message:
Holy cow. No wonder Fox is scared of this man.
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KpsvXdXKmHA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/2#2518
An Appeal of Faith to US President Bush: Bomb Iran
Please, Mr. President: Don't walk out of the White House in January 2009 without having stopped Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Don't leave the fate of Israel and the West hanging in the balance
US President George W. Bush is arriving in Israel today for a three-day visit - and the timing could not be more crucial. The clock is ticking, and Iran is moving inexorably towards building the Bomb.
In the article below, I appeal to the President - from one man of faith to another - to take military action against the Ayatollahs in order to stop their atomic pursuits.
For if Tehran is allowed to start producing nuclear weapons, they will spread nuclear terror far and wide, placing the future of Israel - and all of Western civilization - in doubt.
Mr. President, the world's fate is in your hands
by Michael Freund
Dear President Bush,
Welcome to Israel. It has been 10 years since your last visit, and your return to the Holy Land could not have come at a more critical time.
There is a storm gathering in the region, one that threatens to engulf not only Israel, but the United States too. Freedom and democracy, liberty and tolerance, everything we hold dear is now in jeopardy, as the Tyrant of Teheran continues to march forward down the road toward Armageddon.
The clock is ticking, yet no one wishes to hear. The countdown to a nuclear Iran has begun, and with each passing day the nightmare scenario draws closer to becoming a reality.
Mr. President, I am gripped by a sense of fear. I fear for the future of Israel and the entire Jewish people, as the would-be Hitler of Persia readies to do battle against us with the most horrific of weapons. I fear for the future of the West, because few seem to appreciate the enormity of the danger that is looming just over the horizon.
And I fear for the future of the world, because if Iran's fundamentalists get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it will only be a matter of time before they share their new arsenal with their terrorist allies abroad.
Hence, Mr. President, I am writing to you because I am convinced that you do understand the gravity of the situation, and I pray in my heart that you will not let it stand.
I appeal to you now, not as a newspaper columnist nor as a political analyst, but as one man of faith to another: Please bomb Iran and dismantle its nuclear weapons program, before it is too late.
I KNOW you believe, as I do, that it is the Lord God of Hosts Who guides the destiny of men and of nations. And I know you believe, just as I do, that He has raised you up and placed you in a position of power precisely at this decisive moment, in order to serve as His faithful instrument in this world.
The God of history has chosen you, Mr. President, just as He did Winston Churchill, and He has entrusted you with a sacred mandate: to save the world from the designs of a madman.
Less than 1,000 miles to the east of us, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is building an Iranian Auschwitz. Instead of firing up gas chambers, he is installing centrifuges. And in place of Zyklon-B gas, his agent of choice will be uranium. The threat to the existence of the Jewish people, and that of the entire Western world, is no less dire than it was six decades ago in Europe.
If the ayatollahs are allowed to start producing nuclear weapons, they will spread nuclear terror far and wide, placing the future of Western civilization in doubt. Indeed, the Persian executioner has already made it abundantly clear that he plans to wipe Israel and its millions of Jews off the map. And he has also made it equally manifest that the West's turn is next.
The answer to this challenge lies not in the halls of the United Nations nor in the capitals of Europe. And we cannot rely on Russia or China to do what is right for the sake of humanity.
Here in Israel, our own leaders are weak. They have lost their way, and they are no longer anchored in faith. As we saw two years ago in the Lebanon war, they stumble about as though walking in darkness, seemingly oblivious to the danger that stalks us all.
THERE IS only one person now, Mr. President, with the ability to stop this terrifying scenario from coming to pass, and I believe that person is you. The mighty arm of the United States, stretched out in faith and in force, can stop the menace of a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality.
Mr. Bush, I think of you often, and when I do, I am guided in faith to the sixth chapter of the Book of Judges in the Bible. When Israel's existence was threatened by the Midianites, God called upon Gideon, son of Joash, to step forward and take command, and to wage war against the aggressors. But Gideon remained uncertain of what to do, wondering whether God had forsaken His people and if war was truly the right course. To this the Lord responded clearly and unequivocally: "Go with this, your strength, and you will save Israel… for have I not sent thee?"
Mr. President, that message is as compelling today as it was then, and I believe it is clearly directed to you too.
The decision you face is not an easy one, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise. But in the case of Iran, there can be no room for retreat, or for shrinking from the task at hand. The stakes are simply too great.
SURE, THE critics will try to tear you down, just as they have been doing since the day you were elected. They will heap scorn on you, call you a warmonger, and worse, and denigrate you and your family for many, many years to come.
But please don't allow them to deter you or to drive you to despair. You know as well as I do that the only verdict that counts, the only one that truly matters, is the one that is penned in Heaven, by He who calls out to us each and every day and declares: "I am the Lord, and there is none else" (Isaiah chap. 45).
Mr. President, in 12 months' time you will leave office. In the greater scheme of things, I am convinced that your legacy will depend largely on the decisions you make in the coming few months regarding Iran.
I urge you, I plead with you: Don't walk out of the White House in January 2009 without having stopped Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Don't leave the fate of Israel and the West hanging in the balance.
Of course, regardless of what you decide, God will save His people Israel. Deliverance comes from Him, and Him alone. But each of us must do our part to help bring it about.
You have been entrusted from Above with a special opportunity, with a distinctive role to play. It is a tremendous responsibility that the Creator has placed upon your shoulders, but it is also a sacred mandate.
I DO NOT envy the dilemma that you face. But you have been put in a unique position to bless Israel, and through it, all of humanity, by removing the nuclear sword from the hand of the Persian executioner.
I, along with many others, will be praying for you, and I hope that you take this message to heart.
Be strong and of good courage. And may the spirit of the Lord be upon you.
God bless.
--- from the January 9 Jerusalem Post
Michael Freund seems to be a crony of Netanyahu... See the third bullet point down (and the links associated with such) at the following URL from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Freund
Here is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavei_Israel | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Bush strongly warns Iran on naval clash |
| Bush strongly warns Iran on naval clash
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent1 hour, 4 minutes ago
President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note. He told Israel to dismantle unauthorized settlement outposts and demanded that the Palestinians halt rocket attacks from areas controlled by Hamas Islamic militants.
Bush, on his first visit as president to Israel, acknowledged widespread doubts about whether he can break through decades of distrust to achieve his goal of a major peace agreement by the end of his presidency in January, 2009.
"I'm under no illusions," Bush said at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "It's going to be hard work."
Unpopular at home, Bush got an extremely warm welcome in staunch ally Israel. With his presidency slipping away and skepticism about the seriousness of his commitment to Mideast peacemaking, Bush hopes an accord would improve a legacy tarnished by an unpopular Iraq war, economic anxieties and other problems.
Already a troubling issue for Bush, Iran jumped back into the spotlight Sunday when Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials said Iran threatened to explode the vessels, but the incident ended peacefully.
Bush said "all options are on the table" to protect U.S. ships. He said the Iranian boats "were very provocative and it was a dangerous gesture on their part. ... And they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple. And my advice to them is don't do it."
Bush already was on the defensive about Iran because a new U.S. intelligence report contradicted White House assertions that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon. The National Intelligence Estimate found Iran halted its program in 2003 under international pressure.
Iran is a particularly sensitive subject here because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, and Israelis wonder whether Bush has the resolve to deal with Tehran, especially in light of the new intelligence.
Saying he still regarded Iran as a dangerous threat, Bush said, "We'll continue to keep the pressure on the Iranians. And I believe we can solve this problem diplomatically."
After a red-carpet airport arrival in Tel Aviv, Bush flew by helicopter to Jerusalem for talks with Olmert and Israeli President Shimon Peres, who cautioned that peace negotiations "may be slow, but the progress can be sweet."
Olmert said Israel would not accept a peace agreement unless there is a halt to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, controlled by Islamic militants dedicated to Israel's destruction. The U.S.-backed Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, wields authority in the West Bank but not in Gaza, meaning the Palestinian population is effectively split between two governing entities.
"There will be no peace unless terror is stopped," Olmert told Bush. "And terror will have to be stopped everywhere. He said that "Gaza must be part of the package and that as long as there will be terror from Gaza, it will be very, very hard to reach any peaceful understanding between us and the Palestinians."
The threat to Israel was underscored Wednesday when Palestinian militants in the Gaza bombarded southern Israel with rocket and mortar fire.
On Thursday, Bush will fly to the West Bank and question Abbas about just that.
"As to the rockets, my first question is going to be to President Abbas, `What do you intend to do about them?'" Bush said.
"Because ultimately, in order for there to be the existence of a state, there has to be a firm commitment by a Palestinian government to deal with extremists and terrorists who might be willing to use Palestinian territory as a launching pad into Israel."
Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, sounded pessimistic about Hamas joining the peace process.
"Nobody, unfortunately, is very optimistic that they will make that choice," Hadley said. "Hamas came to power in election; it will have to submit itself at some point to the people of Gaza in terms of their approval of the job they have done. And at this point, it's a pretty depressing situation in Hamas — in Gaza for all those people who live there."
The administration set low expectations for Bush's eight-day Mideast journey, which also includes stops in Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Bush said it would be unproductive for him to "butt in and actually dictate the end result of the agreement."
But that did not stop him from telling Israel what to do about settlements.
"In terms of outposts, yes, they ought to go," Bush said. "Look, I mean, we've been talking about it for four years. The agreement was, `Get rid of outposts, illegal outposts,' and they ought to go.'"
Israel has established some 120 settlements in the West Bank, which are home to about 270,000 Israelis. In addition, there are more than 100 outposts, most of which are tiny encampments — built by hardline activists without authorization — meant to serve as the seeds of future settlements.
The U.S.-backed peace plan known as the "road map" calls on Israel to remove dozens of outposts and freeze settlement activity, including construction in existing settlements.
Olmert repeated his pledge not to build any new settlements, but indicated Israel will continue building in major settlement blocs and east Jerusalem.
Bush was silent on Olmert's claims to the settlement blocs and east Jerusalem. This was disappointing to the Palestinians, who say all settlements are illegal.
The Palestinians want all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem for their future state. Israel wants to keep east Jerusalem and the large settlements in the West Bank under a final peace agreement.
Bush offered support to Israel on one of the core issues in the conflict. "The alliance between our two nations helps guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state," Bush said.
Bush has referred to Israel as Jewish state in the past but the reference — here in the region — had special significance. Palestinians oppose the term, saying it rules out the right of Palestinian refugees to return to lost properties in Israel. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
