Here we go: 'Senior Israeli official' slams 'Obama's Mossad lies'
A 'senior Israeli official' has slammed '
Obama's Mossad lies,' a reference to an
article in Bloomberg View by @JoshRogin and @Eli Lake. This is from the first link.
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the
Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them
on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior
Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between
Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what
was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been
falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source
added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret
meeting must not leak out.”
Pardo denied on Thursday the report – which was carried by Bloomberg news – claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the need to press new sanctions on Iran.
Wow.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Yuval Steinitz
Army Radio: @JoshRogin @EliLake story is Barack's revenge
Israel's Army Radio reports that the story by @JoshRogin and @EliLake in Bloomberg's that many are (falsely) interpreting as showing a split between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad on Iran sanctions is
President Obama's revenge for Netanyahu's invitation to address a joint session of Congress.
Sources in Jerusalem told Army Radio Thursday that the story reported in Bloomberg about
disagreement between Netanyahu and the Mossad regarding sanctions on
Iran is US President Barack Obama administration's “revenge” for
Netanyahu's invitation to address Congress.
The invitation was extended by Congress without consulting Obama.
Sorry, but I don't buy this one. If the White House wanted to plant a story, it would have gone to Jeffrey Goldberg or Tom Friedman.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
Breaking: Full statement from Mossad head on Iran
The above was just posted on
TwitLonger by Israel Radio reporter Chico Menashe. Here's my translation:
Reaction of the Mossad Chairman to the new crisis with Washington:
On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators' request, and with the Prime Minister's approval.
Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.
The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using 'carrots and sticks,' and the 'sticks' are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side.
The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term 'hand grenade' with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the 'sticks' that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.
The Mossad Chairman explicitly pointed out that the agreement that is being reached with Iran is bad, and may lead to a regional arms race.
Welcome to Washington Prime Minister Netanyahu.
UPDATE 4:21 PM
Previous posts on this story
here and
here.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
And it looks like I was right
In an
earlier post reviewing an article by @JoshRogin and @EliLake, I argued that the Mossad never recommended not putting additional sanctions on Iran.
It looks like I was right.
Developing....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
No, the Mossad didn't say new Iran sanctions are a bad thing
@JoshRogin and @EliLake report on disagreements between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad about the impact of new US sanctions on Iran. Many are taking the report as a reason (excuse?) to vote against the Kirk-Menendez bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran.
But notice what's left unsaid.
Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican
senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine
support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat
Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations
falter.
Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --
supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- is
pushing for his own legislation on the Iran nuclear deal,
which doesn't contain sanctions but would require that the Senate vote
on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva. The White House is opposed to
both the Kirk-Menendez bill and the Corker bill; it doesn't want
Congress to meddle at all in the delicate multilateral diplomacy with
Iran.
Israeli intelligence officials have been briefing both Obama
administration officials and visiting U.S. senators about their concerns
on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would increase sanctions on Iran only
if the Iranian government can't strike a deal with the so-called P5+1
countries by a June 30 deadline or fails to live up to its commitments.
Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister’s office has been supporting the
Kirk-Menendez bill, as does
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, ahead of what will be a
major foreign policy confrontation between the executive and legislative
branches of the U.S. government in coming weeks.
Evidence of the Israeli rift surfaced Wednesday when Secretary of
State John Kerry said that an unnamed Israeli intelligence official had
said the new sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade into the
process.” But an initial warning from Israeli Mossad leaders was also
delivered last week in Israel to a Congressional delegation -- including
Corker, Graham, McCain and fellow Republican John Barrasso; Democratic
Senators Joe Donnelly and Tim Kaine; and independent Angus King --
according to lawmakers who were present and staff members who were
briefed on the exchange. When Menendez (who was not on the trip) heard
about the briefing, he quickly phoned Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron
Dermer to seek clarification.
Barrasso told us Tuesday that different parts of the Israeli
government told the delegation different things. “We met with a number
of government officials from many different parts of the government.
There’s not a uniform view there,” he said.
In a Wednesday morning hearing on Iran at the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Corker talked about the Israel visit and said that
his bill (not the Kirk-Menendez bill) was acceptable to all the Israeli
officials they spoke with. “Some of us were in Israel this weekend over
this very same issue. We have heard no one, no one, say that if Congress
were to weigh in on the final agreement it would in any way destabilize
the negotiations,” Corker said.
Note that the Mossad is
not saying 'don't pass new sanctions.' It's saying 'if you do pass new sanctions, Iran is likely to walk away from the talks. If one accepts the proposition that Iran is using the talks as
cover to continue its nuclear weapons development program, Iran walking away from the talks would probably not be such a bad thing.
Moreover, as Rogin and Lake admit, no one really knows for sure what Iran would do if the Kirk-Menendez bill is passed. If Iran walks away from the talks, it risks isolating itself in the international community. While Russia and China might prevent the Security Council from acting against Iran, if Iran is isolated, it is less likely that Israel - for example - would be inhibited from acting. After all, the West would no longer be able to argue that we have to give negotiations a chance. There would be no negotiations.
Iran's argument that new sanctions would violate the 'spirit of the negotiations'
ought to fall on deaf ears. Iran has violated any spirit that ever existed.
Saying that passing Kirk-Menendez might cause Iran to walk away from the talks is a no-brainer. But it also might not. And even if it did cause Iran to walk away, that might not be such a bad outcome.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
FBI spent years investigating AIPAC
Based on a 27-page document that is still under court seal, Eli Lake reports that the FBI spent years investigating AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the pre-eminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, partly out of suspicion that there was a
second Jonathan Pollard who had spied on the United States.
Another factor that has led counterintelligence officials to suspect Israeli intelligence-gathering is the case of Jonathan Pollard, who sold U.S. secrets to the Israelis while he served as a Navy intelligence analyst 25 years ago. He is serving a life sentence in a federal prison in North Carolina.
This month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a public plea for Pollard's release before the Knesset, Israel's parliament. U.S. Jewish organizations on the same day signed a letter, along with other religious leaders, asking that Pollard, 56, be released.
Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the scrutiny of Mr. Rosen reflects the belief among some in the intelligence community that Pollard must have worked with someone else, because much of the intelligence he stole was not related to his areas of expertise.
"I believe this goes back to this notion that there was a second Pollard and it was bigger than Pollard," Mr. Foxman said. "I am not sure that to this day they have given up this fantasy notion. I would rather they pursue this, come up with nothing, rather than not be given the opportunity to pursue it and saying, 'if only they let us, we would find something.'"
Mr. Revell said the U.S. government had a "rather vigorous discussion with the Israelis" after the Pollard arrest. He added that he considers the Pollard affair to be a "one-off" event and not part of a pattern of Israelis recruiting Americans. He also said there were no ties that turned up connecting Pollard to pro-Israel groups such as AIPAC.
"We do not consider the Israelis a national security threat to the United States," Mr. Revell said. "What we do want to do is to make sure that some individual entities or individuals do not become overzealous, that in their desire to help Israel do not cross the line and take actions that are detrimental to U.S. security or intelligence."
It's a fascinating story and you should
read the whole thing. The bottom line is that the FBI spent a lot of time, money and resources investigating AIPAC, and all they had to show for it is a plea bargain with someone they used for a sting operation.
Labels: AIPAC, Eli Lake, Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Steve Rosen
Stephen Walt's conspiracy theory
Stephen Walt attacks
Jeffrey Goldberg for disputing Walt's claim that there is no Arab lobby (or no effective Arab lobby as he revises his claim to say
here). Eli Lake notes that Walt is
incapable of distinguishing between opinion journalism and lobbying, mistaking the former for the latter (Hat Tip:
Soccer Dad).
While Lake is undoubtedly correct that Walt has a problem distinguishing between something that is very public and something that is largely very private, there is a much simpler answer to each of the
claims (there are eight of them) that Walt makes.
When voters overwhelmingly support a policy position, that position's coinciding with an interest represented by lobbyists is a redundancy. When voters overwhelmingly oppose a position and that position gets a hearing anyway, that's a lobby's influence. In the case of Israel, the American people are
overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Jewish state both in absolute terms and in terms relative to the Arab sheikhdoms whose bidding is done by Walt and his ilk.
An astounding 93 percent of those polled say the United States should be concerned about the security of the state of Israel. A majority—54 percent—say the U.S. should be “very concerned” about Israel’s security. Virtually the same number care that their elected representatives be pro-Israel. When asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel?,” 53 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate they saw as pro-Israel, 24 percent less likely. Even more striking, the same number—53 percent—say they could not vote for a candidate if he were anti-Israel, even if that candidate agreed with them on most other issues.
There is an Israel lobby in the United States, and it's not insidious at all. It's called
the American people.
In fact, if anything, it can safely be said that were it not for the Arab lobby and their patrons' control of a large portion of the World's fossil fuels, no one other than Barack Obama would and the Muslim world would give a damn about the 'Palestinians.'
Labels: Arab lobby, Eli Lake, Israel Lobby, Jeffrey Goldberg, Stephen Walt
