This could yet be President Hussein Obama's second biggest foreign policy 'accomplishment'... after warming US relations with the Communist dictatorship in Cuba.
Several years ago, we heard a lot about the on-again-off-again sale of the S-300 anti-missile system by Russia to Iran. Now, with the 'framework agreement' between the P 5+1 and Iran, Russia has announced that the sale is on again. Russia is removing a ban on the sale that was imposed by Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, because after all, 'everyone knows' that the sanctions against Iran are going to be lifted.
The Russian foreign ministry says that the sale of the S-300 to Iran doesn't threaten Israel or other regional countries.
No, of course it doesn't. It just makes an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities that much harder to carry out.
Here in Jerusalem, the government is furious, blaming the sale (correctly) on the 'framework agreement.'
Cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz said the framework agreement helped
legitimize Iran and cleared the way for Monday's announcement by Russia.
"This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from
the emerging nuclear deal," he said. Steinitz added that the arms deal
shows that Iran plans to use the relief from economic sanctions to buy
weapons, not improve the living conditions of its people.
Why would anyone have thought otherwise?
In the meantime, US Secretary of State John Kerry is said to be 'raising objections' - but not 'deeply concerned' which is a different level altogether and is largely reserved for Israeli actions - about the deal.
Secretary of State John Kerry is raising objections with Moscow over a plan to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
The
White House says Kerry made the U.S. opposition clear in a phone call
to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (SEHR'-gay LAHV'-rahf). The
call came as Lavrov argued that a preliminary agreement over Iran's
nuclear program made a 2010 ban on sending missiles to Iran no longer
necessary.
White House press
secretary Josh Earnest indicated the move could endanger plans to
ultimately lift sanctions on Iran as part of a final nuclear deal. He
says unity and coordination with nations like Russia is critical to the
success of the negotiations.
The
agreement is supposed to be finalized by June 30. There is no firm
agreement yet on how or when to lift the international sanctions on
Iran.
But Kerry's chief negotiator and military tactician, the 'brilliant' Wendy Sherman, says that a military strike on Iran wouldn't succeed anyway.
Sherman told the reporters that a military operation against Iran would
not stop its nuclear program. "A military strike by Israel or the U.S.
would only set back the nuclear program by two years," she said. "You
can't bomb their nuclear know-how, and they will rebuild everything. The
alternatives are there but the best option is a diplomatic negotiated
solution."
Well, yeah, you assume that they have the resources with which to rebuild and they are left alone to do so. But why would anyone assume that to be true?
In comments likely to irritate Washington, Lavrov said the United
States had made the same mistake with Islamic State as it had with
al-Qaida, which emerged in the 1980s when U.S.-backed Islamist
insurgents were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
"I think Western politicians are already realizing the growing
and fast-spreading threat of terrorism," Lavrov said, referring
to Islamic State advances in Syria and Iraq.
"And they will soon have to choose what is more important: a (Syrian)
regime change to satisfy personal antipathies, risking deterioration
of the situation beyond any control, or finding pragmatic ways to unite
efforts against the common threat."
Russia has been Assad's most prominent international backer in the
civil war that broke out in early 2011 and in which the U.S. and the
West, as well as many Gulf and Arab states, backed the rebels seeking
to oust him.
Islamic State has now emerged as the strongest rebel faction,
capturing large areas of both Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate
on the territory it controls.
"At the start the Americans and some Europeans rather welcomed
(Islamic State) on the basis it was fighting against Bashar al-Assad.
They welcomed it as they welcomed the mujahideen who later created
al-Qaida, and then al-Qaida struck like a boomerang on Sept. 11, 2001,"
Lavrov said.
"The same thing is happening now," he said, adding that the U.S. had
only started fighting the group after it began rampaging across Iraq
and approaching the capital Baghdad.
The U.S. has conducted more than 90 air strikes against Islamic State
in Iraq, and Washington is considering taking its fight against
the militants to neighboring Syria.
Damascus said on Monday it must be involved in coordinating any air strikes on its territory.
Backing this stance, Lavrov said: "If... there are plans to combat
Islamic State on the territory of Syria and other countries, it is
indispensable that it is done in cooperation with legitimate authorities
(there)."
Having long been denounced by Washington and others for protecting Assad, Lavrov made clear that Russia now feels vindicated.
"At one time we were accused of supporting Bashar al-Assad
and preventing his overthrow.... Now no one is talking about that," he
said.
The Americans and Europeans were now starting to acknowledge "the
truth they have long recognized in private conversations: namely that
for the region and for the interests of the West, the main threat is not
the regime of Bashar al-Assad but the possible threat of seizure
of power by terrorists in Syria and other states of the region."
Lavrov doesn't deserve to say 'I told you so.'
The answer to this was not to keep Bashar in power. It was to back the rebels before they became Islamist. Unfortunately, that possibility is long since gone, and there may be no choice but to back Bashar.
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton describes sending US Secretary of State John FN Kerry to negotiate with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavroc is like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife.
Let's go to the videotape.
Maybe that explains why Kerry is such a lousy negotiator with both Iran and the 'Palestinians.'
US Secretary of State John Kerry holds up a pair of Idaho potatoes as a
gift for Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, standing right, at the
start of their meeting at the US Ambassador's residence in Paris,
France, Monday (Hat Tip: Jack W).
Kemp: Agreement on Syrian chem weapons 'not realistic'
I am sure that many of you remember Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, whose testimony before the United Nations 'human rights council' (after the Goldstone commission refused to hear him) was the beginning of the end for the credibility of the Goldstone Report in the international arena.
Kemp has told the Jerusalem Post that the US-Russia plan to force Syria to turn over its chemical weapons is 'not realistic.' Here's hoping Matt Lee asks the State Department about that assessment at Monday's briefing.
The agreement reached between the US and Russia for the destruction
of chemical weapons in the possession of the Assad regime is fraught
with difficulty and danger and, in the best case scenario, would likely
end up with a token show of disarmament, Col. Richard Kemp, former
commander of British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Speaking to the Post by
phone, Kemp, who also served in the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee
and Cabinet Office Briefing Room, said: “I think it’s extremely
difficult to do something like this during an active conflict, during a
war. I think it’ll take a very large amount of time, with a significant
amount of military protection, so that the inspectors can be as safe as
they can be. That aspect will present huge challenges. Which country,
first of all, will provide the scientists who will take these risks and
the military forces to back them up? It’s a very dangerous situation.”
...
“Secondly, to get verification in this kind of situation, I would say,
is impossible,” he stated. “It would be very easy for President Assad to
hide or remove out of the country significant quantities of chemical
weapons.
What we might end up seeing is a token show of disarmament. I don’t think it is realistically feasible.”
In turn, it would end up harming regional – and global – security, the former military commander warned.
Assad’s
position would be strengthened by a more positive international stance
towards him, “combined with very active Russian support and American
collusion with that support,” Kemp said. Iran’s position, too, would be
strengthened significantly, he continued, as the value of American
deterrence “appears to be degraded as a result of this, and Iran’s own
position is obviously strengthened by what will be its closer relations
with Russia.”
This spells bad news from Israel’s perspective, Kemp
said, adding nonetheless that “Israel appears to be the only reliable
power in the region. America’s power and American deterrence is reduced.
Israel remains the one reliable power that the world can count on to
intervene if the situation gets too dangerous.”
Russia has accused the United States of 'justifying terrorism' in Syria due to comments made in a State Department briefing by Victoria Nuland.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the United States on Wednesday of justifying terrorism against the Syrian government and berated Western nations he said had not condemned attacks that killed top members of Syrian President Bashar Assad's inner circle.
Referring to what he said were comments by US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland indicating such attacks were not surprising given the Syrian government's conduct, Lavrov said, "This is a direct justification of terrorism."
Maybe we need to push that re-set button again, eh Barack?
State Department denies asking Russia to threaten Iran
The State Department is denying a story that appeared in a Russia newspaper on Wednesday that claimed that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to warn Iran that the upcoming P-5+1 talks are its last chance to avoid war. This is from the first link.
"The secretary did not send a warning to the Iranians through (Russian) Foreign Minister (Sergei) Lavrov," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters when asked about a report on Wednesday in the Moscow daily Kommersant.
Asked if Clinton had used the word "last" in talks with Lavrov on Monday, Nuland replied: "She didn't use that adjective in her meeting."
...
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said he could neither confirm nor deny the information published in Kommersant. He did not elaborate.
Of course, it's not their last chance. There is no way President Obama will attack Iran before or after the elections. Of course, what that 'maniac' Netanyahu might do is a different story.
Iran's last chance? Report: War to occur before year's end if P-5+1 talks fail
The Russian online newspaper Kommersant reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sent a warning to Iran, via Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, that the upcoming P-5+1 talks are Iran's last chance to avoid a military strike. This is from a Google translation of the Kommersant article.
Scheduled for April talks with Iran Six of international mediators - the last chance for Tehran to avoid war. According to "Kommersant", please convey this message to the Iranian authorities came to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Their talks were held Monday in New York immediately after the meeting of the UN Security Council. It also cleared up and the fate of Syria: it is unlikely to threaten intervention, while high threat of war with Iran. Moscow, as it turned out, "b", for this war is already prepared.
Speaking about the probability of drawing Israel and the U.S. attack on Iran, diplomats, including Russian, now instead of an indefinite "if" use specific "when." "The invasion will happen before the end of the year - said" Y "on the eve of the UN Security Council meeting of senior Foreign Ministry. - Israel, in effect, blackmail Obama. Put it in an interesting position: either he would support a war, or he will lose the support (of the influential Jewish lobby. - "b"). "
In other words, Netanyahu told Obama that he will not wait for after the elections to attack Iran, and Obama can either join him or be dragged into a war not on his own terms and have it spoil his reelection. Plausible? Sure. But at the end of the day, it's Obama's decision to join or not to join. The 'Israel Lobby' (how come no one ever talks about the much more powerful Saudi lobby, which has just as great an interest in seeing Iran stopped?) has nothing to do with this. And what the Russians really fear is... Iranian refugees.
However, publicly calling for peace, Russia, as the "Y", just in case Iran is prepared for war. "We have calculated the action in case of war with Iran. In this case there is a mobilization readiness" - assured the "b" Defense Ministry official, insisted on anonymity. The danger he sees is that of Iran's borders with Russia, Azerbaijan, where "not yet come to a time-Karabakh," gush a huge number of refugees. Above all, says the military, fighting in Iran "could complicate the already difficult situation in the Caucasus." "You may have to close any gaps. And this is the real lives of our soldiers," - concluded the official.
The presence of Moscow's action plan in case of Iran will be hit, "Y" confirmed a senior diplomat who participated in its preparation. According to him, the corresponding program is designed for inter-ministerial committee and the protection of Russian citizens. Which of the Russian state officials worked on a document and how it is, an employee of the Foreign Ministry refused to tell. The paper explained the diplomat, who has stamped "top secret".
You think they fear another Chechnia? Maybe.
The article also claims that the US is - at least temporarily - going to weaken the pressure on Syria.
However, in Moscow, a temporary weakening of the pressure on Syria tend to explain another factor. "For the U.S. it is now important to get out of Syrian decent situation - said the source" b "in the Foreign Ministry. - Americans understand that Israel will strike Iran. A two wars in the region - this is too much."
I think it's also a recognition of the fact that for Russia - which has naval bases in Syria - Bashar al-Assad is more important than the Mullahcracy in Iran.
Yes, on the whole, this story sounds plausible. So why the little boy crying wolf at the top? Because I don't believe Obama is really going to attack Iran. But I do believe that Israel will. Either this story is real, or Netanyahu and Obama agreed that Obama would tell Iran, "I can't control that maniac Netanyahu any more so you'd better stop it or else he will attack you."
Earlier on Monday, it was reported that it is unlikely that a new round of sanctions will pass the United Nations Security Council because it would be vetoed by Russia and China.
"The reality is that a new substantive step forward on sanctions will be very difficult," a senior Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
"The last set of sanctions were very substantive, and essentially the next stage would be to go into the oil and gas sector," he said. "If you get into the oil and gas sector, then obviously there will be opposition from China in particular, but also from Russia. More so China."
China depends heavily on oil exports from Iran, the world's fifth biggest crude exporter, to fuel its growing economy.
But while China may be the stronger opponent of sanctions, it is Russia that has gone a step further and is trying to take the military option off the table.
"This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said when asked about reports that Israel planned a military strike against Iran.
Lavrov said there could be no military resolution to the Iranian nuclear problem and said the conflicts in Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, had led to human suffering and high numbers of casualties.
A raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would be likely to provoke Tehran into hugely disruptive retaliatory measures in the Gulf that would sever shipping routes and disrupt the flow of oil and gas to export markets, political analysts believe.
...
"There is no military solution to the Iranian nuclear problem as there is no military solution to any other problem in the modern world," said Lavrov, who has served as foreign minister since 2004.
"This is confirmed to us every day when we see how the problems of the conflicts around Iran are being resolved -- whether Iraq or Afghanistan or what is happening in other countries in the region. Military intervention only leads to many times more deaths and human suffering."
He sounds remarkably like Barack Obama, doesn't he? And that's precisely the problem. Since Obama came to power in the US and 're-set' American relations with Russia, the world has gone back to being bipolar with countries falling under either the American or Russian aegis. That was not the case from the fall of Communism in 1989 until Obama's election in 2008.
That leaves the West with only one way to try to stop Iran: Sanctions imposed by the West without the UN. And that's most unlikely to work.
"The UN is important because it's the international community," a diplomat told Reuters. "But you're not going to stop Iran's nuclear program with lowest common denominator sanctions by the UN Security Council."
"The EU, the US and others will have to wield the sledgehammer with national sanctions and drag the UN Security Council after them," he said.
Given the amount of trade that the EU continues to do with Iran under the current sanctions, does anyone really see that happen? Is it any wonder that Israel is talking about acting unilaterally for the first time since 2007?
The Middle East 'quartet' met over dinner for two hours and 15 minutes in Washington on Monday night and ended without making any progress. They did not even issue a statement.
The Quartet wants to find a way to resume talks and to avert a diplomatic showdown expected at the United Nations in September, when the Palestinians may seek wider international recognition for a Palestinian state.
"There are still gaps that are impeding progress," said a senior Obama administration official who briefed reporters after the meeting on condition of anonymity. "Realistically ... more work needs to be done to close those gaps."
"There is a time and a place for public statements and there is a time and a place for private diplomacy," he added. "We need to do more work, privately, quietly, with the parties, in order to see if we can't close these gaps."
The official declined to discuss the nature of the gaps and he said the Quartet perceives "an urgent need to appeal to the parties to overcome current obstacles and find a way to resume direct negotiations without delay or preconditions."
Given Israel's expectations from this meeting, I suppose we ought to be pleased with this result.
UPDATE 11:22 AM
So here's the bad news. Israel Radio reports that the quartet will meet again on Tuesday in an effort to reach an agreed statement, and that all parties present voiced approval for President Obama's call for a 'Palestinian state' on the '1967 lines' with 'agreed swaps.'
The Middle East 'quartet' will meet on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich in February.
The German government says the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers will meet on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich next month. The Quartet is made up of the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia.
German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said Friday the quartet will hold a high-level meeting during the Feb. 4-6 conference in Munich, a major annual forum for defense and security policy officials. Seibert says US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton will attend.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
