Posted By Blake Hounshell Share

For Iran watchers, the week or so leading up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington has been a busy one.

First, on Friday, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards report came out on Iran's nuclear program, conveniently giving fodder for all sides of the bomb-Iran debate. The IAEA report, as an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security describes, shows that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program, including in its deeply buried Fordow plant, but having trouble with next-generation  centrifuge technology that could make its breakout to a nuclear weapon much faster. (See also the New York Times, which concludes, "The report is likely to inflame the debate over whether Iran is nearing what Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, calls entering a 'zone of immunity.'")

Also on Friday, the Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have not changed their view that "there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb." The Los Angeles Times ran a similar story a day earlier. (In his Friday sermon, Iran's supreme leader seemed to confirm this assessment, calling nuclear weapons a "sin.")

Then, on Monday, both the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press reported on the tense negotiations between Israel and the United States over what to do about all this. The Israelis are apparently "fuming" that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly warned against an Israeli strike on Iran's facilities. Last week's visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon reportedly did not go well precisely for this reason. ("We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served the Iranians," one Israeli official told Haaretz, a comment sure to infuriate the White House.)

The Israelis do not plan to tell their American counterparts if they do decide to attack Iran, the AP's Kimberly Dozier reported, a move a U.S. intelligence official interpreted for her as Israel wanting to give the United States plausible deniability in the event of a strike. But another way to look at it is as one more sign that Israel and the United States simply do not trust one another.

The key issue under discussion is what the appropriate "red lines" are -- Iranian actions that would trigger a military response by Israel or the United States. For Israel, the bar is lower, but nebulous: Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about Iran soon entering a "zone of immunity" that will make an attack impossible. For the United States, the big no-no is weaponization. The Israelis believe that waiting until Iran decides to build a weapon is too late, but it's not clear they have the capability to take out Iran's nuclear sites (read: Ferdow) on their own.

The Journal suggests that Obama is coming Netanyahu's way on this, but a story in today's Los Angeles Times says the opposite. Clearly there's a policy fight going on behind the scenes, and the president's recent claims that he and Bibi are on the same page can't be taken seriously. Haaretz reports tonight that "Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain 'red lines,'" and that the distrust between the two men only seems to be deepening. Each leader feels the other is meddling in his country's domestic politics -- Obama by seeking to turn Israeli public opinion against a strike (example), and Netanyahu by working with Republicans to attack the president as soft on Iran.

The million-dollar question is whether all this drama is really about establishing a credible threat to get the Iranians to capitulate (while terrifying European and Asian countries into boycotting Iranian oil), or whether Israel is indeed serious about attacking if the sanctions don't work, and is earnestly seeking U.S. buy-in.

I have some sympathy for the view that, by publicly warning against strikes, the Obama administration is undercutting Israel's deterrent. Bluster aside, Iran has shown a tendency to back down when frightened, as in 2003 when it is thought to have shuttered its nuclear weapons program, and more recently when it toned down its tough talk about blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

But threats have consequences, too. U.S. officials haven't clearly articulated why they believe all this war talk is unhelpful, but I suspect two reasons. One is the rising cost of gasoline, perhaps the issue that terrifies the political side of the White House most heading into November. Tensions over Iran are already adding about $10 per barrel to the price of oil, some analysts say, threatening to choke off America's nascent economic recovery and make Obama a one-term president.

But the more serious issue is that if you make such a threat, you actually may need to carry it out someday. Is that something Barack Obama, a man who has staked his presidency on winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wants above all to do "nation-building at home," is prepared to do? He's already committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, taking containment off the table. He's shown little inclination for taking the big political risk of putting some sort of "grand bargain" on the table. But if sanctions don't bring Iran around -- and there's no sign yet that they will -- and sabotage and asking nicely don't do the job, what then?

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAN
 

ARVAY

8:13 AM ET

February 29, 2012

Obama

. . . just needs to get a second term, when he will have the opportunity to trim Israel's stranglehold on policy.

He's already starting to "pivot" toward Asia, which looks like another indication of his unwillingness to let Israel or anyone else drag us into yet another un-winnable and possibly self-destructive war in the region, against yet another Muslim-majority nation. There are only so many aircraft carriers to go around.

AIPAC and the other Israeli advocate groups face uncertain prospects -- by working against Obama they may face increased public hostility and perceived weakness if he wins. But it's by no means certain the Romney, as president, would actually be as impractical and bellicose as his for-the-moment statements on these issues promise.

What we may be witnessing is the often-predicted major divergence of interests between the US and Israel.

Israel wants Iran punished and wounded for its effective support of anti-Israeli groups. A nuclear Iran would severely limit their capacity to harm Iran themselves. They want, indeed -- demand -- that the US do it. But inflicting unknowable damage on the delicate world economy and opening unknowable risks of regional war are not in US interest.

We really don't know, apparently, whether Iran wants deliverable nukes or breakout capability.

But it's clear that, despite statements to the contrary, the US could live with either possibility. Mao once bragged that China could survive a nuclear exchange with the US -- a more credible threat than Iran has ever posed to Israel or anyone else. They and we did nothing. The North Koreans routinely threaten to turn South Korea and Japan into a "sea of fire''-- and our response is -- containment.

 

REALREALIST

3:16 PM ET

February 29, 2012

grand bargain? and what might that be blake?

lets see...what will the iranians want in "negotiations"?

I think we all know deep down what they want....the question is, will obama give it to them? Before the election he wont, after the election he will try.

Grand bargain or not, israel will destroy iran if they have to. Obama can do what he wants even after the election ....it wont change a thing in terms of how israel defends herself.

The FACT that obama has chosen to put politics ABOVE global security tells you ALLLLLLLLL you need to know about who he is, what he promised in 08 and how far from that he actually is.

 

JKLFAIRWIN

2:24 AM ET

March 1, 2012

Confusion

There are a number of basic problems with the article. First, the author maintains, without any evidence other than contemporanity, that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapon program under duress from the threat of US invasion. Aside from the fact that the US was so overextended that even a cowboy like Bush could not have contemplated another middle east war at the time, the author ignores the very real probability that Iran's nuclear weapon program was aimed at Iraq as a defensive measure, since we swore to the whole world that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon as well as other WMD's. Once tha Iraqui nuclear threat was gone, thanks to the US invasion, it was with relief, not fear, that Iran felt secure in abandoning theirs.
Next, even though the author acknowledges that all of our intelligence says there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program and even though the Ayatollah Kahmanie has issued a binding religious Fatwa against one, he then goes on to write as if these facts did not exist and assumes the there is such a program, and that theis nonexistent program must be stopped. Just as the US government does. Are they all living in wonderland?

 

REALREALIST

10:44 AM ET

March 1, 2012

whose kidding who....iran is building nuclear weapons.

every serious expert knows it. Only the pro obama media want to deny it. Shame on obama's intel mouthpieces who are bending into pretzels to deny it to help obama's re-election chances...thats a real shame and frankly, disturbingly orwellian.

 

HAMZA ALI

3:47 PM ET

March 4, 2012

Just wrong.....

Melding Sesame Street graphics with do-it-yourself investigations into the intricacies of real estate finance, artist and designer Damon Rich collects the history and material culture behind the current economic crisis into an experimental site for reflection and learning. Explore the threatening spikes and troughs of interest rates in the form of a plywood construction 40 feet long and 14 feet tall; enter a ghostly looming bust of Frederick Babcock, pioneer of real estate appraisal; and walk through photographic panorama of houses in Detroit and its suburbs. Photographs and video interviews with players in the field-from community activists to investment bankers-transform abstract financial markets into networks of, if not humane, then clearly human positions.

Rich’s project was initiated during a 2007 artist residency at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as part of a project of the Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP), the Brooklyn-based nonprofit organization founded by the artist. Further developing the work as part of the Queens Museum’s residency program, Rich will design new pieces for the famous Panorama of the City of New York and museum café. Rich, QMA, and CUP will organize a series of talks and screenings both on- and off-site, partnering with New York City community organizations to bring people together around urgent housing issues throughout the summer.

Today, against the backdrop of the Subprime Meltdown that has pushed people out of homes, ruined neighborhoods, bankrupted institutions, and contributed to a global economic crisis, Red Lines Housing Crisis Learning Center aims to broaden and enrich the urgent conversation about how our society finances its living environments.

great blog post. i like it a lot.
propaclean is the best cleaning services in london and we have been providing our services
from many years.we are providing our service in residential and commercial properties
of London and other places of London. If you need any cleaning services work then feel
free to contact us at Tel: 0845 634 1101 or AFTER office HOURS: 07950 743 855

Thank you

cleaning services london

 

MAXIMB

1:01 PM ET

March 19, 2012

don't you think that the

don't you think that the politicians want you to be scared because someone lacks foreigh policy? why is foreign policy more important to the people than having their taxes raised or losing more of their freedoms or the price of food and gas? foreign policy is just something to get the voters exicted about so that they can slip one by us. vote for the person and their abilities to lead and all of the other stuff will fall in line. a good leader picks great people for their cabinets that will make them great not just good. mr doodles.

"Is rio orange war always forfait sosh inevitable ?"
MaximB

 

MAXIMB

8:18 AM ET

March 22, 2012

It helped make the United

It helped make the United States into a global economic and naval power through colonialism which extending the reach of american business into Asia thru the Philippines near the Asian continent The U.S. acquired the Philippines as a territory from Spain as a result of the Spanish American war.

"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait mobile inevitable ?"
MaximB

 

MAXIMB

10:18 PM ET

March 22, 2012

They obviously know that

They obviously know that looks matter more than your actual knowledge. Why do you think all of his supporters are a bunch of ignorant "Joes"..

"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait inevitable ?"
MaximB

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More