Storm brews between US and Israel

[bemildred]

---

"If you have a unified Palestinian government and a unified Arab move for peace," added Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, "then it's much more likely that Obama will step up his own efforts - ideally, working with an Israeli government that's ready to go along with a serious peace process, but, if not, being willing to make his disagreement known."

The result could be a serious test between the next Israeli government and its influential US advocates. The Obama administration clearly believes that real progress toward resolving the 60-year-old conflict is critical both to restoring Washington's credibility among the Arab states and curbing the further radicalization of the region's population - particularly in the wake of Israel's recent military offensive in Gaza.

A more likely source of tension between the US and Israel, however, will be Iran's nuclear program.

"It's very important to realize that Iran is going to be the most likely issue on which Israel and the United States will have a serious difference of opinion, if not a confrontation, in the next year," warned former US ambassador Samuel Lewis after the Israeli elections.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KB21Aa01.html

[JohnyCanuck]

1. But, it goes without saying there'll be no source of tension

in Israel's undeclared nuclear program and Israel's building and deployment of nuclear weapons free of the encumbrances of international controls, inspections or non-proliferation treaties.

A more likely source of tension between the US and Israel, however, will be Iran's nuclear program.

[bemildred]

4. He's not saying it makes sense.

You would think if nukes were so terrible, Israel would want to get rid of them. :-)

But the piece is talking about the conflicts of interest between Israel and the USA, Iran is just one aspect of that.

[rateyes]

2. I, personally, would LOVE for President Obama to have serious

disagreements with Israel over some very important issues. How about demanding that Israel give up its nukes, along with Iran abandoning any plans to make them?? It's time for the WHOLE truth about Israel/Palestine to be spoken by our government to the American people.

[azurnoir]

3. Does the Israeli government really expect that Obama

will do what Bush will not or will there simply be more noise about it?

[bemildred]

5. I dunno.

I think it unlikely that Obama will approve what Bush would not, and for much the same reason that Bush would not, i.e. that it would ruin our "victory" in Iraq. There used to be some scenarios around that had Israel attacking Iran without using Iraq air space, but that is difficult, chancy, and would not be able to do as much (barring use of nukes), so it seems most unlikely.

The thing that gets me is that I think the whole Iran nuclear threat imbroglio is a fabrication motivated by Iran's very real support for Hezbollah and Hamas. I think Israel would make more progress in that area with carrots as opposed to sticks. Iran will not be intimidated into submission by this sort of posturing, it has rather the opposite effect. The utility of Hamas and Hezbollah to Iran is greatly increased by the US and Israel's threats.

[azurnoir]

8. I agree on all points n/t

.

[Vegasaurus]

6. Obama will be more like Bush than not like Bush nt

[bemildred]

7. Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You

---

I'm not one of those Pollyannas who think that the Iranians are all innocent. In my view, the mullahs who run Iran want a bomb. Some analysts believe that they're pushing ahead as quickly as they can to get there, while others think that what Iran wants is simply a "Japan-like" capability to assemble a bomb when and if the Iranian military thinks its needed. In any case, however, Iran isn't there yet, and they haven't taken the necessary next step, namely, to enrich the fuel to weapons-grade. (Not only that, but we can't be sure that Iran actually knows how to make a bomb, even if has the enriched uranium, nor -- despite its recent missile and satellite launches -- does it have the capability to deliver a weapon.)

Buried in the Times story, but headlined elsewhere, is the news that Mohammad ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, says that surprisingly Iran has slowed, not accelerated, its program of enrichment lately, perhaps as a sign to the Obama administration that it wants to talk. ElBaradei called it a "political decision," meaning that it's not a technical slowdown.

Another alarmist piece on Iran showed up this week in the Los Angeles Times, headlined: "U.S. now sees Iran as pursuing nuclear bomb." Now, I don't disagree with the conclusion that Iran is "pursuing" a bomb. But the LA Times story was based on thin reeds. It purported to show that the December, 2007, US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had halted work on its military nuclear program, was being reversed by the Obama administration. Here's the lede:

"Little more than a year after U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20090220/cm_thenation/1096410167;_ylt=A0wNcxMJ055JT0EBDA_9wxIF