Nor flux in the price of catsup in Mexico
On Friday, September 7, 2012 12:41:48 PM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
a US attack on iran is not in the best interest of Americans
On Sep 7, 10:38 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/intelligence...
> ****
> Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between
> Netanyahu and American Ambassador****
>
> *Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to Israel
> Dan Shapiro allegedly argued over the Obama's administration's Iran policy.*
> ****
>
> Rep. Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence
> Committee, says that his much-discussed meeting with Israeli Prime Minister
> Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem late last month did, in fact, devolve into
> an sharp confrontation between Netanyahu and the American ambassador to
> Israel, the former National Security Council official (and former Obama
> campaign Jewish liaison), Dan Shapiro.
>
> Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not
> previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described
> Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President
> Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to
> stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the
> Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program. (*
> UPDATE*: Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb
> Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)
>
> Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated
> Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue
> with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place, Israeli
> press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged
> in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them
> "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not reflect
> what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely
> friendly and professional."
>
> Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank
> Beckmann<http://www.wjr.com/sectional.asp?id=38702>,
> painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally scheduled
> to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself and
> the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting
> Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers
> to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very
> sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their
> patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no doubt.
> You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost
> their patience with this Administration."
>
> Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees --
> as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was
> very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I
> think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is
> that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said,
> there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative
> there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say
> the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
>
> Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?"
> Rogers answered: "can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of
> the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before,"
> Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with
> other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but
> nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were
> clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue
> where there was a very sharp exchange."
>
> Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli
> frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of
> sanctions: "Here's the problem. "...I support the sanctions. But if you're
> going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least
> a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes,
> it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their
> race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went
> on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us
> -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this
> Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've
> gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red
> line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop
> this particular program."
>
> And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made
> it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered
> a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces
> in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the
> Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to
> Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very
> clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which
> could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to
> let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their
> program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration
> is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more
> importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
>
> I'll post more of this interview as it is transcribed, in a few minutes, in
> this space.
>
> *PART II:* When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis will say
> "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that
> meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and that's
> what concerned me about the meeting."
>
> He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data
> point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it was
> clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those
> data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until maybe
> after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, wa,s
> yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated
> because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their window
> for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
>
> Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused problems
> for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting
> argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting was
> designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some
> intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran
> and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where
> the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me was
> a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about
> what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I
> think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the United
> States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and
> anxiety that I think doesn't serve the world well and doesn't serve peace
> well."
>
> Rogers spoke, as well, about the Iranian nuclear timeline: "So the big
> question is the dash. And the dash is, we know they have an enrichment
> program, it's highly likely they have a weaponization program. You have to
> have both of those parts for a nuclear weapon program. And the dash is when
> does weaponization mean you can put it on a missile and fire it off?
> The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening
> and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one
> nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States
> position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the
> Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's
> short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of
> weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks,
> which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would
> be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for
> sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our
> European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly
> marching down this road."
>
> (Thanks to Armin Rosen for transcribing the radio interview)
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at
http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
