We Wondered Why All The Talk Of Israel Taking Out The Iranian Nuke Plant Stopped. Now We Know. Obama Squelched It.

Report: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike

Kuwaiti paper claims unnamed Israeli minister with good ties with the US administration 'revealed the attack plan to John Kerry.'

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services19.7K

By Mark Langfan

First Publish: 3/1/2015, 4:18 PM

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.




Following Obama's threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the WhiteHouse because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.
Brzezinski's idea
Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to formerPresident Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.
“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’"
Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.

The "Looney Farm" Of The Middle East Just Got Crazier!

In Stunning Admission, Hezbollah Leader Reveals Forces Fighting ISIS in Iraq

By Lea Speyer February 17, 2015 , 11:08 am

4 8

1 0Email 21Share

“But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.” (Nehemiah 4:9)

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/hassan-nasrallah.jpg

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah admitted that his terror group was fighting ISIS in Iraq.

In a stunning admission, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, publicly acknowledged for the first time that the Lebanese Shiite terror group has been fighting ISIS in Iraq, AFP reported.

In a videotaped speech broadcast on Monday, Nasrallah called ISIS the most immediate threat to regional stability and called on all Arab nations to unite to fight the jihadist group.

“We may not have spoken about Iraq before, but we have a limited presence because of the sensitive phase that Iraq is going through,” he said. “I say, come with us to Iraq, and to any place where we can fight this threat that is threatening our (Muslim) nation and our region.”

Nasrallah slammed several Arab states for relying on the US to fight ISIS in Iraq. “He who relies on the Americans relies on an illusion,” he stated. “You rely on someone who is stealing from you and conniving against you.”

The Hezbollah leader urged Arab nations to cut off their support to the US-led coalition in combating ISIS and give their support instead to Hezbollah, who are backed by Syria and Iran.

“We won’t wait for the Americans, nor will we wait for NATO,” he said.

 

Nasrallah told Arab nations to take a cue from local tribes in Iraq who had already mobilized against ISIS outside of any help from the US. “In Iraq, they didn’t wait. Until now, the Americans aren’t giving them arms. All of the arms are coming from Iran,” he said.

Making sure not to leave Israel out, Nasrallah claimed in his address that ISIS was secretly working on behalf of Israel.

Hezbollah militants are already fighting ISIS alongside Syrian troops loyal to President Bashar Assad in Syria. Nasrallah’s speech comes a little over a week after Hezbollah and the Syrian army launched a major offensive against jihadists groups in southern Syria.

While Nasrallah claims that ISIS currently poses the biggest threat to the Middle East, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman stated on Tuesday that the Lebanese terror group was stronger than any other terror organization in the region.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Liberman said that Hezbollah is stronger than ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Palestinian Islamist terror groups.

The foreign minister added that the greatest challenge to the 21st century is terrorism. “We have to fight this thing like the Nazi regime,” he said.

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/30208/hezbollah-leader-admits-forces-fighting-isis-iraq-middle-east/#KcVTTtlHZt64wdoi.99

A Mideast Viewpoint Of Relations Between Israel And The US.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem, March 31, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Jacquelyn Martin)

'Daylight' returns to US-Israel ties

Remember the days when Israeli and US leaders routinely declared that there was “no daylight” between them? No longer can such a claim be made. On some of the most critical issues facing the United States — Iran, Palestine and even Ukraine — not only is there “daylight” between respective Israeli and American policies, the gap separating them is increasing.

Summary⎙ Print The gap between the United States and Israel on Iran, in particular, is widening.

Author Geoffrey AronsonPosted April 21, 2014

Anyone listening to the news cannot help but hear the discord in the relationship between the Obama administration and the government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As usual, Israeli ministers have been most outspoken on the administration’s shortcomings. US officials are mostly content to mutter disparagingly sotto voce.

Perhaps these contretemps will prove to be easily overcome hiccups.

Possible … but unlikely.

The paths chosen by Washington and Jerusalem to address issues at the heart of regional developments are diverging at a fundamental strategic level, and as a consequence, the daylight between the two capitals on a range of critical regional issues is growing.

Narratives that each relies upon as a guide to the future differ in clear and discernible ways, making bilateral disputes over future policies a cause of concern in both capitals.

As it faces the future, Israel is the premier party supporting a brittle status quo ante. Given the opportunity, Israel prefers to stick its head in the sand and pretend that the tumultuous events — concerning Palestine, Egypt, Iran and Syria — would simply go away. The Netanyahu government has grown complacent about and comfortable with a stalemate in Palestine. It supports a “strong hand” in Cairo and Damascus — leaders who have hardly lifted a finger in anger at them for decades — and finds advantage in a regime in Tehran that prides itself on being its own worst enemy.

Washington’s response to the wayward Arab Spring has been more ambitious and ambiguous, and its attitude toward Israel-Palestine peace, for all of Secretary of State John Kerry’s energy, ambivalent. And on Iran there are clear signs that today’s policies are fundamentally different from those it has pursued with such vigor, and with energetic Israeli cheerleading, in the past.

Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman have led the Palestine negotiations with Kerry and his team. Their objective has been to use the talks as a "strategic event" that will enhance Israel’s relations with Washington. In fact, the opposite appears to have occurred.

Kerry’s activities these past months have been premised on the view that diplomacy between reasonable parties can produce a final status agreement. Washington’s role is merely to “facilitate” such an outcome between interested and committed parties — a description commonly used at the outset of talks last summer and one that is making a comeback in recent State Department briefings.

The sorry fact is that left to themselves, Israel and Palestine are demonstrably incapable of coming to an agreement. US good offices of the kind on display this last year, or indeed during the last two decades, add nothing decisive to this toxic reality.

What will Washington do when faced with failure? Obama is clearly fed up. Kerry is almost there. If he is able, Obama prefers to let both Israel and the Palestinians pay the price for their shortcomings. To paraphrase James Baker, Bibi and Mahmoud Abbas know the White House phone number and can call when they are ready to make a deal.

There is, however, another dynamic at work in the American policymaking system — representing a dramatic change in the historic American view of its role in the negotiating process. And it is one that should keep Netanyahu or any Israeli leader awake at night. The details of this new policymaking effort are centered in the Pentagon, but the policy guidance clearly originates in the White House.

The security plan for the Jordan Valley devised by Gen. John Allen at the end of last year is the best example of what may come next in the US policy arsenal. However important the details, the critical point about the Allen effort is that it indicates that the United States is taking the first hesitant steps to draw its own picture for solving issues at the heart of the conflict. It has long been a truism that Washington would never “dictate” to the parties, i.e., Israel, about the shape of an agreement. But what to do when the parties cannot come to an agreement, and the cost of failure is paid not only by the players but by the United States as well?

Allen’s predecessor Gen. James Jones, Condoleezza Rice’s “special envoy for Middle East Security” in 2007, stepped tentatively into the vacuum produced by the parties’ own shortcomings. He flew in to devise basic security principles. Israel was adamantly opposed to his efforts and they were quietly placed in Condi’s desk drawer.

If Jones looked at the big picture, Allen walked the Jordan River Valley border at eye level, devising a wide-ranging security system to enable an Israeli retreat behind “secure and recognized borders” and the creation of a Palestinian state at peace with Israel. 

Allen broke new ground, not so much by devising a security system that would enable an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, but by devising a “Made in America” solution to a problem that the parties themselves (read Israel) would never formulate on their own. When looking to the future of US efforts to address the continuing conflict, there is no better place to look than the Allen effort.

Iran is the other pole of US policy in the region. On this front, the United States is not content to merely facilitate an agreement between antagonists, but rather to be the architect of its resolution. Israel continues to subvert Washington’s effort to bring Iran in from the cold. Unlike Palestine however, Israel will have a far more difficult time undermining a deal between the United States and Iran. Such a bargain, the elements of which are now being formulated, will not so easily go “poof.”

The Pentagon is actively engaged in preparing for two Iran-related scenarios — one if negotiations succeed, the other if they collapse.

Israel fears an American success more than a failure.

Israel’s minister in charge of the Iran file, Yuval Steinitz, has described as “unacceptable” remarks by Kerry suggesting a nuclear deal that would keep Iran six to 12 months away from bomb-making capability.

“Israel opposes any solution which leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state. Kerry's statements before the Senate on the matter of Iran and the current American objective were worrying, surprising, and unacceptable. We watch the negotiations with concern. We are not opposed to a diplomatic solution but we are against a solution which is an entire surrender to Iran and which leaves it a threshold nuclear state.”

Lord Palmerston famously observed that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” For all the talk of eternal friendship, a sentiment not to be minimized to be sure — on key issues relating to the future of US national security, the United States and Israel increasingly find themselves reading from different scripts.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/kerry-israel-palestine-negotiations-daylight-policy-rifts.html##ixzz2zeBeCKeK

Israel Looking For Another Partner As The US Support Weakens. This Will Be Bad For The US!

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

NETANYAHU REPORTED CONSIDERING NEW PARTNER FOR ISRAEL

Comment from reinstated foreign minister takes nation in startling direction

Published: 13 hours ago

 F. MICHAEL MALOOF About | Email | Archive

  Subscribe to feed

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     256

BEIRUT, Lebanon – A recent comment by reinstated Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has prompted renewed interest in closer Israeli-Russian relationship – despite their differences over Iran’s nuclear program, informed sources say in a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Lieberman suggested that Israel needed to find alternative strategic partners to the United States, a comment which later prompted his deputy to downplay the statement.

Lieberman referred to the idea as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Moscow to discuss further links between the two countries, particularly in technical cooperation, trade and regional security.

At their meeting, Netanyahu reportedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for pushing for the full destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Putin was in a “joyful mood” at a televised news conference. For his part, Netanyahu also spoke about the historical cultural ties between Russians and Jews.

While enhancing relations with Moscow despite their major differences over support both for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s nuclear program, Lieberman, who remained in Israel, made particularly directed comments on furthering ties with Russia.

Lieberman, who was recently acquitted by a court on charges of fraud and breach of trust, said that Israel needed to find new international partners to replace the United States.

“Ties between Israel and the U.S. are weakening,” Lieberman said, due to the U.S. position on Iran’s nuclear program, and on other issues. “The Americans today are dealing with too many challenges and they are busy in Iran and North Korea and also have economic and immigration problems.”

Israel, Lieberman said, “must first of all look to have relationships with countries that do not need financial assistance, that don’t have problems in the international arena, and don’t depend on the Islamic-Arabic world.”

The comment immediately got Moscow’s attention as it now is seeking to extend its influence throughout the Middle East.

“I am sure Lieberman would be very happy to have an alliance with Russia,” said Yoav Peled, a professor at Tel Aviv University’s Department of Political Science. “But I am not sure that the interests of these two countries are more compatible than the interests of Israel and the U.S.

“Maybe they are also thinking of China but I would say the same thing,” Peled said. “It would be very nice for Israel to have all kinds of alliances.”

In what appeared to be some disarray inside the Israeli government itself, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin, who accompanied Netanyahu to Moscow, sought to downplay the comments from his boss.

“No, I would not suggest reaching far-reaching conclusions that we will now replace our main ally, and that that is the aim of the visit,” Elkin said. “Even when there are disagreements over this issue or another, there is no one who can take the place of the Americans.”

For years, the United States has been a primary ally of Israel, especially as primary provider of its military assistance and technology.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/netanyahu-reported-considering-new-partner-for-israel/#zzfylQdGTZ1YcoAT.99