Armed Conflicts, Featured, Global Geopolitics, Global Governance, Headlines, Middle East & North Africa, North America, Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

U.S. Denies Consensus with Israel on Iran Nuclear Threat

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 2012 (IPS) - Tensions rose Thursday between the Barack Obama administration and the Israeli government when a leading Israeli official claimed to have knowledge of U.S. intelligence that portrays Iran as a more immediate threat than Washington has been saying.

Israel has been urging the United States to take a more aggressive stance with Iran, while President Obama has maintained that sanctions and diplomacy must be given more time to work.

But Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak touched off a controversy with the United States Thursday when he told Israel Radio that a new U.S. report “being passed around senior offices… comes very close to our own estimate… as opposed to earlier American estimates.

“It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one and it is even less likely that we will know every development in time on the Iranian nuclear programme,” he said.

The Obama administration did not respond immediately, but later in the day a spokesman for the National Security Council stated that, “We believe that there is time and space to continue to pursue a diplomatic path, backed by growing international pressure on the Iranian government. We continue to assess that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapon.”

However, U.S. officials would not comment on whether there was a new intelligence assessment on Iran.

The issue of a possible military strike on Iran has become an increasingly heated topic in the United States as the presidential election in November draws closer and the campaigns move into higher gear.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visited Israel last month with the message that he would be a stronger supporter of Israel’s security than President Obama, pointing specifically at the Iranian threat.

For his part, Obama recently sent high-level officials to confer with Israeli leaders, signed a bill authorising additional security sales to Israel, and repeatedly assured the Israelis that he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

In this atmosphere, a new U.S. intelligence assessment which says, in Barak’s words “…that Iran has made surprising, significant progress toward military nuclear capability,” could significantly increase pressure on the Obama administration to take military action against Iran. Barak’s statement is a dramatic and unusual step in international diplomacy.

In 2007, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran shook up the George W. Bush administration by stating that Iran had halted its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. In 2011, a new NIE reaffirmed that assessment.

An update to this part of the NIE is rumoured to have been completed, but the exact contents of the report are unknown.

However, back in January, James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, testified before the Congress, saying: “We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

John R. Schindler, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote on his blog that, “(There are) a few possibilities. Barak and his government are playing one huge head-fake with Obama, whom they openly dislike, even though he just dumped more money on Israel.

“Or, they have seen (the update to the NIE) – how, exactly, this former counterspy wonders – and are diming out DC in a very tough game of hardball. Regardless, the rules of the spy game are clear and have been since Moses was a boy. When intelligence services share information, as they do every day, you don’t pass it to third parties without clearance. Ever. And if you do, eventually you will get burned and nobody will want to play marbles with you.”

Both Israeli and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they share intelligence with each other on Iran.

According to several sources with contacts in the U.S. administration, there was considerable anger in Washington over Barak’s statements. It is also unclear what Barak was referring to when he said that a new assessment “comes very close to our own estimate”.

Reports from Washington and Israel have repeatedly stated that Israeli and U.S. intelligence assessments on Iran’s nuclear abilities and research have been closely in tune all along.

However, in recent weeks, reports from Israel have indicated sharp divisions between the heads of the Israeli government, including Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Israeli military and intelligence community. There is also sharp disagreement within Netanyahu’s government over whether or not to pursue a military strike on Iran.

The leading Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot reported Friday that Barak had gathered the top military leaders on two separate occasions to rally them behind an Iran strike and met fierce opposition both times.

On Aug. 1, Prime Minister Netanyahu, responding to numerous questions about opposition to an Iran strike on the parts of the Army chief of staff and the head of the intelligence agency, Mossad, did not deny such opposition, but merely said that, “In the Israeli democracy, the one to decide is the ministerial level, and the one to carry out the decision is the military. I haven’t made up my mind yet.”

The reported similarity between U.S. and Israeli intelligence suggests that any gap between Barak’s view and that of the U.S. is similar to the gap between the top Israeli leadership and their own military and intelligence assessments and recommendations.

 
Republish | | Print |
  • Divest Campaign

    As usual, this is about the Israel-first crowd trying to get the US to fight their wars for them.
    And their threat: if you don’t do it, we will.
    Let’s make sure there is a high cost for them starting Middle East War III. We can do this nonviolently by pledging to BOYCOTT ISRAEL IF IT BOMBS IRAN:
    http://www.divestfromwar.org
    Let’s PREVENT the next war, instead of protesting it after the fact!

  • Divest Campaign

    As usual, this is about the Israel-first crowd trying to get the US to fight their wars for them.
    And their threat: if you don’t do it, we will.
    Let’s make sure there is a high cost for them starting Middle East War III. We can do this nonviolently by pledging to BOYCOTT ISRAEL IF IT BOMBS IRAN:
    http://www.divestfromwar.org
    Let’s PREVENT the next war, instead of protesting it after the fact!

  • EmeraldCalifornia

    The Zionist warmongers are itching to start WW III We must not let them. NO WAR WITH IRAN

  • EmeraldCalifornia

    The Zionist warmongers are itching to start WW III We must not let them. NO WAR WITH IRAN

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002296415298 Ahmad Hassan

    Those pushing for invasion in the Washington policy making community have the upper hand. They have cajoled their reluctant partners to take the stand that Iran should not even have a peaceful nuclear program. They have achieved an expensive military buildup in the Gulf that would be difficult to back away from without tangible results. The only acceptable results to them are identical to those achieved by unconditional Iranian surrender. Without such results their dangerous game would be totally self defeating. If Iran survives this artificial crisis, it will emerge more powerful and with stronger commitments from Russia and China. (Russia and China cannot afford to let Iran go down but it is not clear that they have the tactical capability to face the USA & NATO. Certainly this capability is absent as far as the Syrian situation is concerned. At least Iran borders “the near abroad,” this might afford it the same immunity that North Korea has. How far is Russia willing to go? For posts on this go to TheOriginalAmEd.blogspot.com.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002296415298 Ahmad Hassan

    Those pushing for invasion in the Washington policy making community have the upper hand. They have cajoled their reluctant partners to take the stand that Iran should not even have a peaceful nuclear program. They have achieved an expensive military buildup in the Gulf that would be difficult to back away from without tangible results. The only acceptable results to them are identical to those achieved by unconditional Iranian surrender. Without such results their dangerous game would be totally self defeating. If Iran survives this artificial crisis, it will emerge more powerful and with stronger commitments from Russia and China. (Russia and China cannot afford to let Iran go down but it is not clear that they have the tactical capability to face the USA & NATO. Certainly this capability is absent as far as the Syrian situation is concerned. At least Iran borders “the near abroad,” this might afford it the same immunity that North Korea has. How far is Russia willing to go? For posts on this go to TheOriginalAmEd.blogspot.com.

X
NEXT STOP SDGS
  • Tracking global progress towards a sustainable world

Weekly Newsletter