While JTA’s own Ron Kampeas reports that Jewish organizations were mostly satisfied with the Bush administration’s decision to attend multilateral talks with Iran last Saturday in Geneva, the Israelis, apparently, were not.

Ha’aretz’s Aluf Benn called the participation of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns in the meeting, aimed at halting Iran’s installment of centrifuges that enrich uranium, an American slap in the face to Israel:

Israel, which considers aerial bombing an accepted solution for thwarting the nuclear armament plans of hostile states in the region, was very displeased. The feeling in Jerusalem is that time is running out and that, if Bush does not stop the operations of the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz - with an American military strike or with American authorization of an Israeli operation - Iran will become a nuclear power.

An Op-Ed piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal uses the A-word to describe President Bush’s shifting stance on Iran. In the piece, titled “Now Bush is Appeasing Iran,” the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin argues that the White House is propping up a failed administration (in Tehran, not Washington), by sending Undersecretary of State William Burns to talks with Iran’s nuclear negotiator about incentives for Tehran.

While Rubin focuses on how the Bush administration in effect is rewarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bad behavior — “Diplomacy is not wrong, but President Bush’s reversal is diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime,” Rubin writes — the piece also sheds light on how the regime in Tehran is struggling: It’s late on payment of salaries to government workers, it’s unable to step up oil production and it has been forced to impose rolling blackouts to deal with an energy crisis. Meanwhile, the Iranian people are growing increasingly restive.

If anything, the Bush administration should be contributing to the weakening of Ahmadinejad’s regime, not buttressing it against collapse, Rubin writes:
(more…)

In an editorial Thursday, the L.A. Times argues against U.S. acquiescence to an Israeli attack on Iran. The editorialists write:

There are a dozen reasons why “If you want to whack them, we’ve got your back” is the wrong message for the U.S. to send Israel, publicly or privately.

One is the increase in oil prices as a result of the war talk, which only enriches Iran. But here are two better ones: The consequences of an Israeli war with Iran are unpredictable, and it is nearly impossible to assess Iran’s ability to make good on its threats to retaliate against the United States, presumably through its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah. The last thing the U.S. needs now is more instability, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen said Wednesday. And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can’t know for sure because we haven’t tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?

The consequences of an Israeli war with Iran may be unpredictable, but the consequences for Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran are less unpredictable.

Sure, Iran might go nuclear and not attack the Jewish state, but is that a risk Israel can afford to take? Even if Iran held off from attacking Israel — which may be the likelier scenario, were Iran to go nuclear — the Islamic Republic would be able to brandish its nuclear threat over Israel like a mobster with a baseball bat. Is that something with which Israel would be able to live?

As for the oil reason, what’s worse: Expensive gas, or a nuclear-armed Iran? The warmongering serves the free world well, because it’s one more method to get Iran to quit its nuclear program that doesn’t involve actually bombing the place. Thus, regardless of whether or not President Bush actually would give Israel the green light to bomb Iran, it’s helpful that it appears as if he would.

For more on the degree to which rising oil prices are related to Iran-Israel tension, stay tuned for Ron Kampeas’ piece on the subject in JTA (coming out later today).

Meanwhile, Ha’aretz’s Avi Shavit writes that the scenario of Israel attacking Iran in the sunset of Bush’s presidency (which our Ron Kampeas wrote about here), may be far-fetched, but there’s so much at stake that Israel needs to get its ducks in a row just in case. The conclusion: Israel needs new elections now.

In his latest piece of “national security” reportage The New Yorker’s Sy Hersh uses insinuations and several leaps of logic to raise questions about the wisdom of the Bush administration’s apparent funding of covert activities designed to destabilize Iran’s religious leadership.

The headline and Hersh’s juxtapositions suggest that Hersh believes these activities are problematic and a sign that the Bush administration is “preparing the battlefield” for a U.S. attack against Iran.

But the activities also could be interpreted as just the opposite: The White House may be taking this action as an alternative to launching a full-out assault against the Islamic Republic and its suspected nuclear weapons program, and it may well prove more successful than an attack, sanctions or doing nothing.

Hersh makes several leaps of logic in his piece.

The first focuses on whether or not the White House’s initiative — $400 million worth of activities authorized by an executive order called a Presidential Finding — is for military activity to overthrow the regime in Tehran, and whether killing is an intrinsic or merely incidental part of the operations.

The anonymous administration sources cited in the story (they’re almost all anonymous in Hersh’s reporting) say the operations are not about killing:

As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, [a] former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.”

The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.

The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.

Members of Congress have expressed skepticism in the past about the information provided by the White House.

So has Hersh.

But isn’t this what the doves have been pushing for all along? They’d prefer the White House provide support for regime change in Iran from the inside, rather than seeing the U.S. adapt the hawks’ call to attack Iran head-on.

The survival of the current regime in Iran isn’t a partisan issue. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to see the perpetuation of a government that supports and sponsors terrorist groups, threatens U.N. member states (Israel and some Persian Gulf countries, including Bahrain), has nuclear ambitions, and on a daily basis persecutes and represses its own citizens.

So what’s the problem with the White House spending $400 million a year to try and change that in a less destructive and costly way than a frontal attack?
(more…)

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein has triggered a firestorm with a recent blog post asserting that the neocons and Joe Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war and tough action against Iran raises questions about dual loyalty:

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives — people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary — plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

He also seemed to endorse the theory that the president and vice president are sending American troops to die in order to boost oil company profits:

And then there is the question — made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis — of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

The column drew swift criticism from members of the Commentary crowd, including Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin.

Klein fired back:

Then, what can one say about Jennifer Rubin, who accuses me of antisemitism? I must say that’s rather thrilling coming from the Commentary crowd. You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the “benign domino theory” that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about–off the record, of course–in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel’s security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel’s enemies in the region? As my grandmother would say, feh! Do you actually deny that the casus belli that dare not speak its name wasn’t, as I wrote in February 2003, a desire to make the world safe for Israel? Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none–for the moment–to the United States…unless we go ahead, attack it, and the mullahs unleash Hezbollah terrorists against us? Do you really believe the mullahs would stage a nuclear attack on Israel, destroying the third most holy site in Islam and killing untold numbers of Muslims? I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran–it may come to that–but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully.

Furthermore, as a Jew, I find it offensive that the American Jewish Committee would support such an ideologically unbalanced publication as Commentary, one that spouts a Likudnik bellicosity that is out of sync with the beliefs of the vast majority of American Jews. A question to all concerned: When was the last time you opposed a policy, any policy, of the Israeli government–other than one that attempted to move toward peace?

Before I could tweak him, Klein was able to post this correction: “The American Jewish Committee is no longer associated with Commentary, thank God.”

As for when the last time a prominent neocon opposed a “policy, any policy, of the Israeli government — other than one that attempted to move toward peace”… How about Doug Feith playing a main, if not lead, role in cracking down on Israeli arms deals with China? It’s hard to think of any other issue that caused a bigger problem in U.S.-Israeli relations during the Bush administration — and Feith reportedly was the one delivering the hammer on Jerusalem.

This isn’t just a case of overlooking an example. There is a larger point here: Feith and his ideological brethren may have what Klein thinks is a crazy world view, but it is just that — a world view, as in China and Taiwan, Contras and Sandinistas, etc.

As for the question of fighting a war to make Israel safe, it may or may not be a bad idea — but plenty of non-Jews support the concept and it wouldn’t be the only time the United States determined that it was in America’s interest to take up arms to aid an ally. So why the talk about “dual loyalty”? At least Tim Russert was polite — and responsible — enough to raise the issue in a form of a question, and allow for a response.

Bonus: The O.U.’s D.C. blog has audio of McCain ripping Klein.

Last night, the President’s Conference reached its climax with an event celebrating the historic relationship between Israel and the United States. In their successive addresses, which were interspersed with musical and (more questionable) dance performances, President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and the event’s chair, American casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, celebrated the uniqueness of the U.S.-Israel relationship, expressed gratitude for America’s commitment to Israeli security, and lavished praise upon U.S. President George W. Bush, the evening’s guest of honor, whom they characterized as the most supportive U.S. President Israel has ever known. Their remarks, which were met with thunderous applause, preceded a brief address by President Bush, who linked the destinies of the U.S. and Israel through their shared commitment to bringing peace to the Middle East. The full audio of each speech follows.

(more…)

Laura Rozen of Mother Jones reports that some conservative activists are disappointed with the organization launched by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to generate support for President Bush’s Iraq policy:

In Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, foreign-policy hawks thought they had found the conservative answer to liberal philanthropist George Soros: a deep-pocketed benefactor eager to dole out generous sums to right-leaning advocacy groups and grassroots campaigns. Adelson’s largesse, they believed, would underwrite the further advancement of conservative causes—particularly those regarding national security—and allow conservatives to do well-financed battle with ideological adversaries such as MoveOn.org. …

So last year, when Adelson helped to establish Freedom’s Watch, a group that late last summer launched a $15 million media campaign in support of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, hopes were high—both for Adelson and for Freedom’s Watch. As former White House press secretary and Freedom’s Watch official Ari Fleischer put it in August, “The cavalry is coming.”

Almost eight months later, some Freedom’s Watch watchers are wondering whether some of the cavalry got lost. Even as the group has mounted a new campaign to coincide with General David Petraeus’ testimony on Iraq to Congress this week, there has been conservative grumbling about Freedom’s Watch—and Adelson. And several Freedom’s Watch staffers, including its first president, Bradley Blakeman, have left the group. Now Washington conservatives are worrying that Adelson may not be the white knight they had wished for.

In not-for-attribution interviews, a few conservative think tank hands and activists expressed frustration that Freedom’s Watch has yet to develop a comprehensive strategy, and they gripe that it has been slow to set up a MoveOn-style infrastructure. Freedom’s Watch hasn’t realized its full potential, they say, in part because Adelson overly involves himself in the group’s decision-making and won’t heed the good advice of…well, people like them.

The New York Times has a front-page story today on Hamas incitement against Israel and Jews:

In the Katib Wilayat mosque one recent Friday, the imam was discussing the wiliness of the Jew.

“Jews are a people who cannot be trusted,” Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas told the faithful. “They have been traitors to all agreements — go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing. Look what they are doing to us.”

At Al Omari mosque, the imam cursed the Jews and the “Crusaders,” or Christians, and the Danes, for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. He referred to Jews as “the brothers of apes and pigs,” while the Hamas television station, Al Aksa, praises suicide bombing and holy war until Palestine is free of Jewish control.

Its videos praise fighters and rocket-launching teams; its broadcasts insult the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, for talking to Israel and the United States; its children’s programs praise “martyrdom,” teach what it calls the perfidy of the Jews and the need to end Israeli occupation over Palestinian land, meaning any part of the state of Israel.

Such incitement against Israel and Jews was supposed to be banned under the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2003 “road map” peace plan. While the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has made significant, if imperfect efforts to end incitement, Hamas, no party to those agreements, feels no such restraint.

Plus this clip, from MEMRI, of a puppet show on Hamas television, in which an Arab child tells President Bush that the White House has been turned into a great mosque and then stabs the U.S. leader to death.

Going through some old emails and found this about Bush’s trip to Israel. A little late, but still…