Israel Tamps Down Iran War Threats

Exclusive: For months, Israeli hardliners and their neocon allies in the United States have been beating the war drums over Iran. But apparent resistance to war from President Obama has brought a softening of rhetoric in Israel, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern reports.

By Ray McGovern

In a stunning departure from recent Israeli threats to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday used an interview with Israel’s Army radio to assert that any attack on Iran “is very far off,” adding, “We haven’t made any decision to do this.”

When pressed as to whether “very far off” meant weeks or months, Barak replied: “I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. It’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.” The world should be thankful for small favors.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Even more intriguing was the phrasing that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz put under its headline, “Barak: Israel ‘very far off’ from decision on Iran attack.” In a sub-head, Haaretz highlighted an equally important change in Israel’s stance regarding Iran:

“Israel believes Iran itself has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to intelligence assessment to be presented later this week to U.S. Joint Chief of Staff [Martin] Dempsey.”

Haaretz did not specify its sourcing for that information. However, if it’s correct, it puts Israel in line with senior U.S. policy and intelligence officials, like Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who have tenaciously held to the “Iran-has-not-yet-decided” judgment since it was promulgated unanimously by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in November 2007.

That National Intelligence Estimate stated up front: “This NIE does not (italics in original) assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.” Among its declassified Key Judgments were:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

If you thought that those conclusions in 2007 might be greeted in Official Washington or Tel Aviv with the sighs of relief, you would have been mistaken. Not only were the Israelis in high dudgeon, but so were President George W. Bush and, even more so, Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been persuaded to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2008.

Here’s what Bush wrote in his memoir, Decision Points: “But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

For his part, Cheney publicly expressed his chagrin at the wobbliness of his president/protégé. The former Vice President told “Fox News Sunday” on Aug. 30, 2009, that he was isolated among Bush advisers in his enthusiasm for war with Iran.

This Time It’s Different

Before Wednesday, when Defense Minister Barak promised no imminent Israeli attack on Iran, the unholy alliance between Israeli hawks and American neoconservatives was exuding confidence that they would prevail in Washington and also in Tel Aviv in pressing for war with Iran.

Yet, this alliance faced two key obstacles that weren’t there when a similar coalition successfully pushed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This time, the White House and other key elements of the U.S. national security apparatus are dead set against attacking Iran or provoking an Iranian attack. They have apparently now made that clear, in unmistakable terms, to Israeli leaders.

And this time, U.S. intelligence has not been “fixed around the policy.” CIA analysts have not been badgered into falsifying their assessments to please higher-ups.

To disrupt what had appeared to be an unstoppable march toward war with Iran, gaining momentum in December and early January, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta intervened with his own rendition of “Let me be clear.”

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Jan. 8, and apparently unsure whether host Bob Schieffer would have the courage to ask the $64 question, Panetta decided to ask it himself rhetorically: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

Yet, in a highly illustrative example of media hypersensitivity on this issue, PBS was not even willing to let the Defense Secretary’s comment reach the ears of the network’s listeners. Its “NewsHour” program deleted Panetta’s emphatic “no” and played only his subsequent comment:

“But we know that they are trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

Got that? Panetta said Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but Iran better not develop a nuclear weapon because that’s a red line for us. Clearly, Panetta was trying to be all things to all people, but he had spoken emphatically to the key question of whether Iran was “trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

But Panetta’s declaration was so discordant from the anti-Iranian propaganda that has been pouring out of Washington’s elite opinion circles that PBS appears to have reflexively censored the Defense Secretary’s crucial assessment. After all, if Panetta was allowed to say that Iran was not working on a bomb, all the smart pundits who have been telling the American people the opposite would look rather stupid.

Israeli Reaction

The word “no” also didn’t sit well in Israel. There, it appears Israeli hardliners felt that some drastic measure might be needed to stop what was shaping up as a new initiative by the Obama administration to steer the looming crisis with Iran away from the cliff, or at least from the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli hardliners fretted that the U.S. and Iran might be interested in direct talks to defuse the rising tensions. So, what could done?

On Jan. 11, just three days after Panetta’s assertion that the Iranians were not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, assassins in Tehren attached a bomb to a car carrying Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, an Iranian scientist connected with Iran’s nuclear development program. The attack killed Roshan, making him the fifth such victim in the last couple of years.

Suspicion immediately focused on Israel, which has historically engaged in cross-border assassinations of people it considers a threat. Usually in these cases, Israel offers some ambiguous semi-denial. This time, however, Israeli officials mostly swaggered. Israel’s chief military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, posted a statement on Facebook, saying: “I don’t know who settled the score with the Iranian scientist, but I certainly am not shedding a tear.”

And a leak from the Israeli Parliament revealed that on Jan. 10, the day before the killing, Israeli Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that during 2012 Iran would see things happen to it “unnaturally,” a reference that Israeli defense and intelligence officials understood to mean covert actions against Iran’s nuclear program.

For months now, Israeli officials have spoken almost giddily of the “unnatural” setbacks that have plagued Iran’s nuclear program, including cyber-war attacks.  Israeli press reports termed Gantz’s testimony “particularly prescient.”

Even usual apologists for Israeli violence, such as the New York Times, agreed that Israel was likely behind the “unnatural” death of Roshan. Time magazine was even more direct, citing “Western intelligence officials” in a report that said: “Like three previous Iranian scientists ambushed on their morning commute, the latest nuclear expert to die on his way to work was a victim of Israel’s Mossad.”

The Obama administration clearly was not amused by the assassination. The White House and State Department issued unusually prompt and strong denials of U.S. complicity. Panetta went so far as to say, “We have some ideas as to who might be involved.  But we don’t know exactly ”

On Jan. 12, President Obama called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the White House took the unusual step of releasing a photo of Obama on the phone with Netanyahu. Though the White House did not disclose the details of the conversation, the Obama administration soon signaled not only its displeasure with the murder of Roshan but annoyance over what appeared to be an Israeli strategy to ratchet up tensions with Iran.

President Barack Obama speaks by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Jan. 12 (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

Obama’s call was followed by the strongest and most tangible move since Panetta’s statement on Face the Nation.  Three days after the killing of Roshan, large-scale joint U.S.-Israeli military exercises planned for this spring were abruptly postponed, without any cogent explanation.

Amid all this, what has become clearer and clearer is that Israel’s chief objective vis-à-vis Iran is not so much thwarting a possible Iranian effort to obtain a nuclear weapon, but rather what we old-timers at the CIA used to call “government overthrow”, the current sobriquet being “regime change.”

Arguably, if the Israelis were genuinely interested in ending or limiting Iran’s nuclear program, they would probably not continue doing all they can to sabotage diplomatic efforts toward that end. A stroll down memory lane may be instructive.

Blowing Up Peace

On Oct. 1, 2009, Tehran shocked virtually everyone by agreeing to a proposal to send most (as much as 75 percent) of its low-enriched uranium abroad to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes. (To state what may be obvious, one needs low-enriched uranium before one can refine it to levels needed for medical research and then even higher to weapons-grade.)

In Geneva, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, gave Tehran’s agreement “in principle” to the swap plan to representatives of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. The meeting was chaired by Javier Solana of the European Union. Reversing the Bush administration’s allergy to talking with “bad guys,” Obama had sent Under Secretary of State William Burns to the Geneva meeting.

A 45-minute tête-à-tête between Burns and Jalili marked the highest-level U.S.-Iranian talks in three decades. It was agreed that swap talks would resume on Oct. 19 in Vienna. Jalili also expressed Iran’s agreement to open the newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection within two weeks, which Tehran did.

Even the New York Times, which has been one of the most strident media voices against Iran, was forced to acknowledge that “if it happens, [the swap] would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapons quickly, and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.”

It was at this hopeful moment when  on Oct. 18, 2009 Jundallah, a terrorist organization supported by the Israeli Mossad and other intelligence agencies, detonated a car bomb in southeastern Iran ripping apart a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders. Jundallah also mounted a roadside attack on a car full of Guards in the same area.

Killed in the attacks were a brigadier general who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces; the Revolutionary Guards brigadier commanding Sistan-Baluchistan; and three other brigade commanders. Dozens of other military officers and civilians were left dead or wounded.

Jundallah took credit for the bombings, which followed years of lethal attacks on Revolutionary Guards, policemen and other Iranian officials, including an attempted ambush of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s motorcade as he drove through the area in 2005.

The Oct. 18 attack was the bloodiest in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq. It was a safe bet the Revolutionary Guards leaders went to their patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, with telling evidence that the West cannot be trusted.

The attack also came one day before talks were to resume at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to follow up on the Oct. 1 breakthrough.  The timing of Jundallah’s bombings strongly suggested that the attacks were designed to scuttle those talks.

So, instead of progress on getting Iran to surrender much of its low-enriched uranium, Khamenei issued an angry statement on Oct. 19 condemning the terrorists, who he said “are supported by certain arrogant powers’ spy agencies.”

Iran dispatched a lower-level Iranian technical delegation to Vienna for the Oct. 19 meeting, not Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, who stayed away as the Iranians began to raise objections that foreshadowed backsliding on their earlier willingness to part with as much as three-quarters of their low-enriched uranium.

Half a Loaf

In 2010, Brazil and Turkey tried to resurrect this deal with a new overture that was privately encouraged by President Obama. The Brazil-Turkey initiative soon won acceptance in Tehran.

On May 17, 2010, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced success in persuading Iran to send some of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium that would be put to peaceful medical uses.

Lula da Silva, in particular, had become very concerned that, without some quick and smart diplomacy, Israel was likely to follow up a series of escalating sanctions by attacking Iran. Mincing no words, da Silva said: “We can’t allow to happen in Iran what happened in Iraq. Before any sanctions, we must undertake all possible efforts to try and build peace in the Middle East.”

The two leaders secured an agreement on the same quantity of low-enriched uranium that had been envisioned in the Oct. 1 talks. Tehran agreed to exchange that amount for nuclear rods that would have no applicability for a weapon, but the quantity now represented about half of Iran’s supply because more had been produced in the intervening months.

Rather than embrace this Iranian concession as at least a step in the right direction, American neocons launched a political/media offensive to torpedo the deal. Though Obama had sent a private letter encouraging the leaders of Brazil and Turkey to undertake the swap negotiations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her neocon friends moved quickly to sink it. Instead, they pressed for harsher and harsher sanctions.

The Fawning Corporate Media, particularly the editorial sections of the Washington Post and the New York Times, did their part by insisting that the deal was just another Iranian trick that would leave Iran with enough uranium to theoretically create one nuclear bomb.

Focus Instead on Sanctions

With the swap deal scuttled, a perturbed Lula da Silva released the text of Obama’s encouraging letter, but Obama still acquiesced to Clinton’s demands for tougher economic sanctions against Iran. On May 18, 2010, Official Washington and especially the neocons had something to cheer about.

“We have reached agreement on a strong draft [sanctions resolution] with the cooperation of both Russia and China,” Secretary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, making clear that she viewed the timing of the sanctions as a riposte to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement. “This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” she declared.

In the ensuing months, the propaganda drumbeat against Iran grew steadily louder, with dubious allegations about Iran plotting an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington and the IAEA, under new pro-U.S.-Israeli leadership, issuing an alarmist report about Iran’s purported nuclear progress.

Congress also enacted even more draconian sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s banking system and preventing it from selling oil, Iran’s principal source of income. Obama arranged to have waivers inserted in the sanctions legislation, meaning he can hold off imposing penalties if he feels that’s needed to protect the U.S. economy or national security.

Obama also appears to have reengaged in efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Gen. Dempsey’s Arrival

So, that’s the backdrop for Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey’s talks in Israel with his counterpart, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, and other senior officials, beginning Thursday evening.

Given the preparatory work and Haaretz’s report that Israeli intelligence agrees that Iran has yet to decide about building a nuclear bomb, Israel may not challenge Dempsey’s expected efforts to tamp down tensions.

The Haaretz article states: “The intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week to Dempsey indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb. The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.”

But Dempsey’s visit bears close watching to see if the alteration in Israeli rhetoric is durable and reflected on the ground. In the past, Israel’s Likud leaders have played hardball with American leaders, often by enlisting the help of their influential allies in the United States. If “regime change” remains the real priority, then Israeli leaders won’t be likely to warm to the idea of negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served a total of 30 years as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and CIA analyst, and is a co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. His Web site is

26 comments for “Israel Tamps Down Iran War Threats

  1. January 30, 2012 at 18:21

    Have you ever been addicted to video games itself? Have you been a fan of XBOX 360 CONSOLE games, specially those you play on the web? Would you like to know the profitable business that can be started from a home office in just about 24hrs without having to move some sort of leg as well as your mouth?

    Such business are available in the game titles industry.Selling at wholesale prices tangible items both on the web and in the neighborhood.On the internet you can begin selling wholesale online games on probably the most frequently saw sites, the actual famous auction web sites.Thanks for you to eBay you are able to immediate know if your wholesale business would be successful by simply posting a strong auction and awaiting the bids designed to come on so long as your solution is in-demand.It is definitely my practical knowledge and proof that you could add a good sealed video game on the ebay affiliate network, price it 60-85% off and obtain numerous amounts of bids for the purpose of such product.It might be exciting which is even additional memorable when you’re able to see the gains for trading both throughout singles plus in mass.It is actually lovely, you simply post a good auction and begin seing the best way those bids increase and later on how people profits come to your Paypal small business account 24×7.

    It’s a great encounter, but it’s an experience not many online auction web sites business get to live.Very few ebay small company, know where you can locate probably the most profitable activities distributors.Realistically for me, not many enables you to know its mysterious comprehensive contacts.During my own truth, that is gibberish and of not so much importance.It’s my experience that lots of buy this so in-demand wholesale game titles list and never accomplish anything because of one factor- behavior.Such small business owners never take and took in my experience action, for getting the general business off of poor levels due to not having the passion about taking activity in something that they adore doing- playing online games or by just, enjoying company.

    I professionally found actual interesting any selling of game titles online and additionally locally at the city video games rental shop- it is challenging and you’re able to be your special boss.On top of that, if starting one- you’re able to choose a person’s working intervals and make yourself rich, instead of the other method around.Like a last term of hint, make sure to understand which on-line distributor contacts you choose and who seem to you trust your business investment to get improving or even starting your special video online games wholesale organization.

    Can you trust someone which has made $1, 000 plus per day like me, or can you trust a two by way of one $0.99 rep contact? We both know the solution, see a person soon!

  2. elmerfudzie
    January 25, 2012 at 15:02

    I’m not underestimating the tactical reasons behind the killings but this often occurs prior to an invasion. Besides, the mossad doesn’t like the skills of their operatives to get rusty. Any justification for attacking Iran because of weapons proliferation issues can now be put to rest. If proliferation idea is modified to include dangers linked to transfer of nuclear materials to non state actors, then the reader may come to believe that military aggression is required. This too is a specious argument and further I do not believe it’s actually a Neocon/Likudnik plot to overthrow Iranian leadership. The reader gets bombarded (and caught up in) political quandaries that simply do not exist. A recent one was, Russia’s concern about NATO encirclement. What a joke to believe that! No doubt a few of those non-existent old Soviet suitcase nukes are now parked under the London financial district, Élysée Palace and The Parliament of the Brussels. Encased in special alloys these A-devises would go undetected. One need only read the recollections of Soviet Agent, Stanislav Lunev and the Spetznatz in the USA. Further, his observations about the GRU are very relevant to understanding the Iranian assassinations. It would seem that, to the ruthless capitalist eye, Iran is what Iraq and Libya was, all fattened cows awaiting slaughter for profits via the “disaster capitalism” routine. Carve and serve up the gleanings to the first world! The carpetbaggers of the North are already in the neighborhood!

  3. Eazy
    January 23, 2012 at 04:47

    Think about this, If Iran was really a threat as Israel and America make them out to be and that dangerous then why has Iran not blown the shit out of them all yet.
    Its not like the Push for war on the Israeli and American side hasn’t been obvious.
    Iran doesn’t feel the need to spend money on Nuclear weapons yet, If they feel they need to they can just target Israel’s nice stock pile of Nuclear arsenal.
    If they was that fanatical about war they would have done this long ago.

  4. Karen Romero
    January 22, 2012 at 18:33

    Thank you Ray for another excellent article. You know what I find disgusting? I will tell you what I find disgusting. When the bought and paid for arrogant criminals in the Congress give a standing ovation to Benjamin Netanyahu. For I will tell you this…that man does not care about the innocent Jewish people in Israel no matter how much he pretends that he does!

    Karen Romero

  5. Tlenam G.
    January 22, 2012 at 17:05

    An important question is: what is the purpose of the threats and low-level aggression (murder of scientists, terrorist attacks by Jundallah and MEK, computer viruses, sanctions etc.) against Iran? The leaders of Israel and the US know that these acts of harassment will not prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons. If Israel and/or the US are really serious about rendering impossible the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, then at the very least a massive campaign of carpet-bombing, involving hundreds of B-52s, will be necessary. It would kill tens of thousands of Iranians at least. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll have to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. And I think a nuclear strike is more likely, because a conventional bombing campaign could give Russia and China enough time to organize an effective military defence against it. A nuclear attack would be risky, but if Israel’s and/or the US’ leaders are really insane enough to believe that Israel’s and/or the US’ survival is at stake, then a nuclear attack on Iran would be perfectly rational (within the framework of their insanity) and moral.

    If, as Ray McGovern (and I) think, Israel’s and the US’ leaders are not that insane, and the decision has been made NOT to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program by force, then what’s the point of continuing the low-level aggression in the form of assassinations etc.? Why not just leave Iran alone? I agree with Ray McGovern: the objective is regime-change. They’ve reconciled themselves to the fact that Iran will get nuclear weapons eventually, or at least “break-out” capacity to build them on short notice. So they are now going to try to put in place a friendly regime. It makes sense. It’s an evil policy, but a rational one. And it has the advantage of not causing a global nuclear holocaust.

    • elmerfudzie
      January 26, 2012 at 20:45

      An all out campaign from the air has three insurmountable problems. First, there are weather pattern issues. Bombing will issue intensely radioactive particles that can hitch a ride on every grain of blowing sand, thus spewing death to “friendly” nations nearby. Secondly, prior to ANY attack, the Russians need to provide us with more than a nod to go ahead. Our armed forces must be absolutely certain that no reconnoitering, drills or maneuvers are scheduled by the Russian Navy in Syria- on that fateful day. I fear that sharing this sort of advanced in-tel with the Russians will not be done. And third, I greatly fear that the mossad may “salt the mine” during the opening stages of this conflict by launching a false flag attack against our forces disguised as Syrian or even the Turkish aircraft. Such a miscalculation is totally within the realm of possibility because the ultra-right in Israel clearly want it all. If that takes a wider war, well they’d roll the dice and we’d pay the price (USA).

  6. Kenny Fowler
    January 20, 2012 at 21:58

    Unable to bull rush Qbama into attacking Iran Israel seems to have backed off, for now. Israel will never attack Iran alone so they will most certainly continue their efforts to draws the US into joining any military action. I thlnk we can count on them teaming up with the Neocons in the future to try to rush the US into another nightmare war.

  7. John Puma
    January 20, 2012 at 05:04

    Yes, thanks for the great summary. I must offer the following comments:

    1) As to your first sentence: “For months, Israeli hardliners and their neocon allies in the United States have been beating the war drums over Iran.” I would correct this to say that the Israeli hardliners and their neocon allies have been beating war drums for YEARS as your later words in the article reveal. This is similar to the reaction to Ehud Barack who to asserted that any attack on Iran “is very far off.’ ” He had to be asked exactly what “very far off” meant.

    2) The waxing and waning of apparent Israeli plans for war on Iran is nothing new in this YEARS-long drama. It’s only the psychological component of the terrorism being employed in the process. By the time I finish this sentence the latest news may have flipped the situation 180 degrees, once again.

    3) The only real news here is the reprehensible “reflexive” censorship of Panetta’s comment by PBS. Let me be clear: the news is the concrete example of the behavior, NOT that such behavior is possible. The site below is a sort of 12-step program for anyone in need of weaning themselves away from the notion that PBS is in anyway unique among mainstream media. (Given it’s carefully [if fraudulently] cultivated image to the contrary, PBS might be much worse than the rest. It may well be considered a microcosm of the US itself: much self-congratulatory PR about specialness but with the same yawning gap between potential and reality.)

    4) The photo of the stern looking President, allegedly disciplining the Israelis, could just have easily been made as he was informed that the pizza delivery truck was out of service that evening. The implications of his three-year career of placing big wet kisses on the individual and collective butts of the GOP radical reich cannot be assumed to be lost on the Israeli warmongers and their US government-controlling lobby.

    5) You claim: “This time, the White House and other key elements of the U.S. national security apparatus are dead set against attacking Iran or provoking an Iranian attack.” Oh, really? Unfortunately, that simply will not be credible unless and until the vast array of US military bases that sandwich Iran, as depicted in the map in the site below, is significantly diminished.

    6) I’m loathe to conclude that Mr Obama (who has proven in no significant way better than Bush/Cheney and in too many cases worse), if he feels his chances waning for re-election, might well choose to bolster his fortune by doing whatever is needed to run as “the ‘it’s my very OWN effin’ war’ president.”

    John Puma

  8. rosemerry
    January 20, 2012 at 04:48

    sorry, wrong key! New Iran Threat Reduction Act HR1905, sponsored by AIPAC and supported 100 to zero in the “US” Senate. All the threats and sanctions are more likely to push Iran into developing nukes. Negotiations are the only way for civilised nations to act, but the US and Israel seem not to agree. Barak needs to keep to his words.

  9. rosemerry
    January 20, 2012 at 04:43

    Israeli hardliners fretted that the U.S. and Iran might be interested in direct talks to defuse the rising tensions. So, what could done?
    The attitude of USI is seen to be “war at all costs”. Peace would be a terrble result, talks are forbidden in the lew,infa

  10. Rumi
    January 19, 2012 at 18:56

    Great article. Thanks for your contribution Ray.

Comments are closed.