PM Netanyahu says Israel is seeking ways to increase intelligence and operational cooperation with U.S. in Syria and elsewhere to block Iranian “aggression” • Secretary of State Pompeo: U.S. committed to Middle East stability, Israel’s security.
The United States and Israel vowed on Tuesday to continue cooperating over Syria and in countering Iran in the Middle East, even as President Donald Trump plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said before a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the Brazilian capital that he planned to discuss how to intensify intelligence and operations cooperation in Syria and elsewhere to block Iranian “aggression.”
In his first public comments on Trump’s decision, Pompeo said it “in no way changes anything that this administration is working on alongside Israel” and that campaigns to counter Islamic State and Iranian aggression would continue.
“The counter-ISIS campaign continues, our efforts to counter Iranian aggression continue and our commitment to Middle East stability and the protection of Israel continues in the same way it did before that decision was made,” he said.
Trump announced last month that he planned to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, declaring that they had succeeded in their mission to defeat Islamic State and were no longer needed in the country.
In making the announcement, Trump ignored the advice of top national security aides and did so without consulting lawmakers or U.S. allies participating in anti-Islamic State operations. The decision prompted Jim Mattis to resign as defense secretary.
“We have a lot to discuss,” said Netanyahu, who like Pompeo was in the Brazilian capital for the inauguration of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s new president.
“We’re going to be discussing our, the intense cooperation between Israel and the United States which will also deal with the questions following the decision, the American decision, on Syria and how to intensify even further our intelligence and operational cooperation in Syria and elsewhere to block Iranian aggression in the Middle East.”
Netanyahu said Israel was very appreciative of the “strong … unequivocal support” Pompeo gave Israel’s “efforts at self-defense against Syria” in the past few days.
State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said Pompeo and Netanyahu “discussed the unacceptable threat that regional aggression and provocation by Iran and its agents poses to Israeli and regional security” and Pompeo reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and right to self-defense.
Netanyahu said last month after Trump’s announcement that Israel would escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
@ leonkushner:
Using your rational re-American troops in Syria then should America disengage and bring her troops home for S-Korea? 28,000 troops most along the DMZ would be fodder to the north within an hr of an all-out attack and it costs America billions. How about bringing half million troops home from Europe they do nothing for America could save hundreds of billions….. America has bases and troops all over the world… so why pick on 2200 special operations forces doing a good efficient job, small footprint no casualties, low cost, and risk so far?
Netanyahu: the US will run the economic war against Iran, leaving military drive to Israel</a
Iran is the least of Israel's problems here. It's Russia!!!! Fighting Iran
is one thing Russia another.
Putin cannot be trusted and it looks like neither can Trump
It is only now that Jews can put the sun to shame. In Mahabharata’s words, we can light thousands of suns. With a push of the red button.
I am an avid Jewish Zionist and activist. As such my priority is always us (the Jewish people and Israel). That said, I see so much panic over Trump’s removal of a paltry 2000 troops in the dangerous shit hole we call Syria and over his recent off the cuff comments. There are many reasons for his decision to pull the troops out, foremost amongst them was his election promise to bring the troops home. Secondly, the troops were there solely to defeat ISIS- nothing to do with Israel or Iran. Sure on the surface it sounds like a good idea to keep a US presence there in order to keep Russia in check but the US has a big presence in neighbouring Iraq. Third: When Israel attacks Iranian bases in Syria it has to plan them with the Russian forces there, Kurdish forces, US forces and others. The US forces were just getting in the way. 4th: Can u imagine if the US forces there got hurt especially from an errant Israeli missile? There are plenty of antisemites and Democrats in the US who can’t wait to blame Israel for the loss of US treasure. Jews everywhere and Israelis should never want any foreign nation to help defend them with troops. Military aid ($ and equipment) yes, people no!
5th and I think most important: Mattis resigned over this. Was this a good thing? Hell yes! Mattis was no friend of Israel. He was appointed by Obama which should tell u all u need to know. He said that Israel costs the US too much money! He opposed Trump’s abrogation of the Iran deal. Mattis needed to go! If it took the threat of removal of US troops from Syria to do it, that alone was well worth it. Good riddance Mattis!
Lastly, I’m surprised at all the hullaballoo over Trump’s off the cuff comments. You sound as if you are hearing Trump for the first time. You should know by know that you can’t take all his comments literally or seriously. He is not a good communicator. We know that already. But he has excellent instincts. Sure, let Turkey & Iran fight ISIS. I get his message. I don’t give a shit about Syria either. Is the situation healthy over there? Of course not. But it’s not something that can easily be remedied by the US. With the money saved by bringing the US troops home that $ can be used to supply Israel with more military aid and would be much more effective. There are also numerous other reasons why Trump threatened to bring the troops home that we are not privy to. Here’s one of the top of my head: making the Saudis cough up hundreds of millions of dollars owed to pay for those troops. Don’t forget that was part of the deal to keep the troops there at the Saudi’s request. Yes they did fork over some dough but not enough.
@ Bear Klein:
Yes I see what you’re getting at …. it sounds like a very authoritative report..Yet it comes from India, and I wonder if you’ve seen any corroberating back-up of it. It’s an India boosting report, showing what great influence India has with the US. “up to 9 mill” could be any amount less than, and it may be stocking up from Iran in advance of the American shut-down…… It also says that the US allowed only a “conditional and temporary waiver. “… it remains yet to see what the US will do if India will blatantly defy their policies which in effect could damage the US plans to shut Iran off from everything. It’s significant, very, that China and the two largest Chinese oil corporations have deferred to the US sanctions. So, although now I see why you have persevered I’m not persuaded that it will work for any but the short term.
For example….. Unless “rupees” become the money of exchange all over the whole East, what advantage is it. Iran can only buy goods from India or wherever the rupee is a major exchange vehicle. I see it as only a temporary advantage. And the US can bar any knock-on exchanging of rupees into say marks, dollars or Pounds…But of course I don’t know what steps the US will take..
@ Edgar G.:
Read my above comment above and see why I am persistent about this because based on my reading Iran has found a way to avoid the sanctions with India among others in a very significant way.
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/india-imports-iranian-oil-using-waivers-and-rupees/29639109.html
@ Bear Klein:
I don’t know that they ARE going to “the expense of building a port”….I don’t know if it’s begun, in the middle, nearly finished -or perhaps merely projected.. The Iran situation won’t last for ever, and some time, maybe in 5 years or so, after the Ayatollahs are swept away, and Iran becomes a normal country again, this can happen; and be a good thing probably…if India wants to pursue it…But don’t forget it’s paying fire-sale prices to Iran now… Later they’ll be the same prices as everyone else…….So think…..
Also Trump and other officials have announced that this 1.2 mill will be squeezed down to nil, (or almost)….
@ Bear Klein:
“No possibility that “my” report is correct…”….. Are you sure that’s what you wanted to say…?
I see it was an Indian reporter, and it was “updated” (what does this mean exactly as to accuracy) Nov 1st. Well….that’s out of date, as my report was printed only a day ago. Also, maybe the reporters idea of “massive” is just his very own… to boost his report.
Let me as you… and please, I beg you to answer impartially. How massive could it be when the total for 8 countries is 1.2 mill bbd. Remember a few of those countries are also manufacturing giants. I mentioned Sth Korea as one..
So I DO say, that no matter how it’s cut up, India’s oil imports from Iran cannot be “massive”.. That’s all…. Simple arithmetic. I don’t know why you’re so persistent…. about such an unimportant matter..??
Why would India go the expense of building a port if it did not expect to continue importing the Iranian oil for longer and more than agreed with the USA? They have told the US they would buy their oil but must reduce the price. Iran is selling at a MASSIVE DISCOUNT”!!!!!
So the waiver of any amount combined with the Port building ends in eroding the intended affect of the sanctions on Iran.
@ Edgar G.:
I get it you object to the word “massive”. The report I cited is from US agrees to grant India waiver from Iran sanctions
By Sanjeev Choudhary
, ET Bureau| Updated: Nov 01, 2018, 07.54 PM IST (so there is no possibility my source is correct and you are mistaken.
I like Trump by the way still. However he is erratic and explosive. I hope he succeeds. I predicted that it was going to a very wild ride when he became POTUS and highly unusual ( I was not wrong). He was way better than the alternative. I feel it is okay to point out when he errs. Some of my friends who adore him get very upset when one state he errs on something or other.
@ Bear Klein:
Yes, I totally agree with your point…totally. I would burn all the Ayatollahs to cinders if I could, but at the risk of repeating what I’ve written above, the amount imported by India could not be “massive”…. considering that Iran exports are down to a total of 1.2 mll bbd and India is only one of 8 countries –one of which is South Korea, a top 10 GDP and exporting manufactured goods, state..
So the “massive ” amount, has to be comparatively picayune. Your highlighted report above must be out of date. In the near term, that 1.2 mll will shrink much further according to US officials.
Contrary to almost everybody I believe that Trump knows exactly what he’s doing and is a typical MAJOR businessman, that he is, if one thing doesn’t work, he tries another. If it gives the PC simpletons the view that he doesn’t know what to do and its knee-jerking…well….that’s their joy to salivate over…for how long t lasts.
@ Bear Klein:
Global war over rare metals. China has a near monopoly…. Stolin technology from America.
The real war over Rare Metals…. More valuable than oil
Afghanistan has a vast untouched wealth of minerals, including lithium, the silvery metal used in mobile phone and computer batteries considered essential to modern life.
US to Extract Minerals From Afghanistan to ‘Defray Cost of US Assistance’
The U.S. military has had its eyes on Afghan mineral deposits for some time. A 2007 Pentagon memo that the New York Times quoted in a 2010 article says that Afghanistan could be the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.”
U.S. Companies are planning on taking a larger role in extracting Afghanistan’s enormous reserves of valuable rare earth minerals, Reuters reported after U.S. President Donald Trump met with his Afghan counterpart Ashraf Ghani on Thursday.
According to a White House statement, the presidents agreed that the development of Afghan minerals by U.S. companies would “develop materials critical to national security,” as well as “defray some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more self-reliant.”
Afghanistan has some of the world’s largest un-extracted reserves of rare earth minerals valuable in electronic production, such as lithium, as well as gold and various gemstones. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the total value at at least US$1 trillion.
The two presidents reportedly discussed difficulties facing the project, such as the growing Taliban insurgency in regions containing the majority of the minerals. With this in account, they both expressed commitment to Trump’s new Afghanistan strategy, which, against what he promised in the election campaign, involves keeping U.S. military forces in the country for an indefinite period of time.
The U.S. military has had its eyes on Afghan mineral deposits for some time. A 2007 Pentagon memo that the New York Times quoted in a 2010 article says that Afghanistan could be the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” referencing the oil-rich monarchy that is a key U.S. regional ally.
“There is stunning potential here (in Afghanistan),” General David Petraeus said in the same memo.
Some analysts also believe that a push for greater U.S. presence in Afghan mineral extraction could be a way of limiting the influence of China. With China, along with Russia and Iran gaining greater regional influence, economic activities in the region are no longer the sole domain of U.S.-based companies.
China and Afghanistan have already cooperated to an extent in mineral extraction and China has made the country a center-point of its planned Belt and Road initiative, which seeks to commercially link Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and more recently Latin America and the Caribbean.
Afghanistan also has extensive oil reserves, with a new oil field having been discovered as recently as 2010.
@ Edgar G.:
I think any amount these countries were waived was way too much.
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/66454042.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Edgar you do not think any amount is to much in waivers? I want Iran to bleed and get weak. That is my point any amount is too much to be waived. Also allowing them to invest money to build a port is a really bad idea. Why dodge my question it was straight forward?
@ Bear Klein:
Bear… Nowhere did I remotely mention even a single word of anything you just posted. I did not mention “waiver” ..”new port”…etc.. Even in my previous post, the one you now answer, they were absent.
I queried your assertion that India was getting “massive” amounts of of from Iran using documented figures to do so. I’m interested in your answer -not a rhetorical question with no answer…
Just an aside….This site in the past few days has become very contentious, with normally temperate posters, pushing “leading questions” with seeming aggressive intent…..
@ Edgar G.:
So you approve of the waiver including the port building?
@ Bear Klein:
Well if there are 8 countries buying, with India being, say, the largest purchaser ..how massive can it be…?…after all. They use more than 4 mill. a day.. The total Iranian oil allowed to be sold to 8 countries, totals1.2 mill barrels daily.
@ Bear Klein:
US is reportedly granting 8 countries Iran sanctions waivers
The U.S. government has agreed to let eight countries, including close allies South Korea and Japan, as well as India, keep buying Iranian oil after it reimposes sanctions.
ran’s biggest oil customers – all in Asia – have been seeking sanctions waivers to allow them to continue buying some of its oil and have argued that a total ban would spur a further rally in the price of crude.
Another country that has been seeking a sanctions waiver is Turkey.
Analysts said, however, that waivers would likely be only temporary. LOL
“The U.S. may use waivers to slow-walk implementation, but these will not apply indefinitely,”
@ yamit82:
The worst of the waivers that I read about were with India. Trump allowed India to buy a massive amount of oil plus build a new port Iran to move it out. Really counterproductive. There is plenty of oil free elsewhere for India to buy. Hell the USA could provide it I believe. India is probably buying below market from Iran because is having trouble selling with the sanctions.
@ adamdalgliesh:
@ Bear Klein:
Israeli source: Trump not listening to intel, doesn’t get Iran moves in Syrias ‘Iranian entrenchment’
@ Bear Klein:
To place partial sanctions on Iran ( many oil waivers were given to countries dependent on Iranian oil) and not challenging their hegemony in the region is doomed to failure. IMO ISIS should be helped and encouraged to fight the Russians and Iranians including Hezbollah as long as they confine their actions to those targets. Don’t see any real strategy in any of Trump’s foreign policy moves.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Israel know it fights by itself nothing new and never asked for more!
Trumps advisors not just Mathis also did not want him to go down on the path he is taking. Almost universal among the military.
Trump at heart is close to an isolationist (or minimalist internationally) and he finds reasons to justify changing courses to try and achieve this objective.
Actually he is less than “sophomoric” when makes statements off the cuff such as, “Let Iran do whatever they in Syria, I do not care.” Even if he does not want the USA there and he is supporting Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States this dumb-ass comment is detrimental.
I watched live as he made it and my impression was that, it was not thought out at all, just a rambling comment! The point he more was trying to make was that I want out of Syria and do not give a shit really about anything else. Syrian has gone to hell longtime ago under Obama’s watch and I am not trying to change that.
It is YO-YO strategy at best! Yes, certainly one can make a good argument that the USA should be getting out of Syria for it own purposes. That does NOT mean the POTUS should be saying I do NOT care what Iran does in Syria. Wrong and Bad message.
@ Bear Klein: Bear, I agree with your analysis of Trump’s priorities. He is not “sophomoric.” He just has views about the Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan situations that differ from that of Mathis and many of our commenters on this site.
I think his priorities are the correct ones for the United States. He likes and respects Israel , but knows that he was elected President of the United States, not Israel. Israel is a loyal ally of the United States, and American ans Israeli interests are very congruent, but not identical. No two countries ever have identical interests. I believe that the Trump administration will give Israel some military assistance, mainly by giving/selling Israelis military hardware, as well as some diplomatic support at the United States. But otherwise Israel is on its own, as it always has been. The Book of Deuteronomy describes Israel as “anation that dwells alone, not numbering itself among the nations.” This is still true.
Anyone who believes that Iraqi Soldiers are going stop Iranians from going into Syria and be effective should read the highlighted part below. Also do not forget many Iraqi soldiers fled before fighting ISIS who had pickup trucks as their armor.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/01/us-coalition-trump-realign-islamic-state-mission-syria-exit.html#ixzz5bZGehPni
Ted Belman Said:
Bear Klein Said:
Trump, national security and nuclear war
A sorely needed assessment. Where should American nuclear policy go from here?
Prof. Louis René Beres
“I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds.” – Bhagavad Gita, cited by American nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945
@ yamit82:
“Sophomoric” I would say Freshman understanding.
He wants OUT OF SYRiA that was the point.
His team such as Pompeo are just trying to sooth the ruffled feathers of people like Bibi. Trump will do what his team convinces him to do until the day he changes his mind again. Anyone who says they have insider information about what is going must have an implant into the brain of Trump.
He had one point however who gives a shit if Iran and ISIS kill each other. Also who cares if the Taliban and ISIS kill each other. He did not seem to get that leaving ISIS runaround the middle east endangers friends and Americans there. Did not grasp that.
@ Bear Klein:
Scary as hell…. Shallow sophomoric understanding of the region and the players and Americas role if any some are correct others??????
Iranians maybe leaving Syria because of money? They also maybe leaving because the IAF is kicking their butt and they have NO defense against the air attacks. Every air attack has met its targeted goal!
I listened to a lot of his rambling press conference that Trump gave today.
He was speaking off the talk of his head but it what is important to him came out clearly:
Getting out of Syria (would NOT state time frames, said others had said 4 months but he said I did not say that).
Said he could care less if Iran is in Syria or not even though he said they have been leaving Syria and Yemen because of financial difficulties because of the sanctions he imposed.
He does not care too much for Kurds because they have been selling oil to Iran against his wishes. He said they fight better when they have Americans and the US Air-fighters helping them. He has no special consideration at all for the Kurds.
He cares what his voters or base care about and what he ran on.
He thinks “Syria is nothing but death and sand!” He wants OUT!!!!
He cares a lot about getting a wall.
Really not so interested in fighting ISIS because they also fight Iran, Syrians and Russia. He basically implied that we should just let them fight each other and the chances of any ISIS getting to USA was small if they did it would not be too many. More of problem for Russia and Iran.
Disagreed with General Mathis about fighting both Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan.
He learned from the commanders in Iraq what they would do and went along with what they suggested. So his mind was changed by the guys in the field. Did not say specifically what they told him.
Like I said, nothing has changed. America has Israel’s back.