Following nuclear deal with Iran, Washington tries to ease Israel’s fears; official states Israel’s military qualitative edge will be ensured, adding: ‘US intelligence will check Iranian compliance with laser accuracy’.
Itamar Eichner, Roi Kais, YNET
If Israel is attacked by Iran, the United States will protect it, a senior US official said in a press briefing on Monday.
“We live this commitment every day, it’s something we do for Israel on a daily basis,” he said. “We have a relationship of allies and the word ally has meaning for us. It means that if you are attacked we will defend you as we would a NATO member.”
According to the official, the US is “shocked” by the Iranian leadership’s calls to destroy Israel after the signing of the agreement.
“This is not the way a country should behave in today’s world. But that does not mean that we shouldn’t sign an agreement that reduces the risk of Iran becoming a nuclear state. We do not expect Iran to radically change its behavior following the agreement. We are trying to deal with the nuclear issue and bring it to a level of transparency and visibility. It’s not that we think that Iran has changed and its leaders want to create peace and harmony. I do not think that Iran is a part of the solution. Perhaps in the future if it changes its behavior.”
“We believe this deal reduces the need for a military attack,” the official said. “We understand that the military option is always an option for Israel and the US, but the agreement makes the military option less necessary. But Israel has a right to self-defense, we understand that.”
He pledged that the United States will ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge and increase its military aid in the field of missile defense and the war on terror.
“This is something that is in legislation. It is about what we sell to Israel to secure the lead, and how we monitor arms sales to the region so that Israel maintains its superiority. Therefore, the sale of F-35 and other systems is critical. This was our way to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge and it will remain so. The agreement with Iran is about its nuclear capabilities and not its conventional capabilities. We ensured the qualitative edge before the agreement and will continue doing so.”
The official went on to say that on the day after the implementation of the agreement there will not be a conflict of interests between Israeli intelligence and American intelligence in the effort to discover violations of the deal in Iran.
“US intelligence will continue to check Iranian compliance with the agreement with laser accuracy, and any attempt to deceive or mislead the supervision will be revealed. The goal is to provide policymakers with the right information and share it with the Israelis.”
The American source also addressed the issue of the money that will start flowing to Iran following the lifting of the Western-imposed sanctions, and insisted there would be no relief from the restrictions imposed on it as a result of its support of terrorism and its human rights violations.
The official said that Israeli officials expressed concern about the sale of advanced military capabilities to the Gulf states, and the issue came up, inter alia, during the visit of US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter in Israel two weeks ago, and even before that.
He denied reports that the United States intends to provide Egypt or the Gulf states with F-35 jets. “There will be no sale of F-35s to any other country in the region except Israel, and reports on that are not true,” he stressed.
Addressing the strained relations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration, the official said that this will not affect security cooperation.
“Defense relations have never been so strong. Despite the political tensions, our relationship remains the cornerstone of our approach to the Middle East. Our relations are unprecedented in terms of their depth. From the level of colonel in the army to the highest levels of the military and political leadership, they are in weekly contact with their Israeli counterparts. During his visit to Israel, Secretary of Defense Carter discussed cooperation on what we can do against the threat Hezbollah poses in the north, Iran’s support for terrorism and also Sunni extremism and violence.”
The official also addressed the issue of the “compensation package” Israel is supposed to receive following the agreement with Iran. Netanyahu refuses to enter negotiations on the content and scope of the package so it would not be interpreted as Israel accepting the agreement.
Israeli officials have warned that after the signing of the agreement, Obama became less generous, but the US official explained that there is no significance to the timing of these conversations and that the package will be “generous” in any case.
“We talked about increased cooperation in certain areas but there was no discussion of the package,” he explains. “What we heard from other parts of the administration is a desire to enter into talks on defense aid to Israel. During the defense secretary’s visit to Saudi Arabia, there was no discussion about a compensation package but rather continued cooperation.”
ArnoldHarris Said:
Many good points. Notice I added sentence about attacking Qom to decapitate leadership. Yes, regime change is the most logical, and preferred alternative.
Michael Ledeen, who is considered an expert and hawk on Iran, always dismisses a military solution. He calls for regime change. Attack Iran massively and drive the anti-regime population into the hands of the regime. They will line up with the regime if attacked from outside. The most militant ayatollahs have to be eliminated. Even John Bolton says the time for military solution has passed. There’s no real reason why Israel cannot have a friendlier relationship with Iran like it did during the time of the Shah.
Obama has screwed the Midle East up royally by his surrender agreement and before that, by not supporting the internal opposition. He’s married to the extremist leadership, instead of undermining them. I suspect he could have used the sanctions more forcefully, as many articles suggest, and put the screws to the regime.
I think more and more Americans now see through this charlatan although I’m surprised his approval ratings are as high as the mid-40’s. I never thought this country would elect such a person. That’s what scares me about the 2016 election. Expect the unexpected. babushka Said:
The most painful part of this is the fact so many American “Jews” still support him and his surrender. Look at Barbara Boxer, who is enthusiastically supporting it. The many Jews in south Florida can’t even keep Nelson on their side. I’m sure many support his decision to surrender. Look at the typical Jewish politician: Alan Grayson and Debbie Medusa Schultz.
ArnoldHarris Said:
Many good points. Notice I added sentence about attacking Qom to decapitate leadership. Yes, regime change is the most logical, and preferred alternative.
Michael Ledeen, who is considered an expert and hawk on Iran, always dismisses a military solution. He calls for regime change. Attack Iran massively and drive the anti-regime population into the hands of the regime. They will line up with the regime if attacked from outside. The most militant ayatollahs have to be eliminated. Even John Bolton says the time for military solution has passed. There’s no real reason why Israel cannot have a friendlier relationship with Iran like it did during the time of the Shah once the most extreme are eliminated. A carefully planned attack, which will require the most precise and accurate intelligence, is likely to invite more interference from Obama. Heck, I suspect some Republicans (like a Bush) would try to stop it.
Obama has screwed the Midle East up royally by his surrender agreement and before that, by not supporting the internal Itanian opposition. He’s married to the extremist leadership, instead of undermining them. I suspect he could have used the sanctions more forcefully, as many articles suggest, and put the screws to the regime.
I think more and more Americans now see through this charlatan although I’m surprised his approval ratings are as high as the mid-40’s. I never thought this country would elect such a person. That’s what scares me about the 2016 election. Expect the unexpected.
This column is amusing satire. During the Obama regime, America has betrayed Israel, Honduras, Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and doubtlessly many others. Yet Obama’s pledge of eternal devotion to Israel touches the soul, notwithstanding the fact that he is obviously full of bovine excrement.
@ BethesdaDog:
You ask what Israel can do about the Iranian threat in the face of Obama’s opposition.
I plainly believe that no military strikes will achieve the stated goal of neutralizing the developing nuclear weaponry of any country capable of manufacturing such weapons. The ayatollists will protect their nuclear stockpiles with whatever guile and artifice that Israel has used over some 60 years.
So I think there is only one way out of this. That is to eliminate neutralize the leadership of the present government in Teheran, all at once, and work with Iranian opposition groups to replace ayatollism with one less likely to start a nuclear war. You can call it terrorism, if you wish. I call it self-defense.
So pick and choose. Terminate their leadership all at once, and live. Or wait for someone else to act on your behalf, and die.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Brett101 Said:
You probably know a lot more about this stuff than I do. The retired Israeli AF general who said that about drones might have been blowing me off because I came out of nowhere, making a lot of opinionated comments about Israeli military affairs, and he had just met me in a restaurant. He might have been very suspicious. Besides, he was representing a major Israeli defense contractor and did not want to be seen as saying anything that could be critical of the US involvement in the Lavi’s cancellation.
Dov Zakheim, whom I believe was instrumental in the cancellation in his role in the Bush DOD, wrote a book about it. I never read the book, but perhaps he was trying to justify what was a very controversial decision. Interestingly, Caspar Weinberger wrote the foreward to the book. Weinberger was said to have tried repeatedly to cancel the project. Weinberger did not like Israel. He also helped the lynching of Pollard.
Zakheim’s book, incidentally, is available on Amazon for the bargain price of $0.01. Shipping of $ 3.99 probably kills what would otherwise be a bargain.
jlevyellow Said:
Don’t disagree with you about all those attacks by Iran. And assholes in the US complain about Pollard still, calling him a traitor. I suspect Hillary Clinton did far more damage to American security interests with her private server than Pollard ever did, yet the DOJ won’t go into her mansion and seize it. It would not surprise me that America has seriously infiltrated Israeli government circles, security agencies, intelligence agencies, and so on.
Netanyahu says the agreement will lead to war. I would agree, but what can Israel do if Obama puts down his boot on Bibi’s neck? With the announcement today that three Democratic senators coming out for the Ameriecan surrender agreement (Boxer, Kaine and Nelson), what chance is there of killing it? What does Israel do then? How many planes and pilots does it lose in an intensive bombing campaign to destroy or at least incapacitate the more important nuclear sites? Can it attack Qom and decapitate the leadership? Just what can and does it do?
(But is all of this really all that important. Must keep it all in perspective, after all, the killer of Cecil the Lion is still on the loose!)
@ BethesdaDog:
UAVs have been vastly oversold by the media. They’re perfect if you’re looking for persistence over the battlefield – as in a propeller driven surveillance platform or a “persistent” kill capability in uncontested air space. But pound-per-pound, if you want the same capabilities as an F-15E Strike Eagle, it’s going to cost you the same to develop and field, manned or unmanned. Just look at the Global Hawk. More expensive to operate and less capable than the U-2 it was intended to replace. The USAF mothballed its Block 30 Global Hawks for precisely that reason:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-06-06/pentagon-says-northrop-s-global-hawk-drone-isn-t-effective-
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/freeing-the-hostage-acc-commander-outspoken-on-eve-of-retirement/
Israel lost a lot when the Lavi was cancelled. Instead of developing a 5th or 6th generation fighter worthy of the IAF, Israel must instead accept the F-35 – as is – short range and all. The story of the Lavi, and how much it’s cancellation cost Israeli industry, has never been fully told. I did notice that there was a new book coming out on the Lavi at the end of the year:
http://www.amazon.com/Lavi-United-States-Controversial-Fighter/dp/1612347223
Perhaps the sad story of its promise, and loss will finally be told.
@ BethesdaDog:
I took the liberty of calling Iranian attacks like Argentina and Bulgaria ‘direct’. If they hire surrogates like Hizb’Allah to attack Israel and supply officers to command them, it is direct enough for me. Israel returned dead Iranian soldiers to Iran after the last Lebanon War. If Iran hangs Iranian Jews on their way to Israel, that is sufficiently ‘direct’. If it tries to set up forward position on the Golan for future rocket installations, that catches the definition of ‘direct’ quite nicely. I never mentioned Iranian attacks with nuclear weapons.
Regarding the US, Obama stopped Israel from using bases in Azerbaijan to attack Iran by simply informing the world about its bases there. On a separate occasion, the US informed Iran of a planned Israeli attack, thus aborting it. Perhaps that happened more than once. I believe, without having special knowledge, that the “chickensh*t crack was a direct put-down of Israel for failing to attack Iran after its plans had been disclosed by the US. Israeli intelligence is a sieve and has been infiltrated by the US for some time by both sides’ admission. Note, please, that Israeli leaders always place their hands over their mouths when speaking to each other in public to thwart American lip-readers.
Oh, Arnold, you’re always dragging up history. In contrast, the U.S. Will defend Israel just as it did the Ukraine. 🙂
If Iran attacks Israel, the USA will defend Israel exactly the way the governments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill bombed the rail system hauling the Jews to the German Nazi death factories in Poland from all across Europe. The raw fact was that the only Jews from central and eastern Europe who survived the war did so because they fled eastward into Soviet Russia, where Stalin’s admittedly-murderous government armed some 500,000 Jews and gave them an opportunity kill a significant number of Nazi’s.
I really don’t give a shit how many people Stalin wiped out. My interest in him was that a population of some two million European Jews survived the war because he was looking for soldiers, and as far as he was concerned, Jews would do the job nicely. As a result, Stalin had more than 100 Jewish generals, whereas the USA had only a handful, and some of the better known ones like Maurice Rose and Mark Clark converted to Christian churches early in their careers, in the usual go-along to get-along. Freedom of religion, indeed. You believe that, there’s a bridge across the East River I can sell you cheap.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
😛 😛 😛
jlevyellow Said:
Your comment is hard to understand. Yes, Israel has been attacked by Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran’s proxies. When has it been attacked directly by Iran, and when by nuclear weapons? That would be a whole different ballgame Are you saying that Israel could not use F-16’s and F-15’s to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? How would US prevent it? I know the US could do a lot to try to turn back an attack, but they can’t remotely control the Israeli planes. Could they jam the electronics in the Israeli planes, thus preventing a successful mission?
I don’t see how. Brzezinski once suggested that the US could shoot down an Israeli air attack, I suppose from airfields in Iraq.
Please explain your comment. Some assertions make sense, others don’t.
I do agree that Israel should not rely on assurances from this administration. Why was it any different under a GOP administration that cancelled the Lavie? Israel has no homegrown capacity to build more fighters, although I don’t know that it needs them. One retired Air Force general scoffed when I said I thought it was a shame that the Lavie had been cancelled. He said the future was unmanned vehicles anyway. Maybe UAVs would be a primary means of attacking Iranian nuclear sites. Who knows what the Israelis have up their sleeves. I just don’t like complacency. I’m old enough to remember ’73.
This from a lying administration that has repeatedly betrayed its allies. We knew who the President was during his first campaign when he told an AIPAC dinner Jerusalem was the single, undivided capital of Israel only to take it back the next morning when the Arabs didn’t like it.
1 – The US is totally undependable in this regard. Look at Vietnam.
2 – No sovereign nation should depend on another for its defense. Especially Israel. But I don’t have time to go into that now.
Words of fog! If Israel is attacked by Iran directly, there will be no need to defend it. Israel has already been attacked by Iran, many times that have not succeeded and a few time that have. The US has not come to its defense publicly.
The Obama administration has given up Israeli intelligence assets and plans to the enemy with no conscience. Every weapon system from the US is built with “safeguards” to prevent its unauthorized use. Israel will be left without defense if it depends upon US systems. That is why intelligence and military cooperation has remained “close.” Never believe any words from this administration. War is deception.
The vast majority of comments on left of center YNET is to reject the deal and not trust the US to do what this unnamed official says they will do.
Many also mention that this is part of the campaign to get approval of the deal.
I’d like to know who this official is. It sure doesn’t sound like Kerry, Jarrett, or Rice. I have never seen Jarrett speak, but this doesn’t sound like the super-arrogant Kerry or Rice, who seem to treat Israel with consistent disdain. They are more likely to treat Israel’s legitimate concerns with contempt and derision.