PALESTINE/ISRAEL: No Weapons For Israel

No Weapons For Israel

The Israeli government and many of its U.S. supporters tried everything they could to defeat President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Fortunately, they failed and peace and diplomacy won!

 

But now Congress and the Obama administration plan to reward Israel by authorizing the transfer of “massive ordnance penetrators” and other advanced weaponry that it can use to attack Iran. If Israel bombs Iran, then there’s a good chance that the U.S. will be dragged into another war.

And the U.S. is prepared to sign a new 10-year deal to give Israel—one of the largest weapons exporters in the world—as much as $45 billion more in U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons. Israel routinely uses these weapons to injure and kill Palestinian civilians and destroy their homes, agriculture and infrastructure, in violation of U.S. law.  

We just avoided a potential war with Iran. Why would we now give Israel weapons it needs to start a war with Iran and more weapons to continue oppressing the Palestinians?

Sign the petition to President Obama and tell him #NoWeapons4Israel.

Click here to ask President Obama to comply with the law.

Dear President Obama,

The United States should not reward Israel with more weapons after Israel and its lobby, AIPAC, attempted to scuttle your administration’s nuclear deal with Iran. The transfer of “massive ordnance penetrators” and other advanced weaponry increases the likelihood of a unilateral Israeli attack against Iran. And a new 10-year deal to provide Israel with up to $45 billion in more US taxpayer-funded weapons will deepen US complicity in Israel’s human rights abuses of Palestinians, in violation of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts. We just avoided a potential war with Iran. Do not give Israel weapons that it can use to start a war with Iran and more weapons to continue oppressing the Palestinians.

This petition is sponsored by Grassroots International, WarIsACrime.org, World Beyond War, Code Pink, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Jewish Voice for Peace, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, RootsAction.org, American Muslims for Palestine, and Defense for Children International Palestine. You may receive action alerts from one or more of these organizations.

Get more background information:

"Israel Seeks Surge in US Security Support: Eyes Up to $45B Through 2028," Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News, May 24, 2015

"Cardin, the Iran Deal, and the Future of Plan B,"  Jim Lobe, LobeLog, September 3, 2015 Text of U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding,  August 2007

IRAN: Direct Talks with USA

Iran's supreme leader shuts down possibility of direct nuclear talks with USA (+ Video)

'Negotiations will not solve the problems' between Iran and the US, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said today, squashing one-on-one nuclear talks proposed by the US.

By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / February 7, 2013

Istanbul, Turkey

Iran's supreme leader today rejected the possibility of direct talks with the United States, nixing a proposal by Washington to ease the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program. 

Six world powers – including the US – are due to resume nuclear talks with Iran on Feb. 26 in Kazakhstan, after an eight-month hiatus. Few expect a breakthrough, not least because Iran is preparing for elections in June.

But the words of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – who has the final say on all strategic decisions in Iran, as official holder there of the title "God's deputy on earth" – appear to have scuppered chances of an immediate direct dialogue with the US. 

"You [Americans] are pointing the gun at Iran and say either negotiate or we will shoot. The Iranian nation will not be frightened by the threats," Ayatollah Khamenei told Air Force commanders in a speech today. 

"Some naive people like the idea of negotiating with America [but] negotiations will not solve the problems," Khamenei said in the remarks, which were posted on his website. "If some people want American rule to be established again in Iran, the nation will rise up to face them."

US Vice President Joe Biden said on Feb. 2, that Washington was ready for one-on-one talks "when the Iranian leadership, supreme leader, is serious." And in recent days, both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's foreign minister issued cautious, but explicit and positive, signals about possible direct contact with the US. 

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said there would be "positive consideration" of Biden's words, and that there was "no red line for bilateral negotiations" if the US was sincere.

Turning the screw

But yesterday the US tightened sanctions against Iran, forcing Iranian oil importers into barter arrangements to further restrict cash flow into the country. The sanctions are the latest in a host of measures by the US and European Union that have crippled Iran's economy by choking its oil exports, central bank, and most financial transactions. 

The moves taken yesterday were described by a senior Obama administration official as "a significant turning of the screw" that will “significantly increase the economic pressure on Iran.”

"Does imposing, in your own words, crippling sanctions show goodwill or hostility?" Khamenei asked today. "Iran will not accept to negotiate with he who threatens us with pressure. The offer of talks is meaningful when the other side shows goodwill."

Khamenei has nevertheless authorized Iran's talks with the six world powers, and said today, via Twitter, that "having relationships and negotiating with countries who had no deceit against us, is in our national interest."

The stated purpose of the raft of US and EU sanctions, along with four sets imposed by the United Nations Security Council since 2006 to hinder Iran's nuclear and missile programs, is to pressure Iran into agreeing to negotiated limits on its nuclear program so it can never build a bomb.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and rejects nuclear weapons as un-Islamic. Khamenei has declared in the past that Iran would demonstrate that nuclear arms were not a prerequisite to being a global power. But Iran has been at loggerheads with inspectors of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, about access and about possible past weapons-related work.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iran nuclear standoff are taking place in the context of an ever-increasing economic war, with sanctions at their center.

There is also a covert war being waged against Tehran that has, in recent years, been marked by the assassination of several Iranian scientists and multiple acts of sabotage, including targeted computer viruses.

Iran has also been accused of being behind a 2011 bomb plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in the Washington, and been linked to three other attacks in India, Georgia, and Thailand. 

Iranian officials blame the US and Israel for this covert war. And Khamenei has often referred to it – along with sanctions – when accusing the US of trying to force regime change, rather than just a resolution to the nuclear issue.  

Iran to US: You first

Khamenei raised questions about US sincerity soon after President Obama was inaugurated in 2009. In an initial overture, Mr. Obama said, "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." Soon thereafter, Obama addressed the Iranian people and called for a "new beginning."

Khamenei reacted by saying that Obama had "insulted Iran." About the proffered hand of friendship, he said: "What kind of hand? If it is an iron hand covered with a velvet glove, then it will not make any good sense..."

Yet Khamenei also offered one thread of hope to the US. He said: "You change, and we will also change our behavior, too."

Since 2009, however, the violent aftermath of presidential elections in Iran that year made improvements untenable for both sides.

The covert war against Iran has also been stepped up, such that a regular theme in Khamenei's speeches has been the "iron fist" that he claims the US offered to the Islamic Republic, along with "lies" and insincere efforts to find common ground.

It is not clear what affect the rejection of bilateral US-Iran discussions will have on the next round of nuclear talks.

Analysts suggest that Washington hoped to bypass the rigid framework of the so-called P5+1 group (the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany), which handles the nuclear talks, in order to offer Iran an enhanced deal that would include permitting a level of uranium enrichment in Iran, and recognition of its "right" to enrich – both bottom-line demands by Iran.

Both Britain and France, especially, are seen to be unwilling to accept those steps in the P5+1 framework. Yet in three rounds of previous talks last spring and summer, all P5+1 players looked to Washington to shape the final, acceptable result.

The current P5+1 offer has been rejected by Iran. It requires Iran to first take several key steps to rein in its nuclear program, with no reciprocal guarantee that sanction relief will follow.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Feb. 5, that there would be an “updated and credible offer for Iran” in Kazakhstan, and that the “need to make progress is increasingly urgent.”

SYSRIA/ISRAEL: Why did Israel attack Syria now?

Why did Israel attack Syria now, and why did the Syrians admit it?

 

The alleged Israeli attack came one day after an Iranian announcement that Tehran will view any attack on Syrian territory as an attack against Iran itself.

 

By Amos Harel | Feb.01, 2013 | 7:53 AM 

Two days before the night when Israeli planes attacked a weapons convoy or "Scientific Research Center" in Syria - according to reports in the foreign press - Iran sent Israel an explicit warning message. Tehran, said the Iranian announcement, will view any attack on Syrian territory as an attack against Iran itself. 

The warning came immediately after a wave of reports in the Israeli media about heightened tensions on the northern border; and along with remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting in which he directly addresses the fears that advanced Syrian weaponry would slip into the hands of others. 

Now after the reported attack in Syria, the Iranians have repeated their warnings strongly. Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi condemned the airstrike on state television, criticizing the "Zionist regime" for a clear violation of Syria's sovereignty. The semi-official Fars news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian as saying the raid on Syria would have significant implications for Tel Aviv. 

Israel has been agonizing for years over the question of whether or not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. So why did Israel this time - once again based on foreign sources - decide to take a risk and act inside Syria despite the clear warning from Iran (if it did, of course )? It can be assumed that there were urgent operational reasons, such as the need to prevent specific weapons from being transferred from Syria to Hezbollah. It also seems that Israel is not particularly impressed by Iranian threats. 

The combination of strategic circumstances in the region at the moment makes the chance of a direct Iranian response unlikely. A Syrian military response seems even less likely, though neither possibility can be ruled out. 

The most worrying unknown since Tuesday night concerns Hezbollah's reaction. The electronic media is filled with commentators talking about the Shi'ite organization's internal distress, as its declared support for President Bashar Assad in the Syrian civil war has brought down on Hezbollah the fury of all the other groups in Lebanese society. But Hezbollah is a sophisticated enemy operating in a tough environment. Complete restraint over the long term to Israel's actions could be considered weakness by Hezbollah, so we should expect some form of response, even if not immediately and not necessarily a broad rocket and missile attack on Israel. 

In the past year Hezbollah has acted at least three times against Israel: Firing Katyusha rockets at the Galilee - an act that was originally credited to a Sunni organization - blowing up a bus of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria and launching a pilotless aircraft that entered Israeli airspace over the Negev. In the first two cases Hezbollah declined to take responsibility for its operations, but in the third case of the UAV Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah took pride - even if the Lebanese only provided the logistical and operational framework for the public relations operation, while behind the operation stood Iranian experts. 

Hezbollah's actions point to the use of a wide range of methods and capabilities, all under a single strategy: Extracting a price from Israel, whether real or in terms of public relations, without crossing the line that would force the IDF to counterattack - which would extract an even more serious price from Lebanon. 

But a different Hezbollah operation is even more worrying, even though it has mostly been forgotten. In August 2012 it was revealed that the police and Shin Bet security service had arrested 14 Israeli Arabs suspected of smuggling 24 explosive devices from Lebanon into Israel via the village of Ghajar. The devices used standard C-4 explosives, which is much more powerful than the improvised explosives used by Palestinians in the terror attacks of the second intifada.

What these explosives were meant for and who was supposed to collect them from their hiding place in Nazareth has never been revealed. 

It is possible that Hezbollah is preparing "sleeper cells" of Palestinians from the West Bank who are waiting for instructions to act - and it is possible the organization has succeeded in smuggling in other explosives that have not been uncovered. 

The Syrian announcement on Wednesday evening somewhat surprised Israeli officials. After almost a full day of the Syrian regime's ignoring and denying the attack, it confirmed that a "scientific research center" north of Damascus had been attacked. Even more surprising than the announcement itself, an exceptional step compared to the previous Syrian policy concerning Israel, were the details. The wording of the Syrian announcement along with the geographic location pointed to a site well-known to Western intelligence organizations: One of Syria's centers for the manufacture of nonconventional weapons. 

Damascus released information that it generally prefers to keep secret. Moreover, as opposed to previous attacks ascribed to Israel and which both sides kept quiet about, this time it seems the Assad regime was willing to publicly expose the damage to its national honor. 

Why did the Syrians choose to abandon the chance to deny that Israel allowed them? This time it seems they want to exploit the attack for their own purposes. The announcement yesterday said the bombing was proof that Israel is behind the opposition groups fighting the government. 

This, of course, is a big lie, but in Assad's condition he needs all the diplomatic ammunition he can get. The Syrian dictator can no longer win the favor of the Arab world after a civil war in which over 50,000 of his people have been killed. But it is possible he is hoping to rally support, even the most minimal, from his new position as the victim of a Zionist plot. 

Israel will be similarly blamed by Syria many more times - as well as such condemnation from the Arab world, even if only for show - if another attack on Syria occurs. 

There is a contradiction between the media reports on the attack in Syria and the Syrians' own admission. The news agencies said Israel attacked a convoy of SA-17 anti-aircraft missile batteries near the Lebanese border. Even if Israel knows the truth, it is not volunteering information to clear up the confusion. But despite the distance of dozens of kilometers between the two locations, both are at the center of interest for Western intelligence organizations: This is exactly the area the Syrians used for years to hide problematic weapons, and was also used as a base for smuggling weapons into Lebanon. 

It seems we are at the beginning of the story - and not the end.

CANADA: Canadian Hypocrisy...

Iran: By suspending ties, Canada has sacrificed its national interests for Israel's sake

 

Statement comes day after Canada closed its embassy in Iran over its nuclear program, its hostility toward Israel and military assistance to Bashar Assad.

 

By DPA | Sep.08, 2012 | 10:12 AM

Canada has sacrificed its national interests for the sake of Israel by suspending diplomatic ties with Iran, a government spokesman said Saturday in Tehran. 

"The decision by Canada showed that this country has sacrificed the interests of its nation for the sake of the Zionists by following their policies against Iran," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said. 

In a statement Friday, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said that Canada had closed its embassy in Tehran and had given Iranian diplomats in Ottawa five days to leave the country. 

Iranian state media quoted Mehmanparast as saying that Tehran would soon reply to Canada's "hasty" decision. 

There are almost half a million Iranians living in Canada, including a large number of immigrants in Toronto, where Iran had recently planned to open a consulate. 

It was not clear what specifically prompted Canada's sudden move, although Baird said the Iranian government was "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today." 

He accused Iran of "providing increasing military assistance" to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, refusing to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and routinely threatening "the existence of Israel." 

"The Iranian regime is providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime; it refuses to comply with UN resolutions pertaining to its nuclear program; it routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide," Baird said in a statement. 

"It is among the world's worst violators of human rights; and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups, requiring the Government of Canada to formally list Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act." 

Accusing Iran of showing blatant disregard for the safety of foreign diplomats, Baird said "Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today." 

 Canadian

 

ISRAEL: Bent on aggression because IRAN has a nuclear reactor in DIMONA, NEGEV, which poses a great danger to Israel…

The president is not the enemy

The aggressive attack on Peres, after his remarks that Israel is not capable of striking Iran on its own, proves the need for his intervention in the face of Netanyahu and Barak's light finger on the trigger.

Haaretz Editorial | Aug.19, 2012 | 2:27 AM

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hiding behind his "aides," was aggrieved by the chutzpah of President Shimon Peres, who dared to disturb the monopoly that he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had secured over the debate about whether to bomb Iran. "Peres forgot the role of a president in the State of Israel," Netanyahu rebuked Peres via his "aides."

Peres - along with military experts, senior commanders in the Israel Defense Forces, a former Mossad chief, the president of the United States, and much of the Israeli public - believes that Israel is incapable of striking Iran on its own. If it does decide to attack, he posits, it must have at least U.S. support, if not its military might.

Israel's Nuclear 

Reactor in Dimona, Irael.

Peres is not less concerned about Israeli security than Netanyahu or Barak. He did not disclose military secrets, nor did he undermine the IDF's tactical capability to strike targets in Iran. But unlike the premier and the defense minister, he sees an attack on Iran in a broader context. According to this understanding, such a strike might destroy a few critical installations and delay Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, but as a result Israel would pay an even greater price than the casualties it would suffer. The disastrous regional results, the loss of U.S. and international support, and the undermining of the principle that has guided Israel up to now - that Iranian nuclear weapons represent a threat to the entire world, not just to Israel - all these constitute a real danger as well.

In his cautionary remarks, Peres faithfully performed his duty as president of the state - a horrified president who hears the deepest wishes of a frightened public, and who watches as a prime minister and defense minister act like guided missiles that have lost their way. The president's authority does not derive from intimate knowledge of intelligence information or from his political power. It is his merits as a statesman and as the shaper of Israeli nuclear policy that oblige him to make his opinion known to the Israeli public, which is being held hostage between the hammer of the Iranian threat and the anvil of the threat of bombing Iran. Peres is not the enemy. The aggressive attack on the president only proves the necessity of him intervening in the face of Netanyahu and Barak's light finger on the trigger.

Iran, 

oops,I mean Israel nuclear reactor in Dimona, Iran, 

oops, I mean Dimona, Israel 

IRAN/ISRAEL: NATO official: Soon, Israel won’t have unanimous support for Iran strike

In exclusive interview with Haaretz, Canadian general warns that military strike could serve interests of jihadis.

 

By Akiva Eldar | Aug.13, 2012 | 12:54 AM

The commander of the NATO mission in Libya that toppled Muammar Gadhafi's regime last year vehemently opposes a military strike on Iran at this time, regardless of whether it would be carried out by Israel or the United States.

Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force four months ago, told Haaretz in an exclusive interview Sunday that he doesn't believe Israel would take such an illogical and irresponsible step as to attack Iran without international support.

And NATO won't unanimously support a military campaign against Iran any time soon, he said, nor will the UN Security Council.

As someone familiar with Israel's senior military leadership, because of his work at NATO, Bouchard said he is convinced that Israel will not set in motion a process that could lead to chaos in the entire region, by launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The military option, he said, could be a boomerang that will end up harming Israel and uniting the entire Muslim world against it.

Bouchard, a native of Quebec, is a former deputy commander of the joint U.S.-Canadian military operation NORAD. He said the strategic price of a preventative war against Iran would be several times higher than the tactical benefit that might be gained. 

The chance of a 100 percent success rate in a military operation is infinitesimally small, said Bouchard, adding that Israel won't get a second chance and that it won't be a quick lightning strike like the Six-Day War.

He added that while all countries obviously have the right to defend themselves, Israel should take into account that global jihad would exploit an Israeli military assault and use it to incite against the West. He said Islamic fundamentalists can be expected to portray an attack as a Jewish-Christian conspiracy against Islam.

Bouchard called on whoever wins the next U.S. presidential election to look to historic groundbreaking diplomacy for examples of what could be accomplished, like Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China and Anwar Sadat's 1977 visit to Jerusalem.

The solution is not a zero-sum game, said Bouchard, but a compromise in which each side concedes something.

Russia holds the key to securing international support on Iran, he said, adding that this is a chance for Russian President Vladimir Putin to act like a leader by preventing another round of a Cold War. The situation around the world, and in the Middle East in particular, needs to settle down first, Bouchard said, warning that Israel must not get itself dragged into hasty and premature actions.

The violence in Syria is completely different from that in Libya when Bouchard headed Operation Odyssey Dawn, he said, adding that it more closely resembles the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, in that it requires long-term international intervention.

In addition, Gadhafi was backed by sidelined leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and opposed by other African countries as well as the Arab League and Qatar, which sent aircraft to help topple him.

By contrast, Syria has strong supporters like Iran, Russia and China, as well as terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The question, said Bouchard, is whether it's possible to defeat Syrian President Bashar Assad and if so, at what cost? And how long will it take?

In addition, the Libyan opposition was prepared to take power, while removing Assad from power at this point is likely to result in chaos, he said. If Assad gets desperate, he is liable to attack Israel, on the assumption that if he is going down, he may as well take Israelis with him, warned Bouchard.

The retired commander said NATO was successful in Libya because it didn't send in ground forces, but the geography and political instability of Syria mean that a battle in that country can't be fought exclusively by air. In addition, he warned, air strikes on Syria could cause significant casualties and provoke outrage against the West among countries in the region.

In an effort to avoid such a response to the NATO bombing of Libya, Bouchard said he ordered the pilots to avoid hitting water installations, hospitals, roads and mosques at all costs, even though he knew that Gadhafi's troops sometimes took refuge in such facilities. Two-thirds of the time, the order to drop bombs was canceled and the planes turned around, when it became clear there was a risk they would harm innocent civilians, he said.

In the battle against Libya, NATO planned for the day after, Bouchard said, adding that the forces were in Libya to protect the civilians and that he was pleased that the Muslim Brotherhood did not win the elections there.

It's too bad that Gadhafi was lynched by rebels, said Bouchard, adding that's not why NATO launched its campaign. Bouchard said he would have liked to see Gadhafi facing a war crimes tribunal.

ISRAEL/IRAN: I thought Israel Nuclear rector in Dimona did not exist!!!, Ha, ha, ha...

An Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities could endanger Israel's Dimona reactor

Senior Haaretz analyst Amir Oren says the main question that should bother Israel's leaders is what would be the reaction of the Obama administration to an uncoordinated attack in Iran.

By Amir Oren | Aug.10, 2012 | 10:15 AM

A foul wind is blowing over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with weekend gusts toward Caesarea. A wind of pugnacity. Before the eyes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the spirit of the chants of which he is so fond ("They are frightened"; "There's no free lunch" ) - it's as if a new sign has been raised high, bearing the words: "Strike now!"

Iran's nuclear weapons are not the story. A vast majority of the Israeli public and its elected representatives quite reasonably do not have faith in the ayatollahs and the Tehran regime, nor do they believe that once the Iranians attain nuclear warheads, they will use them only for deterrence and prestige. The debate is over how to act before that moment arrives, and the extent to which an impulsive move might harm Israel more than it helps.

The question posed in the summer of 2012 is very specific: Should Iran be attacked at this time, prior to the November 6 U.S. election, in defiance of the clear stand taken by President Barack Obama and the American intelligence community?

The Pentagon's "Annual Report on Military Power of Iran," updated in April, ascribes to Tehran a security policy based on the elements of deterrence, subversion, threat of asymmetrical retaliation, a war of attrition and regional influence. When it comes to the nuclear realm, the drafting of the report is cautious: "Iran continues to develop technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons."

The Pentagon - which, as per federal law, carefully notates the cost of preparing the report ("approximately $22,000" ) - also emphasizes the term "technically capable" in another context: By 2015, it says, "Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental missile."

Anyone who reads this document can conclude that the Iranians, in their preparations for a conflict with an Israeli-American enemy, are suspending any decision on the production of nuclear weapons - which would necessarily be detected and would trigger a war against them - until such a time when they have achieved strike capability and deterrence, not only against Tel Aviv but Washington as well. It would be foolish for them to produce a nuclear warhead before they have a missile with the required range. And according to U.S. intelligence, that will only happen three years from now.

The modus operandi to be used against Iran, when the time comes, is the subject of professional controversy among American military planners. Last month, the American Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert - a former submarine officer - proposed investing more heavily in missiles that are high-precision and theoretically more expensive than theoretically inexpensive but actually more expensive missiles dropped from planes. According to his thinking, the bill should include the cost of training crews, of maintenance and of the logistics of bringing manned warplanes into launch range. The advanced American jets, Greenert noted, are also dependent on stealth technology, but in the next few years new developments are liable to eliminate this advantage (and in so doing, cast a dark shadow on the value of the F-35 fighter jets that Israel plans to buy ).

In an attack with precision missiles, the Americans are unlikely to lose a single pilot or aircraft, just as the Israel Air Force did not lose any pilots or aircraft in the attacks on the Iraqi reactor in 1981 and the Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. Yet there is a substantial difference between the operational capacity to complete a specific mission, and the broad context of a prolonged conflict that would escalate into a barrage of ballistic and cruise missiles aimed at the West. Therefore, the American military is not recommending that Obama launch an attack, but rather that he restrain himself.

Since Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, a handful of generals and the directors of the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service are all aware of this data, the objections of the professional ranks to an Israeli attack do not reflect narrow-mindedness or even a fear that the opening salvo of the war might fail. Rather, it's the opposite - an absence of political and personal considerations - that is leading the elected officials.

The Dimona question

On September 6, 1963, an important political-security consultation was held in Israel. Among the six people who took part were the prime minister, Levi Eshkol, and two individuals who would go on to become prime minister - Golda Meir and Shimon Peres. Also present were the then-chief of staff, Tzvi Tzur, Education Minister Abba Eban, and former chief of staff Moshe Dayan, who was agriculture minister at the time. Dayan and Eban were present because of their past experience, whether in the IDF, Washington, D.C. or the United Nations.

Three security mavens - Dayan, Peres and Tzur - versus three civilians - Eshkol, Meir and Eban. Minutes of the discussion are preserved in the State Archives and were detailed years ago by Dr. Avner Cohen .

It was a most serious discussion, the revelation of which may make an important contribution to our own present discourse: Eshkol: "What do we do when the entire Egyptian army is arrayed in eastern Sinai, and it costs money and is nerve-racking?"

Tzur: "If Nasser's 4th and 8th divisions were in Sinai, it would be best if we took the risk on ourselves and threw the first punch."

(By the way, the question of communication with the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which Israel had been assured would rush to its aid if it were attacked, was discussed in this consultation - five decades before ships equipped with Aegis antimissile defense systems were planned to take part in downing the (Iranian ) Shahab missiles. These systems will be showcased in the joint military exercise to be held in late October, to the greater glory of Barack Obama and the greater envy of Mitt Romney. )

In any event, a key issue in the 1963 discussion was Dimona. Said Tzur, decades before the Arab Spring: "Our situation is good, because right now there is a holy commotion in the arena. No one is speaking to his own brother. If there is any cause for anxiety as to what the future holds, it relates to the more distant future. It looks murky. Where are we going to be in the '70s? Then there will be a need for something nonconventional. We have to be careful not to find ourselves in a situation in which Dimona is the pressure point. It cannot be that they gave us $100 million a year for Israel's security, and we sold Dimona with it."

Dayan: "The most important thing in terms of security, which could shift our balance of security, is the finished product of Dimona. There is no substitute for it, and no other ingenious solution. I'm not talking about mechanism, but about finished product. So long as we have a chance of reaching it, we must not do anything that is liable to stand between us and it. It is not worthwhile talking to the Americans, because they'll tell us: 'Is your aim security or Dimona? Why do you care so much about Dimona?'"

Peres: "We can reach agreement on capability."

Dimona, Eshkol clarified, constituted deterrence, but not the only possible deterrence. If President John F. Kennedy were to say there was no reason for Dimona because the Arab states will acquire similar capability, then, added Eshkol, "[Israel must] provide other deterrence, like Moshe has been saying - all of the weapons they give to NATO, only without atomic warheads. The Egyptians have pinpoint missiles. We want them, too. We need parity. We have to demand something that safeguards us and deters our neighbors, such-and-such hundreds of missiles and other weapons. Which is why I say: deterrence vs. deterrence. Of course, even then I am not demolishing Dimona, I am waiting with Dimona. For instance, we will also tell [French president Charles] de Gaulle that we won't start making anything without his knowledge. When the matter is finished, I can afford to tell him."

Kennedy was assassinated two and a half months later. By the end of his term, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 agreed to sell Phantom jets to Israel, where they would be the weapon of both deterrence and choice of the late '60s and early '70s. Without forfeiting Dimona. Richard Nixon handed Meir a triple achievement - Phantoms, a blind eye to Dimona, and abstention from pressure to return the territories. The achievement was so great that it contributed to Anwar Sadat's decision to embark on the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

During that war, the DIA - the Pentagon's intelligence agency - ascribed limited future value to Israel's nuclear deterrence, which it say would not maintain its monopoly status forever. "In spite of the deterrent threat," it wrote, "the Arabs are liable to attack, as they will assume that Israel will not make good on the threat, or they will succeed despite Israel's use of nuclear weapons - perhaps with chemical or biological weapons. They might also reap the benefits of an international response to Israel's realization of its nuclear threat. And, of course, the deterrent effect of such an Israeli threat would be diminished if the Arab states would themselves have nuclear weapons."

From Johnson and Nixon to George W. Bush and Obama, leaving Dimona off the playing board is a presidential decision. But the one who permitted it to exist can also change its mind, should conditions change. For instance, if that were to be the price named by Russia and China for backing the stepped-up pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear program. An American president whose declared vision is to work for a world more free of nuclear weapons, and who aspires to get even with someone who has expressly interfered in his reelection effort, is capable of altering his policy - particularly if the U.S. public becomes angry with the foreign country that entangled it in a war.

Attacking Iran despite Obama's objections would endanger Dimona. Has any express discussion of this matter taken place, in any framework? Do the cabinet ministers understand the consequences? Who authorized them to interfere, for the sake of two men's caprice, with the nuclear capability of Israel?