Editorial Note: The following news reports are summaries from original sources. They may also include corrections of Arabic names and political terminology. Comments are in parentheses.

 

 Window of Israeli Attack on Iran Closing, Media Campaign to Dissociate it from U.S.

Israeli officials say the window of Israeli attack on Iran is closing (see below). This election year in the U.S. is ideal for Israelis to do whatever they want, as leaders of both political parties compete on who is more loyal to Israel.

Israel Not to Warn US on Iran Attack

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2012 (Xinhua) --

Israeli officials said that they would not warn its closest ally the United States if the Jewish state decided to launch attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, local media said here on Tuesday.

Israeli officials said that they would keep the Americans in the dark if they decided to attack Iran, in order to decrease the possibility that the United States would be held responsible for failing to stop the attack, reported MSNBC TV Channel, quoting American intelligence officials.

Israeli defense officials confirmed that there was no plan to give the Untied States a heads-up on potential military strike against Iran, although they have not made the final decisions on whether to attack, according to the reports.

The reports said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak conveyed the message to a string of top U.S. officials who had visited the country recently, including chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Martin Dempsey, national security advisor Tom Donilon, and top U.S. lawmakers.

Anonymous U.S. officials said that Netanyahu delivered the same message to all top U.S. officials who went to Israel for the talks.

Such reports indicated a widening gap between the United States and Israel on how to tackle the Iranian nuclear issue. Israeli officials believed that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and the window for military attacks were closing, while the United States said there was no evidence that Iran had made up its mind to make a nuclear bomb, citing serious consequences of a military strike, including retaliations against U.S. interests, instability in the region and impact to the fragile global economy.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday headed to Washington for talks with senior U.S. officials. U.S. President Barack Obama will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House next Monday. The focus of all those talks will undoubtedly be on the potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Editor: Mu Xuequan

News Analysis:

U.S.-Israeli defense meeting to center on Iran's nuclear program

by Adam Gonn

JERUSALEM, Feb. 28, 2012 (Xinhua) --

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday traveled to Washington for meetings with his U.S. counterpart Leon Panetta and other top security and defense officials.

The focus of their discussion will be on Iran and what to do about the Islamic Republic's alleged nuclear weaponization program. While the two allies agree that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, there are deep divisions on how to deal with the issue.

All in all, three Israeli leaders will travel to the United States in the following weeks for talks with U.S. officials. In addition to Barak, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet President Barack Obama on March 5, and President Shimon Peres, whose position is mostly ceremonial, will also travel to the United States.

"All these meeting are designed to clarify the disagreements, and reduce them and to improve trust and coordination between the two countries," Prof. Eytan Gilboa, of Bar-Ilan University, told Xinhua on Tuesday.

"Obama wants to know how much Barak is committed to using force, because in Israel it's assumed that Barak and Netanyahu see eye to eye, that they agree," he added.

DIFFERENT OPINIONS

Gilboa said the purpose of the series of meetings held in Israel and in Washington as a preparation for the summit, were for both sides to gauge the extent of disagreement and agreement with the other.

Shlomo Brom, of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said that while the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama next week will be the most crucial meeting, it doesn't mean that the talks that Barak is going to hold are less important.

"The Americans understand that if they want to affect the decision of the government of Israel, then they have to work separately on Barak and on Netanyahu - both of them are important, " Brom said

He argued that if the U.S. government wants to convince the Israelis to dial back on some of their harsher rhetoric on Iran, it's better to meet with Barak and Netanyahu separately.

"They aren't identical; there is a variation in their positions, " Brom said, "So far, the way it looks is that Barak is more determined in this subject."

Barak has been quoted by Israeli media as saying that when it comes to Iran, Israel needs to keep all options on the table, a euphemism for a military strike.

DIFFERENT RED LINES

Gilboa argued that there's a consensus in the Israeli government that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons and that the time to prevent it from having one is running out.

"The disagreement revolves around how to deal with Iran's continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that there are basically three possible means to deal with the issue: one is heavier sanctions, number two, negotiations, and number three, a military strike," Gilboa said.

"Each has problems obviously, but it seems that heavy sanction may work," Gilboa said.

The European Union recently decided to impose a ban on importing oil from Iran, which would have a serious effect on the main revenue stream for Tehran. The United States already has such a ban in place, and is believed to be working on major importers of Iranian oil in Asia, such as Japan and India, to follow Europe' s lead.

"Negotiations are a big problem, because (Iran has) a lot experience with negotiations, and Iran has used negotiations only to gain time for the production of nuclear bombs," Gilboa said.

While Gilboa argued that a military strike would "solve the problem," -- a contested view -- he also warned about the consequences.

According to a quoted U.S. official, Israel doesn't intend to warn Washington prior to a strike on Iran.

The reason for keeping Americans in the dark is reportedly based on the assumption that not informing the U.S. would mean that Washington won't be blamed for not trying to stop Israel.

However, Iran has on several occasions warned that in addition to retaliation against those who attack its nuclear facilities, it would also strike those countries that, for example, allowed their airspace to be overflown.

Some of the disagreement between Israel and the United States is also believed to stem from the two nations' differing military capabilities.

Many military experts argue that Israel at the moment lacks the capabilities to conduct a comprehensive air strike to fully destroy Iran's nuclear program, and that the U.S. strong forces allow them to have a much tougher red line for Iran.

A joint statement on how the two nations currently assess the situation and how they intend to move forward, isn't expected to be released until after the Netanyahu-Obama meeting.

NATO chief rules out intervention in Syria, Iran

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2012 (Xinhua) --

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said here on Tuesday that the military alliance has no intention to intervene in Syria or Iran.

"It's important for me to stress that NATO has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Syria," the NATO secretary-general said at a press conference in Washington.

Stating that NATO is monitoring the situation closely and strongly condemns what is going on in Syria, Rasmussen said: "The only way forward in Syria is to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, and introduce freedom and democracy."

Cautioning that the Syrian crisis may have an impact on the region's stability, Rasmussen said: "I do believe that, as far as Syria is concerned, the best way forward would be a regional solution."

He commended the Arab League for its efforts to find a solution. "I do believe countries in the region should engage actively in finding a solution," he added.

Meanwhile, the NATO chief rejected a parallel with Libya, where NATO's air raids helped the opposition topple Muammar Gaddafi and his government.

He said that in Libya, NATO had a "very clear" United Nations mandate and "active support" from a number of countries in the region. "None of these conditions are fulfilled in Syria," he stressed.

The NATO chief also said that the military bloc is not involved in arming anyone in Syria. "NATO has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Syria, that also includes arming the opposition," he said.

On the West's stand-off with Iran over its disputed nuclear program, Rasmussen stated clearly: "I don't think a military intervention is the right way forward."

He said NATO as an alliance is not engaged in Iran, but supports the political and diplomatic efforts by its individual allies to find a solution, as well as urges the Iranian leadership to comply with their international obligations to relevant UN resolutions.

"But NATO has no intention whatsoever to intervene," he said.