Netanyahu: Israel will respond to any attack

By Haaretz Service

Prime Miniser Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel will retaliate against any attack on its citizens or soldiers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday, adding that Hamas would be made to be held accountable for actions.

The prime minister’s comments come following the death of two soldiers in Gaza clashes on Friday, which increased concern in the Israel Defense Forces that Hamas is trying to alter the situation along the Gaza Strip border fence, which will result in their targeting of Israeli patrols.

“Israel’s policy of retaliation is forceful and decisive,” the PM said during the weekly government meeting in Jerusalem, asserting that Israel would “retaliate decisively against any attack on our citizens and soldiers.”

“This policy is well-known and will continue. Hamas and the other terror organizations need to know that they are the ones that are responsible for their own actions,” Netanyahu said.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office on Sunday also referred to recent anonymous quotes reportedly originating from Netanyahu aides attacking U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy in the Middle East.

“The prime minister emphatically rejects the anonymous quotes about President Obama that a newspaper attributed to one of his confidants, and he condemns them,” the statement said.

Netanyahu was at pains to hammer home the message, telling reporters at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting: “I have heard over recent days anonymous and improper remarks in the media about the U.S. administration and American president.”

“I want to say clearly, these comments are unacceptable to me. They do not come from anyone representing me. The relations between Israel and the United States are those of allies and friends, and are based on tradition spanning many years.”

On the stalled peace talks with the Palestinian Authority the PM said that Israel continued to see a “Palestinian lack of flexibility. There are no signs of them becoming more moderate.”

“I don’t expect the discussions and declarations in the Arab League will make the process any easier,” Netanyahu added, saying that nonetheless Israel would “maintain a restrained framework for negotiations and continue our dealings with the American administration in an attempt to renew talks.”

Netanyahu’s statement came after Likud Minister Yuval Steinitz told Israel Radio earlier Sunday that Israel would reoccupy Gaza if it felt it had no other choice.

Finance Minister Steinitz said that Israel must deal with Hamas, and may have to reenter Gaza to destroy the regime.

“Israel won’t allow Hamas to arm with long-range missiles,” Steinitz said.

Major Eliraz Peretz and Staff Sergeant Ilan Sviatkovsky were killed Friday while pursuing a group of Palestinian militants trying to lay mines near the border fence. Two other soldiers were wounded in the incident, and two militants were killed.

Any change along the fence may present Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government with the first military challenge of its tenure. For the past year the situation has been calm, in great part as a result of the two wars conducted by the Olmert government: the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead.

Intelligence sources in Israel have recently raised the question whether Hamas was turning a blind eye to the rocket attacks, a possible change of tactics. Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Channel 2 on Saturday that Hamas is trying to change the “rules of the game” in Gaza, and will have to pay the price for this.

Spokesmen on behalf of Hamas claimed Friday evening that their gunmen acted defensively after an IDF force entered their area. In this they hinted that there was no change in policy from the point of view of Hamas. Responsibility for the incident was also claimed by three smaller factions in the Gaza Strip, including Islamic Jihad.

It is possible that Hamas was involved in the incident, in the mortar fire that was used to support the Palestinian gunmen during the exchanges of fire.

The incident comes at a convenient time for Hamas, on the eve of the Arab League summit, but for Netanyahu the timing is terrible, with pressure from the Americans and the international community on the need to alleviate the Israeli siege on the Strip.

In the interivew with Israel Radio, Steinitz also slammed the U.S. administration, saying the pressure it is putting on Israel is just worsening the situation.

“American pressure isn’t conductive and isn’t fair, because the Netanyahu government made two enormous gestures toward the Palestinians: The opportunity to improve the Palestinian economy, and the settlement freeze,” he said.

“The United States needs to understand that the atmosphere it created in the Middle East, that Washington is now less friendly to Israel, isn’t making the Palestinians more willing to compromise, it further adds to their rejection of the peace process.”

Stenitiz also stressed that it is necessary to make it clear to the Americans that they must focus on solutions to the Iranian nuclear threat

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
26/03/2010 18:22

Barak warns of “ramifications” after 2 soldiers killed in Strip Friday.

The soldier who was seriously wounded in the Gaza Strip on Friday night continued to fight for his life on Saturday afternoon after undergoing an operation at Beersheba’s Soroka Medical Center. The soldier is unconscious and cannot breathe on his own.

Meanwhile hostilities in the Gaza Strip continued Saturday as two Kassam rockets were fired at Israel. One fell inside the Strip, while the other exploded near a kibbutz in the Sha’ar Hanegev area. No one was hurt and no damage was caused.

IDF tanks were stationed in the Gaza Strip on alert overnight Friday. Reuters quoted Palestinian sources as saying five IDF tanks and two armored bulldozers entered the Strip and fired shells at targets near the town of Khan Yunis. The tanks were still in position at midnight, reportedly firing occasional rounds, but withdraw completely by Saturday afternoon.

A military spokeswoman said IDF troops used bulldozers to “flatten infrastructure used by terrorists to attack soldiers” before withdrawing.

On Friday evening, Major Eliraz Peretz, 31, from Eli, deputy commander of the Golani Brigade’s Battalion 12 and Staff Sergeant Ilan Sviatkovsky from Rishon Lezion, were killed in the southern Gaza Strip. The IDF made the announcement several hours after clashes between the IDF and armed Palestinians occurred near the town of Khan Yunis.

Peretz’s brother Uriel was killed in 1998 in clashes with Hizbullah when the IDF was still deployed in Lebanon. The family has another brother serving in Golani’s Battalion 13. The third brother participated in Operation Cast Lead last year.

A third soldier was moderately wounded in the incident and two others were lightly wounded. They were both taken to Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, where the first soldier’s condition worsened and became serious on Saturday morning.

Gaza medics said a Palestinian civilian was killed in the clash. Two gunmen were reportedly killed.

The hostilities occurred as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and an inner circle of his ministers, known as the ‘Septet’, were meeting in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement on Friday evening saying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu “joins in the grief of the families of soldiers who died today protecting the state and hopes for the quick recovery of the soldiers who were wounded.”

“This is a hard day for the state of Israel and for the Israel Defense Forces,” Netanyahu said.

In a hint of warning, the prime minister added that “Israel’s strong positions against those wishing  to harm its civilians and soldiers – are well known.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Friday that were Hamas to “loosen its grip” on terrorist activity in the Gaza Strip and allow further incidents to occur, there would be “ramifications.” Speaking to Channel 2, he said Hamas – which claimed responsibility for the ambush in which Peretz and Sviatkovsky were killed – would be held accountable for terrorist activity in the Strip.

Peretz and Sviatkovsky were killed when a team of soldiers from Golani’s Battalion 12 entered the Strip around 2:40 p.m. after several men were spotted placing what seemed to be explosive devices near the Gaza border fence on Thursday night.

The force was then attacked with mortar shells and gunfire from inside the Strip, as well as an explosive device that went off nearby. In the exchange of fire that ensued, at least one Palestinian was killed and several others wounded.

The soldiers were apparently not killed by the explosive device but by gunfire, when the grenade in one of the soldiers’ vests was hit by a Palestinian bullet and exploded on his body.

The military was uncertain whether the incident was a prepared ambush or if the shootout began because the soldiers crossed the border fence into Gaza.

The IDF used helicopters and mortar fire against the Palestinians.

Late Friday evening, the Hamas Website said the group’s gunmen were involved — a departure from the Islamic terror group’s tendency over the past year to avoid confrontation with Israeli forces.

Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida told Hamas radio that IDF forces “fell into an ambush” set by Hamas terrorists east of Khan Younis. He did not elaborate. He said IDF troops entered 500 meters into Gaza “but our men preempted them.”

He also said the action was taken in revenge to the killing of Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, which Hamas pinned on Israel.

Islamic Jihad also claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that the attack was intended to kidnap a soldier.

Adar 15, 5770, 01 March 10 03:14

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(Israelnationalnews.com) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly warned Lebanon’s speaker of the parliament, pro-Syrian Nabih Berri, that the United States will not stand in Israel’s way in the wake of Hizbullah’s stockpiling of advanced weapons.

The Lebanese website Naharnet said that Clinton’s letter stated, “Washington cannot make an effort to prevent Israel from making any aggression if Hizbullah does not stop replenishing its arsenal.” It said the letter was delivered by U.S. Ambassador Michele Sison.

Government sources told the Arabic-language daily Al Hayat that Berri asked the American envoy to tell Clinton while Lebanon “has no problem in finding a solution to the issue of arms,” the United States “should stop supplying weapons to Israel.”

Clinton began a tour of Latin American Sunday and did not comment on the reports. Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned American officials in Washington last week that Hizbullah is capable of attacking targets in Israel, and that Israel will hold Lebanon responsible for any aggression.

IDF intelligence officers warned the previous Olmert government, which agreed to a ceasefire with Hizbullah to end the 34-day Second Lebanon War, that Hizbullah immediately began re-arming. The United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolution provided for disarming Hizbullah, but commanders of U.N. Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said at the outset that they would not and could not enforce the mandate.

The inclusion of Hizbullah in the Lebanese government has returned Beirut to the Syrian axis, which now includes Iran along with closer relations with Turkey. Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah recently met with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Despite Syria’s closer ties with Iran and increasing dominance in Lebanon, Clinton has resumed formal diplomatic relations with Damascus. A Qatari newspaper reported Monday that Clinton will visit Syria soon, but American officials have not commented on the report.

The United States has designated Syria as a country that supports terror and has placed it on the advisory list of countries that Americans should not visit.

As 2009 draws to a close and the second decade of the 21st century looms before us, there is no greater danger facing the world than the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

As the events of recent weeks have made abundantly clear, sanctions and diplomacy have utterly failed to stop Teheran’s march down the road to an atomic arsenal. The ayatollahs have gleefully ignored repeated warnings from the West, and stubbornly insisted on proceeding apace toward nuclear proficiency.

We can no longer continue to ignore this reality. Our future and everything we hold dear is at stake. The danger is simply too great, and the threat is too real. As frightening as it sounds, Israel must give serious consideration to bombing Iran before it is too late.

MAKE NO mistake. If a halt is not put to Iran’s efforts, we will soon wake up to discover the would-be Hitler of Persia with his finger on the button, threatening Israel and the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction.

What the Nazi leader could only dream of accomplishing more than half a century ago, will soon be within reach of his Iranian disciple. Indeed, the clock is already winding down and we are nearing the end of the game, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scientists prepare to cross the threshold and storm past the nuclear goal line.

Speaking before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave a chilling account of just how close Iran is to meeting its nefarious goal. By early 2010, he said, the mullahs will have the technology to build a nuclear bomb, and they will be able to produce one within a year. That means that sometime in the next few weeks or months, Teheran will reach the technological point of no return, beyond which lies a future clouded in darkness and uncertainty.

And so, less than 1,000 miles east of Jerusalem, a new Auschwitz is steadily being prepared as the world dithers over what to do.

MONTHS AGO, Washington and its allies set a year-end deadline for Iran to accept a deal drawn up by the UN under which their uranium would be enriched abroad. But even this proved unacceptable to the hard-liners in Teheran, who are not exactly quaking in their boots at the prospect of additional economic penalties.

In a speech delivered last Tuesday, Ahmadinejad made clear that he remains unmoved by warnings from the West. The international community, he said, can give Iran “as many deadlines as they want, we don’t care.”

And why should they? The UN Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran with little to show for it. Does anyone really think that yet another round of injunctions and hand-wringing will do the trick?

In fact, just a few days ago, reports surfaced in the press that Iran was once again actively seeking to violate existing UN resolutions by trying to import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan to further bolster its enrichment program.

This is just one more sign that the West’s efforts to freeze Teheran’s nuclear program have come up short.

MOREOVER, THE Iranians continue to improve their strategic missile capability, heightening the peril should they succeed in constructing a nuclear warhead. In mid-December Iran test-fired its latest missile, the Sajjil-2, a sophisticated solid-fuel rocket that is more advanced and more accurate than its predecessors. With a range of 1,200 miles, or nearly 2,000 kilometers, it can hit anywhere in Israel and even reach parts of Europe.

Iran’s defense minister boasted on state television that the Sajjil-2 can be fired more quickly and reaches its target faster, which makes it harder to intercept or shoot down. Since it is a solid-fuel rocket, it can be prepped in advance and hidden in silos, thereby decreasing its vulnerability to a preemptive attack.

And lest there be any doubt about the ayatollahs’ real intentions, the Times of London reported two weeks ago that Western intelligence agencies have obtained an internal Iranian document detailing plans for neutron initiators. These are the triggers which set off nuclear explosions, and they have no other use.

TAKEN TOGETHER, all these pieces combine to form a frighteningly unambiguous picture: Iran is terrifyingly close to becoming a nuclear power. With each passing day, this nightmare scenario moves one step closer to fruition.

And so we must look ourselves directly in the mirror and ask a simple yet very pointed question: Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence?

An atomic Iran would transform the strategic dynamic of the Middle East, strengthen radical and fundamentalist forces and spark a region-wide nuclear arms race. It would raise the specter of terrorist groups allied to Teheran, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, getting their hands on the most devastating of weapons.

And we all know how Iran’s leaders have repeatedly and brazenly vowed to exterminate the Jewish state and wipe us off the map.

The alarm bells are ringing and the danger is near. Iran can and must be stopped, and military force may be the only way to do so. Six decades ago, the world watched in silence as the Germans tossed us into Hitler’s ovens and turned six million Jews into ashes. We cannot assume they will act any differently if Iran seeks to do the same.

So we dare not tarry. There is little room left for delay. If the world fails to act, the option of last resort may be our only choice.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, welcomes Lebanon's Prime Minister Sa'ad Hariri, at Tishrin presidential palace in Damascus on Saturday. Photo: AP

Unbeknownst to most Israelis, this week marked a critical shift for the worse in the regional balance of power. While IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi was busy demanding that the government pay a ransom of more than a thousand terrorists for captive soldier Gilad Schalit, few paid attention to Iran’s newest strategic successes.

Over the past week Lebanon capitulated to the Iranian axis. Turkey solidified its full membership in the axis. And Egypt began to make its peace with the notion of Iran becoming the strongest state in the region.

Less than five years after former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated by Syria, his son Prime Minister Saad Hariri paid a visit to Damascus to express his fealty to Syrian President Bashar Assad. Days later, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki visited Beirut and began giving the Lebanese government its new marching orders.

On Wednesday, Hizbullah forces deployed openly to the border with Israel under the permissive eye of the US-armed Lebanese army. Lebanon announced that it was no longer bound by binding UN Security Council Resolution 1559 that requires Hizbullah to disarm. And Hariri announced that he will soon visit Teheran.

While Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his media echo chamber insist that Turkey has buried its hatchet with Israel, on Wednesday Prime Minister Recip Erdogan led a delegation with 10 cabinet ministers to Damascus. There, according to the Syrian and Turkish Foreign Ministries, they signed 47 trade agreements.

This Turkish-Syrian rapprochement is not limited to economic issues. It is a strategic realignment. As Assad’s spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban explained to Iran’s Arabic-language al-Alam television channel, “We are working to establish close ties between Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq so these countries can act as one regional bloc in order to promote peace, security and stability in the Middle East, while keeping the West’s dictates and lust for the region’s natural and oil resources at bay.”

For years Egypt has been the most outspoken Arab opponent of Iran’s moves towards regional hegemony. This past summer Egypt did not hesitate to accuse Teheran of trying to overthrow the regime when it discovered a network of Iranian-commanded Hizbullah operatives planning a massive terror assault on the Suez Canal.

Yet on Sunday, Mubarak hosted Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear boss and current speaker of Iran’s parliament in Cairo. Following their meeting Mubarak traveled to the Persian Gulf for consultations on Iran’s nuclear program. Given Mubarak’s poor health, the fact that his meetings with Larijani sent him flying to Saudi Arabia indicate that something of major importance has just occurred.

Many IDF commanders are happy to leave the issue of Iran to the US, which they insist is capable and willing to deal with it. But the fact is that since Iran rejected President Barack Obama’s diplomatic overtures, the US has shown clear signs of strategic dissonance.

While Israel clings to the hope that sanctions might prevent Iran from going nuclear, this week that notion was exposed as a fiction. Although Obama gave the House of Representatives a green light to vote on sanctions against Iran, he quickly demonstrated that Teheran had no reason to worry.

First Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry blocked discussion of sanctions in the Senate. And now – with full White House backing – Kerry is trying again to appease the Iranians by begging them to let him visit Teheran. Clearly appeasement is the only play in Obama’s book.

Furthermore, China’s refusal to back sanctions in the UN Security Council coupled with Lebanon’s and Brazil’s ascension to the council next month obviate any possibility that a harsh international sanctions regime will be instituted against Iran any time soon.

FOR ISRAEL, Iran’s successful moves to preempt American threats to isolate it should have been the top news story and the main issue on the government’s and the General Staff’s agendas. But it wasn’t. Indeed, no one seemed to notice. They were otherwise occupied.

For the past week, the government’s security cabinet and the IDF’s top commanders have devoted themselves entirely to discussing how many terrorists Israel will give Hamas in exchange for captive soldier Gilad Schalit. For three days, the security cabinet met around the clock to discuss this issue alone. And the most insistent advocate for accepting Hamas’s demand that Israel release over a thousand terrorists has been IDF Chief of General Staff Ashkenazi.

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi

On Monday, Channel 2 reported that National Security Adviser Uzi Arad accused Ashkenazi of acting like the president of the IDF’s parents’ association rather than the chief of General Staff. Arad criticized Ashkenazi for demanding that Israel ransom the captive soldier while failing to supply the government with any option to use force to rescue Schalit.

The media pounced on the Arad-Ashkenazi story like hungry wolves. The national debate was dominated for two days by the burning questions of whether or not Arad would apologize, and whether Netanyahu can continue to retain Arad’s services after he insulted Ashkenazi.

Conspicuously absent from the media’s coverage of the spat was any discussion of the reasonableness of Arad’s criticism. So, too, the media ignored the question of what – if anything – Ashkenazi’s behavior tells us about the IDF mindset and disposition as Iran consolidates its regional power.

The fact is that Arad’s criticism was on point. Schalit has been captive in Gaza for more than three years. At no point has the IDF provided the government with an option for rescuing him.

A year ago, Ashkenazi sent the IDF’s best combat units into Gaza. During their stay, they were not ordered to rescue Schalit. And now, a year later, Ashkenazi is demanding that the government pay for the IDF’s failure to rescue Schalit by accepting a deal that will imperil the country. And he is claiming that failure to do so will constitute nothing less than an abdication of Israel’s moral responsibility to its soldiers.

Following the publication of Arad’s attack on Ashkenazi, the IDF’s Spokesman’s Office issued a statement that army commanders are fulfilling their “professional duties” by insisting that Israel ransom Schalit.

This is untrue. It is not the professional duty of IDF commanders to opine on ransom demands. They have no professional qualifications to determine the reasonableness of ransom demands. In Jewish history, the role of ransoming captives has traditionally been the writ of rabbis, not military men. The writ of military men was to rescue them.

The professional responsibility of the IDF is to provide the government with military options for achieving its strategic objectives – including rescuing Schalit. By failing to provide such options, the IDF – with Ashkenazi at its helm – has failed to uphold its professional responsibilities. Worse still, by demanding that the government endanger the country to ransom Schalit, Ashkenazi and his generals are telling us something distressing about how they define their role as military commanders.

The IDF’s apparent confusion about its role is not new. It was this confusion that led the army to fail to present the government with options for defeating Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 or for defeating Hamas in Gaza last year.

Whereas former prime minister Ehud Olmert properly received most of the blame for Israel’s poor performance in the Second Lebanon War and in Operation Cast Lead, the fact is that it was the IDF that failed to deliver the goods. The operations the IDF designed, recommended and carried out in both campaigns were not meant to defeat Israel’s enemies. All they were supposed to do was demonstrate Israel’s firepower. And even this wasn’t done particularly effectively.

In 2006, then-chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz rejected a ground invasion of south Lebanon in favor of an air campaign. When it became clear some 24 hours into the operation that an air campaign would be incapable of defeating Hizbullah or even degrading its ability to paralyze northern Israel with short-range rockets and missiles, Halutz and his deputies refused to conduct a ground assault. And, when after three weeks of failure they finally deployed ground forces in significant numbers, they didn’t know what to tell them to do.

For his part, Ashkenazi sat on his hands for months as southern Israel was pummeled with rockets and mortars from Gaza and refused to offer the government a military option for protecting the South. When last December Hamas forced his hand by announcing that it was abrogating its cease-fire with Israel, Ashkenazi grudgingly agreed to let the IDF respond to its aggression. But even then, he opted for an operational concept that had no chance of defeating Hamas. Ashkenazi rejected the notion of retaking the Gaza-Egypt border. He refused to order IDF forces into Gaza’s population centers. By opting not to do these things, Ashkenazi guaranteed that the IDF would accomplish little. Consequently, even top IDF commanders acknowledged this week that the army will be forced to return to Gaza in due course. There, thanks to Ashkenazi’s refusal to defeat Hamas, Israel’s soldiers will face a far more formidable foe than the one they were not allowed to defeat last year.

While refusing to fight Israel’s enemies, under Ashkenazi, like under Halutz before him, the IDF has enthusiastically attacked religious Zionists. Since 2002, the only sustained operation the army has carried out successfully was the expulsion of all Israelis from Gaza and northern Samaria in 2005.

When Defense Minister Ehud Barak severed the IDF’s ties with the Har Bracha Yeshiva last week, he was acting on Ashkenazi’s advice. Ashkenazi has promoted anti-settler commanders like Col. Yitzhak Barr. As a brigade commander in Samaria, Barr has reportedly prohibited his soldiers from fraternizing with Israeli families on Shabbat and personally refused to visit IDF Chief Rabbi Brig.-Gen. Avichai Rontzky at his succa during Succot.

EVERY DAY the dangers to Israel’s security and very survival mount. At this time, the government and the people of Israel need to be able to trust in the IDF’s ability to defend the country. Rather than earning that trust, those tasked with our defense are spending their time berating the political leadership for their own failures. Moreover, they are expressing a disturbing desire to pass the buck on fighting Israel’s enemies while aggressively hounding Israelis.

This situation is unacceptable. Either Ashkenazi and his generals should prove they are capable of performing their jobs, or they should be replaced.

Obama gives Iran another year’s grace for nuclear dialogue

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

December 19, 2009

Binyamin Netanyahu on second visit to White House

US president Barack Obama’s tough talk of sanctions has melted into soft soap for luring Iran into further dialogue. Adopting the reverse tactic, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sounds almost reasonable for a change, even as Tehran pushes its revolutionary goals as pugnaciously as ever.

DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources disclose Saturday, Dec. 19 that official US warnings that Washington’s patience is running out and tough sanctions are imminent are no more than a smokescreen for three major steps embarked on by the Obama administration in the last four days for dragging out sanctions and setting back military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave the US president another six months for diplomacy without the threat of military action when they met at the White House November 9. The first six months’ grace runs out at the end of Dec. 2009. The second ends in mid-2010. Netanyahu was backed up by defense minister Ehud Barak who said Monday, Dec. 14: “There is still time for diplomatic action to stop Iran.”

Using the respite, our sources report that the US president offered three inducements for tempting Tehran to call off its military program:

1. Whereas Tuesday, Dec. 15, Congress approved penalties for firms selling Iran gasoline and the insurance companies underwriting its sale, the following day, the influential senator John Kerry announced through his spokesman Frederic Jones that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he heads, “needs time to consider the bill.”

2. Friday, Dec. 17, Pentagon spokeswoman Tara Rigler announced a six-month delay in deploying the precision-guided, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator or “bunker buster” bomb (developed specifically for the nuclear facilities Iran and North Korea have sunk deep under ground).

“Funding delays and enhancements to the planned test schedule have pushed the capability availability date to Dec. 2010,” she announced.

Only five months ago, in August, the US Air Force announced that the 15-ton bomb for delivery by B-2 stealth bombers had been funded and would be ready for service in July 2010.

Washington is thus offering Tehran another six months to play with, free of threat of sanctions and safe from the bombardment of its subterranean nuclear facilities.

3. Over the weekend beginning Friday, Dec. 18, Israeli newspaper correspondents briefed by administration officials ran stories denigrating Mossad director Meir Dagan as the only Israeli official hold-out on the need to attack Iran. He is presented as being in the grip of a fixation detrimental to his handling of other key issues. One editorial advised the Israeli government to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

But the Obama administration’s lures had at least one result: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the Copenhagen climate conference, said:

“Everything is possible, 400 kilos, 800 kilos, it’s nothing,” for enrichment abroad, “but not in a climate where they threaten us. From the outset, delivery of 1,200 kilos of uranium was not a problem for us, but if they believe they can wave a stick to threaten us, those days are over. They have to change their vocabulary to respect and legality.”

While preaching to others about sticks, the Iranian president must have thought the big sticks Tehran waved in the last four days alone were invisible.

Wednesday, Dec. 12, Tehran launched an improved Sejil 2 missile which DEBKAfile‘s military sources confirm is capable of penetrating US and Israeli anti-missile defense shields and defying their interceptors, although US and Israeli sources were at pains to play down its capabilities. Those sources report that Sejil-2 is loaded with electronic chips used as decoys to mislead the electronic systems of the Israeli Arrow 2 and the US Patriot, Aegis and THAAD anti-missile missile systems.

Only last week, furthermore, Tehran signed a new military pact with Syria, roping in the Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas as second-strike wielders; Wednesday, the “Iranian Cyber Army” hacked into Twitter and filled its home page with anti-US slogans; for most of December, Iran-backed Yemeni rebels have kept Saudi and government forces on the run and, Friday, Iranian soldiers seized control of an Iraqi oil well in a disputed border region.

All the same, Obama’s beckoning gestures and Ahmadinejad’s smooth response indicate a fresh round of talks will be explored between the 5P+1 bloc (five Security Council permanent members plus Germany) and Iran before sanctions are broached or either the US or Israel resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

This means that Washington’s determined ultimatum to Iran to comply with its international obligations by the end of 2009 has been extended by a whole year – an extra six months granted by Israeli up to June 2010 and another six months which President Obama tagged on himself in order to further delay an Israeli attack on Iran.

By then, it will all be over: Tehran will have attained a nuclear weapon plus the means of delivery.

Saturday, an Iranian military spokesman declared: “Our forces are on our own soil, and based on the known international borders this well belongs to Iran.”

It is not hard to imagine how Tehran will comport itself once it has “the bomb.”