Email This Article
Your Name:
Your Email:
Email To:
4 + 6 = ?: (Required) Please type in the correct answer to the math question.

You are sending a link to...
Kenneth Timmerman: Israeli officials

Kenneth Timmerman, just returned from Israel, commented in an email:  “from my own talks with Israeli leaders (see Newsmax today,), I think they are in a serious holding pattern – hoping, praying (and hopefully, scheming) to make the revolution come in Iran.”

That was reflected in comments from senior Israeli officials in Timmerman’s article: “Israelis feel Obama weak on Iran sanctions.”

Eight months ago, the talk in Israel was of war. Israelis has just elected a tough new prime minister, who announced that stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program was his top priority. The Israeli Air Force conducted two long-distance exercises with in-flight refueling to demonstrate the capability of striking Iran. There was ominous talk of “red lines” that Israel would not allow Iran to cross.
Now Iran appears to have crossed those red lines, and it has enough uranium to make at least two bombs. Yet the talk of war has receded.
So what changed? A nuclear-armed Iran represents a threat of “biblical proportions,” said government spokesman Daniel Seaman. But the extent of the domestic turmoil that has rocked Iran since the disputed June 12 presidential election has given new hope to some members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet that war over Iran’s nuclear weapons program now can be avoided.
“The unrest [inside Iran] has led to a change in the calculation,” a top Netanyahu adviser told Newsmax. "In April, it was hard to make the argument that putting pressure on Iran would have any effect. Now the case for sanctions is stronger because there seems to be a growing likelihood of success."
Senior advisers to Netanyahu, including cabinet members, told Newsmax in Jerusalem that they now believe a combination of external pressure and help to the opposition inside Iran might convince the regime to change its behavior — or better yet, could provide the catalyst for a change of regime.
“The nuclear issue is tremendously important,” said a veteran Iran watcher who has advised prime ministers for many years. “But regime change must be the objective.”
He and other Netanyahu advisers contend that a secular democratic government in Iran most likely would focus on Iran’s economy and on rebuilding the country’s international reputation, rather than the aggressive pursuit of nuclear capabilities that have made the Islamist regime an international pariah.

Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of the Revolutionary Guards who went into opposition in 1989 and has been jailed repeatedly, agreed.
“The biggest mistake of my generation was to make a revolution against the world,” he told Newsmax. “The new generation wants to join the world, not destroy it.”

Israel now sees the Iranian regime as vulnerable in ways no one could conceive of just months ago. “Recently, they had to expand subsidies on basic foodstuffs,” another senior adviser said. “This is putting economic pressure on the regime.”
New international sanctions “are needed as soon as possible, and they can have a real impact on the Iranian economy. But this must be coupled with support from the outside for the green movement. Unfortunately, until now the U.S. has not provided any support to them at all,” the adviser said.
The third element of a tougher policy on Iran must be a credible threat of military action, should other measures fail to effect a change in Iranian behavior, the adviser added.
“These three things together — economic pressure, support for the opposition, and a credible military option always in view — are the only way you can avoid military action,” he said. “The goal of our policies should be to make the Iranian regime feel they are facing a dilemma, where they must choose between a nuclear bomb, and the survival of the regime. “

These statements by Israeli sources corroborate many of the observations made by Ami Imani in our NER interview with him about possible regime change.

 President Obama’s immediate attention has been   diverted from what to do about roiling events in Iran by the damage control over intelligence and security lapses by his Administration in the foiled al Qaeda plot to blow up North West Airlines flight 253 in Detroit on Christmas.  We doubt seriously if the useful suggestions of these senior Israeli officials, reflected in the Imani interview, will be understood, let alone adopted.

Timmerman notes the skepticism of Israeli officials given the failed quest for engagement with the Mullahs involving Senator John Kerry of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“The track of engagement has been cluttered with a lot of debris, making it harder to pursue,” a Netanyahu adviser said. “Is engagement over? That’s your headline, not mine. But the Iranians are making it increasingly difficult to go down that track.”
Contested Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swept aside any prospect that Iran would comply with Obama’s end-of-year deadline, saying on Thursday that the United States and the West can set "as many deadlines as they want. We don't care."
The possibility that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., would travel to Iran, which The Wall Street Journal disclosed last week, appears to be a last-ditch effort to revive engagement before it dies a natural death.
A Kerry trip to Tehran “would be a disaster,” a former senior Israeli intelligence official said, because it would allow the Iranian regime to buy more time to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
“Iran is gaming the situation, playing for time. They think they can avoid sanctions by making some new proposal at the very last minute,” a senior Israeli cabinet member said.
A Kerry spokesman said the senator doesn't plan to travel to Iran, but the White House welcomed such an effort.

It looks like Obama’s Hawaii vacation may end with a quick return to Washington for a huddle with his National Security Advisers to undertake damage control on his failed strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism at home and abroad.  Given the news from Iran,  he and his advisers will have to  rethink his feckless world vision vis a vis ‘engagement’ with the faltering  Islamic Republic of Iran,  its panicky Mullahs and puppet President Ahmadinejad.