LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 18/12

Bible Quotation for today
Luke 13/18-21: "He said therefore, ‘What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the garden; it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.’ And again he said, ‘To what should I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
How America Can Slow Israel's March to War/By: Dennis Ross /New York Times/August 17/12
Israel Debates a Strike on Iran/By: Michael Herzog/Washington Institute/August 17/12

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Says Latest Incidents in Lebanon Facilitate Spill over of Syrian Crisis
Naharnet /17 August 2012/French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Friday that the latest security incidents and kidnappings in Lebanon facilitate the spill over of the Syrian crisis to the country.
“The latest incidents in Lebanon facilitate the spill over of the Syrian crisis but we hope to find a solution to this situation,” Fabius said at Rafik Hariri International Airport following a two-day visit to Beirut.
Al-Meqdad clan has kidnapped several Syrians in retaliation to the abduction of a family member, Hassan al-Meqdad, by rebels in Syria earlier this week.
“We hold onto the safety and integrity of Lebanese territories and hope that the Syrian crisis would not have negative repercussions on Lebanon,” he told reporters.
The Foreign Minister said he discussed with Lebanese officials the issue of Syrian refugees in Lebanon.“I appreciate the efforts of the Higher Relief Council and other organizations in helping the refugees,” he said, adding that France has made a financial contribution which is an additional support for the efforts exerted by Lebanese authorities.He met on Friday with President Michel Suleiman, a day after holding talks with Speaker Nabih Berri, Premier Najib Miqati and Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour.He also visited the graveside of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri in downtown Beirut.Fabius lauded Suleiman’s efforts on the national dialogue, expressing France’s support for the all-party talks.The French FM travelled to Turkey.

Geagea urges government to announce state of emergency
August 17, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Friday the government should announce a state of emergency in the country to forcibly prevent all manifestations of armed groups.
In a televised news conference, Geagea said that given the recent security incidents in the country, the government “should announce a state of emergency, even if partially ... to forcibly prevent all armed manifestations or security breaches.”
“The government should then search for the kidnapped Syrians and non-Syrians and free them,” he added.
Geagea also urged strict measures against those who attempt to block the highway leading to Beirut airport.
“It is no longer acceptable for the Lebanese people to be hostage to the whims of whoever wishes to close roads,” Geagea said.
The security situation in the country has deteriorated following Wednesday’s kidnappings of dozens of Syrians and a Turkish national by a local clan’s “military wing,” as well as the recent discovery of terror plots aimed at further destabilizing Lebanon.
The Meqdad family kidnapped over 20 Syrians and a Turkish man in retaliation for the abduction of their relative Hassan Meqdad by Syrian rebels. The Meqdads have since released some of their hostages.
Ten Syrians were kidnapped Thursday by a previously unknown group demanding the release of 11 Lebanese pilgrims abducted in Syria two months ago.
Geagea said he understood the Meqdad clan’s claim of not having any trust in the Lebanese government’s ability to release their relative but that this should not justify “the armed popular uprising against the current government.”
He said the government should be dislodged via democratic means and urged the Lebanese including the Meqdad family to use the 2013 elections to change the politicians.
He added that his party along and the March 14 coalition have repeatedly voiced their mistrust of the government since its formation in June 2011, saying: “We have fought for months with the government for the telecommunications data to be transferred to security agencies ... we are all subject to assassination attempts.”
March 14 has repeatedly called on the government to transfer the data, which they say is critical to the investigation of the attempted assassination of both Geagea and MP Butros Harb that occurred earlier this year.President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati oversaw the transfer of the data last month.
During his chat with reporters, Geagea also said that the recent security incidents and the kidnapping of the Lebanese Shiite pilgrims were being used by the Syrian government to pressure Syrians in Lebanon as well as Mikati’s government.
“The incidents lead to the intimidation of all Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government, particularly the refugees,” he said in reference to the warnings against Syrian opposition members in the country. The LF leader also said that Syria is placing pressure on political figures in Lebanon as well as Arab countries who oppose it.
“Syria is resentful of the way the president and prime minister have been acting ... the Syrian government considered the current Cabinet to be its own so it automatically thought the government would help it,” he said. Geagea also spoke extensively about the recent discovery of bomb plots in the north and said former Information Minister Michel Samaha, who was accused last week of plotting to assassinate political and religious figures in Lebanon and carry out terrorist attacks, is the true face of the March 8 alliance.
Samaha, along with Syrian National Security Bureau head Ali Mamlouk and a Syrian army officer identified as Adnan were also accused of planning to incite sectarian clashes through terrorist attacks with explosives that Samaha transported to Lebanon and stored after taking possession of them from Mamlouk and Adnan.
“Samaha should not be seen as an individual but a person belonging to the political group of March 8 and his behavior gives an image about this team,” Geagea said.
“Samaha was the one who prompted that the Syrian regime was protecting stability in Lebanon, have you seen that materialize?” he asked.
“It is clear that the one who subverts civil peace in Lebanon and carried out bombings is the Syrian regime and its allies,” he added.

Nasrallah: We can transform Israeli lives to hell
Elior Levy and Eyal Lehmann Published: 08.17.12, 19:17 Ynetnews
Terror group's leader Hassan Nasrallah warns Israel that any attack against Lebanon would meet harsh response. 'We can change the face of Israel,' he claims during speech marking Jerusalem Day
The leader of Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah said his group will transform the lives of millions of Israelis to "hell" if Israel attacks Lebanon.
Speaking in a televised speech marking Jerusalem Day on Friday, Hassan Nasrallah said Hezbollah has a list of Israeli targets that it can hit with few rockets. "I tell the Israelis that you have a number of targets, not a large number ... that can be hit with precision rockets ... which we have."
He said he would not name the targets and did not say whether the rockets were newly acquired weapons.
Hitting these targets with a small number of rockets will turn ... the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists to real hell, and we can talk about tens of thousands of dead," said Nasrallah.
"We have been noticing an escalation of tone by Israel about destroying Lebanon. We do not deny that Israel has the power to do so ... I'm not saying I can destroy Israel but I can say that Hezbollah has the ability to turn the lives of millions of Zionists in occupied Palestine into a real hell," Nasrallah said.
“We can change the face of Israel," he added.
Nasrallah noted that Israel is fully aware that it is lying to the world by claiming that Iran's nuclear program has a military element. He said that the internal Israeli debate over the consequences of a military strike in Iran is testimony to the courage and strength of the regime in Tehran, and that the question of whether to attack or not has nothing to do with morals or international law, but rather the price Israel will have to pay.
"Israel's problem with Iran is that Iran is committed to the issue of Jerusalem and Palestine, which is not subject to negotiations or settlement," Nasrallah explained. "On this al-Quds (Jerusalem) day I want to ask the Arabs and the Muslims – If Iran has become Israel's biggest enemy, doesn’t it say something to the Arab and Islamic nations? Arab nations can acquire whichever weapons they'd like from Syria, while the whole world gangs up Iran if it tries to make an arms deal with Russia," he said.
The threat came as Israel debated whether to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. That could trigger retaliation from Iran's allies, like Hezbollah.
Nasrallah said Iran's response to any Israeli attack would be "lightning" and huge.

US condemns Ahmadinejad over Israel 'tumor' tirade
AFP Published: 08.17.12, 23:13 / Israel News
NSC spokesperson says 'entire international community should condemn such hateful and divisive rhetoric against Israel'; 'If Iran so concerned about human rights, it should stop brutal assault in Syria'
The United States on Friday condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comment that Israel was a "tumor" that needed to be wiped out, as "hateful and divisive."National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told AFP that if Iran was as concerned about human rights as Ahmadinejad said, it should stop supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad's "brutal assault" on his people.
"We strongly condemn the latest series of offensive and reprehensible comments by senior Iranian officials that are aimed at Israel," Vietor said. "The entire international community should condemn this hateful and divisive rhetoric. If Iranian officials are truly concerned about protecting the rights and dignity of all human beings, then Iran should stop supporting Assad's brutal assault on the Syrian people," Vietor said. "Iran and Syria's blatant disregard for basic human rights is the real insult to humanity."Ahmadinejad earlier delivered his latest explosive remarks about Israel in a speech in Tehran marking Jerusalem Day. "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat," he said.
"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists," he said. The diatribe took place amid heightened tensions between Israel and Iran over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Israel has in recent weeks intensified its threats to possibly bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent it having the capability to produce atomic weapons.

Syria’s neighbors braced for chemical threat. Assad warns Turkey on Stingers
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 17, 2012
The US and its allies are discussing a worst-case scenario that could require up to 60,000 ground troops to go into Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites following the fall of the Assad government, an unnamed American source said Thursday night, Aug.16. This scenario postulates the disintegration of his security forces, he said, leaving chemical and biological weapons sites vulnerable to pillaging. It assumes the sites could not be destroyed by aerial bombings in view of health and environmental hazards.
“There is no imminent plan to deploy ground forces,” the source insisted. This is just a worst-case scenario.
debkafile’s military sources find in this disclosure a bid to psychologically prepare the world for the prospect of chemical warfare, as the dialogue between Bashar Assad and his neighbors gains in violence.
The American special forces deployed on the Jordanian-Syrian border and in bases in Israel and Turkey clearly perceive a chemical-biological weapon threat. Military and medical preparations are being quietly put in place. Reconnaissance teams from potentially targeted countries have infiltrated Syria. They are on the lookout for any chemical missiles being moved into firing positions, although it is taken into account that Assad may be shifting decoys and that not all the real launchings can be stopped.
The Syrian ruler may also decide to transfer chemical explosives to Hizballah in Lebanon. Israel is on record as warning it would prevent this.
Medical preparations are also in place. The US and France are flying special military hospital facilities trained in the treatment of chemical weapon injuries to Turkey and Jordan. Israeli hospitals are on war alert and have begun opening fortified emergency wards and making them ready for patients. Tuesday, Aug. 14, IDF Home Front Command units embarked on a series of chemical attack drills in the towns of the northern district down to Afula, which is 52 kilometers east of Haifa and 110 kilometers north of Tel Aviv. The soldiers taking part those drills wore new anti-contamination suits.
In Tel Aviv, city hall announced underground parking spaces would be available in an emergency as bomb shelters for up to 850,000 people.
Wednesday, August 15, Bashar Assad’s violence again broke new ground:
Syrian air force bombers struck Azaz not far from the Turkish border – for the first time with the aim of razing a complete Syrian town. More than 80 people were killed and 150 wounded. He was telling the Free Syrian Army rebels who had been using Azaz as their command post and logistical hub for the Aleppo battle that the gloves were off and the same punishment would be meted out to any urban areas hosting them. The Syrian ruler also warned Ankara through back channels that if any more Turkish FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles were supplied to the FSA, he would arm the 2,500 Turkish rebel PKK Kurdish fighters allowed to deploy on the Syrian-Turkish border with Russian SA-8 anti-air missiles for use against Turkey.
Ankara shot back: That will be war.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly's military sources report that Assad is resolved more than ever to stand fast after the shot in the arm he received last week from Tehran.
Iran’s National Security Adviser Saeed Jalili visited Damascus Aug. 6-7 to ascertain that Syria would strike Israel and US military targets in the region with all its might if they attacked Iran.
Assad was ready to offer this pledge, but demanded in return that Tehran guarantee to exercise all its military capabilities to save him from any military or covert attempts to end his rule - whenever it was requested.Jalili promised him that guarantee. He also held a similar conversation with HIzballah’s Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut.

How America Can Slow Israel's March to War
Dennis Ross /New York Times
August 17, 2012
Washington can take several concrete steps to extend Israel's clock and exhaust diplomacy and sanctions before resorting to force.
Obama administration officials have made it clear that they believe there is still time and space for diplomatic efforts to succeed in stopping Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. But Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, has said it is time to declare that "diplomacy has failed."
While Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has not yet declared the failure of diplomacy, he has spoken about its inability to alter the course of Iran's nuclear program. In addition, he has told his cabinet that the nuclear threat from Iran dwarfs all the other threats Israel faces and pointedly added, "Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
The words of Israeli leaders are signaling not just increasing impatience with the pace of diplomacy but also Israel's growing readiness to act militarily on its own against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Although the United States and Israel share the same objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, the two differ on the point at which it may become necessary to act militarily to forestall the Iranian nuclear advance. I say "forestall" because neither America nor Israel can fully destroy the Iranian capability to build a nuclear weapon. Each country could set Iran back militarily, but neither could destroy Iran's skill or technical and engineering capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Since 2007, when Iran mastered the full nuclear fuel cycle and the means to enrich uranium on its own, it has been too late for that.
Their differences on the possible timing of military action are a function of both capabilities and perspective. The United States has significantly greater military might than Israel and therefore feels that it can wait substantially longer than Israel before resorting to force.
Israel is less patient. As Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said, Iran is rapidly approaching the moment when the depth, breadth and hardening of its multiple nuclear facilities would produce a "zone of immunity" in which an Israeli military strike would lose its effectiveness. Mr. Barak believes that Israel must act before that moment.
But the issue for the United States is not only about military capacity. It is also about having a strategy for the aftermath of any strike on Iran. Because force could not destroy Iran's nuclear capability, military action must be seen as a means and not an end. And it must be employed in a way that would contribute to the objective of setting back the Iranian nuclear program so that Iran is both less able and less willing to reconstitute it. At a minimum, that would require keeping Iran isolated and under severe economic sanctions after its nuclear facilities had been attacked.
Israel surely recognizes the importance of having a post-strike strategy that could succeed in keeping Iran isolated. But, perhaps because Israeli leaders find it difficult to surrender the military option while still facing what they perceive as an existential threat, they tend to believe that Tehran's behavior will produce a unified international position against Iran, even after a military strike.
In the words of one senior Israeli official: "The sanctions regime may be hurt for a time, but afterward it will recover, as will the diplomatic pressure on Iran, as will the intelligence battle against Iran. This is because the basic interests of the international community regarding Iran will not change."
The perspective of the Obama administration is different. From its standpoint, the isolation of Iran did not just happen on its own. It took considerable effort to persuade and mobilize the international community to impose crippling sanctions.
For the United States, this context matters. America thinks in terms of shaping an international environment so that if force becomes necessary it can be justified because diplomacy has been demonstrably exhausted and Iran, by stubbornly refusing to alter its nuclear program, will appear to have essentially brought war on itself. Preserving Iran's isolation in the event of a military strike will require denying Iran the ability to present itself as the victim.
In other words, before a military strike, it is essential to demonstrate that Iran was not prepared to accept a civil nuclear power capability with the kind of limitations that would prevent it from being able to produce nuclear weapons on short notice.
Israeli leaders wouldn't dispute the desirability of showing that diplomacy -- and the use of crippling sanctions -- had failed to change Iran's behavior. But Israelis clearly fear that their clock will run out on them and that Israel, in the words of that senior official, "will no longer be a player at that point."
The key questions for policy makers in Washington today are whether there is a way to extend the clock from an Israeli standpoint and whether it is possible to synchronize the American and Israeli clocks so that we really can exhaust diplomacy and sanctions before resorting to force. Four actions by the United States could make this possible.
First, the United States must put an endgame proposal on the table that would allow Iran to have civil nuclear power but with restrictions that would preclude it from having a breakout nuclear capability -- the ability to weaponize its nuclear program rapidly at a time of Tehran's choosing. Making such a proposal would clarify whether a genuine deal was possible and would convey to Israel that the American approach to negotiations was not open-ended.
Second, America should begin discussions with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the so called P5+1) about a "day after" strategy in the event that diplomacy fails and force is used. This would signal to both Israel and Iran that we mean what we say about all options being on the table.
Third, senior American officials should ask Israeli leaders if there are military capabilities we could provide them with -- like additional bunker-busting bombs, tankers for refueling aircraft and targeting information -- that would extend the clock for them.
And finally, the White House should ask Mr. Netanyahu what sort of support he would need from the United States if he chose to use force -- for example, resupply of weapons, munitions, spare parts, military and diplomatic backing, and help in terms of dealing with unexpected contingencies. The United States should be prepared to make firm commitments in all these areas now in return for Israel's agreement to postpone any attack until next year -- a delay that could be used to exhaust diplomatic options and lay the groundwork for military action if diplomacy failed.
Although some may argue that these actions will make a military strike more likely next year, they are almost certainly needed now in order to give Israel's leaders a reason to wait.
**Dennis Ross is counselor at The Washington Institute and former special assistant to President Obama for the Middle East and South Asia.

Israel Debates a Strike on Iran
Michael Herzog /Washington Institute
August 17, 2012
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/israel-debates-a-strike-on-iran
Israelis agree that Iran's nuclear program must be stopped, and their debate regarding a strike's cost-effectiveness, urgency, and impact on relations with the United States is coming to a head.
With the heat of the summer has come an unprecedented flare-up in Israel's public debate on whether and when to unilaterally strike the advancing Iranian nuclear program. Broadly speaking, Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to advocates early Israeli action, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears inclined to act but remains undecided, President Shimon Peres and most of the current and former defense establishment oppose an independent Israeli strike in the near future, and the rest of the government and the public at large are divided or uncertain. Peres has gone public with his opposition in recent days, further elevating the flames.
Following a wave of press reports pitting the bulk of the defense establishment against political decisionmakers on this issue, senior officials launched a media counteroffensive in a bid to defend the unilateral military option, prepare the public for a possible strike, and influence Washington and Tehran's calculus. First, Netanyahu publicly emphasized that threats directed at Israel's home front are "dwarfed" by the danger of Iran attaining nuclear weapons. In private, he reportedly stated, "If there is an inquiry commission [after a strike], I will say that I am responsible."
Second, leading Israeli columnists detailed Barak's arguments in several high-profile articles last weekend. In an extensive discussion with Ari Shavit of Haaretz, an anonymous "decisionmaker" -- easily identifiable as Barak -- discussed the aims and strategic rationale of a preemptive Israeli strike and offered a number of justifications for such a move, including: the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran; Israel's inability to wait much longer given the risk of losing its capacity to stop Iran militarily; Israel's need to rely on itself concerning the most critical aspects of its national security, not on its best friend, the United States; and the notion that containing a nuclear-armed Iran down the road would be exponentially more complicated and costly than prevention now.
Meanwhile, another leading newspaper, Maariv, came out with an extensive opinion poll on the issue. In line with previous surveys, the results reflected a somewhat divided and confused Israeli public. Although the responses suggested that a relatively large portion (40 percent) of the public trusts the prime minister and defense minister with this critical decision, a similar plurality does not want a political decision to trump the defense establishment's professional opinion. And while a majority regards a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat to Israel, 39 percent prefer Israel to act in concert with the United States -- only 35 percent stated that Israel should act independently before it is too late, and the remaining respondents were unsure.
To place this debate in context, most Israelis believe that Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. They also regard a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat to their country's future and are highly skeptical that international sanctions and diplomacy will curtail Tehran's aims. Therefore, the debate focuses on the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral Israeli strike (in both strategic and practical terms), as well as its timing and potential impact on U.S.-Israeli relations.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Assuming an Israeli strike can delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few years, the focal question debated is what international, regional, and domestic dynamics it would generate in the short and long term. Some decisionmakers believe military action would create an environment that effectively forces Tehran to halt the program for the long term, and perhaps hasten regime change, while others believe a strike would further push the regime to nuclearize. Commentators have also expressed concerns about Israel's national security risks in the event of poststrike confrontation with Iran and its proxies. Is the Israeli home front ready for a conflict that, while far from a doomsday scenario, might still result in several hundred civilian fatalities, according to Israeli military estimates? And in terms of monetary costs, some Israeli experts have warned of the negative impact a strike could have on the economy. For their part, Netanyahu and Barak continue to emphasize weighing the costs of prevention against the costs of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
TIMING AND URGENCY
Despite increased sanctions, Iran continues to advance its nuclear program, including its military-related aspects, thereby shortening the timeframe for a breakout and making potential preventive action more difficult. In particular, Israeli decisionmakers cite the regime's unabated uranium enrichment to 3.5 and 20 percent (which adds to its breakout capacity), a hardened and dispersed program that is becoming less vulnerable to attack, continued development of delivery systems, and -- if Israeli press accounts about a new U.S. intelligence report are correct -- weaponization efforts focused on nuclear warheads. Some officials claim that Iran's expanding "zone of immunity" may close Israel's window to act on its own by the end of this year, making the decision an urgent one. Yet opponents question whether the window is really that narrow, urging the government to give Washington and the international community more time. They also want Israel to avoid being seen as interfering in the U.S. presidential election with a pre-November strike.
EFFECT ON BILATERAL RELATIONS
Israeli-U.S. relations are a key element of the Israeli public debate. Implicit in the position of Israeli decisionmakers is deep skepticism regarding whether Washington, for its own domestic and strategic reasons, will ultimately deliver on its commitment to keep Iran from going nuclear. They are particularly disappointed about the lack of a defined timeframe for sanctions and diplomacy, as well as a clear roadmap for U.S. action should these measures fail. Indeed, they frequently cite the failure to curtail Pakistan and North Korea's nuclear ambitions despite U.S. commitments to do so.
Israeli officials also believe that their intimate dialogue with U.S. officials has failed to impact the latter's definition of red lines for military action against Iran. In Israel's view, postponing action until Tehran begins moving toward a bomb is too risky. Iran is capable of standing at that threshold for years, developing its capabilities, immunizing them to outside attack, and choosing to break out when efforts to stop it would be too late or too costly even for the United States. Israel wants to deny Tehran any such breakout capacity, and it questions U.S. assurances that "we will know" when Iran moves to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
At the same time, Israelis are well aware and appreciative of the special importance of their relationship with the United States, and the fact that they will depend on Washington's support the day after a preemptive strike, particularly in leading the crucial international campaign to prevent Iran from reconstituting its nuclear capabilities. This realization is consistently articulated by decisionmakers and reflected in polls indicating the public's preference for coordinated action with the United States. Israelis also believe that the United States has sought to influence their debate through high-profile official visits, leaks and briefings to the Israeli media, and public statements and gestures. Yet the recent plethora of visits and the very close ongoing dialogue between the two governments have been insufficient to convince Israeli decisionmakers of U.S. intentions and, in turn, close the bilateral gaps.
CONCLUSION
The intensifying public debate in Israel is, first and foremost, a testimony to the fact that the country is nearing a decision on Iran, probably in the coming weeks. Despite being a tribute to a healthy democracy, the debate might also come with an unintended cost: convincing Tehran that it can safely discount the prospect of military action, whether Israeli or American. In reality, while the debate may complicate Netanyahu's effort to win the required approval for such action within his divided cabinet, he may yet secure the necessary votes for a strike despite the controversy.
Whatever the case, public daylight between Israel and Washington on this critical issue is bad for both parties and is certainly unhelpful in their efforts to deter Iran. Although the window is closing, it is not too late to bridge the gaps. The parties must make an effort to do so while simultaneously lowering the public profile of their differences. If Washington wants to influence Israeli decisionmaking, it must reach out to its ally at the highest level both publicly and privately, presenting a clearer roadmap that seriously addresses Israel's concerns in words as well as deeds. Now is the time for such dialogue -- it cannot wait until after the U.S. election.
*Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Herzog is The Washington Institute's Milton Fine international fellow, based in Israel. Previously, he served as chief of staff to Defense Minister Ehud Barak.