Uniting in response to a string of aggressive gestures from Iran, a bipartisan group of 32 U.S. senators introduced a resolution Thursday endorsing continued economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran as it seeks to gain nuclear capability. “You have only two choices: peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear weapons program, or expect a military strike to disable that program,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The senators said that President Obama would receive bipartisan support should he decide that a military strike was necessary. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, “The best way for Iran to survive is to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions and become a productive member of the family of nations.”  (Emmarie Huetteman – New York Times)

The Obama administration formally announced its intention to ask Congress to waive a ban on funding UNESCO over its recognition of Palestinian statehood. “The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO,” says a footnote in the budget that the White House submitted to Congress this month. On Wednesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said she plans to oppose such a waiver.
U.S. funding for UNESCO was stopped late last year because of laws banning U.S. funding of any international organization that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel. “Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make,” she said. (Ron Kampeas - JTA)

Israel’s leaders, reflecting Israeli public opinion, take very seriously Iran’s oft-repeated threat to create a second Holocaust, to wipe the Jewish state – “the Zionist entity” or “Zionist regime,” as the Iranians call it – off the map. They take equally seriously Iran’s nuclear program, which the international community, after years of denial or at least skepticism, now accepts is geared to the production of nuclear weaponry. Israelis, at least those who don’t bury their heads in the sand, believe that if the Iranians get nuclear weapons they will, in the end, use them – or at a minimum, cannot be relied on not to use them – and that Israel’s very existence is at stake.
The choice is clear and stark. Either Iran, led by fanatical, brutal and millenarian leaders, will get the bomb, or it will be prevented from doing so by military assault on its nuclear installations, by America or Israel. If the Americans, who have the capability to do a thorough job, don’t do it – and they don’t seem to have the stomach for it after Iraq and Afghanistan – then the Israelis, with their more limited capabilities, will have to.
How Washington, which has repeatedly and more or less publicly vetoed the idea, would react to an Israeli strike deeply worries policymakers in Jerusalem. But it worries them far less than a nuclear-weaponized Iran. An Israeli or American attack on Iran would likely rile much of the Muslim world, causing wide-ranging political fallout. But the consequences of nuclear bombs hitting Tel Aviv and Haifa – effectively destroying Israel, a very small country – are even more dire. (Benny Morris – Los Angeles Times)

58% of Americans say it is important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday. Just 30% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran.
Regarding the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, 51% say the U.S. should remain neutral. But for those saying the U.S. should take a position, 39% believe it should support an Israeli attack compared to 5% who say it should oppose such action. (Pew Research Center)

• Islamist parties have taken the opportunity provided to them by the “Arab Spring” to achieve power through elections, benefiting from their strong organizational structures and good public image in a traditional societal environment.
• This phenomenon has sparked a debate in the West between optimists, who believe these parties will moderate to cope with the realities of political power, and pessimists, who fear they will simply use democracy to gain power and promote radical, ideological agendas.
• Islamists themselves are not monolithic, and are struggling to balance practical political demands with their ideological roots. At a regional level they are offered two competing models of Islamic governance in Turkey and Iran.
• The West should use the leverage it gains from its economic support to apply criteria for dealing with Islamist parties, in order to influence their development. Those criteria should relate to the Islamist parties’ positions on: non-violence, adherence to values of democracy, the application of Sharia law in public life, and attitudes to the West and Israel.

For the sake of the peace process, it is particularly important to maintain strict conditions with regard to Hamas, and to make clear to Egyptian Islamists that tampering with the Israel-Egypt peace treaty is a clear red line. ( Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Michael Herzog- BICOM-UK)

The writer served as chief of staff and senior military aide and advisor to four Israeli ministers of defense over the last decade and was previously the head of the IDF’s Strategic Planning Division.