Share This

Saturday, September 22, 2012

U.S. has responsibility to rein unruly allies for Asia-Pacific stability

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday began his three-nation Asia-Pacific tour, during which he will pay his first visit as Pentagon chief to China to deepen military ties, a visit overshadowed by rising tensions in the region.

To prevent the tense situation from further escalation, the U.S. government should take the responsibility to rein in its unruly allies in the region including Japan and the Philippines.

Washington should discourage Japan's provocations and rectify its own wrong position of applying the U.S.-Japan security treaty to China's Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. It also should warn Manila against making further provocations in the South China Sea, and urge it to return to the negotiating table.

When Panetta made remarks before reporters aboard ahead of his landing in Tokyo on Sunday evening, the first stop of his trip, the U.S. apparently was attempting to play a "detached" arbitrator of the territorial disputes, a role that hadn't been invited by any concerning parties.

Panetta said, "I am concerned that when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgement on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict."

He even alarmed that provocations over the territorial disputes could blow up into a war unless governments exercised more restraint.


To be frank, the U.S. isn't qualified to behave as a judge for the disputes, because it hasn't played a constructive role in the process.

Instead, it shoulders certain historical responsibilities for the chronic disputes, and has, more or less, fanned relevant countries' provocative moves with its biased words or actions and added instability to the region.

Both Japan and the Philippines have been making reckless provocations against China this year in an attempt to obtain undeserved territorial gains in the East China Sea and South China Sea, emboldened by the U.S. "Pivot to Asia" policy, which has featured increased military deployment and involvement in the region.

In the past week, the world witnessed one of the most blatant acts of sabotaging Asian peace and stability by Japan, the staunchest ally of the U.S. in the region, with its completion of the so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands that are inherently part of China's sovereign territory. China totally rejects Japan's act of theft, and is taking necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On the dispute, Washington cannot shake off its responsibility for sowing the seeds of conflict. The U.S., through a backroom deal with Japan in 1971, transferred the administration of Ryukyu Islands (known as Okinawa today) and Diaoyu Islands, which were then under the U.S. trusteeship after World War II, to Japan. China has firmly opposed this deal from the very beginning.

Earlier this year, the Philippines, partially encouraged by U.S. support, also sparked a tense standoff with China in the South China Sea by sending a naval ship to harass Chinese fishermen operating legally in China's territorial waters around the Huangyan Islands.


Panetta's China visit, on the bright side, symbolizes the continuation of a good momentum in the U.S.-China relations, which feature regular high-level dialogues and exchanges of visit by senior political and military leaders.

The visit was reciprocal to the one paid by his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie to the Pentagon in May.

The visits have helped increase mutual understanding and advance the China-U.S. cooperation partnership and military-to-military ties.

On the other side, due to the current rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, the success of Panetta's visit will be judged by how he will reassure Beijing that Washington is willing to do more things conducive to regional peace and stability, which are now threatened by some of the U.S. allies.

The U.S. should understand that, if it continues to allow its allies to fish in troubled waters in the Asia Pacific and let the tensions spin out of control, no countries in the region can escape unscathed.

The U.S. must know better than other countries what it should do to benefit Asia-Pacific stability. 


By Zhi Linfei (Xinhua)

Related posts:

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?  

Friday, September 21, 2012

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Historical documents dating back to the Ming Dynasty establish Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory. The challenge to Chinese ownership came from Japanese annexation of the islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War.

TENSIONS are rising in the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands — five tiny islands and three rocks covering a mere 7sq km in the East China Sea.

It is a pity that this is happening especially when
Chinese-Japanese economic ties have reached a new level since the end of last year with the two countries agreeing to use their respective currencies in their bilateral trade, instead of the US dollar.

To de-escalate tensions, Japan should make the first move. It was the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the islands from the Kurihara family on Sept 11, 2012 that ignited the present crisis. That decision should be rescinded immediately.


In fact, Japan has been upping the ante on Diaoyu — which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands — for some time now. It will be recalled that on Sept 7, 2010 when a Chinese fishing boat collided accidentally with a Japanese patrol vessel near Diaoyu, the captain and the crew of the Chinese boat were detained by the
Japanese Coast Guard for a few days.

Though they were all released in the end, the incident revealed a new toughness on the part of the Japanese. The Chinese have been reacting to this and other such incidents.


What explains this new toughness? Some analysts attribute it partly to the growth of the political right in
Japanese politics.

Japanese economic stagnation for more than two decades and China’s success in replacing Japan as the world’s second-most important economy have increased the influence of conservative nationalist forces in the country who are now targeting China.


Impending elections within the ruling Democratic Party and the forthcoming general election have also widened the berth for conservative politics.


It is also not a coincidence that the Japanese right-wing has become more vocal — especially vis-a-vis China — at a time when the United States is seeking to re-assert its presence and its power in the Asia-Pacific region. In the last couple of years, US political and military officials have on a number of occasions underscored the significance of US-Japan security ties.


Even on the Diaoyu dispute, the US government, while professing to remain neutral, has through the Pentagon made it clear that the
Japan-US Security Treaty would come into force in the event of a military conflict between Japan and China.

This stance has to be viewed in the larger context of the US’ active military alignment with the Philippines in its recent clash with China over the Huangyan Island in the South China Sea and its support for Vietnam in its long-standing tiff with China over parts of the
Spratly Islands and the Paracels.

For both Japan and the US there may also be other reasons why the Diaoyu Islands are important.


In 1968-9, a United Nations agency, it is reported, had discovered potential oil and gas reserves near Diaoyu. The US military, it is not widely known, also uses one of the five islands — Kuba — as a practice range for aircraft bombing.


Whatever the reasons for holding on to Diaoyu, Japan’s claim to ownership is weak. There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory. The books
Voyage with a Tail Wind and Record of the Imperial Envoy’s Visit to Ryukyu bear testimony to this.

Even writings by Japanese scholars in the late 19th century acknowledged this fact. The challenge to Chinese ownership of Diaoyu came from Japanese annexation of the Islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War. China under the Ching Dynasty was too weak to fight back and regain lost territory. But annexation through military force does not confer legitimacy upon the act of conquest.


This is why when Japan was defeated in the Second World War the victors who included China and the US recognised that Diaoyu was Chinese territory.


Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this though for administrative purposes Diaoyu was placed under US control as part of its governance over the
Ryukyu Islands. The US was then the occupying power in Japan following the latter’s surrender.

However, when China was taken over by the
Chinese Communist Party in 1949, the US changed its position and began to treat the Islands as part of Japan. The Chinese communist leadership protested vehemently.

In 1971, the US Senate returned the Diaoyu Islands, together with Okinawa, to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Again, the Chinese government in Beijing objected, as did the Taiwan government which also regards the islands as part of China.


Since the normalisation of relations between China and Japan in 1972, both sides have agreed to allow their fishermen to operate in the waters surrounding the islands without resolving the issue of ownership.


Of course, neither China nor Japan has relinquished even an iota of its claim in the last 40 years. Recent incidents have, however, forced this unresolved issue into the open.


Apart from taking the first step by abrogating its purchase of the islands, as we have proposed, Japan should also come to terms with undeniable historical, legal and ethical facts. It must accept the irrefutable reality that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China.


We realise that there are powerful vested interests that will not allow Japan to embrace this truth.


Nonetheless, we should all try to persuade the Japanese government and the
Japanese people that it would be in their best interest to do so.

Governments in Asia should convey this message to Japanese elites through quiet diplomacy. Citizen groups throughout the continent should speak up in a firm and courteous manner.


The media too should play its role by laying out the arguments for an amicable resolution of the dispute which respects truth and justice.



Comment by CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

>Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Related posts:

Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia

China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Asia's wealthy surpass North Americans for first time

The number of rich Asians surpassed North Americans for the first time last year, but their fortunes shrank slightly and still trailed total wealth on the other side of the Pacific, Capgemini and RBC Wealth Management said on Wednesday.

The Asia-Pacific region is now home to 3.37 million high net worth individuals (HNWI) - people with $1 million or more to invest - compared with 3.35 million in North America and 3.17 million in Europe, the firms said in a report.

Asia's wealthy - 54 percent of whom are concentrated in Japan, almost 17 percent in China and more than 5 percent in Australia - saw their total fortunes slip to $10.7 trillion last year from $10.8 trillion in 2010, and lag North America's $11.4 trillion.

The Asia-Pacific Wealth Report, compiled by Capgemini and RBC Wealth Management, is closely watched by wealth managers, high-end property agents, luxury goods retailers and other businesses for signs of how and where the ultra-wealthy are investing and how their fortunes are faring.

Many of Asia's rich made their millions and billions through family businesses and property.

"We don't see massive shifting in the allocations of portfolio management," Claire Sauvanaud, vice president of Capgemini Financial Services, told a news conference.

Wealth fell most significantly last year in Hong Kong (20.1 percent) and India (18 percent) and grew most strongly in Thailand (9.3 percent) and Indonesia (5.3 percent). Growth was more modest in Japan (2.3 percent) and in China (1.8 percent).

Weakness in Europe and other global trends played their part in the slight fall in total Asian wealth, the report said, but the "region grappled with its own economic challenges, including inflation, slowing growth and capital outflows."

"Nevertheless, Asia-Pacific is expected to continue showing stronger growth than other regions going forward, and its HNWI population and wealth are likely to keep expanding," it said.

As part of that, Asia's rich are looking more to offshore wealth centres close to home, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, in search of wider access to products and services, tax advantages and financial confidentiality, the report said.

Challenges for the offshore wealth management industry include a scarcity of skilled talent, lower profitability, and the costs of compliance and restrictions on services due to higher regulatory scrutiny, it said.

Diversity of the backgrounds and expectations of rich clients means there is more demand for tailored products and a greater desire to play an active role in managing their portfolios, the report added.- Reuters

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia

Sept. 18 - Eighty-one years have passed since the Japanese invasion of China's northeast. But now, it is time for Japan to drop its sense of superiority regarding China and Asia in general.

Japan has to recognize that China is no longer weak and poor as it was in the 1930s, when it suffered great disasters brought by Japanese militarism. The balance of power between the two countries has drastically changed.

Sept. 18, 1931 is a day of disgrace in Chinese history, as it marks the day Japan launched an invasion of China's northeast and occupied the whole region four months later. The incident was followed by Japan's invasion of Pacific Asia in 1941, leading to one of the greatest disasters in the region.

The anniversary this year is quite different from before, as it coincides with Japan's "purchase" of part of the Diaoyu Islands, triggering fierce anti-Japan sentiment in China.

Japan's arrogance and provocation regarding the Diaoyu Islands is in line with its complex formed over one century ago, when it proclaimed superiority over China and Asia.

The two countries became rivals over the last 500 years, with Japan catching up with and defeating China in the late 19th century. Even its defeat in World War II could not break its sense of superiority, as Japan considered China's victory to be a present from the United States and the Soviet Union, turning a blind eye to the Chinese people's heroic resistance.

Japan has been heavily influenced by China and learned a great deal from Chinese culture. China enjoyed comprehensive superiority over its neighbor in all fields, including military strength, at that time.

However, China experienced decline since the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), while Japan rose as a world power in the late 1860's, when the country completely reformed its political and social structure by using European powers as models.

During the Meiji Restoration, Japan adopted a policy of breaking away from Asia and merging with Europe. It viewed China at that time as an antiquated and decaying country.

Its fear of China died with Japan's overwhelming victory in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). The defeat also obliterated China's first attempt to modernize.

Japan subsequently established its superiority over China, both in actual strength and in mentality, as it no longer viewed China as a teacher.

During its expansion, Japan forced China to cede Taiwan in 1895 and annexed the Korean Peninsula in 1910. In the early 1940s, Japanese aggression saw little resistance in Asia and reached its peak after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

Japanese militarists called for a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" in the 1930s, attempting to create a bloc led by the Japanese and free of Western powers.

Although Japanese militarists and war criminals' pipe dreams ended with the country's unconditional surrender to Allied powers, Japan's sense of superiority continued due to the U.S. desire to contain the Soviet Union and China.

But 60 years after World War II, the situation has completely changed. China has maintained rapid economic development and in 2010 surpassed Japan to become the world's second-largest economy. The strength of China's national defense has grown accordingly.

Japan is now suffering from a long-term economic downturn, along with an aging population.

China's rise has touched the nerves of some Japanese, who have resorted to tricks to disturb China's peaceful development. This may be the cause of the tension experienced after a short friendly period in the 1980s.

The present China is not the same as the China of years past. Japan should face the situation, drop its obsolete sense of superiority and take a constructive attitude to solve disputes.

This is the only way to achieve common development in both countries and Asia as a whole.

 By Xinhua writer Ren Ke
 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Gangnam Style, like the Korean Psy?

Psy Breaks Down Greatest Assets Of 'Gangnam Style' Vid

'I want to tell you the reason why for the first time in the United States: honestly, I love butt,' Psy tells MTV News.

Psy's "Gangnam Style" doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. In less than a month, Psy has appeared at the Video Music Awards, the "Today" show, appeared in the season premiere of "Saturday Night Live" and currently has the #1 song on the iTunes charts.

In what was meant to be a music video just for Psy's Korean fanbase, the clip's infectious dance moves soon sparked an Internet firestorm, with nearly 200 million people on YouTube watching the colorful, spontaneous and sometimes ridiculous music video that was shot over the course of 48 hours in July.


Get More: Music News

"With this video and director we kept on focusing on to be ridiculous as possible, that was our point," Psy recently told MTV News about the video. "So we were so serious thinking to be ridiculous."

With so many unexpected twists and turns throughout the four-minute clip, we had Psy break down his favorite scenes and explain the thought process behind the "dress classy and dance cheesy" phenomenon.


Beach Turned Playground

The video kicks off with Psy lounging in style at the beach, but as the camera zooms out, one can see that Psy is sunbathing at a local playground and is joined by an extremely talented child dancer.

"This is playground for kids, and it looks like I'm sitting at the beach," Psy said. "See this kid he is 5 years old. As you have 'America's Got Talent,' we have 'Korea's Got Talent' and he was from there, so I picked him, and he did all the Michael Jackson moves when he was 3 without any education."


Sleeping in the Sauna

Rapping and dancing for 48 hours straight can take a lot out of you, which is what happened to Psy. Once they began filming the final scene at the sauna, the Korean star was out of creative ideas and opted to nap instead.

"This was the very last scene of filming so me and all the staff was totally exhausted and too ridiculous for 48 hours without sleeping, it's awful and we were all exhausted," Psy said. "We were getting panic like 'What were we doing all these two days?' and everybody is like 'what are we going to do in the sauna?' and let's just go in and play music and as you can see I was so tired."


Psy's Favorite Part of a Woman

When creating this video there was one thing that Psy just couldn't ignore — a woman's butt. In the scene where a group of women seem to be toning their bodies, Psy yells at them, but he promises, it's all in good fun.

"I'm yelling at her butt," Psy said. "I want to tell you the reason why for the first time in the United States: honestly, I love butt. I'm sorry, but I literally love butt. Honestly, what can I say?"


Dirty Dancing in the Elevator

For one of the most-talked-about scenes in the video, Psy enlisted friend and Korean comedian Noh Hong-cheol to step in, even if he had no idea what he was getting in to.

"He is a huge comedian in Korea and he didn't expect even filming this, he just came to the scene and he was there because he's a good friend of mine and he was there to cheer me up," Psy said. "We were suddenly getting on the elevator to move and to the next spot and I asked him 'Hey, why don't we make some film in the elevator?' and he did the dance move. This move is really dirty and really famous in Korea so I said, 'I'm gonna go underneath between your legs,' so it was really ad-libbed."


Toilet Talk

In what looks to be a close-up shot of Psy fiercely rapping the lyrics to "Gangnam Style," the camera quickly pans out to reveal Psy in an awkward position.

"The purpose of this music video was just for fun, just for entertaining, but the director said 'Hey Psy just for one scene let's be serious let's make something look good so," Psy said. "They filmed this and I said, 'All right, I'll do this to satisfy you and then I'm going to take off my pants, and then you're going to zoom out and it's going to be a toilet.' Isn't this lovely? I love this scene."

What is your favorite scene in "Gangnam Style"? Let us know in the comments.

By Christina Garibaldi (@ChristinaMTV)  
Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Monday, September 17, 2012

IBM scientists take image of atomic bonds

How’s this for a close-up: an image that can differentiate between the different chemical bonds in an individual molecule? That’s what IBM’s Zurich research lab is claiming in a paper published in Science.

The paywalled piece is titled with the pizazz typical of science papers – Bond-Order Discrimination by Atomic Force Microscopy – but it’s worth browsing because the image is so cool.


IBM's image of a nanographene molecule: the bonds at the centre involve more electrons and are shorter than those at the edge. Image: IBM

Created with an atomic force microscope (AFM), the image shows a nanographene molecule and clearly visualises the bonds in the molecule, showing different lengths of bonds. The scientists say the imaging technique will help them characterise graphene, the wonderstuff of developments in electronics.

"This can increase basic understanding at the level of individual molecules ... in particular, the relaxation of bonds around defects in graphene as well as the changing of bonds in chemical reactions and in excited states were observed", IBM says.

To quote IBM scientist Leo Gross from its announcement: "We found two different contrast mechanisms to distinguish bonds. The first one is based on small differences in the force measured above the bonds. We expected this kind of contrast but it was a challenge to resolve.”

"The second contrast mechanism really came as a surprise: bonds appeared with different lengths in AFM measurements. With the help of ab initio calculations we found that the tilting of the carbon monoxide molecule at the tip apex is the cause of this contrast.”

The AFM uses a single carbon monoxide molecule as the sensing tip. The molecule oscillates above the sample to measure the forces between the CO molecule and the sample to create the image.

Update: The original version of this story identified the image as showing C60. That has now been corrected. IBM imaged both nanographene and C60 "buckyballs". There are more images on Flickr, here

By Richard Chirgwin

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Sunday, September 16, 2012

China announces geographic codes for Diaoyu Islands baseline to UN

BEIJING, Sept. 16 (Xinhua) -- Releasing the geographic coordinates of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets marks China's latest move to affirm its sovereignty and administrative jurisdiction over the islands, according to a maritime expert.


China has had the islands under continuous surveillance for a long time, said Jia Yu, vice director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs attached to the State Oceanic Administration (SOA), in an interview with Xinhua on Saturday.

The SOA announced the exact longitude and latitude of Diaoyu Island and 70 of its affiliated islets while publishing location maps, three-dimension effect graphs and sketch maps for the islands on Saturday.


Since 2009, the SOA carried out a general survey of all Chinese islands, including the Diaoyu Islands, and announced their standard names and locations in March, Jia said.


"Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets have been an inherent part of Chinese territory since ancient times and China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands," Jia said.


Announcing the geographic codes is an important step for the country to exercise its administrative jurisdiction over the islands, he said.


"Only the sovereign state and its government can do that and no other nation, organization or individual has the right to do it. Even if they did, the announcement would be invalid," he said.


The move also aims to help the public learn about the islands more vividly through the location maps, three-dimension effect graphs and sketch maps, provided that it remains difficult for the general public to visit the islands, Jia said.


"Through these documents, the country will conduct better surveillance and protection over the islands for future development," Jia added.


On Monday, the Chinese government announced the base points and baselines of the territorial waters of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets, as well as the names and coordinates of 17 base points.


Also on Thursday, China's permanent representative to the United Nations Li Baodong met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and filed a copy of the Chinese government's Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement with the United Nations.


"The two sets of coordinates are meant to maintain China's sovereignty over the land as well as its adjacent waters," Jia said.



UN receives China announcement on Diaoyu Islands baseline



The United Nations has received a copy of Chinese government’s Diaoyu Islands baseline announcement, submitted by China’s permanent representative to UN, Li Baodong.

A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the document will be dealt with appropriately on the basis of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On Thursday, Li Baodong met with Ban Ki-moon, and filed the copy, officially fulfilling the country’s obligations as stipulated in the UN Convention.

Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states are required to deposit with the UN chief charts showing straight baselines and archipelagic baselines, as well as lists of geographical coordinates.

Related stories

Books show China's historic links to Diaoyu Islands 2012-09-15


Roundup: Chinese rally in U.S. cities against Japan's provocations over Diaoyu Islands

China's non-CPC parties condemn Japan's "purchase" of Diaoyu Islands

Chinese literary, art circles condemn Japan's "purchase" of Diaoyu Islands

Meeting held in Sydney to protest against encroachment of Japan to Diaoyu Islands


 

Anti Japanese rally over Diayo Island erupted in twenty over cities in China :

Baying for blood, again

Nobody wants to have a war with Iran except Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu, so it could still happen.

IF a deeply troubling international situation suddenly looks too good to be true, it usually is just that – and so desperately bad as to need looking good.

And so it is with the positions of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) over Israel’s push to attack Iran, a situation that can soon become much more desperate.

China and Russia have long resisted the Israel-United States axis’ efforts to recreate West Asia in its own image, or at least to its own preference. The point was driven home when, under cover of “protecting innocents” through a ceasefire and no-fly zone in Libya last year, Western countries openly attacked government forces.

Now that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya are gone, the only Muslim nation capable of standing up to the axis is Iran. But how to fashion a case against Iran that looks at least half-credible internationally?

On attack mode: If the United States still insists on staying away, without even red lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may well go it alone and attack Iran. — EPA
 
Israel, the only nuclear-armed country in the region, does not pretend it has evidence of Iranian plans for nuclear bombs. So its best pretext is that Iran may one day have them, despite Teheran’s repeated assurances that its nuclear energy production and medical research are not a prelude to nuclear armaments.

China and Russia have no desire to see a nuclear-armed Iran either, in fact quite the reverse. Their intelligence services report that there are no grounds to assume that Iran has or even wants to have nuclear weapons.

The conclusion is shared by US and Israeli intelligence, and cited by no less than Israel’s military chief, among others. But that is “only” the pure outlook of professionals and technocrats before getting tweaked by politicians.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems bent on creating an imploding situation, pushing and pulling to make it want to explode and involve other countries in supporting roles. Chinese and Russian diplomats have consistently kept well clear of it all.

Sensing that Obama’s Washington had lately also been keeping its distance, Netanyahu piled on the pressure for days on end. Then his ultimatum was delivered on Tuesday: that if the US still insists on staying away, without even red lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may well go it alone and attack Iran.

And if that happened, Washington could be made to look bad in failing to live up to its God-given mission of protecting the free world. In an election season, those kinds of terms can make a difference, and they did.

News then came the next day that Beijing and Moscow had at last “agreed” to add their weight to Western-Israeli condemnation of Iran’s attitude, if not its actions or policies. That may seem like the hitherto elusive consensus among the UNSC’s permanent five, except that it never was.

After Israel’s quiet ultimatum following long days of hard lobbying, its bottom line finally made Washington scramble – not the fighter jets, but UN diplomats in persuading Beijing and Moscow to swing their support behind an alternative approach pre-empting Israel’s further war cries.

At any rate, the resolution at the IAEA (UN nuclear watchdog) on Thursday would have no binding effect. If diplomatic declarations are mere symbols of policy intentions, then the proposed resolution is the most symbolic of all.

Yet at the most superficial of official levels, Israel also agrees that diplomacy should still be the first option before military action. But there is no denying that Netanyahu is gung-ho on another attack on another Muslim nation, preferably with other countries rather than Israel doing the work.

Walking the tightrope

Iran has no plan or policy for nuclear weapons, much less those weapons themselves. For Netanyahu’s campaign to target Teheran it needed to spread fear and vilification, while official texts could refer only to Iran’s attitude and posturing.

Yet despite all his huffing and puffing, or rather because of them, he is making matters worse for the entire region. Anyone in a less emotional state can see the thin tightrope he is treading.

By seeking to force Iran, a country justly proud of its history and culture, to bow to unreasonable demands, Netanyahu is only making a rebuff from Teheran inevitable. That would in turn force Israel to plummet into war, since it would also not want to lose face.

Then by making clear that the push for war “has to come now” rather than later when Iran may possess nuclear weapons, Netanyahu is confirming to Teheran that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent against foreign attacks. Even if Iran never wanted nuclear weapons before, it would be sorely tempted to seek them now.

One result is that Israeli leaders themselves are divided over an attack on Iran. Its military leaders, President Shimon Peres and Netanyahu’s own Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (in charge of intelligence and nuclear affairs) are among those who disagree with him on the need to attack Iran.

Meanwhile, a top-level US report bearing the seal of more than 30 retired diplomats, admirals, generals and security chiefs advise that a war with Iran will be more painful and costly than the Iraq and Afghan invasions combined.

Previous estimates had found that an attack on Iran would only delay its nuclear programme by several months. This latest report says that a full-scale attack involving aerial bombardment, ground troops, cyberwarfare and a military occupation, among other requirements, would only delay a nuclear programme by several years, not stop it.

However, the likes of Netanyahu are determined to press on regardless. He seems to have calculated that a US election season can give him an edge by pressuring incumbent Obama to lend him unambiguous support.

Iran may also be hoping that public anxieties in the US over jobs and a faltering economy can, in an election season, constrain the urge of US hawks to join Israel. So far Teheran appears to not want to relent by appeasing the doubters.

Nonetheless, the prospect of war is still closer than anyone other than Netanyahu would wish. There are at least five reasons for this.

First, by pushing the option of a military attack to the maximum, Israeli policymakers would be loath to effect a turnaround short of a major Iranian concession. And that would be highly unlikely.

Second, Netanyahu’s primary aim is not the destruction of Iran but key surgical strikes against suspected nuclear sites. He and his advisers may well see this as “doable”, even though the consequences can easily and quickly become unmanageable.

Third, Iran is likely to retaliate in more ways than one, including through forms of asymmetrical warfare. Israel has launched “spot attacks” on Iraq’s and Syria’s installations before and got away with it, but it has never engaged a country as large and powerful as Iran.

Fourth, an attack by Israel, or jointly by Israel and the US, would immediately invite endless rounds of counter-attacks by militant Muslim groups and individuals around the world. These are just some of the consequences that are not clearly foreseeable or controllable.

Fifth, when push comes to shove, both Democratic and Republican candidates in the US presidential election are likely to side with Israel.

Once Netanyahu as Prime Minister sets the country on a war footing, even the naysayers in his own administration will feel the need to acquiesce in the national decision.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara