U.S., Israeli clocks on Iran action "ticking at different pace"

President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. March, 5, 2012 / AP

(CBS/AP) JERUSALEM — Israel's defense minister said differences remain with United States over Iran's dispute nuclear program, despite efforts by Israel and the U.S. to come to an agreement on the issue.

Ehud Barak told a meeting of his Independence Party that "the clock is ticking at a different pace" for the U.S. and Israel, suggesting disagreements remain on the timeline for any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israeli leader demands "clear red line" on Iran
Video: Israel concerned over Iran's nuclear program
Israel, U.S. play diplomatic chicken over Iran

Earlier this week, Israeli officials said the U.S. and Israel were working closely in hopes of getting the countries' positions in sync, holding close discussions with American officials over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

Meanwhile, a U.S. lawmaker has said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became visibly angry during an August meeting with the U.S. Ambassador because the American official's position on Iran had left him "at wits' end," according to the Reuters news agency.

Reuters reports that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, who was at the meeting, told a Michigan radio station this week that Netanyahu was angered by what he deemed the Obama administration's lack of clarity on how to confront Iran. Rogers is a Republican.

In depth

Iran's nuclear sites »

Barak, who spoke hours after meeting the U.S. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James A. Winnefeld, reiterated that Israel reserves the right to carry out a strike unilaterally. He added, however, that there was "no doubt" about Washington's "readiness to face the challenge on every level."

Israel believes time is running out to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while the U.S. opposes any Israeli military action at the current time.

Israel and the U.S. both believe, however, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the allegations, and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes like producing energy and medical isotopes.

Part of the dispute over timing is related to military capabilities. Israel's timeline for military action is shorter than that of the United States, which has far more powerful bunker-busting bombs at its disposal — which would be necessary to try to puncture Iranian facilities buried underground — than Israel does.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, the country's development of missiles capable of striking the Jewish state, and Tehran's support for Islamic militant groups hostile to Israel, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

[gmcgmc]

Why is the Press giving Israel so much attention? It's only a country with 7 million, and provides no intrinsic economic relationships to the U.S. Why all this coddling of Israel? A rogue nation that has Nuclear weapons and it is in our news constantly. How can this country be in our news all the time? How can it be opinionating, and dictating at times, about our foreign policy? You don't see Britain, Germany, France, etc doing this. Is there something I'm missing here about Israel? I would like to see and hear less of Israel and more of the real intrinsic countries in the world, who really are partners with the U.S. in the world arena.
Then you have to hear at the national conventions that Jeruslem should be Israeli's capital? *** is going on here. Proclaiming a position to the world about Israel? How can a little country like this have their agenda proclaimed by our politicans in the open National Conventions? 30 pieces of silver all over again?

[DovBenMen]

In the 1940s, the United Nations thought to make Jerusalem an international city as a means of establishing peaceful co-existance among major religions.

When established in 1948, Israel went along with the UN's design and set its capital initially as Tel Aviv.

Israel set its capital as Jerusalem in 1949, after the first war with neighboring Arab nations trumped (in Israelis' view) the UN's desire. But the United Nations felt it had the authority and desire to say "no":
http://jcpa.org/art/knesset5.htm
Not wanting to upset the UN, the United States did nothing:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jerstate.html

The 104th Congress of the United States passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, on October 23, 1995. It provided for raising the money to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Each President has acted to not implement that move, despite the will of the American people as the expressed result of the democratic processes of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Which other countries can you list have not been permitted to choose their own capital? And by what right?

As to all the news coverage, it must sell newspapers lest they'd move on to more interesting topics.

[gmcgmc]

DovBenMen, with all due respects, the U.S. has never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The city should be internationalized based on religious needs rather than Israel's dogma.

The Carter Administration
"Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal." President Carter -- April 1980 interview
"U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process...Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories." Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Ctee. on Foreign Affairs -- March 21, 1980
The Ford Administration
"Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors." William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council -- March 23, 1976
The Nixon Administration
"The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation." Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, UN Security Council -- July 1, 1969
The Johnson Administration
"Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.
You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' " "Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel," in Smith, Louis J. (Ed.). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, V. 20, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. DC: 2001.

[gmcgmc]

Why is the Press giving Israel so much attention? It's only a country with 7 million, and provides no intrinsic economic relationships to the U.S. Why all this coddling of Israel? A rogue nation that has Nuclear weapons and it is in our news constantly. How can this country be in our news all the time? How can it be opinionating, and dictating at times, about our foreign policy? You don't see Britain, Germany, France, etc doing this. Is there something I'm missing here about Israel? I would like to see and hear less of Israel and more of the real intrinsic countries in the world, who really are partners with the U.S. in the world arena.

[madjek]

Attack Iraq...Attack Afganastan...Attack Syria...Attack Iran...Attack the U.S. Government...Attack Atheists...Attack Gays...Attack Immigrants. The neo-cons are five year old boys in the sand box who will never grow out their spoiled mind-set

[gmcgmc]

Sam671, if anyone sounds insane, it's you. The facts are out there on Iran. Your disillusion about Iran and nuclear weapons is a figment of your imagination. Perhaps, take that insanity and apply that to Israel. Oh yea, Israel has nukes!!

[guyfrompa46]

when is Obama going over to Iran and talk then down like he said he would do.. Oh that's right nevermind.Another lie

[gmcgmc]

Sam671, look at the facts.. Iran has not been at war with anyone for a long time ( other than the war where Iraq attacked them) However, Israel has been at war with it's neighbors since it declared itself a state. Don't you find that ironic? Yea, you, and your analogy. Only Israel depicts your intentions. Not Iran.

[tvwatcher5345]

please send the pro-israeli neocons in this country over to iran as an invasion force led by dan senor, kagan, feith, judy miller, the wurmser couple, bill kristol, and norman podhoretz

[TheFoundersLive]

No, we will just send over liberals as cannon fodder.