In a far-reaching interview with Ronen Bergman, correspondent for Ynet (the on-line version of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahranoth), General David Petraeus expresses broad concern with where the Middle East is headed.

On the question of whether it is acceptable for Iran to be “a few turns of the screwdriver” away from having a nuclear bomb, Petraeus stated,

…based on everything we know and see about the Iranian government, we cannot allow them to be on the brink of having a nuclear weapon. For all intents and purposes, that is a distinction without a difference, including with respect to its implications for regional proliferation.

The architect of the “surge” in Iraq and former head of the CIA in the Obama administration, Petraeus agrees with the hard-line taken by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on what has to happen to the Iranian nuclear program. He asserts, “To my mind, a ‘good deal’ needs to bolt the door on the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. In this respect, certainly large swaths of the program need to be dismantled or at least altered.” However, he has one significant difference with Netanyahu in his assessment of the current proposed deal between the United States and Iran. According to Petraeus,

Despite the willingness of the Obama administration to meet the Iranians more than halfway, I think the prospects for a breakthrough are still less than 50-50…Ultimately, I have my doubts whether the Supreme Leader will ever agree to roll back components of the nuclear program – which is what any deal would require, even one assessed as favorable to the Iranians – and agree to accept that sanctions relief will be gradual and not immediate. But we shall see.

While lauding the “notable successes” the United States has had in the war against Al Qaeda, Petraeus remains worried about the overall situation in the Middle East. He notes,

At the same time, the adversary we face is resilient, adaptive, and determined. As core al-Qaeda has been degraded, we have seen the rise of affiliates in places like Yemen and Africa, and of offshoots like Islamic State – some of which have the potential to eclipse core al-Qaeda in their lethality.

Petraeus is not restrained in identifying the core problem.

Above all, we need to recognize that we are not just battling a monolithic organization – an entity that can be degraded and eventually destroyed – but also an ideology. It is this ideology of violent Islamist extremism that animates the followers of al-Qaeda and Islamic State, and that ultimately needs to be discredited and discarded in order for us to be successful in this conflict.

Amidst the political storm surrounding Bibi’s rousing address to the U.S. Congress yesterday, support for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s remarks has come from unexpected circles.

In an Op-Ed entitled “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran,” Al-Arabiya’s English-language website editor, Faisal J. Abbas expressed support for Netanyahu’s address to Congress:

In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region. What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei (Although, the latter never seems to write back!)

Abbas is not the only Arab journalist applauding Netanyahu. A day earlier, Saudi columnist Ahmad Al-Faraj expressed similar sentiments in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah. The column, translated by MEMRI, informed readers:

…President Obama and his administration are clearly furious. Not because Netanyahu is intervening in an important matter that Obama hopes will bring him personal glory, but because House Speaker [John Boehner] did not consult with Obama before inviting Netanyahu, and Obama considers this a breach of established protocol….the tension has never before reached this level, as reflected in statements by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who said that Netanyahu’s conduct was unacceptable and even destructive…

…Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.’s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.

Netanyahu called for a “better” deal in Congress yesterday. AFP falsely claims he called for an end to talks (Photo by Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

Days after the Gaza flooding fiasco, Agence France Presse trips up badly again in its Israel coverage.

This time, AFP flubs Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech yesterday in Congress. An article about continuing negotiations between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, filed today in Switzerland, begins (“Kerry, Iran FM in new nuclear talks“):

The US and Iran ignored a passionate plea from the Israeli prime minister to ditch their nuclear negotiations. . . .

Further down, the article reiterates:

In a dramatic speech to the US Congress on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the US administration to halt the talks . . . .

In fact, Netanyahu did not urge the sides to halt or ditch their talks. Rather, he urged the US to abandon this particular “bad deal” in favor of a “better deal.”

In his speech, he indicated what this better deal, which he supports, would look like:

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends; a better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. . .

History has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire.

Where exactly in his speech does AFP see him calling for an end to talks?

Furthermore, as reported today by AFP’s own Jerusalem bureau, Netanyahu again today, upon arriving back in Israel, called for the P5+1 to negotiate a different deal which would condition the lifting of restrictions to the end of Iranian “aggression” (“Netanyahu rejects Obama criticism of Iran speech”):

“I also called on the P5+1 (world powers negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran) to insist on a deal that would link the lifting of those restrictions to Iran’s ceasing its sponsorship of terrorism around the world, its aggression against its neighbours and its calls for Israel’s destruction,” he said on his return to Israel.

March 8 Update: After CAMERA contacted AFP on March 4 about the false claim that Netanyahu had called for an end to talks with Iran, subsequent articles dropped the erroneous wording. The later articles instead reported:

Netanyahu warned in his dramatic speech to the US Congress Tuesday that an agreement that was “supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.”

When a Haaretz English edition page-one headline last month referred to the rock-throwing attack which left a toddler permanently, gravely disabled as a “stone-throwing incident,” Jerusalem Post Op-Ed editor Seth Frantzman tweeted:

The online headline for the same article was: “Toddler dies two years after stone-throwing incident left her critically injured.” (Only the subheadline online refers to the “attack which also left her mother and two sisters wounded.” Emphasis added.)

The article itself also adopts the term “incident” to describe the attack which left Adele Biton permanently wounded and which apparently led to her death. It began: “Adele Biton, the 4-year-old who was critically injured in a stone-throwing incident . . .”

Frantzman’s criticism is particularly relevant again in light of the front-page headline in Haaretz‘s English edition today about an event yesterday in which right-wing protesters dumped a cup of water on the head of MK Haneen Zoabi. The headline is: “MK Haneen Zoabi attacked by right-wingers at political panel.” (Emphasis added.)

Likewise, the online headline is “MK Haneen Zoabi attacked at political panel.” (Emphasis added.)

Regarding the incident targeting MK Zoabi, the article explained: “Witnesses said supporters of right-wing extremist Baruch Marzel stormed the stage and poured a drink on Zoabi.” (The photo caption refers to the drink as water.)

Why is dumping water on someone’s head, an act which did not cause any bodily harm, described as an “attack,” but the hurling of rocks at a vehicle, which left a little girl permanently, seriously disabled labeled an “incident”?
(more…)

There are two important things to know about USA Today‘s “5 things to know about the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks.”

1) The Feb. 28 article, by Oren Dorell, understates the number of Iranian centrifuges to which the Obama administration has agreed. The piece errs:

The U.S. wants the current number of machine — 19,000 with 10,000 running — reduced to under 5,000.

In fact, it has been widely reported that the U.S. is willing to accept up to 6,000 Iranian centrifuges.

For instance, The Los Angeles Times reported:

The Obama administration has agreed to allow to operate 6,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, up from a proposed ceiling of 4,000 reported two weeks ago, as part of negotiations for a nuclear deal, according to a website approved by the Iranian government.

Eugene Robinson, who is in favor of the deal, wrote in The Washington Post last week:

Negotiators are reportedly headed toward a deal in which Iran would keep around 6,000 relatively inefficient enrichment centrifuges, limit stockpiles of potentially fissile materials and submit all its nuclear facilities to rigorous inspection.

Likewise, David Ignatius wrote, also in The Post: “The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran about 6,000 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz.”

Also, Ignatius reported in The Post on Feb. 16:

The decision to reduce the exchange of sensitive information about the Iran talks was prompted by concerns that Netanyahu’s office has given Israeli journalists sensitive details of the U.S. position, including a U.S. offer to allow Iran to enrich uranium with 6,500 or more centrifuges as part of a final deal.

In addition, Rep. Ted Deutch, a ranking member of the Middle East subcommittee, said in a Feb. 25 House Committee on Foreign Affairs:

So the frustration that some have — and when you look at a deal that may ultimately include as many as 6,000 or 7,000 centrifuges, is trying to understand why Iran would need that many since currently there is one reactor . . .

In a CNN interview with President Obama on Feb. 1, Fareed Zakaria stated:

But if you listen to what people are saying in Congress about the prospective deal. I think everyone knows where it is, somewhere in the range of 5,000 to 6,000 centrifuges, it seems almost any deal you’re going to bring to this Republican Senate, they are not going to go for.

2) In a second error, the article doubled the number of years that the Obama administration has said the agreement should last, erring: “Iran has said the agreement should last fewer than 10 years, while the Obama administration has said 20.”

In fact, the Obama administration has agreed to a deal which would last just 10 years. About its interview with the President yesterday, Reuters confirmed:

Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but the odds are still against sealing a final agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters on Monday (“Exclusive: Obama says Iran must halt key nuclear work for at least a decade”).

This information was available also before Dorell’s Feb. 28 report.

The AP reported on Feb. 26:

Netanyahu hopes his speech will strengthen opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Iran, President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy objective. U.S. and Iranian officials reported progress in negotiations this week on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions.

CAMERA has contacted editors to request corrections. Stay tuned for an update.