Netanyahu’s ‘red line’ mocked on Twitter

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 13 hrs ago

Hackers, Possibly From Middle East, Block U.S. Banks' Websites

U.S. responded to Benghazi attack as terrorism on ‘Day One’: Source

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 12 hrs ago

When gunmen struck the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year, the response from American officials was almost simultaneous: They immediately set about collecting information about the attackers, some of whom were quickly identified as foreigners, and tracing links from them to known extremist groups, a knowledgeable source has told Yahoo News.

The source's description came as fresh news accounts cast doubt on the White House's insistence that it has been forthright all along about what it knew about the attack. (I tweeted on Sept. 21 that this same source informed Yahoo News that the administration privately labeled the attack as terrorismon "Day One.")

"Friendly Libyans were saying almost immediately that the organized attackers (not the protesters) seemed to be mostly foreigners. By the 13th, people were beginning to be identified and rolled up," the source, who has been critical of the administration in the past, told Yahoo News. One early asset: Social media, where videos and photos of the attack gave intelligence officials early clues to what really happened.

"In this case, the intel has been spot-on from the beginning," the source said. American intelligence reached the conclusion that the assault on the consulate was terrorism "on Day One" and "the Brits, the French, Italians all said the same thing … within 48 hours." The source agreed to detail the American response to the tragedy on condition of anonymity.

The day after the attack, President Barack Obama used his first public remarks on the tragedy to declare that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." That contradicts Republican charges that the president has refused to label the attack as "terrorism."

The issue is not merely an inside-the-Beltway word game. A formal finding of terrorism enabled the U.S. government to respond with more military and intelligence assets than if the attack had been judged to be merely a criminal act.

But top aides, including Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, and Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, argued in the days after the attack that the violence was linked to an Internet video that ridicules Islam. That film has sparked angry demonstrations across the Muslim world. Carney eventually said it was "self-evident" that it was terrorism—a day after National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen told senators that it was, while insisting there was no evidence of "significant ... planning." Olsen also said the administration was looking at "connections" between the attackers and al-Qaida, including a regional offshoot, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

Rice told NBC News on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that "putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo; almost a copycat of -- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding," Rice said.

Obama himself told "The View" this week that the sophistication of the attack showed it "wasn't just a mob action."

Administration officials have underlined that there is an FBI investigation into the attack, and said they will not offer definitive conclusions into what happened in Benghazi until that probe wraps up. They have also accused Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, of trying to score political points with the death of Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, who died as a result of the attack.

"Let's be clear about this: Every step of the way, the information that we have provided to you and the general public about the attack in Benghazi has been based on the best intelligence we've had and the assessments of our intelligence community," Carney told reporters Thursday.

"During her appearances on the Sunday talk shows September 16, 2012, Ambassador Rice's comments were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was underway that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi," said a spokeswoman for Rice, Erin Pelton. "At every turn Ambassador Rice provided -- and said she was providing -- the best information and the best assessment that the Administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community."

But the anonymous source pointed to the relative silence from Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

"They knew the real story from the beginning and were not paraded around to make statements," the source told Yahoo News. "Understand that the first bits of information from something like this are usually not reliable, but at the end of 24 hours, folks should have a pretty good idea of what happened ... or they are not doing their job."

Asked about the evolving administration line, the anonymous source said that "confusion and misinformation always helps an operational response."

"How much is subjective, but it is always good not to let your opponent have insight into what you know and don't know," the source said. "However, as you can tell, this was a clumsy, some would characterize (it as) very sophomoric, response by the administration" at the communications level.

World powers open to more nuke talks with Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — World powers decided Thursday to lay the groundwork for another round of negotiations with Iran over its disputed nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said, but they want a significantly improved offer from the Islamic republic.

Neither the U.S. nor any of its international partners was ready to abandon diplomacy in favor of military or other actions, as Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated.

The new hope for negotiated end to Iran's decade-long nuclear standoff came after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the foreign ministers of Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia— powers that have sought, over several rounds of talks, to persuade Iran to halt its production of material that could be used in nuclear weapons. All such efforts have failed so far.

The latest stab at a diplomatic compromise collapsed this summer after Iran proposed to stop producing higher-enriched uranium in exchange for a suspension in international sanctions, which Clinton has termed a "nonstarter." The U.S. official said Iran would have to bring a much better offer to the table this time, but stressed that nations were seeing some signs for optimism and that diplomacy remained "far and away the preferred way to deal with this issue."

Catherine Ashton, the European Union's top diplomat, who has been spearheading the international diplomacy with Iran, was instructed to reach out to Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Still, no date was set for the possible resumption of the so-called P5+1 talks with Iran, said the U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she wasn't authorized to comment publicly about the closed-doors meeting at the United Nations.

After looking for a diplomatic solution there, Clinton met later Thursday with Netanyahu one-on-one for 75 minutes at a New York hotel where she was expected to hear the alternative argument for possible military action. The U.S. official said they agreed that Iran must be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, without going into details.

Their meeting occurred just hours after the Israeli leader warned in an address to the U.N. General Assembly that Iran will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by next summer.

Pulling out a red marker while holding a poster depicting a cartoon-like bomb that measured Iran's nuclear progress, Netanyahu drew a "red line" across the second-to-last stage of nuclear development, reminding everyone of his demand for President Barack Obama to declare when the U.S. might attack Iran. Obama has rejected the demand.

It is getting "late, very late" to stop the Iranian nuclear threat, Netanyahu said at the United Nations.

"Red lines don't lead to war; red lines prevent war," he said.

Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research purposes, while the U.S. and many Western and Sunni Arab states see that as a cover for developing nuclear arms. But there is disagreement on how to stop Iran, with Obama insisting there is more time for diplomacy and hard-hitting sanctions while Netanyahu presses for a military response.

That disagreement has spilled over into Obama's bid for re-election, with Republican challenger Mitt Romney accusing the president of being weak on Iran. Romney has promised a more credible threat of military action and closer alignment of U.S. policy with Netanyahu's positions — an argument that resonates with some Jewish and pro-Israel evangelical Christian voters.

Neither presidential candidate, however, advocates clearly for military action.

An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would surely prompt retaliation. Iran could seek to disrupt fuel supplies from the Persian Gulf, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil flows, or it could support proxies such as Hezbollah to attack Israel or U.S. allies in the Gulf. A worst-case scenario might see the U.S. dragged into another major war in the Muslim world at a time of staggering American debt and continued economic struggles.

Obama and Netanyahu probably will speak by telephone Friday, the White House said, after Clinton's meeting are over. She is doing the bulk of America's diplomatic work at this year's gathering of global leaders in New York, with Obama ruling out any bilateral meetings with presidents or prime ministers so he can spend more time campaigning for re-election.

America's partners also prefer diplomacy.

"We discussed at length the need for Iran to take action urgently," said Ashton, who briefed officials for more than an hour on her recent discussions with the Iranians.

"We were united," said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, refusing to comment on Netanyahu's call for red lines.

Iran says it reserves right to retaliate if attacked

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran responded to Israel's "red line" for Tehran's nuclear program on Thursday by declaring it was strong enough to defend itself and that it reserved the right to retaliate with full force against any attack.

In a response to a speech at the U.N. General Assembly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran's U.N. mission said Israel had made "baseless and absurd allegations against (its) exclusively peaceful nuclear program."

"While the use, or threat of use, of force under any pretext is a grave violation of the principles of (the) UN Charter and international law, as well as the norms of international relations, the officials of the Israeli regime are so rude (they) on (a) daily basis threaten countries in the region, particularly my country, (with) military attack," Iran said.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is strong enough to defend itself and reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against any attack," the Iranian mission said in the written statement.

Netanyahu drew his "red line" for Iran's nuclear program on Thursday, despite a U.S. refusal to set an ultimatum, saying Tehran will be on the brink of a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

For nearly 10 years, Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China have negotiated unsuccessfully with Iran to persuade it to halt its nuclear program in exchange for political and economic incentives.

Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, saying its atomic program is solely for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity and producing medical isotopes.